1926-06-23

DETROIT AND WINDSOR SUBWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac) moved:
That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the fifth report of the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraphs Lines, the sum of seven hundred dollars be collected from the promoters by the Clerk of the House as the fee chargeable on the capital stock of the Detroit and Windsor Subway Company, as fixed by section 7 of Bill No. 174, incorporating the said company.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mercier (St. Henri) for concurrence in the report of the special committee appointed to investigate the Department of Customs and Excise, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Mr. Stevens. .
Mr. DUGALD DONAGHY (North Vancouver) :: A great deal of time was consumed
by the committee and by the auditors engaged by the committee in checking up the books and records of some of the Canadian distilleries. Two questions of considerable importance were brought to our attention in that connection. The first question was as to the liability of these distilleries for sales tax on liquor exported to the United States, and the second question was as to the liability of these distilleries for excise duty on exports presumably made under somewhat peculiar circumstances to foreign lands, such as Cuba and Mexico.
With regard to the payment of sales tax on the shipment of liquor from Canada to the United States, as a general rule the distilleries have not paid this tax. It is quite true that the law and regulations as they now stand covering exports of liquor or manufactured articles of any kind, from Canada to foreign countries do not call for the payment of sale* tax. We may always entertain a doubt as to these liquors actually reaching the United States; they are shipped and smuggled into that country by such secret methods that the exporters are probably unable to produce proof to the government that this liquor ever reached the United States. In the absence of proof of the liquor having reached the foreign country it may well be and probably is the law that they will be liable for this sales tax.
14011-309J

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
In regard to their liability for excise duty on shipments fictitiously billed to Cuba and Mexico it is a matter of common knowledge that boat loads of whiskey will clear from Vancouver, British Columbia, for Ensenada, Mexico. The cargo of liquor is released from bond with no excise duty being paid, and it is placed on board this ship. As security for payment of this excise duty the exporter gives a bond to the government that he will prove that this liquor reached Ensenada, Mexico. If he is unable to prove that, the bond calb for a penalty of double the amount of the excise duty. If, however, he then proves that the liquor has reached Ensenada, Mexico, the bond is cancelled and under our ,aw there is no excise duty paid, our law providing that in the case of liquor manufactured in Canada and shipped to a foreign port the payment of excise is not required on proof of landing being furnished. Now, the question arises as to whether or not these exporters have furnished sufficient proof of the landing of this liquor in Ensenada, Mexico. In many cases they have brought back and left with the collector of customs at Vancouver certificates signed by the Mexican government official at Ensenada to the effect that this liquor was landed there. There is not much doubt in my mind that these certificates are false. I am quite satisfied that practically all of this liquor was unloaded off " rum row " opposite San Francisco, and found its way into the United States; I think a checking up of the records in Ensenada will prove that fact. The same circumstances are to be found on the Atlantic coast where shipments of liquor were cleared, presumably and on the face of the documents, for Nassau and Havana but never reached those ports. The excise duty will not be payable on these shipments if it can be proved the liquor reached the ports in question. The question is whether satisfactory proof has been furnished to that effect, and as to what the real facts are. The committee realized that this question is extremely important because it runs into hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue. After giving the matter as careful consideration as we are able in the time allotted to us, we brought in a recommendation. It is to be found in paragraph 10 of our report, the first part of which reads as follows:
The committee finds that it is the common practice of the department to grant clearances to vessels wholly or partly laden with liquor for the United States, or allegedly bound for a foreign port, but admittedly sailing to "rum rows," and that false landing certificates have been produced to obtain cancefllation of bonds given for foreign export of cargoes so cleared.
The committee further find that a strong presumption is raised that some proportion of the liquor so shipped and cleared finds its way back into Canada for con-
sumption. The committee, therefore, recommend that excise and sales tax be levied on all Canadian made intoxicating liquors released from bond, no matter where they are carried and consumed, and that duty and sales tax be levied on all alcoholic liquors entering Canada, whether in bond or otherwise, irrespective of their ultimate destination.
Allied with the question which I have just been discussing is the treaty made between the United States and this country for the prevention of smuggling. A treaty for that purpose was also negotiated between Great Britain and the United States. The treaties are not alike; the principles are quite different. But Canada is bound by the British treaty, its vessels being British ships. Shortly put, the British treaty provides that the American government shall have authority to board any British vessel suspected of an attempt to smuggle liquor into the United States, and to examine that vessel provided the ship is within one hour's sailing distance of the American coast. Further, if, on examination of the ship, evidence is found of an attempt to smuggle liquor into the United States, the treaty provides that the American authorities may seize the vessel and bring it into an American port to be dealt with according to American law. Now, Canadian ships being under the British flag are British ships; they are all bound by that British treaty. However, a separate treaty for the prevention of smuggling was negotiated between the Dominion of Canada and the United States in June, 1924. That treaty provides for two things. It does not go as far as is popularly believed to be the case. The first thing it provides is that each government shall notify the other government of all clearances and transportation of goods starting from one country into the other where such goods are dutiable. In the second place it provides that clearances shall not be given to boats containing a cargo of liquor clearing for a distant or foreign country where it is evident from the size of the boat that it would not be able to make the voyage or weather the seas. The latter provision would prohibit our government from granting a clearance to a gasoline launch, loaded with whiskey, sailing from Windsor, Ontario, to Mexico. Obviously such a launch could not reach its destination. But let me point this out to you: The treaty does not deal with nor prohibit the granting of a clearance to a gasoline launch loaded with whiskey clearing from Windsor, Ontario, for Detroit, Michigan. I know the popular conception is to the contrary. That fact, when it was ascertained from an examination of the treaty, caused

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
some surprise to a few members on the committee. Nevertheless it is the case, and those exporters of liquor who are smuggling it to-day into the United States are acting within the law and the statutes of this country when they get a clearance for a gasoline boat, loaded with whiskey, to sail from Windsor, Ontario, to Detroit, Michigan. The only thing the treaty provides in regard to that is, that our government shall notify an official of the American government that the boat has sailed. The United States having that warning are then given the opportunity, by policing the lakes and rivers, of intercepting and capturing the craft. Now in the judgment of the committee that state of the law is not satisfactory, and we have brought in a recommendation dealing with it. That recommendation, which is part of paragraph 10, reads as follows:
The committee further recommends that, as soon as possible, regulations be made to prohibit clearances being granted to vessels carrying Jiquor as cargo, saiiling from a Canadian port to a United States port, such regulations to make an exception in favour of liquor being imported into the United States in accordance with the laws of that country.
The last clause deserves some explanation. We are told that under the American law provision is made for importing into the United States liquor to be used for medicinal and sacramental purposes, under a permit issued by the government of that country. That is why the saving clause is at the end of the recommendation.
In our investigation of Canadian distilleries the most of our time was directed to a small distillery in Montreal named the Dominion Distilleries. Very little of our time was directed against the large distilleries of Canada; in fact in the majority of the largest combination of distilleries in this country known as the Consolidated Distilleries our examination amounted to nothing. The Dominion Distilleries was incorporated two or three years ago and opened a distillery in Montreal. The brains of the concern appeared to be Mr. James Cooper, Walkerville, Ontario. Mr. Cooper for fifteen years had been the selling agent of Walker's whiskey manufactured by Hiram Walker & Sons, Limited. When the prohibition laws came into force in the United States, and when it became an offence in the United States for any one to import liquor into that country, Mr. Hiram "Walker, who lives in Michigan, had some fears that he might be prosecuted in that country for conspiracy to violate its laws if he were a party to his distillery in Walkerville, Ontario, smuggling whiskey from Canada into the United States. We find the Dominion Distilleries was incorporated and
that all the whiskey manufactured by Hiram Walker & Sons, Limited, and destined to be smuggled into the United States, was sold by Hiram Walker's distillery to the Dominion Distilleries of Montreal. There is some doubt as to whether those sales were bona fide or merely paper sales. The suspicion is that they were paper sales for the reason that the Dominion Distilleries' profit was fixed at a commission of $1 a case. That would indicate that the Dominion Distilleries was the selling agent. However the sales were put through on paper as genuine sales to all appearance. Hon. members have heard of the mysterious method by which liquor was shipped from Walkerville. Ontario, to the Dominon Distilleries at Montreal, Quebec, in carloads, and how these cars without unloading were returned over the same track, back along the same line through Walkerville to Ford and Windsor, Ontario. The public [DOT] was curious as to the cause of this unexplainable expense in railway freight. The matter was very simple when it was explained to us before the committee by Mr. Cooper. He told us that Walker's distillery decided that it would not be a party to the smuggling of its liquor from the distillery into the United States. Accordingly the Dominion Distilleries was formed for the purpose of doing that work, and it did that work, and would appear to be a selling agency of Hiram Walker. Although that may strike the public as being somewhat mysterious, permit me to say that it was not against the law of this country, and further that on these sales from Hiram Walker and Sons of their liquor shipped to Montreal the sales tax was paid in every instance. As to whether the law fully provides for what the people of Canada think the law should provide is another question, but I want that fact distinctly emphasized, that in this transaction which I have just outlined the law gave full authority for these transactions.
Allied with this subject comes up the question of denatured alcohol. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) referred to this subject. I intend to make a few remarks to explain and make fully clear just what the law is in regard to this matter. First let me say that alcohol in bond in a distillery when mixed with drugs and chemicals under the supervision of a customs officer, such drugs being of a kind, quantity and proportion prescribed by our law, pays no excise duty. It is called denatured alcohol. There are two principal kinds of denatured alcohol; one kind is mixed with poison and drugs of such characteristics that the mixture cannot subsequently be separated into

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
its original ingredients. The alcohol cannot subsequently be extracted from the mixture so as to be safely consumed by human be-vsgs. 'lnere is a second kind of denatured alcohol called specially denatured alcohol. It is generally used for medicinal purposes, largely used for rubbing in case of sickness. It has this striking peculiarity, so far as its chemical composition is concerned, that chemists can separate the ingredients of this mixture into their original elements, placing the pure alcohol in one vessel and the drugs in another. The alcohol thus redeemed is like first hand distilled liquor, and may be used for human consumption.
Dominion Distilleries manufactures a great deal of this specially denatured alcohol. We examined very carefully witnesses, government officials and records, to ascertain whether or not Dominion Distilleries complied with the law and regulations in that respect. It was abundantly proved by the customs officers who superintended the denaturing of this alcohol that it was done in accordance with the regulations. That being the case, this alcohol no longer remained subject to payment of excise duty. Most of this alcohol was then exported by Dominion Distilleries to the United States. It was as lawful to export denatured alcohol as it was to export whiskey to the United States. It was not contrary to the laws of Canada as they stand to-day to export either or both to the United States. I mention these things because, as I said in the beginning, a great deal of time was consumed by the committee in investigating Dominion Distilleries. We have not given them a clean sheet; we have recommended in our report that a suit be brought against them for the purpose of ascertaining what sums, if any, are owing by that concern and if any are found owing, for the recovery thereof. What that may be, the result of the litigation will prove.
Let me further say at this point in regard to the dispute between Canadian distilleries generally and the government of Canada concerning the liability of distilleries for sales tax on liquor exported to the United States, that the government has instituted actions at law in Toronto against two or three of those distilleries for the purpose of making a test case as to the law and the liability of those distilleries to pay sales tax on liquor so exported. Those lawsuits have been instituted and the cases will come up for trial .n due course, so that that subject is being safely taken care of.
In my remarks last night I had occasion to mention the name of Mr. J. E. Bisaillon and

I said that I should have something further to say regarding him later on. We spent days and weeks investigating- this man, investigating transactions with which we suspected he was connected. He was on the witness stand dozens of times. He was subjected to the most severe and gruelling crossexamination that I have ever heard giver a witness in any court of law. He was cross-examined by an able counsel who had previous knowledge of many matters that came before the committee and who was well armed to perform his task. I think we were all satisfied Mr. Bisaillon was probably one of the cleverest witnesses at side-stepping and evasion that we had ever heard. There is a large volume of evidence given by him. Whether or not the attempt to catch him in the web has been successful would be improper for me to say at this stage, for this reason. We have recommended that the evidence given by this gentleman should be forwarded to the proper authority, the proper authority under our constitution being the Attorney General of Quebec who is charged with the administration of criminal law in that province. I take it that if this recommendation is adopted by this House, that evidence will in due course reach the hands of the Attorney General of Quebec; that it will be considered by him and his officers, and that if the evidence warrants a prosecution against this man, such prosecution will be duly instituted and he will be tried. It is for that reason I say that it is quite improper at this stage for any man to express an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of this man as he may be tried later on.
But we are quite free to examine his career as a public servant. He was appointed a customs officer about fifteen years ago. He has been a long time in the service of Canada. In 1920 while acting as customs officer he carried on a side line, namely, that of a dealer in liquor. His business ran into a turnover of a million and a half dollars, as was brought out during the inquiry held by our committee. I take it that the government in power in 1920 did not know that this servant of the people, enforcing the customs laws of this country, was carrying on as a side line a large business as a liquor dealer, otherwise they should have disciplined him. As a matter of fact this did1 not come out until the matter came up before the committee. There are many things concerning this gentleman that came out for the first time before our committee.
In 1924 the Civil Service Commission of Canada appointed this man, as lay in their

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
power and jurisdiction, to the office of chief preventive officer of the district of Montreal. This gave him charge of the customs officers whose duty it was to prevent smuggling in that area. He entertained at his home in Montreal a member of the Civil Service Commission who has since resigned. During our investigations, which by the way were very thorough, regarding this man some remarkable cases were ventilated before the committee and I am going to mention one or two of them by way of illustration.
One of the most notorious is known as the LortienSt. George case and deals with the smuggling of narcotics. This case was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in his speech in this House on February 2 last when he made his charges against the present government. As a matter of fact this smuggling took place in 1919 and it is one of the worst cases that we have to deal with. The facts are simple. In 1919 a boy drove up to the station of the Canada Steamship Company in Montreal with a wagon drawn by one horse. He had two trunks which he unloaded. He produced to the baggageman two first-class tickets to Cornwall, Ont., and he asked to have the two trunks checked on those tickets. The baggageman checked the trunks and gave the boy the checks. As he rolled over the trunks he noticed something was shaking inside them and he asked the boy what the trunks contained. The boy said, "Personal effects." The boy went away. The baggageman was suspicious and called the customs officer who subsequently procured a key and opened the trunks which he found full of narcotics. In a short time two ladies arrived. They were looking after the baggage and they inquired as to the cheeking of the trunks. The customs officer asked them if they had the key for the trunks, and they said they had not and he opened them in their presence. The women declared that the truniks did not belong to them, being the property of a Doctor Lortie in France. This doctor had requested them to have the trunks forwarded to Cornwall and, according to their story, they were checking them. The trunks were seized and confiscated, but unfortunately the two women were not arrested. This was a somewhat remarkable circumstance. Mr. Bisaillon was present when the two women were being interrogated-he was customs officer at that time-and they were allowed to go. After a considerable search, however, they were arrested and brought to trial, and it was necessary at the trial to establish their identity with the two women who had been at the
station when the trunks were opened. Bisaillon was called as a witness and was asked whether these were the two women who had been at the station some weeks previously. His memory failed him, and he was unable to say anything about it. The two women, however, were fined $500 each, and the two trunks of narcotics worth $35,000 were ordered by the judge to be confiscated. They were placed in the custody of the court, and that night the custody of the court was violated and the two trunks were stolen. They have not since been found.
The other case of some interest which I desire to mention is that of the barge Tremblay. In November, 1924, word was sent to the officers of the Quebec Liquor Commission that a certain barge was sailing up the St. Lawrence river. It was watched and it was seen to sail past the port of Quebec without entering. The officers of the Quebec Liquor Commission endeavoured to keep track of it, and at midnight of the following day they found the barge in a secluded spot along the banks of the St. Lawrence at a place called St. Sulpice. There were eight motor trucks at this place unloading the barge, which contained about 16,000 gallons of alcohol, brought from a foreign country, on which no duty had been paid and which it was sought to smuggle into the country. The officers of the Quebec Liquor Commission compelled the men to restore to the vessel that portion of the cargo that had been removed. They took charge of the barge, arrested the captain and the entire crew, and proceeded with the barge to the port of Montreal. There were on board two Americans who professed to be the owners of the cargo, and they too were placed under arrest. Before the barge left St. Sulpice a customs officer named Duval arrived on the scene. This officer in his evidence informed us that he had been sent by Bisaillon to watch the vessel, and he arrived in a Ford car with his wife. This struck the committee as a rather small contingent to send out to seize a barge of this size containing a cargo of such considerable value. We doubted the bona fides of Officer Duval and consequently we have recommended his dismissal from the service. On the arrival of the barge at Montreal one of the first men to appear at the wharf was Bisaillon who claimed, by virtue of his authority as an officer of the Dominion, to have the right to supersede the officers of the Quebec Liquor Commission. Accordingly he drove them off after they had informed him that the captain, the crew and the two

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
Americans were under arrest. Bisaillon proceeded to unload the barge and he took the cargo to the bonded warehouse of His Majesty. The two Americans were allowed to escape and we have been unable to find out who they are. They have never been prosecuted for this attempt to violate the laws of this country.
Following this rather singular incident Mr. Bisaillon was arrested for conspiring to violate the laws of the country in connection with the barge Tremblay, and some others were apprehended along with him. In due course he appeared for hearing before the courts, but at the preliminary trial it was found that there was no evidence against him. He was travelling in very good luck. He was released At that trial his bank account was produced and it appeared that over a period of three years his turnover in the bank had amounted to $69,000. He did not have $69,000 actually in the bank, but his turnover during that period had totalled that sum. He was asked to account for these moneys, and in a very rambling way, not at all clear, he intimated that he had deposited some money belonging to the government, moneys which he had collected as a part of the revenues of Canada, in his personal account from time to time overnight, pending an opportunity to transfer them to government account. That of course would be a singular thing to do, and when the Customs department read in the press this statement of Bisaillon's, they proceeded to hold an investigation to ascertain whether the revenues of the country were being deposited by any of the collectors of customs in their private banks. Now the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in his speech on February 2 emphasized as one of the main charges against this administration the allegation that the administration had allowed customs collectors to take tens of thousands of dollars of the revenue of the country and deposit it in their private banks.


Mr. STEVENS:: I know my hon. friend does not want to be unjust and he will allow me to correct him. I said on that occasion that Bisaillon had either deposited the money in his own bank or he had perjured himself in his testimony in Quebec. My hon. friend will admit that the evidence now shows that in all probability Bisaillon did perjure himself. I said that one or the other was-the case.
* Mr. DONAGHY: I am sure the hon. gentleman will not object to my reading from Hansard at page 687, just what he said:

I purpose to show that this man Bisaillon the chief customs preventive officer, raised to that position after the government had knowledge of his rascality and his criminality, received moneys of the crown, some $69,000, discovered in several cases, including $14,000 referred to in this examination which I shall read in a moment; that he received moneys of the crown to the extent of tens of thousands of dollars, deposited them to his own account, and this examination will disclose that he never remitted those moneys to the account of the Receiver General.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was according to
his own evidence.


Dugald Donaghy: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend permit me at that point? Will he not admit that the cheques to which he now refers were paid into the account in the Canadian Bank of Commerce? The deposits referred to btr Bisaillon in his sworn evidence before the Quebec courts amounted to $69,000, and were placed in his own bank, the Bank of Hoche-laga.


Dugald Donaghy: My hon. friend is quite
wrong in that. These are the cheques which were under discussion at the time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The cheques paid into
his own bank.


Dugald Donaghy: My hon. friend is quite
wrong. The department was not quite satisfied even with that report, and the chief accountant of Customs and Excise at Ottawa was requested to investigate the matter. On March 2 he wrote to the deputy minister as follows:
Referring to the attached newspaper clipping-
That is the newspaper clipping of Bisaillon's evidence.
-and to your request for information pertaining to the manner of depositing and remitting collections at the out.pont of Famiham during the period for which auditor J. E. Bisaillon-
That should be officer.
-acted as sub-collector there.
I find that under date of October 28, 1921 (File 95809) the Department of Finance approved use of the Canadian Bank of Commerce at that point; for the purpose of making deposits and collections, that the collections taken at that outport appear to have been deposited in the Canadian Bank of Commerce at Farnham as the regular sub-collector, as well a* officer Bisaillon during his period on relief duty, have remitted their collections by Cheque on the Farnham branch of the Canadian Bank of Commerce. These in turn were deposited by the collector at the chief port of St. Johns paid at Farnham, and the amount included in the collector's draft and deposit receipts covering remittance for each period concerned. The collections thus deposited and remitted by
3 p.m. officer Bisaillon during the period he served Farnham total $29,463.97. I attach hereto the returns K-10A from (the outpont, the covering K-lO's received from the chief port, the relative deposit receipts from the chief port, and cheques from the outport. Will you bindily return those to me when they have served your purpose in order that they may be redistributed to their respective files.
(Sgd.) F. A. Rorke,
Chief Accountant of Customs and Excise.
Now, whatever may have been the crimes, if we may so describe them, of Bisaillon, there was one thing he was careful not to do-to steal the money of the Dominion of Canada. You have now, Sir, a very fair outline of this gentleman's characteristics, and you may be curious to know how he eventually met his Waterloo-how we got rid of him. It is a very simple narrative. I read 'from page 83 of the evidence. The present Minister of Customs has been sworn and is in the witness box. The examination is as follows:
Q. Mr. Boivin, you are the Minister of Customs and Excise ?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you assume that office, Mr. Boivin?
A. Speaking from memory, I was appointed on the 4th day of September, 1925, sworn on the 5th of September, 1925, and took over the administration of the department from the then acting minister, the Hon. Mr. Cardin, on the 31st day October, 1925.
Q. It wase about the end of October when you assumed active duty?
A. Yes.
Q. We -have had produced by you here a large volume apparently of evidence, being the examination of a great number of witnesses on an investigation held by Inspector Duncan ?
A. Yes.
Q. How did Inspector Duncan come to examine those witnesses ?
A. Very shortly after my arrival at Ottawa on the 31st of October, 1925, I repeated to the Hon. Mr. Robb, the then Minister tof Finance, some of the rumours which had reached my ears in the city of Montreal during the general election campaign, concerning inefficiency and maladministration on the part of the preventive service, in the city and district of Montreal. I remember that I mentioned Mr. Bisaillon's name, but I cannot remember the other names of the officers who were complained of in those rumours. Mr. Robb immediately said that the proper thing to do would be to have an investigation. I told him that that was my idea too, but that I did not know

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
exactly to wham I could itum to secure a competent investigating officer. He told me that he had in the employ of the Department of Finance as investigation agent Inspector Walter Duncan, who had !been with them for several years and who had always given them complete satisfaction. If I remember correctly, he told me that Inspector Duncan was engaged upon some particular work for the Department of Finance, but that he would send him to my office in a day or two, in order that I might arrange with him to make this investigation. As near as I can remember, it was about ten days later.
Q. Later than what?
A. Later than this conversation, which took place about two or three days after my arrival at Ottawa, and therefore it would be about the 15th of November when Inspector Duncan came to my office and spent several hours in consultation with me.
Let me pause here to say that within two or three days after the present Minister of Customs arrived in Ottawa to take over the duties of his office he called upon the Minister of Finance, told him of the rumours he had heard in connection with the preventive service in Montreal, mentioned Mr. Bisaillon's name, and asked Mr. Robb if he could suggest a competent investigating officer. Now we will see what follows; the examination continues:
Q. Tha.t is the middle of November, you mean?
A. About the 15th of November. I asked him if he would undertake to investigate the administration of the preventive service office or staff at Montreal; he said that he would, but unfortunately he could not go at once because he had some work to terminate for the Department of Finance, (but that he would go just as soon as it was possible for him to do so. He reported later, but I cannot remember whether it vas personally or through my secretary, that he would proceed to Montreal and commence his investigation on the 1st of December. A few days after the 1st of December he was in Ottawa; he came to my office, and I asked him if he had yet discovered anything worth while.
Q. By the way-pardon me for interrupting you-in this evidence which Inspector Duncan took of the various witnesses, I see that the 1st of December is the date upon which he examined the first witness? A. Yes.
Q. Go ahead?
A. A few days after the 1st of December he was in Ottawa; I asked him if he had discovered anything worth while, and he told me that the only convincing and absolute proof he had at that time was that Mr. Bisaillon had been guilty of inefficiency and maladmin-instration to such an extent that he should be dismissed. I asked him tor an interim report, and told him that I could noit go before the council with nothing but a verbal statement from an investigator, and explained to him that While I did not want to delay matters long enough to have him transcribe the evidence and prepare a formal report, I would be very glad if he would give me an interim report. An interim report was handed to me either on the 10th or 11th of December.
Q. Is this the interim report?
A. That is the interim report, which I have already produced.
Q. The report we have on file here is dated December 10th ?
A. Yes.
Q. That is his report to you? fMr. Donaghy.]
A. That is his report to me.
Q. The report is dated the 10th, but you may have got it on the 11th?
A. I may have got it on the 11th. I would like to point out, however, that the report, as I understand it, is produced but not filed.
Q. On receiving this report on the work of some of the officers of the department, what did you do?
A. I immediately communicated with the Prime Minister, and asked him if he would be kind enough to call a special meeting of council, for the purpose of considering a recommendation to council from my department for the dismissal of Mr. Bisaillon.
I shall revert to this a little later on, when I intend to make some references to the present Minister of Customs. I turn now to .paragraph 6 o-f the report, which is as follows:
The evidence submitted ito ,the committee leads to the general conclusion thait for a long time the Deoartment of Customs and Excise had been slowly degenerating in efficiency and that the process was greatly accelerated in the last few years. Apparently the Hon. Jacques Bureau, then Minister of Customs, failed to appreciate and properly discharge the responsibilities of hiis office and as a result there was a lack of efficient, continuous and vigorous control of subordinates by the headquarters staff at Ottawa.
Let me pause to say that there was not one dissenting voice raised in the committee against the adoption of that paragraph, to every word of which I heartily subscribe. I am also going to read paragraph 13 of the report, which some people may call drastic but which, in the discharge of their duties, the committee felt bound to insert. It is as follows:
The committee finds that the following officers have been delinquent in their duties and recommends that their services be dispensed with:-
1.	R. P. Clerk, Inspector o-f the port of Montreal;
2.	A. E. Giroux, Superintendent of Customs and Excise, Montreal;
3.	W. Duval, Preventive Officer at Montreal;
4.	John Laridy, Customs Officer, Montreal;
5.	Collector E. Brownlee, of Beebe, Quebec;
6.	Marvin A. Sawyer, Customs Officer at Rock Island;
and tha.t in .the interest of the public service arrangements should be made for the retirement of the following persons:-
1.	R. R. Farrow, Deputy Minister;
2.	W. S. Weldon, Collector of Customs at Montreal;
3.	Henry McLaughlin, Surveyor of Customs at the port of Montreal.
Some of these officers are more blameworthy than are others. Bisaillon is not mentioned in that list because he was discharged in the middle of last December by the present Minister of Customs through an order in council. Inspector R. P. Clerk of the port of Montreal is mentioned; it was he who debauched several servants of the government and caused the resignation of two of the most important officials in this country. I do not know that anything useful would be served by making bitter comment upon any of these

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
men whose services we hope will be dispensed with immediately after the adoption of this report by the House.
The system of appraisal or valuation of goods imported into this country was given long and serious consideration by your committee. If the system 0f valuation, the fixing of the amount upon which the assessment of duties is to be paid, is not done properly, great losses to the revenue may occur. Many devices are resorted to for the purpose of deceiving the officials of the customs department in matters of this kind. I regret to say that many of the appraisers appointed by the Civil Service Commission would probably fail in a practical test if goods were placed before them and they were asked to assess their value. 1 ou will easily appreciate how that might happen. Take for instance the importations of silks, one of the many valuable articles that are brought in here and pay a high duty. There are many grades of silk, and it is only a silk expert that could tell their value. Our appraisers in that department are not silk experts; they may have been grocers, they may have been anything. The committee has made a recommendation on that matter. It is contained in paragraph 18 of the report which reads as follows:
The evidence adduced before the committee disposed two outstanding facts, namely.-
First, the methods of appraisal are exceedingly careless and fail to safeguard the interests of the importer or the revenues of the country from being defrauded by undervaluation, and
Secondly-, persons appointed as appraisers are in many instances untrained in the branch to which they are appointed.
The committee recommends that the appraisal branch be reorganized and that all appraisers be chosen because of their competency to estimate the values of the class of goods they are appointed to appraise.
I am going to mention two instances of the devices used to deceive the officers. One is known as the Keith-Vaughan-Harrison case. There arrived in the port of Montreal by steamship from Europe six packing cases invoiced as cocoa. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who were acting for the Customs department at that time, were suspicious of these packing cases and examined them. They found that three of the packing cases had a blue cross marked on them; the other three had not. They opened the cases and they found that the three with the blue cross marked on them did contain cocoa; the three cases that had no blue cross marked on them were filled with narcotic drugs. The scheme which the smuggler had devised was very simple He intended to so manipulate it that when the customs examiner came to examine these boxes he would examine one with the blue
cross mark. The one he would examine would be a case with the blue cross marked on it and it would be a case of cocoa. He would then pass the whole six cases and collect duty on cocoa; and three cases of narcotic drugs would enter this country surreptitiously. This seizure of drugs was worth about S160.CMX' Of course no blame attaches to the customs administration in connection with that; but the efforts of the committee in bringing out devices of this kind are not only enlightening to the public but, no doubt, will be useful to the enforcement officers of the Customs department in future.
Another very interesting case is known as the John W. Gaunt case. John W. Gaunt was an importer of German toys; he imported tens of thousands of dollars worth of these toys. For some years he was in business by himself. In 1923 he committed an offence against the Customs Act. He brought into Canada and had in his office at Montreal invoices from Germany without any list of goods written on them. They were blank invoices, but they contained the signature of the German manufacturer certifying to the fair market value of the goods. But the invoices were blank; they were to be filled in later on. That was an offence against the laws of this country, and for that offence John W. Gaunt, upon being prosecuted, was fined $500. A suspicion arose that this man had been defrauding the customs, and officers of the department went to his warehouse and made a seizure. Right here we should bear this fact in mind; before the customs officers had made any seizure on this man he had induced a very estimable gentleman named Colonel Porteous, a returned officer and a man of unimpeachable honour, to buy half an interest in his business. Colonel Porteous had paid, I think, about $20,000 for the half interest. Then they incorporated a company and the company owned the stock of goods. Right after that the customs officers seized this stock of goods, and professed to hold them for some offences or defaults of Gaunt of the year before. That, of course, is not justice. There is no reason why the goods of an honest man like Colonel Porteous should be seized and forfeited to the people of Canada for any fraud which had been committed by another man the year previous, before Colonel Porteous had any interest in the business. The matter came before the Minister of Customs for consideration. As I say, Gaunt was fined. He was also compelled to put up a cheque for $3,200 odd, pending investigation as to whether or not he had defrauded the government in the

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
days when he. had carried on business alone. I think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) said in his speech yesterday that "the minister had made a settlement with this man, Gaunt." The evidence is not to that effect. The committee had before it the receipt for the 83,200 and the receipt read "Received from John W. Gaunt & Company the sum of 83,200 on account." Gaunt was before us as a witness and we asked him if he had a full settlement and release from the government, and he said "Not by any means." I should not have mentioned this feature of the case had it not been for the implied criticism directed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre against what to my mind is a proper action on the part of the Minister of Customs in connection with that case.
We proceeded to have our auditors go over the books of this man Gaunt for the purpose of ascertaing whether or not he had defrauded the customs. Our examination revealed one of the cleverest manipulations I have ever heard of. The manipulation had to do with the falling value of the German mark. We found that in Germany, on January 1, say, Gaunt would buy toys of a value of 100,000 marks. He would get an invoice made out showing the price and value of 100,000 marks, and to buy the marks would cost him so many dollars, varying according to rate of exchange. His goods would not arrive in Canada for three months. He would pass these goods through the customs office as having been bought for 100.000 marks, but during that interval of three months the mark had fallen in value perhaps 35 or 40 per cent, and the value of his goods depreciated accordingly, but were entered in the customs at the reduced value. The customs duty is calculated on a percentage basis. He bought at one value for the dollar, but at the time the goods arrived three months later the mark had depreciated, and it was worth very much less to the dollar, and he entered it at the low value. He took advantage of what is known as the process of the tobogganing of the mark, and he got by with it.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is it not a very common practice that we are paying interest on bonds that were issued at a time when money was worth an altogether different amount from its value to-day?


Dugald Donaghy: I think the hon. member is quite correct in that observation. The reason I have given these details is that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre made a

charge against the Minister of Customs that he had allowed this man Gaunt to defraud the government of Canada out of $58,000 of revenue. The charge is refuted by the evidence adduced before the committee, and I think the lawyers on that committee, on both sides of politics, had very grave doubts as to whether a civil action at law would succeed against Gaunt, except, for one thing; the wooden packing cases in which these dolls were shipped into Canada were not entered by him for customs. He neglected to put them on his customs invoice and he had not paid any duty on the wooden boxes. I think that amounted to $200 or $300.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the hon. member justify the action of Gaunt in bringing in somewhere about 1,000 certified blank German invoices?


Dugald Donaghy: I think I have already stated that Gaunt had in his office, brought from Germany, blank certified invoices. I cleared that up to start with. It was an offence. He was punished for it. I do not know how we are going to punish him again for the same offence.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He was only fined for having them in possession. He was never fined on the other charge. The charge against him of using these blanks was never brought to trial.


Dugald Donaghy: The offence with which he was charged was that he did bring into Canada and have in his possession blank certified invoices, contrary to the laws of the country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minor charge.


Dugald Donaghy: If there is any other charge in connection with this man which can be proved in the criminal courts, no one will stand up and say that proceedings Should not be taken against him. Nobody has any sympathy with Gaunt or his manipulations. I am not addressing myself to the question for the purpose of justifying any action of this man Gaunt. It is for an entirely different purpose that I have presented the true details of this transaction. It is to refute the accusation made by the hon. member for Centre Vancouver that the government had improvidently made a settlement with a man who, he alleged, owed this country $58,000 in duty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hear, hear-duty and
penalty.


Dugald Donaghy: The evidence refutes that charge.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy


Dugald Donaghy: My hon. friend says no. Mr. STEVENS: Absolutely no.


Dugald Donaghy: My hon. friend cannot follow the intricacies of the delicate manipulations of this man Gaunt-manipulations which I do not attempt to defend, but which apparently were within the four corners of the letter of the law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps I cannot follow the intricate circumlocutions of the legal mind.


Dugald Donaghy: Unfortunately for my hon. friend, however, the greatest court in the world is composed of legal minds. I wonder if the hon. member will suggest that men with legal minds should not sit in the courts to interpret the law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, not at all, but they should be free from political bias.


Dugald Donaghy: Does the hon. member suggest our courts are afflicted with legal bias?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. I say they should be free from political bias.


Dugald Donaghy: We all believe our courts are free from political bias. That suggestion is gratuitous and unwarranted.
I now come to the consideration of conditions in regard to the Customs department which have existed from the time of confederation up to a year ago. The Customs Act as it has stood for years and years is based on this principle; that when an offender is caught smuggling goods into this country it shail not be the policy to prosecute him in the courts. That may seem rather singular. However singular as it may be, it has been the policy ever since the time of confederation. The standard policy of that department in cases of offences for smuggling has been to bring the matter up before the Minister of Customs and the Deputy Minister of Customs for consideration. That is in the statute which has stood for years. It was then left for the Minister of Customs to decide what punishment was to be meted out. To my mind that policy was wrong. Offences against the statute known as the Customs Act should be punished in the same way as offences against any other statute of Canada, namely by information in the court and a trial in court. The practice established by that statute and carried on since confederation, which sent this matter up for consideration before the Minister of Customs, was unwise. It resulted in the minister being importuned, perhaps, to minimize and ameliorate offences. Out of that statute and that
practice which has existed since confederation has grown the abuse concerning which we have heard so much in the last four or five months. The granting of favours by the minister on the importunities of members of parliament on both sides of the House, on the importunities of influential men in the country, on the importunities of friends and relatives of those caught in the toils, was a great strain upon any Minister of Customs. It is a strain that it is unwise that he should be subjected to. It is out of that practice that these evils have grown as the accumulation of years whereby favours have been granted by one Minister of Customs after another on the importunities of members of the House of Commons, members of the Senate and other influential men in this country. In saying that I am not putting forward any excuse for any weaknesses that Ministers of Customs may have shown in the past, but it is quite proper that I should call the attention of the country to the causes in order that we may seek the remedy.
That being the case, we find that in 1924 a large and influential group of business men from various cities of this country were brought together and formed into an association called the Commercial Protective Association, Limited. Their object was to establish a clearing house for procuring information regarding smuggling. They approached the government. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) lent them his best investigator, Inspector Walter Duncan. Within a year they had accumulated a vast amount of useful information. In the session of 1925 they came before this government and informed them that as a result of the investigations they had made and the information they had acquired, it was desirable that the lawr, as I have indicated it stood since confederation, should be repealed and that an amendment should be introduced during that session to force the trial of offenders into the courts of justice instead of sending them up to entreat the Minister of Customs. The government gladly accepted the suggestions of that group of business men. That legislation was introduced last session and it became the law of Canada on the 27th June, 1925.
Under that law a dividing line is drawn making two classes of offences. First of all if a man is caught coming back from New York with a new hat of the value of ten dollars, he is not ordinarily arrested under this act. That is a case which may be settled by the department. He may be made to pay double duty on the hat or something like that. If a very severe penalty were

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
provided by law for an offence of that kind the people would defeat the law. If a man is importing an article under the value of $200 he is not necessarily arrested and sent to gaol; but if goods amounting to $200 or over in value are being brought into this country by a man, he commits an indictable offence, a criminal offence, for which he must be prosecuted, for which he is liable to arrest and imprisonment. He receives a preliminary hearing before a police magistrate. If the evidence is sufficient he is sent up for trial before the assize courts of this country, and he has the option of being tried by a jury if he so desires. The consideration of cases of that kind no longer rests in the discretion of a Minister of Customs; they go where they belong-before the judges and the courts of this land. To that enactment this government lent its full support last session.
I am going to give the House a little of the history leading up to that. On April 8, 1925, the Commercial Protective Association wrote to the Prime Minister of this country. This was at the time when this bill was before the House. The letter contains this extract referring to the amendment to the law making it an indictable offence to smuggle anything over $200 in value;
While these suggested amendments may appear drastic,
I would like to point out that legislators have never before been called upon to deal with such a situation. The condition exhibited by the United States, a nation with about 16,000 miles of border or coast line, along practically all of which smugglers (commonly called bootleggers) by the hundreds of thousands are endeavouring .to evade the laws of the country, created a situation entirely unprecedented in the history of the woifld. Smuggling on this continent has become a huge industry. Along the international border between Canada and the United States thousands of men are making their living by illicit trade.
This is signed by the Secretary of the Commercial Protective Association, Limited Those were strong representations that were made to the government and the government gladly accepted them in its desire to increase the efficiency of the revenue collecting department of this country. That act became law at the end of June, 1925. The Toronto Board of Trade wrote the following letter to the Prime Minister on the 13th July, 1925:
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie Kino,
P.rime Minister, of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-On behalf of the executive and council of the Toronto Board of Trade, I desire to express appreciation of the action of the government in introducing legislation at the recent session increasing the penalties for the smuggling of goods into Canada and including in the estimates a substantial sum to enable the preventive service to be so strengthened and improved as to be able to cope with this illegitimate traffic.
.
We are also gratified that the House of Commons and Senate have accepted the government's recommendations and that the new law is now in force.
You will remember that a deputation from this board waited upon you and your colleagues in the cabinet last fall and discussed the seriousness of the smuggling situation with you. You then expressed the desire of the government to do everything in its power to combat the inroads which the smugglers were making into the legitimate trade and revenues of the country and you welcomed the co-operation to this end of an organization of business interests which it was then proposed to form. Acting on this assurance, the members of this board comprising the delegation organized the Toronto branch of the Commercial Protective Association. We were very pleased to note from your remarks in the House with respect to the proposed new legislation that you appreciated the vast proportions of this traffic and the need for drastic action. We have been in dose touch with the association's work and it has been a great pleasure for this board to learn that the government has co-operated to the fullest extent with the result that adequate machinery to deal with the smuggling menace will, we undersand, shortly be in operation. We are informed the fact that the new penalties are already in force has had a very deterrent effect upon the traffic and we sincerely hope that in connection with the reorganization of the preventive service which is now under way, the dominant note will be the strict enforcement of the Haw in the interests of the lawful commerce of the Dominion and an increased national revenue which in turn will be reflected in an improvement in economic conditions generally.
We congratulate and thank you for your efforts in-the solution of this problem and assure you of the continued co-operation and support of this board in curtailing the smuggling traffic with the add of the new powers now available, I am,
Yours vary truly,
(Sgd.) S. B. Gundy,
President."
Now I come to a very interesting question; Did the new Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) who was appointed last fall, following that letter of congratulation from the president of the Toronto Board of Trade, immediately set about making a cleanup of smugglers and crooked officials in the Customs department? That is the pertinent question under consideration to-day, and I shall consider the answer to that question. I will give you dates and facts. On September 5, 1925, the new Minister of Customs was sworn in. He did not take over the active duties of his office until October 31, and inside of fifteen days he had an interview with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). Was he acting quickly enough? The Minister of Finance was told by him that he had heard alarming rumours regarding the preventive service in Montreal, and the Minister of Customs mentioned the name of Bisaillon. He said, "I want an investigator but I am at a loss where to turn to get one." The Minister of Finance replied: "I have an excellent man who has been in the service of the Finance department for many years. I will lend him to v<*" " The offer was

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy ,
accepted and Inspector Duncan was directed to report to the new Minister of Customs. At that time Inspector Duncan was finishing some work he had been doing for the Department of Finance and it was ten days or a week before he was able to complete it and undertake the investigation which the Minister of Customs was anxious to have him carry out. On November 27 Inspector Duncan was in the office of the Minister of Customs where he received instructions to begin immediately with an investigation for the purpose of cleaning up all smugglers and crooked officials in the Department of Customs. Three days after that he left for Montreal and the day following his departure he was examining witnesses under oath. In his possession he had a writ issued by the Exchequer Court of Canada empowering him not only to compel witnesses to give evidence but also to break open doors, locks, safes and to seize books, records and documents-the most extensive powers that could be delegated to anyone in this Dominion. This is what the Minister of Customs armed his investigation officer with. Was that action prompt enough? Was it efficient enough? Inspector Duncan was told by the minister to secure evidence against Bisaillon, and in ten days the inspector was back with that evidence. Is that expeditious enough? The minister then observed, "I cannot go before the cabinet with a verbal statement. You must set down your findings in writing." The inspector did so; he committed his report to writing. The Minister of Customs then asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to call a meeting of the cabinet and this was done immediately. An order in council was then passed for the dismissal of Bisaillon. This was necessary inasmuch as no civil servant may be dismissed otherwise. That order in council was passed on December 15. Again I ask, was that action quick enough to suit hon. gentlemen? After Bisaillon was dismissed Mr. Duncan was called in again, and given this order by the Minister of Customs: "Proceed with your work of investigation. Spare no one, no matter how high his rank." That is sworn to by Inspector Duncan in his evidence given before the committee and, as well, by the Minister of Customs in his testimony: "Spare no one, no matter how high his rank." In face of that will any hon. gentleman rise in this House and impugn the honour, the integrity or the efficiency of the new Minister of Customs?
Was the order of the new Minister of Customs obeyed? By the eighth day of February, after two months of consecutive work, the minister's investigator had examined over forty witnesses under oath and had seized various documents and records. He
had an expose of fraudulent and corrupt officials of the government which was simply bewildering. I shall show you some of the things that were exposed by the Minister of Customs through his agent. They comprise practically everything that was brought out before the Customs committee. Before that committee ever met, before it heard a word of evidence, practically all of these charge? of corruption, maladministration and defrauding of the revenues had been brought out by the order of the new Minister of Customs and were in writing, sworn to. Let me point out some of the things that were exposed. It was upon the record of the evidence which the inspector had secured under the direction of the Minister of Customs that we proceeded, and we called forty or more witnesses who had already been examined in his investigation. We went on repeating the same story, getting it all told the second time, for weeks and weeks.
Now what was exposed by the new Minister of Customs through his investigator? It will startle some of you to discover how wonderfully extensive the list is: (1) Bisaillon; (2) Officer Duval; (3) smuggled and stolen cars from the United States; (4) Officer Giroux; (5) The Lortie-St. George case; (6) Inspector R. P. Clerk, of gauger's whiskey fame; (7) The civil service commissioners who resigned under the circumstances disclosed in their evidence-the carrying of whiskey from the gauger's office to the Deputy Minister of Customs, to the Hon. Jacques Bureau, Minister of Customs, and to the two civil service commissioners. That was all brought out under the investigation ordered and carried on by the direct authority and instructions of the Minister of Customs whose conduct is now a matter of inquiry before this House. Further, there was brought out in the investigation ordered by the minister the Gaunt case, the barge Tremblay case, the theft of goods from customs bond and the Dominion Distilleries affair. Is not that enough to occupy our attention for some time?
Now, while this investigation was proceeding there was no beating of drums, the minister was not proclaiming from the housetops what he was doing, and the country did not know the service he was rendering. The members of this House, Mr. Speaker, with one or two exceptions, were ignorant of it on the 2nd day of February when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre made a very remarkable speech in this House, concerning which I have something to say. What was the result of that speech? The arm of the new Minister of Customs, through his investigator, was
4886	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
paralyzed-Duncan was superseded by a committee appointed by this House. I repeat, Sir, that the arm of the minister, which had been so powerful in smiting the enemy, was paralyzed by the action of the hon. gentleman. We did not know that we were paralyzing the very efficient arm of the law when we voted on that resolution, and I am quite satisfied that many hon. members are aware of this now for the first time. Further, I say this, and I say it deliberately, that the statements and charges made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre on February 2, last, were based on information which had already been gathered by the agent of the new Minister of Customs in that investigation, and before I sit down I think I shall be able to convince this House that a great deal of that information was revealed to the hon. member to enable him to make his speech, the facts which he then submitted as grounds for ordering an investigation being the facts that had been brought out by inspector Duncan under the order of the new Minister of Customs. I should not mind that at all if in his address and in the debate that followed the truth had been exposed and this House had been told candidly, as it had a right to know, that for two months the new Minister of Customs had been conducting a most vigorous campaign against corruption in customs matters, and that he had brought out all the evidence upon which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre had based his speech. But this information was concealed from the House on that occasion. Very few hon. members outside of the minister and the hon. gentleman from Vancouver Centre knew those things. Now that the motion of criticism of the actions of the new minister is before the House the opportunity should not be let pass to give him credit, even though it is somewhat late.
I say there is reasonably strong ground to suspect that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was furnished with the information which Inspector Duncan was getting for his minister, and I am going to read 4 p.m. some documents in proof of what I say, and then leave it to the judgment of hon. members as to whether or not I have convinced them. I now turn to the motion placed on the order paper by the hon. member on January 20 last.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I interrupt my hon.
friend a moment? I can save him a lot of trouble by telling the House that I had a good deal of the information, but I did not get it from Inspector Duncan. Certainly I had information, masses of it, or I would not have

presented it to the House as I did on February 2.


Dugald Donaghy: Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. gentleman for his admission. I now ask him, why did he not take this House into his confidence on February 2 when he launched those charges against the new Minister of Customs, why did he not give him credit for the work he was proceeding with and the good he was doing?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend asks me
a question; I will answer him very frankly. Simply because the minister was not carrying out what the hon. member insinuates. As to the dismissal of Bisaillon, it was just simply a little stage play because the minister knew my resolution was about to be placed on the order paper. That is why.


Dugald Donaghy: Mr. Speaker, I am more than surprised at the extreme partisanship shown in that answer. Nothing the new minister could do, no matter how useful in cleaning up his department, can be construed as good by the hon. gentleman from Vancouver Centre., I now proceed with my proof. On January 20 the hon. member for Vancouver Centre put this motion on the order paper:
For a copy of report of Walter Duncan on the ad minis tra.tion of the customs service at the port of Montreal made during the month of December, 1925, together with a copy of all testimony and documents in evidence received by the said Mr. Duncan-
And hon. members will note these words:
-also interim report covering eleven definite charges.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was before I made
my speech, by the way.


Dugald Donaghy: At that time the interim report was made confidentially to the minister by his confidential investigator respecting Bisaillon for the purpose of having him discharged. It' had not been published yet, although action had been taken. Now I propose to show that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre secured secret information which should not have been given out beyond the minister himself. I turn to the report itself to show that, strange to say, this confidential document contains exactly eleven definite charges. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre either knew what was in the report or he is the best guesser in this whole Dominion. Now I turn to the report itself at page 1453 of our evidence, and I will be very glad indeed to pass it to any hon. member who doubts my statement. It is here, numbered from 1 to 11; anyone can see the record.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy


Henry Herbert Stevens: No one doubts it; why all the excitement?


Dugald Donaghy: The hon. member does not yet see my point. I am charging him with lack of candour in his failure -to tell the truth to this House, the whole truth, as to what the new Minister of Customs had been doing to clean up the officials of the Customs department who were guilty of corruption.
Mr. 'STEVENS: If my hon. friend would permit me, on January 20 by his own recital I placed on the order paper of this House a resolution calling for all this information with which he is now dealing. That was two full weeks before I made the speech in which he accuses me of not being frank. All this information was requested and could have been laid on the table by the minister two weeks before my speech was delivered.


Dugald Donaghy: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes, go on.


Dugald Donaghy: The evidence continues:
Q. Inspector Duncan, I want to ask you this question. With your experience as an investigator, do you not know hew your report got to Mr. Stevens?
Hon. Mr. Stevens:	I never saw the report until it
was produced here.
Q. Or the contents of it?
A. No; only what I believe.
How about the eleven definite charges; where did that knowledge come from?
Q. Let us have what you believe.
A. My belief is-
He names a man then, but I do not think I shall read the name because it was denied, and I want to be fair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend might read in addition the later evidence which was given in correction.


Dugald Donaghy: To do that I will have to expose the name of a man who presumably did not give the hon. gentleman the information. I want to be fair to everyone; I do not want to bring in the name of any man who probably had nothing to do with this leak. I am only interested in doing what I feel I have now accomplished, that is to establish the fact that there was a leak and that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was in receipt of the information coming through that leak; that he used this information to build up a speech in this House of Commons dealing with transactions in the Department of Customs which had been exposed through ' the action of the new minister and his officer Duncan. That information was secretly obtained, and the hon. member built up a terrific and vitriolic speech in this House in which he tried to unhorse this government by an onslaught brought on without notice. I leave it to hon. members if those are fair tactics; I leave it to hon. members if that treatment was fair play to the new minister, having regard to what he was accomplishing then.
I have said that the attack on February 2 was made suddenly, without due notice, without candour, with a suppression of the truth



Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
of very essential and material matters, and for the simple purpose of unhorsing the government. It was more for that purpose than an attempt to do good to the Customs department. When the hon. member made that speech he knew that investigations were then being carried on by a strong and powerful man. He knew the interests of the country were being taken care of by the new minister; the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was not alarmed for the safety of the country having had knowledge of what the new minister was doing. But there was one object he had in view in that speech, and that was to surprise the members of this House by charges of the gravest character, to get a snap verdict and to unbalance the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, it is not
very often I rise to a point of order but I feel it necessary, in justice to myself, to do so now. The hon. gentleman has stated that I deliberately suppressed the truth in my speech of February 2. He also states that the speech was altogether lacking in candour. Both these terms, I submit to Your Honour, are entirely out of order, under the rules of the House, and I ask Your Honour's consent, before you give your ruling, to make by way of privilege, a very brief statement in connection with this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You are out of
order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take your medicine.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I presume the Speaker
is in the chair.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for
Vancouver Centre has raised a point of order. While the hon. gentleman was speaking I was looking up the rules and practices of the House on that very point. I have already [DOT] ruled that the expression "lack of candour" applied to an hon. member is not parliamentary, Hon. members will find in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and forms, rule 19, paragraph 240, the following:
Bourinott (page 361) gives the fallowing examples of unparliamentary phrases:
No member will be permitted to say of another: That he could expect no candour from him.
As to the other statement of the hon. member for North Vancouver that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre had suppressed the truth it goes without saying that such an expression is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.


Dugald Donaghy: I bow very gladly to
your ruling, Mr. Speaker. No doubt the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is subject to lapses of memory.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am not
very touchy about these matters, as Your Honour knows very well, because I have been a member of this House for fifteen years, but I again submit to you that regard for the dignity of the House compels my hon. friend to accept your ruling without reserve.


Hewitt Bostock: According to my understanding the hon. member for Vancouver North has always accepted the ruling of the chair. I do not regard the latest phrase referred to as unparliamentary, or as reflecting upon the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. However, I wish to say this: So far the debate has been maintained on a high plane. I ask hon. gentlemen to continue to adhere to that high standard, and not give occasion to invoke the rules of the House against expressions which are not parliamentary.


Dugald Donaghy: I now ask the hon
member for Vancouver Centre why he did not on the 20th day of January take the House into his confidence and make known to hon. members that the new Minister of Customs against whom he was preferring charges had investigated and uncovered at that time the following matters:
1.	Bisaililon and his record and doings.
2.	Duval and his record and doing.
3.	The stealing of autos in /the United States and the smuggling of ithem into Canada and their sale in Canada, particularly in Montreal.
4.	Giroux.
5.	The Lortie-St. George narcotic case.
6.	R. P. Clerk, who handled the gaugers' whiskey and corrupted officials low and high.
7.	The connection of two civil service commissioners with liquor received from Clerk.
8.	The John W. Gaunt case.
9.	The barge Tremblay case.
10.	The theft of goods from government bonded warehouses.
11.	The Dominion Distilleries case.
Nearly all these were mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre as the ground and meat of his charges against the new minister.
Now I come to another very interesting matter. That speech of February 2 will go down in history. It was full of fire. It exploded bomb after bomb and threw this House, figuratively speaking, into a state of consternation. Was it followed up by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre in regard to some of the fiercest things charged in it?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: He never mentioned them.
4S8P

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy


Dugald Donaghy: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend sought for nearly five months to disprove a lot of these charges but he has failed to do so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh! oh.


Dugald Donaghy: I am sorry for the
distorted view the hon. member for Vancouver Centre takes of a very important matter. It cannot be passed off with any trifling remark such as he .has addressed to us. I do not intend to leave the matter there; I am going to follow it through. If the hon. member had not had an opportunity to call evidence on that point I should say he would be honourably excused from doing so. If he did have an opportunity to call evidence on that point, and deliberately refused and neglected to do so, I say again that his conduct is open to very severe comment by members of this House. Did he have the opportunity? Perhaps it will be said that the Hon. Jacques Bureau, being a member of the Senate, could not be compelled to appear before the committee. That is not the truth in its full sense. There is a method by which even a member of this House, with all his privileges or a member of the Senate, with all the ancient rights and privileges of that body, can be compelled to appear and testify before a committee. The action the committee takes 14011-3101
in that matter and which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre could well have taken before that committee, would be to make a motion that the Hon. Jacques Bureau be first invited to appear. Was that done No. Was there any challenge thrown out to the committee by any member of the public to do that? Yes. I have not the page of the report but hon. members will remember the incident to which I now refer. It caused considerable comment at the time. Hon. members may possibly remember when the editor of the Citizen newspaper was summoned to appear before the Customs committee. Apparently he had written an editorial which implied that some members of the committee were not bona fide trying to bring out all the evidence, and he was brought before the committee; he was examined by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and asked to .say who were the witnesses that the committee was neglecting to call. He replied, "Well, it is not for me to say this publicly. You know as well as I do.'' But upon being repeatedly pressed he said, "I suggest to you that you invite the Hon. Jacques Bureau to appear before you." The suggestion was never acted upon or entertained for a moment. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver Centre will say the onus was on me of performing that duty, and not upon himself. I should not be surprised if he attempted to do that. It was not my duty to do it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Dugald Donaghy: To start with, I did not believe the statement which he made in his speech on February 2, that nine filing cabinets had been stolen and taken by the minister to his home and destroyed. I did not credit that. But on whom did the onus to support that charge rest? It rested on the man who made it, and he failed.


William Richard Motherwell: He took to the
woods.	[DOT]


Dugald Donaghy: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, why he failed. Perhaps the hon. member will say that Senator Bureau would not accept the invitation to appear before the committee. That is not an answer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the hon. member
want an answer?


Dugald Donaghy: Wait until I get through.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member
challenged me to answer and I will answer


Dugald Donaghy: Wait until I get through


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend-

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Dugald Donaghy: The hon. member will
have ample time to answer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not back down.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member may
not interrupt without permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You appreciate the position, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member asked me a question and challenged me to answer. I offer now to answer. Do I make my position clear?


Dugald Donaghy: I have not finished, and when I have finished the hon. member may answer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Swallow the challenge.


An hon. MEMBER:: Crawfish.


Dugald Donaghy: I do not fear the hon.
member's answer. I have not finished making my point. When I have done so, I will welcome the hon. member's answer. Perhaps the hon. member will say that Senator Bureau might not accept the invitation of the committee. That is not a complete answer. As the hon. member for Vancouver Centre well knows, there is a process by which a member of the Senate may be brought before the committee, namely upon a request being made by this House, asking the Senate to take action in the matter and to grant permission for the committee to examine an hon. senator. In that way he may be brought before the committee. But neither by invitation, which should have been tried first, nor by procedure provided by law, was any attempt made to bring the hon. senator before us. Further than this, even if we could not have brought the hon. senator before us, there was another method of investigating the matter. Why did the hon. member for Vancouver Centre not ask to have the Hon. Jacques Bureau's secretary summoned before the committee? Now I pause for an answer. [DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: The answer is a very
simple and a very plain one-yes, very simple. The answer is this, that the Duncan report, to which my hon. friend refers, and upon which he bases his question, was for a long time suppressed. Later on, on the insistence of certain members of the committee and the public press, it was finally read before the committee, but during the reading of that report and the evidence certain portions of it were deliberately suppressed and not read. These portions were of an intimate and most unfortunate personal character. They were of a character, together with the evidence ad-

duced thereupon by Mr. Duncan, that would cast most serious reflection upon the personal character, the actions and activities of the exminister. There was a unanimity of opinion in the committee that it was undesirable to drag out what might be termed matters of low type, that it was thought better to confine the public expose to matters affecting the public, and not introduce matters of intimate personal character. It was for that reason that the Hon. Jacques Bureau was not called before the committee, because it would have entailed the dragging of that whole business before the committee and the public.


William Richard Motherwell: Very considerate.
Tell that to the marines.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I challenge now the production of that report on the table of the House.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: Is the
hon. gentleman not sorry he spoke?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Dugald Donaghy: I again express my great disappointment at the failure of the hon. member to understand or to appreciate the point. Let me make this plain beyond per-adventure. The Duncan report was published.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it was not.


Dugald Donaghy: It is printed in this book.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In part only.


Dugald Donaghy: It is the hon. member's fault as well as anybody else's if the dirty part is not in 'it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was unanimously agreed by the committee to omit it. Put it all on the table.


Dugald Donaghy: I am quite agreeable to that. It was through no desire on my part that any part of it was not put on the table.


Henry Herbert Stevens: ' The hon. member consented to its suppression.


Dugald Donaghy: As my hon. friend knows the part that was omitted has nothing to do with the stealing and destruction of nine government files. It relates to some matter of an indecent nature, unconnected with those files. For that reason I said when I rose to reply to the hon. gentleman a moment ago that I am sorry that he fails or is unable to understand the point I am making. It is the destruction of these files that we are speaking about. I asked the hon. member for Vancouver Centre if he could explain why he did not move iD

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
the committee that we invite the Hon. Jacques Bureau to appear for examination before the committee in regard to that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member has his answer.


Dugald Donaghy: Or why, failing '.hat, he did not move in the committee that the secretary of the former minister be made to appear and be examined in regard to that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why did the hon.
member not make the motion?


Dugald Donaghy: The hon. member opposite suggests that the onus is on me. Are they going to take refuge in that theory so as to shirk the responsibility which lay upon the man who said that he had the knowledge? I repeat that the charge of stealing files, the property of the government of Canada, taking them to the province of Quebec and destroying them, is the most serious charge that was made in that speech of the 2nd February. It was so grave that the hon. member reiterated it and added that he was afraid that if he told the source of his information more files would be stolen and destroyed. What was the source of his information? Let him tell the source of his information. Why did he not bring that witness, document, or whatever it was before the committee?
I am now going to pass from that very sensational day, the 2nd February last., to yesterday when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre threw another bomb into this House. Fortunately the documentary pi i-dence is in the House and I am going to base my statements on written documents when I address myself to the charge which the hon. gentleman brought against this government in connection with the prosecution of a smuggling case in Regina, Sask. In the letter which the hon. gentleman wrote to the Prime Minister on the 19th of this month he made these accusations. I am going to read them and then I am going to answer them. He said first:
I submit to you, Sir, that in this instance where it was a vital "police case", political preference should not have interfered in the bringing of these men to justice.
By the way, it is the smugglers to whom he refers.
My information is that the frauds affecting the excise revenue in the city of Regina and the surrounding district ovt*r a period of years would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The facts as. disclosed to me reveal a continuance of a practice of political interference, which cannot now be justified, and which -would seem to indicate a continuance of the very practices which brought about the breakdown in the Customs department.
Let me proceed to analyze the truth and the facts after hearing these generalities. I turn now to the report of a gentleman of unquestioned honour and integrity who occupies the high position of Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Colonel Cortlandt Starnes. This is his written memorandum under his signature dated the 21st of this month. He says:
With regard to ithe retention of Mr. Bryant, K.C., of Regina, to handle this case, and the alleged excuse for the removal of Secret Agent Cahill from Regina, the undersigned begs to report as follows:
It is always customary to apply to the Deparrtmanjt. of Justice for the appointment of counsel,
I ask if the hon. member for Vancouver Centre thinks that is a bad practice.
The police agent had without authority, engaged Mr. Bryant-
I pause here to ask:	On whose suggestion
was the president of the Conservative Association engaged by this police agent? I pause here to ask another question. What explanation can be given why the regular solicitor of the department in Regina was not continued in this service? Let me read:
The police agent had without authority, engaged Mr. Bryant, and he was instructed that Mr. P. Meudell Anderson, of Regina, had been appointed to conduct the case by the Department of Justice.
At this point I want to read to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre a recommendation which he cordially endorsed in the report of this committee and which deals with the question of the appointment of counsel to prosecute cases. We find this in paragraph 23, and I want to make an observation as to why we made this statement in our report. We w-ere rather favourably impressed in our investigation with objections brought before us against inexperienced counsel being engaged to prosecute smugglers. John Jones who had never before prosecuted a case might be employed to-day to prosecute one and next month Sam Smith who had also never before prosecuted a case might be employed to prosecute one in the same locality. We realized that picking a lot of novices to do specialized work was not good for the service and sometimes enabled smugglers to escape on technicalities. For that reason we endorsed this recommendation which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre heartily approved :
The committee further recommends that the Department of Justicethe same department.
-be requested to select at once capable and experienced counsel in important centres, and retain them to act for the Department of Customs and Excise in all future cases.
4S92

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
Continuity of retainer whereby experience and skill are gained. What are the facts? Mr. Anderson is the regular solicitor who has been doing the work of the department for years now, and our recommendation was that the practice should be observed of retaining lawyers already in the service and not changing them for purposes of political patronage. In every case that comes up we should have the benefit of experience. Who is the first to break the rule? Who is the first to object to its being carried out? I leave that to the judgment of the House.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to add that, the name of Mr. Anderson was sent to the mounted police by officers of my department without my knowledge, for the reason that he is the regular legal agent of the department.


Dugald Donaghy: I come now to the next charge which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre made yesterday in connection with the Regina case-I leave to the judgment of hon. members the one relating to the solicitor. That charge is that by political interference this government, to use a slang expression, pulled off the mounted police detective who had been sent to Regina to prosecute, and despatched him to Montreal in order that the prosecution might be abortive, so that this supposed smuggler would go free. Let us look at the facts. I again turn to the report of the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police:
Secret Agent Cahill has not been removed from Regina; his absence is only temporary and merely to enable him to give evidence in a very important case in Montreal on which he worked for over siix months, involving the forgery of certificates for the release of liquor from American bonded warehouses. Secret Agent Cahill is the principal witness in the latter case wh ch conies up on the 22nd instant and in connection with which a large number of witnesses have been brought from different parts of the United States. He will be returned to Regina as soon as hiis evidence has been given in Montreal.
There has been no interference whatever in connection with Secret Agent Cahill's work. He knew before he went to Regina that he would have to appear in Montreal on the 22nd.
Arrests in the liquor excise frauds at Regina were made on the 17th of June; the courts fixed the 23rd instant for the hearing of the case and Assistant Commissioner Knight of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Regina, was instructed to ask for a remand of seven days in order to give Cahill sufficient time to return.
Has any member of this House ever heard a more ridiculous charge than the one advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre in this particular? Has it not all fallen to pieces? Why, it is exposed by the incontrovertible evidence of the documents.

Why therefore should attempts be made to alarm the House with charges of that kind dramatically sprung upon parliament without notice?-sprung with all the ability, all the eloquence, all the condemnatory tone and gesture for which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is so well known.
I shall now develop another line. There were brought before the committee a couple of cases which I feel it my duty to mention to the House. First of all I refer to the case of Daivey Waisberg which relates to the smuggling of silk into the town of Barrie, Ontario. The facts of this case are very simple. In the year 1922 a gentleman of the Jewish faith named Waisberg-


Mr. JACOBS:: Is this gentleman's religion in question? And was Mr. Bisaillon's religion brought up in the committee?


Dugald Donaghy: This man's religion was mentioned in the committee; otherwise I should not refer to it, for I do not think it is relevant. Waisberg returned in 1922 to the town of Barrie where he had previously been engaged in business, having failed to pay his creditors. He had been the client of a well known firm of lawyers during his first residence in that place and he returned to Barrie hoping to re-establish himself. Hopping off the train he looked around the town and, after sizing things up, approached a young man named Charles Kendall, who held a subordinate position under the collector of customs at Barrie. Kendall was the man who examined baggage coming in on the railway. He was married and his wife was sick, having been in ill health for a considerable time. He was poor, he was having a hard time, and luck was against him. Daivey Waisberg bad ascertained all these facts regarding Kendall before approaching the young man. He then met him and said, "I know you are poor and your wife is sick. You don't get much here from the government. You can, however, make $2,000 a year extra if you wish. I will pay it to you and no one will be any the wiser. I will give you $50 a week if you will pass one trunk a week as baggage coming in here." Let me pause for a moment to observe that Mr. Sparks of the Commercial Protective Association when giving evidence before the committee said, "The professional smuggler generally tries to select a small town so as to get by more easily. Evasion of the law is more easy in such a place than it is in large cities." That was his evidence. That Waisberg was a professional smuggler and a confederate of professional smugglers there can, I think, be no doubt.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy


Mr. BOYS:: Can the hon. member refer
to any evidence that establishes that fact?


Dugald Donaghy: I have not got it here,
but I will refer to what has been said, and the hon. gentleman can check me up at his leisure. The evidence shows that this man Waisberg said to Kendall, "This is being done regularly." It is therefore a fair inference that he W'as associated with professional smugglers, for that is how such knowledge is acquired. In addition to this, Daivey Waisberg had a drygoods store at 184 Queen street, west, Toronto. During the customs probe we have all heard of Queen street, Toronto, in connection with the smuggling of silks at various establishments there. After this attempt at bribery had been made by this professional smuggler from Queen street, Toronto, the young man Kendall resisted, notwithstanding the strong temptation to which he was subjected by reason of his sick wife and family and lack of funds. He said to Waisberg, "I cannot do that, Waisberg." WaiSberg replied. "Oh, I will foe in next week with a trunk." Kendall said, "No, Waisberg. I will have to arrest you if you do that. Don't do it." However, he does not seem to have convinced Waidberg. The young man went to his superior officer, Collector Young, and reported what had happened, and he also sent a full report to the Deputy Minister of Customs at Ottawa. I have a copy of the report, which is so interesting .that I will read it for the benefit of hon. members:
Sir.-While attending a 'meeting last night, October 16, I was called out by a person -who stated he wished to speak to me on business and alone. I told him 1. could not leave the meeting, and he asked that I talk with him in a side room. I took him into a committee room, where he suggested I should permit him to receive baggage without examination, and for thus neglecting my duties he would give me $50, and that I could make $2,000 per year this way if I wished. I warned him that he was asking something foolish, and he staled it was being done all over-
That is what I said before.
-and that he would come here with a trunk, adding that he always carried certified invoices anyway. I have every reason to believe that he will bring baggage here and that he will again offer the bribe before producing invoices. On questioning him, I found out he intended to bring silks into this country in this way. He would not give information as to whether he had obtained merchandise or not in this way before, other than it was being done all over the country. He is a Jew, and gave his name as Daivey Waisberg, living at 184 Queen street west, Toronto. He also suggested he would get his goods thiis way in Toronto, but he could not "get next to the officers there," in answering my question as to why he came to Barrie for this specific purpose. I realize the danger of this practice and report the matter to you as it happened.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Charles R. Kendall.
An honest boy. A few days later Mr. Waisberg hopped off the train again at Barrie, and this time he had a trunk with him. He saw the examiner of baggage again, told him what he had, and tried to press the money on him. I think he raised it to $100, as a matter of fact. The officer stood firm. He placed Daivey Waisberg under arrest, taking him to the collector's office and placing him in charge of the collector. Kendall then left the office. In a few minutes Waisberg walked out and laughed in Kendall's face. Shortly after this incident, according to the evidence, Mr. W. A. Boys, K.C., M.P., of the firm of Boys & Murchison, barristers and solicitors of Barrie, called at the customs office and saw Collector Young. In the meantime Kendall had sent a report of this likewise to the deputy minister at Ottawa. It is an illuminating document, and I am going to read it: Barrie, October 23, 1922.
R. R. Farrow, Esq.,
Commissioner of Customs and Excise,
Ottawa, Omtario.
Sir,-I am instructed by Mr. Young to report further regarding A. Waisberg, who made an attempt to bribe me as per letter of October 17. Waisberg arrived in Barrie with a trunk on the evening of October 20 at 8 p.m,, and immediately tried Ito get in touch with me, but did not find me at home.
Waisberg went to Kendall's house. ,
When he again offered me the bribe, on the following morning, I asked him to come to the customs office and talk the matter over.
The boy was leading him along.
Mr. Young, who was working in the back office, unbeknown to Mr. Waisberg heard the conversation. I asked Waisberg if he was not afraid of being caught, and he replied that he was not, that it was being done regularly, and if I was wise I could soon make lots of money because this was going to be a regular thing, not just once.
In answer to my question as to why he chose Barrie to defeat the customs, he replied, that it is quiet here, that I did all the examining, and no one could possibly be aware of what was in the trunk, and that he knew I had had hard luck with sickness in my home, and this would more than set me up. I asked him if this had been done before, and he replied, "no," that others were doing it, and he could not make things go unless he did.


William Alves Boys: Does not that show that the
man was not a confirmed smuggler?


Dugald Donaghy: If the hon. gentleman
is credulous enough to believe what that smuggler said, I am not.


William Alves Boys: I am taking the statement the
hon. gentleman is reading from Mr. Kendall's report.


Dugald Donaghy: Mr. Kendall does not say the statement is true, but that Daivey Wais-

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
berg said this to him. I do not for a moment suppose that Waisberg would feel 5 p.m. himself under any obligation to disclose to Kendall anything except his own version of what would suit his interest, and I hope my hon. friend is not more credulous than I am in regard to the workings of smugglers of his type. I proceed with the letter:
The following are some of the questions and answers:
This was a smart boy, and when the conversation was over he apparently wrote down the questions and answers from memory:
Q. Are you aware of the penalty you are liable to?
A. Yes, but you are white, you would not let it out.
Q. There has been a lot of this going on? It seems to me -there is a gang working, and you are most likely one of them?
A. No, I am working myself.
Q. You have in this trunk some valuable merchandise what is it worth?



A. $1,140.60.

[Stage Direction]
Q. If I would accept your bribe I would be liable to imprisonment.
A. Here, take this $50, I have it all counted ready, and nobody will be the wiser. Barrie is the easiest place because you are alone in examining.
Q. Why did you not go to Mr. Young?
A. I knew he would not let it through. You need the money, he does not. It would be no use asking him.
Q. Do you think I have no conscience, and hold my oath of office as a joke?
A. Oaths are nothing. You need the money. Here it is. It is easy for you and easy for me. You are white, and can be well off in a few months. Remember this is a steady thing.
The letter then proceeds:
I seized the trunk, and had it locked in the bond room after resealing it. When I told Waisberg that I was not here all the time, but was out relieving sometimes, he replied that it would be easy for me to go away if I wished, or he would wait until I came back to Barrie.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
C. R. Kendall, Customs Clerk-Examiner.
I want to emphasize this point. These two original communications were received by the Deputy Minister of Customs and apparently later brought to the attention of the Hon. Jacques Bureau. I said that Mr. W. A. Boys, K.C., M.P., appeared at the Customs office and saw Collector young. The following letter was then written by Mr. Boys to the deputy minister at Ottawa, under date of October 25, 1922:
R. R. Farrow, Esq.,
Commissioner of Customs,
Ottawa.
My Dear Mr. Farrow :
Re D. Waisberg
I would like to see you herein. Kindly delay proceedings-
(Mr. Donaghy.]
This reminds me of another case of which we have heard. Shall we make the welkin ring with condemnation of that phrase? Perhaps not now.
Kindly delay proceedings until Friday morning, the 27th, when I will be in Ottawa, and I will call and see you at 10.30.
Sincerely,
W. A. Boys.
P.S.-I presume you are familiar with the matter, if not, I think Mr. Taylor is.
Now we will see what happened next, and you will have to read between the lines of t'he next letter. On November 7, 1922, the Hon. Jacques Bureau, Minister of Customs, wrote the following letter to Mr. Boys:
Re Waisberg
W. A. Boys, Esquire, M.P.,
Barrie.
My Dear Boys,-After your visit to my office with reference to the above, I sent for the file and went through it very carefully. I presume that Mr. Waisberg did not represent to you the facts as they were, so that you might judge for yourself.
I am sending you a copy of part of the file which will explain itself.
If he sent for the file he 'would read these two letters from C. Kendall:
Under the circumstances I do not think I would be justified in exercising any special leniency towards Mr. Waisberg.
That is the considered opinion of the minster, and we will see later on if the minister was persuaded:
You will see by tlhis (part of the file which I enclose herewith that the case is more serious than you thought or than you represented it to me. If Mr. Waisberg has been the man you represented him to be, I am afraid he is not now of the same calibre and that it will be dangerous to in any way condone or show leniency before further action ia taken.
I will wait till I hear from you.
Yours very truly,
Minister of Customs and Excise.
Then on November 13, Mr. Boys wrote the Hon. Mr. Bureau as follows:
Hon. Jacques Bureau,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
My Dear Mr. Bureau,-I have to be in Ottawa on Friday and will call and see you re Waisberg, so kindly let the matter stand .till then.
Sincerely yours,
W. A. Boys.
William Alves Boys: I believe my hon. friend wants to be fair, so why does he pass over the letter which I wrote before that


Dugald Donaghy: I will be very glad to read it; it would be only fair to read all the letters.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy


William Alves Boys: I do not want you to do that but I would like this previous letter to be put in.


Dugald Donaghy: I will be very glad to read this letter; it is undated.


William Alves Boys: It is not undated.


Dugald Donaghy: Mr. Bell asked the question :
Tiie date is what?
Mr. Oalder, K.C.:	It is undated, but it follows
immediately upon the letter dated November 27th, and it precedes the letter dated November 13th.
Mr. Bell: I am trying to get the year.
Mr. Caider, K.C.:	1922.
The letter is not dated, but I will read it: Re Waisberg Hon. Jacques Bureau,
House o-f Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Bureau,-I have just received your letter and naturally regret that you feel disinclined to adopt the suggestion you made during our interview. I note you -think the case more serious -than presented by me. I really do not think this conclusion is justified.
As far as I know, I told you Waisberg had attempted to bribe a customs officer and I intimated he had been persistent, and I also told you he had pulled out $50 in money and offered it.
I d d say I was of the opinion he was not making it a business and his crude effort in my opinion warrants that conclusion.


William Alves Boys: Do not be too dramatic.


Dugald Donaghy: Mr. Speaker, the simplicity of mind displayed in this letter is really amusing:
Aftr all, the offence of'which Waisberg was guilty
was exactly as I stated.
As you know, I did not ask that he should go scot-free and I felt now, having to pay double duty and sales tax, he is being severely penalized, and unless you think he is a confirmed smuggler or one of a gang, I am still of the opinion that for this, his first offence, the penalty suggested is very severe.
I reported the result of my trip to him and to his wife, and it will certainly come as a serious blow if oriminal proceedings are now taken, and I trust, upon further consideration, you will see your way clear to carry out the arrangement made when I was with you.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. MANION:: Would the hon. member please explain the joke?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Dugald Donaghy: I did not catch my hon. friend's remark.


Robert James Manion: I asked if the hen. member would be pleased to explain the joke.


Dugald Donaghy: I have a very high
opinion of the perspicacity of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) when he wants to see the point.
I do not think you should lay too much stress upon the question and answer portion of the interview. No stenographer was present, and it as purely from memory.
It is true, it seems very impressive, but after all it ift a case of attempted bribery and I definitely presented fit as such, and I would be sorry to -have you think I did not represent it according to the facts.
In view of the incident alleged and an view of Mr. Young's letter requesting you to deal leniently, and in view of the fact that it is his first offence, 1 think justice will be done by carrying out the arrangement made, and if you do not feel free to so dispose of it, I would be glad if you would let it stand until I again see you.
I think I will be in Ottawa next week on other business and at the very worst, will be there on the 27th or 28th, at which time I am to interview the Acting Minister of Railways, and in the meantime the only person suffering is Waisberg, for his goods are under seizure.
Yours sincerely,
W. A. Boys.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: Tell us what
happened to Waisberg.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask your own whip.


Dugald Donaghy: I will now proceed with
the reading of a letter that I was requested to read. On November 1.3th Mr. Boys wrote to Mr. Bureau as follows:
My dear Mr. Bureau,
I have to be in Ottawa on Friday and will call and se you re Waisberg so kindly let the matter stand till then.
On December 13th Mr. Boys again wrote Mr. Bureau as follows:
Hon. Jacques Bureau,
Minister of Customs,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Bureau,
Re Waisberg
I have had no word herein as yet, and unfortunately the silk in question is still being held. I saw Mr. Young, customs officer, and he told me he had received no word. I would be excedingly obliged if you would give the necessary instructions to the local officer to release the silk on receipt of the amount payable.
Sincerely yours,
W. A. Boys.
The Hon. Jacques Bureau was eventually pursuaded and he did order the release of the silk.


William Alves Boys: On payment of how much?


Dugald Donaghy: Wait a moment until
I find the amount.


William Alves Boys: The amount was $813.60.


Dugald Donaghy: Now I have it here. This trunk of silk was returned to Waisberg on the order of the Hon. Jacques Bureau-


William Alves Boys: Two years afterwards.


Dugald Donaghy: Ye3, two years afterwards on payment of $813.60. I am now going

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
to read to you the evidence of Mr. Blair, departmental solicitor and assistant to the deputy, as to how that came about. Mr. Blair's evidence is set out at page 1666 of the evidence and will be found very interesting reading. I quote as follows:
Q. Mr. Blair, at that moment, you knew this attempt at bribery could be proven?
A. Yes. I would like to explain with regard to that. You will see the date-
Q. Yes, 7/3/24.
A. Away in the fa!! of 1924. The matter had stood all that time. I know from conversations with the deputy minister concerning it, that he was very anxious Waisberg should be prosecuted on both charges, and that the goods should bo forfeited, and there is no question but that is what should have been done. It dragged along, as you will see. The goods were lying there, and depreciating, and he finally called me into his office, and said "You had better prepare a report."
This is one of those "instructed" reports which members of the committee have severely condemned. Instead of departmental officers being allowed to prepare their own reports, they are instructed from those higher up as to what to put into their recommendations. That is what happened in this Waisberg case I continue to quote:
Q. Who told you that?
A. The commissioner. He said "Because it is the intention of the minister to release these goods upon payment of double duty," according to a promise he had given Mr. Boys. I should never have signed that. You will see that is a carbon copy. That is not my recommendation.
That is the report as to release on payment of double duty. I continue quoting:
Q. But the recommendation was prepared by you at Mr. Farrow's request?
A. His instructions.
Q. But Mr. Farrow, at that time, was very strongly disinclined to abandon prosecution?
A. Yes, that was the cause of all the delay.
Here were these poor subordinate officers in the department trying to get a prosecution for bribery under the Criminal Code against this man and they could not get it, they were held back.


William Alves Boys: That is not a fair statement.


Dugald Donaghy: I will read the quotation again, and the hon. gentleman will judge if it is not a fair statement:
Q. But Mr. Farrow at that time was very strongly disinclined t-o abandon prosecution?
A. Yes, tiiat was the cause of all the delay.
I hope I have satisfied the hon. gentleman.


William Alves Boys: The hon. gentleman will admit the evidence shows there was not the slightest effort in any way to settle the attempt at bribery?
Soma hon MEMRERS: Order.


William Alves Boys: I suppose hon. gentlemen want to be fair?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: No, they do not.


Dugald Donaghy: The whole circumstance
will have to speak for itself. In this case there was no prosecution for bribery or no prosecution for smuggling or attempted smuggling as there should have been. All that was done was that the Minister of Customs at the request of, and as the result of an agreement made with, Mr. Boys, prevented the law from being carried into effect as it should have been and in the most flagrant case that was brought before the whole committee-this most outstanding case of criminality, of an attempt to take advantage of a poor boy with sickness in his family-punishment was thwarted. Under these circumstances the facts will have to speak for themselves; I make no comment upon them.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Moser?


An hon. MEMBER:: Moses is all right.


Dugald Donaghy: I continue quoting from
Mr. Blair's evidence:
Q. And 'it. was against his recommendation, and his desire to prosecute, (that the goods were released on payment of double duty and sales tax?
A. Yes. He was very anxious for the man to be prosecuted from the start.
And he was thwarted in trying to discharge his duty.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Have you any condemnation for the minister?


Dugald Donaghy: I am now going to deal
with another very interesting case.


William Alves Boys: Will you permit me one question?


Dugald Donaghy: Undoubtedly.


William Alves Boys: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend 'but if he is through with the Waisberg case I should like to ask him this question:	Does he suggest to the House
that there was anything in my conduct which warranted the reporting of the evidence to the House, and if so why he did not vote in favour of it in the committee?


Dugald Donaghy: In order to answer that question, I have to give the reasons why we brought in a report without condemning members of parliament. If the hon. member wants that explanation I am prepared to give it now.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend knows that I appeared before the committee without any summons and made my statement. I invited

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
the committee-and he was present at the time-to make any charge they thought fit against me and to report it to the House if they saw fit, and they did not do so.


Dugald Donaghy: The hon. member has not answered my question as to what he desired me to do, and I am going to exercise my own discretion in the matter now.


William Alves Boys: I will invite the hon. member to go as far as he likes.


Dugald Donaghy: I propose to tell this House why, in that report, we omitted to bring in any condemnation of members of parliament or to mention their names. Personally I felt that in the interests of this country a report should be brought in that would have the support of both sides of the House in reference to all its recommendations for improving conditions in this country. 1 felt that the people were more interested in the welfare of the country and the revenue of this country than they were in a discussion in that committee of party politics and personal differences.


An hon. MEMBER:: When did the hon. member change his mind?


Dugald Donaghy: The remark of the hon. member discloses amazing ignorance. I fancy he has not read the report. The report is as I have stated and I have not changed my miind; but I had in view the bringing in of a unanimous report in the interest of the country and to satisfy the demands of the House; and the evidence having been reported to the House, it was then open to discuss, in connection with that evidence, any matter reflecting upon ministers, members, or whoever it might be. I have not made any charge against the hon. member, as he well knows. I have refrained from doing so, and I have taken this position: I have stated the facts, and if these facts do not carry conviction it is not my fault. It is my duty to give the facts. These facts and circumstances speak for themselves.
Now I turn to the case of Moses Aziz, which I am sure will bring smiles of joy to the countenances of my hon. friends opposite. We find that Moses Aziz, of the province of New Brunswick, was charged with ' importing into Canada and having in his possession some kegs of liquor. He was convicted on the 18tih August last. This all occurred before the new Minister of Customs had any idea that he was ever going to be Minister of Customs. Some question was raised last night as to whether or not the charge laid against Moses Aziz was as
severe a charge as should have been laid. I do know that, the present Minister of Customs had nothing to do with it and is not responsible, for it. On the 29th of August. 1925, Mr. Gallagher, the solicitor in charge of the Remission branch which deals with clemency and pardon for offences, wrote a letter to the Customs department regarding the Moses Aziz case. I point out to hon. members that that was in August, prior to the new Minister of Customs having been sworn in or appointed. The letter is from M. F. Gallagher, Chief of the Remission branch. It does not say to what officer it is addressed, but presumably it is to some official in the Customs department. The letter reads:
Dear Sir.-Representations have been made to the hon. the Minister of Justice, by the Premier of New Brunswick - on the case of Moses A. M. Aziz, convicted at Bathurst on August 18, of illegal possession of illicitly imported liquor. A fine of $150 was imposed, together with a jail sentence of three months, and the fine has been paid. The Premier of New Brunswick suggests that the imprisonment be suspended-
I do not know whether or not that has been called to the attention of hon. members.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: It was read last night.


Dugald Donaghy: The suggestion originated with the Premier of New Brunswick, and under our constitution the administration and enforcement of laws of a criminal character are in the hands of provincial governments. The letter proceeds:
The Premier of New Brunswick suggests that the imprisonment be suspended, as the offender is a mamied man, in business for himself, and the term of imprisonment will occasion him much hardship.
From my experience as a lawyer I can safely say that that plea is very frequently advanced as a ground for exercising clemency, namely, the hardship the sentence will impose upon a man's family. It has often been advanced in cases of liquor conviction, and often acceded to. The letter proceeds.
Moreover, it is stated that Aziz was not aware that the mere possession of smuggled liquor was in itself an offence, and further that the possession dated long before the act was amended.
As this man is not imprisoned, the Minister of Justice cannot order has release; it therefore, is a matter for your department to decide whether or not the magistrate should be asked to issue a warrant of commitment.
Yours truly,
M. F. Gallagher.
The suggestion came from Mr. Gallagher that it was a matter for the Department of Customs to decide.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Read the remainder of
the letter.
4S9S

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy


Dugald Donaghy: I have read it all. The only thing I did not read was the words, "Chief of Remission branch" below the signature. I could not go any further down, much as I would like to oblige my hon. friend.


James Arthurs: The letter I refer to
was the one from the Premier of New Brunswick.


Dugald Donaghy: I was not reading that.
If my hon. friend wants me to read two letters at the same time he will be sadly disappointed. At the time that letter was written the new Minister of Customs had not been appointed. He is not responsible for that letter in any shape or form and he is not responsible for the recommendation of the Premier of New Brunswick, nor is he responsible for the suggestion made by Mr. Gallagher, the chief of the Remission branch. He does not come into the scene until away on in September; he was sworn in on the fifth of that month. He did not assume the active discharge of the duties of his office until the end of October. As the House will remember, many ministers were absent from Ottawa during those two months. The minister, however, attended a cabinet meeting about the 21st September, 1925, a long time after this man had been convicted. He went from that cabinet meeting to his office in the Customs department and he was there, for a very short time. The accumulation of months of work and files was on his desk, neglected. Those of us who have had to do with large offices will appreciate what that means. During the short time he was there and knowing that he would be staying there only a few hours, he dealt with what matters he could as presented to him by the officials under him, his deputy and others. The Aziz file was presented and it was explained to him that this man had been convicted a month ago; that he had not been imprisoned, and that apparently the Premier of New Brunswick had asked that the case be held up in the meantime.
What did the new Minister of Customs decide then? If this man was convicted over a month ago and some steps had been taken to hold up his imprisonment in the meantime at the request of the Premier of New Brunswick, any man would feel satisfied that that step must have been taken legally. We know how these things are handled in Ontario. I know how they are handled in British Columbia. When a man is convicted and he stands in the dock and sentence is imposed for three months' imprisonment, one officer hangs on to one arm and another on to the other and

he is taken down below to the cells. If the next day you find him on the street you would never suspect that he had escaped. You would suppose, as any lawyer would suppose, that his solicitor had taken the necessary legal proceedings either by way of appeal and getting the man out on bail pending appeal, or in some other manner. Had I gone into the office of the Minister of Customs in the middle of September last and been informed by officials there in a hurried interview that this man had been convicted a month ago and that his imprisonment had been held up in the meantime, I say frankly as a lawyer that I would assume, without further question, that the usual procedure had been gone through to have that man released pending appeal or whatever proceedings had been taken, or pending certiorari proceedings which might also be taken. There were two ways in which he might have been out. The minister told us that while this was called to his attention he did not take the time to read the letter which had been written to the Hon. Jacques Bureau by Mr. Robiohaud. He said: "I gave this matter what consideration I could. I said: If representations are being made and there are some circumstances connected with the case, my order is to let them stand as they are until they can be investigated." It was an exercise of judgment.
The minister appeared before the committee. He told us: "I do not want to shield myself in any manner, shape or form. I want to tell you the worst about myself in connection with this case." That statement carried to me at least an air of conviction, of sincerity, of proof of his high sense of honour. The sting in the whole thing is contained in the letter which Mr. Robichaud wrote. We cannot hold anybody responsible for writing a letter like that other than the man who writes it. Nobody with any sense of public honour would attempt to justify the expressions used by Mr. Robichaud in that letter and I am not going to attempt to justify them. My selfrespect will not permit it. The sting, I say, is in that letter and it is contained in these words in the letter which Robichaud wrote to Mr. Bureau, not to Mr. Boivin:
Mr. Aziz is of the highest help for us during this campaign, and we cannot do without his services.
That is the sting. I think there is another letter with a similar sting. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and I ask parliament as the highest court in this country, if it can, in the fairness which parliament will exercise, condemn the new Minister of Customs because an expression of that kind was contained in a

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Donaghy
letter written by a gentleman who, to speak charitably, was most indiscreet, and addressed to the Hon. Jacques Bureau. Parliament, I say, will be fair in exercising its judicial function as the highest court in the land. As a result of that hurried consideration which the minister gave to the Aziz case the deputy minister or Mr. Wilson, the chief preventive officer, sent a telegram to the lawyer acting for the department in New Brunswick asking him to hold the case up in the meantime.
The new Minister of Customs did not return to take over his duties until the end of October, and I now proceed to inquire: What did he do in regard to this case when he got it under his hand? Let me read from page 1324 of the inquiry, and I crave the careful attention of members while I read the judgment of the minister. The new Minister of Customs writes this letter:
Ottawa, November 18, 1925. Mr. J. G. Robichaud, M.P.,
Shippigan, N.B.
Dear Sir:-
I have before me a memorandum concerning the case of Mr. Moses Aziz, who was condemned by the court to a fine of $150 and to three months' imprisonment for having had liquor in his possession.
The fine of $150 was paid, but the execution of the warrant of commitment was temporarily suspended.
I have examined the case with care, and I can find no reason for which the imposed sentence should not be executed.
That is the judgment of the minister when he had time to bring his mind to bear upon
the case.
I have examined the case with care, and I can find no reason for which the imposed sentence should not be executed, but I will keep the matter in suspense until I get a repfly from you, in the event of your having other representations to make to me.
The officers of the department contend that the efforts made to prevent smuggling of liquors will be much lessened df this man is let go without further punishment.
That is the judgment of the minister, exercising a high sense of duty in the performance of his office.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Dugald Donaghy: Hon. gentlemen laugh
at that, but I fail to see the reason. Now what happened following that? Remember, that was November 18 and parliament was summoned for December 10. It is not necessary for me to picture to the House with what matters members of the cabinet were concerned immediately succeeding that date, nor is it necessary for me to tell you what crisis faced the government. It was well known in the country at the time and I have no doubt that frequent, probably daily meetings of the cabinet were being held. Apart from
that I need hardly say that hundreds of other cases calling for decision by the minister awaited consideration in the office of the Department of Customs. Can parliament regard this Moses Aziz case as the only matter that was before the Minister of Customs at that time? It is suggested that he should have disposed of it promptly; he should have brought Mr. Robichaud here the next day if possible after pronouncing that judgment. But let us look at the circumstances as they existed at the time. The Aziz case did not fill the whole picture in the countiy's eye, for more serious matters demanded the attention of the government. Parliament, although summoned for December 10, did not meet until January 7, and in the interval we can readily conceive what matters the members of the cabinet were called upon to consider. And when the House did meet on January 7, according to hon. gentlemen opposite, the Minister of Customs should have sent immediately for Mr. Robichaud, who had come up from New Brunswick. Why, it is asked, did not the Minister of Customs get into touch with Mr. Robichaud immediately and deal with the case? Have we, Mr. Speaker, no just sense of proportion regarding the importance of matters of public concern? When parliament met on January 7 there were other and graver and more vital interests occupying the attention of ministers, as they had occupied their attention for weeks. We all know the debate which followed for a month, and the uncertainty as to whether this government would remain in power or be voted out any day of the week. We know with what unremitting attendance members of the House were obliged to be here. They dared not leave the building, and pairs for most of the time were refused. When every member was in attendance day and night in this chamber, do hon. gentlemen insist that the Minister of Customs could have disposed of the Aziz case more expeditiously than he did? Let us be reasonable in these things. Let us as the high court of, parliament sitting in judgment in this case be fair in the treatment we mete out to the minister against whom this oharge is made. Shall we, for any political advantage, sitting here as the highest court in the land commit an injustice on a British subject? The eyes of all Canada are on parliament to-day. The people are wondering what the House will do with the Customs report, a report which has met with the universal approval of the business element of Canada. The business men of this country are wondering whether we are going to proceed with business and carry out the
Privilege-Mr. Forke

recommendations of the report or sit back in this House and play politics and try to " get " one another.
A great deal of fuss has been made about the Aziz case. Now, in the province of Ontario last year 252 remissions of sentence were granted bootleggers and violators of the Ontario Temperance Act. I am not criticising that. These applications for clemency had no doubt been supported by persons influential in the community. Offenders generally call upon the local member to help them out when their familes are in distress and when they want to get out of gaol. These things are not new in Canada, but the Moses Aziz case is now brought out and an attempt is made to create a great political issue upon it. Smuggling has been going on for years; it has been going on under the administrations of both parties. The condition in which we found the administration of the customs, in the investigation we made, was the result of years of accumulated neglect. It is not a sudden growth, as everyone knows. Had time permitted, and had the Liberal members of the committee so desired, we might have made efforts to delve back into the administration of the Customs department during the past ten years, and I have no doubt some things could have been unearthed. For my part, these tactics do not appeal to me. If the administration of the Customs department under the Liberal party had not been properly carried out it would, to my mind, be no excuse to say, "Neither was it properly carried out under the Conservative government." I do not want to take that stand. No attempt was made to go back into the Conservative regime.
The press of the country has been free in its criticism of the display made by the two political parties during the present session. There is a strong suspicion in the mind of the public that political parties are wearing a mask of hypocrisy, and that behind many of these attacks and manoeuvres there is simply the design to play the game of beating the other side.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVILEGE-MR. FORKE ALLEGED INTIMIDATION OF MEMBERS

Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: 
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the letter be tabled. I think this is a serious matter involving certainly the freedom of members of parliament, and the members of the House should have an opportunity at an appropriate time to decide what action should be taken in this connection.


Hewitt Bostock: There is a well known
procedure in connection with cases such as this where the honour of a membeT is attacked, and when he is subjected to threats as a member such procedure should be followed in this case when the letter is tabled.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I shall be interested
indeed to follow the procedure the Prime Minister proposes with relation to a letter sent by a citizen to a member of parliament.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the right, hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) wants to be fair. This letter is written from the press gallery and signed by a member of that gallery in his position as such.


Arthur Meighen: Very well; is he not a
citizen?


Mr. DUNNING:: Has he a right to intimidate a member of this House because he is a member of the press gallery?


Arthur Meighen: If it is illegal intimidation to send a reasonable letter to a member of this House I shall be interested indeed in following the procedure of the government. I shall wait to see what they will do.


Hewitt Bostock: The letter will be tabled.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I would suggest that the government follow the same procedure as they have followed in regard to Senate reform.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I would like
to ask the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) if he approves of a letter of that kind.



CUSTOMS INQUIRY


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mercier (St. Henri) for concurrence in the report of the special committee appointed to investigate the Department of Customs and Excise, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Mr. Stevens.
Dugald Donaghy: I have only a word
or two to say in conclusion. Why does the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre conceal all reference to those concerned in the notorious and scandalous Daivey Waisberg case? Is it true that the reference to the Moses Aziz case, to the exclusion of the case of Daivey Waisberg, is proof that hon. gentlemen opposite are actuated and moved very strongly by loyalty to the party with which they are affiliated and nothing else? This may deceive those who wish to be deceived, but it will not deceive the public of Canada. The only name mentioned in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is the new Minister of Customs Who set out to clean up that department. In conclusion I desire to commend to the careful and serious meditation of hon. gentlemen opposite an extract from that well-known sermon on the subject of hypocrisy which says:
Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Silocun fell, and slew them, think ye that they w'ere sinners above all men that dwelt an Jerusalem?


Mr. A. J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. EVANTUREL:: Before the hon. member for Kent proceeds with his speech I should like to know from him what his nationality is?	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: The question asked by the hon. member for Prescott is very interesting indeed. When the House rose last evening ana the hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Donaghy) had adjourned the debate, I asked him, knowing I had to follow, about how much time the remainder of his speech would occupy? He said "Friend, about half an hour." You can well realize. Mr. Speaker, that one who was prepared to deliver a speech at two o'clock and was waiting for such a length of time has had time to forget it. Why the hon. member for Vancouver North consumed about five hours in saying what could have been uttered in about one-fifth of the time, no one can conceive, but later revelations will, I have no doubt, disclose the reason.
The hon. gentleman occupied the greater part of the afternoon in defending the noted J. E. A. Bisaillon of Montreal, the man who was dismissed by the present Minister of Customs, the man who has been condemned by public opinion throughout Canada. My hon. friend spent some time also in stating that the ex-Minister of Customs had debauched the

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Doucet
public service of this Dominion; but he forgot to tell the House that for so debauching the public service the Prime Minister, desirous of reforming the Senate, had appointed the gentleman in question to the upper House. I do not intend to dwell at length upon the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver North. I had come to the conclusion that I should occupy but a very short time in this debate


An hon. MEMBER:: So much the better.


Arthur Meighen: So much the better for you.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I know it will be pleasant to hon. gentlemen opposite if I do not dwell too long upon the various questions that arose during the customs inquiry which lasted some four and a half months. When the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) spoke at Sherbrooke on March 21 last and said that this inquiry would cost the country something like a half a million dollars, with no good results, it was the opinion of the members of the committee that the hon. minister had erred somewhat. He admitted that yesterday, and for his admission we are grateful. He said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that politics had crept into the inquiry during the first few weeks. If politics were brought in I ask who was responsible? The first clash that came in the committee was when we asked on March 3 that the Duncan report be placed in evidence, and that Inspector Duncan himself be called into the witness box -to testify as to the accuracy of that report. Tiie first division in the committee occurred then, and had it not been for the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell), the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) and myself voting together to have the Duncan report placed in evidence, thus securing a majority, that report would not have been produced. Listening to the arguments of the hon. member for North Vancouver this afternoon one would imagine his party were entitled to all the credit for conducting this inquiry because forsooth they had produced the Duncan report. Do hon. members of this House realize that on April 21 we made a motion to have the Duncan report included in the evidence? The chairman of the committee then invoked, as he had a right to do, a rule which had not been invoked during a period of six or eight weeks. He asked that notice of motion be given and that the question be deferred for decision until the following Tuesday. It was not until the hon. member for Peace River

supported our motion that the supporters of the government yielded to our wishes.
Now, Sir, I turn to other phases of the question Certain rumours are afloat, and in view of that fact I am not surprised at the question that was directed to me before I had even begun my speech. I can foresee by the rumours to-day that if the questions of conscription, the war with Turkey, and all the other familiar election cries of the past cannot be resorted to, one issue that will be raised at the next election will be that this committee focussed its searchlight only upon the port of Montreal in the province of Quebec. Let me say that if the committee focussed its searchlight upon the port of Montreal there are very many reasons for that First of all, Montreal is the largest port in this Dominion. In the next place it is the second largest port on the North American continent. Furthermore, Montreal is the fifth largest city on the continent; it is the metropolis of the Dominion, it is the chief manufacturing centre, and owing to its geographical position it serves approximately seventy-five per cent of the country's population.


Mr. RINFRET:: I would ask my hon.
friend to impress those facts upon the mind of the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers).


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I am convinced, although
I am not boasting about it, that my remarks this evening will make much more impression on my friends on this side than if the hon. member had himself spoken.
With reference to the conditions in the port of Montreal and the province of Quebec since 1922, the attention of the commercial interests of the countiy was focussed upon that section. On the 13th of January, 1922, the ex-Mmister of Customs caused the detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stationed at Lacolle to be removed from there, thus making easy the way of the transgressor in defrauding the public revenue. On the 25th of March, 1922, the same Minister had the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment removed from Philipsburg, Quebec, thereby opening the highway crossing the international boundary, providing an opportunity for the smuggler to import contraband goods into this country. On the 6th of May,' 1924, the same Minister of Customs instructed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force in Montreal to do nothing but report to Bisaillon. On the 24th of October, 1924, the same gentleman, occupying the position of Minister of Customs and Excise, removed all authority as customs and excise officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Doucet
Police force at Montreal. Do you know, Sir, that the removal of Chief Inspector Busby from his inspectorship of the division of Montreal and the substitution of an inefficient and incapable successor, made the way much easier for wholesale corruption of the public service? Notorious cases arose in this district. Let me cite the Keith-Vaughan-Harrison case, referred to by my hon. friend from Vancouver North (Mr. Donaghy) this afternoon; the famous S. S. "Borden" drug case, the famous barge "Tremblay" case, and again the Denise Larde silk smuggling case into the port of Quebec. There were very many cases of this kind, and the commercial interests of the Dominion were affected. They centralized on the Commercial Protective Association, and they asked that special men be sent to Montreal to investigate. And let me say that the steps taken by the Finance department in sending men to inspect the port of Montreal, and the information gathered thereby, were the basis upon which this inquiry was conducted. The fact, again, that the counsel chosen for the committee had intimate knowledge of the way smugglers were carrying on their nefarious traffic in this section gave him firsthand knowledge as to how to proceed with the inquiry. That he was a clever gentleman and that his work was done in an efficient manner no one will deny, and that he was likewise appointed by this government is admitted by all. Then I ask, Mr. Speaker, how is it that the inquiry was focussed at first on Montreal, to the detriment of that city? Respectable citizens of Montreal and respectable citizens of the whole province of Quebec have welcomed this inquiry, and the facts revealed by it will be the means of cleaning out the smuggling gang operating in that section, will give a fair chance to the legitimate business interests of the province to conduct business, and will also bring additional revenue to the treasury of this Dominion.
During the first addresses made on the charges preferred by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) on the 2nd of February last, and referred to, it is true in a very small degree, by the hon. member for Vancouver North this afternoon, the Civil Service Commission was practically accused of having made a poor selection of the Customs officers in that section. I hold no brief for the Civil Service Commission, but the revelations made by that committee were such that two of the commissioners were asked by the Prime Minister to tender their resignations.
uoii-ail	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg pardon; I did not ask them to tender their resignations. I suggested that they should ask to be relieved from their duties pending the time that the committee made its report to this House. That is a very different thing from asking for their resignations.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I accept the explanation of the right hon. gentleman. It is satisfactory to me. It meant the same thing, and in fact it was the same thing. I hold no brief for that commission, but I want to say that the files and the evidence produced before the committee clearly show that every man who was neglectful in his duties was appointed to the force before the Civil Service Commission appointed men to the outside service. Furthermore, every promotion made by the Civil Service Commission was recommended by the department itself before the promotion went through. The inspector of the port of Montreal was recommended as 100 per cent efficient, 100 per cent capable, and by whom? By officers of the department; and if he did not get a reclassification last year, was it the fault of the department? We have in evidence, Mr. Speaker, that the deputy minister harassed the commission for six months to give this man Clerk a reclassification, and the reclassifioation would have gone through if it had not been objected to by the chairman of that commission. It is useless to try to blame the Civil Service Commission for the negligence in the customs service. Do hon. gentlemen want any further proof? You remember, Mr. Speaker, when the vote for $350,000 passed this House last session, the plea was made by the Prime Minister himself. If we refer to page 3778 of last year's Hansard, we will see that he said that it is most important that steps should be taken to protect the revenue of this country. There was a loss in revenue of possibly fifty to a hundred million dollars per year owing to the conditions that existed, and the Minister of Customs himself said, "You cannot get efficient officers by applying to the Civil Service Commission. These men must be appointed outside of that commission altogether." With what result? The records of sixty-seven special men were placed before the committee, and I am going to quote a few of them this evening for the purpose of showing that they got poorer results than they would have obtained if they had asked the commission to make the appointments.
In the fall of 1924 there were some 123 cans of alcohol seized at St. Leonard in the county of Madawaska, New Brunswick. That



Customs Inquiry-Mr. Doucet
alcohol was placed in the customs house for safe keeping. The man in charge of that warehouse left the place about thirty minutes after midnight on the 21st of December and went to a pool room where he played cards until about six o'clock in the morning. When he returned he found that the place had been broken open, the alcohol was gone and he had no excuse to offer. That is in substance the report given by the inspector of customs stationed at Woodstock, New Brunswick. The man, as would be expected, was retired; but when it came to the appointment of a special preventive officer in October last, the same man was appointed at a salary of $1,200 a year.
I come to the case of a man at Chester, Nova Scotia, a man who was fined in October 1922 for having sixteen gallons of smuggled rum in his possession. The files of the department show that he was appointed as a special preventive officer on the recommendation of the member for the constituency, and when the chief of the preventive service said: "Why, this man is a noted smuggler," this member, (Mjr. Duff), wired back, "collect" as per usual, stating: "He is a good mian."
I come to the case of three men appointed in the county of Gloucester in the month of October. One of them is eighty-four years of age.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Would the hon. member name the man who is eighty-four years of age?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I do not think it can serve any good purpose to name those gentlemen in this House. I have the files of the department before me.


Jean George Robichaud: I rise to a point of
order.


Hewitt Bostock: What is the point of
order?


Jean George Robichaud: My point of order is this: I recommended the three men appointed in Gloucester and I state before this House that no man above fifty years of age was appointed.


Hewitt Bostock: That is not a point of
order.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: His name is on the list
certified by the department and produced before the Customs inquiry committee.


Jean George Robichaud: Produce it.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: My hon. friend can deny
it if he wishes. Either my statement is correct or the files produced by the department are incorrect. But one thing I do know-and in
[Mr. Doucet. 1
passing let me say that a man eighty-four years of age would hardly be a reasonable preventive officer to send after smugglers after dark in the months of October to December-


Jean George Robichaud: I rise again to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Jean George Robichaud: I rise to a question of privilege.


Hewitt Bostock: Will the hon. member
state his question of privilege?


Jean George Robichaud: My hon. friend stated that in my constituency a special preventive officer whose age was about eighty years had been appointed on the recommendation of the then member for the county of Gloucester. The fact is-


Hewitt Bostock: There is no question of privilege and no point of order. I may say that no interruptions may take place except with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor. The hon. member will be at liberty to speak afterwards.


Jean George Robichaud: I rise to a question of privilege.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I have no objection to
having questions put to me, but I wish the hon. gentleman when rising to a point of order would have something to talk on. I can give him my assurance now that I do not propose to treat him as badly as the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Donaghy) treated him this afternoon. I did not intend to use any harsh language in this connection and I do not intend to do so now.
I wish to finish my point with this observation. When the three men were appointed to the force of Gloucester in October last, the man who took them to the magistrate to have them sworn in was the famous Moses Aziz who had been convicted. On the files of the department produced before the committee there are letters to the department from officers in good standing down there who claim that Moses Aziz had been the medium through whom those three officers were reporting to the Customs department. Why, this question of going outside the Civil Service Commission to appoint preventive officers is considered in the Maritime provinces to be a huge joke. No later than three weeks ago a customs officer had to be appointed to the outport of Chartierville in the county of Compton, Quebec. Who was appointed? A man who has violated the cus-

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Doucet
toms law and has been fined therefor, a man who is a noted smuggler in that part of the country.
Need I say anything in connection with the appointment of Captain Zinck of Lunenburg?
I do not wish to say anything detrimental to him because he has passed to the great beyond, although he had not when the inquiry was being held. But when in 1924 the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) put on Hansard a question asking what salary Captain Zinck was getting, the hon. member was told that Captain Zinck did not receive any salary. Can hon. members imagine a man such as Captain Zinck working day and night surveying the liquor-laden vessels coming into the port of Lunenburg, without salary? He did not. When it was found by an inspector of the department that he had to refund over $2,600 of the moneys of this Dominion, then the department gave him a salary of $100 a month. In connection with the special preventive service, one Mr. Trask was appointed on October 1, 1925, to the position of customs preventive officer, and on the 14th of that month he made two seizures of liquors and of one schooner. That man was discharged on October 19. In fairness to the member for tlhe constituency it must be said that a Charge was made against this officer, but I would point out that the information on the files shows that an affidavit or a declaration made by a well known smuggler was taken in preference to his. And by the way, these seizures which Mr. Trask had made were abandoned and no prosecution was pursued by the department.
I come now to the appointment a!, Mahone bay on September 1, 1925, of an officer whose selection was made upon recommendation by collect telegram despatched by the representative of the constituency, the member for Lunenburg, (Mr. Duff). This officer took his instructions from the member of the riding and reported to Captain Zinck, and when questioned by the preventive service in the month of January, 1926, as to why he had done no work, he replied, "Why, gentlemen, in September and October I was occupied with the election."
To show how sincere the government were in their desire to appoint proper officers I would refer to inspector G. H. Barbour of Charlottetown. This man, a provincial prohibition officer, was appointed without salary on April 23, 1923, and during his short tenure of office he had more seizures to his credit than all the other men on the whole island. That is to say, he had made six seizures within the space of six months. But because he
was too efficient he was dismissed on December 15, 1923, for which dismissal no reasons have so far been advanced.
There is in the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence to-day a motor boat known as the Bernice which is costing the department $664 per month. That boat is supposed to be engaged in the work of surveying the shore. And who are on board her? One man on board has been for years rum-running to St. Pierre-Miquelon, and he abandoned that enterprise only when he lost his schooners on the rocky shores of Cape Breton in a storm. Thereupon he proceeded to sell liquor contrary to law and shortly after the new government of Nova Scotia came into power, finding no doubt that it was a rather dangerous business to carry on, he transferred it to his son. He is now working on this motor boat which is, as I say, ostensibly engaged in survey work, and it is common talk in that section of the country that the motor boat conveys liquor from vessels beyond the three-mile limit to this man's son on shore for him to sell by the glass.
Can this government claim that they have made reasonable efforts to enforce the customs laws? Why, that vote of $350,000 last year was nothing more than political camouflage: some men had to be rewarded prior to the election and they got their reward.
I turn now to another phase of the subject. I was sorry indeed that the Minister of Customs should attempt, as he did yesterday afternoon, to excuse everybody else and take the whole blame upon himself. I do not think he is doing himself justice. I did intend to say that we regret personally having been obliged to take the present step, but I fear the hon. gentleman might give me the same reply he was good enough to make to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) yesterday. And as I have no wish to crucify anyone I shall not express that regret. No, Mr. Speaker, the minister need not take the whole blame. The blame for the neglect of properly enforcing the customs laws of this Dominion must rest with the entire cabinet. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was himself on the 22nd day of January, 1925, aware of the situation so far as it relates to liquor activities in the Maritime provinces. I have under my hand a copy of a letter addressed to him by the Social Service Council of Nova Scotia, which letter, by the way, is among the files produced by the department for the information of the inquiry. The Social Service Council of Nova Scotia represents all the churches of that province, and other organizations, as follows: Church of England


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Was excise paid on that?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: No excise, customs duty or sales tax was paid on any of those cargoes.
I need not weary the House any more in that connection, Sir.


James Arthurs: Read them all.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I might quote the Maria A. Howes, which cleared from Halifax on October 5, 1925, with 17,300 cases of liquor for Lima, Peru. She was back two days later, and cleared again with 17,000 cases for the same destination. Then the schooner Catherine M. Moulton cleared from Halifax for Havana on August 11, 1925, with 6,607 cases anrl 4 kegs of liquor. Four days later she cleared again for the same destination with 6,507 cases and 104 kegs. Not even an airoplane could make the trip from Halifax to Havana and be back in four days. That must have been known to the Customs officers.
Now I come to the schooner Morso, with registry at Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, which left Halifax for St. Pierre, Miquelon on August 13 with 2,6S2 cases and 185 kegs of liquor. In two days she cleared Halifax again; she must have made the round trip of 1,000 miles in 48 hours, allowing no time for unloading and loading. Then she cleared for Guanaija with 300 kegs of liquor in addition to her first shipment. Where did she get the liquor? Through the 260 odd vessels which cleared Halifax and St. John in 1925 you have the whole story.
Before I leave the question of liquor smuggling in Nova Scotia and the Maritime provinces generally I wish to say that there is conclusive evidence on file that these vessels never reached Nassau, Havana, the Azores, Lima, Peru, Porto Coles, Venezuela or Nicaragua, to which places they cleared. They inevitably found sale for their goods on the shores of the Maritimes or in "rum row" off the United States coast. I want to emphasize the point, Mr. Speaker, that no excise, customs or sales tax was paid on over 5,750,600 gallons of liquor shipped in the course of three years from these two Canadian ports and there are, at least, seven other ports in Canada where this is practised.
I asked a moment ago why the present Minister of Customs assumed all the responsibility in connection with the administration of customs laws; there is such a thing as adopting an heroic attitude at an uncalled for time. Members of the government were aware of the fact that smuggling of liquor had been going on. Members of this House will remember that in the spring of 1925 there was a coal strike in Cape Breton, and that in response to a plea for help the militia were sent to Glace Bay. In June, 1925, a seizure of liquor was made in the quarters of the Royal Canadian Dragoons at Glace Bay. That liquor was transported there in two motor cars from the motor boat Kiora, which boat had landed the liquor from a vessel outside the three mile limit. The House may ask ;f a prosecution was made then, and my answer is no. Why? Because the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) intervened and said, "You cannot prosecute these men."


Gustave Évanturel: What about August
of that year?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: If my hon. friend has anything to say about August of that year he
can say it.


Gustave Évanturel: I am asking you.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I expect the hon. member
to ask a sensible question. This liquor was unloaded from the vessel operating in "rum row"; landed by one of the fastest motor boats in that district and transported to the barracks, and neither the owners of the motor boat, the motor cars or the officers connected with the landing of that liquor were prosecuted, be* cause a minister of the crown, a member of this present government, intervened and prevented prosecution.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to a motor boat known as the Cozy, of 10 tons, not registered. She left St. Pierre, Miquelon, on July 22, 1925, with 250 cases of whiskey; she arrived at Main-a-dieu, Cape Breton, on the morning of the 25th with nothing on board. There was no report inward and no report outward; she remained in Main-a-dieu until July 30, and was seized in Halifax on August 5, the date to which my hon. friend was referring. She was seized for having unloaded liquor on the shores of Cape Breton without making a report inward or outward. One of the friends of the government in Halifax wired the department and the present Minister of Customs .pleased the boat, or authorized a refund of the fine which had been paid on August 28th, and the fine was thereupon returned.
lNow I come to the schooner Rising Sun, wmch left Canso on September 23, 1925, with

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Doucet
a clearance for Nassau. I hope hon. mem. bers know the direction which would be taken in going from Canso to Nassau, but this schooner was in Charlottetown on September 26 and cleared again from Charlottetown for Nasau with 770 cases of liquor. She was hovering around the shores of the Northumberland strait, making no report to the customs and arrived at the out port of Canso on October 1 in ballast, empty. This schooner was seized and one of the sailors made an affidavit confirming every suspicion of the officers in that territory, but would you be surprised to learn that while the officers of the preventive service were making a close scrutiny of the district to get additional evidence the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) wired the department to release the vessel, and she was released before the officers of the department working on the ground had a chance to report to their chief.
Now, Mr. Speaker, during the whole of the inquiry when we discussed this question *f ocean going vessels the question of territorial waters was always to the fore. That was brought about because for at least thirty-five years to the knowledge of the officers of the department who testified at that inquiry, what is known as the strait of Northumberland, the Baie des Chaleurs, and the gulf of St. Lawrence, inside of Cabot strait, were known to be Canadian waters and recognized as such, and every seizure made inside Cabot strait was recognized by the department who were sustained in that position by the courts in every case of appeal. In the month of June, 1923, we find that the schooner W. C. Kennedy, owned by the W. C. Kennedy Company of Lunenburg-which by the way was not known by the postmaster of Lunenburg when a registered letter was sent there by the department after the seizure, but whose secretary, apparently, is one Mr. Adams, who is also secretary for the Lunenburg Outfitting Company-left St. Pierre et Miquelon with 994 cases of liquor. She reached Halifax and remained there ten days waiting for orders. She cleared from Halifax on June 18, 1923, and took a clearance for Nassau in the Bahamas. She was next reported in the strait of Northumberland, seven miles off Pictou island, on June 26. That, as hon. gentlemen know, is in the opposite direction to the course for Nassau. The vessel was seized by the customs cruiser Margaret, and before the master had a chance to communicate with his fellows on shore, he replied to questions by Captain Alfred Lacouvee, of the Margaret. He stated it was true that he had a clearance for Nassau, but 'he had been told by the supercargo to lie off Pictou

and there take orders from the supercargo who had gone by land to make the necessary arrangements for the landing of the cargo. He further testified that when the seizure took place he had only 806 cases of liquor on board. He said that after leaving Halifax he had unloaded 188 cases of liquor in open motorboats outside of the three-mile limit on the Dartmouth shore. The schooner was seized, the cargo transferred to the steamer Margaret, and taken to Quebec. But, Sir, the hon member for the eonstitutency of Lunenburg, (Mr. Duff), realized that there was a possibility that by invoking the territorial water question he might have his schooner released.


An hon. MEMBER:: His schooner.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I said "his schooner," because if you look at Lloyd's register you will see that the W. C. Kennedy was registered in the hon. gentleman's name. Furthermore the captain of the vessel said that he was hired and his wages were paid by the hon member; but he had to take orders from the supercargo. Now the cargo was valued at $35,000 and the vessel at $20,000, and it was in the hands of the customs officers. The question may be asked now: What steps were taken to secure that seizure in the interests of the department? The answer is no steps whatsoever. The master of the schooner made three different affidavits to suit the needs of the occasion. These three affidavits, varying with each other in quite a degree, are to be found on the file. Counsel for the owners of the cargo and the schooner made a claim that the strait of Northumberland were not territorial waters, consequently the department would not hold the seizure and did not think of getting the opinion of the Department of Justice. Furthermore although the Department of Marine and Fisheries maintained that under the treaties that had been entered into those waters were considered as Canadian waters, they submitted to the claim advanced by counsel for the defendant without asking for an opinion from the Department of Justice. They ignored the affidavit made by the master of the ship before he had been in touch with his fellows on shore; they ignored the report made by the captain of their own cruiser; they released the vessel on the payment of $400; they returned the cargo of liquor which had been sent to Quebec back to Halifax to be loaded on another rum-running schooner going out of Halifax; and they refunded the sum of $400 which had been -made as a deposit in the first instance. I understand the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is to speak in this debate, and I want him to answer this

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Doucet
question for the benefit of myself and my constituents: if the waters of the strait of Northumberland are considered territorial waters for the purpose of deep sea fishing, how can they be anything else but Canadian waters for the purpose of preventing the smuggling of goods into Canada? The men whom I represent in this House claim, and rightly so, that if the waters of the strait of Northumberland, outside of the three-mile limit, are to be considered as international waters for the rum-running schooners of the Lunenburg crowd they can also be considered international waters in the interests of the lobster fishermen.
Now I come to the motorboat Jeanne d'Arc. This was an open boat 40 feet long and unregistered. She left St. Pierre et Miquelon and took a clearance for Nassau in the Bahamas, a distance of at least 2.000 miles, in the fall of 1923. On September 19 she was seized within three miles of the shores of Prince Edward Island. Her cargo of contraband liquors was transferred to the schooner Margaret, taken to the port of Quebec, and placed in the custom house there. On December 17, 1923, a telegram was sent by the department to put the Je.anne d'Arc in winter quarters. A copy of that telegram is on the file. On December 19 an additional telegram was sent arranging for a release and not to proceed with the order of placing the vessel in winter quarters. There is absolutely nothing on the files to show why the department changed its mind between December 17 and December 19. There is a memorandum on the file stating that a letter from the Hon. A. B. Copp for the Minister of Customs and Excise was attached, but that letter is not to be found on the file. At that time there was a by-election on in the county of Kent, the boat being owned in Buctouc'ne. The owners of that boat, who ordinarily are very active partisans, refrained from taking part in the election. There were two members of the government in that county and a gentleman who became a minister of the crown later on. Shortly after these men had made a pilgrimage throughout the country, the owners of the boat Jeanne d'Arc became enthusiastic supporters of the government, and the question is how could they change their minds overnight? The telegram of the 19th December shows the reason why. The vessel and the cargo being released, some excuse must be found. What excuse did they invoke to release the vessel three miles from the shore? They asked the captain of the cruiser a question, and they found the vessel was 5,770 yards from shore. If they had used a nautical mile in their calculations, it would
have meant more than 6,000 yards. But someone acquainted with mathematical problems in the department used the land mile and they found that 5,770 yards would be sufficient to get her outside the three land mile limit. Just as though you would proceed to measure molasses by a yardstick instead of measuring by the gallon measure, they used the land mile instead of the nautical mile; on that basis they found she was outside the three-mile limit, and they released the vessel. The question now is, how is it that they do not enforce the customs laws of this country?
I believe I have discussed at sufficient length the activities of the liquor fleet of Nova Scotia and the Maritime provinces, aided by the government in every respect. They granted clearances for the foreign ports when they knew the boat would never reach there. They granted a clearance to a port in South America where the trip would take about four months, but the boat was back in forty-eight hours and the liquor was landed on Canadian shores by motor boats. The ministers of the crown intervened and no prosecution resulted. The people of the Social Service Council of Canada asked the Prime Minister and the government to provide swift running motor boats for the purpose of watching the bays and inlets of Nova Scotia, and when the boat called the Rambler was seized in the fall of 1924, the speediest motor boat to be found on that shore, the preventive service wanted to get it for its own service. But because one rum-runner of Sydney wanted the boat for his own purposes in rum-running, and because his request was supported by the chief Liberal whip at that time, Mr. Kyte, representing Richmond, Cape Breton, the minister, in the month of January, 1926, said, "We can not handle the Rambler; sell it at once to the man in Sydney; make a sale without any loss of time."
The hon. member for Vancouver North this afternoon cited a number of cases. He failed to cite or forgot to cite the case of the famous Denise Larde case in which a seizure took place in the port of Quebec, but the goods were subsequently released without penalty, by the Department on a payment of $1,500, when the duty and sales tax amounted to $2,567.29. Why my hon. friend never referred to it, I know not. Is it because the man who was instrumental in bringing this revenue into the treasury was subsequently dismissed? And was it because he had arrested this party that an order issued from Ottawa a few days later that no arrests were to be made before reporting the cases to Ottawa?

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Doucet
I ask you, Sir, how can smuggling be prevented in this Dominion? When you find a notorious smuggler you cannot hold him, you cannot arrest him, you cannot stop him from going on his way until such time as you telephone to Ottawa or send a letter and wait three days for a reply. The facts brought out in the inquiry have shown conclusively to the public that there has been a lack of supervision in safeguarding the interests of this Dominion and the public treasury. The fact that all this violation of the law was known to every member of the cabinet, that this was going on aided and abetted and helped in some instances by members of the government, is shown conclusively by the evidence given in that inquiry. When appeals were made by responsible and even by distinguished persons of this Dominion asking fcr relief, the appeals fell on deaf ears. The Social Service Council of Nova Scotia asked the Department of Customs, and on the 22nd January, 192,5, asked the Prime Minister of this Dominion, to remedy the situation which had such a demoralizing effect on that section of the country, which was ruining the population, and was making it impossible to enforce the prohibition laws of the provinces in question, with the result that the public revenues were being cheated out of millions of dollars annually. That, Sir, was eighteen months ago, and were it not for the inquiry proposed as a result of the charges made in this house by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) on the 2nd of February last, no steps would yet have been taken by the department to clean up this state of affairs.
In the month of September a distinguished member of the clergy of the diocese cf Gaspe wrote to the Minister of Justice complaining of the illegal importation of liquor into that section of the province. The minister referred that letter to the Acting Minister of Customs and Excise, but with what effect I do not know because the same conditions continued.
I have throughout this debate endeavoured not to resort to cases such as those referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver North He would refuse to vote to bring names up in this House and then he would refer to those names after refusing to vote for the motion. He violated a gentleman's agreement with members of the committee not to expose certain information mentioned in the Duncan report. In the evidence and exhibits certain matters were referred to which had nothing to do with the customs and members of the committee decided, and I believe wisely and well, not to make them public. The hon. member, however, violated a gentleman's

agreement in bringing that matter belore the House and challenging the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to say why the Hon. Jacques Bureau had not been brought before the. inquiry. Did I wish to resort to citing case after case, I could do so I submit to the intelligence of members of the House that the case of the hon. member for North Sim-coe (Mr. Boys) is on a par with that of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Sagueaay (Mr. Casgrain), chief whip of the Litieral party, who appeared before the department on behalf of the owner of the barge Tremblay.


Gustave Évanturel: Would the hon. gentleman repeat that statement? I did not catch it?
Mr. DOL'CET: The hon. member appeared before the department in defence of his client. He wanted a minimum fine imposed upon the owner of the barge Tremblay. He appeared not as a member of parliament, I believe, but as a professional man. and in the same way as a lawyer the hon. member for North Simcoe also appeared before the department to have his client's case settled. No favours were granted to the hon. member for North Simcoe because his .client paid double duty and sales tax, and he stated he did. But if you read the evidence you will find that the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay received consideration, because the man who was guilty of violating the customs laws of the Dominion, whose vessel valued at that time at $20,000 had been seized by the authorities, who was making $5,000 by transporting contraband goods from St. Pocras in the lower St. Lawrence to Montreal, paid the sum of $1,700 and placed $3,300 clear money in his pocket on the one trip.
When responsible people of this Dominion, when members of the Social Service Council of Nova Scotia, representing every church and fraternal organization of that province, when prominent clergymen of the lower St, Lawrence appeal to this government for redress against that army of liquor smugglers who are invading our shores, demoralizing our population, and striking consternation into the hearts of the people, I believe there is sufficient political honour and decency on the part of members of this parliament to rise and say: A stop must be put to this. Why, Sir, if this motion is lost on the division you will be penalizing the smaller fry, the men getting the lower salaries, and the men higher up will go scot-free. The complaint that is being made throughout the country to-day that the man higher up, holding a title of some kind or away up in society, can do

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Denis (Joliette)
anything he likes and get oS scot-free wnile the man who steals a loaf of bread goes to jail, will be true. If those who were debauched, if those who failed in their duty because the department was wrongly administered with the knowledge and connivance of ministers of this government are to be penalized to the extent of losing their positions and their pension money, I say that this government deserves the condemnation of this House because, with the knowledge of the facts in their possession, they should have months ago, aye, years ago, taken precautionary measures so that these things could not happen in this fair land of ours.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker,
since this debate has originated, we have heard a number of speeches delivered that are really political speeches. The hon. member for Kent (Mr. Doucet) has delivered a political speech and I do not intend to follow him along that line. The times are momentous enough, the people of this country are eager enough in the administration of public affairs to warrant hon. members in pausing for one moment, forgetting political speeches, and addressing themselves to the reason, intelligence and integrity of their fellow-members as well as to the country at large.
The question now before parliament is not one of small importance; it is a most important issue because without doubt on the decision that will be rendered on the issue now before parliament serious consequences must arise. May I be permitted in opening my remarks to examine the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) ? His amendment is in part at least in direct contradiction of the speech which he made in this House yesterday. Speaking on June 22, at page 4819 of Hansard, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) said:
With the report I am in accord, with one reservation, namely, the failure of the committee ito report a finding on the evidence referring to the conduct of the ministry,
This amendment goes very much further, containing as it does reproaches which are not voiced in the speech itself of the hon. gentleman. For the sake of brevity I shall refrain from analyzing these reproaches and shall confine myself instead to the general issue and try to demonstrate to the House that the case at present before parliament is not that which hon. gentlemen opposite have seen fit to argue. There are two aspects to this case, the political and the administrative, and hon. gentlemen opposite have devoted their entire attention to the former. Hardly
any practical suggestions have they vouchsafed from the administrative standpoint. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is too important an issue to be made a political football on either side of the House. In the course of my few remarks to-night I shall endeavour as best I can to show that if abuses have occurred the responsibility rests not with the present Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin), nor with the minister who acted in the department, nor even with the ex-minister. Rather the trouble lies with the very system itself and the conditions which have grown up of late years under that system.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have been arguing for hours to establish the fact that smuggling has been going on in Canada on a large scale. To this no one takes exception; we all know perfectly well that of late years there has been a good deal of smuggling in this country. But I submit that in all countries where there is a tariff smuggling follows as a natural consequence. In the United States, during the past few years particularly, millions and tens of millions of dollars have been spent to prevent smuggling and in spite of these precautions enormous quantities of liquor have been smuggled into that country. In Canada also there has always been smuggling to a large extent. True, smuggling during the last few years may have increased, but I respectfully suggest that if it has increased the fault is not with any minister of customs either past or present. As we all know, in 1917-I think it was in that year-the government of the United States by the eighteenth amendment brought prohibition into force, and this law has been in existence in that country since that time. And ever since that amendment to the constitution of the United States that country has expended tens of millions of dollars to prevent liquor coming within its borders. Yet liquor has gone there in enormous quantities. Is not this enough to prove that it is by no means an easy task to prevent smuggling? Does it not show that not only has smuggling occurred in the past, as it is occuring to-day, but that it will prevail in the future as well? It is true that it is the duty of the minister to do his best to prevent it; towards this end he must adopt the best possible means at his disposal. But let us examine, before we condemn him, just what means he has at his disposal.
The report declares that there has been degeneracy in efficiency. That seems to be true, but if there is degeneracy in efficiency does the responsibility rest with the minister or with the system? I submit that it is a
4912	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Denis (Joliette)
consequence of new conditions which have arisen since 1918. I go further: I say that whether the minister be active or inactive, efficient or inefficient, such action as he may take does not amount to more than 5 per cent of the whole force that should be brought to bear upon the operations of smugglers. Now, what are the conditions? Until 1918, as we know, we had in Canada a Civil Service Act in relation to what is known as the inside service, and that service alone. In other words, the Civil Service Commission could appoint civil servants in the city of Ottawa, but outside of that, in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and in all ports where customs revenues are collected, the Minister of Customs had the right and the duty to select his employees in the various offices. If, therefore, the employees were inefficient the fault was the minister's; he having chosen them, he alone was responsible. By the Civil Service Act of 1918, however, this condition was changed. Now it is not my purpose at the moment to discuss the merits or the demerits of the Civil Service Act; I do not propose to argue the question whether that act ought or ought not to have been passed. The merits of the act, generally speaking, I leave aside. I contend, however, that mistakes so flagrant might never have been made had the appointment of detectives been left outside the scope of the Civil Service Commission. The Customs department comprises two distinct branches, one of administration and the other the preventive service. But even in the administrative branch officials may be dishonest; even in that branch they may be bought. So that if dishonest officials are bought, the minister cannot be held responsible inasmuch as they are not his appointees. They are the appointees of the Civil Service Commission.
Now, Sir, think of it, an institution that collects something like two or three hundred million dollars a year whose minister has not the privilege of appointing its employees. The most important of our chartered banks is the Bank of Montreal. What would you think, Sir, if to-morrow the president should be told that henceforth all the employees of the institution would be chosen by a board independent of his board of directors-the Civil Service Commission? Do you think for one moment that the bank could carry on satisfactorily under such circumstances?


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is it not a fact that
even in a corporation like the Bank of Montreal only certain of its officials have the right 
to choose the employees, as in this case the Civil Service Commission has the right to choose employees for the government? Is there very much differnce?


Jean-Joseph Denis: In the case of the Bank of Montreal the high officials-the president, the board of directors and the managers-choose the employees, and those high officials are directly responsible to the shareholders. In a word, they are part of the organization of the bank. But in this case the Civil Service Commission is not a part of the government, it is not a part of any department in the government, but is altogether independent of it.


Milton Neil Campbell: Surely my hon. friend
would not state that the Civil Service Commission is not a part of the government? It was created by the government for that specific purpose.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The Civil Service Commission is not a part of the government inasmuch as it is absolutely independent of the government; while the directors of the Bank of Montreal are under the direct control of the shareholders and can be replaced by the shareholders at the annual general meeting. The directors of the bank are directly responsible to its shareholders; the Civil Service Commission is responsible to no one. What I have said of the Bank of Montreal will apply as well to the Canadian Pacific railway. Surely anyone who would propose to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that their employees should be chosen by a commission would be treated with contempt. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company's employees are. responsible to their superiors, and those superiors in turn are responsible to the board of directors, which in turn is responsible to the shareholders; in short, it is one organization.


Milton Neil Campbell: Might I ask the hon.
gentleman if in this case the employees of the government service are not responsible to the government? The minister of each department has the right to dispense with any employees whose services are not satisfactory.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I do not agree
with my hon. friend. Technically the minister has the right, but in practice he cannot dispense with the services of any employee without cause or without reason.


Milton Neil Campbell: Why should he desire
to dispense with the services of any employee without cause or without reason?

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Denis (Joliette)


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friend's objection only makes my case so much stronger. This is my answer to him. During the course of the inquiry of the Customs committee, extending over four or five months, certain officials have been found delinquent in the discharge of their duty and it is recommended that their services be dispensed with. Now I ask my hon. friend,- does he not think in view of the wholesale smuggling that has been going on for several yeears that there are not many other officials equally blameworthy, but whose delinquencies could not be brought home to them by the committee within the time at their disposal? Undoubtedly-and unfortunately-there are. If it took four months for the committee to discover six delinquent officers, how can the minister, without continuing the investigation, bring to book those other guilty men? It is impossible. Very seldom indeed are departmental officials found guilty of wrongdoing, and it is only when this is amply proved that the minister dispenses with their services. The minister is not independent of his officials, and as long as that unsatisfactory condition continues you cannot expect his department to be thoroughly efficient. I go further; not only so, but you cannot hold him responsible for that inefficiency without doing him grave injustice. This is only by way of illustration in matters of administration.
But more is involved in this case. The preventive service is also under the control of the Civil Service Commission. It is recommended in the report that the preventive service should be reorganized and
10 p.m. strengthened, that in reality it should become a detective agency. Now, imagine a detective agency having to go to an independent body-the Civil Service Commission-for its men. Think of the Pinkerton detective agency, the Field detective agency, Scotland Yard or La Surete, having to resort to an independent body to provide them with detectives. Could anything be more ridiculous?


Milton Neil Campbell: Was that part of the
service appointed directly by the minister under the patronage system as efficient as that appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Jean-Joseph Denis: We can only judge of the efficacy of any measure from the results obtained, and we know that since the system was changed in 1918 the department has been steadily degenerating.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is responsible?


Jean-Joseph Denis: It is all very well to blame the minister. The minister may have had something to do with it-I will come to that in a moment-but I contend that one of the main reasons why this service has been degenerating is that we declared in the Civil Service Act that an organization of detectives must go to a foreign body for their recruits. That is absolutely impracticable and, I submit, absurd. Therefore the first reason why there has been degeneration and inefficiency is the fact that these men are chosen by the Civil Service Commission; they are independent of the minister and he cannot control them. Had the minister control of these men I would say he was responsible for them, but when he has no control he cannot have responsibility.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Will the hon. gentleman allow a question?


Jean-Joseph Denis: With pleasure.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it not a fact that any of these officials may be dismissed without consulting the Civil Service Commission?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Yes. The minister can dismiss but he cannot appoint, so what is the use of dismissing a man if you cannot appoint another whom you choose in his place?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Every time he gets an inefficient official he can be dismissed.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Yes, he has the right to dismiss him but it is well known that the civil service is pretty well filled up in some quarters with inefficient men. I am not attacking anyone when I say this; we know that they remain where they are because the ministers dare not dismiss them. They are in the service to stay and they stay.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Allow me another question. Is it not a fact, as was stated by the hon. member who spoke just before the hon. gentleman who now has the floor, that the officers found most inefficient in this investigation were those who had been appointed not by the Civil Service Commission but by the department?


Jean-Joseph Denis: No official has been appointed by the department. Who was so appointed; was it Bisaillon? Bisaillon was appointed by the Civil Service Commission like the rest. I would like my hon. friend to name one official who was appointed by the department. I do not say this for the sake of discussion, but we must
4914	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Denis (Joliette)
be plain about these things. Not one official in that department is appointed other than by the Civil Service Commission, and not one promotion can be made except through the Civil Service Commission.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then I ask the hon. member whether or not the statement is true that the most inefficient officials were those appointed before the Civil Service Commission had control of the outside service?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Does my hon. friend mean before 1918, when the Civil Service Act was passed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Jean-Joseph Denis: 
Milton Neil Campbell: Take the case of the Bank of Montreal. Surely that institution can dismiss an official when found to be dishonest. Is there any difference in the two cases?


Jean-Joseph Denis: The Bank of
Montreal can appoint their employees on their own volition, without consulting anyone, and can dismiss them without cause. The manager can tell any of his clerks tomorrow, "Your services are dispensed with" and he is not required to give any explanation to them. He has complete freedom of action, and the employees know it. When an employee has been discharged from the bank the manager can replace him by whomever he lilces, and should the new appointee be inefficient or dishonest, the manager himself is responsible. A member of the government cannot do that. [DOT]
4916	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Denis (Joliette)
I have no brief for Hon. Jacques Bureau, but it is a little strange to hear hon. gentlemen opposite attacking him so Strongly when, to my knowledge, year after year they allowed Mr. Bureau's estimates to pass with the greatest leniency and the greatest facility. I do not contend that the responsibility of cheeking up the estimates of the Minister of Ous-. toms and Excise is confined to one side; both sides must share the responsibility. But it is the duty most, particularly of the opposition, and if the conditions complained of in this case have existed for several years past, how is it that not more than a year ago the Hon. Jacques Bureau was able to get his estimates through without any reproach on the part of the opposition? Was it or was it not known then that there was something wrong with the Department of Customs? If it was known to hon. gentlemen opposite that there was something wrong, why did they allow the estimates of the department to pass practically without any opposition? If they did not know of the existence of wrongdoing they should have known it. It is the duty of the opposition to check up the doings of the department and if they did not do so then, speaking technically, they failed in their duty. We all know that Hon. Jacques Bureau was very popular with members of the House, most particularly with hon. gentlemen opposite. They were satisfied with it, and the thing was going on for years. The opposition never saw it, never knew it and never objected; but all of a sudden they discovered it. They say that- this procedure was going on for j^ears under Jacques Bureau. It is very strange they have only discovered it now.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Does the hon. member say that any of the estimates of Mr. Bureau were cooked, fraudulent, or unjust?


Jean-Joseph Denis: No, that is not the point at all. But if there was something wrong in the Department of Customs there were many opportunities for hon. members to bring it to the attention of the House, and one of the most favourable opportunities would be when Mr. Bureau was presenting his estimates. But the opposition never did call attention to it.
I come now more directly to the case of the Hon. George H. Boivin, Minister of Customs. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, the House might be doing a very great injustice and one that would be long remembered if we condemned the hon. Minister of Customs for his actions in the now famous Moses Aziz case. I have tried to examine the circumstances of

this case from an unbiased point of view. I will not repeat the evidence, because it has been explained so well by the minister himself and by the member who spoke at length this afternoon, who was a member of the committee. But there are outstanding facts in this case which no man can deny, which should appeal to the reason and justice of hon. members. One outstanding fact is that Mr. Boivin has been guilty of no misdemeanour, of no breach of the law whatever directly or indirectly, and of no act of dishonesty. The law permitted him under certain conditions to exercise his discretion; he did exercise it, and in doing so he did not remit anything and he did not forget anything. He simply left one matter suspended for a time. It is all very well to acclaim for purity of politics, but let us be just to ourselves. If the law permitted Mr. Boivin to use his discretion in certain matters, and if he did use that discretion, even though, in the opinion of a few or in the opinion of many, he might have used that discretion in an indiscreet manner, that would not constitute a crime for which the hon. member should be arraigned before this House. [DOT]
The hon. member who spoke at length this afternoon said that in the province of Ontario, in the last year alone, 252 remissions had been granted in the case of contravention of the Ontario Temperance Act. I do not know that the figures are correct, but they have not so far been disproved. I do not know what is going on in that province, but I know that in the province of Quebec, where there is no temperance act but where there is a body known as the Quebec Liquor Commission, remissions are quite frequent, and I do not know that that commission was ever blamed for granting them. I have no objection to telling the House now that if Mr. Boivin is guilty, not of a remission, but of a suspension, I for one would be very much more guilty than he is, because on more than one occasion-and I have no shame in saying it-I got from the Quebec Liquor Commission, or, more directly, from the attorney general of the province of Quebec, remission of penalties for offences. When? When the attorney general thought, under the discretion that the law granted to him, it was right and proper that such remission should be granted. Remission has been given in the case of women, and in the case of men who were poor and had to support their families. These things are matters of public knowledge in the province of Quebec, and no one thought there was a scandal in them. I must confess that more

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Denis (Joliette,
than once I applied to the attorney general for remission in cases worthy of that remission, and more than once my application was granted. I did not get those remissions because I might have been a friend of the party concerned. Remissions have been given in deserving cases irrespective of politics.
This is not a political issue. But in this case, because the minister suspended the sentence upon information furnished to him, no matter whether the information is right or wrong, we are asked to raise our hands in holy horror and have the hon. member disqualified and censured by the House. We all know that if he is censured his position as minister of the crown will become very critical. It is suggested that we should disqualify the hon. gentleman because he has exercised the discretion which the law allowed him to exercise. Whether this exercise of discretion is right or wrong does not matter; he has the right to exercise it. He did it to the best of his ability and did it honestly, and should not be blamed for it.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I think that is a plain misstatement of the case. It is not a question of discretion or a question of the scope of the minister's authority; it is a question of interference with the course of justice after judgment has been pronounced.


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friend is
entirely wrong. It is not that at all. After judgment was pronounced Moses Aziz might have been sent to jail on commitment, and the commitment must be issued under the order of the minister.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. member
read the minister's evidence on oath, stating that that is absolutely untrue, that he had no authority to interfere at all?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Yes, I read it very carefully. He might have made a mistake. I am speaking seriously to the right hon. leader of the opposition. The minister gave his evidence under oath. He said, "To the best of my knowledge it might be true that I had no authority at all to do it."


Arthur Meighen: He did not say that at
all.


Jean-Joseph Denis: What did he say?


Arthur Meighen: He said that he knew
all the time he had no authority.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I will not quibble
as to that, but I do not think he said it in that way.


Arthur Meighen: He said it three or four
times.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I read his evidence casually and I am not ready to repeat from memory what he said. At all events that does not change the law, the conditions. What he said or what he did not say does not change the conditions which are these, that the minister consented-whether he had the right to do it or not does not matter- that action should be suspended in that case until he should receive more information or meet the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). I fail to find a crime in that, as I have just stated. It might be reprehensible in a very light degree, but even that I do not admit, because the law permitted the minister to act within his discretion and he so acted.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
contend that after judgment is given and sentence rendered, the minister still has a discretion?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I understand it in that way.


Arthur Meighen: Where does the hon.
member get that?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I understand it in that way.


Arthur Meighen: From what?


Jean-Joseph Denis: In the Customs
Act.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member will produce that I will apologize to the minister.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am not ready
to quote the section offhand. That is my understanding of it. If I am wrong, I am wrong. I have not the act before me and I cannot refer to it now. I do not admit that I am wrong. My right hon. friend says "yes'' and I say "no," so that we have to stand pat on that.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member says
that there is something in the customs law. I say there is not. If there is, he can produce it. If there is not, I cannot produce it.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I know exactly
what the right hon. member means. He says: Bring out the act and show me the section. This I am not ready to do now. I have not the act before me, and further I will not take the time of the House now to go through the act.


Arthur Meighen: That is wise.


Mr. BURY:: Has the hon. member seen
such a provision in the act himself?
4918	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Denis (Joliette)


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Has he seen anybody
who has seen it?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Unless the hon. member has
seen that and knows for himself it is a fact, he has no right to state it as a fact in this House.	[DOT]


Jean-Joseph Denis: I have a right to
express an opinion just as the hon. member has. I have read the act and that is the construction I have given to it, as I have just said, rightly or wrongly. If I have given a wrong construction, so much the worse for me. But that is tlhe construction I have given and that is the construction which many others have also given. I am not going now to plead the point of law between myself and my hon. friend. The time is too precious for that. But it is my impression and my opinion that under the statute he had the right to do What he did.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know from long experience the member desires to 'be fair and I do not think he wishes to mislead the House. I will say to him, as the one who has perhaps atacked the minister's stand more strongly than others, that if he will produce the section in the Customs Act to which he refers, which authorizes the minister as a matter of his discretion, to intervene or to interfere with a sentence after it has been passed by the courts, I will apologize to the minister and I think I can say for others around me that they will do so also.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I think it is agreed that the minister can interfere before sentence is rendered. Does my hon. friend agree to that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. member will
permit me, we are speaking about what the minister can do in the way of interference after sentence has been pronounced.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The minister was
asking simply that the sentence be not now executed but that it be suspended until he should receive further information. That is what he did. The letter written by the Deputy Minister of Justice stated in part:
All penalties and forfeitures imposed by this ac.t, ot by any other act relating ito the customs or to trade or navigation shall, unless other provisions are made for the recovery thereof, be sued for, prosecuted and recovered with costs by His Majesty's Attorney General of Canada, or in the name or names of tihe Commissioner of Customs, or any officer or officers of the customs ,or other person or persons thereunto authorized by the Governor in Council either expressly or by general regulation or order, and by no other person.
I have just read the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice.
[Mr. Bury.l


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member will
admit that that does not refer in any way whatever to authority after sentence.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The minister has
authority before sentence. That is admitted.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the question at all.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Let us start from
that point. He has authority before sentence. The sentence is rendered but it is not executed.


James Arthurs: Why not?


Jean-Joseph Denis: It is not executed because it is not executed.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Because the minister
interfered to prevent the execution.


Jean-Joseph Denis: That is the state
of procedure. The sentence is rendered but it is not executed. Why not? Because it is not executed. The minister says that this sentence be not now executed. Hon. members say:	You are interfering in the execution of the sentence. I say that he is not interfering in the execution of the sentence because the sentence has not yet been executed.


Arthur Meighen: If the sentence was
executed, how could he interfere with the execution?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I should have said: If the sentence was under execution. If the sentence was under execution the Minister of Justice might interfere and the matter would be entirely out of the hands of the Minister of Customs. I did not think I was exposing myself to quibbles. At all events what I meant to say was this, that the sentence was not under execution or in the course of execution.


Robert James Manion: May be the hon. member means:	If the prisoner was executed.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I will let my hon. friend go with that. Such is the charge against the Minister of Customs. My hon. friends opposite say that it is a charge which should disqualify him and for which he should be censured by the House. If hon. members would divest themselves for one instant of all political tendencies, all political affiliations, and consider this matter clearly and reasonably, I believe very few of them would come to the conclusion that for this particular action the Minister of Customs should be so judged. A man is not to be judged for a single action in his life. If that were so I know that a few members of this

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Lucas
House would possibly regret some of their past actions. But I do not look at things in that way. It is human and only fair to judge a man by his conduct as a whole and not by any one particular act which, though regarded as reprehensible by some, may be considered in a different light by others. I would rather take the conduct of the Minister of Customs as a whole and judge him on the sum total of his achievements, his activities, and his talents. Let me remind hon. gentlemen that the reputation of a public man is precious, and before it is impugned we ought to weigh the circumstances very carefully. This country has need on both sides of politics of men of the class of the Hon. George H. Boivin. The Minister of Customs has shown in this House a character, an ability and an intelligence second to those of no other hon. member. He is a man of courage, a man of energy; and I believe that in the interests of Canada, in the interests of the department itself, he should remain Minister of Customs. If that department is to be saved no man is better able than he, with his youth, his courage, and his activity, to restore it to the position it should have held long ago.
It is the duty of members of - parliament, representing the Canadian people, always to help and encourage and to promote the request of the people for our public men. The responsibilities of public life are not so easy. It is not so easy to spend months in the city of Ottawa, beautiful though it be, to the exclusion of one's personal affairs. And after the Minister of Customs has devoted his energies to the service of his country in work involving sacrifice, is he now to be cited before this House on mere piffle, a matter of insignificance? Are we to condemn him, forgetting the services he has rendered, simply because he is alleged to have done something which although represensible in the opinion of others is not so, in my opinion at any rate?
Numerous recommendations are made in the report, and what in my view is of prime importance is that the Minister of Customs, and he alone, should be responsible for the officials of his department. I am not asking that the Civil Service Act be done away with, but I do say that it should be amended to give the minister the opportunity of choosing his own personnel, so far at least as the preventive service is concerned. Indeed, I would include the officials of the department; I do not refer to ordinary clerks, but to all officials of responsibility. I would allow the minister to make his own appointments and if, then, these officials did not perform their 14011-312
duties satisfactorily, the minister would be responsible to parliament. The minister should also have the right to control his department and its employees. I would suggest that a permanent committee of the House be appointed in relation to customs affairs. We have a Public Accounts committee ; why not have a committee on customs so -that the department might from session to session be subject to investigation? If such a committee existed those who had charges to make against the department might lay them before that committee instead of waiting for years, as has happened in this case, before bringing up the matter. With the minister solely responsible for the personnel of his department, and with a free hand to manage the affairs of the department as he saw fit, if he. failed to discharge his office efficiently, whoever the minister might be, then he should be censured by parliament. But only under such circumstances would the minister be fully responsible for the acts of his officials and be in consequence subject to such criticism as is proposed in this amendment.
Whatever the decision may be, I hope that hon. gentlemen will very seriously review the excellent work of the Minister of Customs before returning the verdict sought by the amendment.


Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose):: As we
shall shortly be called upon to decide upon the question before the House, and as I shall be required to register what will be the most important vote in my whole parliamentary career, I feel it my duty to state my view of the situation. I want to make it clear at the outset that however I may vote, or whatever remarks I may make, on this occasion, I am moved by no spirit of personal antagonism to any member of the government. During the last four years and in the course of the present session, in any business I have had to transact with members of the cabinet, I have always been treated with the utmost courtesy and consideration. But I should be untrue to the trust reposed in me if I were to let personal friendships come between me and the duty which I feel I owe to the people whom I represent. I was bom and brought up in the good old province of Ontario and one of the things I was taught from my youth was to look up to our parliamentary institutions, the highest representative bodies, of our country.
The question before the House to night is one that transcends personalities or parties. It is a question that strikes at the very fundamentals of our public life. It is therefore



Customs Inquiry-Mr. Lucas
incumbent upon every hon. member to subordinate party considerations to public duty and as a true Canadian to cut out this cancer which is gnawing at the heart of our body politic. I am not going to condemn in any way the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin). He is a man of outstanding ability, but in my opinion the greater his ability the greater his sin. But, Mr. Speaker, not only is one minister involved; censure falls equally on every member of the government. When you read the evidence-and I have followed it very closely throughout the sittings of the committee-and on pages 120 to 132 you peruse the correspondence between the Commercial Protective Association and the Prime Minister, it seems to me you can come to no other conclusion than that the Prime Minister at least was conversant with conditions in the Customs department. What strikes me more forcibly than anything else is the fact that the Prime Minister (|Mr. Mackenzie King), being conversant with those conditions, subsequently appointed to the Senate of Canada a man who is certainly not entitled to that high position. When I reflect that the Prime Minister toured this country during the last campaign and told the people how he was going to reform the Senate, and afterwards appointed a gentleman who had debauched the very life of Canada by encouraging bootlegging, with its slimy trail over the whole land, I am grievously disappointed, and nothing short of a censure of this government will satisfy the people of Canada on this point.
There are those who think that to-night the fate of the Liberal party is at stake. Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned with the fate of the Liberal party or of the Conservative party, but I am vitally concerned with the fate of the Progressive movement, a movement that many of our people are looking forward to as the one hope of cleaning up our public life and bringing about a better condition of affairs in this fair Canada of ours. I do not think there is an hon. member in this corner of the House that would be in his seat tonight but for that movement which we represent. When I think of those people back in Alberta from whom I come, who had got almost to the point of despair, feeling they could not trust to the party machine-picked candidates to carry out their pledges and their promises, and who said, "We must pick out men from among ourselves, and we will make sacrifices to pay their campaign expenses so they will not be bound to any political party," and when I recall the sacrifices that some of those men and women have made during the past few years to foster this movefMr. Lucas.]
ment, I would certainly 'be recreant to my trust if I did not stand up for the principles they sent me to maintain and uphold in parliament.
The Prime Minister stated in a recent debate that if the government should be defeated we would be faced with a general election. I want to say, Sir, that I feel I would be unworthy of my position as a member of this House if I allowed any threat of that kind to prevent me from doing my duty. I feel that I have been sent here for a certain purpose, and I intend to try to carry out that purpose. If a general election should come and I go down in the fight, then I shall feel proud that I have gone down fighting for the principles which I was sent here to uphold. I appeal to every member in this corner of the House, to every member of this Progressive party, to stand up to-night for those principles which they have been sent to this House to uphold. I would appeal particularly to the only lady member of this House. All the people of Canada are watching what will take place when the vote is registered. When I think of the misery and suffering which this bootlegging traffic has caused the women and children throughout Canada, I am proud that we have one woman representative, and I feel sure that she will deal justly with their cause. Sir George Etienne Cartier once said: If all the women could be banded together simply and solely for the good of humanity, they would exert an influence such as has never been felt before.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I could have dealt with a number of the cases which have been disclosed in the evidence, but I feel that as they have already been placed before the House anything further on my part would be simply superfluous. I want to say again, Sir, that I feel this is the most important vote that has come before this House this session, and I trust every member will do his duty.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg
North Centre): Mr. Speaker, there are occasions on which I presume most, of us would prefer not to have the responsibilities of membership in this House, and undoubtedly this is such an occasion. The more I study this question the more complicated it becomes, and yet as we are all called upon to cast a vote one way or the other, and we cannot very well shirk that vote, it seems to me it is not right to give a silent vote, but rather as far as possible to set before the House and the country the considerations which move one in coming to a decision on an important question of this character.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Woodsworth
I would call the attention of hoD. members to the fact that this House pf Commons, which is primarily a legislative body, is these days turned into a court; but I would add that under existing circumstances impartial justice seems to me to be impossible in this court. Let us look at the situation. AVe have prosecutors and defendants, and these also are the jury and the judge, for if we really look at this situation frankly we must acknowledge that one party is very largely playing the role of prosecutor to-night, and has been for the last few days, while to a very considerable extent the other party is playing the role of defendant, and yet we are all called upon to act as jury in this case and even as judge. Now, there is not much doubt that in a case of this character hon. members are influenced by partisan bias or partisan consideration. I made a similar statement a few days ago in connection with Peace River election case, and I think my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr Cahan) then interjected, " No, no." And yet the vote which was subsequently taken absolutely corroborated my statement, because it was almost entirely along party lines. I cannot conceive that the judgment of the people would again and again in legal matters split along purely party lines. So 1ft us be frank and say that in a case of this character it is extremely difficult for the most honest and honourable men-and I take it that despite some cheap sneers hurled across the floor the large majority of this House are honest and honourable men-I say it is very difficult in such a case for us not to be biased by partisan considerations. We have here a most phenomenal situation. The last vote on a want of confidence motion was in connection with the Kennedy case and yet Mr. Kennedy was the key man, shall I say, in the special committee investigating this matter. We have this situation, that the man who is presumably the most impartial, or in a position to be the most impartial, member will be accused in his vote on such an occasion as this of either inclining towards the government or, as I heard someone who knows Mr. Kennedy put it, of leaning backward in order to be straight.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, is not that
the situation? Here is a man whose own case recently was before the House, and yet he is perhaps the most important man in connection with the situation we have in review to-night.
In a court there is at least a certain measure of protection against outside influence, but here our newspapers are permitted to make unsubstantiated charges and to resort to all kinds of specious arguments and even to threats. A day or so ago I read the editorials appearing in the two Ottawa morning papers; I think everyone did so. I should like to read a few extracts from the Ottawa Journal. I was tremendously impressed by the statements of the early part of the editorial, but later the writer went on to say:
Mr. Kennedy may consider that he owes something to Mr. King. He may consider thait 'protection of such an outrage as his sitting for Peace River represents,, is deserving of a price.
And later:
When the Conservatives move their amendment Mr. Kennedy will move his anaemic whitewashing amendment to the amendment.
And later:
The Progressive party came into being as the champion of political morality. Here, surely, is opportunity for those who have not mocked every vestige of its creed to cast a vote for its principles. Here is the acid test of the sincerity and probity of every genuine Progressive.
That is the plea made to-night by the hon. member who preceded me. Again 1 quote:
Pressure, we know, will be brought to bear upon them. They will be subjeoted, as they have been subjected all session, to cajolery, to false appeals and to dishonest promises, and dn the end they will be threatened with an election.
Just fancy that sort of thing, that kind of veiled threat or reference to veiled threats, appearing in our newspapers with regard to any criminal case in our courts. Now I turn to the other paper, the Ottawa Citizen, and here again I may say that I felt greatly impressed by the statements first advanced. But when I came to read the arguments I almost felt as though the Journal must be right. Let me read a short extract:
Many Pots will rise up on the left of Mr. Speaker to denounce the 'blackness of the Kettles. On numerous occasions in the past, the similarity o>f colour on both sides of the House has been proven to the satisfaction of independent observers. But whether the non-partisan members can preserve sufficient humour in the me'.ee to see through it again is doubtful. Some are quite liable to be convinced that the Kettles are blacker than the Pots.
And later:	.
Whether thi3 year is the most propitious time to plunge the country into another general election, however, may merit some thought on the part of nonpartisan members. Defeat of the government would without d-oubt mean an election.
I do not think it necessary to go any further in the reading of these editorials to
4922	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Woodsworth
suggest that in the general outside atmosphere as well as in the political conditions which prevail in this House we cannot hope to secure that impartiality and independence of view which will give us real justice.
I would say also that whilst the defendants if I may use a term of the courts, are materially interested in the verdict, there is no doubt that on the other hand the prosecution, themselves a part of the jury, would directly benefit by a verdict of guilty. The professions of disinterestedness on the part of those who quite legitimately are intent on dislodging the government in order to occupy their seats must necessarily be discounted. I suggest that it is not altogether an edifying spectacle when charges of moral turpitude are advanced against members of the government that there should be such vociferous applause. It seems strange that we should rejoice not in truth but in iniquity; that in this House we are not permitted under the rules of the party game to give very much indulgence or credit to those politically opposed to us.
There is an old saying that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, yet it seems an exceedingly strange thing that often the people whose houses contain the most glass are the most confirmed stone-throwers. I think perhaps a good many of us feel that after having been in the midst of a mud bath in this House for a while we want to get away into another kind of bath to get cleaned up. There has often been such wholesale condemnation, again I say not arising because the members really believed all these hard things concerning one another but rather through the exigencies of the party game. In this connection I would like to read a paragraph from Burke, which suggests that possibly we should not generally condemn those about us. Burke says:
Never expecting to find perfection in men, and not looking for divine attributes in created beings, in my commerce with my contemporaries I have found much human virtue. The age unquestionably produces daring profligates and insidious hypocrites* What ithen? Am I not to avail myself of whatever good is to be found in the world, because of the mixture of evil that is in it?. . . . Those who raise suspicions of the good, on account of the behaviour of evil men, are of the party of the latter. ... A conscientious person would rather doubt his own judgment than condemn his species. He that accuses all mankind of corruption ought to remember that he is sure to convict only one. In truth, I should much rather admit those whom at any time I have disrelished the most, to be patterns of perfection, than seek a consolation to my own unworthiness in a general communion of depravity with all about me.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would my 'hon. friend
permit me? Was it not Edmund Burke who impeached Warren Hastings?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was, but nevertheless Edmund Burke wrote those lines which I have quoted.
We are asked to judge, Mr. Speaker, concerning the guilt of certain members of this House, but before passing to that I would like to say that there is one party which according to the evidence, stands convicted. I think I am voicing the sentiments of hon. members on both sides of the House when I say that the one party which we can all unite in saying is guilty is that one which we commonly call the liquor interests in this country, which, as an hon. gentleman opposite said the other day, made their money by defrauding the -governments of Canada and of the United States. They demoralized this department and attempted to influence parliament itself by contributing to the campaign funds of both parties. I think perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was putting it a little bit mildly when he answered me the other day. If I read the evidence aright, and I wish he would correct m-e if I am wrong because he was a member of the committee the auditor, Mr. Nash, swore that Hiram Walker admitted that the Walker Distillery 'had contributed to the campaign fund of 'both parties. Now when this condition exists I say that we have in our midst an organized form of debauchery that ought to foe pilloried before the people of this country; and I would join with my friend who preceded me in saying that we cannot too strongly denounce the demoralization that has come through this business.
Again we have brought before us the conduct of the former minister, Mr. Jacques Bureau, and let me say, as far as I am concerned, that the worst thing the present government has done in connection with the whole matter was to put that gentleman in the Senate. I cannot let this opportunity pass without protesting against the unequal justice that prevails in connection with our laws. Petty thieves, even young boys, are * sometimes given months or years in jail. I had occasion the other day, in looking into the law books in connection with some amendments which were being proposed, to notice the penalties enacted for several different kinds of crime; they happened to be on one page of the statutes. This legislation, I may say, was all passed at the same time in 1919, and there was one law to this effect: that any person who is suffering from venereal disease in communicable form who knowingly or by culpable negligence communicates such disease is subject to a fine not exceeding $500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. There are very full

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Woodsworth
safeguards with regard to what are "reasonable grounds," and there must not be conviction on the evidence of one witness. Another law on the same page provides that for stealing an automobile the punishment is two years and not less than one year without the option of a fine. Then we come to the legislation with regard to sedition-which by the way has been thrown out by the second chamber-and we find that there the penalty at present for what is practically criticizing the authorities is twenty years. For ruining a life, six months with the option of a fine; for stealing an automobile, two years; for criticizing a government, twenty years, a pretty fair indication, let me say, of the relative values according to the standards which now exist. I have given these penalties. What is the penalty for debauching a government department? A senatorship. And the only extenuating circumstance, if it can be called that, is that when the Old Age Pension bill was up the other day, the former minister did not vote against it.


Mr. FONTAINE:: That is something.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, that is something.


Mr. CAHAN:: Perhaps he was looking to his future.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We are asked to condemn the action of certain officials of the department. I notice by reference to the report on page 3066 that the employees are divided into two groups. In the first the committee finds that "the following officers" have been delinquent in their duties and recommend that their services be dispensed with. The penalty is a severe one-that their services foe dispensed with. In the second group-and these are doubtless the higher-ups -the recommendation is that arrangements should be made for the retirement of "the following persons". I do>
not know just what "retirement" means. I presume it means retirement on a pension, and in this case you have a very decided discrimination in the way in which the men are treated. It may be that the higher officials have greater responsibility; it may be that they are not directly cognizant of all the illegal acts of the people beneath them. On the other hand, I would submit that under-officials, subordinate officials, soon get to know what the attitude of their superiors is, and they know that they dare not take any action which is opposed to the opinions and policies of their superiors under pain of dismissal.
It does not seem to me that there should be discrimination of this kind, especially when we are told, with regard to the deputy minister at least, that there has been very considerable complicity and that he is verjr deeply involved. I would not say that nb provision whatever should be made for any of these employees. It may be, as in any private business, that if a man has gone wrong after years of service he should have a compassionate grant allowed him. That is not done in the case of the ordinary criminal, and these men are in some ways worse than ordinary criminals in that they have betrayed a public trust. However, I hope that a time will come when ordinary criminals will receive a little bit more consideration than they have 'been receiving, and that we shall judge crime not so much in view of one particular act but rather in view of the whole course of action and in connection with the motives that apparently have led to that action. .
Again we are asked to judge some of our fellow members in this House. There it seems to me is the point at which we begin to feel our duties a great deal more keenly, because most of us find it difficult enough to steer a straight course ourselves without having to turn aside to condemn other people round about us. But I think most of the members here would agree with me that action such as Mr. Robichaud took in writing a letter asking for leniency on the ground that a certain man who was convicted was useful to the party is absolutely -inexcusable, and in the interest of establishing what I believe to be a higher standard of political morality in this country I think we are bound to say so. There are others who are mentioned in this report; there are a number ,of names to whom reference is made, the most prominent among them being, perhaps, Mr. Botvin, Mr. Duff and Mr. Boys. I do not intend to go into any great detail with regard to any of these matters but let me mention the case of Mr. Boys, the Conservative whip. Personally, I am inclined to think, one of the most honourable men in this House. He contends that he acted in his professional capacity in pleading for leniency, but I would ask. "Can a man divide himself ' in this way and at one moment speak as a member of the House and at another moment speak as a lawyer?"


William Alves Boys: Has the hon. member read the provisions of the Customs Act dealing with this matter?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not.
4924	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Woodsworth


William Alves Boys: I would ask my hon. friend to read those provisions, and if he does he will find that absolutely the only course open to Waisberg or his agent was to approach the Minister of Customs. He had no other forum to go to under that act. I was simply there as solicitor, and pleaded his case. I did not ask for special leniency, but argued the case before the minister, and1 upon that the minister gave his decision. We could have appealed .from the decision if we had wanted to. If my hon. friend has not read the act I would advise him to do so. I believe he wants to reach a proper conclusion, and I think after reading the act he will coime to the conclusion that that case is somewhat different from some of the others.
Mr. WlOODaWORTH: I am not going into the relative merits of the various cases to-night, and I have no desire to discount any hon. member. But I was pointing out that the hon. member has placed his defence largely on two grounds. The first ground was that he acted in his professional capacity. Suppose some labouring .man who could not .afford to pay a lawyer asked me to .use any influence. Am I guilty because I cannot plead professional standing?


William Alves Boys: I understand the accusation is not that I did it as a lawyer, but that I did it as a member of parliament; so that if that is correct my hon. friend would be quite right in doing it as a member.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite right. I
know I am on dangerous ground, because there are about seventy lawyers in this House, and I may have a general attack from both sides of the House. As I understand it, the hon. member pleadls he was quite within his rights in acting as a lawyer for this man. I put the case in this way; suppose a man who cannot afford to pay a lawyer asks me . to use my influence, am I guilty because I cannot plead professional standing, and, I might add, because I do not accept the fee?


Arthur Meighen: I have not heard all
tlie speakers from both sides, but if the hon. member will permit me to answer, I will quickly do so. He certainly would not. He has an absolute right to argue anything before a minister sitting as a judge, or a quasijudge, as long as what he is arguing is worthy of argument and is not based on a political motive.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I leave the statement of the right hon. member. I suppose it is an arguable point.


Mr. CANNON:: Very much so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And I would point out further that, as I read what the hon. member said, he claimed that as a Conservative he had not any particular influence with the Liberal administration. I would ask this question, is a Liberal then to be debarred from appealing to a Liberal administration?


Arthur Meighen: It depends on what he
says.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Undoubtedly responsible officials should not yield to partisan interference.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. leader of the opposition says, "hear, hear." I think we in all quarters of the House will agree with a general statement of that kind, and yet may I ask, is the practice not a common one?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It should not be.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It should not be,
but if we are honest with ourselves, is the practice not a common one? I would say we are in the midst of a system which has grown up through the years and has certain traditions; these traditions and systems are essentially vicious, and individual members are largely victims Of the system. I am personally far more interested in reforming the system than in punidhing particular individuals.
We are asked to-night to judge of the record in office of the present Minister of Customs. I think the hon. member for West Hamilton, or perhaps it was the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was quite right in pointing out that the minister undoubtedly has heavier responsibilities than an ordinary member. If I may make a frank confession -although I do not know that it may be regarded as worth anything-I may tell the House that at the beginning of the debate I was of the opinion that I should have to join in the vote of censure against the Minister of Customs. I could not get around Mr. Rohichaud's letter. It seemed to me that if the minister had yielded to its importunity he was performing an act which was altogether unjustifiable. But I listened yesterday to the statement made by the hon. minister, and I must say that I was greatly impressed by it. Members may laugh, but I am just stating how it impressed me. I again would remind hon: members of this House

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Woodsworth
that we are not organized as a court is organized. We have not the same opportunity of cross-examining the witness as we have in a court. I did venture to interject a question, and received of course what was apparently a satisfactory reply, but we have not the same opportunity that they have in a court room of arriving at tihe real situation. It seemed to me that I could almost visualize -perhaps that was because of the skill with which the case was presented-the situation which confronted the minister when he took office, and from what little I know of administrative affairs, I can understand that it is very easy for a man placed in that position to take the opinion and even the statements of those about him. Let me remind hon. members that there is hardly a man in this House who is not constantly in receipt of letters asking him to do this, that and the other thing, for reasons which perhaps would not commend themselves to hon. members.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the hon. member allow a question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What would the hon. member say to the Statement of the hon. Minister of Customs which reads:
But I say now that if I 'had seen the request-
That is the request of Robichaud.
-and been cognizant of all the other circumstances my conduct would have been the same.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I noticed that
statement at the time. In my judgment I took it to be one of two things; either a little bit of bravado, which was very rmpolitic to say the least at that time, or else a frank statement of his feeling that he would not be influenced this way or that way by such a consideration.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the hon. member allow me?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not being examined just now.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I ask my hon. friend a
question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did the hon. member not regard it as the most serious statement that a man could make upon his honour when defending himself before the House?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot say that I did. I was listening intently, trying to size it up, and I am just stating how I felt about it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It affected me most seriously.


James Shaver Woodsworth: For example, I received a letter the other day asking that I take up a certain case. The writer stated that the man in whose interest he was appealing was identified with the Independent Labour party in the Old Country and has always given the labour movement support. He asked me on that ground to take up his case. I proceeded to take it up not because he was identified with the Independent Labour party in the Old Country, not because he had ever given the Labour movement support, but because according to the man's own statement, which was more or less endorsed by the man who appealed to me, it appeared to me that he was suffering an injustice that should be looked into. I simply handed over the case and asked iliat it be investigated. I appeal to hon. members and ask if we have not all had communications of this kind.
Will you let me give a more serious case? It is the only one of the kind which I have had since I have been in parliament, and I looked it up the other day to make sure of the facts. A certain group of people, men that I did not know, asking something from this administration, appealed to me. It was stated:
They have helped us substantially in the past in election campaigns. In fact they have gone so far as to offer to contribute *1,000 to your next election campaign if you will procure these permits for them.
This does not come from my constituency; as a matter of fact it comes from somewhere down east. Needless to say I wrote back objecting to that kind of importunity; but supposing that letter was discovered on my files and supposing I had taken any action in furthering the interests of this particular group, where would I be if I were charged with a matter of this kind?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the hon. member take any action in the face of such a proposition as that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But would he, as an honest and honourable man?


James Shaver Woodsworth: If these men were appealing for permits that were within their rights as citizens, I might show them how they could obtain their rights, at the same time absolutely repudiating the suggestion contained in the letter. I am not trying to condone anything.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Woodsworth


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is all right for hon. gentlemen to say: "Oh, no," but one of the first lessons that I had in at least trying to be a little bit generous in interpretation was when I was a boy of fifteen. A murder had been committed in our town and it had startled the whole community. I remember my father coming home one day and recounting a conversation which he had with the judge concerning the matter. I am not sure whether my father or the judge first made use of a phrase by an old French writer but my father used it. It was to this effect that "To know all is to forgive all." Whilst I will not say that in public life there should be full forgiveness of everything, an intimate knowledge of what takes place is absolutely essential to a correct estimation of what a man's conduct really is. I am quite sure the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan) agrees with that. I will just reiterate what I said at the beginning of my remarks, that un-forunately it seems to me that this House of Commons, with the heated atmosphere that here prevails, is not the most suitable place in which to secure impartial justice.
Let me go further. I recognize perfectly well that in a case of this kind the public demands a sacrifice, but I am not so sure that the public is right. Lloyd George won his election on the sjogan: "Hang the kaiser." Lloyd George is to-day a very discredited man. The kaiser is still alive. Strangely enough a number of our property patriots are opposed to the republic of Germany confiscating the kaiser's estates, to say nothing of hanging him. In this matter the business men are right. What we need to do is to clean up the mess. What we need to do is to put in more competent and courageous men to administer our laws.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad that is endorsed. It would seem to me that if we have discovered any honest officials in the investigation which has been proceeding for the last four or five months, it will be the part of wisdom to put those men in positions of greater responsibility. The difficulty is that we are trying to deal with the evils of an economic system that is essentially outgrown, inadequate and vicious. We are dealing with the outer symptoms of a disease which is bound to produce evils of this character. I do not want to get into a controversy over the question of free trade and protection, but it sometimes seems to me that if we would do away with those customs barriers we would save a great deal of trouble.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the hon. member
allow all foreign rum in free under those conditions?


James Shaver Woodsworth: As regards allowing foreign rum in free, if I understand the situation aright, it is that we are shipping rum into other countries.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is coming into this country as well.
Mr. W 0(IDS\\ ORTH: As I have tried to see daylight through this problem and I think many men have been worrying a great deal-


Miss MACPHAIL:: And one woman.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And one woman,
the hon. member for Southeast Grey suggests. Many men and one woman have been worrying a great deal as to what is the right course of action to take at this time. The trouble is that we do not and I think I may say we cannot vote on this motion apart from other considerations. I think that is true not merely of the older parties; I think it is true of the Progressives and also of our Labour group. We cannot vote ion this question absolutely on its merits.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hon. members
laugh at that and some of them are inclined to be cynical about it. Let us get down to realities about it and face the facts as they exist. If the amendment carries, presumably the Liberals go out of office.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why should they
not?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not discussing that. If the amendment carries, presumably the Liberals go out of office and the Conservatives come into office.


Mr. TOBIN (Wetaskiwin):: And that
would be hell.


James Shaver Woodsworth: An hon. member
suggests that that would be a very bad situation. His expression was unparliamentary, so I will not repeat it. It is a very good thing sometimes that the Speaker is at the other end of the room and he does not hear all that goes on. Let me repeat that because I would like to make that point clear. If the amendment carries, presumably the Liberals 'go out of office and the Conservatives come into office. Does anyone say that under those circumstances either Liberals or Conservatives can vote dispassionately on such a question as this?
This question which looms so largely today and which undoubtedly is one of great importance, need not and should not decide what group is best fitted to administer the affairs of Canada.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Woodsworth
That is a point I should like to emphasize. I may be wrong in this; I confess that I have not seen my way to take this position before now, and to be perfectly frank I am only feeling my way through to this. But as I see the situation to-day, and I want to express it frankly, that one particular question such as this ought not necessarily to decide what group is best fitted to administer the affairs of Canada. Some of us have protested during the past five years against the evils of the party system. We are so strongly opposed to the old two-party system that at least two new groups are in this House as a protest against it. We have not hesitated so to interfere with the ordinary working of that old two-party system as to bring about what is very little less than chaos in this House. We have come in and it is our right as elected representatives to play the game as we think fit.
I think I said somewhere, I am not sure whether in this House or outside, that the situation this session was comparable to a football game. There are two teams opposed; there is a goal at one end and a goal at the other; and all of a sudden, into the midst of this game, a third group of individuals makes their appearance and proceed to participate in the fun. Their presence is resented by both the old football teams, because they are constantly in the way and interfere with the established rules. But the trouble is that we, the third group, are on the ground and are determined to do something, and either the two old parties must revise their rules or we will defeat them both at their own game.


An hon. MEMBER:: No danger.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps not; that
remains to be seen. But he is a bold man who predicts what is going to be done in the future.


Arthur Meighen: If, as the hon. gentleman says, each of the old parties has sinned in throwing stones at the other, what is to be thought of the man who throws stones at 'both?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know
that I have thrown very many stones tonight.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They were not all bouquets.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They may not all
be bouquets, but I have not said anything very derogatory of the good name of any hon. member of this House. I have been trying as far as possible to discuss general principles and have brought in only such names
as were definitely introduced in the report, and of necessity had to be mentioned.
We in this section of the House, Progressives and Labour, have during the past few years again and again protested against certain rules and traditions. For example, we have said that the defeat of a government measure ought not to be taken necessarily as a vote of lack of confidence. Members who were present in the old House will recall that my colleague, Mr. Irvine, then representing East Calgary, introduced this principle in a motion which he submitted to the House, and it was voted down by the combined strength of Liberals and Conservatives because they wished to protect the old party system. But from our point of view-and it is our point of view I desire to give to-night -we believe that the time has come for modifying many of these old traditions and practices of parliament, and among these is the rule that makes the defeat of a government measure the occasion for the resignation of the government. We hold that such a defeat ought not necessarily to be taken as an indication of want of confidence. And it is only going one step further to say that we should insist upon being free to condemn certain actions of the government without of necessity replacing the government by another particular group. I do not know whether that is correct or not.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
Edmond Baird Ryckman: Read the reply, please.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Personally I did
not reply, but I think the answer sent was that at noon to-day announcement had been made that the chairman had been appointed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: They were right, then.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad hon.
gentlemen have had their laugh. I read this telegram to drive home, if I could, the very point which they seek to emphasize by their laughter and applause. As I say, I recognize, that in regard to this I am putting myself in a vulnerable position, but the point I am trying to make is that hon. members are constantly subject to pressure of this kind, all over the House, and I say it is absolutely absurd that the government's decision as to the appointment of a chairman of a board in Winnipeg iis to decide, as far as it can be decided, what the fate of the government is to be. It is ridiculous to think of such a thing as that, and even although some of my labour friends may think it is strong language.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Woodsworth
I cannot rsfrain from so expressing myself. It is simply because they do not realize the larger issues that are at stake.
I would say further, Mr. Speaker, that undoubtedly governments have to deal with great international problems. For example, we had a debate the other day as to the procedure which should be adopted in ratifying treaties, and an important decision was reached by this House in the form of the resolution which was then put forward by the government. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) although requested to do so, absolutely refused to express himself on this question.


Arthur Meighen: The leader of the opposition had expressed himself many times at the beginning of the session-
An lion. MEMBER: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Arthur Meighen: [DOT]-and does not propose
to join the time-killers in this House.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On important matters such as our foreign relations, matters that may involve this country in a war as important as the last, which meant that hundreds of thousands of our men were sent abroad and tens of thousands of them laid down their lives, and we have such a huge debt that we can hardly struggle 'beneath it -on important matters of this kind, I say it is highly desirable that we should know where both parties stand. My point is that matters of international relations, matters of war and peace-matters on which parties have definitely recognized policies-are equally important with the question of the conduct of the Minister of Customs in this case.
Mr. MoGIiBBON:	Might I ask the hon.
gentleman if he disapproves of what Canada did in the last war?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think it
is necessary to answer that question.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Pluck up your courage,
and answer it.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In answer to the
hon. member's question in regard to the last war, I think it is only necessary to say that every one of the bright promises with regard to what that war would accomplish absolutely failed of fulfilment.


Robert James Manion: Except the defeat of
Germany.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not so much concerned to-night about the last war-1
think these days we may well forget a great deal that transpired during the last war- but I am tremendously concerned in preventing a recurrence of war.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Do you think with the
Solicitor General that the next war will be with Turkey?


Lucien Cannon: Will my hon. friend
allow me? So far as my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) is concerned,
I will speak-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Let the hon.
gentleman take his seat.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member- mentioned my name.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Lucien Cannon: I am getting up on a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I would ask hon. gentlemen to let the hon. member state his question of privilege.


Lucien Cannon: I wish to tell my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that he need not yell himself to death. My hon. friend from East Toronto-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lucien Cannon: Let me tell my hon. friend from East Toronto that I will speak in this debate and conform to his own custom; I am not going to declare myself until I speak.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Let the hon.
gentleman state his point of order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I ask, Mr. Speaker, if a
member sitting in his seat, doing nothing and saying nothing, is to be insulted in this way without redress?


Lucien Cannon: The House can judge.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not know what has
been the cause of the statement that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was yelling. I did not hear him yelling.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted by this uproar I was going to say one final word with regard to the war question which was injected-that the hon. gentleman should remember that it is only a few months since 'the Great war
<*930	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Point of Order
Veterans' Association met in this oity and considered a very strong resolution to the effect that it was incumbent upon the returned men to do everything in their power to see that there was no recurrence of war during our time.
Let me come back to my argument for a moment, if I may. I was trying to emphasize the fact that we are called upon tonight, or whenever the vote is taken, to decide the fate of a government. We must not only decide on the question whether or not this or that member of parliament did the right thing, or whether or not the Minister of Customs was justified in taking a certain action; behind that and more than that and as the result of that decision, according to the existing rules and practices of this House we are called upon to say who will carry on the administration of this country, and that is a point, which, very frankly, makes us pause at this time.
A few moments ago the right hon. leader of the opposition was denouncing, as his followers have very bitterly denounced, the Minister of Customs for his leniency with regard to a convicted smuggler. At the moment I am not going to discuss that case; in fact I think it has been discussed pro and con long enough, but the right hon. gentleman and his followers were condemning that action. I want to remind the hon. gentleman-and this is one reason why I am in this House-that a few years ago legislation was passed which still remains on the statute books and which, among other things, had the effect of depriving of the right of trial by jury all persons born outside of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: I am not rising to a point of order because this is the opening of the breach of order by the hon. member, but there surely must be a limit to the privilege or license extended him to debate everything between the sun and the earth on a question quite outside that before the House.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I submit that I am quite in order.


Arthur Meighen: I ask for a ruling as to whether the hon. gentleman is in order in discussing a subject which has no relation to the matter before the House, and which this House has already decided.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman must speak to the point of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am speaking to the point of order. I have been trying since

the beginning of my address tonight to show that this parliament by this discussion has been turned into a court, and that it is impossible under existing circumstances and with the heat which exists to secure an impartial verdict. I have been showing that behind that there is still another difficulty, that owing to the rules and practices of this House it is simply impossible for members to vote solely on the question now before the House, because if the amendment carried it would mean the resignation of the government and the assumption of office by the opposition.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman agrees that I am right; he says, "hear, hear." Since that would be the effect and since this is the momentous decision we are required to give, I would suggest that we have to consider whether or not we wish to have a change of government. I was pointing out-


Arthur Meighen: I rise again, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I am in order.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is perfectly in order; he is explaining the point of order. I will give my ruling immediately he takes his seat.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am speaking to the point of order. I have said that I am simply giving certain considerations which must occur to me and to other members of the House in deciding how our vote is to be given. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that I have a perfect right to recite these considerations.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has
already spoken on the point of order.


Arthur Meighen: All I want to say is
that this reasoning would allow the discussion of anything.


Hewitt Bostock: I have followed very
closely the address of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), and in my humble judgment I think he has, from his point of view, tried to be very logical on the attitude he intends to take in this matter. I cannot repeat the ipsissima verba, but the hon. member says that he is in a quandary; if the amendment carries it means the defeat of the government and the victory of the other party, and he said he was not ready to support the other party. I

Customs Inquiry-Point oj Order
gathered from his remarks that he wanted to lead to another sphere, the judgment to be rendered on the ease occupying this House at present. But I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that whilst this is perfectly in order the branch of his argument must not become the trunk; there must be some limits to those considerations which would prevent him from supporting this or that party, according to the fate of the amendment and main motion.
Mr. WOOD8WORTH:	This is a mere
branch, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is one of the top branches. When I was interrupted I was trying to suggest that hon. members opposite were very severely condemning the Minister of Customs because of his leniency to a convicted smuggler. I must remind the House that there was read only the other day in this House a telegram relating to those troubled times of 1919. On June 17, Mr. Meighen wired to Mr. Andrews: Notwithstanding any doubt I have as to the technical legality of the arrest and the detention, at Stony Mountain I feel that rapid deportation is the best course now that the arrests are made, and later we can consider ratification.
It may be a serious thing, Mr. Speaker, to show leniency to a convicted criminal but I submit that it is a great deal more serious to deny to an innocent man the right of trial. The right hon. leader of the, opposition admitted, inferentially at least, that he had doubts as to the legality of the arrests; he admitted that he had doubts as to the legality of the detention at Stony Mountain penitentiary but he said, "Now that this action has been taken, an irregular action, I think the thing we should do is to have quick deportation, and then, if there is any further trouble, we can regularize"-what were the exact words used?-"later we can consider ratification." If there is danger on the one hand, do you mean to say there is no danger on the other?
I just want to say in closing my reference to that incident that one of the reasons I was sent to parliament was to endeavour to secure the repeal of that vicious legislation of 1919.


An hon. MEMBER:: You got it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: An hon. gentleman says "You got it". It passed this House but it has been again rejected by the Senate where the majority of the members belong to the Conservative party.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: I
rise to a point of order. The point of order is that the hon. member has Characterized
legislation which has been passed by this House, and which is now in effect, as "vicious legislation".


Hewitt Bostock: I cannot see in what
respect the expression., applied in the way in which it has been, is unparliamentary.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to be
sustained by the Speaker. I should have found myself in a very difficult position had the expression in question been held to be unparliamentary because really I do not know how else to characterize legislation which deprives men in this country of what we thought was guaranteed to every man by Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights.


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a point of
order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Arthur Meighen: I think the government
and their followers have no proper respect for the rules of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish):: I rise
to a point of order. The right hon. leader of the opposition has no right to make the statement he did and I ask that he 'be compelled to withdraw it.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not see why there
should be so much heat in debate. This is one of the finest debates we have heard for some time, and I fail to see any reason for disorder. I hope the right .hon. leader of the opposition on thinking the matter over will withdraw the expression he used1 with respect to hon. gentlemen to my right to the effect that they have scant respect for the rules of the House. All members have a great deal of respect for the rules of the House. I am glad to acknowledge that at a time when. I am celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of mj' first appearance in this House.


Arthur Meighen: Whenever I rise to a
point of order there invariably arises from the other side a chorus of boos. My retort is very mild indeed.


Hewitt Bostock: I must ask the right hon. gentleman to withdraw the first expression used, that hon. gentlemen on the government side have scant respect for the rules of the House.


Arthur Meighen: I was unaware that there was any rule requiring me to withdraw it.


Hewitt Bostock: It is unparliamentary to say that certain hon. members have scant respect for the rules of the House.
4932	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Point of Order


Finlay MacDonald: The right hon. gentleman also said "members of the government."


Hewitt Bostock: All the members of the
House are supposed to have respect for its rules, and as a matter of fact are imbued with that sentiment.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. members are supposed to obey the rules on all occasions. I stated that they do not do so.


Hewitt Bostock: I am obliged reluctantly
to insist that the right hon. gentleman withdraw the expression. In my humble judgment he has no right to say that hon. members have but scant respect 'for the rules of the House. I say that all members are obliged to respect the rules of the House, and to say they have scant respect, you offend them.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, out of
deference to your 'authority as Speaker of this House I obey your ruling, but I hope you will permit me to say that because I ask that hon. gentlemen shall not do what they have no right to do I do not necessarily offend them. My reason for rising to the point of order was this: It was to repeat what I had urged before, and I insist on doing it, that no hon. member has a right in any way to debate in this House a question which already has been decided in the same session. I do not know of any rule more firmly established or more clear. I was overruled by Your Honour then; I hope I shall not be overruled again.


Hewitt Bostock: I fail to see where the hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) is infringing the rules. I again ask that hon. members so conduct themselves as to obviate any necessity for a ruling by the Chair.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker,-


Hewitt Bostock: I must ask hon. gentlemen to remain within reasonable limits.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot hear you, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: I am telling the right hon. gentleman not to dilate too much on branches of the main subject.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to know that I am and have been in order. I shall try not to say anything that is out of order.


Arthur Meighen: You cannot.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) for whom I have a very great respect, said the other day, 
in his eloquent presentation of his case that the vote was a vote for national honour or national dishonour. The implication is that those who vote one way are verting for national dishonour and that those who vote the other way are voting for national honour. A further claim on the part of some of these gentlemen opposite would be that those who vote for honour are the Conservatives only-


Robert James Manion: The vote has not been taken yet.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -and that all those who do not vote their way are voting for national dishonour. Well that is a very simple line of conduct. Personally I have often wished, at least in my off times, that I had that view of life that enabled me always to divide the world into black and white, into the absolutely good and the absolutely bad, into perfect saints and hopeless sinners, and to say that one particular group is always right and the other group is always wrong. It is a very simple way of looking at life. It helps out in a great many ways, if in this building a man can go into a lobby or up into his room and do almost anything he pleases and then come down to this chamber and oast his vote in the right way. But I submit the question before us to-night is not quite so simple as that. It is not so easy to know just how to vote right; and I do say sincerely that men jealous for the national honour are sitting on both sides of this House. I think it is rather a dangerous practice that perhaps is growing on us, to claim that we and we only have such a policy and are true to our convictions and to our country. I am quite well assured that before this vote is taken some of my hon. friends with whom I have most closely associated during the last four or five years will vote the opposite way to which I will vote, but I want to assure them that although we can not see eye to eye in some matters, I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity of their convictions, I do not for one moment doubt the fact that they are exercising their best judgment. Nor do I doubt for a moment that they have our national honour at heart, and I would respectfully suggest that they ought if possible to extend some such consideration to those who are opposed to them in votes of this character. I feel this particularly because I know that a great many of us are finding it extremely difficult to come to a conclusion how to vote on a question of this kind. Let me repeat what I said in the early part of my remarks, that to me, as I have tried to consider the question, the vote is inseparable from the question of who shall

Customs Inquiry-Point of Order
be entrusted to administer our affairs. The parties must be judged by their policies, and by the records of those who are pledged to carry them out. I am not going into the question of records to-night. A good many people on both sides of the House have gone into the records of members on both sides, and perhaps enough has been said; but in making up our minds we judge in accordance with the policies of these men, and in accordance with their records.
Having in view the entire situation, I would say that I have not seen my way clear on this occasion to cast a vote which would automatically put the Conservatives into the place now occupied by the Liberals in this House. I am free to say that I think the conduct of the Customs department, has been, as the reports clearly state, anything but satisfactory.
Paragraph 6 of the report states:
The evidence submitted to ithe committee leads to the general conclusion that for a long time the Department otf Customs and Excise had been slowly degenerating in efficiency and that the process was greatly accelerated in the last few years. Apparently the Hon. Jacques Bureau, then Minister of Customs, failed to appreciate and properly discharge the responsibilities of his office and as a result there was a 'lack of efficient. continuous and vigorous control of subordinates by the Headquarters staff at Ottawa.
That is a very, very sweeping condemnation of the conduct of that department. How far the cabinet as a whole is responsible I am not prepared to say. How far the present minister is responsible I do not know that we have sufficient evidence to determine. We have had1 one or two cases, and with regard to these cases it does seem to me that there has been absolutely unjustifiable action taken, and that notwithstanding all the defence which was presented by the minister yesterday, and which, as I say, impressed me very strongly. Under these circumstances, as we have only the amendment to vote on, it seems to me that I cannot do better than to try to express, in the form of an amendment to the amendment, some of the views which I hold with regard to this situation. I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps):
T-hat all the words after the word "instructions" in the third line of the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
1.	To add to clause 4 the following; Since the enquiry indicates that the smuggling evils are so extensive and their ramifications so far-reaching that only a portion of the illegal practices have been brought to light, your committee recommends the appointment of a judicial commission with full powers to continue and complete investigating the administration of the department of Customs and Excise and to prosecute all offenders.
2.	That the following be added to clause 6: Your committee deplores the common practice, as revealed by the evidence, of members of parliament and others appealing to the minister to relax the regulations of the department for personal advantage ox political expediency.
3.	That in clause 8 al'l the words after the word "department" in the third line be struck out.
4.	That in clause 13 the name of R. R. Farrow, deputy minister of Customs and Excise, be added to the list of those who are recommended that their services be dispensed with.
And that the committee for such purposes be revived.
Just briefly I will give the effect of this amendment to the amendment. The first clause suggests that the inquiry has been very incomplete. I think in that I am simply stating what the committee itself has stated. The committee has examined in a general way the conduct of business at certain points in Ontario. In clause 4 the committee states:
The committee have not dealt, except inoidentiatly, with the middle west and the Pacific coast. To a degree, therefore, this report is incomplete and sug-i gestive rather than, final. Full audit and extra-departmental investigation would be profitable in improving the service and recovering a large amount of revenue.
Now in order to complete the investigation, and further because of the impossibility of obtaining justice in a parliamentary committee organized as a parliamentary committee necessarily must be with representatives of opposing parties on it, it seems to me we could not do better than complete the work which has been begun and carried1 forward for four and a half months, by the appointment of a commission which would be able to go out and survey the whole field of which we have investigated only a part. Further, I hope it may be quite possible to give the commission such powers as will enable them to initiate prosecutions and be definitely charged with carrying on work of that character. I am not very familiar with the appointment of royal commissions, and have not had a chance to consult with legal gentlemen to find out whether it is possible to invest such powers in them.	I think it is,
and it seems to me this would be the best means of completing the work which has been so well begun by the parliamentary committee. At this point I should like-and I do it sincerely-to pay tribute to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who has so earnestly worked' on this investigation, without whom the investigation would not have been held, and who, I am informed by more or less independent observers who have attended the committee more c'osely than I have, has been very definite and earnest in pressing forward the work of the committee
4934	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Point oj Order
which his action initiated. So I would suggest that we complete the work in this fashion:
2.	Tdiat the following be added to clause 6-
This is I think the proper place in which to insert the clause, since this is the place where a similar clause is inserted in the amendment.
Your committee deplores the common practice as revealed by the evidence, of members of 'parliament and others appealing to the minister to relax the regulations of the department for personal advantage or political expediency.
This is more or less of the same character as 'two of the clauses of the present amendment, but it leaves out the specific censure of the government and the specific censure of the minister.
3.	That in clause 8 all the words after the word "department" in the third line be struck out.
That is, that the Minister of Customs be granted no discretion whatever. According to the report he will be given discretion in cases under $200. The clause as amended would read:
The committee is of opinion that the administrative duties of the Department of Customs and Excise should be left to the executive officers of the department.
No. 4 would add the name of Mr. Farrow, Deputy Minister, to those whose services are to be dispensed with. I have not attended many of the sessions of the committee and I have not read all the evidence; but those who have been in closest attendance on the committee have assured me that there is a great deal more evidence against the deputy minister than there is against other officers on that list and that justice would seem to demand that punishment of a more severe type should be administered to him.
In closing I would hope that in his case as in some of the others, while full pension may not be granted, we carry out our ideals of justice in a generous way and that those men vho have perhaps done wrong under great .emptation should not be too harshly dealt .vith, but that in some way a grant might be made-especially for those who have been long in the service-so that they will not be thrown out on the street because of their actions in recent years.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to a point of order again. I contend that this is not an amendment to the amendment. The same relativity which must obtain between an amendment and a motion is not the relativity which must obtain .between an amendment to an amendment and the amendment. An amendment to an amendment must deal with nothing but the subject matter of the amendment. An amendment to a motion

does not require necessarily to deal only with the subject matter of the motion. This is only too plainly a mere device for getting rid of any decision on the amendment. If this is brought before the House, the House might decide on the merits of it; but if it decided in its favour, that would prevent the House from .deciding on the merits of the amendment, which is something wholly different from this.
Although I have not had time to go into the rules thoroughly, the rule is that an amendment to an amendment must necessarily be an amendment to that amendment and not a different amendment. This is a different amendment altogether. This could be moved after the amendment is defeated, but it cannot be moved as an amendment to that amendment. The effect would be, as is indeed evidently the intention, to bring something in to which there is no special objection, get a vote upon it and thereby get rid of the amendment that is before the House. Against that course I protest and in that protest I believe I am supported by the best authorities. It is certainly unfair to have this matter decided adversely now in any case. I am confident this cannot be considered an amend-to an amendment.


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I do not think the point is well taken. I contend that this amendment to the amendment is quite in order because it does deal with the subject matter contained in the amendment. The subject matter contained in the amendment deals particularly with two matters. The first is to refer the question back to the committee, and the second is to give instructions to that committee. I contend that in the amendment to the amendment we are referring the question back to the committee; we are also referring it back to the committee with certain instructions. The difference is that our instructions are not the same as those moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). I claim therefore that the House has the right to refer the matter back to the committee, and consequently the amendment to the amendment is in order.


Ernest Lapointe: The point of order is not well taken. As the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has said, the subamendmeat is in order. The amendment proposes to refer back the report to the committee for the purpose of, modifying it in some way, and the subamendment is, in effect, to refer the report back to the committee, changing the modifications which are pro-

Customs Inquiry-Point of Order
posed in the amendment itself. It certainly is in order. I refer Your Honour to May, 12th edition, at page 264:
Another proceeding may also be resorted to, by which 'an amenidmenjt is intercepted, as it were, before it is offered to the House in its original form, by moving to amend the first proposed amendment. In such cases tihe questions put by the Speaker deal with the first ^amendment as if it were a distinct question, and with the second as if it were an ordinary amendment. The *original question is, indeed, for a time laid aside; and the amendment becomes, as it were, a substantive 'question itselif. Unless this were done, there would be three points under consideration at once, viz. the question, the proposed amendment and the amendment of 'that amendment: but when the question for adopting the words of an amendment is put forward distinctly hnd apant from the original question, no confusion arises from moving amendments to it before its *ultimate adoption iis proposed.
In other words, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr Stevens) becomes the main motion and to that motion there is an amendment modifying it, but derived from the amendment itself. There is no doubt; the point of order is not well taken.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The Minister of Justice has quoted from page 264 of May. If he had read the concluding paragraph on page 266 he might possibly have modified his opinion. On that page, subsequent to the observations which the minister has quoted, this rule is laid down:
An amendment to a proposed amendment can not be Amoved, if it proposes to leave out alii the words of 'such proposed amendment. In such a case the first 'amendment must first be negatived before the second [DOT]can be operative.
I submit that the amendment to the amendment leaves out the substantive portion of the first amendment, and1 therefore cannot be moved until the first amendment is put to the House.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. CAHILL:: I rise to a point of order. The leader of the opposition has already spoken to the point- of order, and should not be permitted to speak again.


Hewitt Bostock: It is true the right hon. member has already spoken, but as a genera! rule some regard is had for the leaders on both sides. The right hon. member stated his objection, but as he said himself, he had not had an opportunity to consult the authorities, and undoubtedly he will have the indulgence of the House.


Frank S. Cahill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the indulgence of the House; but he is not entitled to speak as of right.


Arthur Meighen: I do not depend1 upon the indulgence, of the House bu't I do depend upon the indulgence of the (Speaker. The Speaker controls all discussion.


Hewitt Bostock: I am readjy to listen to the right bon. member.


Arthur Meighen: What I contend is this. In the case of an amendment to a motion to adopt a report, with one exception and one only over a long period of years, the practice has always been to move that it be referred back with instructions. There is no other method of procedure if the regular line of practice is to be followed. Then the substantive part of the amendment consists in the instructions only and nothing else, the first portion being merely formal like the word "that." The Minister of Justice argues that because in the subamendment there is the instruction to refer the report'back, therefore the subamendment has something in common with the amendment. As a matter of fact it has nothing whatever of substance in common with the amendment. It has nothing in common with the amendment apart from what is embodied in every amendment appertaining to a motion to adopt a report. It is therefore but the purest fiction -it is worse than that, it is a technicality which I hope will be repudiated very promptly -to contend that because that mere formal part is of necessity retained in the subamendment, therefore the subamendment embraces some part of the subject matter of the amendment. It does not. The instructions are wholly different; they are along a different line entirely. The object is just a device to prevent the House having an opportunity of passing upon the amendment.


Lucien Cannon: One word in answer to
the right hon. 'gentleman. There might be some foundation for his contention if the only way of moving an amendment to a report were the one adopted by the hon. member fior Vancouver Centre. But that is not the case. The right hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that two courses might have been followed in dealing with the report by way of amendment. The first was taken by the mover of the amendment, proposing that the report be referred back to the committee. The amendment seeks to revive the committee in order that it be instructed to insert a new clause in the report. That is one method of disposing of the report by way of amendment, and such an amendment must contain two fundamental elements, first the reference, and secondly, the instructions to the committee to which the motion is referred

4936	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Point of Order
back and for which purpose the committee is revived. Let us now consider the second way of moving an amendment to the report. That method, which any member of the House might have adopted, would be to move an amendment directly to the motion made by the chairman of the committee for concurrence in the report, by adding to that motion words expressing the opinion of the House on the subject matter. I refer Your Honour to a precedent to be found in the journals of the House of the year 1880 in connection with a report of the committee on Printing of that date. If the leader of the opposition will read that report he will see that his contention is altogether erroneous. I argue therefore that inasmuch as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre must embody two fundamentals, first the reference, and secondly, the instructions, the subamendment does not invalidate the amendment, retaining as it does the reference and merely modifying the instructions given to the committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is with a good deal
of pleasure that I find my original idea quite in harmony with what the Solicitor General has said. The motion which I submitted to the House by way of amendment followed precisely the procedure he has stated. Being desirous of conforming to the rules with exactitude, I submitted my amendment as then drafted to the officers of the House who, I understand, had consulted the Speaker, and I was informed that the form in which the amendment was drawn up was not in accordance with the practice and the rules and that it would have to follow the form in which it now appears. So I changed the drafting of my amendment to conform with the practice and the rules of the House as officially given to me by the officers of the House after consultation with His Honour the Speaker.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me? There is a distinction. I never contended that my hon. friend's amendment was not in order, but I say it is not the only amendment that could be brought in.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not quarrelling with my hon. friend at all. In fact, I am most happy to find that our minds flow in the same channel.


Lucien Cannon: Let them continue to do so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am pointing out precisely the course that was followed. It is scarcely -shall I say?-playing cricket to tell me now

that my amendment is in such a form that it permits another hon. gentleman to move the subamendment which has just been read, thus virtually denying to the House consideration of the main amendment which has been under debate for a couple of days. I feel great confidence. Sir, in submitting to your judgment this contention. For the sake of argument we will assume that there is some ambiguity in the rules, and that hon. gentlemen might be able to argue from those rules that this amendment to the amendment is in order. Then I submit to you, Sir, an argument which I think will appeal to you and indeed' to the House: that it is never intended by the rules "of parliament to prevent the House giving an expression of opinion on a subject matter that is placed before it in the form of an amendment to a main motion. In other words, the rules of the House are so designed, or at least intended to be so applied, that the House can give a fair expression of opinion upon the subject matter that may be placed before it for its consideration and debate. Therefore, I beg to impress upon Your Honour the thought that inasmuch as the subamendment will effectively and definitely prevent the House giving any expression of opinion upon the original amendment, it should stand and the will of the House be secured on the original amendment. If this amendment is lost, then the subamendment may. properly be moved as an amendment to the original motion.


Mr. MARCIL:: Mr. Speaker, any member of the House who objects to the subamendment has an easy way of registering his objections-by voting against it. The moment the subamendment is disposed of the original amendment can be voted on.


Arthur Meighen: Supposing a member has no objection to the subamendment, why should he be asked to vote against it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) permit me? I know that he has had a wide parliamentary experience. Following up what my right hon. leader has just said, with some of the terms of the suibamendment I am in accord, indeed I have already voted1 in the committee in favour of part of it; but if I vote for the subamendment now, I effectively do away with the main amendment which I myself have moved, and thus prevent any expression of opinion upon it. This I think is not intended by any of the rules of the House.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, before you give your ruling may I emphasize again what has already probably been stated pretty

Customs Inquiry-Point of Order
fully? At page 266 of the twelfth edition of May, speaking of an amendment to an amendment, the rule is distinctly set forth:
An amendment to a proposed amendment cannot be moved, if it proposes to leave out all the words of such proposed amendment: but in such a case the first amendment must be negatived before the second can be offered.
Now the only words left in this amendment are the introductory words, that is,
That all the words after the word "instructions" in the thind line of the amendment be struck out and the following be substituted therefor;
These are the words uip to "instructions":
That the report be not now adopted, but that it be referred back to the special committee with instructions-
That is the ordinary form which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was forced to take Iby the rules of the House. All the rest of the subamendment as proposed is absolutely different from the original amendment. I think it is absolutely without question that the subamendment is a complete reversal of the original amendment, and certainly is not in accord with the rule laid down by May which I have just quoted.


Ernest Lapointe: May I also crave the
indulgence of the House for another word in answer to my hon. friend? It is exactly the purpose of a subamendment to do what he has just mentioned-to give to those members who object to vote either for or against the motions that are before the House, and who prefer some alteration to those motions, the right to move a subamendment. I quote again from the twelfth edition of May at page 258:
The abject of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon, or to present to the House an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question.


Arthur Meighen: May I interrupt my hon.
friend?


Ernest Lapointe: Really I do not wish to have a discussion with my right hon. friend at this point. I am closing my remarks.


Arthur Meighen: Go ahead.


Ernest Lapointe: This is merely for the purpose of entitling my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre in the present instance, he not being satisfied to vote either for the main motion without any addition to it or for the amendment of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, to offer an alternative-an alteration of the main amendment that will express what he has in mind.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend the Minister of Justice has put forward a case which on reconsideration I am sure he will agree with me will not hold water. The effect of this subamenidment is of the greatest importance. The question is: are we entitled to have the opinion of this House upon a definite matter moved by a member in this House? Those hon. members who are opposed to the motion as moved by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre are in no way prejudiced; they can vote against it if it does not meet with their approval; then it is open to any hon. member to move another amendment that does. But the object of the proposed amendment now-


Finlay MacDonald: That is no argument.


Hugh Guthrie: Will my hon. friend allow me? The effect of the present motion is to deprive the member who has moved the main amendment of any decision on the question which we have debated for two days. Only the framework of the original amendment is left by the proposed subamendment.


Finlay MacDonald: Not at
all.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Hugh Guthrie: The substance is entirely removed. Take the case of hon. members who are in favour of the subamendment, who agree with almost all it contains, but it does not go far enough; they say: shall we vote for it, and thus deny ourselves the opportunity of voting upon the main motion?


Finlay MacDonald: You are arguing as to the effect, not as to the rule.


Hugh Guthrie: I am arguing as to the
rule. The rule is for the purpose of allowing a definite question properly framed and laid before this House to be definitely decided. I submit that the rule is well established; it is in accordance with all parliamentary practice and usage, and no one should be allowed to circumvent it by merely allowing the framework to remain while the substance vanishes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Might I be allowed just
one observation? The statements of the hon. member are valid in so far as they apply to a sub-amendment which alters the amendment, which makes some addition to the amendment or subtracts something from it, but which does not substitute an entirely new clause. This is not an alteration; it is a substitution pure and simple, and comes under the rule which I quoted.
4938	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Point oj Order


Finlay MacDonald: Hon.
gentlemen have been discussing the effect of this amendment as though they had read it with the greatest possible care. I might point out that I heard it read by the hon. gentleman who moved it and by Your Honour, and if I have any sense of what the proposal is it makes several distinct amendments to the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) instead of being an absolute substitution.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is a complete substitution.


Finlay MacDonald: Not at
all; my hon. friend speaks with a great deal of positiveness, but I do not know where he gets his information.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have read it; my hon.
friend has not.


Finlay MacDonald: If the
hon. member makes amendments to several clauses of the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre-


Robert James Manion: But it is proposed to alter the report, not the amendment.


Finlay MacDonald: If the
amendment proposes to change in different respects the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre it is clear to me that under the citations already given it is well within the rules.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who prepared it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Someone asks who prepared it. I may say that it was prepared with the help of my colleague and was submitted to the officers of the House before being presented here, so it will be seen that we took reasonable precautions to make sure it was in order. On the point of order I would like to say that it seems to me there must be some reasonable opportunity given others than one group to decide as to what should be changed in a report of this character. Otherwise it would simply mean that an alteration could :be made in one particular clause only, and the rest of the report could not be touched. This follows closely portions of the amendment. For example, the amendment itself says in one of its clauses:
Your committee deplores the practice, as revealed by the evidence, of certain men influential in public life to direct appeals, to the minister to relax and depart from the pro-per administration of his department for reasons of political expediency.
'Mr. Cahan.]
The clause as we propose it is as follows:
Your committee deplores the common practice as revealed by ithe evidence of members of (parliament and others appealing to the minister to relax the regulations of the department for personal advantage or political expediency.
Our amendment seems to follow the lines of the original clause very closely, only in my humble judgment it is worded a little better than is the original.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is absolutely no difficulty; all the groups in the House have no difficulty in getting their motions brought forward. The hon. gentleman is in no difficulty, and as his argument was based upon such a difficulty I no longer refer to it. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) again is under no difficulty. He wants a chance to vote on this question; he can do it very well and legitimately by allowing the amendment to stand as it is and add this subamendment to it. There is no necessity to strike out the one thing which we have been debating for two days.


Finlay MacDonald: You
are not, talking of the rules now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says I am not talking of the rules; I am trying to answer arguments which, possibly by some error, may have been thought to have something to do with the question. That argument was made by the minister and I am trying to answer it. That question gan be voted on; this amendment to the amendment could be made an addition to the amendment. But, Mr. Speaker, apart from the fact that possibly the rules are so badly drawn, and possibly because they have been so badly administered sometimes, there is a danger that everything we have been doing for the past two or three days may be thrown away, and I want to pause for a moment or two. I submit to you, Sir, with much deference that the real governing idea of rules is to see that the House gets an opportunity of passing upon questions regularly submitted to it. This question has been submitted regularly and the House has the right to have the opportunity, as I submit, of passing upon the merits of the question which we all know-coming to realities and getting away from shams-to be the real question before the House. We submit that we have followed the practices of the past in this regard. It would indeed be unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, if by reason of the fact that the form adopted here is the form advised by the officials of

Customs Inquiry-Speaker's Ruling
the House, the plain right of the House to vote upon this question should be taken away; that is really what this whole argument amounts to. It is perfectly clear that if the subamendment had been put in the regular form followed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre it would be entirely and absolutely out of order. If it had been put in that way all that would be left would be the word "that," but the adv.ice of the officials of the House, fortified by your decision, Sir, and your direction, means that we put in the words "that the report be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the subcommittee with instructions"-technical words, having nothing to do with the real merits of the case. If the result be that by following that form the right which we would otherwise have is taken away, all I submit is that that result would be extremely unfortunate.


Hewitt Bostock: Do any other hon. gentlemen desire to speak on the point of order? I have been in the chair since two o'clock yesterday afternoon, and I feel that I would not render justice to the case if I were to give my decision immediately. I would ask, as it is my right to ask, to postpone my decision until this afternoon at two o'clock. I want to give justice to all parties; the arguments on both sides have been very elaborate, and I would not feel justified in giving a ruling to-night.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) said that he had consulted officers of the House in drafting his amendment, and I said that the amendment was drafted in the proper form. I was not consulted with regard to the amendment to the amendment. I wish to say this because otherwise some hon. members might think that I had expressed an opinion on matters which are being debated by the House. It is the duty of the officers of the House to give information to all members-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Hewitt Bostock: -who come to them. I may say that I endorse absolutely the view taken by the officers of the House in regard to the drafting of this amendment. But I certainly would not like to have it thought that I had expressed any opinion on the merits of the question before the House. Of course I know the hon. member for Vancouver Centre had no sinister motive in making the statement he did.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I appreciate always the courtesy of being
allowed to consult the officers of the House and it was in that connection I made the observation I did.


Hewitt Bostock: Certainly, and the officers of the House are there for that particular purpose. I hope hon. gentlemen will not be disappointed if I do not give a ruling on this question to-night. After having been in the chair all day, and the present sitting having been extended to such a late hour, there is not sufficient time to consult the necessary precedents, authorities, and practice. Therefore I ask the indulgence of the House and the courtesy of being granted sufficient time to enable me to consider the question from every point of view and give a ruling which I hope will be satisfactory to all parties.
On motion of Mr. Rheaume the debate was adj ourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 1.14 a.m. (Thursday).
Thursday, June 24, 1926