1926-02-02

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House) moved;
That when this House adjourns immediately after the conclusion of the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, it stand adjourned until March 15, 1920.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped-I do not know that I could expect, but I think I would have been justified in expecting as well as hoping-that my hon. friend at present leading the* House (Mr. Lapointe) would have given us some reasons why his government thought it necessary at this particular point to admit their total incapacity to carry on public business. I take it that my hon. friend deems that task perhaps very difficult to accomplish. Whatever apologies may be made and they must be feigned, they cannot be real-the fact is that by this motion the government say: We are not in a position to carry on public business. Although we called parliament for the purpose of carrying on public business, although we held ourselves out as a government constituted and functioning, we are not; we cannot carry on public business. Then, Sir, it becomes necessary to make this motion, perhaps the last phase of a series of contortions and attempts to keep in office a government that ought not to be in office. The House has been engaged upon a work which some members may look upon as humanitarian. They have been proceeding under the impression that a work of resuscitation is necessary. But this is not a case of suspended animation, this is not a work of resuscitation. This government is dead-and only its supporters do not realize it.

Adjournment of the House


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. gentlemen opposite may laugh, but I just want to tell them, Mr. Speaker, that they are not the country. They may attempt to undo the work of the people at the polls, but they cannot undo it. They may attempt to hold up-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. gentlemen laugh; it is the only argument they have in the present case, and they are welcome to laugh. It is all that is left to them to do. No, it is something which cannot be done; the wave of public opinion, dissatisfaction and discontent which smashed this government, defeating nine of its ministers, is not going to be stopped by any puny efforts of this House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of reasons, I desire to ask on what possible grounds this government can ask this indulgence. In the first instance I desire to point out that my hon. friends themselves have put it out of their power to ask this adjournment. To-day they have no right to ask this adjournment, unless it is that we are to go on drifting in this House without any idea of procedure, without any idea of rights, of nothing except that the time of the House is to be wasted. Why do I say that? I say it because unquestionably, in certain instances, governments which have been shot to pieces the way this government has been might approach the House with a view to seeing what the wishes of the House were. This government has not chosen to take that course in the constitutional way. On the other hand, instead of following the regular procedure in a case of this kind, where it was thought necessary to get some advice from the House in a situation of difficulty, it has taken upon itself to function in the ordinary way and having functioned in the ordinary way it is not entitled to the adjournment. What the government has done is very simple. I am quite sure my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) knows the constitutional authorities just as well as, if not better than, I do. But something was necessary here; this is a government which can only exist by purchase, and as it only exists by purchase it was necessary-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the words, exists by purchase. Since it only exists by purchase it was necessary that terms be made, that the Speech from the
Throne should come down, and that we should travel along with opportunities for hon. gentlemen to get still further commitments from this government. So it was done. But, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends cannot ride the two horses. They cannot on the one hand come to parliament and say, "We are ready to go on with business; here is our Speech from the Throne and we are willing and ready to implement that Speech," and then turn around and admit, as it is admitted in this motion, that they cannot function; that they are not ready; that they can do nothing, and that the Speech from the Throne was merely a sham, a holy statement of what they hoped some day to do. But the bills are not drafted; the House cannot get on, and they say they must have an adjournment. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends cannot ride these two horses. A government coming to the House not fully constituted and requiring time to complete its organization is usually a new government, and I am perfectly willing to admit that my hon. friends can find any number of precedents where a new government, for the purpose of forming its cabinet, gets an adjournment practically as a matter of course. But this is not such a case. This is not a new government, but the shattered remnant of the old. My right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) has tried to get from this government some idea as to what the resurrected form is to be, but he cannot get even a suggestion. Certainly before this motion should ever pass the House ought to know what this government intends to do in the vacation; to what purpose it intends to put the time; what departments are to be wiped out; what departments are to be continued, and how this broken up, broken down, government is to be reconstructed. But we cannot get that information.
As I remarked before my hon. friend the Minister of Justice knows the practice in such cases as well as the author of the book I have before me. Nevertheless, I intend to draw the practice to the notice of the House. I read, Mr. Speaker, from May's Parliamentary Practice, 12th edition, at page 142. This paragraph deals with a situation where the government is not in a position to carry on. Perhaps it might be the existing government or perhaps a new* government, but the body which took upon itself the right to carry on and was not in a position to do so. This is the procedure as laid down by this authority-


Mr. POULIOT:: I would like to ask the hon. member before he goes on, if he has purchased this book.
Adjournment of the House


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I submit, M'r. Speaker, that if the mover of the motion speaks he closes the debate; we are certainly not through.


Ernest Lapointe: Was it the purpose of my hon. friend to prevent me from speaking?
Adjournment of the House


Henry Lumley Drayton: I regretted that when Your Honour put the question, my hon. friend never rose in his place when he ought to have risen.


Ernest Lapointe: I quite agree that I,
having moved the resolution, have lost my right of speaking only by way of reply after the others have all spoken. I had intended, however, to speak on the motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what I intended to do, and my hon. friend-I am in the judgment of the House-jumped to his feet and prevented me from doing it. However, it is all right.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: The government is dead.


Henry Lumley Drayton: May I make a suggestion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All right, I am quite content.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: I think you, Sir, will agree that parliament today is faced with an entirely unprecedented situation. I am perfectly aware that precedents have not counted for very much in this parliament; but I question whether jyau can find an analogy for what is presented to us to-day in the history of parliaments! anywhere. We have a government, or what professes to be a government, calling parliament together in terms such as these: " For the despatch of business, to treat, do and conclude ''-and so on. This parliament was called to meet on January 7, but in order that we may get a background for the manner in which it was summoned and the reason of its being called, perhaps I may be permitted to go a little farther back in retrospect.
The last parliament was dissolved about a year and a half before its time when there was at least another full session ahead! of it had the government desired to carry on. Parliament was dissolved on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and I have under my hand the Prime Minister's own statement as to the reasons why the last parliament was dissolved, and the necessity with which he and his government were faced for a fresh appeal to the people. I do not intend1 to go into those reasons at any length more than to say that the Prime Minister himself, in setting them forth, dteclared that Canada was confronted with three outstanding problems of the greatest importance-problems that he

and his government could not cope with, problems such as parliament itself as then constituted could not deal with. These were transportation, immigration and the fiscal policy.
At the moment I am not going to enter into a consideration of either of these three problems, beyond pointing out that because these problems could not be solved, according to the Prime Minister, without a new parliament, the last parliament was dissolved and an appeal taken to the people. What happened after that appeal it is unnecessary for us to go into, but hon. gentlemen sitting on what is left of the government benches know the facts perfectly well. Subsequently a series of statements was issued to the Canadian people by the defeated Prime Minister as to the course he intended to pursue, and afterwards we were called here under the terms set out in the proclamation in the Canada Gazette summoning parliament. Parliament met in due course and a speech was placed in the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General, which speech is presumed to outline the programme with which parliament is supposed to deal. We have been here now almost four weeks, discussing this programme-this so-called programme-of proposed legislation; and we have reached the point where the government comes to us to-day and says, "Notwithstanding the fact that, we called parliament together from the four corners of this vast Dominion

brought members here from the Yukon, from British Columbia, from the Northwest Territories, and from the Maritime provinces at very considerable expense and trouble to themselves-notwithstanding the fact that we have set in motion all the machinery of parliament, notwithstanding the fact that we are presuming to continue to function as a government, we cannot proceed beyond this point. We must have an 'adjournment, we must have a period of delay in which we can dicker and deal as we may, in order that we may put a little new flesh around our naked bones and enable us to carry on a little further." And what reason was given for this? The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) speaking in the House a few days ago, said that he considered it only fair that the Prime Minister should be given some opportunity to form a new government. How long is it going to take the Prime Minister to form his new government? That government was shot all to pieces on October 29 last. Has he himself recovered from the shock he received in North York, or is he still in such a haze of thought that he has found it impossible to make up his mind as to what kind of government he is going to form?

Adjournment of the House
Is not three and a half months sufficient time to enable the Prime Minister to determine whether he is going to have a government or not? Mr. Speaker, if we will look dispassionately at this whole matter, we will find the real reason why parliament was called. It never was the intention of hon. gentlemen opposite that parliament should come together on January 7th and deal with the Speech that was put into the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General. I make bold to say if the catch resolution proposed by the Minister of Justice on the day this parliament assembled had been accepted by the House, had it been possible for the hon. member opposite to have had that resolution passed, the Speech from the Throne would not have been considered at all. No, that was not the purpose. The purpose in bringing parliament together, as I said a moment ago, is being disclosed! in the resolution today, and it is very manifest to anyone who has been following the course of events ever since parliament assembled. What was it? It was simply that by sophistry or by any other means they liked to employ, they might extract a vote of confidence from parliament that they were unable to get from the people on the 29th October last. They wanted to put Mr. King in this position; that he could go into the far-off constituency of Prince Albert, in the northern part of Saskatchewan -not daring to open a constituency in his native province of Ontario or Prince Edward Island where he last had a seat in this House, not daring to open a constituency in New Brunswick, or in Manitoba or in British Columbia or in any of the other provinces-but in order that he might go into that constituency, not as a defeated Prime Minister, not as a candidate who had been refused endorsation by the constituency of North York, but as a Prime Minister who had1 freshly thrown over his shoulders the mantle of confidence that he had extracted from the members of this House by the promises in the Speech from the Throne.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) asked a moment ago: Have any of these pressing problems with which the country was facedl on the 5th September last, when the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King was speaking in North York, been solved? Has parliament given its attention to any of the things pressing upon the Canadian people? Has the transportation problem been solved? Has the immigration problem been solved)? Has the fiscal problem been solved? Are we on the way to solve any of these problems? On a motion
such as is before the House to-day I am conscious of the fact that it is not in order that we shall discuss these things, more than to say that the transportation problem is still pressing. The people of Canada are getting day by day further and further away from the possibility of ever making the Canadian National Railways a success, because of what is taking place and has been taking place on account of the inefficiency of the government which has occupied the seats on the other side of the House. The immigration problem has not been solved, but the emigration problem is being intensified because of the fact that our own Canadian citizens cannot get employment in their own country. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal in the last two or three weeks in regard to the improved conditions throughout the country. There is no Minister of Labour on the government benches; there is no Minister of Immigration and Colonization, so far as we are able to tell, and no government to which we can appeal; there is no Minister of Railways and Canals, and I would challenge any member of the remnant of this government, or any member sitting on the other side of the House, I care not who he is or where he comes from, to point to a single village, town or city, in this vast Dominion from North Cape Breton in the east to Vancouver Island in the west, where a dozen Canadians can go to-day or to-morrow with a reasonable assurance of getting honourable employment. And yet hon. members say conditions are as they should be in this country, that there is no further necessity for parliament to continue in session, and that we do not need now to consider the problems which the Prime Minister said were so pressing.
We have seen and have heard some strange things within the last three weeks in this House. We have heard it stated for example that the expressed will of the Canadian people in a general election need not be given consideration, that it is the right of parliament, of members of the House of Commons, to come to this House, and, in direct violation of the expressed will of the people, take whatever course they chose. We have seen the Minister of Justice standing in his place, pointing his hand to members on this side of the House and saying, "We will be able to carry on with your co-operation, but if you are not prepared to co-operate we will carry on in spite of you.'' We have heard of the Minister of Customs and Excise going to Montreal and telling the people there that this government will carry on if they get the support of parliament, but that they will
Adjournment oj the House

carry on whether they get that support or not, and that nothing but a vote of the Canadian people will cause the government to resign. Taking such a position, they have not only flouted the country, but have thrown back into the faces of the Canadian people the verdict that they rendered when they defeated the government at the polls and declared that Canada required a new government. Now they come and say, "We have no further use for parliament. It is true we brought you here and asked the members to come and conduct the people's business, but parliament is an inconvenient thing for a government such as this." You know, Mr. Speaker, that when parliament is in session the government may have to answer questions, and that there should be a government to answer these questions. When a programme of legislation is submitted it is necessary that there shall be a government or members of a government, to take direction of and responsibility for that programme of legislation. These hon. members know there is no such government. They know that in reality there is no government that can take direction of or responsibility for this legislation, and consequently they want to get rid of parliament. They want to send the members of the House back home and take a further six weeks, which will bring us to the Easter recess, without parliament having done one thing towards enacting any of the legislation they submitted to parliament, or without having made one single step towards solving the problems they said they had to solve. It is true that only a few days ago one of the ministers sitting on the government benches, speaking with regard to one of these problems said, "How can a parliament constituted as this is, or how can a government in a parliament such as this, solve a problem of that character?"-referring to the transportation problem, repeating what the ex-Prime Minister has said in announcing the dissolution of parliament. At the time of dissolution he had a clear majority in the House of Commons of members on his own side, and he was consistently supported by sixty-three or sixty-four members in the Progressive group during the whole session of parliament. But he said, "I cannot depend on this kind of support. These are not the members of parliament the government should have behind them if they are going to solve such problems." In other words he said, "We want members of parliament who are capable of dealing with problems of this character." Now they come back and say, "Notwithstanding all that we have said, notwithstanding our condemnation of this group as a menace to 
the public life of this country,"-to use his words as expressed in Regina and Saskatoon- "if we can extract from them by any means whatever a vote of confidence that will make it possible for us to ask parliament under these circumstances to carry on, we will endeavour to do so."
During the weeks that have passed one thing has been made clear, and perhaps the government has accomplished one thing that it set out to do. As far as we can learn, it has been able to establish a definite, offensive and defensive alliance with the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) who leads the Progressive group and such of that group as he is able to bring in behind him and in support of this government. Notwithstanding the bitter things that were said with regard to myself and other members in this group by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) in his speech of a few days ago, I have no objection to the hon. member for Brandon entering into any alliance that he chooses with the Mackenzie King government, or with Mr. Mackenzie King himself, or with those who sit in the gallery and direct from there the course that this government shall take. But it might be interesting for the House just to have put before it the terms under which this alliance has taken place or is to take place. On January 11, the Ottawa Citizen, the special organ of Mr. Mackenzie King, and proclaiming itself as the special organ of the hon. member for Brandon as well, had this to say:
The Progressives can co-operate with the Liberals, just as Labour members can co-operate with the Progressives, without sacrificing one iota of political independence.
I question very much whether the hon. member for Brandon would have to go very far in making sacrifices if his independence were called in question in connection with this matter. The Ottawa Citizen continues:
At the same time, it will need to be whole-hearted, effective co-operation. . . . There is, of course, the sad tale of the young lady of Riga, who rode on the back of a tiger, and there is also the story of the spider and the fly; but radicals and Progressives who feared to attend a Liberal caucus, lest they suffered a like fate, would label themselves as frail young persons or silly flies.
This is the conclusion:
There is this question to be taken into consideration, however: Unless the government has the assistance of Progressive members in caucus, to help to enlighten members of the Liberal party, or to interest some indifferent members, how can ministers be expected to shoulder the burden of putting the desired measures through parliament? The government must be assured of effective co-operation.
The writer in the Ottawa Citizen need not have worried as to that. The government, or such members of the government as were

Adjournment oj the House
left at that time, had no thought of shouldering any responsibiliy for putting any measures through parliament as parliament is constituted to-day.
Just a few days later, on January 15, the hon. member for Brandon made this statement as reported in the Toronto Star:
There will have to be some means of co-operation. We can't sit on the fence and simply pass judgment. We will have to agree to co-operate with the government in putting through that legislation which they have promised.
There is the other side to the contract. The conditions were laid down in the Ottawa Citizen under date of January 11:	That the
Progressives should go into caucus; that they should enlighten the benighted members on the Liberal side of the House, and the terms of capitulation were outlined in the statement given to the Toronto Star. Following on a little further, we find this statement on January 28:
The legislative programme of parliament was under discussion at a lengthy conference which took place between Premier King, members of the government and the executive of the Progressive party to-day.
I wonder which members of the government are referred to. Were the Montreal and Toronto wings of the government there? At this point, may I say that members on this side of the House have the utmost sympathy for hon. gentlemen who are endeavouring to carry on as the government in this country. It is not an easy matter, nor a pleasant task, for members to foe faced day by day with problems such as are likely to come up in a parliament constituted such as ours is, and to find it necessary to go to the gallery or to some room in this building to consult with Mr. Vincent Massey, or to go down to Montreal to consult with Mr. Marler now that the so-called head of the government has hied himself to western Canada. The article continues:
The conference lasted for two hours and Progressives attending in addition to Mr. Forke were Miss Agnes MacPhail, -Southeast Grey; H. E. Spencer, of Battle River, chief Progessive whip; Robert Gardiner, Acadia, Alberta, and J. L. Brown, of Lisgar, Man. Mr. Spencer made no statement following the conference.
At the conclusion of the conference, Robert Forke, Progressive leader, said that the discussion had been harmonious. Present indications were that the Progressives would be able to co-operate with the government-
Under the terms set out in the article published in the Ottawa Citizen on January 11 under which they were to go into this caucus, to enter into these conferences. In other words, they were to surrender themselves. It is just as well that that should be made clear. As I said a moment ago, I have no objection, I have no right to urge any objection in this
regard. The hon. member for Brandon is master of his own destiny and master of the destiny of what is left of his party.


Mr.   M AVI ON@: The master of the government as well.


George Brecken Nicholson: As my hon. friend says, he is master for the time being of the government itself. But if he considers and if the government considers that that is a good position for this country to be 4 p.m. placed in, there are on this side of the House members who do not agree with them. Members of parliament have some responsibility. The people of Canada, when they voted for the men and the one lady who constitute the members of this House, knew that they were faced with serious situations and real problems. They did not send us here lightly. They did not expect that we were coming here simply to while away our time, to go back and forward between Ottawa and our homes at our own will and without any regard to the public interest. There are some of us who do not feel that we should do that sort of thing. I feel it to be my duty to put every obstacle that I am capable of putting in the path of this government carrying on as they are attempting to carry on now, in the first place, flouting the will of the people and, in the second place, bringing parliament into utter and complete contempt. That is the position in which we are placed to-day. Parliament was summoned to Ottawa four weeks ago. What for? As the terms set out-to enact a programme of legislation; to deal with the country's business. We have been here for four weeks, and we have witnessed during the last four days a scene never before presented, when a government afraid to carry on and to face a division has continued putting up one speaker after another.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What are you
doing now?


George Brecken Nicholson: Never mind what I
am doing now. When some hon. members on the other side have the grace to answer what I have said, they can say what I have been doing. What I have been doing and what I intend to continue doing is to point out the utter and complete impotence of this group of men who call themselves a government, and I intend so far as I am able to lay before the people the exact situation. Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, I conceive it to be my duty, I conceive it to be the duty of every member of independent mind, to say to this government:	Bring on your
Adjournment oj the House

programme of legislation, put before us the things that you asked us to come here to deal with. We are prepared to go on, and you have no right to ask for this adjournment. If you could not form a government in the last two or three months, what opportunity have you for success in the next six weeks? So far as I am concerned, I am ready to stay here and see this programme of legislation carried out.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) has told the House that Premier Mackenzie King said in Saskatoon that the Progressive party was a menace to the public life of this country. I desire to say that I was present-


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman has said enough to indicate that his point is anything but a point of order.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I was present
at that meeting on the public platform with the Premier-


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is not a question of
privilege.


George Brecken Nicholson: Bring Mr. Mackenzie King here to make his own apologies.
Mr. .PETER MoGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):	Mr. Speaker, it is very hard for
me to say anything disagreeable about the government. For four years they have been so hopelessly incapable, so hopelessly incompetent and so hopelessly weak that they have my sympathy. But sympathy apart, this government should not be allowed to adjourn parliament even for one hour. They have no right to because they do not possess the confidence of the country; they never did possess it. They do not possess the confidence of this House. What is worse, Sir, they have no confidence in themselves. But over and above that, they have lowered the political morality of this parliament, and they should be chastised for it. They should tender their resignation. We have seen a spectacle that I believe has never before been witnessed in any legislature of the British Empire. A Speech from the Throne was presented to parliament which the press from one end1 of the country to the other designated as a piece of bribery to the members who sit to my left. That is the universal verdict of the press of the Dominion concerning the legislation which is foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne.
But worse than this, Sir, we have had the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin)

proceeding to Montreal and there making a set speech, in the course of which he stated in effect that the government would flout the will of this House and would only consider an adverse verdict of the people a sufficient reason for resigning from office. Moreover, he used a threat to hon. members to my left -and right here let me say that I rather admire his courage. He is one of the few examples of courage that I have seen from his side of the House. He told them as plainly as the English language could express his meaning that the Progressives had to vote Grit or face another election. I repeat, I rather admire his courage. If his government has sufficient courage to back up that statement, undoubtedly it will get that support; there is no question about it in my mind. I do not wish to be considered at all disrespectful to hon. members to my left when I say that if they were found voting with me, I would probably be defeated in the next election. I won my election last October on certain principles-I won it by standing for protection for the farmers, for the labouring men and for the manufacturers of this country. The people of my constituency know very well that that is not the political creed of hon. gentlemen to my left, and I say again that if they were to link up with me and the other members of my party, I would probably find my 3,600 majority transformed into a minority at the next election.
This government never did possess the confidence of the country. This government was forced to the people last fall by the volume of public opinion which was expressed against it from one end of the country to the other. I repeat, Sir, the government did not have the confidence of the people at that time, and still less have they it now. I say it is nothing more nor less than an affront to the electorate for this debilitated, exsanguinated, weak government to ask for an adjournment in order that its members shall proceed to try to build up another government in the next six weeks. I tell them, it cannot be done. I have in my time stood by the deathbed of a great many patients, I have put into their veins the strongest stimulant known to medical science, but it failed because the human battery was discharged. As I look at this government in its weakness 'and in its impotence trying to transfuse some blood from the Progressives into its veins, I see how hopeless the case is. It is simply impossible, because you cannot revive a political corpse. When the death card is made out, Sir, there will be no doubt about the cause of death,

Adjournment oj the House
there will be no need of a post mortem to tell the country why this government went down and out. It met its fate simply because it failed to do its duty.
The duty of a government, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, is to improve the condition of the people, to make them more happy and more prosperous. Will anyone who has surveyed the Dominion for the last four years tell the House that the condition of the people has been improved, that they are happier and more prosperous than they were before? Why, Sir, we stand to-day as the fourth highest taxed country in the world; only Germany, Great Britain and Japan are paying more taxes than Canada. The taxes taken out of the people to-day for federal, provincial and municipal purposes -amount to $25 in every $100. Yet this government has stood by for four years and has not done a single thing to relieve that burden of taxation; in fact, the burden has been made heavier, as everybody knows.
Now, I say again that this government has not the slightest right to ask parliament for an adjournment for even one hour. The business of this country must be looked after. We have a great army of unemployed workingmen who hardly know where they are going to get their daily bread, and if this government remains in power much longer the people will be coming here and praying, not to heaven but to the government:	Give us this
day our daily bread. I say that the business of the country must go on; this government or some government must function. This government has proved itself absolutely incapable of carrying on, and some other government must be put in its place. Speaking for my constituency, we demand the resignation of this government. We refuse longer to give them the right or the mandate to even call themselves a government. They never were a government and certainly in the dying hours of their existence they cannot be called such. So I say the business of this country has to be carried on, the business of this House has to be carried on, and some little deference should be paid to members of parliament who neglect their business and come here expecting to do what they are called to do. But we come here and are told that we can go home again for another six weeks. If the hon. members of the government have nothing to do, if their time is of no use either to themselves or to the country; they must not think every member of this House is in the same position.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, there are certain matters which it seems to me might be taken as axiomatic in a discussion of this kind. We had a general election in this country on October 29 last, and following that election the supporters of the now opposition numbered more than did those of the administration. Parliament was called for December 10 and subsequently for January 7, and we convened here with a Speech from the Throne. The government challenged its fate very early in the session. That motion was not proceeded with, and the opposition moved an amendment which resulted in the government being sustained in their views by a majority of three-or, owing to the absence of one member of the opposition, more properly by a majority of two. Last evening the government was sustained by a majority of ten. The government has asserted its ability to function as a government; it has contended by meeting parliament that with the aid of a certain group it will be able to carry on, and on the two questions which have been raised the government has commanded a majority.
But let us see the terms upon which they have challenged their fate and the terms upon which they asked this House to meet them as a government. I was rather curious to observe the language of the Speech from the Throne. Without in any sense discussing it in detail, it will be observed that measures are there suggested which are ready to be considered by this House at this very moment. That is, the government has said that they propose forthwith to do certain things. They have asserted1 that they have measures ready to be considered by this House. I do ask, and I put it to my learned and hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), if that is conducting the affairs of this country in accordance with the principles of modern democracy. The government promised to the people of this country and their elected representatives, in the Speech from the Throne, that if they were given the confidence which they sought and did obtain on two votes, they would function as a government and proceed with certain measures. That is what the government promised. Is there any doubt about that? Can there be any question about it?
Now, look at another part of the Speech from the Throne. I observe, for instance, that they say certain of the departments of the public service will be consolidated with others, and government services more effectively coordinated. There is a statement
Adjournment oj the House

of a fact, or of an intention, at least, to implement a promise by legislation. I submit that this , legislation must be known to this government; they must know now, they must have known when they asked His Excellency to meet this House; they must have known at that moment what departments were to be wiped out, and what departments were to be coordinated. Therefore that legislation must be ready for this House to consider. Is it right, or just or fair; is it consonant with sound and decent principles of integrity that they should1 ask this House to adjourn now in the face of that direct promise with respect to legislation? I ask my hon. friend then what departments of the public service will be consolidated, and if the legislation is ready. If he cannot answer that question he should not have put those words in the mouth of His Excellency when he met this parliament. They either know or they do not know. If they do know we should be told; if they do not know they have deceived parliament and the people of this country. But they go further. They say they have formulated and put into operation a comprehensive immigration plan. They do not say they will formulate, but that they have formulated this plan, and having done so, why should1 not this House know what [DOT] that plan is? Having formulated that scheme in the Speech from the Throne, why should they break faith with this parliament?
Then they proceed a step further and say that a measure will be introduced offering wide facilities for rural credits. Where is the measure? I could quite understand my hon. friend asking for an adjournment if he had said "We have not our legislation ready; we have a legislation programme which we have not included in the Speech from the Throne; or do not know what we may ask parliament to pass, or what statutes they may be required to enact." But in the face of these statements, in the face of the declarations to this parliament contained in the Speech from the Throne, in which they say these things are ready, how can they expect the people of this country to believe that government is other than organized hypocrisy?
Then I proceed further, reading from the Speech from the Throne:
A tariff advisory board will accordingly be appointed forthwith.
Not next week nor the week after, but forthwith. It therefore follows that they are in a position to enact that legislation and to place upon the statute books, .if it be necessary, such enactments as may be essential for the purpose of giving effect to that

promise. Surely it requires no adjournment for that. May I remind this House that they ask for an adjournment until March 15 at a moment like this, when tax returns have to be made, when we have business in the spring beginning to anticipate the new ventures into which men will enter with their capital for the year, and we find these words appearing in the Speech from the Throne:
In the opinion of my ministers the improved conditions warrant further substantial reductions in taxation.
Why should that be deferred? Why should the people of this country be kept until the fifteenth day of March, and then beyond that, without knowing what is to be done? Why should instability, insincerity and doubt prevail in this country when-this government has said that these things should be done?
Further we find in the Speech from the Throne that there are trade agreements with the British West Indies, Bermuda. British Guiana and British Honduras which will be submitted for the approval of the House. All these things are ready, so why should this parliament be deprived of the opportunity of discharging the duties resting upon it as the legislative body for this Canada of ours, merely because it suits the convenience of some ministers or someone who alleges that he is the Prime Minister?
Then go a step further. The Speech from the Throne says:
My government propose to submit provisions for the completion forthwith of the Hudson Bay railway.
And a royal commission for the Maritime provinces. All these things were to be done forthwith. They went a step further and said that certain amendments were to be made to the Dominion Elections Act, and that legislation was to be submitted for the purpose of handing over its natural resources to the province of Alberta. The legislature of Alberta is about to meet; it has been called, I believe, to meet at an early date. Is the legislation of that province to be held up, are we to be deprived of the opportunity of putting this legislation and the other measures outlined in the Speech from the Throne upon the statute books at an early moment, merely to suit the convenience of a gentleman not in this House? I name these things for this reason, because they indicate clearly that if this government was sincere-and I use that word not offensively-if it meant what it said by the language put in the mouth of His Excellency when it met this parliament, then they have a legislative programme ready for this House to consider. If they have no legislative programme ready, they should have

Adjournment of the House
said so; but if in saying they have a legislative programme ready they have deceived us, then I submit they are not entitled to an adjournment under any conditions.
I am not unmindful of the difficulties to which my learned and hon. friend referred the other day, but they are difficulties, I submit, under the authorities, that are not known to a government such as this. This is not a new administration that comes to take office from predecessors who have resigned or have been driven out of the seats of the mighty. This is a continuing administration. It has sought the confidence of this House as a continuing administration. It obtained the confidence of this House as a continuing administration. It had a majority of three and again of ten given it 'by this House of Commons to carry on as a continuing administration, and not as a new administration. If, indeed, it had been a new administration, the authorities are plain and simple; they could then have come here and asked for an adjournment until such time as the new ministers could have obtained election in their several constituencies. I said some days ago, and I merely remind the House now, that in 1868 when Disraeli resigned and Gladstone took office, Gladstone was not able to sit in the House of Commons, and when parliament met in pursuance of the call sent out before Disraeli resigned, there was no ministry on the treasury benches at all, and parliament adjourned to enable Gladstone to come back to the House, which he shortly did. But no such condition obtains in this House. Here a continuing administration asserts and alleges that it is in office; it asserts and alleges it is the government that sought a mandate from the people, and says it obtained a mandate from the people to continue in office and carry on the business of this country. We on this side of the House have joined issue with them on that point. It is true that, thanks to the support given to them by the gentleman from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), by the gentleman from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), by the Independent gentleman from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), and by the gentleman from Brandon (Mr. Forke) and his followers, they have retained office, but they do not retain office because the government was elected as such by the majority of the constituencies of Canada. They do it because they have been able to manipulate-I do not use the word offensively-the constituencies and the members in such a manner as to be able to retain office. But having retained office, hav-14011-41
ing met this House, it is their duty, it is their obligation, nay, it is more that that; it is more than an ordinary duty and an Obligation, it is a greater duty still to bring down their legislation, because they have made the representative of the crown in the Speech made to this House use language indicating that a legislative programme was prepared for our consideration, which programme they could submit to this House without the necessity for an adjournment. All this leads, then, to this: Had it been a new administration coming back and assuming office, the members of which had to seek re-election in their several constituencies, it is clear that under the par-* liamentary practice that ordinarily affects the conduct of political parties, they would have been able to ask for and obtain an adjournment; but when they say, "We are the government"-and the very language used by my learned friend when he submitted his motion to the House on the first day of our meeting indicated that he was seeking confidence in the government, not in a new government, but in the then existing government, confidence for the continuing administration, and that confidence he obtained in another manner than the manner in which he sought it at the moment-under these circumstances, I submit to this House that this government has made out no case, they have not sought to make out any case, that entitles them to an adjournment of this House. My hon. friend who leads the House did not see fit to give any reasons why there should be an adjournment. Probably it will be done in due course, but I do submit that so long as you have a legislative programme, and the Speech from the Throne indicates there is legislation ready for consideration, if there is business to be transacted in this country, it is the duty of this parliament to continue and transact it. That is the position.
My hon. friend said the other day, and very properly from his standpoint, it seemed to me:	We have difficulties; we want to
reorganize our government. But this parliament has a right to know in what manner it is proposed to reorganize this government before an adjournment is granted. The language used in the Speech from the Throne contemplates that being done, but it has not been done, is not being done, and therefore I submit this adjournment should not be granted.
Let us go a step further. An adjournment is sought until the 15th day of March. Within a few days after that, or perhaps at that very time, the people in the west will begin to

Adjournment of the House

become interested in crops. I am not concerned, it is true, about the attitude of my friends to my left, as to whether or not they regard their duty on their farms in the west as being as important as their duty to come back here, but this I do say:	There are
men in this House who have many things to do; there are members of this chamber who are busy men, and when parliament is called for the purpose, as the proclamation summoning it said, of despatching business, and when the representative of the crown in a solemn speech stated what .that business was and is, when further in that Speech it is stated that ' the government are ready with their measures, then I submit that comity and courtesy require that those matters should be submitted to the House for their consideration without further delay. It is- not a sufficient excuse, much less a reason, to say that some men who want to be here are not here; therefore, we cannot do these things. This government made no such excuse when it sought the confidence of this confiding Chamber; it made no such excuse when it sought the support of gentlemen to my left. They, for good reasons known to themselves, and which I do not question as it is not my concern, gave their confidence and support to this administration; but I ask them if the people of Canada sent them here for the purpose of bartering away six weeks of good time in useless delays. That is a matter which doubtless they can settle with their constituents, but I know mine did not send me here to sit, then to adjourn for six weeks, and come back when the spring is here and the summer months coming on, when men grow listless in the discharge of their duties; but rather they sent me here at the season and time parliament is called upon to function to discharge my duties to the best of my ability. I believe that is what my constituents expect me to do, and I believe the constituents of my friends to my left expect them to do the same thing. So much for the practical, ordinary side of the question.
I try to put myself in the position of my hon. friend, to recognize his difficulties and understand them, but after all, there must be some regard paid to parliamentary practice and usage. If a programme is ready-you cannot deny it, because if you do, you have put something in the mouth of His Excellency that was not true and have deceived the people-if you have your programme ready, proceed with it. There is business enough to engage the time of this parliament till the Prime Minister comes back. There are trade

treaties to consider, the reorganization of departments, and surely we do not require his massive eloquence for the purpose of enabling us to pass this legislation. Surely this House can function in his absence with respect to these measures, which are not in some sense highly contentious. Surely in the next six weeks we can get much work done that must be done before we leave here.
May I for a single moment look at another side of it? May I venture in all seriousness bo direct the attention of my hon. friends opposite to the fact that parliamentary institutions in this country are at a very low ebb in public opinion? I say that in no offensive way, because I am at the moment a member of this Chamber, but I realize, as many men must realize, that there is abroad a feeling in this country of almost contempt for our parliamentary institutions. That is nothing to cheer for, nothing to applaud about. It marks a decadent people when these institutions, which have been created by the struggle and the toil of the majority of the Canadian people, have fallen into such contempt that men look upon them with suspicion and use language with respect to them that will not bear repetition. That is what is taking place in this country to-day. Part of it is attributable to the fact that the great mass of the people having voted by an overwhelming majority against the men who are now upon the treasury benches, realize that no combination of forces, and no chicanery and no bargaining that keeps them in power is consonant with the true principles of enlightened and uplifting democracy. We realize that, for instance, when we hear the winning sentences of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) in favour of democracy and then see the hon. gentleman vote for the combination of circumstances that makes possible this almost fraud upon government, this bringing into contempt of our institutions, this holding on to power by the government by the skin of their teeth, to use, I think, the language of Scripture. In view of these things I ask myself, and I ask my hon. friends, whether or not it is desirable now to abandon further opposition and let this House continue to function. I put this to hon. members: In all seriousness what are the people of Canada saying about this? They say this is an arrangement made between the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) and somebody else by which this House is to have a holiday for five or six weeks. They ask: What is the reason? The reason, they say, is because Mr. King is not here.

Adjournment oj the House


An hon. MEMBER:: And Mr. M'assey.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They may say Mr. Massey as well, but nobody takes him very seriously; he is probably more concerned about reparations than he is about parliament; and so far as regards another defeated member of the ministry from one of the Montreal constituencies, if one is to judge from the election addresses, he is more concerned about his exalted social position. However, leaving that for the moment I ask my hon. friends opposite to say if they consider what the effect of these proceedings is upon the public mind. I do not argue for a moment that hon. gentlemen opposite have not just as high regard for public opinion as I have, I do not arrogate to myself any monopoly of virtue in that respect, and I ask them seriously, as men entrusted with power and responsibility, as to what the effect of these proceedings is upon the public mind. 1 do not know that in my life I have ever observed anything that I regard as a more serious blowT to democratic institutions than is to be found in the correspondence set forth at page 560 of Hansard. This is the correspondence that took place between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mir. Woodsworth) and the Prime Minister of this country. Ah! sirs, let us think of it. A majority of three. With one of the opposition absent, a majority of two members, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Woodsworth) was not slow in asserting out of this House that he and his colleague from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) controlled the destinies of Canada. Now, Sir, five days ago, five short days ago, the Prime Minister of Canada in a letter refers to an interview he had with the hon. gentleman who represents Winnipeg North Centre and his colleague from North Winnipeg, and he merely says this: " What you ask you get Have parliamentary institutions fallen so low that our Criminal Code is to be amended, that a government may remain in power? Has democracy sunk so low that the Immigration Act and the Naturalization Act are to be amended to enable a government to call itself such? That is the aspect of the matter which I put to hon. gentlemen. Read that paragraph from Mr. Mackenzie King's letter to which I have reference:
With respect to amendments to (a) the Immigration Act, (b) the Naturalization Act, and (c) the Criminal Code, which were referred to at the time of our interview, I would say that having since taken up the proposed amendments with the ministers concerned, I feel I am in a position to assure you that legislation on these matters will also be introduced in the course of the present session.
14011-41J


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: What is the date of the letter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is dated January 28,
five days ago. Let me put this to my hon. friends opposite: Did the Liberal party decline to become a party to that legislation for the last four years? Yes or' no? The answer is, it declined. Has it now agreed to it? The answer is, it has. When? Five days ago.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend says
"no," but I happen to know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-that not then being the name of his constituency -pressed for such amendments as are involved in the Naturalization Act and the Criminal Code without success. To-day he has the promise of the Prime Minister of Canada that he is going to get them. Now, I do ask my hon. friends opposite, whose love for this country is quite equal to that of hon. gentlemen on this side-they love their country, they are patriots, they love its institutions, they respect and honour them-I ask them to consider this: In all seriousness do they for a moment think that to ask this House to adjourn for six weeks for the reasons given, under the circumstances stated is to do other than to bring into still greater contempt than they are now held, the institutions under which democracy flourishes in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not a matter
to smile or laugh about. It is in my judgment a matter that strikes at the bed rock of our institutions. We have parliament called, we have its business stated, we have the representative of the sovereign stating that he has his business ready, and now on the second day of February we have that same government saying "We want to adjourn until March 15 because we have made an arrangement with someone to do it." I ask hon. gentlemen opposite if that is the idea they entertain with respect to our democracy.
I cannot add anything further to this debate; but after all, Sir, many of us are not here for pastime. There are some of us who have serious business to do in this world, and some of us find it a very great sacrifice to be here. Most of us are endeavouring, as best we can. to make some little contribution to the welfare of our beloved Dominion. I do say, Sir, and I ask my hon. friends opposite -filled with the same motives, inspired I trust by the same common desires-whether
Adjournment oj the House

or not they believe that at this time and under these circumstances they are not striking one more blow at the regard in which our institutions should be held, one more blow to create a more settled public opinion of distrust, suspicion and contempt for our institutions-one more blow to our democracy, to make the historian write that democracy has indeed been a failure rather than a success.
I entreat my hon. friend before the matter goes too far to ask himself whether the government has not business to submit for the consideration of parliament during the next six weeks, while the Prime Minister is travelling to and fro through the country, not seeking whom he may devour, but seeking, like Noah when he came from the ark, a resting place.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: What strikes one in the course of this debate is certainly the silence of the government on the one hand and the silence of the Progressive party on the other. We have before us a motion which I think all will agree is a most unusual one, yet up to the present time we have not had one single syllable of explanation on the part of the government why this motion has been launched. I think perhaps some little misunderstanding did take place when my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) made his motion. I watched him at the time and I made up my mind that he did not intend to speak-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no.


Hugh Guthrie: And before he had risen
to his feet the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) had the floor and proceeded to oppose the motion in the usual way. It would have been better for the House if the Minister of Justice had introduced his motion with something by way of explanation, and if by the rules of this House, through a misunderstanding which arose, he was precluded from speaking at the time, there are a half dozen other ministers in the House who could easily have taken his place and have made the necessary explanations.
Although we have been discussing this matter for well on to two hours and half a dozen members at least on this side of the House have spoken, yet we have not had a single syllable of explanation from the government side. Not one reason for this unusual motion has been advanced either by the government or by those who are supposed to be in league with the government in this
[Mr Bennett.]
matter. Why this silence on the part of hon. members of the Progressive party? Why do they ask for six weeks' adjournment at the present time? Why is such an adjournment necessary in their view? Why should the House accede to such a motion? Will none of them speak? Will none of them give a reason? Is there something so dark and so improper about the proposal that no one dare speak about it? Why not make a clear breast of the situation and plainly inform the House why, in the first instance, the government has made the proposal, and why in the second instance the Progressive party has reluctantly agreed to it? Until we have some explanation as to this matter we remain very much in the dark. But being such an unusual motion on t'he part of the government at this particular period of the session, we on this side of the House have the right to oppose it and to give our reasons for opposition as clearly and as definitely as we can.
This motion is interjected in the middle of an important debate in this House. Whether or not that might be called a matter of disrespect to His Excellency I know not, but certainly in the very middle of an important debate, a formal debate and a time-honoured debate, a motion is interjected which in all my parliamentary career I have never seen done before. What is the reason for it? I think I may well describe it as what lawyers know as a dilatory motion. A dilatory motion is one not favoured either in principle or in practice. It is a motion to postpone the happening of an adverse event of some kind. Has the government in its mind in this motion merely the retention of power for an additional six weeks? Are they only seeking to postpone the fatal and fateful day for this House? They have given no reason. Is that not the correct reason? They assume to be a government. I agree with the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) that they are supported in that assumption in the two votes that have taken place in this House. Then, being a government, why not proceed to govern? Is the reason for the delay now sought by the government an admission by the government of the fact that they are not in a position to govern in this parliament? Is that not a fair interpretation of the situation to-day and the real reason for the motion? I think I am correct in saying that this question raises some very practical issues in this chamber, in this parliament and in this country.
It raises a very practical issue with each hon. member in this House. We have come from various parts of Canada, and some of us from very distant parts. We have made

Adjournment of the House
our arrangements to remain here during the session of parliament, to continue our residence in Ottawa until our parliamentary duties have been performed. Now the government proposes to put us in such a position that we shall have to disrupt these arrangements, make new arrangements at great personal inconvenience, and in many cases at great personal loss. That is a practical matter, but I do not think that should weigh any too heavily in considering this question. But there is the other side of the question, and that is the effect of this adjournment upon the Dominion of Canada. That is a matter with which we in this House are most concerned. I take it that the most that can possibly be urged by the government in support of this motion is that it is a matter of ministerial convenience, that it is a delay sought by them to give them a chance to reorganize and to shape themselves into something like a government, instead of that combination of shreds and patches which we have in this parliament to-day. Why not proceed to do that while the House is in session, prepared to do business, actually doing business, while the head of the government is not in the House but is seeking re-election? Why not make the same attempt in regard to the other vacancies in the cabinet of this government? In that way no inconvenience will occur to t'he country, because the work of parliament will still go on, and the measures which the government has ready and those which it has in contemplation can be brought down, debated and passed. (No delay and no injury will ensue to the people of the Dominion.
I bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) a situation which exists in that part of Canada which I have the honour to represent, a situation which is critical and concerning which I have letters almost daily. It has been pressed upon me by my constituents that I take the first opportunity to urge the government to do something to solve a problem which is becoming highly critical in central Ontario to-day. I refer to the coal question. I have been waiting for my opportunity, but it has not come to me yet. This is the second day of February in mid-winter. Six weeks hence will be the 15th of March when the worst of the winter weather will be over, and to-day in central Ontario we have no coal whatever.


Mr. MALCOLM:: The hon. gentleman is
speaking of only one grade of coal. There is all the steam coal anybody wants.


Hugh Guthrie: I am speaking of the
ordinary coal which house-holders in my riding and I myself use. That quality of coal is not obtainable in central Ontario to-day, and the price of coke, which we have been using as a substitute for the last two months, has risen until now I am told it has passed the seventeen dollar per ton mark and is scarcely procurable at any price. What are we going to do? Parliament is sitting here to-day, having in its power, to a very large extent, the solution of that problem, and in face of that situation, known to everyone in this House, the government says: We propose to adjourn this House for the next six weeks. Why not solve that problem? I have little hope, and I have had to tell my constituents that I have little hope, that this government will ever solve it.	For . four
years, year after year, the question has been up in this House and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), who is not in his seat at the present moment, has put us off with excuses. He has delayed us session after session, telling us that he has been experimenting here and experimenting there, but so far he has been able to do nothing. V/s want in this country a government that will act and act instantly on this matter, not a government that will come to parliament and say:	Notwithstanding that situation, of which we are aware, we desire that this House now stand adjourned for six weeks until the worst of the. winter weather is over.
This motion for delay for six weeks is one in which ministers are not themselves entirely disinterested. One has only to remember the famous Richmond Hill speech of the Prime Minister when he spoke of the salaries and the sweets and emoluments of office. An adjournment for six weeks does not stop a ministerial salary. The sum of $1,200 will be drawn by every minister of the crown in those six weeks, and their term will be prolonged to that extent at least. Therefore, they are not entirely disinterested in the matter of adjournment, and let me tell hon. members of the House of Commons that perhaps we too are to some extent interested in this very question. The period of adjournment would be counted in the sitting days of this House. Is it right that, knowing these facts, and without knowing any good reason for an adjournment, we should now grant the request of the government in that respect? Have we not an interest in the matter? I submit we have. The whole country is watching us to-day; the whole country expects us to continue to perform our duties, to advance and to pass the.
Adjournment oj the House

legislation which the government says it has ready and which it has promised to bring down to the House. It ill becomes the government, without a word of explanation, to make a motion for six weeks' adjournment, and it ill becomes the Progressive element in this House, without a word on their part, to support such a motion at this very critical stage of the session.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to introduce a slight degree of the practical touch in this debate? We have heard again of precedents, of awful encroachments upon the dignity of this House and the rules of parliament. I was not so very much struck with that, but what is, I think, stronger in the arguments raised by hon. gentlemen opposite is the fact that we should not adjourn for six weeks without proceeding with the business of parliament. Personally I desire to hear from the government good reasons.to justify that proposal of an adjournment. May I find some on my own account? Much has been said about compacts, agreements behind closed doors, and so forth. As I have not been invited to any of those meetings, I can speak quite freely. My party has not been a party to any compact or understanding of any kind.


Mr. MANION:: The hon. member's group is not large enough.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Let us wait for the end of the session or the end of parliament. There are many ways for a man or a group to make his or its influence felt. Some people are not in a hurry, are not desirous of remaining in power or of getting into power and, therefore, they can bide their time to have their . views accepted by one party or the other, or by any party.
Hon. gentlemen have expressed their feelings of horror at the idea of what may have passed between the government, the Progressive group and even my good neighbours to my right-Labour members. Probably because I am an older parliamentarian than many of them, I am not very 5 p.m. much scandalized at that. On the contrary, I think what is going on now is creating a very good, a very healthy precedent. Let me put it in concrete form without any intention of offending anybody. It looks to me as if the Progressive party were supplying some of the principles of legislation and as if my hon. friends to my right were supplying other principles. Before the session is over, I may also supply some principles of policy. The function [DOT]of the Liberal party will be to supply votes

to uphold those principles. It will be a very happy combination. It will put a new and broadening spirit into an old party and give a practical strength of action to new groups. May I say right at once, at the risk of scandalizing anybody or everybody, that should gentlemen opposite be on this side of the House, in the same position as these gentlemen are, to command the same rather shadowy majority which this government commands, I would feel disposed just as I feel now, to give them fair play and tell them on what conditions I was prepared to vote for them or against them. This is, apparently, what members of the Progressive group have done. That is what my two good neighbour have done; and I think they did the right thing by themselves, by their constituents and by their country. Far better, Sir, "open covenants openly arrived at" between honest people, than secret understandings between any party and some group or association of business men.
If the policies dictated or imposed upon the government by those gentlemen-or let us put in it a milder form-if the policies which members of the government have been persuaded to adopt as proper for this country are good policies, when they come down we will see to them, and we will remain as free as we are now to vote for or against the measures brought forward by the government, according to the terms under which those understandings will be presented to this House. For my part, Sir, I want to make it quite clear at once, on this motion or any other motion that may be presented during or after the debate on the Address, that I am not going to give my vote to turn one party out just for the sake of bringing the other party in. I am not going to help by a snap vote a change of government, just for the sake of putting some gentlemen in office in the place of some other gentlemen. No, I am going to reserve my vote of approval or disapproval for any measure that may be brought forward, and I am going to give that vote according to what, in my humble opinion, are its merits. This is not a pact between the government and myself; it is a pact of honour that I have made with a large majority of the people who sent me here to represent them.
Now, Sir, something has been said about the contempt of the government for public opinion. All governments have to a certain degree contempt for public opinion as long as they find that they can go on without minding public opinion. That was my experience during the years I was in this

Adjournment oj the House
House, and that is the conviction I have derived from reading the history of public affairs in this country, in England, France, the United States or any other country enjoying so-called representative government. Full of love for the people-when the votes are rvanted: full of respect for public opinion -when public opinion is strong enough and has manifested itself with regard to any given question; but absolutely no consideration for public opinion as long as public opinion is silent or undecided. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), whose oratory I have admired as usual, has spoken to us of the attitude of the government towards the public. Another gentleman -I think it was the member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson)-spoke to us of consultations with people outside. Well, again I repeat, it depends altogether upon the nature of the consultations and upon the people also whom you consult outside. It seems to me that one of the causes of the crisis through which parliamentary government is passing the world over, is that too many holders of office under the parliamentary system of government, and too many representatives of the people in the various parliaments of the world, have come to the conclusion that they can form a kind of close corporation so long as they can hold their mandates from a certain party organization, and that they can laugh at the rest of the people. I have come here resolved, and I should like to see that resolution developed in all representatives of the people, not to take this House too seriously, but to take the people outside and the interests of the country a little more seriously.
May I tell my hon. friends that I have been for a long time in the serene atmosphere of observation-outside of parliament of of course-of various currents of opinion? The other day I was talking to a good Conservative friend of mine-a thorough Conservative, a thorough supporter of gentlemen opposite-and I was asking his opinion and, through him, what the people in his town and surrounding country were thinking of present conditions in parliament. He said: Of course, most of the people I meet are Conservatives, and they have the utmost contempt for the Mackenzie King administration; but I must add, they think just as little of the opposition. Therefore, Sir, I think it is a good thing that new groups have come into this parliament to act, so to speak, as arbiters between the two parties.


Mr. CHABOT:: He must have been an
Independent.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, he was a thorough
Conservative. I should not like my right hon. friend to ask me to be too precise, because it anight put some of his friends and the gentleman himself in an awkward position. But I have never in my life broken the secret of personal conversation, and I am not going to begin to-day.
I think it was the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) who referred to me, but unfortunately he turned towards you, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I lost a few of his words when he made a slight reference to myself. Not that I attach any importance to my person, but I understood him to say that I had informed the House that the Liberals had no principles. Was that it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was referring to a remark of the hon. gentleman when he spoke of the Liberal party of another day as a party without principles.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so-I stick to
that-precisely. We are here to supply the principles, that is what we are doing; and if hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side, well, we would help them-at least, I for one, with the little influence I could command, not inside but outside; it counts for something outside-I would use all that influence to help, for example, in that happy evolution which has been taking place in the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and in some of the organs of the opposition, especially in the province of Quebec, where the Conservative party is presented as the party which will save Canada in future from the horrors of war and the depredations of imperialism. I would do it with pleasure. I say it in all seriousness, having convinced myself through my long experience in parliamentary life, that the best thing for a party is to be helped, to be looked after, from the outside, to expect punishment or reward from independent people outside, from people who do not look to them for favours, but who are prepared to support them or condemn them according to the merits of their policy. I claim, Sir, that it is for the good of this party, and it is for the good of the other party also. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to my mind, if the government has sound reasons to give for asking for this adjournment, I am not prepared to refuse it to them.
May I suggest, again to show the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) that I may have some of the practical touch which has characterized his political career, that there is another branch of this legislature. It has
Adjournment of the House

been at times attacked by gentlemen on this side, by gentlemen on the other side-the Progressives-and I think also by my two neighbours. Perhaps, I stand here as the only one on this side prepared to uphold not only the rights but the usefulness of the Senate. I am surprised that gentlemen on the other side, who have constituted themselves the defenders of everything which is traditional, which is constitutional, have not yet suggested that for the one month extending from February 15-the date when I understand the other House will convene again-to March 15, some of those measures announced in the Speech from the Throne could well be initiated in the Senate. It would advance the business of parliament; it would help in solving some of those pressing problems which, whether they are considered from the Liberal side or the Conservative side, according to public opinion surely, are important. It would also give that upper house a chance to show its usefulness. It would strengthen the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite-and may I add, my own hands-in preventing abuse of or attacks on that upper house by hon. gentlemen on either side of the House. Therefore, why not agree to something practical? If the government have good reasons for adjourning for six weeks to reorganize their government, or rather to complete their government, I would not grudge them the delay. But I would ask if they could not get some of their legislation initiated in the Senate, and have the Senate prepare the work that we will take up after adjournment. It seems to me this is a practical solution.


John Léo Chabot: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he desire to insinuate that this House has the right to determine definitely the procedure or policy of the Senate with regard to this period of time or any other period?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh no.


John Léo Chabot: That is what the hon.
member was trying to convey to the House.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. gentleman
could not have followed very closely what I said. I stated that the government could initiate in the upper house some of the legislation which is announced in the programme. That is my understanding of British precedents, British constitutional history and British custom. The only difference is, that being somewhat more British than some of those in the Old Country, I do not want the Senate to be shorn of its powers in the same

way the House of Lords has been in England. The government could initiate some of its legislation in the Senate. This has been suggested time and again; if I remember rightly a committee of the Senate once reported on it. If I go back in history, Sir Richard Cartwright spoke of this same question in the Senate itself, on that famous question of Senate reform, which comes periodically, like other forms of epidemics and current fevers. I do not think any government, no more Conservative than Liberal, has acted very much in a practical way on that basis of reform and initiation of legislation.
The hon. member for West Calgary made the point, which from a lawyer's point of view may be a very strong one, that this i3 no new government; that they have always claimed to be a government and have acted as a government in having a programme prepared and put into the mouth of His Excellency. Therefore, my hon. friend said, they are not entitled to an adjournment as a new administration would be. There is something in that argument; but it must be admitted- and I am freer to say this than some of my hon. friends on this side of the House-that if it is not a new government, it is a pretty crippled one. Everyone will admit that it has been amputated in a rather severe way.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: May I ask
my hon. friend if it is because of the fact that it is a crippled government that it cannot proceed?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think my hon. friend belongs to the medical profession. In the intervals between amputations performed on the French language, it must have been his experience that if you cut off three or four of the limbs of a patient, he will be in a somewhat difficult position the next day; you must give him time to recover.


John Wesley Edwards: That particular organ which manufactures the gall is-still working for the government.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: May I suggest that the government is at present in the process of
convalescence, just out of the hospital? In fact, to a certain extent at is still in the hospital, and for toy part I am not prepared. to be too bard on the convalescent.


John Léo Chabot: And the prognosis is very bad.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: My hon. friend's prognosis is perhaps somewhat coloured in blue at present. But I am prepared to give the government a chance, warning them that the

Adjournment of the House
moment they recover some of their forces, they must not be misused. Therefore I humbly suggest that these measures announced in the Speech from the Throne, which are not of a very controversial nature and which would not have the effect of disturbing the peace of the upper house, should be introduced there. Hon. gentlemen opposite have,
I believe, a majority of votes in that chamber-if 'there is such a thing as a party majority in the Senate, contrary to the precedent established by Sir John A. Macdonald at the time of confederation. He declared then that the iSenate should never be a partisan body. If the partisan majority is there, hon. gentlemen opposite should) have no hesitation an allowing tihe Senhte to deal with some of these measures. The Senate is a branch of parliament. We have been talking While the Senate has been resting. Perhaps the Senate could set us a good example and begin working while we rest, waiting for the results of these by-eletati-ons.
It is just as well to display no hypocrisy in connection with these matters. The main reason why I am prepared to vote for this motion of adjournment is because I do not believe we will do any useful work until these by-elections are over. Human nature is there and we may just as well admit it. If I headed a party and had a candidate in the field I would do exactly the same thing; that is, the opposition and the government will go on making stump speeches in this House for use in the by-elections. That will not advance the interests of the country; that will not advance the interests of the coal consumers, the farmers or the labourers of this country. Therefore, I am prepared to vote for the closing of this electoral committee until the by-elections are over. That would permit the hon. members of the serene house to do some useful work in preparing some of the work we will have to attend to after the adjournment. Perhaps this is not altogether according to precedent, but it may be a concrete expression of the ideas floating in the minds of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, which party etiquette and party exigencies would not allow them to express for themselves. I for one will vote for the adjournment, to allow those hon. members who so desire to go and look after the by-elections, and at the same time make the other party responsible for them.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I have had for many years a very warm admiration for the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), and a personal
friendship arising out of very intimate relations of life which I trust will never be severed so long as we both remain on this terrestrial sphere. But with respect to his political opinions, while I sometimes agree with them in part, we have always agreed to disagree and we have become very warm disputants on many occasions. I agree with him in some respects with regard to the place which the Senate occupies in the parliament of this country, the responsibilities which are placed upon it and the constitutional liberty it enjoys in dealing with measures coming from this House. It preserves, as it is bound to preserve, the rights and relations of the several provinces. But I entirely dissent from the suggestion that this House should abdicate its functions in order to - permit the Senate, in the absence of the Commons, to function as a Senate.
I also agree with him that the principles upon which this present attitude of the govern-men is founded are supplied entirely from outside its party-by the two hon. members of the Labour party; by the hon. member for Labelle, who represents his own party, and especially by the hon. leader of the Progressive group (Mr. Forke). Now that is a clear, sheer abandonment of the first principles of responsible self-government, and in his heart of hearts my hon. friend knows it-because I know him well and respect him much, and there is no member of this House, there is no public man in this country, who has a more sincere respect and admiration for the constitutional principles on which British government is founded than my hon, friend from Labelle. Therefore what is necessary is this, that we should resume the function of responsible selfgovernment in this country before this House adjourns.
We all know that my distinguished friend the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who has led1 this House for the government with such ability, as we all admit, during these weeks, does not represent the real Prime Minister, the grand master of the administration to-day. We know, and it is freely admitted by my hon. friend from Labelle, that the really important measures submitted to this House are measures which are not really submitted by the government of its own initiative, but that the real framers of these measures, and those who are framing them today, are the hon. leader of the Progressive group (Mr. Forke) and those associated with him. We know, they know on the government side, and the hon. leader of the Progressive group knows, that with respect to rural credits the hon. leader of the Progressive



G50 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Adjournment oj the House
group and his associates are framing that measure, that they are the men who are responsible for that measure, though perhaps they have not made up their minds as to the exact terms which should be incorporated in it:	That being the case I say that the real
master of the administration to-day-
Mr. STEWART (West Edmonton):: May I ask where the hon. member gets his information with respect to rural credits?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I say we all know it. This much I think is sure, that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), who has just asked a question, knows full well that the terms of the proposed rural credits bill have been suggested orally or otherwise to the Progressive group, and that they are to-day holding session after session, as they have in the last few days, to consider those terms.


Charles A. Stewart: All I have to say is-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Interruptions can only be allowed with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In order ,to re-establish
responsible self-government in this country it is necessary that the member of this House who is responsible for the measures introduced into this House, the man who commands the majority in this House by which those measures may toe supported and carried through, should take his place in the seats of the government as the leader of the government, and not sit mute in his seat as the hon. leader of the Progressive party does, although that power is now vested in him and in the supporters sitting around him. If its platform and measures are to be supplied to the government from outside; if the new principles of the Liberal party are to be framed outside and incorporated into their new legislation; if there is one man in this House who really controls the majority and who is in a position to carry through those measures, I say that we will never have responsible government until that man sits on the opposite side and holds office in the government of this country, and is in a position where every member of the House has a right to interrogate him with regard to the terms of his policy, and as to his future purposes with respect thereto. That is my personal reason why I cannot vote for an adjournment of the House until these matters are thoroughly readjusted in accordance with

what I still believe to be the first principles of responsible self-government.
I might consider at length some of the other matters suggested by the hon. member for Labelle, but as I do not think they are relevant to this question of adjournment I will now take my seat. I .thank the House for its kind attention.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, it is very flattering to me to see hon. gentlemen to my right so pleased to see me on my feet and hear what I have to say on the subject before the House. I am rather surprised to find hon. members to my right so anxious to know what we think in this part of the House. I would remind them that silence is sometimes judicial, and that much noise is not an argument.
I hear a great deal at this time about what the people in the country are thinking. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Conservative organs in Canada at the present time are telling the people anything, they are telling them some tremendous stories about the corruption and terrible degradation that is taking place in this parliament. Again I repeat, noise is no argument. They ate trying to mislead the people of this country as to the conditions that exist in this parliament at the present time. When I had the opportunity to speak before, I made the statement that I knew nothing about this corruption, this bribery, this terrible thing that is taking place in this parliament and is bringing parliament into contempt all over the country. I do not know anything about it. What are the gentlemen referring to? What do they mean when they use language of this kind? I am aware of nothing that I have done that is dishonourable either to the party to which I belong or to the Dominion parliament. What is this pact? I have before me the returns of the last Dominion election. It shows that 1,467,596 voters in the Dominion voted for the Conservative party. Against that, there were 1,689,975 who voted on the opposite side.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert James Manion: Did they vote for the Liberal party?


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The proceedings of the House must be conducted in an orderly manner. I would ask hon. members not to interrupt without obtaining leave from the hon. member who has the floor. If the hon. member for Brandon is not willing to grant permission, nobody may interrupt him.
FEBRUARY 2, 1926	6ol
Adjournment of the House


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Brandon remained in his seat. It was our loud talking friends opposite who objected. The hon. member himself made no objection.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon. member for Brandon to proceed with his speech.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder, when I hear members to my right making remarks about who has the confidence of the people of this country and hon. gentlemen here show by their votes who has the majority in this parliament, by what process of reasoning they make out that they are the proper parties to carry on the government of this country at the present moment.


Arthur Meighen: Does not the same process of reasoning show that the government, having received a minority of the votes polled, have not the right to carry on the administration?


Robert Forke: I do not think so. Perhaps I am a little slow in my reasoning but I cannot see it just exactly in that way.
Having said this much I wish in a few words to explain why I intend to support the motion of the hon. member who is leading the House. A good deal has been said by gentlemen to my right about the great disadvantages that they are subjected to owing to an adjournment, and their having to come back and the session running into the summer. I want to put this to hon. members: Are there any hon. gentlemen in this House who are put to greater disadvantage than the members of the Progressive group? Most of us are farmers, our whole occupation depends upon our summer endeavours, and the longer the session extends into the summer the more disadvantageous it is to us to have to attend parliament. But, Mr. Speaker, no matter what may be the sacrifices we have to make we are here to do what we believe to be in the best interests of the whole Dominion. We are ready to make those sacrifices, and I can assure every member of this House that to me it is a great disadvantage that we are likely to adjourn for several weeks.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why support it then?


Robert Forke: I heard the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) make the statement a few minutes ago that he was ready to place every obstacle in the way of this government carrying on.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not say that.


Robert Forke: Hon. members to my right declare that he did not say so. Very well, let them look at Hansard to-morrow and they will find that he did make the statement. I think it slipped out accidentally.


An hon. MEMBER:: Make your own speech and never mind the speech of anybody else.


Robert Forke: I think I have a right to repeat a statement of that kind. Now, as to the adjournment, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has stated the case very much as I see it. If by-elections take place during the next few weeks we shall have the spectacle of hearing speeches from both sides of the House which will be nothing more or less than election speeches and I feel-I think the members with whom I am associated feel the same-that we might just as well spend those few weeks at home as remain here and listen to speeches of that sort, without transacting any business.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: It is all very well to dissent from that, but we have had some experience in the past. This is my fifth session in parliament. I know something about the way business is carried on, and that is what I feel sure would take place. I do not believe any business amounting to anything would be transacted if by-elections were taking place, because hon. gentlemen on both sides would be deeply interested in what was taking place at those elections.
Let me say again, in conclusion, in reference to this talk about something discreditable, something that should haTdly be mentioned in daylight, as taking place between the government and the Progressive group, that we have nothing to conceal.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I would ask the hon.
member if he will be good enough to read the Prime Minister's answer to his letter.


Robert Forke: I have not got it, but I
am sure there is no objection to its being published; I do not think there is anything secret about it. Hon. gentlemen to my right are always suspecting that there is something underhand, something dark and secret going on. The reply of the Prime Minister can be put in print to-morrow morning. I will try to get the hon. member a copy if I possibly can, and I hope it will satisfy him.


An hon. MEMBER:: It will not satisfy
him.


Robert Forke: There is nothing open-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Adjournment oj the House


Robert Forke: Hon. gentlemen to my right catch at straws-I mean there is nothing secret about it. We shall support this government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Forke: -as long as we think they are bringing forward legislation that is in the best interests of this Dominion. If hon. members to my right had been able to come into office, as they dearly wished to come, and had brought forward legislation that those of us sitting here believed to be in the interests of the Dominion, they would have got the same support from us-I do not see why they should not.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Robert Forke: Certainly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In deciding upon the merits of the administration-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In deciding as to the merits of the administration, does the hon. gentleman confine his opinion solely to legislation, or does he take into view the matter of administration generally?


Robert Forke: Oh, well, I am not going to enter into a long discussion in regard to that; but when hon. members to my right consider the policy they have advocated and the principles we stand for, I do not see how in the world they can expect to get very much support from members in this part of the House. I am quite willing to turn to the other side and say they have been very slow in bringing forward some of those principles but we are going to support the Speech from the Throne. Hon. members to my right-I think the right hon. leader of the opposition said that he was quite prepared to support that speech.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


Robert Forke: The right hon. gentleman
says "not at all."


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member be good enough to quote any such statement of mine? It has become the habit of some hon. members to be very loose in their statements.


Robert Forke: We are getting used to the
right hon. leader of the opposition getting up and asking people to quote what he said. There is a general impression-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Robert Forke: It is needless for me to take up time discussing that.


Arthur Meighen: I ask the hon. member
to be good enough to withdraw the assertion that I said1 I would support the Speech from the Throne.


Robert Forke: Mr. Speaker, I want some
more information before I withdraw that statement.


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I have some authority in respect to the statements I have made. I have denied making this statement and I challenge the hon. gentleman to produce any quotation to support what he says. He has declined to do so, and I now ask and insist that he withdraw his statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Robert Forke: I would remind hon. members to my right that noise is not argument.


Robert James Manion: Withdraw.


Robert Forke: I have nothing to withdraw. I intend to stay with the statement I have made.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I ask for
your ruling. I propose that my rights shall not be abbreviated by the noise made by any hon. members in this House.


Hewitt Bostock: The statement made by
the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) is that the right hon. leader of the opposition said that he was ready to support the measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. The right hon. leader of the opposition has taken exception to that statement. He states that there is not a tittle of evidence on which to base such a statement. I refer hon. members to paragraph 249 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, under rule 19, where I find the following:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers in the Canadian Commons that a statement by an honourable member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted, but it is not unparliamentary to temperately criticize statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible.
In the present instance I consider the point raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition well taken. He denies in toto the assertion made by the hon. member for Brandon, and of course it is understood that when an hon. member denies having made a statement his word must be accepted by the House.

Adjournment oj the House


Robert Forke: I am quite willing, after
your decision, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw what I have stated, but there is one point made absolutely clear, namely that the right hon. leader of the opposition does not accept the measures that are proposed in the Speech from the Throne. I can assure the House that some hon. members have been greatly misled in reference to what the right hon. leader of the opposition said when he was speaking in the debate on the Address.
I repeat again that in agreeing to this adjournment I feel it is a great disadvantage to all hon. members but I believe it will be in the best interests of the country and the best interests of the government that that adjournment should take place, and as a last word, I do hope that the press which is educating the people of this country will stop making statements and emphasizing them about the corruption and degradation that is taking place in this parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: Hon. members to my right
may laugh but to me it is no laughing matter. It is a serious matter that such things should occur. I know nothing about it. Do hon. members to my right know all about it? These newspapers are educating the people in this Dominion. The people have no other source of information and more harm is being done to the dignity of parliament through some of the editorials that are appearing in our papers at the present time than from anything which has taken place in this House during the time parliament has been sitting.


Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the speech of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), I would observe that he "doth protest too much." He has given the figures of the electoral vote in the recent election. Now of this no one can have doubt, that as between the members on your right, Sir, and the party on your left, there was a Conservative majority. But we had a third party, supported not so largely as in 1921, but still having a very considerable following in this country, and if the hon. member for Brandon desires to associate his party with the Liberals well and good'. But let him be fair as between the two historical parties and let him attribute to his own party what he may fairly and triumphantly do, the control of this government.
I am opposed' to the motion for a long adjournment for this reason-and I endeavour to voice so far as I can the feeling of the man on the street, the outside public-that parliament was called for the despatch of
business, not for an adjournment of six weeks.
I venture to say that no more shocking spectacle has ever been presented in connection with parliamentary government than that which we have witnessed recently in this very country. It recalls to my mind a gibe of Disraeli under somewhat similar circumstances, when he pictured the government of that day in this way. He said that from a certain point along the shores of South America you can see a range of extinct volcanoes, from which not one flame flickers from a single pallid crest. So the government sits to-day. And why this motion for adjournment? The hon. Minister of Justice said he had no opportunity of addressing the House upon the motion. What difference would it make if he had had the opportunity? Is there anyone in the House who does not know the purpose of the adjournment? It is to endeavour to reanimate a moribund government and for no other purpose and if that be so-and this is a point I would stress-why is it that this so-called government has met parliament? It is a government it is true; it is in office; decimated though it be, it is yet a government. If it is a fact that it is unable to function, why did it assemble parliament for the despatch of business? I believe rightly or wrongly that the nerves of the people of Canada are in a state of tension. I believe that the business of this country is being halted for lack of confidence in the stability of government, and the longer we delay getting on with business and determining who are to form the government and manage the affairs of Canada for some years to come, the longer will business be in a state of uncertainty, and the longer will capital hesitate to invest. For these reasons I propose to vote against the adjournment.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, coming from the Toronto district I wish to lay before the House the necessity of ending the deadlock which exists in this country to-dhy.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against the motion for the adjournment of the House until March 15. I see no necessity for such an adjournment, with the economic problems that are to-day confronting the country. We have a government without a head. We have the very negative of a government. No province in the Do-

Adjournment of the House
minion is suffering more acutely from economic ills at the present time than Ontario. To-day we find that province is without a single cabinet minister in this honourable House the first time since confederation. During the past three or four years deputations have been coming to Ottawa from British Columbia, from the prairie provinces and from the Maritime provinces with their declarations of rights, and I think it is pretty nearly time the old province of Ontario had a ginger group in this House. Then the other sections of the country would soon realize that they are very well off compared with the province from which I come. As one of the representatives from the great industrial district of Toronto, I protest against this House adjourning without having made any attempt to solve the economic problems that beset Canada and Ontario to-day.
What this country needs, Mr. Speaker, is a revival-an economic revival headed by a revivalist. They have had such a revival in Great Britain; the political party of Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Stanley Baldwin, which had not been in power its full term, gave up office with four or five years yet to run. Why? Because they thought it was time to consult the people, and that a time and tide had come in the affairs of the country to settle the great economic problems which were confronting the motherland. We in Canada need a revival headed by a revivalist which will solve the practical problems which this country has to solve to-day. I believe the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is the revivalist needed to head this revival as he is the head of the main group in this House and would to-day have been asked to form a cabinet if we had representation by population in Canada, but we have not. The large cities and towns which pay the bulk of the taxes of the country were kept from the exercise of their franchise by the great gerrymander of the 1924 redistribution bill.
I believe my right hon. leader is the proper person to lead such a revival as we need to-day in Canada. I come from an industrial part of Canada; the Toronto district is the home of industries of all kinds, as well as mixed farming and market gardening. Today Ontario is suffering as no other province of the Dominion is suffering from the lack of adequate protection from unemployment; from stagnation and from the evils which exist in Canada to-day through the failure of the government to bring the National Policy up to date and to bring forward a

proper safeguarding of industries act for the people of Canada.
Protection is not a dead thing; it is a living reality; it is the only question before the people in this country to-day. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) was speaking the other day of the immigration problem and the railway problem. Those are not the problems the people want settled. The right solution of the tariff problem and a proper safeguarding of industries will automatically solve all the problems referred to by my hon. friend. No city in the country pays more taxes than does the city of Toronto. If we had representation by .population we would have fifteen members from that city in this House. Toronto was built up by protection, as the whole province of Ontario has been built up by protection. The revenue derived by this government from the city of Toronto is nearly 8100,000,000; $60,000,000 comes from customs receipts; nearly $6,000,000 from postal receipts, and over $10,000,000 from income taxes. Central Canada is paying SI per cent of all the taxes of Canada to-day, and these two central provinces of Ontario and Quebec are demanding some additional protection for their industries. Protection is not a dead thing; it should be brought up to date in every province to meet the changed conditions and local exigencies brought about by the disturbance of industrial equilibrium. I support protection not for the manufacturers only, not for the bankers only, not for the farmers only, but for everyone, for national reasons and on the ground of patriotism. The principles of protection alone can establish economic unity among the provinces of Canada. The government of the day may be compared to a baseball team; it had a very -bad road trip which wound up on October 29 last. The government then met the House on January 7th without a programme to present.
Even speaking from the partisan point of view, while I do not pretend to know very much about politics I think it is bad politics from the government's point of view for the Liberal party to propose an adjournment until March 15. The country will blame them for it; the unrest will go on, unemployment will continue, there will still be the lack of proper safeguarding of industries; and you will have stagnation in the land; you are just postponing the evil day. It seems to me that what the Liberal party needs very badly at the present time is a professional coach, as they are called. We have a government without a head and without a policy, and I say it is a

Adjournment oj the House
merely negative government. I have been here for four or five sessions, and I may say to my Liberal friends of the left that I do not know what they are doing in that corner of the House. There is no use in their staying there any longer and playing any further puss-in-the-corner. Their proper place is away over in the other corner of the House beside the so-called Independent member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I have the utmost respect for the Progressives personally but none at all for their platform. If we ever had a sample of what the actors call "cheap political vaudeville" in this House we have it in the person of the genial hon. member for Labelle calling himself an Independent when he is a Liberal first, last, and all the time.
The Globe to-day has over its report a big headline saying that in the division last night the "Liberal party had a majority of ten and that all Progressives joined in voting against the Meighen amendment." Of course they did, and why not? Did anybody expect them to vote any other way? I have never known during my four or five years in this House of any display of independence on the part of the Progressive party. The only time such a spirit was shown was the other night when four or five Progressives voted with the opposition, reducing the majority of the government to three. But those Progressives soon lost that independence, and the whole Progressive party went over holus-bolus to the government last night-they should stay there. The Progressives are about as independent as the hon. member for Labelle; like him they have never been anything else but Liberal, and I predict they never will change. The government will never want for eight or ten votes so long as there are any Progressives in the House to support them. The same may be said of the two gentlemen who call themselves labour representatives. I respect them personally, but who authorized those two gentlemen to call themselves the Labour party, and to say that they represent the working classes? The fact that they call themselves the Labour party doesn't make them a Labour party. They do not represent the working classes of the city of Winnipeg, I may tell them, let alone the working classes from coast to coast in this country.
The duty of this House is to restore responsible government and the two-party system; to abolish referendums and useless commissions. The group system of government, both in the federal house and in provincial legislatures, has been nothing but a complete failure. The group system of government as
represented by the so-called Drury Farmer-Labour government of Ontario gave this province the worst form of government any province ever saw in the history of the British Empire. There was corruption of all kinds, and everything of that nature. The so-called Drury government was driven from office by the vote of the people without their having carried out a single plank of their platform. Neither have the Progressives carried out a single plank of the platform they were elected on or of the National Council of Agriculture. Their platform was merely one to get in on, not to stand on.
When the Progressives were in power in Ontario our debt increased by leaps and bounds as well as maintenance charges, and they all but destroyed the investment of 200 millions of the municipalities in cheap hydro light and power. The sooner Progressive members of this House wake up to the fact that they can no longer put anything over on the voters in the polling booths and constituencies the better for the Progressives and the better for the country as a whole. The people of this country are going to follow those of England in voting for principles. So long as a party stands by its principles it will continue in strength, But when they desert their principles, as the Liberal and the Progressive parties have done, there always comes a time when the people will assert themselves. I have this to say of the party and group systems. The critics of party no doubt have much to allege against the party system, and some of it not without justice. Party leads to unreasonable and unpatriotic extremes of thought and action in the excitement of our political struggles. It leads sometimes to forgetfulness of the objects for which parties exist and which alone justify their existence-the greatness of the country and the welfare of its people. It leads often and most frequently to an exaggeration of our differences and to the minimizing of the great mass of agreement that in the past has been common to all parties. But I will say this to critics of party: do not judge parties only by defects; judge them also by merits. The alternative to party is groups, sections, interests and classes. I do not say none of these affects the course of action of party, but I do say that the broad allegiance to the party of your choice keeps those smaller, narrower, and baser motives in check, and that it was a bad day for this country when it abandons the party system which our free parliamentary institutions had developed, and slipping into that system of little groups and sections which gives the

Adjournment oj the House
largest play to petty interests and takes the least notice of the great issues of the day.
That has been found to be true. In Great Britain the group system proved a failure. It led the country into all kinds of economic ills, and almost destroyed the British Empire. England during that time lost a large number of orders to the Hamburg shipping yards; it was rapidly losing its supremacy in shipbuilding, as well as its national stability and its industries were being ruined.
What this country wants is that parliament should continue in session and grapple with the problems that are facing us. If the government is not able to grapple with these problems, let them dissolve parliament and go to the country. If we cannot win I would far rather see a Liberal government returned to power than have such a makeshift government of groups and classes as we have at the present time. The party system is the only system for any country. The war taught Canada one lesson, and that was the value of team work, and if we carried into peace the lessons we learned in the war, all would be well. In the war, merchants, prince, and pauper worked together side by side, and if we carry on in that spirit we shall be able to solve the economic problems that are facing us. I contend that if a national policy is a necessity, not a luxury, in time of war, it is a necessity in time of peace as well, and the basis of that policy is protection-protection diversified and suited to the economic needs of every province and adjusted to the local circumstances; in other words, a national policy brought up to date. Canada has grown up under the National Policy. We want a policy of protection that lives and moves and has its being for the upbuilding of a united Canada, and the principle of protection alone can make for a united Canada for Canadians. Such a policy will stop the exodus from this country and bring our boys back from the United States; it will promote migration within the empire; it will eliminate the deficits on our railways, solve unemployment, take care of our raw material and preserve to us for all time to come the magnificent heritage that we have in the products of the sea, the soil, the forest and the mines. It will make for a united, prosperous and contented people and make Canada a country for Canadians. No apology is necessary for protection or for what it would do for Canada. Ontario and Quebec are paying eighty per cent of the taxes of the Dominion, and Quebec, just like Ontario, is a protectionist province. It has been built up. like Ontario, on the National Policy. In days gone by

Upper and Lower Canada always got on well together. Baldwin and Lafontaine united the people and when a candidate was defeated in Quebec he could always find a seat in York and vice versa. Quebec has some good protectionist papers on both sides of politics. I would like to quote from a leading French-Canadian paper, Le Soleil, in an issue of last year:
To be worthy of the name, protection as a policy ought to be applied to the interests and well-being of society as a whole and not to the interests of the .few. It ought to embrace all the professions, and all who fail within the categories of commerce, wholesale and retail; of all workers, whether they are engaged in stores or offices; of all women and children from whom the necessities of life are procured-provisions and clothing. In a word, protection ought to be for all classes of society. This provides a problem which cannot be solved in modifications of the tariffs of one kind and another, however important they may be.
Wise words-protection for all classes and provinces. That is a good protectionist doctrine. It advocates bringing the National Policy up to date and applying it to the whole country starting with the provinces down by the sea and on right through to the coast. With all the problems that are facing us, and in view of the great sacrifice of time on the part of men who have come here from the extremes of Canada, I think it would be bad policy, even from a Liberal standpoint, to adjourn this parliament for six weeks, thus making our coming here all to no purpose, and making a football of any effort to solve our problems.
We should have a maximum tariff, not a minimum one, so that we can prevent this country from being the happy hunting ground for American millionaires who come here and grab our raw materials, our timber, our mineral wealth and our water powers. What we need is a policy that will1 prevent the foolish export of our valuable raw materials, and allow them to be manufactured here at home, thus creating employment for our own people. I am further of the opinion that it is just as fair and honourable and just to use the weapon of the tariff to protect our industries from the dumping of foreign countries, as it is to call out the militia to defend our land against the invasion of armed forces. If the Liberal party in this House will look across to England they will see what has become of the Liberal party in the Old Country. It is practically wiped out. The Liberal party in this country has not had a settled policy on the tariff since 1896. "The principles of Liberalism" were often on the lips of Mr. Mackenzie King in North YorK. On tariff matters he has been everything by

Adjournment oj the House
fits and starts, and nothing long. Particularly, I say, is that true of his attitude with regard to the tariff, which he has continually nibbled at, taking off a little bit here and a little bit there, thereby creating unrest, unemployment and instability.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon.
gentleman to keep a little closer to the subject matter. His remarks may have some relation to the motion before the House, but I cannot see it.


Thomas Langton Church: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I understood that considerable latitude was being allowed in this debate, and I contend the tariff is the main problem to settle.
It as not in the interest of the people of Canada that this parliament should adjourn until the 15th of March, in view of the national economic problems that are pressing for solution. We have an unemployment problem, for instance, in this country, which to-day is very acute. The unemployment situation lias grown out of our failure to have a proper protective tariff and a safeguarding of industries act. Unemployment is also due to the shipping of our raw materials across :o the United States, where they are manufactured instead of being manufactured here at home, giving work to our own peopie. Canada is being made a dumping ground for the cheap, shoddy goods of the United States and continental Europe. Departmental stores in my own city are full of cheap German and American goods, with the result that we have unemployment in that city. That is one of the problems we should take up immediately and solve before allowing any adjournment. What is the policy of the government on unemployment? We had a Minister of Labour last session, and he said that the government of Canada, under the British North America Act, had nothing to do with unemployment ; that it was a matter for the provinces and municipalities. The federal government has jurisdiction in matters of trade and commerce, immigration, banking and finance, and transportation, and it is their function to relieve unemployment, or make some effort to do so.
Now, why should we adjourn, in view of the condition of affairs which exists in the country to-day? We 'have two representatives of the Labour party in this House, and what have they to say about unemployment? They are supporting the government and also the Progressives-and the latter are practically free traders. The hon. member for Rose-town (Mr. Evans) admitted it the other night.



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
He is one of the most courageous men on the Progressive benches, and he got up and said point-blank that he was in favour of free trade. I ask both the Labour members here how they expect to solve the unemployment problem in this country by supporting the policy of free trade as against protection? How are old age pensions to be paid if free trade comes into force? How do my hon. friends expect to solve any of the problems that affect the working class under such a policy? And yet it is proposed to adjourn the House and make a political football of all these questions-and the Labour members consent to that course being taken.
Let me remind these gentlemen that the late Mr. Gompers was one of the most astute labour leaders this continent ever knew. He did not believe in a Labour party; he believed in working .within the two great political parties in the United States, the Republican and the Democratic parties, with the result that he secured the adoption of practical measures that were in the interests of the working classes in the land of his adaption. I do not know of any country where higher wages are paid to-day than in the United States. The former Minister of Labour, Mr. Murdock, said last session that twenty millions of men were out of work in the country to the south. I took the trouble to write to Mr. Davis, Secretary of Labour, and in reply he informed me that there were only a million men out of work there out of a population of 110,000,000. I tell my hon. friends of the Labour party that they do not represent the cause of labour when they support the policies to which they are now giving adherence. They cannot truly represent labour when they are supporting free trade principles. Protection is the greatest friend labour has in this country. Look at what has been accomplished for labour in the way of legislation in Ontario. When the country gets into any kind of economic trouble it always sends for the Conservative party to get it out of the difficulty. Clan my hon. friends point to a single labour organization in the United States that opposes protection and favours free trade? No, Mr. Speaker, every labour organization in that country has consistently supported the principle of protection, with the result that labour is in a strong position in the United States to-day.
Our Progressive friends are fond of referring to the Old Country. You will not find Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin proposing to adjourn the Imperial parliament when there are great public questions to be settled. No, he is now engaged in the solution of economic problems

[Stage Direction]
Adjournment oj the House
[Stage Direction]
over there and is getting capital and labour together. May I be permitted to say that Great Britain is coming to adopt the protective policy also? Under free trade as they have it over there the unemployment question is a most serious one. Over a million of men are out of work in Great Britain, many of them returned men. Has free trade solved the unemplojunent question over there? Has it solved the dole problem? Has it solved the question of hours of labour? Has England under free trade been able to abolish the Poor law? To all these questions the answer must be no.
Why should this parliament adjourn? Who is asking for it? Has the government to-day any mandate from the people asking it to postpone to March 15 further consideration of the many economic problems before us- so little done, so much^ to do-problems of settling deficits and reducing the taxes? When I look into classical history I say to the government, "Beware the ides of March." As a result of the policy which the government has decided to pursue, there will be more unemployment, unrest and stagnation in Canada and we shall get nowhere with the problems that await solution. The unemployed have asked for bread and you are going to give them a stone, to wit, a postponement for six weeks of consideration of any action on their behalf.
I wish to say in conclusion that what this country wants at the present time is a revival, and I believe we have a revivalist, who will conduct an economic revival, in the person of my right hon. leader. For that reason, coming from an industrial district where unemployment is rife and where the industrial equilibrium has been unbalanced for a considerable time, I oppose the motion for an adjournment. At a time when the present government is so apathetic I commend to its notice the vigorous action which Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin and his government are adopting in Great Britain. Mr. Baldwin is endeavouring to bring capital and labour together. He is going up and down the country, meeting all classes of the people, in an endeavour to solve the economic problems of the old land. We in this country are not a practical people. We take a long time to settle our problems; we think too much of party and too little of the welfare of Canada. For that reason the problems which confront us here remain unsolved and will continue to remain in that state as long as we have the present government.
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Canada is essentially Liberal-minded and Mackenzie King was given a mandate on October 29. It may have been a feeble one, due to certain psychological factors, but still it was a mandate. It called for action. It called for more than the glueing of political ears to the political ground for an indefinite period.
Mackenzie King should have found a seat for himself long ago and got down to business.
What Canada wants down in Ottawa is a leader, not a weather vane.
Those remarks from an enthusiastic Liberal newspaper two months ago apply more fittingly to-day than they ever did before. The purpose of this adjournment is to enable the weather vane to figure out the way the wind is blowing in the prairie provinces. He is down there now with his ears glued to the ground endeavouring to establish a seat, while the business of this country is drifting along. If you talk with men of responsibility, you find that capital is hesitant in its investments; that there is business inactivity, political demoralization, confusion and a general mess in the country. Yet the government proposes to add to this by an extension of six weeks by way of an adjournment without any attempt being made to handle the public business.
I shall be interested in hearing what explanation the government has to make. The leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) made some explanation. " Why," he said, " if w'e were sitting here during the next six weeks when the by-elections were on, they would be making political speeches and we would not be able to do any business." There are 245 hon. members, here from all parts of Canada, and we are face to face with problems of the most serious nature, some of which should be discussed by members for the elucidation of their fellow members and worked at by committees that could be carried on to the great advantage of parliament in the solution of such problems. To say that we cannot do business in the face of this situation is nonsense, and as a member from British Columbia I am here to make the most vigorous protest against any adjournment. When I go back to my constituents in the city of Vancouver and visit people in other parts of Canada, I propose to bring to their attention the course which the government is now carrying on, the sham and farce of the whole thing, and the manner in which the business of the country has been delayed and held up for no other purpose than the hope in my hon, friends' hearts of bettering the political situation.
I wonder why the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has not given us some reasons in support of his motion. I have been only four years in this House, but my short ex-

perience and my modicum of reason would lead me to believe that on such an important motion as this, the first thing the leader of the House would do would be to establish the grounds upon which he was asking 245 hon. members to disperse to their homes and wait for six w-eeks. Is it the intention of the Minister of Justice or of any other mem-9 p.m. ber of the government to give us that information before the vote is taken, or, are they to sit there silent, knowing that they have a binding agreement, an unalterable arrangement, with our Progressive friends which will cause them to support the government in the vote without any explanations at all? Not only parliament, but the people of Canada are entitled to an explanation, and it is to be hoped that the government will furnish some reasons for a course of action which seems to me to be unprecedented.
I desire also to refer to another portion of the report of the Prime Minister's speech at Prince Albert. I do so because, as a member of this House, I regret that the Prime Minister of this country should take a course of action and a line of campaign which one might expect from a demagogue rather than from a leader of a government. This report may be wrong, but I quote these words as given in the Ottawa Citizen this morning. This is what the Prime Minister said:
What we were fighting was, not the policy of the Conservative party-
Nobody knows better than he that such a statement is simply rubbish.
-we were fighting money, millions of dollars put in by financial interests to get control .in this country. I say that so long as we have men who are selfishly seeking their own interests, who are prepared to spend money in that way, so long the interests of the people will never be safe.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Some hon. members and,
in particular the Solicitor General, say "hear, hear." Does he really and honestly believe there is any truth in that statement?


Mr. CANNON:: Absolutely.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I know as regards Vancouver the Liberal party were fighting ourselves and our policies, and not any millions, by any means.


Lucien Cannon: You are an island.


Leon Johnson Ladner: You are so near the deep blue seas, politically speaking, that you may want to be an island yourself before the vote is over. I refer to this because, having considerable respect personally for Mr. Mackenzie

Adjournment of the House
King, I think it is regrettable that the leader of any party, especially the Prime Minister of this country, should stand before our nine million people and seek to arouse their antagonisms, prejudices and dislikes in this fashion. This savours of methods which were used in the reports and posters cited in the speech of the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet). There are present the same psychologies, the same ideas. The Prime Minister goes to the western plains, meets the hard working farmers there, many of whom are no doubt struggling to eke out an existence, and, standing in the dignity of his position as head of the government, he virtually tells those people:	"You are poor people;
I am your saviour. We shall have to fight these great robber barons holding these millions in Montreal."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Leon Johnson Ladner: My hon. friends say,
"hear, hear." I think that is cheap politics. That is the politics of the demagogue, and the sooner a protest is made against it the better in the interest of public life and of the party system in this country. It is a bad thing.
I conclude by repeating that, as a member from British Columbia, I have come to Ottawa three thousand miles to assist in transacting the business of this country. We are here ready and willing to do it. We are here ready to participate to the best of our ability in the solution of problems and we consider it is the duty of the government-having had three months to prepare their programme, having placed that programme specifically before the people in the Speech from the Throne with problems that must go before committees, and knowing full well that they are not going to prepare any business programme during the next four or five weeks, when they will be engaged on the hustings endeavouring to elect their ministers in the by-elections- it is the duty of the government not to adjourn but to go ahead with the business of the country. The whole procedure is, in fact, a pretence, a sham and a farce. The course of the government is to endeavour to disentangle itself from a political mess which it should not be in because it should have resigned after the last election. It is one of a series of steps which will end in the government being obliged to resign because the popular will is against it.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure those members who have a sense of humour must have
been amused by two incidents this afternoon- one supplied by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the other by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I was greatly amused when the Minister of Justice complained that the member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) had taken his place in the debate. I have sat in the House for I think nine sessions with the hon. gentleman, and I have never known him to be of such a retiring nature. I never discovered him giving place to any other member in those nine sessions. While in opposition he was perhaps the most aggressive member in the whole house. I recollect on one occasion when his friends boasted in the corridors that he was going to get the scalp of my right, hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) who was then leader of the government, but the latter-turned the tables on him and had his scalp dangling at his belt.


Ernest Lapointe: I never entertained such an idea.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I mention that to show the aggressive character of my hon. friend.


Lucien Cannon: Both of them are bald.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: To-day he complained in a childlike manner that someone else had taken his place in the debate. I think that is the most amusing incident that has happened so far this session. I was equally amused by my hon. friend from Labelle, whose paternal admonitions to his Liberal friends were followed by a statement that he was going to wait and see what their policy was and the reasons for the adjournment prior to making up his mind, but before he sat down he had pledged his vote as fully as it was possible for any member to do. I am afraid my hon. friend from Labelle talks a good deal at random, Sir, and on that account I feel that he must be excused for his lapse this afternoon.
I was sorry to hear my hon. friend the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) refer to the insinuations and suspicions that have been made and aroused as a result of the vote on the first amendment of this session. If people outside the House are talking about corruption, I do not think it is going to add to the dignity of parliament for such ill-grounded suspicions, I trust, to be discussed here. We should be above that sort of thing, and I think if my hon. friend had had more experience in public life he would not have expressed himself as he did to-day, because it certainly detracts from the
Adjournment oj the House

dignity of parliament and the respect with which it should be regarded.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this adjournment.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Well, this is one reason, of many. What the country is suffering from to-day is a lack of confidence in the government. That was manifested in the vote on October 29. If the government has any policies that its members think will restore confidence in them, it is their duty to bring those policies forward and have them discussed, so that confidence may be inspired in the commercial circles of Canada. There can be no greater injury to a country than a loss of confidence on the part of those men who have it in their power to begin a revival of trade, and any party or any group of men that may be guilty of measures which stand in the way of a return of that confidence are doing a very grave injury to their country. We were told that parliament was going to be convened at the earliest possible moment. But, Sir, we find that the real work of parliament is to begin over two months after the date set for the opening of the session; the proposal now to adjourn for six weeks throws back the opening of parliament for real business to March 15 instead of January 7. The commercial interests of the Dominion-and I submit that they are of some importance and are to be considered

looked forward to the opening of parliament as a time when something would be done to give them an indication whether there was any reason on their part for a revival of confidence in the government, or in the party that ought to be in office, but instead of that all parliamentary business has been put aside.
To my mind there has never been such a confession of incompetence on the part of any government that this country has ever had equal to that which is displayed in this motion. The Liberal party came to this House declaring that although they were a minority group, they still had the right and the power to carry on. To-day they confess that they are without the power to carry on, and they ask this House to adjourn for six weeks. It causes me, Mr. Speaker, to go back in my memory to the founders of the Liberal party and1 to wonder what they would have done under similar circumstances. Can anyone imagine Brown, or Blake, or Mackenzie, or Laurier acting as this government has acted? Beaten at the polls, with a large and decisive popular majority against them, they still cling to office, making a bargain by which
fMr. Hocken.}
they surrender all their political principles. This they do to retain power. Can anyone imagine Laurier doing that? The men who founded the Liberal party were men of strong convictions, they were men who went down fighting for those convictions rather than cling to office by surrendering them. I knew something of those men. I was very young, of course, but I recall the type of man that Alexander Mackenzie was.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Some of my hon. friends opposite laugh. Well, he has left it on record that he was a little too honest for the rank and file of his own party. He stands out today as a man incorruptible, ready to suffer for his convictions. Those who surrounded him at that time were men of the same type. The Hon. George Brown was a doughty fighter, a man who fought more vigorously, for his principles than perhaps any of his contemporaries; but he would1 not cling to the emoluments and honours of office when the popular majority was against him. To him, such action was impossible. And no man of spirit would do it. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was such a man. He had a pride in his own reputation, and he had some regard for reputation of his party. And I want to tell my hon. friends opposite that what they are doing to-day will react upon their party in the future to a degree that they do not now apprehend. I will give them a percedent for it. No group of men can exhibit themselves to the country as insincere, as office grabbers, as dingers to the emoluments and honours of office in spite of the popular vote, without suffering disaster from their own party. I had an experience, Mr. Speaker, in my own election.


Mr. RINFRET:: Did you do that?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No. I may not be any good, but I have some convictions and whether they are good or not I stick to them, like my right hon. leader and the Conservative party. I recall to my hon. friends the course of the government of the province of Ontario about the year 1900. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when Sir Wilfrid Laurier organized his government in 1896 he brought Sir Oliver Mowat to Ottawa as his Minister of Justice. The government of Ontario then fell into the hands of Mr. Hardy, a fine, honourable, splendid type of Liberal. Mr. Hardy unfortunately died, and was succeeded by Mr. Ross. Those who know the Scottish character tell me that Mr. Ross, being a Highlander, was unable to fight his friends,

Adjournment of the House
so there gathered around him a machine which won one election after another by the most disgraceful and discreditable methods ever practised in this country. The result was, Mr. Speaker, that in succeeding elections ms government got down to a majority of one but still' hung on. The result of all this clinging to office, which was accomplished partly by bargaining with members who had been elected for other parties and partly by electoral crookedness, was that his party was swept from office, and from that day to this the Liberal party has been nothing but-an insignificant group in the legislature of the province of Ontario. What is the deduction, Sir? Is it not that the decent Liberals, the decent people whether Liberals or Conservatives or Progressives, will not stand for that sort of thing? They will not stand for selfishness and insincerity on the part of their representatives, and this government to-day is laying the foundation for the ruin of the great Liberal party. I venture the prediction that this is the most unfortunate thing ever done for Liberalism. I am not concerned with its preservation. If I were speaking for this group I would say that we should rejoice over what this government is doing and is trying to do, because we know it is just the prelude to absolute disaster for that party. Another election must come; it ought to come now, and this government should resign. It has not a mandate from the people, but on the contrary has received the utmost condemnation. This government should relinquish the reins of office to another party, regardless of whether or not that other party can Carry on, and that party should decide whether or not there should be an election and when the election should be held. There must be an election. The Globe, the chief Liberal organ in the Dominion of Canada, calls for a new election. It is speaking not for this party but for my hon. friends opposite. The paper founded by George Brown, which has been the Liberal organ for eighty odd years, appreciates the situation; it has regard for the future of its party, and it calls upon that party to resign and have another election to clear the air. Let some party receive a mandate and carry on the government of this country.
I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that the actions of the government have worked great injury. If the House adjourns for six weeks and leaves the business of the country in a state of confusion, the insincerity of the government will react against themselves. I sympathize with my hon. friendis who have to travel to Vancouver, and I do not believe
my hon. friends the Progressives want an adjournment. How they came to be persuaded into making that bargain I do not know; perhaps it was as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) said, that they persuaded the so-called government of the day to formulate their policy. In other words, they said, "You take our policy and we will take your adjournment." All these hon. gentlemen must go back to their farms, and they cannot do very much there during the next six weeks except to feed the pigs and milk the cows. They could do a great deal more in the early part of June if this House would go on. It cannot be that they desire this adjournment, but apparently it is a part of the bargain.
If there is anything, Mr. Speaker, that will cause the people of this country to lose respect for parliament it is this bargaining between hostile groups, in order that one of them might hold office. For these are hostile groups. What sympathy can my hon. friends the Labour members have with the principles of this party? My hon. friends mfiy be protectionists, I am not sure; but they also got their price. My hon. friend (Mr. Woods-worth) asked the other day when we were going to bring down the old age pensions measure, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) promptly replied, almost as though by arrangement-I must confess to an error, Mr. Speaker; I am reminded that it was an Independent member who asked that question, but if I am not mistaken my hon. friends the Labour members are as deeply interested in that measure as is the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). That is part of the price. The alternative vote and the Hudson Bay railway and all those other things are what my Progressive friends get out of it. I recall, as I know other hon. members recall, numerous references to the alternative vote; what a wonderful thing that alternative vote was during the past three sessions. Time after time the then member for Brant, Mr. Good, asked, "When are we going to have legislation brought down providing for the alternative vote?" The Prime Minister would rise ponderously in his place and answer, "It is in the course of preparation, and will be down shortly." But the legislation providing for the alternative vote never came into parliament. Why? I think it is pretty well known. The current reports in the lobbies were that while my hon. friends the Progressives wanted the alternative vote, hon. members from Quebec would not permit that measure to be brought down. There was a
Adjournment oj the House

conflict between the two parties, and that conflict has not been removed.


Mr. HOWARD:: Will my hon. friend allow me one question?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Certainly.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Does my hon. friend approve or disapprove of the stand his leader has taken on the war question, as set out in his Hamilton speech?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend is out of order. Perhaps he did not understand my language. I was talking about the alternative vote and explained to my hon. friends to my left how much they had to expect from a government which had betrayed them at least thirty times on an issue which they regarded as one of the most important on their programme. How they can be brought together on this six weeks' adjournment can only be explained by the fact that the government has agreed to accept everything the Progressives want put in their programme for this session, but when we come to vote on some of these projects I warn my hon. friends that, no matter what this party may do, they had better keep their eyes wide open across the way if they expect to get all that has been promised them.
Mr. Speaker, this adjournment is a confession of weakness and impotence such as no government in the history of this country has ever made before. It does not matter to me or to the members from Ontario, because we can get home, but the people of Ontario and the people of Canada will not be satisfied with this delay, this waste of time, this postponement of all they are depending upon to discover whether it will be possible to revive the trade of this country.
Hon. gentlemen opposite feed us with statistics about the prosperity of Canada. Let them go to any big city in the Dominion, Montreal, for instance, or Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg or Vancouver, and ask the people there to put their hands in their pockets, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier on one occasion said, and find out if they are well off. They will find that in all these cities charity is being dispensed on a scale as great as ever it has been done in the Dominion. There is no use talking statistics to hungry men. When I was home on Sunday night a young man not more than thirty years of age came to my door telling me that he had walked up and down the city of Toronto and could not get a job anywhere. "Will you," he said "give me enough to buy a meal and get a bed?" I do not live in the centre of the city, but

away off in a corner of it, and men are driven out there to try to get enough by way of charity to feed themselves in the city of Toronto. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the abounding prosperity of this Dominion! That abounding prosperity cannot return until the commercial interests of this country have confidence in the future of the government of the country, and the party opposite has nothing about it to give them that confidence. It has nothing to promise but Hudson Bay railways, alternative votes, and that kind of thing, which fills nobody's stomach and does not provide employment for any person. I have followed politics for a good while, and I have never yet seen such an exhibition as this. I am sorry to see it, because it is a disgrace to parliament.


Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to occupy very long the time of the House. In fact if I consulted my personal inclination I do not think I would occupy it at all, but I should be derelict in my duty if in the course of this debate on the question now before the House I failed to bring to the attention of members of every party certain matters which have not yet been mentioned, and yet which affect every Canadian.
We have heard in this House from an early stage in the recent debate that there was great urgency for remedial legislation demanded by tihe Progressive party, and I think one of the things that has been most particularly stressed was the need for relief from onerous interest rates. I believe it has been said more than once that the people of the west were obligated to meet rates of eight and ten per cent in the ordinary dealings of life. If that is the case I think it is something that calls for early relief, and it is something in which all members of this House should be vitally interested. If the actual situation is as it has been portrayed to be, I am rather at a loss to understand why those who are most particularly and directly affected by it should be willing to sit down and wait for a long period before any attempt is made to remedy the situation.
We have heard through several days of debate here of the grievances and necessities of the Maritime provinces, and if I followed correctly what took place in this House there has been no active move yet made by the government or by anyone in it to attempt to remedy those grievances. But in addition to those drawbacks from which certain communities suffer, and which have already been brought to the attention of the House, let me

Adjournment oj the House
refer the House tonight :to a community whose need is most urgent at the present hour, as it has been for the last three or four years.
I speak now of the city of Hamilton, in western Ontario, the plight of which is similar to that of many other cities in that part of the country; a city where for the last three years thousands of people have been face to face with the grim spectre of starvation. When in the recent campaign it was part of my personal duty to acquaint myself with the actual situation as it existed in that city, I ascertained from the. only official records available, those of the Chamber of Commerce, that employment in Hamilton at any time diiring the past year was at best but 42 per cent of the normal -42 per cent, not of the possible, but of the normal. In other words one-half ,of the living of the people had been swept away by failure to provide safeguards for such manufactures as those people live by. That is a condition which is not of any recent making.
It has existed continuously for the last three or four years, and it shows no improvement to-day.
We were told on a previous occasion in this House that prosperity was again approaching this country, that it was indeed just around the corner. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could have had an opportunity of showing the hon. gentleman who used those words, I have no doubt with perfect sincerity, what I saw in that same city on Saturday last-a long line of jobless, hungry, half-starved men lined up, blocks long, outside the quarters of the Salvation Army, waiting for the little bit of food that could be doled out to them day by day. Sir, ,1 have been informed by those whose word I cannot doubt in the matter that that condition has existed week after week, year after year now, and that it shows no prospect of abatement or improvement. Yet we are told by hon. members opposite that this country is in a state of prosperity! But the matter rests not only there. It became my unhappy experience only on Saturday last to learn of some people on the hillside outside the city I am speaking of, who had gone out there to collect the dried grass that lies along the hill face and carry it home with them as . their only fuel to bum in their stoves to prevent them from freezing. When I came across that in the case of a half-starved family, I found by inquiry that that is the daily practice not of tens, not of scores, but of hundreds of people, all of whom are willing and anxious to obtain work, but who can get nothing to do in that city of normally 130,000 people.


Mr. LAVIGUER:: They should come down to Quebec.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I am glad the
hon. member has mentioned that. I have always believed, and I believe at this moment, that for political reasons certain people have been intent on concealing from this House and the country the true condition ini Quebec. Conditions there, I believe, also call for a great deal of help. I believe the conditions of which I Speak are not purely local, not peculiar to the city from which I come. I have heard the same thing from the city of Galt which my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) represents. I know that in the city of Brantford the manufactures have been brought almost to a standstill, that the market has almost died on its feet, that the value of property has declined. I know that in my own city of Hamilton you can walk miles and see deserted stores, deserted houses, places that once were occupied and fairly prosperous but now are vacant because the people have either been driven out of business altogether or have gone to the United States to take a chance on earning a subsistence there.
We have been told, Mr. Speaker, by the mover of the Address (Mr. Elliott) that he visited the community of Strathroy and found the people there actively employed, business flourishing, and things on the mend. I do not doubt in the least that the hon. gentleman found it so, but it must have struck other members, as it did me, that he could have informed this House, if he wanted to get a typical situation, what the conditions were in his own city of London. The hon. gentleman could have told us, Sir, that in every city of any size in western Ontario those lamentable conditions have existed for years through lack of employment-


Mr. ELLIOTT:: My hon. friend is referring to something that took place in a previous debate. I submit that he is not in order.


Charles William Bell: I beg my
hon. friend's pardon, I did not hear him.


John Campbell Elliott: My point is that my hon.
friend is referring to something that was stated in a previous debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am glad to
hear the hon. gentleman sheltering himself behind that excuse. Now, my point is- and I am not dealing with anything speculative, I am dealing with the conditions as I personally saw them no later than a week ago; I am dealing with facts that I challenge any member of this House to attempt to deny

Adjournment of the House
-my point is that while these things wait and while people starve we are told the House should take a recess for some six weeks. And there is no prospect even that at the end of that time vigorous measures will be undertaken to attempt to better the present conditions-I do not necessarily say by enacting a high tariff; I do not care what the measure might be so long as those whose duty it is to do so would take upon themselves the responsibility at least to deal with the situation. I do say that with such conditions staring us in the face and showing no prospect of improvement, it is an evidence of shocking lack of responsibility on the part of any government that it should take no steps towards providing a remedy. That may seem, Sir, to be beyond the power of hon. gentlemen opposite. It may be they are so committed to certain principles and certain obligations that they are not prepared to do anything for these starving people. If so, in the name of conscience let them give place to those who will. It cannot be said that hon. gentlemen opposite do not know of the condition complained of; unhappily it is a state of common knowledge. It is their business to know it, and if they do not know about it, they have no right to sit where they are and no right to presume to function as the government of this country.
The only argument I have heard advanced against the desirability of attempting to ameliorate the distress of these poor people at this stage was given by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa); I wish he were in his place at this moment. The hon. member in the course of his address this afternoon urged that matters before the House should not be taken too seriously. Sir, I could not help reflecting that young as I am in parliamentary matters-


An hon. MEMBER,:: Hear, hear.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Thank youthat after an experience of something like only three weeks I have at least had the privilege of listening to three orations from the hon. member and I have yet to find anyone in this House who is prepared to take him Seriously. If I , was able to disentangle a point from what the hon. gentleman stressed to the House the other day and again this afternoon, it was that the consumer is to be constantly thought of; that we are not to look after the man who has coal to sell, food to sell, clothing to sell, because the consumer must be protected. Sir, does it not enter into the calculations of the hon. gentleman at all that that is an absolutely ineffective argument to make to the man who [Mr. C. W. Bell. J
has not a dollar to pay for anything? In view of the situation that we are confronted with in Hamilton, in S't. Catharines, in Galt, in Guelph, and in a great many cities of western Ontario, it is idle to tell those people, " Why, it would cost you more if you had a protective tariff on what you bring in." Their answer would be "For God's sake give us bread, and then we will see what it is going to cost I could not help thinking, Mr. Speaker, as we heard argument after argument brought forward in the recent debate about immigration and the great necessity for a vigorous policy in that direction-I could not help thinking as we heard that stressed as one of the great desiderata mentioned in the address of the late Prime Minister, that we might very well concern ourselves with doing something to take care of those we have to keep already without bringing in others to suffer and starve. I say that until we have made arrangements, and are prepared to make further arrangements, to ensure the welfare- at least the earning of a living-by those who are here now, bringing others into Canada at a considerable expense is nothing more or less than a mockery. In view of the condition that confronts so many thousands of people in this country to-day, the address of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King at Prince Albert when he pleaded for unity is an even greater mockery. How does he propose to get unity? I cannot imagine it possible that there can be such a thing as unity in this country while thousands of our citizens are starving; yet all that is said to them by gentlemen on the other side of the House is "You are prosperous. Be contented; starve; we will do nothing for you ".


Hon. EDMUND BRISTOL (Toronto East Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the distinguished leader of the Liberal party at the commencement of the recent campaign explained that for three and a half years he had been unable to do anything for this country, and he appealed to the people of Canada to elect a majority of Liberals to this House so that he could carry out what he thought to be in the interest of the public as a whole. Well, Mr. Speaker, he got his answer, so far as the people of Canada are concerned, in the form of a reduction in the number of cabinet ministers and in the number of his followers. Unable to accept that answer apparently he made calculations as to what could be done-whether the Progressives, who during the term of the last parliament had supported the policy of his government, could be induced again to support them

Adjournment oj the House
in view of the minority which they had. The result of that was apparently that this House was called together and a Speech from the Throne was prepared which has turned out to be in favour entirely of what these Progressives themselves would have presented in a Speech from the Throne, if the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) had been, as he should be under present conditions, Prime Minister. Having got that far the Prime Minister's courage failed him when it came to the question of taking a seat in Quebec or opening up any seat in Ontario. But parliament was called together eventually with the idea of seeing exactly what was going to happen and whether the Progressives were going to turn out to be as friendly in this parliament as they were in the last. When the first vote went through in favour of the present government with a majority of three, I have no doubt the courage of the government of the day rose very considerably; when they got a majority of ten they felt entirely at home, and then this resolution which is before us to-day was presented to us.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that some member of the government, or the present leader of the government-who is a very distinguished man we all admire-should have given to parliament some reasons for asking for an adjournment. The people of Canada particularly are entitled to know those reasons. The fact that is perhaps vitally important, in addition to the statements which have been made already, is that we as .members of parliament, getting paid by the people of this country to do work, are now through the present government asking an adjournment for six weeks, during which period we will all receive our indemnities the same as if we were working here, and the people who are now employed in this House will either have to be kept here, as I think they will, or discharged. But at all events there will be a loss to the country on account of such an adjournment of at least $250,000 of the people's money.


An hon. MEMBER:: More than that.


Edmund James Bristol: More than that, as my
hon. friend says. Why are we having this adjournment? No member on the other side of the House has told us for one moment why we are asked to adjourn. It surely cannot be because the Right Hon. Mackenzie King has to be retained in power at any price. There are distinguished members on the other side who are quite able to lead the House, who have led it splendidly during the past month
and can do so during the next six weeks. Are we to say to the people of Canada that because the Right Hon. Mackenzie King was defeated at the polls when his government was massacred, we must now delay the business of the country six weeks and spend nearly half a million dollars of the people's money; that we must go home, and that our Progressive friends must also go home and do nothing for six weeks, the only reason being the keeping in power of the right hon. gentleman, who is apparently more anxious to retain power than to do what is best in the interests of the people of the country?
Canada could easily be made one of the greatest and most prosperous countries in the world. It is well known that during the last three and a half years we lost half a million of our population on account of the policy carried on during that period under the government of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King. Surely it was enough to lose half a million people in three and a half years. Why talk about an immigration policy that is going to bring in more farmers rather than the people we desire to attract to our shores? I am sure our western friends would like to see half a million more farmers come to this country to raise wheat, especially when wfe lost during the period to which I have referred half a million of our population-people who ought to be working in this country, using our grain and other crops grown by the farmers. In other words, we are driving out the young men and women who would make ours a great and prosperous country, and are building up the west with increased crops. What will the position be? If the western country continues to grow enormous quantities of the best wheat in the world, and it does not look to the building up of a population of young men and women working in factories and maintaining themselves in Quebec and in Ontario, what is going to be their market in the future when their wheat will be prevented from entering the United States? Because the policy of the United States to-day is to try to grow enough wheat and other crops within their own borders to make themselves independent of other countries in that respect.
Unless we decide to quit playing at politics as if it were a professional game of hockey; unless we come to realize that the country is paying us money to do something for it and that it does not matter who the Prime Minister is so long as the policy of the party is right and fair and just and is carried out according to what the party declares it to be-unless
Adjournment of the House

we do that we are not going to be a very prosperous or successful! country.
Take the Liberal policy of 1919, take the Liberal policy of to-day and take the Progressive policy as it is shown forth from- time to time, and you see that apparently the Progressives have the old-time Cartwright free trade policy. The present leader of the Progressive party is a free trader, and he feels like Sir Richard Cartwright did in his day and generation when the Laurier government came Into power in 1896. Sir Wilfrid Laurier in a veiy short time told the people of Canada that free trade as a theoretical thing was no doubt right, but so far as this country was concerned there would have to be a reasonable and fair tariff; and he made Canada a great and prosperous country by the tariff which he imposed. His tariff was about one and one-half per cent higher than the tariff of the Conservative party. Under that tariff the country prospered. But what is the position of the Liberal party to-day? The position is that they have joined the Progressives and gone back to the Cartwright days of free trade, without having any authority to do so from the province of Quebec or any other province. They did it without consulting anybody. This is their position to-day. Hon. members should represent the policies of the parties to whom they belong, upon the basis of which the public has been appealed to. Nobody has a right to change policies over night, or to change a policy merely because of prejudice or because for the time being a party wants to retain power.
It seems to me that the desire of the government to postpone for six weeks the work to be [DOT] done in this House is not fair to the public. It is not fair that we as members of parliament should draw our indemnities from the people of this country and allow the government to adjourn when, as everybody knows, there is work of vital importance to be done-work that can be quite easily done whether the Prime Minister is here or not. Furthermore, the suggestion has been made that the reason we cannot go on with the work of the country during the coming six weeks is because some of the members seem to think they are going to be engaged in by-elections where the policy of the government is challenged. I am quite satisfied that of the 245 members who are assembled here from different parts of the country you will find plenty of members ready and glad to stay here and to do any work which will facilitate the proper government of the country, which will help us to become more prosperous, and which will provide work if 
possible for the working people so that our country may become more prosperous.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: I rise for the purpose of entering my protest against the adjournment of the House for six weeks. I represent important industries in my riding which are very desirous of having matters pertaining to these industries placed before parliament at the earliest possible day, and it is my duty as their representative to see that these matters are placed before parliament without unnecessary delay. I have several questions and notices of motion on the order paper. One notice of motion in particular deals with the coal question, a matter of vital interest to the people of Canada, especially to the people of central Canada. We, who live in central Canada realize to the full that the time has come for this parliament to take definite action in regard to the coal question and to deal with it in a practical way. I have on the order paper a resolution, one paragraph of which I will read to the House in order to impress upon hon. members the importance of this question. It reads:
That a committee composed of members of this House be appointed to investigate our present sources of supply of anthracite and bituminous coal. The dependability of such sources, and whether the prices paid by the Canadian consumer is fair and reasonable, and to also enquire as to the methods of mining and delivering Canadian coal in the best and cheapest way to all parts of the Dominion, for the purpose of giving employment to our workmen, freight to our transportation companies, and thus effecting a saving of money now spent for tfiis commodity in other countries.
That is an important resolution and one that should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. I have no doubt that if the government adjourn for six weeks it will be practically impossibe for a committee of this House to deal with this question in any definite manner during the present session of parliament. Now is the time for the House to act upon this resolution and to take a definite stand in regard to the matter. It is not a question that can be dealt with by any individual or municipality or local government; it is a question for this parliament and the members of this parliament to decide definitely at this very session, in order that the people of central Canada may have delivered to them at the lowest possible cost, the fuel that is so badly needed in that part of the country. I do not wish to discuss the question further at this time, but I rise to protest against an adjournment of this House for six weeks in order that the present gov-

Adjournment oj the House
eminent, who have no right to remain in office, may continue in the position they now occupy.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say just a
very few words in regard to this motion. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Fo'.'ke), in opening his remarks in the debate on this motion for adjournment, said that silence was an indication of the judicial mind. I must congratulate the hon. member for Brandon on being the leader of a party consisting entirely of men of judicial temperament, for so far he is the only person from that quarter who has broken the silence. The silence has been unbroken by every person representing the Liberal party in this House, and so I invite members to gaze across the way and to try, if they possibly can, to imagine hon. gentlemen representing the Liberal party in this House as men of judicial temperament. They have certainly been silent on this matter. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) assumed an almost tragic aspect of countenance when this debate started. He seemed to be somewhat annoyed that he had not had an opportunity to open the debate. But what has become of his colleagues? What prevented the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) from expressing his views on this matter? What has kept the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) and the war-like Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), silent? Why have all these gentlemen been silent? According to the hon. member for Brandon, the answer is that they are all of that judicial aspect of mind w'hich keeps them absolutely silent on a matter of tremendous importance. Nothing of this kind has ever been before parliament previously.
The government is proposing an adjournment of six weeks, for what reason? No reason has thus far been given. It is presumed that they want to carry on some byelections. We have been told by one or two speakers, the hon. member for Brandon and. I think, another hon. gentleman, that it would be a most terrible thing to carry on by-elections in this country while parliament was in session and speeches were being delivered on the floor of parliament to influence those by-elections. Have the government and their colleagues so little confidence in the programme of legislation which they have submitted to parliament that they are
afraid to debate those questions on the floor of this House? One would think they would welcome an opportunity to do that in order that their speeches, being broadcast, would influence the votes in the by-elections that were being held. Can such by-elections, if and when they take place, assuming that the government will carry every one,
10 p.m. alter the numerical situation of their party in this House? Will they give them one additional vote? Not one. Then, why this adjournment? I am unable to find any reason for it. Can we find it in the Speech from the Throne? Why do the members of the Progressive party agree to an adjournment for six weeks when they have before them a programme in which they say they absolutely concur? Will they be any stronger or more able to meet the situation in putting the legislation through six weeks hence than they are to-day? Will they be in a better position to get through the legislation regarding the Hudson Bay railway or the legislation regarding the resources of Alberta after the 15th of March than they are now? When a course of action of this kind, so very unusual, takes place, the House and the country are justly entitled to an expression of opinion as to the reasons for the proposed adjournment. Reasons have been advanced on this side of the House why such an adjournment should not take place. I submit that the government and the members of the Progressive party, in keeping silent in this matter, are not fulfilling their duties and obligations as a government and as members of parliament to the people of this country.
I wish to deal with only one statement of the hon. member for Brandon. In his despair for some excuse for his attitude and that of his party, he said that in the election of 1925 the Conservative party polled 1,467,596 votes white 1,689,975 votes were polled by the other parties, that is the Liberals, Progressives, Independents and Labour. Therefore, he argued, the popular vote was opposed to the Conservative party, and that was sufficient reason, to him, why he should give his support to the Liberal party and not to the Conservative party. In the election of 1921 the Liberal party polled only 1.296.723 votes; the vote polled against the Liberal party in that election was 1,825,721. That is to say, the Liberal party was in a minority of 528,993 of the popular vote. It was also in a minority in this House. But that did not affect the hon. member for Brandon and his colleagues -no. He said in effect: It is all right; I
Adjournment of the House


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my protest against an adjournment for six weeks. My constituency sent me here and asked me to speed up matters. The condition of the man on the land in the west is not as has been represented by hon. gentlemen opposite. I have lived in western tChnada for forty years and should at least know something of the conditions of
Adjournment of the House

that western country. The men in the rural parts of western Canada want legislation speedily, and they want action. They do not want what we have been getting in this House, and I am at a loss to understand my friends at the other end of the chamber. But when I think the matter over, I am not so surprised after all. I belonged to them at one time, when they were called the Grain Growers. I left them, Mr. Speaker, because they deliberately wanted to ram their Liberal policies down my throat, and I objected strenuously. I said, "That is not what we were organized for." I have my card of membership here. This organization was then called the Grain Growers. They got ashamed of that name, and I do not wonder at it. They changed the name to the United Farmers, and then changed from United Farmers to Progressives, at the instigation of a few professional gentlemen in western Canada who did not like the word farmer.


Mr. FOURNIER:: - Who are they?


Henry Alfred Mullins: A few gentlemen in the
city of Winnipeg were responsible for the change of that name to "Progressives." I say with all due deference that the western farmers have a perfect right to organize to discuss their problems. I know these gentlemen very well; I have had a lot to do with them in various ways, and they stand ninety per cent Liberal, so I do not wonder at their going across and going into the lap of the Liberal party. But I do not know how they are going to answer their own paper, their own official mouth-organ in western Canada. I want to read for the benefit of the House a few words appearing in The Grain Growers' Guide of October 21, 1925, the official organ of the Progressive party in western Canada:
The Liberal Policy
In the present election campaign the Liberal party has really no policy beyond that which Premier King outlines from day to day in his various public speeches, and he shifts his ground so often that the proverbial Philadelphia lawyer would be hard pressed to discover anything in the nature of a consistent, constructive policy for the administration of Canadian affairs. Four years ago the Liberal party had a very clear-cut, detailed platform, which was modelled much after the Progressive platform in the hope of capturing Progressive votes. When the election was over, however, the Liberal party, true to its traditional procedure, ruthlessly abandoned its platform and violated the pledges upon which it appealed to the people.
In the present campaign Mr. King has gone up and down the prairie provinces urging the electors to send Liberal members to parliament instead of Progressives. He has definitely promised that if there are enough Liberal members from the prairie provinces the Liberal party will carry out its pledges. His party has been pledged to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway for the past twenty years, but during his four years in office he did nothing to implement that pledge. Now,

he says, that if the west will send him enough Liberal members he will complete the Hudson Bay road immediately. Some one has suggested that he ought to put his bribe into a definite form and offer to complete the road at so many miles per Liberal member elected. Such a promise would have the merit of definiteness at least. Mr. King's policy on tariff reduction is the same as on the Hudson Bay railway. All he asks for is more Liberal members and less Progressive members.
Further on the article continues:
If the people of the prairie 'provinces are satisfied with promises, and promises, and promises, and words, and words, and words, they should vote for Liberal candidates and support the King government. If the King government is returned to power with the support of Liberal members from the prairie provinces, these members will soon wear the halter of the Liberal caucus, and answer to the crack of the party whip, as they d:d in the days of the Laurier government, and the King government will go ahead violating its pre-election pledges as in the past.
How the hon. members of the Progressive party can support an adjournment for six weeks is more than I can understand. I have known the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) for nearly forty years; I have always known him to be a good staunch (Liberal and I have not changed my opinion of him yet, but I do object, and object strenuously, to members of the Progressive party masquerading under the name "Progressive" when they are true Liberals. It is unfair to the Liberal party to have them hiding under that name.
In my campaign in the west a certain gentleman by the name of W..T. R. Preston took -part. He made a bid for Liberal votes, but he did not want Progressive votes. I do not know whether or not he was in the pay of the Liberal party at that time, but he appeared on the platform at Russell and made this statement:
There is no hope of co-operation from Progressives-
Evidently he did not know them well.
-in this fight against the steamship combine, for the financiers behind the U.G.G. and the financiers behind the steamships are one and the same group. It is admitted by all leaders of the Liberal party in the east as well as the west that prosperity in western Canada is essential to the maintenance of confederation, but unless the west lines up for self-preservation, the east can do nothing to help.
That was the bid made by Mr. -Preston for Liberal support in the west, but he did not ask for Progressive support. In an article in the Grain Growers' Guide of December, 1925, I find this:
When the recent election campaign was in progress Mr. King came west offering to fulfil the pledges which for four years he had violated if only the people would reject the Progressive candidates and elect Liberals in their places. But he preached one tariff policy in eastern Canada and another one in the west; protection in the east and low tariff in the west.

Adjournment oj the House
The hon. member for Brandon, speaking at Manitou, Manitoba, on September 29, 1925, and referring to party caucuses, said:
If I go back to Ottawa as leader of the Progressive party, I will not be so particular about the secret caucus. Caucus secrets always leak out anyway. We will hold conferences and ask people in to discuss our problems with us.
Mr. Speaker, I am a westerner, and have the sam.e problems the Progressives have, but I have never been asked by them when the door was open to come in and discuss my problems with them. I have every problem in common with them, but our Progressive friends seem favourable to hon. gentlemen opposite, who are running the country headlong into destruction with their rampant expenditures.
We have sat here now for nearly thirty days, and it has cost this country a quarter of a million dollars. We are now going to adjourn for another six weeks, if this motion carries, and that will cost another quarter of a million dollars. That means it will cost this Canada of ours half a million dollars for the short time we have been here. I say that is unfair when theTe is so much hardship and such a struggle for existence on the part of the men out on the western prairies. We have invested $100,000,000 to re-establish the returned men on the land. I know these men; I have lived with them; I have been in camp with them; I know how they are struggling for an existence, and asking for assistance. They are asking this parliament for constructive legislation, not such legislation as the government proposes to enact; and I do not want to go out west again and then come back after wasting six weeks. I protest strongly against this adjournment, and if the hon. member for Brandon is going to lead his party in support of this iniquitous motion, I shall protest against his action and the action of the government on every western platform. As the member who represented the constituency of Marquette in the last House said, "This country is in a drifting condition, with expenditure rampant, running towards destruction." Hon. Mr. Crerar made that statement at Regina.
I represent one of the most outstanding agricultural constituencies in western Canada. In agriculture, it is second to none. We are not simply grain growers and soil robbers; we are engaged in diversified farming. We are men who value the cow on the land; we think a lot of her. Some have taken objection to the remarks I made regarding the live stock industry the last time I spoke, but I want to say that our constituency is 14011-43
branching out into diversified farming. I might mention that at the Royal Show in Toronto the Shoal Lake Creamery took first prize against all comers for butter and a lady, from Maeauley took first prize for dairy products-a Mrs. Bell.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I say that this motion, if carried, will simply run the country into further unnecessary expenditure, and I protest against it. If the Progressive members support it, it will react against them. It is in their hands to carry or defeat the motion, and they know it.
There are one or two other things I should like to speak about, but I have strict orders from my constituents to speak briefly whenever I address this House, because they say there are too many long speeches here, which simply put the country to unnecessary expense. Other speakers are to follow me, and I shall be brief.
I have here a cartoon taken from the mouthpiece of the gentlemen at the other end of the chamber, from the Grain Growers' Guide. It shows a splendid looking horse on the western prairies. He looks fine and is marked "Progressive." The Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King is pictured with a halter and a dish of oats, which he is holding out to the horse, trying to coax him in so that he can put the halter on him. The halter looks a good strong one that the most unruly horse could not break. It is quite evident to me that the hon. gentlemen at the other end of the chamber have put their heads into the halter, and are going over to their friends opposite. If they do, all I can say to them is this: It spells their end in western Canada. I know my constituency and western Canada very well, and I know that those who sent us here to carry on the business of this country, and legislate, and legislate quickly, will resent any adjournment of this House. The feelings of the west are well expressed in this verse:
Send us men to match our mountains,
Send us men to match our plains;
Men with empires in their purpose
And new eras in their brain.
That is the kind of men we want, not men of small calibre who will adopt the tactics of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the spectacle this House has witnessed is without parallel or approach in the history of this most extraordinary administration. Never has any member of the House in the last twenty

Adjournment of the House

emphasize them particularly, those reasons have great weight. What is the situation of hon. members here? They have come here and some of them have taken up their abodes for the session. Some have given up their homes. Their families are here. They are to be asked to sit for six weeks in idleness, or to spend it in practically worthless visits to their constituencies. They are asked to do so for no good reason, and for no reason imaginable, except to meet the inconveniences of the members of the administration brought upon themselves by their own folly. But what are the other reasons? What are the reasons against the adjournment which go deeper than the convenience of hon. members of this House? Is this session a necessary session? Is this country in need of a lead from the government? Is this Dominion in need of a solution of imperative and pressing problems? Hon. members of the administration themselves have never tired of thundering this in our ears. Did we not only a few months ago have a general election because there were great threatening problems hanging over the nation which demanded treatment and solution without delay? Was not that the reason given by the head of the government himself? Did he not recite those matters one by one, and declare they could not wait; that this was no time to mark time, but a time to move on? We have now waited three months and have done nothing. We are asked to go home for six weeks and do nothing more, and all this when the occasion is so critical, as described by members of the government themselves.
But as a matter of fact is there not injury to the country, and serious injury, by the very delay, if for no other reason than that there is delay? What is Canada suffering from today? Do hon. members of the government now say nothing? If they do, how is it they contended that those evils were so great just four months ago? Have they dealt with any of these things? They have not dealt with one; they are bound they will not deal with one and that they will not bring dotvn a concrete solution of one of them until they get through their supplementary elections, in order that they may paint these things in the Speech from the Throne in whatever colours happens to suit the constituency. We have the Hudson Bay railway promised. When there is an election on in Prince Albert, the road is to be built to the bay, terminals are to be constructed and the whole thing to be completed -expense no consideration. But if there is an election in a constituency where that railway is not popular, the whole project will take

another colour. That is all possible, so long as the government can escape being questioned in this House, escape being brought to account and made to declare what it intends to do and just where it intends to build. All these solutions which demanded attention at the hands of parliament can wait, in order that the government may take a varying and nebulous attitude before the constituencies in Canada and help repair their own fortunes. Hon. gentlemen to my left are apparently prepared to vote that this should be done; they are apparently prepared to vote tonight that this government may go into dock for repairs, whereas two weeks ago they voted that the government was a competent committee of parliament and that it was its duty to function as such. Hon. gentlemen-not all of them, but nearly all, in the last four years-formed a sort of tacit alliance with the government of the day. Because of that alliance two-thirds of them were defeated in their constituencies, and now they ore but a wreck of their former selves. They are becoming enmeshed again in a weird and wizened complex with hon. gentlemen opposite, and if they pursue that course the remnant of to-day will become all but extinguished when another contest comes. All that will be left then of hon. gentlemen to my left-and they know it themselves- will be just such few men as, because of special talents, are deemed essential or desirable in the public life of our country. As a party they will disappear. I wonder whether in the supplementary election-this corrupt appendix that we are going to see in a few weeks if the government has its way to-night- hon. members of the Progressive party will be represent^ in the contest? Or is there an understanding that they will be out on the hustings supporting the new members of the administration when they appeal to their electors? I wonder what the intention of the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) is in that regard? May I venture a prophecy? In those by-elections there will never be a Progressive show his head; there will never be a Progressive give evidence even of life. For the purpose of this supplementary election they will 'be absorbed in the Liberal party of to-day. When the next election comes, where will they be? After the termination of the understanding, what they call a system of co-operation-for one term is just as good as another-where will the Progressive party be?
I suggest to hon. members that it is time to treat this resolution on its merits. It is time for the government to get on one foot or the other. If they are not competent to

Adjournment of the House
carry on in this parliament their duty is to resign the responsibility and to give someone else a chance. This is a parliament elected on their appeal. This is a parliament called under their auspices. This is a parliament elected as a result of their challenge. If in this parliament they are not competent to carry on and perform the work of the session as a government should, then they have one duty and one only, and that is to step aside and enable someone else to try. I ask the government to-night to state their position. I believe someone will rise. I can not believe they will submit to this humiliation any longer. I think they will change their tactics. I think they will switch, and it will be a long time before a government, whose members and whose followers had time enough to waste three days after a debate was over in order merely to delay decision, will ever again try to let a debate go by default and wait to take part in it only when all opportunity of reply has gone.
What I was going to ask of hon. members of the government is this:	Do they claim
that in this parliament elected on their challenge this parliament which is the result of an election in which they appealed on their record, they have the right to ask any favours of this House? Or can they point, in the history of this parliament or of the parliament of any other country, to a government unable to carry on as such asking for the privilege of getting back to the people in certain selected constituencies, parliament in the meantime adjourning, and members departing to their hames? Do they ever remember a government asking for that privilege in order that it might enable itself to carry on? I challenge the government to-night to point to an instance of such humiliation suffered by an administration anywhere in any British country. If the government is not able to do the work for which it called this parliament together, it is its duty to step aside and to give somebody else a chance.
I	will not be going out of the way if I seek to intimate what the government has as its purpose. I need do scarcely anything in the way of conjecture. It is revealed in the
speech of the Minister of Cus-
II	p.m. toms and Excise in the city of
Montreal. The great objective of this government is to hold on to the machinery of elections in order to be in possession of it when the next contest comes. Do hon. members to my left really think the objective of the government is to put into effect the Speech from the Throne in the
sense in which they understand it? Do they know of any reason in the last parliament, if this was a part of Liberal policy, why it did not become Liberal legislation? Hon. members to my left know it became a part of Liberal policy just because it became a part of Liberal necessity. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) well described the situation when he declared that hon. gentlemen opposite are now no more than voting machines registering the demands, which he miscalls principles, of hon. gentlemen to my left. I ask: Does it become the dignity of the Liberal party of Canada to relegate themselves to the status of voters, while a small group representing but eight per cent of the electorate of this country tells them what must be their principles? Does it become the dignity of the Liberal party of Canada, in order to maintain a few of their number in the sweets of office, to abandon declarations which they made but a few months ago to surrender what they have called their principles, to pursue them no more, and to swerve into uncharted space to meet the demands merely of hon. gentlemen to my left while all of them sit bound to their seats in silence remembering that they are nothing but "voters" as declared by the hon. member for Labelle? Can anything be more injurious, more deleterious to the public life of this country, and more undermining to British institutions and ail sense of responsible government than that an administration with half of its members defeated, without a head, without a majority, without a policy, should be able to come to parliament in order to get a new mandate to carry on, and fling out a new set of promises to a small group severed from themselves, and having got their adherence, then to be granted by them a supplementary election in order to enable them to re-elect themselves into an administration? I put this question to hon. members:	Is there anything in conduct of
that kind consonant in the least degree with responsible government in a British country such as we have understood it? The Minister of Customs and Excise knows right well there is not. He knows either the government must demand confidence on its record; or if it has a new policy upon which it wants to make an appeal and if it has a right to a dissolution then it must go before the people of the country with that new policy and not simply seek to use it as a bribe on the auction block of the House of Commons. My first appeal is to members of the government to
Adjournment of the House

break their silence; to stand up and, if there be any reason for this resolution, to give it.


An hon. MEMBER:: You had much better resign.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. members opposite
in this debate are taking no part by way of organized speech, but they are constantly haying resort to those inarticulate ejaculations which ceased to be the natural expression of human beings some five thousand years ago. Let me make a last appeal to members of the government and to its supporters. If there is any reason for this resolution let us have it. Do not let us be told by someone, speaking when he knows there can be no reply: "Oh, well, if we do not get an adjournment and you come in, you would demand an adjournment." When we come in we do not come in as a government ready to carry on. We do not call parliament together for that purpose. This government has called parliament for the despatch of business. Every new government has a right to form itself; but no government which claims to be formed, to be in a position to administer the affairs of the country, has a right in the next breath to declare that it is not formed and is not in a position to function. Not only, then, for the convenience of hon. members of this House, but for the far higher interests of the people of Canada, and still more in order that we may vindicate, even though late, the plainest principles of British constitutional government, I ask the House to vote down this resolution.
Mr. LAPOINTE (rising).


Mr. SUTHERLAND (North Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I am ready to go
on with this debate, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Sutherland moves,
seconded by Mr. Ryerson, that the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, this order could not be on the order paper to-morrow if this motion carries.


Arthur Meighen: I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that what the hon. leader of the House says 
is right, but we are prepared to consent, as far as we are concerned, to its going on the order paper to-morrow.


Ernest Lapointe: Even then, Mr. Speaked, to-morrow is Wednesday, and at six o'clock that order would go off the order paper. I am not going to be caught in that way.


Arthur Meighen: We are quite prepared
to have it carried on.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go on to-night.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion is not debatable.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, what I
want to point out to the leader of the House is this, that by just the same arrangement between the parties we carried on the first debate in this House through an entire week. We do not want to take any advantage of that kind; we want this matter disposed of, and all we expect is an adjournment at such an hour as the government itself agreed to during the whole course of the recent debate.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has been allowed to say a few words I suppose I shall have the same privilege? Hon. gentlemen opposite have been complaining all day that I was not giving any reasons for this motion. I am willing to give those reasons to-day before the closing of this sitting, and I think it is only fair that I should be allowed that privilege. Now, the motion asks for an adjournment until March 15, and as I intimated to the House last week we believe an adjournment of six weeks is necessary. If we allow this motion to be postponed it will be impossible to have the six weeks' adjournment.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared that the hon. gentleman should have the same privilege that I had of discussing the question of the propriety of the conditions of this adjournment. I am not prepared that he should take part in the middle of the debate and reserve his right to reply at the end. He should not ask for any such special favour.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not asking for any special favour. I am giving reasons why it is urgent that this debate should be concluded to-day.


Hewitt Bostock: There is a motion before the House that the debate be now adjourned. This motion is not debatable.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Mr. Speaker,-.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member has already spoken. I wish to be fair to the hon. member, but my duty is clearly laid down at paragraph 253 under rule 21 of Beauchesne's
680	COMMONS
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which is as follows:
By moving or seconding an amendment, a member, if he utters a few words, actually speaks to the main motion. It is only after the amendment has been put by the Speaker that it is considered a new question.
Paragraph 258 is still more to the point, as it prevents the member who has moved the adjournment of the debate from speaking again.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I trust that by the
time I have concluded my remarks the hon. member who has inadvertently been deprived of the opportunity to speak will have his place restored.
May I preface what I am going to say by expressing my regret that the usual courtesies of parliament have in this case been departed from and that we find ourselves forced to continue the debate, and probably continue it for a most wearisome and unreasonable length of time. I trust, however, Mr. Speaker, before concluding, to have furnished the House with ample reasons, very cogent and decidedly important reasons, why the House should not agree to this motion for a lengthy adjournment of parliament.
It will be recalled that on a previous occasion when addressing the House I intimated to the government a reason why I considered they were dinging to office. The reason I intimated then is equally applicable at this time. It is, Sir, that the government is desirous, indeed, exceedingly anxious, to escape the risk of certain things coming to light directly affecting their administration, which, if they do and when they do, will complete the utter discrediting of this government, if, indeed, it were necessary to add to the proofs already brought forward.
The government, and I address them as such, ask this House to agree to a lengthy adjournment of parliament. I want to bring to the attention of hon. members this fact: The government ask for this adjournment before the completion of the discussion of the Speech from the Throne. At least they might have waited until the Speech from the Throne was disposed of, because they know, and this House is well aware, that there are many things to be brought to the attention of parliament before the Speech from the Throne is finally disposed of. But the government ask for a blank cheque. They ask for blind authority from this parliament, without reason, without excuse, to agree to a lengthy adjournment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose to give this House certain reasons why we should not ad-
[Mr. Speaker.)
joum; indeed, why if we do adjourn we deserve one and all to lose the confidence and the respect of the people of Canada. I shall be compelled, Mr. Speaker, to address some very pointed, some very damaging remarks and accusations towards the government, and I wish to make clear at this time that I am discussing the government as an aggregation of individuals. I am discussing this question and directing my remarks to them collectively, not individually. Indeed, Sir, I am tempted at the very outset to eliminate from the ambit-shall I say?-of my charges certain ministers, notably the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). I wish to clear the ground, as it were, before I proceed with the more serious matter before me. I think the Minister of Finance has perhaps done something at least to direct his colleagues along the right line, and I am inclined to eliminate him from the case except in so far as he remains identified with the government and must therefore accept collective responsibility for the government's actions, and for the government's sins or offences. I am inclined to except also and to exonerate the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), the Minister of Militia (Mr. Macdonald) and, with a measure of regret, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell).


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I do not want to be exempted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Agriculture desires to have the spotlight fastened upon him no matter whether what it reveals is creditable or discreditable. Whatever may come, he says, let the light fall upon me. However, I will say this: The Minister of Agriculture is, in sporting parlance, a fiend for punishment. I do, however, desire to make it clear that the serious statements I am about to make, and the facts-
Mr. RINFRET (rising).


Henry Herbert Stevens: I pause right now to say a word or two through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). During this whole session-I am directing my remarks more directly to Your Honour-sitting in my seat I have heard constantly falling from the lips of my hon. friend the member for St. James interjections that are anything but gentlemanly and parliamentary.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will withdraw the word "gentlemanly," and leave it at "parliamentary." When I entered this House, Mr. Speaker, some seventeen sessions ago I watched

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
two eminent men, one the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the other the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, then leader of our party, and I learned from them a lesson which my hon. friend from St. James has failed to learn, and that was to treat the hon. members of this House with courtesy. I learned that lesson, and I value the memory of the friendship of both those eminent gentlemen.
Mr. Speaker, I was proceeding in my own weak and perhaps faulty way to lay the foundation for a very serious series of statements which I purpose making. I want to make it clear that the statements I am about to make are directed at this government collectively as a group of individuals arrogating to themselves certain powers, very important powers, the powers of authority and of the administration of the affairs of this great country. Their administration is at fault in many respects, but after careful investigation -and I had intended to bring this matter up in the proper way had not the minister interjected this motion for a hurried adjournment of the House; I had intended discussing it on the motion I had on the order paper, but which I have withdrawn-I want to Say to the House that because of these disclosures of the most gross forms of maladministration on the part of the government, it is my duty to lay the facts of the case before the House and let the House judge whether or not we should allow this government a lengthy period of adjournment for the purpose of deleting from the files of this parliament and of this government evidence of their maladministration-no, Mr. Speaker, not for the fear that they may do that, but that they will continue to do what has already been done. I will show, Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I hope to the most prejudiced mind in this House, that a very grave and serious condition of affairs exists in this country in connection with this government. I do not limit it to one department alone, although my remarks will be directed more chiefly to the administration of the Customs department. I will try to show why this government, Mr. Speaker, is unfitted to be entrusted with the investigation of these things. I wish to say right now that already nine filing cabinets filled with records containing damaging evidence have been removed from the custody and the care of that institution known as the government, taken away down to the home of an ex-minister and there destroyed. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that there are feverish efforts to secure an adjournment. The government knows well, very well, that some of the most flagrant violations of the customs
laws have been going on, and been carried on brazenly in this country during the past year. Now let me make myself clear. What I have to say to-night is not limited to this year; no doubt the ramifications of it may reach back many years. What I am accusing the government of is this: that for a year the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Customs, the ex-Minister of Customs, the Acting Minister of Customs, the Minister of Marine, the present minister,- no, I will stop with the others

they knew that this condition existed. The Minister of Customs learned it when he entered office. The Solicitor General entered the government with a knowledge of these things.


Ernest Lapointe: I deny that entirely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman is not in order.


Ernest Lapointe: If what my hon. friend
says is true, and I do not think it is true, I deny entirely the knowledge of any such thing and I throw the charge back into his teeth.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me, following my leader, I do the same.


Arthur Meighen: Are we to have a series
of speeches during this speech?


Hewitt Bostock: Am I to understand that the hon. gentleman rises to a question of privilege?


Lucien Cannon: Surely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am always prepared to place myself entirely in your charge in the direction of the debates of this House. I repeat what I said a moment ago, that I charge this government writh knowledge for a year, or almost a year-members of the government including the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Marine, the ex-Minister of Customs-this government, with knowledge, with positive knowledge, with abundance of proof, that the grossest violations of the customs laws were being perpetrated in this countiy.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman will
allow me to say that that has been denied by the Minister of Justice, and he is bound to accept the denial.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate
to question in the slightest degree any ruling Your Honour may make. May I, however, advance this suggestion to Your Honour-that I have made it abundantly clear that I am charging this government, I am not charging individual members-

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am saying that it is
within the knowledge of the ministers of certain departments.


Ernest Lapointe: Even that I deny. Anything my hon. friend has said as to my knowledge I deny entirely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall at least, Mr. Speaker, be credited with having broken through this barrage of silence. At least the tongues of hon. gentlemen opposite are loosening.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not a very fine
way to get it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: At last the voices of the members of this government seem to be articulate. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that as I proceed, and after I have completed my remarks, the government may say "Oh, we will appoint a royal commission to investigate this."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I hear some murmurs
from the other side. Even hon. gentlemen there have a horror of royal commissions such as this government has appointed. I want to say, however, that a royal commission appointed by this government-speaking of them collectively-that possess a guilty knowledge of this thing will not be satisfactory to me.


Lucien Cannon: Will my hon. friend allow me a question?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend mentioned the Solicitor General as having a knowledge of certain proceedings. Will he be kind enough to mention what proceedings he is referring to?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will, at great length. I shall be only too happy to serve my hon. friend in that regard.


Lucien Cannon: I will help my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Tam sure you will. I
am counting on the assistance of the Solicitor General because I have under my hand, Mr. Speaker, some actual examinations in court by my hon. friend, which I will come to in due course; and in saying that I am not casting any reflection on the Solicitor General.


Lucien Cannon: I am quite sure of that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I do wish
to say this before I proceed:	I would
that some of the ministers would, to use a 
scriptural expression, "come out from among them, and be ye separate." I think there is time yet for them to-shall I say?-show their self-respect by dissociating themselves from the aggregation known as the government, to whom I am directing my remarks.
It may be asked as I proceed-and I will mention the facts a little later-where I got my information. It is quite a common practice in debates and discussions of this kind foT a member to rise in his place and say "From what is the hon. gentleman quoting? Who is the person that gave him this information?" I will not disclose the source of my information and I will say very frankly why. In the first place I will not disclose the source of my information because if I were to do so those who are most guilty in this matter would be notified within an hour and would be able to take the necessary precautions to cover their tracks. In the second place I will not disclose the source of my information because I know, and I will prove it to the House before I am through, that innocent business men would not dare to walk the streets of Montreal if it were known that they disclosed certain information. Yes, and the ministers know this, the government know it.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guysbor-ough):: As a member of the government I
want to say that I have not heard of the hon. gentleman's story.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not told it yet.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not heard of the insinuation.


William Richard Motherwell: This is the first I have heard of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why, the Minister of
Agriculture a moment ago welcomed all the blame being placed upon his shoulders. The third reason why I do not desire to disclose the source of my information is this:	That
steps would be immediately taken to destroy information and evidence now in the possession of the various departments. I want to take first-


Mr. BOIVIN:: I rise to a point of order.
I do not think it is competent for any member of this House to say that a minister would destroy papers in the possession of his department for the purpose of preventing the production of evidence before parliament. I claim that it is a breach of the liberties of parliament so to accuse a minister, and I for one will not stand for it.


An hon. MEMBER:: But supposing it is
true.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Hewitt Bostock: Order, order. I would
remind the hon. member that it is a criminal offence to destroy documents which could be used in evidence in a court of law. I hope the hon. member will not accuse any member of the House of being guilty of such conduct. Perhaps he will see fit to withdraw his statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw, withdraw.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member for St. James is talking again-


Mr. PARENT:: Will the hon. member
repeat his statement outside the House?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I will repeat it outside the House. I am glad it is a criminal offence, because I think there are some people who should be prosecuted.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I rise to a point of order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know this is very distasteful.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend has made insinuations. I as a member of the government absolutely repudiate them. Nobody ever heard of these stories he is talking about. In reference to the point taken by the hon. Minister of Customs that the .charge made by my hon. friend to the effect that if certain names were given, ministers would destroy documents in their possession, that charge the hon. member must withdraw, under your ruling.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I simply wish to remind
the hon. member that I made no such statement. I want my hon. friend to understand that I am not evading the question at all. I made the statement that documents had been destroyed, that nine of the filing cabinets had been taken away and the documents destroyed; I said further that I would not disclose the source of my information, and one of the reasons was that I feared the destruction of further evidence now in the custody of the government. I know this is distasteful to hon. members, but I would like to remind the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) that I exonerated him before I started. I do not think he has any knowledge of it. , I am speaking of the government collectively, and to the degree that an individual member of the government is associated with the government he must bear his responsibility-unless individual members of it accept my invitation of a moment ago of going out from the aggregation and separating themselves from it. They have that choice.
I now turn to the Prime Minister, and I wish to say that I would very much rather discuss this later on than at the present time.
I would have preferred to discuss it under my resolution, but I claim that the resolution now before the House was designed to prevent just such disclosures. The Prime Minister was duly informed and aware of these conditions which I shall deal with in a moment. He knew of them. He was fully advised. He discussed them. I have under my hand his own speech in the House of Commons last year where he regrets to say that smuggling has reached a point 12 m. where our customs officials find themselves quite incapable of coping with it effectively. Then he goes on to point out that pressure was brought to bear on customs officers, and he refers to the difficulty of keeping them honest. He said:
A year or so ago, at the request of many of the largest wholesale and retail merchants of the Dominion, the government agreed, if they would form a voluntary association, to co-operate with its membership in their efforts to evolve a more effective means of counteracting this evil. The Commercial Protective Association is an outgrowth of this understanding.
These are his words of 1st June, 1925. He proceeds:
The government in this legislation is seriously endeavouring-
That is, the legislation passed last year, which has remained dormant, one prosecution only having taken place under it. The Minister of Customs of that day stood in his place in the House and referred to the necessity of a vote of 1350,000, yet only one prosecution has taken place. He proceeds:
The government an this legislation is seriously endeavouring to overcome a very grave evil that has developed on a vast scale within the last few years.
He stated further, speaking of the money loss to the country:
But some of those who believe themselves to be well-informed estimate that anywhere from $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 a year is being lost through smuggling
operations.
According to his own statement it was estimated that from $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 was being lost through smuggling operations into this country. Furthermore, I am told by the best of authority that $200,000,000 a year is more like the figure. I pause to say this: Hon. members spoke very feelingly in this debate about the excess of exports over imports. I think they had better add
6S4
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

$200,000,000 to their imports-goods smuggled in without the payment of duty, costing the country in actual revenue sums which we cannot estimate definitely, but certainly in excess of $30,000,000, of which the exchequer is actually defrauded.
The Prime Minister yesterday in Prince Albert made certain charges about a million-dollar election fund in Quebec during the last election. I want to say to him that if he were here I would make the statement, but I will say now to his associates, that since the last election friends of the ministry have stolen from the exchequer of this country, have defrauded the exchequer of this country of millions of dollars. These are the things we want to pay attention to-not to nebulous charges about persons outside contributing funds for the election. Inside, under the control of the government, within the knowledge of the government, encompassed by their powers and authority, millions are being annually stolen out of the treasury of this country. And, Sir, those most guilty are clearly known to the people in the various businesses and known to the government. Let me quote from a statement by Mr. Calder, who was I think a Liberal candidate in the last election- a prominent member of the Liberal party:
It is recalled, in this respect, that during the recent election campaign speeches R. L. Calder, K.C., declared that the Montreal Customs House was one of "the greatest clearing houses for stolen goods in Canada."
He was one of their candidates. I spoke of the $350,000 vote a moment ago. I am not going into any very great detail in that regard. This vote was secured from this House under certain solemn and intimately confidential understandings. We were persuaded, Sir, that there was a serious state of affairs in Canada. Now we know it and know it thoroughly. We were asked to vote $350,000-and by the way that was $150,000 more than was estimated as necessary by those promoting the matter. Why that was done nobody knows. We voted $350,000 for special preventive work. What did the government do with it? It was used largely for political henchmen during the election-one indeed ninety-two years old; he was paid for special preventive work out of the vote secured by false px-etences by this government from parliament. I find that this loathsome condition obtains chiefly in the customs district of Montreal, but it is by no means limited to Montreal or to that district. Its trail is in Prince Rupert, in Huntingdon. B.C.; it certainly can be found aroxind Windsor, and we know it is around the Niagara district. It is also on the Atlantic coast. But the central, pivotal point, the veritable cesspool

of it all, is in the gi-eat customs district of Montreal. I find running all through this thing like a slimy, evil influence the name of an individual Bisaillon, and I am going to examine a little into this man's record. It is well to start right in and to say who and what he is and what this government has done with him. The worst of crooks, he is the intimate of ministers, the petted favourite of this government. The recipient of a moderate salary, he rolls in wealth and opulence, a typical debauched and debauching public official.


Mr. JACOBS:: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to say that that gentleman belongs to the Conservative party?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My good friend is pleased to have his joke.


Samuel William Jacobs: There is no joke about that. The joke is on you.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The joke is that this government promoted this man after they had knowledge of his crimes-to what position? As chief of the preventive staff of the district of Quebec. I care not whether he was a Conservative or what he was. He is a criminal and a known crook. He was appointed first to the customs service, as nearly as I can learn, in 1910. Where were the Grits of Montreal to let a Tory be appointed to the customs service in 1910? No, the joke goes right back to my hon. friend.


Samuel William Jacobs: We were too trusting then.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I give the palm to my hon. friend as senior joker of this House, but the facts are too damaging for him to make a joke of the matter. He had a junior position in the customs service, and he was promoted by the Minister of Customs-not the present one, but his predecessor-in 1924, to be chief preventive officer of Quebec.


Samuel William Jacobs: Where was he between 1911 and 1921?


Henry Herbert Stevens: From what I know of him I would say that he was in no good service. He was in mischief from start to finish. If I can judge by this man's character, I doubt if he lived a straight day during that whole period. Let me repeat to my hon. friend and other hon. members: I am not seeking to limit the evils of smuggling to the term of this government's office. What I say is that for a year this government has had intimate knowledge of it, and that is what I am charging. This man has a farm on the boundary, on the Canadian side and on the American side, a

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
rendezvous of noted crooks and smugglers. He is the head, the chief smuggler of the ring, a perjurer and a thief. In the presence of a deputy and another witness, this individual, asking to be appointed to certain positions, offered to superior officers a bribe of 8100 a week, not a casual little bribe that ended with the first offering, but a steady salary addition of $100 a week. This was before he was chief preventive officer. Now, follow me, all members of the government. This was reported to the minister of the crown, and subsequently to- the report of that offer of a bribe, the same minister of the crown promoted him to the position of chief preventive officer of the district of Quebec. Bisaillon offered a bribe for promotion, but " No," this -government says, " keep your money to yourself; do not waste your money in that way; we will give you the position without any bribe," and they elected this arch smuggler, whose record since 1903 and 1904 is slimy with rottenness and crime, to the most responsible position in the gift of the government in the customs service of that province, to the most responsible position in the gift of this government in the Dominion of Canada as far as an opportunity for corruption, crookedness and graft was concerned. I am giving simply certain facts and I am going to ask the House to judge for itself. I hold in my hand a letter addressed to Alfred Bissonette, M.L.A. The date is November 16, 1925, and the letter TeadS:
Dear Mr. Bissonette,
I would very much like to see you some time next week regarding the forthcoming interview I am to have with the Honourable the Minister of Customs and Excise, which you have so kindly offered to arrange for me.
As the time is now ripe for this interview to take place I would indeed esteem it a great favour if you will name the date and the place that I may meet you as I am desirous of talking over with you certain matters prior to the interview with Mr. Boivin.
You might advise me whether you are coming to Montreal in the near future or whether it would be better for me to go to Rock Island.
Yours truly,
J. E. Bisaillon,
Special Inspector of Customs and Excise.
I read this letter for this purpose-to show that Bisaillon and Bissonette, M.L.A., intimate political associate, chief political manipulator of this government in the district of Rock Island, were closely associated, and that through Bissonette the Minister of Customs had a certain interview with this gentleman.


Georges Henri Boivin: I rise to a question of
privilege again. My hon. friend had a perfect right to read the letter, but he has no right to say that I had an interview with Mr. Bisaillon. I state here publicly, upon my honour as a member of parliament, that I never met Mr. Bisaillon in my life; I never saw Mr. Bisaillon; I do not know Mr. Bisaillon, and I do not want to know Mr. Bisaillon.	_


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am very glad to know
the minister is so vociferous in his denunciation of Mr. Bisaillon. That is, at least, one good mark to his credit.


Samuel William Jacobs: Was the original Of this
letter from Bisaillon to Bissonette in English or in French?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am reading a letter and, as I stated a moment ago, I have no intention -I want to be perfectly frank with hon. gentlemen-to disclose the source of my information.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is not my question. I am asking merely:	Is the original in English
or in French?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend, as a clever lawyer dealing with an inexperienced layman, perhaps can finally arrive at a point by circuitous routes, and I do not intend to allow him to do so.


Georges Henri Boivin: I rise to a point of order.
I would like to follow the example set this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). He denied a statement this afternoon. I deny an interview. He insisted upon having that statement retracted. I insist upon the hon. member retracting the statement that I ever had an interview with Mr. Bisaillon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why, Mr. Speaker, I at once accepted my hon. friend's word on the previous occasion. If I did not make it clear then I will certainly make it clear now.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the hon. member accepted the denial of the hon. minister. But might I suggest to him that it seems to me we are travelling far beyond the subject matter of this debate. These are very serious charges against individuals who are not before the House. Of course they may be summoned and parliament may investigate those charges. I dare say that the hon. gentleman intends later on-indeed he has a motion on the order paper to that effect-to bring those charges before the House; but at present how does he connect them with the motion before the Chair?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate the query to which you have given expression. I associate the charges with the motion before the House in this way, Sir, and

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
I should like to make myself abundantly clear, if I may. This government is seeking a prolonged adjournment of the House. Its request comes in the midst of the debate on the Speech from the Throne. If we pass the motion before the. House at this moment, the government may, without any notice, move the adjournment of the House in harmony with that motion. I had my question on the order paper thinking the House would in due course reach that order, when I intended to discuss it and ask for a committee of the House to investigate. This resolution, with the prolonged adjournment and other facts which will be disclosed as I proceed- and I should like to proceed orderly-would have made it impossible for me properly to discuss the matter or bring it before parliament. My second reason is this, Sir. It seems to me abundantly clear and exceedingly important that the House ought not to grant this government an adjournment as long as the conditions which I am now disclosing, and which I will proceed to disclose, exist in this country. I trust, Sir, that I have placed myself within the rules with this explanation.
Now, I intimated a moment ago that the activities of this man Bisaillon ran through nearly all the occurrences in connection with the Customs department in Montreal and district. I want to illustrate this, with a few cases. Let me take, first the barge Tremblay. This case I think perhaps provided-and here is where my hon. friend the Solicitor General I think will agree with me-this case provided in the courts of Quebec what might almost be termed a burlesque, equal probably to anything that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) ever attempted to put on in this House.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Our judicial proceedings in Quebec never amount to a burlesque. I do not know what my hon. friend means, but the proceedings in connection with the barge Tremblay were conducted according to the rules in the ordinary course and according to law-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lucien Cannon: -and I do not think my hon. friend-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Lucien Cannon: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend. In fact I am very much interested in what he is saying, but I think he went a bit too far when he said that the judicial proceedings in Quebec amounted to a burlesque-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, much as I-[DOT]


Lucien Cannon: I submit that he should not use such an expression.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Much as I value and esteem the friendship of my hon. friend-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Hon. gentlemen are aware that no reference must be made in terms of contempt to the courts of justice, especially to the higher courts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am exceedingly sorry that I seem to-night to be touching my hon. friends opposite on rather tender spots.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to remind
you, Sir, that my references were not to any judge of the Quebec courts. In fact the judge made some observations which I intend to refer to, for they are execeedingly damaging to this individual Bisaiillon. I simply said that certain things in connection with the barge Tremblay case rendered it a burlesque. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing encroaching on the rules in a statement of that kind?
Now, this is a typical liquor smuggling case. Again, I must pause to make a statement.- I am not bringing forward any of these cases of liquor smuggling on the basis of objecting to liquor; my point is that they constitute a serious defrauding of the revenues of the country. I want that kept in ;mind. That is the point of my attack, that is the charge, that is all I am interested in in what I am now bringing to the attention of the House. It is a typical case of smuggling some S350,000 worth of liquor. The barge Tremblay was seized .at Quebec by the officers of the liquor control board. Bisaillon, the chief Dominion preventive officer, had arranged for this liquor to pass.


Georges Parent: Mr. Speaker, if I may be
allowed to correct the hon. gentleman? He said that the barge was seized' at Quebec. For the good reputation of Quebec city, I would remind him that his statement is not correct.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I said that the barge was
first seized by the officers of the liquor control board of the province of Quebec. Surely that is nothing to quibble about. This man Bisaillon, the chief customs preventive officer of the district of Quebec, had arranged for the passage of this -barge to be smooth and uninterrupted, but the liquor control board officers did their duty, for which I give them credit. Do not think ,for a moment that I

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
am reflecting on them. In fact I praise their fidelity to duty in contradistinction to the activities of the customs officers of the district. They did their duty splendidly. Then Bisail-lon stepped in with his superior power as chief customs officer, made a seizure over and above the liquor control board and took the barge out of their hands. Afterwards the provincial officers arrested Bisaillon and he was put on trial. He was prosecuted, and my hon. friend the Solicitor General was, I think, one of the crown attorneys in the case.
Now, my reason for referring to this case is to show the type of man we are dealing with, and also to show what knowledge has through indubitable sources been in the hands of this government, which still retained Bisail-lon in office. That is what I want this House to remember. 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. What I say to this government, what I hold them responsible for, is this:	In the
face of the disclosures-not in this case alone, but in dozens of other cases-but even in the face of the disclosures in this case the man was kept as chief preventive officer of the Customs department for the district, that he " was not prosecuted, nor was any attempt made to recover the moneys which he had stolen and defrauded the government of.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me; I rise to a point of order. In all fairness, my hon. friend will acknowledge that when I acted as Crown Prosecutor I did not hold the office of Solicitor General.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so. Let me make myself quite clear to my hon. friend. I attach no blame at all to him in this matter; indeed, he is helping me in this examination; he proves my case. I want to allay any alarm which may exist in my hon. friend's mind. May I say to him again that the only thing I hold him responsible for is that after having the knowledge that the government still retained this man in their employ, he joined the government. That is the only criticism I have to offer as regards my hon. friend.


Lucien Cannon: Will my hon. friend allow me a question? Is it not a fact that the judge acquitted Bisaillon?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh yes, and on that point let me read to my hon. friend the remarks of Mr. Joe Walsh, K.C, who I think at the time was a member of this House-?


Lucien Cannon: Yes, he was.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A most eminent gentleman, now a judge?
Mr. JACOBS'. Now a judge of the High Court.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A most estimable gentleman. Mr. Walsh spoke for the crown. There was no doubt in his mind as to the conspiracy, that liquor had been shipped in fraud of the customs. The principals might be evading justice through the conflict of two authorities. That is right, is it not?


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me, that case in which Mr. Walsh spoke was not a case where Bisaillon was accused in any way.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is precisely the same
case; there were two of them.


Lucien Cannon: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite well aware
of all this. I am going to read-


Lucien Cannon: I do not want to defend
Bisaillon in any way, mind you.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I say that Mr. Bisaillon was well defended?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know he was. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) may well laugh-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, I wish the
hon. gentleman would address the Chair and speak to the point and leave me alone. The next thing we know the hon. gentleman will connect me with that case. I wish to say while I am on my fceb-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: -that I will accept no
lessons in courtesy from the hon. member.


Hewitt Bostock: We are wandering rather
far away from the subject. The question is whether the House is to adjourn after the vote on the Address is taken.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I beg Your Honour's
pardon; I did not quite catch Your Honour's words.


Hewitt Bostock: Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
after the Address is voted. The hon. member a moment ago stated-and quite logically -that the reason he objected to the adjournment was that there were some motions, some resolutions on the order paper standing in his name in connection with these matters which he is now divulging to the House, and which be feared-[DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Hewitt Bostock: That is my understanding; if I am wrong the hon. gentleman will correct me, but I understood that he feared that during the adjournment certain papers might disappear and this question might not come to light. That is a good point, but, when that has been said I do not know that the hon. gentleman can anticipate and make charges which stand in his name in the motion on the order paper.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my motion has been removed from the order paper.


Hewitt Bostock: I understood the hon. member to state that the motion is on the order paper.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I must again explain. When this notice of motion was given by the leader of the House I saw at once that I was going to be deprived of an opportunity of discussing my motion, and I had it withdrawn from the order paper in order to put myself in proper order on this occasion.


Hewitt Bostock: May I ask the hon. member when it was withdrawn?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yesterday, Sir.


Hewitt Bostock: It escaped my attention.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I merely complete this statement because of an interjection by my hon. friend. Mr. Joe Walsh said:
I do not believe half the witnesses, even for the [DOT]Crown. It is the Court's prerogative to judge whether enough facts can be gathered to make a case. Personally, I think there are. It is unfortunate that a veil of secrecy has been thrown over the whole case.
That was the opinion of Mr. Walsh. Now I come to the examination. I am very sorry that this interesting story has been broken into, so that hon. members perhaps will not follow it so closely and so clearly as I would like. If they will follow me through this examination, which is clever-it must necessarily be clever, coming from my hon. friend the Solicitor-General. It is a number of extracts from the evidence given by Joseph Alfred Edgar Bisaillon, of Montreal, under oath, on the thirteenth day of February, 1925, in the 
case of Rex vs J. F. Simons et al, the crown in that case, I understand, being represented by the Solicitor-General, prior to his occupying that exalted post. The extracts are as follows:
Q. You tell us that you opened the Faraham office and that you deposited the monies of your Customs Office at the bank?
A. Yes-1922 and 1923.
Q. Did you send the money to the Receiver General every day or every week ?
A. Generally every week, sometimes every two weeks. That depended on how the affairs were settled.
I am not going to read every question unless I am so asked.
Q. Now do you assert that for years the Farnham office has been conducted in this manner?
A. No. It was opened in 1920 and in April 1923- from the month of April. I do not exactly remember the dates.
Q. Now Mr. Bisaillon, with regard to your cheques, you have told us that your bank account was above all composed of amounts received for the Customs and transmitted to the Receiver General?
A. I have told you that the larger number were for die Customs Department, but I have my salary, and I lo commission business, you know, which comes to a sonsiderable amount, and there are also bits of business I do myself.
Q. Will you examine all the cheques and show the judge the cheques you passed to the Receiver General for those years?
After presumably examining the cheques, this answer is given:
A. I do not see any here. These are all personal cheques, $124. $200. These are all personal cheques. $00. $110.
Q. The explanation that you give re your account at the Provincial Bank is that you deposited amounts belonging to the government for the most part and that you reimbursed these amounts by cheques afterwards 9
Then Bisaillon switches a little.
A. No, not by cheques, by a remittance, a draft which cannot appear there.
Q. So now you say it was by remittances?
A. Yes, I had cheques to different people-the cheques which I gave-I see they are for things-are personal cheques.
Q. So there are no cheques to the Receiver General? A. No, I have received some payable to the Receiver which have been deposited.
Q. How did you buy your remittances? What procedure did you follow?
A. Taking the money in my bank book.
This is really most amusing, if one follows it closely.
Q. So it was not in ready money, how did you pay at the bank?
A. I made deposits, and then when I had need of an amount, for example I owed the government three hundred, two hundred or four hundred dollars-I bought a remittance-or sometimes I found myself at the other end of the town and had to buy another remittance, I made a cheque payable to me and bought a remittance for the amount.
Q. Don't you think that if there had been remittances of this kind payable to the Receiver General there would be the figures among the cheques given at the end of the month?
FEBRUARY 2, 1926	6S9
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
A. No, because the receipts in question were generally kept at the office as receipts for our drawings.
Q. I am speaking of the bank.
A. No sir.
Q.When you received at the end of the month the cheques you had drawn or the remittances, were there no figures which showed the amount drawn from your account ?
A. Yes, in part.
Q.Will you show me the figures or something which will show the payments made to the Receiver General?
A.They have perhaps omitted to send them. It is perhaps an omission on the part of the bank.
I am sure the Solicitor-General must have had considerable merriment just about this point.


Lucien Cannon: He was a hard witness, 1 will admit.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The next question is:
Q. Naturally I did not want to take you by surprise, but you have given an explanation and among all the documents here I do not see any for the Receiver.
A. No, that is not absolutely necessary. The cheques could have been drawn to my order, and then have been bought-these are all personal cheques, my butcher, grocer, taxes on my property.
Then he was asked this question:
This, then, will be for 1922 and 1923? I understand that in 1024 you deposited $14,000.
Then follows one of the most ludicrous explanations of the disposal of this money, which I shall not weary the House with, but the upshot of it was this: Although this man Bisaillon's bank account showed large sums of money which he himself under oath declared was money that he had received on account of customs receipts at the Farnham office, and which he declared under oath he had deposited in his own account, there was not one shred of evidence to show that any of it had gone to the Receiver General. This is what I want to make clear, that although this was a matter of record open to anyone- it is in the court records and anyone can see it at any time-nevertheless not only was no action taken by this government to prosecute the man, but he was retained in his office, and he was not released from his office until notice of my resolution on the order paper appeared in the press in November last.


Lucien Cannon: Does my hon. friend not think it would be fair in stating this case to tell the House also of the action taken by Mr. Wilson, representing the department during that case?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not wish to go into multitudinous details, but I want to say that so far as I know, Mr. Wilson is an officer who deserves very considerable credit.


Lucien Cannon: He gave us every information.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not making any reflections upon Mr. Wilson, but I do not wish to go into voluminous details about him, although I have many references to him.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will allow me, I think it would be fair to state that Mr. Wilson gave me, as Crown Prosecutor, every opportunity of getting information concerning the activities of the department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I really believe if the government would only allow themselves to be advised by Mr. Wilson, or if they had followed out honestly and fairly and seriously the exposures made by Mr. Wilson, this man Bisaillon would have been behind the bars long ago, instead of being chief preventive officer of the district.
Now I take another case, just to illustrate the activities of this man and others. This was the case of two women with two trunks on the Canadian Steamship Company wharf at Montreal. These trunks and these two women came under the suspicion of certain officers-I am not going into very much detail-and the trunks were finally opened and were found to be filled with narcotic drugs. Now I pause to emphasize this: If there is one traffic under the sun which is reprehensible, and which I think merits the disgust and repulsion of every civilized individual, it is the narcotic drug traffic. No person tainted with the narcotic drug traffic ought to have any consideration from a government or anyone else in this country. Now bearing that in mind, I want to follow this case through, and mark you, Mr. Speaker, this is only one case out of innumerable ones. I have others which I shall proceed with, although I am taking only a few of them here. These trunks were found to contain narcotic drug3, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrested the women for having these drugs, and they were convicted before Judge Lanctot. Mark you, Bisaillon knew these women when he saw them, and so did Giroux, another customs officer, a tidewater surveyor, one of the chief officers of customs. Both of them knew these women, both of them were there and talked with these women, both of them saw the trunks and knew all about the narcotics, but when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police brought the ease up in the courts before Judge Lanctot, Bisaillon and Giroux both declared as witnesses under oath that they could not recognize these women, and the judge told them that in his opinion they were perjuring themselves. He warned these two witnesses of perjury. This case went backwards and

690	COMMONS
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
forwards, dragged along for a considerable time, and finally was disposed of by fining the women $500.
Now what happened to the trunks? The trunks were in the custody of the chief constable and were stolen out of his office. I wish the House would note that: These trunks were stolen out of the office of the chief constable, in whose custody they had been placed.
I want to give a little bit of the history in connection with the stealing of these trunks, and here we get some idea of the character of this man Bisaillon, the chief preventive officer of this government; here we get some idea of the nature of this ring of criminals operating brazenly and openly, and in the employ of this government. Associated with them are criminals such as Benny Rose, known as Chicago Benny, a typical American gangster, and when I say a typical American gangster, Mr. Speaker, I mean to convey all that the term means. This man was approached by Morel. Morel was one of the five bandits who were hanged last year at Montreal for holding up a bank car. This man was approached by Morel and Farfar, who is doing seven years in the penitentiary, to induce him to steal the trunks, and to undertake to do so on a certain day. But the gang, presumably-I use the word presumably, although I am quite certain in my own mind about it, and I think proof can be brought t o support it-presumably the gang under the control of Bisaillon beat him to it by twenty-four hours and stole the trunks that were in the custody of the chief constable.
But that is not the whole story. One Bud Harris, a coloured man, who was one of the gang implicated in all this rascality and criminality, had $3,000 coming to him, and they would not pay him. He then intimated that he was going to disclose the rascality of the smuggling gang, and what happened to him? If you will turn back the files of the Montreal papers you will find where the body of a coloured man was found wired up with wire and weighted with weights in the Back river. I think from the description I give of this case hon. members will recall it. That was the body of Bud Harris, the coloured member of this gang. That was what he got for intimating he would squeal on the smug- * gling gang in Montreal. Mr. Speaker, do you wonder that I emphasize this: that with the knowledge of these things, with the knowledge of the character of this man Bisaillon, with the knowledge of these activities of Giroux and others, this government preserved them in their office since last February with positive knowledge before them, and with equal

knowledge of their rascality, put this man Bisaillon in the premier office of the customs service-the known king of smugglers in tire Dominion of Canada. And then this government comes to this House and asks for confidence! Yes, asks for an adjournment so that I can be prevented from investigating this matter before a parliamentary committee <5f this House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What, are you talking about? Puie bunkum!


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I hope you are not missing the eloquent language of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) .


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I remember years ago a Speaker's ruling to the effect that the word "humbug" was not parliamentary. The word "bunk" I should say is certainly not in the King's English.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I said bunkum.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to give considerable latitude under the circumstances. Now I leave this gang of criminals, not only associates of, but let me emphasize it, all of them under the supreme control and leadership of Bisaillon.
Now I may be asked, what about this wholesale smuggling? Is there wholesale smuggling? I want to say here, on my responsibility as a member of this House, that there is the most flagrant, organized, persistent, wholesale smuggling in the border towns along the province of Quebec and the American boundary, and again I say, so that the members from Quebec will not think I am picking on their province, that the same thing, perhaps in a lesser degree, exists along the boundary of Maine and along the boundary in other places. But here, Sir, we have it erected into a legalized traffic, a regular occupation or vocation, and with the individuals practising it known to the government, with the individuals who are carrying it on from day to day walking the streets as respected1 citizens, and daily, monthly, and weekly, defrauding the exchequer of this country of hundreds of thousands, yes, millions of dollars I am well within the mark-millions of dollars. I could, Sir-any man could-within a week have these men arrested, seize some of their effects, and1 endeavour to secure a portion, some small portion, of the funds of which this country has been defrauded. It is not a difficult task. I have under my hands a list of their names, I have them here. All

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
of them? Yes, and every last name, friends, supporters, yes intimate associates, of the government of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: It is all right to speak of the government collectively but I do not know any man mentioned or suggested by my hon. friend to-night. I have never seen any of these men and I have never heard of them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have but
one thing to say-


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I will tell it-to the Minister of Justice: With the reports that he has in his office, abundant reports, if he stands in his place in the House here and declares he has no knowledge of these things, the rules of parliament compel me to accept his word. But I say this: I would not dare to describe the simplicity of mind of one who could make a statement like that, having the reports under his hands which he has.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is wrong. I noticed that he had two motions for the production of papers concerning two cases mentioned there. I inquired from the officers of the Department of Justice and they say there is nothing in the department concerning those cases.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, I know, Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about. This report-


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend as a rule is a very fair fighter. I will acknowledge that, but the point of order I raise, Mr. Speaker, is this: that unless he connects the government by evidence, not by vague statements with these things, they have nothing to do with the question under debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Cannon: If the hon. gentleman has any evidence let him bring it before the House, and if he does not do so I do not think the discussion is relevant.


Arthur Meighen: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not recognize in the interjection of my hon. friend any point of order.


Lucien Cannon: It is not an interjection. It is a point of order, and I should like to have a decision on it. My point of order is very simple and my hon. friend will understand it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit there is no point of order in the observations just made by my 14011-441
hon. friend. He simply invites me to do something which at the outset I declared I refused to do. I will not disclose the source of my information, I will not give the names and so forth. I will not give them for very potent reasons and nobody knows it better than the Solicitor General.


Lucien Cannon: In answer to my hon.
friend, and again on a point of order, I do not think he wanted to insinuate that I had any special reason for protecting these people, or that I have knowledge.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Again I must express-


Hewitt Bostock: I wish to hear the hon. gentleman on the point of order.-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit he is not making a point of order. There is no point of order in making a discussion.


Lucien Cannon: I understood the hon.
member to say that nobody knew as well as the Solicitor General the source of information of my hon. friend. Up to now I do not know any of the people mentioned except that in my capacity of Crown Prosecutor in Quebec I brought them before the courts and I laid the facte-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Order.


Lucien Cannon: I am speaking to a point of order and my hon. friend will please resume his seat until I am through.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I object.


Hewitt Bostock: I take it to be a question of privilege rather than a point of order the Solicitor General is raising; he resents having his name connected with these charges. The hon. member (Mr. Stevens) is making very serious charges against outsiders. The Solicitor General having stated that he knew none of the parties and had nothing to do with them, I rule that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre must accept the denial.
As to the point of order, I have stated already that if the contention of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is that he objects to the adjournment of the House,, which is the object of the motion before the House, because it will prevent him from investigating certain heinous charges, I think he has established his point of view clearly enough. Seeing that he is making charges against these parties, I should like to know from the hon. member if he intends to conclude by a motion; and if he is presenting charges against members of the government whether he intends to put his seat in jeopardy. The hon. member knows the rule in that regard.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me follow from the
various points in the first place.


Hewitt Bostock: It seems to me if the hon. member states that he is going to conclude with a motion-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will make the point
very clear, Mr. Speaker. The Solicitor General was wholly wrong in this:	I stated
that he knew perfectly well why it would not be wise to disclose the names, but I did not say that he knew the persons. He is fair as I try to be. Having said that, I will let the matter go and withdraw it rather than argue the point. I will simply say my hon. friend knew it would not be wise for me to disclose the names. I may say that I intend to conclude with a motion.
Mr. STEWART -(Edmonton): I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman has just stated that the members of the government knew the parties he proposed to name, I presume later on in an investigation. I want to say distinctly, to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, that if I know them it is quite without my knowledge; I do not know any of them. The hon. member might name some people I do not happen to know, and I want to say here and now that I know nothing about the matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Read them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not going to read them, as I said before, and I ask hon. gentlemen not to interject remarks from behind the curtains on the other side of the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have this proposition: The products of American gaol birds, versus the products of Canadian workmen.


Georges Parent: May I ask one question? Is the hon. member referring to protection or free trade?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I refer to these facts and I say that no revenue is coming to the exchequer of the country from these goods. We have whole factories equipped with machinery and not a dollar of duty paid, and all of this well within the ken of the government, all reported on and known, and the chief preventive officer and others of his associates kept and preserved in office- openly, brazenly protected. To give an illustration, the other day one New York firm boasted of having received from a Canadian firm, the name of which I have under my hand, an order for S120,000 worth of cotton goods, and not an ounce of it paid customs duty. There was absolutely no shred of a notion of paying duty, and not the slightest interference with it coming through. I repeat that scores of millions of dollars worth of goods come in every year, and the exchequer- is defrauded of scores of millions of dollars as well. Now, Mr. Speaker, five of these firms were reported by a customs officer, who was a new broom and swept clean for a day or two, but there were no prosecutions. They have the records in their hands, but there were no prosecutions. Do not let hon. members say to me that the government did not know. I read the Prime Minister's statement a moment ago. They do know. They had during the last ten

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
months evidence by the ton. They had individual business men and groups of business men before them, telling them 1 a.m. these things, pointing these things out to them. The Prime Minister eight or nine months ago stated, when pleading to the House to give him the vote of $350,000, that he knew that anywhere from $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 a year was lost through smuggling operations. I say that no prosecutions of any account have been conducted and I charge the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General with the responsibility for carrying on prosecutions of this kind.


Ernest Lapointe: There again my hon. friend is wrong. The Department of Justice has nothing to do with it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is charging me with responsibility on account of no prosecutions being taken.	.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. minister will have his chance to reply.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot let that statement go unchallenged.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.
Mr. LAPOiINTE: I had nothing to do with it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. minister has no
more rights in this House than I have. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the Canadian mounted police, a body of men who have had the respect, the confidence and admiration of Canada for half a century, have reported on these matters, and I say to you and through you to this House that the Department of the Minister of Justice-not himself-his deputy, his officers, having these things within their knowledge-


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, there may be some
technical quibble on it. You are not going to escape responsibility for it.
Mr. LAPOINTE-:	You are wrong.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Ernest Lapointe: Be fair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say again if a minister
of the crown, administering the Justice department of this country, having this thing within his knowledge, never moves a finger to bring about prosecutions, he is subject to the charge that he has not been carrying out his duties properly in this House.


Ernest Lapointe: But it is not true.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not my business
to prove it. It is his business to prosecute. Now I have another case to cite, that of Giroux, a tide surveyor in the city of Montreal. Who is he?


Mr. ROBB:: I rise because my hon. friend
gave me a certificate of character when he started.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite fairly, I think.
MY ROBB:	I would! refer to my hon.
friend's statement a few moments ago -and ask if he proposes to make a charge against a member of the government. He has just referred to my colleague the Minister of Justice in a manner which would indicate that he claims that the Minister of Justice has been derelict in his duty.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Robb: I think he should follow it
up at once, and the hon. member should tell us whether he proposes to make a charge against a minister in the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I did not have the
very highest regard for the Minister of Finance I would be tempted to say that such a suggestion is ludicrous, for this reason: When has it become a rule of this House that a member is to be precluded from saying that a minister in administrating the public affairs of this country is not doing his duty? When has that become a rule?


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will allow
me again, are we to infer that the hon. member has no charge to make against the Minister of Justice?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. I charge this: that
the Minister of Justice is head of the Justice department; that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are under his jurisdiction and authority. Am I right or wrong?


Ernest Lapointe: The Royal Canadian
Mounted Police is under the control of the Department of Justice.
Mr. i STEVENS:	The Royal Canadian
Mounted Police have investigated some of these things; they have reported, and the reports are in his department. I do not know whether he has seen them or not, but they are there. In that case, one of two things is true:	Either the minister has deliberately
neglected his duties, or he is too innocent to occupy the exalted position of Minister of Justice.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Ernest Lapointe: I have received compliments to-day and I was bound to receive something else from my hon. friend. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is conducting investigations for various departments and reporting to the departments for which it is investigating.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know that. I am telling my hon. friend that. A little while ago he said that he knew nothing of it; that nothing was before him. I know the mounted police have been reporting right along on this matter.


Ernest Lapointe: To the various departments concerned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know further that his
colleague the late Minister of Customs and my hon. friend had a row over the mounted police tampering in the business at all because they were getting results.


Ernest Lapointe: I defended the mounted police, as I will always defend them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know the hon. member did, but the Minister of Customs attacked them. That is what I am tilling my hon. friend. The ex-Minister of Customs left the government largely because of this and, further, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have not had a free hand in carrying out those investigations. They have since my resolution went on the order paper, but not before. The day after my resolution went on the order paper, when it was known this matter would be aired in parliament, things were speeded up, and! there has been a busy hive of investigation and investigators in Montreal since then. That is what caused them to get busy, and the intention is disclosed in the hasty and petulant interpolations of the Minister of Justice, namely, to stop me from exposing this thing, to prevent me from getting a committee of this House, and then to get a six weeks' adjournment, 'Come before parliament or before the country before parliament reassembled and say: "We have investigated the whole business."


Ernest Lapointe: I deny that entirely and I deny also that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are working for the Customs department now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. gentleman cannot make misstatements all the time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was proceeding with
the Giroux case. This man is tide surveyor, one of the chief officers in the port of Mont-

real. In the Rex vs. Lortie-St. George case, he is one of the individuals whom the judge warned that he was committing perjury. The Dominion Bridge Company imported a cargo of coal which was cleared through Giroux and Sons, Giroux andl Sons being Giroux, the customs officer, tide surveyor of the port of Montreal, his firm, Giroux and Sons, being customs brokers in the same port. The Dominion Bridge Company cleared this cargo of coal, giving a cheque for $1,800 in payment of the duty on it. On checking up their coal invoices they found that they had overpaid their duty by $100 or $200-1 will not quibble over the amount-and they applied for a rebate to the collector of customs at Montreal, who is credited to be and is, I believe, an honest man although he has been shorn of all authority. The collector turned up the records of the department in the possession of this government, because all of these are government records, and he told the Dominion Bridge Company that this cargo was cleared free as anthracite and that nothing was paid into the exchequer. Do I have to repeat that to let it sink into the minds of hon. gentlemen? Mr. Wilson referred to a moment ago, knows all about this. He went to Montreal; he touched up the long distance telephone and things got busy. What happened? Giroux, the tide surveyor of Montreal, put up his own cheque or at least repaid the $1,800 that he had stolen from this government. That is one case in recent times. W'hat I am coming to is this, that this man Giroux and scores of others,, have been perpetrating these thefts and frauds for years.


Georges Parent: If the hon. gentleman
knows as much as he says he does, why does he not put a formal demand upon any court of justice and prosecute the men he knows to be guilty?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Again I suggest to you,
Mr. Speaker, that a request, a suggestion of that kind is so absurd and ludicrous that it is unworthy of any further consideration or thought.


Georges Parent: That is easy to say.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not easy to say.
Let me elaborate. Surely, this country has not come to the pass where a member of parliament must go down to a province or city and start prosecutions against those who are stealing from the government within the knowledge of that government. I am arraigning this government before the bar of public opinion and not going into police court prosecutions. No one is going to bluff me with any suggestions such as that.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Georges Parent: If the hon. member has
any special charge to make' against any member of the government or any member of this parliament, let him put his seat at stake and we will take him up on it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There seem to be many
hon. gentlemen who are desirous of getting this seat of mine. It might be opportune just to make an observation on this seat that I happen to possess, and which, by the way, I have represented in this House for some seventeen sessions. I made my return honestly the other day. My opponent who spent probably twice as much money as my committee made no return at all. That probably accounts for the anxiety to get control of my seat.
I turn now to another phase of this question. I have given some illustrations, and only a few, of the criminalities of officers of the government and I will repeat that abundant evidence of this has been filed and is within the general knowledge of the senior officers of the crown. What did the government do? About a year ago the Minister of Customs of that period started an investigation. The Minister of Justice asked from his place a moment ago: Does the hon. gentleman not know that we have conducted investigations? Yes, this is one. Whom did they send to investigate? Mr. Inspector R. P. Clerk. Who is he? In 1911 Chief Inspector Busby, than whom there is no better officer in the service-does anybody dispute that? Will the Minister of Customs now pay a little tribute to Chief Inspector Busby?


Georges Henri Boivin: If my hon. friend wants
me to interrupt him, I certainly pay tribute to Chief Inspector Busby, who would be
inspecting the port of Montreal to-day if he was not sick and at home. His assistant is there doing the work in his place.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Busby has been
sedulously kept out of the port of Montreal for three years, and my hon. friend knows that.


Samuel William Jacobs: By whom?


Henry Herbert Stevens: By the government through the late Minister of Customs, Mr. Bureau.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Some hon. members say: "Oh, oh." Let me repeat that Mr. Bureau retired from the government largely because of some of these things with which I am dealing. But let us go on with Mr. Clerk. Who is he? In 1911 Chief Inspector Busby investigated the port of Montreal, with the result that Mr. Clerk was reduced or demoted,
placed in a minor and junior position because of some irregularities or incapacity or faults :n his administration. When Mr. Bureau took charge-and I want to say this government is responsible for Mr. Bureau's actions; they will not deny that-I merely say Mr. Bureau, because if I say the government, the ministers one after the other will assert they knew nothing about it-when this government came into power they appointed Mr. Clerk inspector of the port and district of Montreal-Mr. Clerk who had been demoted by the previous government for irregularities in his administration. From that day forward Mr. Busby, the best customs inspector that Canada probably ever had, was excluded by this government from the port of Montreal. Clerk is totally unqualified for his job; he never wias fitted for it.
What was the result of his appointment? The present collector-a splendid gentleman, an honourable, an honest man-has simply been a figurehead drawing his salary, while Clerk, Bisaillon, Giroux, these other men, have administered the port of Montreal- no, not administered it, they have stripped it of a very substantial portion of revenue that should have come into the exchequer. By these men getting their position through appointment by this government, after the government had knowledge of their criminality and rascality, the revenues of the country have been filched. "Yes," they said to Mr. Clerk, 'we have found you unfaithful in little things, we will make you inspector over large things." That is the policy. This man's qualifications, Mr. Speaker, were simply a superb incompetence coupled with an elastic official conscience. He is a faithful political tool, nothing else. Why, they assigned one of the leading civil servants of Montreal to sit side by side with this man Clerk to do the routine work while Clerk was carrying on his criminal part in association with Bisaillon, covering up the tracks, keeping the officers here and there where they would be most useful to the smuggling ring. Thefts from the examining warehouse have been going on right along with his knowledge and with his participation. This man Clerk the acting minister appointed I believe-I was wrong a moment ago in saying the previous minister; I think it was the acting minister-this man he appointed to investigate the port of Montreal and make a report thereon to the government, a man associated intimately with those criminal smugglers in that district.
Now I take up the John W. Gaunt case by way of variation just to give an illustration of what was taking place. Here is a firm

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
that some, I suppose, will say was a responsible and respectable firm. I cannot agree with such a description because certain of their actions were reprehensible in the extreme. Mr. Gaunt, the head of the firm, received a thousand blank invoices from Holland, all properly certified. This country has certain laws respecting goods coming in from Germany and so forth. Goods were brought in from Germany. When the invoices arrived they would be transcribed on to these blank certified invoices at an under-valuation, passed through the customs, and only a remnant paid of the actual duty. The fraudulent practice was discovered. An expert accountant was appointed to check up, a man who knew thoroughly all about it-give us a chance and we will prove it-and he worked out these invoices and disclosed that the exchequer had been defrauded of $60,000 odd in duty. Gaunt left the country at a very opportune moment. The minister sitting now in his seat, the Acting Minister of Customs and Excise said "oh, do not be too hard on this man. Gaunt is a bad fellow, he is out of the country, but his partner is a gentleman." I believe he is, I have nothing to say against him at all. But why did not the government prosecute this case? Why was not fraud charged? Why were not the goods of the firm seized? Why *was not the exchequer recouped these frauds? No, Mr. Speaker, instead a legitimate claim of $60,000 odd was settled for $3,4001 I wonder if that was all it cost the Gaunt firm? I ask the government: Was that all it cost? That is all the records, I think, will disclose. But no prosecution for fraud, oh no. "Oh," the minister said, "if this man ever comes back-" No, it was the deputy minister The deputy pledged himself that if ever this man came back within the jurisdiction of the government he would be prosecuted for the fraud he had perpetrated. Has he been prosecuted? Has the government knowledge of this? Or do they pJead ignorance? Well, Sir, I say to the members of this House that if the government pleads ignorance of this also-of something that is known to all the officials of the department, of something that is known to scores of people in the country, of something that is open and clear to the world-if they plead ignorance, then it is abundant proof of their utter incapacity to hold office. Then they have no remnant of right to claim the confidence of this House, not a shred. No prosecution: nothing done in the case at all. Gaunt parades the streets.
Not only is that the case, Mr. Speaker, but I want to show that there are some officers in the department who are desirous of

doing their duty. But let me say this first. As soon as they knew they were discovered, the company got mighty busy a.nd shipped their goods out all over the country, anticipating the government would have the nerve and the sense of duty to prosecute them. But they were agreeably deceived. They emptied their warehouse of all but $20,000 worth of goods. Some officers of the department who were desirous of discharging their duty put a seal on that warehouse, and they said, "We will have this anyway for the exchequer." That was the action of honest officials of the department. Why did not the government keep those goods in their custody and so recoup the exchequer? They did not. The goods were released for a settlement of $3,400 -and the man who perpetrated the fraud comes back to Canada and presently walks the streets. Why do you not prosecute him now? Why have you not prosecuted him since you started this investigation. Oh, Mr. Speaker, this investigation is precisely what I said it was a moment ago, a mere farce. What for? I will tell the ministers what for. It is for this purpose, to gather all the evidence so they will know who the guilty people are, and then separate the sheep from the goats. But those on this list that I have in my hand will not be prosecuted. The arch conspirators, the chief smugglers, the men who deal in millions, will not be prosecuted-not if this government can get away with this adjournment. I will tell the House who will be prosecuted, perhaps-no, I doubt if even they will be prosecuted. There will be an odd official dismissed here, a fellow perhaps like Giroux who ought to be behind the bars, and Bisaillon who ought to have a life sentence. Bisaillon was fired; that was supposed to shut me up and end my investigation, but it is only started. These fellows will be fired and then the government will come before parliament-if we are foolish and simple enough to give them an adjournment-and say, "Oh, look what we have done; this man, that man, and the other man is gone." But that is not sufficient; the men who are defrauding this government of millions of dollars yearly and who have been doing so for years, will walk the streets as the chief henchmen, the political power behind the scenes of this government, and its supporters. That is where they will be.
Now I turn to another matter. I am not going into this question in detail, but I just wish to show that I am not dealing in ancient history. I hold in my hand freight bills for cars of liquor. I am not dealing with this question because of any views I may privately

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
hold as to the traffic in liquor, and I want this House to disabuse its mind of that;
I want the House to focus its attention on what I am saying. It is a question of whether the taxpayer of this country is having paid into the exchequer the revenues which ought to go there, in order that his taxes may be kept at the minimum, or whether by the connivance-or supine weakness of the government, to put it charitably-it has not been demonstrated that millions of dollars are being stolen from the exchequer and added to the burden of the taxpayer. That is the point. In this case, in the first three weeks of this year, half a dozen cars of liquor rolled out of the city of Montreal, with no evidence whatever that they paid the inland revenue tax. I say now, Mr. Speaker, that in one case I have under my hand-not in these few particular cases, but in these and others- literally hundreds of thousands of dollars have been taken yearly out of the exchequer of this country. I have the case which the minister is associated with, the sale of 16,000 gallons of alcohol which were seized. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the day after I put on the order paper a certain resolution calling for the papers, certain steps were taken to correct the documents in connection with this case. Instead of 16,000 gallons, there were something like 14,000; do not criticize me if I am out a few gallons. But after this alcohol was delivered to the Dominion Distillers; after my resolution appeared on the order paper; after it appeared that I knew something about the case, the Dominion Distillers asked that the count be corrected and that 400 gallons be added to the total. That may be an example of the exemplary honesty of these people. It may be that, but it looks to me, knowing a whole lot more about the incident, that it was simply a case of covering their tracks. But what was this alcohol sold for? This sixty-nine per cent over-proof alcohol was sold for thirty-six cents a gallon.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would the hon. gentleman tell us the actual value?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am just going to do that; I am going to let the Customs department tell me. A short time ago seventy drums of precisely the same stuff were sold by the Customs department for $14 a gallon.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is with the excise added?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Exactly; I am going to
explain that. What is going to be the defence of the minister? First, that this was industrial alcohol. It was not. It was sixty-nine per
cent over-proof alcohol, precisely the same stuff as was previously sold by his own department for S14 a gallon-sold for thirty-six cents a gallon! The loss to the exchequer is over $260,000. There were no public tenders; there was no opportunity given the Quebec Liquor Commission; no chance given the Manitoba Liquor Board, nor the British Columbia Liquor Board; no chance given hospitals; no chance given the National Drug Company or the other big drug companies. It was sold to their friends for thirty-six cents a gallon. A previous seizure properly treated was sold for $14 a gallon. Do not say to me that the first included excise and the latter did not; I know it. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the 16,000 gallons-or what was left of it after some was stolen-ought to have been sold including excise; the excise is revenue to this government. But it will be said in defence, "Oh, but this was for export." They may bring documents showing some export of this stuff, but I say now that it was not exported and it was not bought for export. It was sold for thirty-six cents a gallon when it should have been sold for $14 a gallon. It was sold secretly and privately, when it should have been sold publicly. That is the statement. Not- only is that the case, Mr. Speaker, but these 16,000 gallons of spirit alcohol, worth over $200,000, were released from the king's warehouse by a telephone message. No warehouse receipt was surrendered; no order was given, simply a jingle of the phone, a familiar voice, and $200,000 worth of alcohol was turned loose. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the exchequer of Canada was defrauded in that deal alone of over $200,000, either by gross incompetence, or connivance.
Now let me say a word or two about delays. I am merely giving these different phases of the question in order that the House may be thoroughly seized of the tremendous significance of this matter. The hon. member said, "Why does not the hon. gentleman proceed to the province of Quebec and prefer charges?" and so on and so forth. I just have one or two words to say about that. I have in my hand a record of cases. I am not going to put them on Hansard, nor am I going to read them. Anyone can get the records; any high school child can get it if he wishes to search out the records. Here is one case of a Chinaman, remanded thirty-nine times. I make no comment. Here is the famous case of Rex v. Edith LeBalm, remanded fifty-two times.


Samuel William Jacobs: At whose request was that? May I ask if it was at the request of the Minister of Justice?

Adjournme nt-Customs Inquiry


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was just going to give information to the House which would probably disclose the' reason, if not at whose request, this was done. The Department of Justice- surely the minister will not dispute this- appoints a prosecutor, usually a junior, hard-up, political heeler.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not necessarily.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not in all cases, perhaps, but listen; in these cases it is the unusual practice.


Samuel William Jacobs: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very well; they are eminent members of the bar, then. We will take it that way. They get $10 a day. Why, Mr. Speaker, it is known that these men go into the courts taking these government cases, and that there is connivance between the prosecution and the defence, all of them more or less mixed up with these ghastly rings of smugglers. The case is traversed from court to court or from session to session, and every time the thing goes over it is ten dollars for merely appearing and nodding at the judge. Fifty-two remands, thirty-nine remands, and so it goes on; I have dozens of them here. It shows, Mr. Speaker, incompetence, but no man'could be satisfied with declaring that this is simply incompetence. It shows connivance, intimate inter-relation. It is no wonder the Solicitor General told us a moment ago about the case of the barge Tremblay. Mr. Speaker, In a case which I have not under my hand, but which is certainly clear in my mind, after the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or their representatives had sworn out information against some of the notorious smugglers, known political friends of the government, after the information was sworn out and the man arrested, after he was incarcerated behind the bars, when he came next day before the court to have his case prosecuted, the judge said,
" Oh, these papers are not properly drawn.
I must dismiss the case," and he did what was right; the papers were not drawn right. But when the officers who were prosecuting and had sworn out the information examined the papers, it was found they had been altered during the night without their authority. Oh, this ring of smuggling with all its ramifications, with all its hideous power, with its capacity to purchase anything it comes in contact with is one of the most damnable things in this country, and the charge I make in this House is this: Not that individual members of the government are members of this thing or associated with it, but that the information about it, abundant information 
about it, has been in theip hands, and yet this king of the smugglers was preserved in office and the ring of business men higher up has been protected.
What I am asking, Mr. Speaker, is this, not that this House adjourn, not that this thing be investigated by inspectors or officers whose record is seething with corruption and crime -not that. I am asking for action on the part of this government. Let them arrest this man Bisaillon. Let them prefer criminal charges against him, of which they have abundant evidence in their possession. Let them put that man with his liberty in jeopardy. I say they dare not; they dare not. I say this, unless they are driven to it by the .force of oublic opinion, there is no chance in the world of their doing it. Let them arrest Giroux, who stole the $1,800 and many, many other things. Let them prefer a charge of fraud, and the grossest kind of fraud, against Gaunt. Yes, Mr. Speaker, and more than that. Let them go where they know, where I could put my finger on dozens of them tomorrow'-let them go after the hosts of others as to wThom they have abundant evidence in their possession, and arrest them, put their liberty at stake, and then there will be disclosures that will surprise the House and the country. I want the crooked business men masquerading along the boundary as honest men, with factories and business houses carrying on wholesale smuggling, and defrauding this government of millions of dollars annually-I want them arrested and their books seized. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that when this statement goes out to-morrow, the books of dozens of these firms will be taken from their offices and taken across the boundary. The duty of this government long, long ago, six months ago, yes, as far back as March 2. 1925, eleven months ago, was to step into those offices, seize their books, check their imports, check their out-sales, check the duty paid goods, check their purchases, and then sue them for failure to pay the sales tax, for defrauding the customs, and for other crimes, falsification of documents, of which there is abundant evidence, and which they can do within twenty-four hours if they bestir themselves.
Oh, it is not the business of the Minister of Justice; not at all. Whose business is it? Mr. Bisaillon's business? Mr. Giroux's business? The men that they have appointed to the service, to these responsible offices, with the knowledge that they were criminals and crooks when they appointed them?
I want the honest business man protected against the criminal business man. Why

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
should a factory in Winnipeg, one or two or three factories in Vancouver, a factory in Edmonton, a score of factories in Montreal and Toronto, doing an honest business, making clothing, overalls and so forth, pay their taxes, pay their sales tax, pay 30 per cent on the goods they bring in in the form of denims and such like-why should the honest business man be subjected to a veritable flood of smuggled goods brought in daily, openly, across the boundary? These great trucks at this hour while I am talking are crossing the boundary in a dozen places backwards and forwards, well known to hon. gentlemen-a veritable joke in the community-roaring clean across the boundary, never thinking of stopping, privileged characters, every truck loaded with contraband-all of this known. Mr. Speaker, I want the public right to the revenues of this country protected. I want this defrauding of the exchequer of this country of over thirty millions of dollars -and I am well within the mark-to be stopped. I want these criminals to be brought to task. I want this government to cease its supine idleness, its ignoring of these reports. I want them to take hold, or quit and let somebody else take hold, one. or the other. I venture this statement from my study of this matter, tha't ninety per cent of this thing can be stopped.
Mr. Speaker, let me illustrate the absurdity of this administration. I have just told you how these trucks go- backward and forward across the boundary without let or hindrance. Two boys went to the States a few months ago, took a little trip around the New England states, and were away about a week or two. While there they bought a couple of shirts, some ties they fancied, and came back to the custom house. The same boys eventually came back to the custom house right at the point where these trucks go by daily. What happened to the two boys? Oh, yes, the splendid officers of this government, under the administration of the Minister of Customs went out to them. *'What have you got to declare?" "Nothing." "Nothing?" Never thinking of the shirts on their backs they declared that they had bought nothing at all. The customs officers demanded "Did you not buy any shirts over there?" The eighteen-year-old boys replied "Oh, yes, we bought two or three shirts." "Did you buy those ties?" "Yes, we bought those ties." They were seized, their car was seized and they paid $90 for the shirts, an example of the splendid efficiency of the customs service. And yet that same day a score of trucks went by within the knowledge of those officers who
held up those two boys, went by without let or hindrance, without any attempt to stop them, loaded with goods-booze south, merchandise north. I am not taking the government by surprise. They had this information before them, and I have proof of it here. I could read a number of letters but I will merely say this:	I have under my hands [DOT]
a letter showing that this matter was before the Privy Council. Oh, no, Mr. Speaker, this thing has not been done in a corner. For eleven months it has been a vital question before this government and my charge is that nothing has been done, the matter has been neglected, the criminals protected and the fraud on the exchequer continued with the knowledge of the government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I could go on with the automobile cases and a number of others. With respect to automobiles, I have the papers under my hands. There were Bisaillon, McLaughlin, Giroux, and a half a dozen others, with highly expensive, flashy cars that were seized and turned over to them, protected by the government. My hon. friends who are supporting this government so assiduously voted the money to pay for the repairs and the gasoline of the cars for these opulent thieves to ride around in. Oh, that is only a mere bagatelle. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been speaking about lowering the duty on automobiles. For heaven's sake, let us take cognizance, Sir, of the automobiles that come into our possession; but lots of them are never reported at all. There is no attempt to see that they are reported, no effort made to see whether they are reported or not. And so we might go on.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have kept the House a long time and I have no apology to make for doing so-none whatever. I simply summarize in these words: That for ten or eleven months this government has had ample information in its possession, fully informing them of the conditions. They knew all about Bisaillon, much more than I have told, and they preserved him in office until my resolution went on the order paper. Do not forget that. Had my resolution not gone on the order paper, he would have been still in office. But, Mr. Speaker, if it was right for the government to treat Bisaillon as they have, why was he not prosecuted? That is what I charge this government with-with the knowledge of these things, knowing their own exchequer was being defrauded of millions of money, calmly going on their way protecting these men in office, assiduously protecting these criminals and doing nothing. It was a case of either the most base and utter in-

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
competence, or a most sincere fear of the disclosures that would come did they prosecute.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Manion.
That all the words after the word "that" be omitted and the following substituted therefor:
"this House having been called in session at the instance of the present government, and a number of legislative and other proposals submitted for its consideration by said government in the form of a Speech from the Throne, it is the duty of the House, should the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne be adopted, to proceed with the public business until same is disposed of, and particularly because of allegations of grave irregularities in the Department of Customs arid Excise that a special committee of seven members should be forthwith appointed to investigate thoroughly the administration of the said department and that said committee should have power to send for persons, papers and records, to report from time to time, to adjourn from place to place, to print the evidence taken before the committee, and to sit while the House is in session."


Hewitt Bostock: Before reading the amendment I wish to state that no committee can be appointed by an amendment. Notice must be given for the appointment of a committee. Will the hon. member please amend his amendment to that effect?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it will only take me a moment to make the necessary change.


Hewitt Bostock: This ruling is in conformity with rule 40 which says that notice must be given for the appointment of any committee or for the putting of a question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Speaking to a point of order it seems to be reasonably clear that this is not a motion to appoint a committee. It is an amendment to a motion to adjourn this House, and in that amendment there is provision that because of certain allegations a committee shall be appointed. That is not a substantive motion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will read the motion again as corrected:
That all the words after the word "that" be omitted and the following substituted therefor:
"this House having been called in session at the instance of the present government, and a number of legislative and other proposals submitted for its consideration by said government in the form of a Speech from the Throne, it is the duty of the House, should the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne be adopted, to proceed with the public business until same is disposed of, and particularly because of allegations of grave irregularities in the Department of Customs and Excise no such adjournment as is asked for should be granted until a special committee of seven members is appointed to investigate thoroughly the administration of the said department, and such committee given power to send for persons, papers and records, to report from time to time, to adjourn from place to place, to print the evidence taken before the committee and to sit while the House is in session. 
Your Honour will note that the change is the insertion of the words:
No such adjournment as is asked for should be granted until-


Hewitt Bostock: I have read the motion,
and the question is now on the amendment. Everybody knows that the motion is to adjourn after the Address is adopted until the loth March.
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise): I do not for a moment wish to discuss the point of order concerning the amendment which has just been proposed by my hon. friend. I think it is a very clever evasion of the rules of the House, and if it is possible for any hon. member to rise in his place and Say that this House shall not adjourn, or that nothing shall be done until a committee is appointed, I think the Chair might as well give him the right to appoint the committee. That, Sir, is merely en passant for the purpose of drawing attention to the courtesy extended to us by my bon. friend. When he rose in his place to-night he prefaced his remarks with a lesson of courtesy, a quality or virtue which he certainly omitted during the course of his remarks. My hon. friend is a very clever debater, a very polite and courteous member. To-night we have the exception which confirms the rule. He knew and the hon. members on the other sidte of the House knew, that it was his intention some time to-day, to use his own term, to lay these terrible charges, and in doing so, Mr. Speaker-


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he explain, if that is true, why it was we moved the adjournment of the debate and the government refused it?


Georges Henri Boivin: I will tell my hon. friend
why he moved the adjournment of the debate; because he had just made a rip-roaring speech for consumption in Prince Albert, and he did not want anybody to reply to it.


Arthur Meighen: I did not move the adjournment of the debate at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend has just
said "we," and has taken the responsibility for the motion made by the hon. member behind him, and I hope he will not deny it now.


Arthur Meighen: Why did you not get up to reply?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Ernest Lapointe: I did.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Arthur Meighen: I asked the hon. member-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Arthur Meighen: Why did you not rise
to reply when I sat down? I surely invited you earnestly-


Georges Henri Boivin: Because I thought the duty of replying belonged to the leader of the government, and because there should have been enough courtesy on the other side of the House to allow him to reply this afternoon without interruption. But we will leave the lesson of courtesy to one side.
2 a.m. I merely want to say that as a young minister, having really had only three months' experience in the Department of Customs, not having my files before me, and not even having received notice from the very courteous member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) it will be impossible for me to answer the charges as completely as I would have been able to do if the proper notice had been given.
A moment ago I referred to the point of order, not for the purpose of questioning your ruling, which I think is technically correct. but for the purpose of saying this: That if it is the desire of hon. members on the other side of the House to have a committee to investigate the administration of the Department of Customs or any other department of this government, or the actions of any member of this government, or any official of this government, that request will be immediately granted as soon as the government is placed, by the rules of procedure, in a position to grant it.


William Richard Motherwell: That is the way to
call their bluff.


Georges Henri Boivin: Perhaps my hon. friend or
the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) will say: "Oh, well, that is a very clever afterthought. You are caught in a corner. It is impossible for you to do anything else." If they do not rise in their places to say that, it may be in the minds of some hon. members sitting behind them. But the hon. member for Vancouver Centre placed a notice on the order paper on the 8th day of January. At the opening of the session we found on the order paper a resolution-I do not happen to have a copy of it; I am not prepared for this debate-calling for an investigation into the prevention of smuggling. I examined it, and I found that it did not go far enough to satisfy public opinion and honest members in this House. I, therefore, prepared an amendment which I had ready to submit to
parliament on the first Monday or Wednesday that my hon. friend could submit his resolution, and seeing that the resolution has been withdrawn from the order paper, I am going to take the liberty of reading the amendment which I had prepared. But let me first read the resolution which has just been handed to me:
Whereas, it is a matter of public knowledge that large quantities of goods are being smuggled into Canada, and Whereas evidence presented in Canadian courts has indicated actions by E. A. Bisaillon, a customs officer, which cannot be regarded as other than reprehensible in any government official, and Whereas the said J. E. A. Bisaillon, instead of being dismissed, has been promoted in the Customs Department, and
Whereas it appears that any unbiassed investigation would bring to light methods employed by smugglers to disadvantage of the revenue of the country, and would disclose laxity, inefficiency and dishonesty on the part of certain customs officials,
Therefore be it resolved that a special committee be appointed to investigate at this session the administration of the Customs Department, in relation to all matters affecting the prevention of smuggling.
As I said a moment ago, as Minister of Customs wanting to give good, clean administration and to prevent smuggling into this country, I went further in my amendment. I did not intend to oppose the resolution, but I wanted it amended and made more thorough. I amended the preamble which is now untrue, because Mr. Bisaillon was dismissed at least three weeks before the resolution was placed on the order paper.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not until public notice
had been given of it.


Georges Henri Boivin: Public notice was given of
the hon. members' motion in the public press, if I remember correctly, on the 5th day of December. Mr. Bisaillon was dismissed from office by order in council on or about the 10th day of December.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friends say "hear,
hear." Between the 5th and the 10th there was a Sunday intervening; between the 5th and the 10th the Minister of Customs had no time to make an investigation; but if this man was dismissed on the 10th of December, it was because the investigation which has given all this information to my hon. friend was then and had been in progress for two weeks, and it was on account of that that he was dismissed. But just to show that the government had nothing to hide; that the government was afraid of nothing, this is how the resolution would have read if the House had accepted my amendment:
Whereas it is rumoured that for several years large quantities of goods have been smuggled into Canada


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon, friend
permit me to -interrupt? I have never to my knowledge met Inspector Duncan in my life; I do not know of a single item which Inspector Duncan may have in his possession regarding this matter.


Mr. BO  IVIN@: Will my hon. friend make the same denial concerning Mr. Sparks?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. Mr. Speaker, so far as the Commercial Protective Association is concerned it is, as the hon. minister knows, an association of business men which has met the government on several occasions. I have met the Commercial Protective Association, as I have met Mr. Sparks, both last year and this year. But I want to say to the hon. minister that the information which I used to-day is certainly not exclusively or indeed in -large measure that of Mr. Sparks.


Georges Henri Boivin: I had not quite reached Mr. Knox. I do know that my good friend the
704	COMMONS
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
hon. member for Vancouver Centre and] Mr. Sparks journeyed together to Montreal not later than Saturday night undoubtedly to arrange his evidence in this case:.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is again mistaken. I have never journeyed to Montreal with Mr. Sparks.


Georges Henri Boivin: Will the hon. member say that he did not meet Mr. Sparks in Montreal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I met Mr. Sparks in Montreal, and I also met fully a score of prominent business men of the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Speaker under the rules I accept the statement of my hon. friend that he did not journey from Ottawa to Montreal in the same car with Mr. Sparks.


Arthur Meighen: Those are serious charges.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes,, sufficiently serious to be denied, and the denial is accepted. My hon. friend, before he delved into the details, said the Department of Customs had been doing nothing; that the Department of Customs had used the preventive service vote of last year amounting to $350,000 for the purpose of appointing political heelers throughout the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Georges Henri Boivin: The echo answers "hear,
hear". I happen to have in my hand by accident the reply to a question already asked by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr, Garland), concerning which I secured information to-day. Of that $350,000 which the government is accused of having squandered under that vote, we have so far only expended $23,100. That is every cent that has been expended to date, and the exact number of those hundreds of officers appointed1 is reduced to only sixty-seven. No more were ever appointed under that vote, and some of them have been dismissed because they did not give satisfactory service.


Arthur Meighen: The election is over.


Georges Henri Boivin: I can tell my right hon. friend that most of those who have: been dismissed were appointed since the election. I think if my right hon. friend: would corne over to the department and go through tne files, he would find that almost as many have been appointed since the election than were appointed1 previous to it. I will also say that some of the men appointed before the election were appointed for a pretty good purpose, because they prevented a great deal of rumrunning-although I do not say they prevented it all-around the shores of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
We are further accused, Mr. Speaker, of not having made any arrests under the new amendments to the Customs Act, and because there have been certain adjournments in the courts, hon. gentlemen opposite say this House cannot adjourn for a period of six weeks. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) told that there was only one case of a man being prosecuted for smuggling. I will tell the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that I can show him at least six cases where we have obtained convictions under the new law and where the men are now in gaol. I will mention a case to him in the city of Montreal, where the judge condemned a man to nine days in gaol. The department was not satisfied with that sentence, and ordered an appeal. I will recall to him the case of two brothers in Windsor, because he mentioned the port of Windsor, who were arrested not for smuggling, but for having smuggled goods in their possession, and they have gone to gaol. That is the way the Customs department has been administered since I have been there, and that is the way it will continue to be administered so long as I remain there.
Now we come back to the claims of fraud, thievery and theft mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. He starts off with Mr. Bisaillon. Mr. Bisaillon is the greatest criminal in the province of Quebec, according to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Mr. Bisaillon has committed every crime under the sun, and Mr. Bisaillon had in his bank account about $65,000 which he could not account for. Because he pretended that he had sent that money to Ottawa and because he pretended that it represented customs collections, we should have arrested him then and there for theft. What happened in that case? I think I have a right to say a word in justice to my predecessor in office. I am told that my predecessor was present when that case was tried at Quebec, and heard the evidence. When the committee is called together the hon. member for Vancouver Centre may interrogate the Deputy Minister of Customs if he so desires. My hon. friend -now Senator Bureau-came back from Quebec and immediately related the evidence to the deputy head of the department, and asked him to have the case thoroughly investigated and ascertain if it was true that the money collected a year or two previous by Mr. Bisaillon when he was in charge of the port of Farnham had not been remitted to the

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
department. The investigation disclosed that an amount corresponding to a cent with that collected in Farnham by Mr. Bisaillon had been remitted when it was collected, and was already in the Dominion Treasury. The fact that a man earning the small salary which Mr. Bisaillon earned, had that large amount in his bank account was undoubtedly a serious suspicion of wrong-doing, but it was not absolute proof. I think my hon. friend is good enough lawyer to admit that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not a lawyer.


Georges Henri Boivin: I admit that my hon. friend
is not a member of the bar, but I hope he will not consider it an insult to be termed a member of the bar. Let me say that in spite of the fact that he sometimes lacks courtesy and sometimes gets a little excited, I consider that he would be an honour to the bar or to any other profession to which he might belong.
Shortly after that and at a time when his friend, Mr. Sparks, began bringing evidence to the government, the then Minister of Customs was sick and away. The investigators now making the investigation in Montreal were employed by the hon. member's friend, Mr. Sparks, doing absolutely the same kind of work, investigating the Levinsky case and the Cohen case, and it was because they desired to have them as investigators in the Bisaillon matter in Montreal that the investigation was delayed. It was for that and for no other reason.
When I was appointed minister I was absent during the first two months, during the election period, and I did not take charge at once. I asked my hon. friend sitting to my left to remain in charge of the department, but the moment I did take charge, my first duty was to go to the Prime Minister and ask him if he would approve of my taking Mr. Duncan off this other work in which he was engaged, and sending him at once to Montreal. I will say this in all justice to my hon. friend, that during the last election campaign in the city of Montreal, while I was there, I was told by some of our best political friends that there should be a housecleaning in the Customs department there, that Mr. Bisaillon was in league with smugglers and was not doing his duty as a customs officer. But I ask my hon. friend, is he going to hold this government responsible for those misdeeds, especially when they were not brought to the attention of the government? He says, this man may be a Liberal or a Conservative but, he knows he was promoted and given a very important position by tho 14011-45
government in power two years ago. I want to tell my hon. friend that the government in power two years ago had nothing whatever to do with the appointment of Mr. Bisaillon. I want to tell my hon. friend, who stands up now and defends the Civil Service Commission, that the promotions of Mr. Bisaillon and Mr. Clerk, were made by the Civil Service Commission of Canada. My hon. friend shakes his head. He is too good a parliamentarian, unless he wants to split hairs, to stand in his place now and say that these promotions were not made by the Civil Service Commission of Canada. I give him the opportunity to do so, and if he does, I will prove the contrary to-morrow.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Cdrttainly the technical appointment was made by the Civil Service Commission, but the appointments were made at the instigation of the Customs department, and furthermore, the Customs department have the right to refuse an appointment even though it is made by the Civil Service Commission. But these appointments were made at the instigation of the Customs department.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am not prepared to admit that the Customs department have the right to refuse an appointment made by the Civil Service Commission. I have not been long enough in that department to know; I have not had enough appointments to make; I have not tried to exercise political patronage enough to ascertain whether or not we have the right to refuse an appointment made by the Civil Service Commission, But I do know from the records of the department that these men were promoted, and promoted regularly, by the Civil Service Commission. This man had an outlandish salary, a magnificent position, according to my hon. friend. Does he know how much that position was worth? A position he is depicting to the people of Canada as one of the most important in the Customs service? It was the petty position of customs preventive officer; at least he was classed as such, although in charge of the office at Montreal, where he received an annual salary of $2,300.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He was chief preventive officer for the district. -


Georges Henri Boivin: Chief, having authority over the others, who were drawing the same sailary as he was. He may have done some pretty mean things, but he was very cute and very clever, A man who was clever enough to appear before a court of justice in the city of Quebec, and who was opposed by as clever an attorney as the present Solicitor General



Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
of Canada (Mr. Cannon), and by a man whose honesty was proclaimed by my hon. friend to-night, Hon. Mr. Justice W0M1, and not be found guilty under those conditions, must be a very dever young man. If he was not terribly clever, his attorney was more clever than he.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why protect him in his office?


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not know what the policy of my predecessor was. But when a man is accused my policy is to suspend him; when he is found guilty, dismiss him; but if he is not found guilty, reinstate him. His attorney was a former colleague of my hon. friend himself, the Hon. Rodolphe Monty. He was Mr. Bisaillon's attorney in the barge Tremblay case and in every other case in which Bisaillon appeared before the courts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is that any offence? Is
there any objection to any lawyer taking any case?


Georges Henri Boivin: None at a'H, no more objection than there is to the hon. member bringing this case up in the House to-night when it should not be brought up at all, and when it would not' have been brought up if it were not for the Prince Albert election. I ask the House, was my hon. friend really endeavouring to further the interests of this country, to further the interests of good administration and law and justice when he brought that up as an amendment to-night? He knows that this government, a government supported by our Progressive friends and by the members of the Labour group, cannot possibly accept this amendment without- being defeated upon the motion. The amendmemlt wipes out the motion entirely. If it carries there is not a jot, tittle or vestige left of the motion, and to those hon. gentle-mein who want to see business carried on as it shoulld be carried on, I give my word as a minister of the crown that on the first possible opportunity when the rules will allow, a motion will be made to appoint a committee with two more members and wider powers than the committee asked for by the hon. member himself.
Mr. Speaker, the hour is late, and I do not want to speak as long as my hon. friend did, but there are a few more points that I think I should clear up for the satisfaction of the House and the country. The first is, why criminal proceedings have not already been taken against Mr. Bisaillon, Mr. Giroux and Mr. Gaunt. The reason is that in these cases the investigation is not completed. I do not know whether the officers investigating this

case are in the employ of the Department of Customs, or in the employ of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I know that they are being paid for their services, one by the Department of Finance and the other by the Department of Customs; but instead of reporting to the ministers, they are reporting to the opposition.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: I will tell you why I say that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will
permit me


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I simply say in justice to these men that they are not, in any way, shape or form.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Indirectly.


Georges Henri Boivin: All right, I will accept the denial by my hon. friend. But certainly, Mr. Speaker, I shall be allowed under the rules of the House to relate a little incident and then read two or three lines that I find on the order paper here. On or about the 10th day of December last-and let me say that so far, that is the only report I have ever received- Inspector Duncan gave me an interim report concerning the Bisaillon case. I had spoken to him. The charges he made against Mr. Bisaillon were so grave that I did not want to keep him five minutes longer in the service of my department. They were so serious that I asked the Prime Minister to call a special meeting of council to dismiss him at once; but before taking that course I had to have something upon which to base an order, and I asked Inspector Duncan for an interim report. I dictated myself the recommendation to council. I brought the recommendation to council and handed it to the clerk of the council without the report; I kept the report in my pocket. I went back to the customs office with it and had it placed in a safe locked with a combination lock. That report has not left the safe since and still Mr. Stevens has on the order paper the following motion-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to see the report. It was a motion for that report.


Georges Henri Boivin: Just a moment. I will read the motion and then we will see how much the hon. member knows about it.
January 20-Mr. Stevens-Order of the House-For a copy of report of Walter Duncan on the administra [DOT] 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,-
FEBRUAEY 2, 1926	707
Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
I might tell my hon. friend that that has not yet been submitted to me.
-and also interim report covering eleven definite charges-
I looked up the report; there were exactly
eleven charges.
-of irregularities including perjury, forgery, theft and other offences committed foy one Bisaillon, and also charges implicating other officers of the Crown in serious offences, inefficiency and dereliction of duty.
That is the request on the order paper, a request for the privilege of looking at the report which the hon. member has already seen.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not seen it, but I want to see it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where did you hear about it? Where did you hear about the eleven charges? That gives you away.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am quite willing, Mr. Speaker, to accept the statement of my hon. friend. I am obliged to accept it. I also accept the statement that this report was not given to him directly by the investigating officer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have never seen it but I want to see it.


Georges Henri Boivin: It was not given directly by the investigating officers but by those who took it to the friends of my hon. friend. We all know the old French saying: "Les amis de nos amis sont nos amis."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend accept my word that I have never seen the document?


Georges Henri Boivin: I have accepted my hon-. friend's word.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to say that I have never seen it directly nor indirectly, but I do want to see it.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have accepted the denial in toto.
There are two other charges referring to Mr. Giroux and Mr. Gaunt. Let me tell my hon. friend that if at the parliamentary inquiry that the government is willing to hold, any charges are laid which will involve Mr. Giroux or Mr. Gaunt in any wrong doing for which they can be prosecuted before the courts of this land, the Minister of Customs will take the responsibility of prosecuting them and doing everything he can to place them behind prison bars.
Mr. STEVENS. Good.
14011-45J


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister undertake that the inquiry will be granted before this adjournment takes place?


Georges Henri Boivin: If my right hon. friend
considers that it will be to his advantage to have that committee appointed before this House adjourns for the recess, and he will undertake, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Independents in this House and the members of his party, to waive the rules of procedure so that we may appoint the committee, forthwith, I will give that undertaking. I have no more to say.


William Richard Motherwell: More bluffs called.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hour is too far advanced. I hope that we can at least tonight dispose of the amendment, if not the motion which is now before the House. I am not leading the government, I do not know what the intentions of the leader of the government are; but I felt it my duty when a charge was made sufficiently important to merit a reply, to stand up in my place and reply to it,-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Georges Henri Boivin: -and if the other members of this government did not take part in the debate to-day it was because there were very few addresses on the other side of the House- polite as they may have been, political as they may have been-which were relevant to the question of an adjournment. My hon. leader proposed to adjourn the House for six weeks, and hon. gentlemen opposite who refrained from speaking for three days to not delay the work of parliament, took advantage of the occasion to make speeches that they had prepared for the debate on the Address and which their leader obliged them to refrain from making. The effort of the right hon. leader of the opposition himself was a masterly political oration. I have often wondered when sitting in the House listening to tlhe right hon. gentleman making splendid political stump speeches, how it is he cannot make the same speeches outside and on the stump with the same success.
The right hon. gentleman says that we must carry on. The other day he said that we had no right to place the words of the Speech from the Throne in the lips of His Excellency and that we were not a government at all. We had no right even to exist. That was the argument of the right hon. gentleman, and the chorus of members behind him argued the same thing, citing precedents from ancient history to show that we had no right to breathe.


Arthur Meighen: The House decided against me.
70S

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry


Georges Henri Boivin: All! That is just the admission I wanted to get. The argument that 1 used in my speech on the first amendment made by the right hon. leader of the opposition was that the House of Commons alone had the right to decide. I thank the right hon. leader of the opposition for saying that the House decided against him. I now ask the House to follow the same course tonight.


Mr. J. L. STANSELL (Norfolk-Elgin):: I
have not so far taken any part in the debates of the present session, and have not often spoken at any length in this House. It seems to me that the members of this House have sufficiently earned their indemnity to-day, and I move the adjournment of the debate, seconded by Mr. Cotnam.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I have
the same objection now.


Hewitt Bostock: This motion is not debatable, of course.


Arthur Meighen: As the minister rose
to say a word, perhaps I might be allowed that privilege. I wonder if the House is to be treated in this way. Why is it this debate is not allowed to be adjourned the same as any other?


Ernest Lapointe: Because my right hon.
friend knows that this order could not be proceeded with to-morrow, or even the day after to-morrow, and the object of the motion would be defeated-


Arthur Meighen: The minister knows that that objection cannot be taken, because we agreed to go on, and that agreement was given across the floor of this House, just the same as it has been given many a time before. Is this House to be held here till morning just-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Very well, we are ready. We will not ask any more.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will
agree that the division on this resolution shall be taken to-morrow afternoon, I shall not object.


Arthur Meighen: I agreed to that before
when asking for the adjournment at the regular hour. 1 was refused by the minister. He would not take my word and I will not agree now.


Ernest Lapointe: The right hon. member did not agree to a division to-morrow.
Mr. MEIGiHEN:	To go on until it was
decided.


Ernest Lapointe: The right hon. member
did not agree that taken to-morrow.	the division should be


Arthur Meighen: I agreed to go on and
that is all that was	asked. I shall make no
other agreement now.


Ernest Lapointe: Then we will go on.


Arthur Meighen: until six o'clock.	All right, we will go on
The House divided on the motion (Mr.	
Stansell) which was ing division:	negatived on the follow-
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Anderson (Toronto High	Hamilton,
Park),	Hannesson,
Anderson (Halton),	Harris,
Armstrong	Hay,
(Tiiuniskaming South),	Hocken,
Armstrong	Hodgins,
(Lambtan East),	Hubbs,
Arthurs,	Johnstone (Cape Breton
Baker,	North - Victoria),
Barber,	Jones,
Bell (Hamilton West),	Kaiser,
Bell (St. Antoine),	Kennedy (Winnipeg
Bell (St. John-Albert),	South Centre),
Bennett,	Ladner,
Black (Yukon),	Langworthy,
Black Halifax),	Lucas,
Boutillier,	MacDonald
Bowen,	(Cape Breton South),
Boys,	Macdonald (Kings),
Bristol,	Macdonald (Richmond-
Bury,	West Cape Breton),
Caban,	MacLaren,
Campbell,	Maclean (York South),
Cantley,	McClenaghan,
Carmichael,	Macdougall,
Ca&selman,	McGibbon,
Chaboit,	McKillop,
Chaplin (Kent, Qnt.),	McQuarrie,
Chaplin (Lincoln),	Maloney,
Charters,	Manion,
Church,	Maybee,
Clark,	Meighen,
Cotnam,	Messervy,
Cullligan,	Mewburn,
Davis,	Moramid,
Dickie,	Mullins,
Doucet,	Murphy,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Nicholson,
Duncan,	O'Neill,
Edwards (Waterloo	Peck, i
South),	Perley (Sir George),
Edwards (Frontenac-	Pettit,
Addington),	Preston,
Embury,	Price,
Esling,	Quinn,
Fansher,	Robinson,
Fish,	Rogers,
Flemming,	Ross (Kingston City),
Foster,	Rowe,
Fraser,	Ryckman,
Garland (Carlefton),	Ryerson,
Geary,	Senn,
Gott,	Short,
Grimmer,	Simpson,
Guthrie,	Sinclair,

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
Smith,	Sutherland (Oxford
Smoke,	North),
Spence (Parkdale),	Thompson,
StaaiseM,	Tolmie,
Stevens,	Tummon,
Stewart (Leeds),	White (London),
Stinson,	White (Mount Royal),
Stirling,	Wilson (Wentworth),
Sutherland (Oxford	Wright.-118.
South),
NAYS Messrs:
Baldwin,	Laflamme,
Beaubien,	Lanctot,
Benoit,	Langlois,
Bettez,	Lapierre,
Bird,	Lapointe,
Bodvin,	bavigueur,
Botihwell,	Letellier,
Bouchard,	Lovie,
Boucher,	Macdonald (Glengarry),
Bourassa,	MacLean (Prince),
Brown,	McLean (Melfort),
Cahill,	Macphail,
Cannon,	Mclnjtoeh,
Cardin,	McKenzie,
Oasgrain,	McMillan,
Coote,	McPhee,
Darke,	Malcolm,
Delisle,	Marcil,
Denis (St. Denis),	Meroier (Laurier-
Denis (Joliette),	Outremont),
Desaulniers,	Meroier (St. Henri),
Descouteaux,	Millar,
Deslauriers,	Morin (Bagot),
Dionne,	Morin (St. Hyacinthe-
Donaghy,	Rouville),
Donnelly,	Motherwell,
Dubuc,	Neill,
Duff,	Parent,
Dussault,	Perras,
Elliott,	Pouliot,
Euler,	Power,
Evans,	Prevost,
EvantureJ,	Raymond,
Fafard,	R.heaume,
Fiset (Sir Eugene),	Rinfret,
Fom/taine,	Robb,
Forke,	Roberge,
Fournier,	Robiohaud,
Gardiner,	Robitaille,
Gailland (Bow River),	Ross (Mx*se Jaw),
Gershaw,	St. Pere,
Oervais,	Sanderson,
Girouard,	Seguin,
Goodison,	Speakman.
Goulet,	Spence (Maple Creek),
Guerin,	Spencer,
Hall,	Steedsman,
Hait-fidd,	Stewarit (Edmonton West),
Heaps,	Stork,
Heenan,	Svlvestre,
Howard,	Tobin (Richmond-Wolfe),
How den.	Tobtin (Wetaskiwin),
Jacobs,	Totzke,
Jeliff,	Vallance,
Jenkins,	Vervilie,
Johnston (Long Lake),	Ward,
Kennedy (Peace River),	Wilson (Vaudreuil-
King: (Huron North),	Soulanges),
King (Kootenay East),	Woods worth,
Lacombe,	Young (Saskatoon),
Lacroix.	Young (Weyburn).

119.
fMr. Metighen.)

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.)
Messrs.
Cross.	Lennox,
Macdonald (Antigonish-	Hanson,
Guysborough),
Kay,	MacNutt.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was paired with the hon. member
for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a few remarks on this amendment because I consider it is a very important one, and I am sure that when I return to my constituents the first thing they will ask me is how I conducted myself on this question of the adjournment that the government has tried to put through. Early in the afternoon and the evening I had what I considered very sufficient reasons for voting against this adjournment; but since the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. 'Stevens), those reasons are very much strengthened. This country owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for bringing out the things that he did this evening. I was very much disappointed, as he proceeded with his remarks, to note the levity that was being exhibited by some hon. .members opposite. They did not seem to realize at all that this is a very serious charge that he is bringing against the administration, a charge that they will have to answer before the bar of public opinion. I am glad to see that a number of members of the Progressive party have realized their responsibility in this matter and have not shirked it. I can assure those hon. gentlemen who voted for the motion to adjourn the debate that they can go home to their constituents and present a much better report than had they voted the other way.
The Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) has made an excellent reply to those charges. He made it evidently on the spur of the moment and he dealt with some phases of them. But a number of things are still left to be dealt with, and this parliament and the country at large will insist upon their being dealt with right away. As a rule when the government bring in a motion .of this kind they take some steps to explain it to the satisfaction of members of parliament. But to-day we have seen a departure from that 'principle, and we have had no enlightenment whatever as to the reasons which have guided them in asking for this adjournment.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
Discrimination has been exhibited against the Conservative party in that regard, for evidently my hon. friends opposite passed out their information to gentlemen of the Independent group and gentlemen of the Progressive group. Is it fair or just that hon. gentlemen in this section of the House should be left in ignorance of reasons that have been given to other hon. gentlemen?
I have had a good deal of sympathy with the government during the time that this parliament has been sitting, because they have had to put up with so much from their allies, those who have been associated with them. Early in the war, when trenches were laid out rather indiscriminately, it was often the case that the line would go along in one direction and then back at an angle so that some of the men would be just behind their fellow soldiers and allies who occupied the line in front. Sometimes when those behind "got their wind up," as we used to say, and they saw any movement in our own trenches in front, they fired a volley, too. Now, that is what the allies of this government have been doing, the Labour group, the Independents, and the Progressives-practically every one of them has made some attack on the government that they are keeping going by their support, and it must be intensely humiliating for any administration with the slightest sdf-respect to continue in office under such circumstances.
I submit, Sir, that the country does not want an adjournment at the present time. The people expect parliament to function, to instil some stability into national affairs, and to my mind the very fact of asking for an adjournment to-day is an undoubted sign of weakness on the part of the government. I ask, why do they need time for reconstruction and for the preparation of legislation? What have they been doing in the interval that has elapsed since October 29 last-three solid months? They have had lots of time to prepare for the session, but they have done nothing in this direction because they have been too busy negotiating with the Progressives, otherwise they would have had something for us to consider now and it would not be necessary to ask for any adjournment.
The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) is the ruler in this House, if he is not the leader.. That is recognized throughout the country, although it is also recognized that he has no qualifications for that position, nor any right to assume it. Every idea of the member for Brandon is parochial, I have never heard him express a national thought since I have been in this House, and I con-

sider that for the country to depend on him for leadership is entirely contrary to what should be the case. Liberalism used to be a strong force to be reckoned with; it is to-day outside the House, and in conversation with Liberals in my riding I have been impressed with the fact that they are humiliated and distressed by the conduct of their leaders in parliament. Let me give an example. The member for Hosetown (Mr. Evans) it was proved the other day made certain allegations during the recent campaign against the government, in the course of which he said that they were "wallowing in corruption," and he accused one minister of the crown of a vile untruth. In the old days the Liberal party would have resented that with all the power at their command. What do they do now? They meekly kiss his hand, and solicit his support. That is the attitude of the Liberal party to-day in parliament. In striking contrast we have the attitude of the Conservative party. It does not depend on any subterfuge, it does not ask for support from anyone unless he believes in its principles. The Conservative party stand for protection, it is the main article in its platform, and holding that policy it is opposed to any adjournment, as is also the country at large.


Mr. C. J. HAMILTON (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, while I am limited in parliamentary experience, yet I am one of the oldest members present, and I feel it is my duty to my constituents to express my strong opposition to the proposed adjournment. Although I have been in attendance since January' 7, I have not been able to do anything for my constituents or for my country, neither has any other member. To my mind it is regrettable that so much public time and public money should be wasted with so little result. Therefore I desire to express my strong disapproval of this motion, and I shall vote against it.


Mr. J. K. FLEMMING (Victoria-Carle-ton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of grave concern to members of this House who have come here to transact public business to find that within less than a month a proposal is made by the government that parliament should adjourn for six weeks. I object to the motion, Sir, on the ground that it is a serious inconvenience to members that they ought not to be subjected to. There is no reason or justification given, in fact none can be given why such an adjournment should be taken. It has been pointed out in the strongest and most conclusive manner that there is plenty of material in the Speech from the

Adjourrtlnent-Customs Inquiry
Throne to be dealt with until the necessary repairs are made in the government structure in order that the balance of the business before parliament may be proceeded with.
I object to this proposal upon another ground, and that is that it will incur a very substantial increase in the expenses of this session of parliament, fit has been said during this debate that that extra expense would amount to a quarter of a million dollars, and someone has said that it would be. more than that. I am not going to say whether or not those figures are correct, but I do know, as every member of this House knows, that it means tens of-thousands of dollars more because of this proposed adjournment for which no substantial reason is given. The government of the day has come to this House; parliament has been opened in the usual manner by the speech of His Excellency the Governor General; a bill of fare has been presented and parliament is here ready to deal with the several matters which have been mentioned. Why should there be an additional delay? We find that one of the paragraphs of the Speech from the Throne states:
Every effort will be made further to reduce expenditures.
That is the word of the government, put into the mouth of His Excellency, and yet they bring forward a proposal which means the addition of tens of thousands of dollars to the sessional expenditure. That is not making every reasonable effort to reduce expenditures. That is making an unnecessary effort to increase it, and I want to point out to this government and to this House that every additional dollar of expenditure is a dollar which must be paid by the taxpayers of this country. Those are the people affected, and this six weeks' adjournment will entail an expense of S200.000 or SHOO.000 which will have to be paid by our taxpayers. There is enough of this government here at present with sufficient ability to carry on for two or four or six weeks with no great harm being done. The amendment which has been proposed to this motion certainly adds strength to our contention that there should be no adjournment. An hon. member has made charges and asked that a committee of this House be appointed, and the minister of the department most directly concerned agrees to the appointment of that committee. Is it now the proposal of the government that they wait for six weeks, and then go on with the investigation? That does not seem reasonable. It seems to me that in view of the serious nature of the charges preferred by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, there should be no adjournment. We are here representing the people, having promised that we would serve their interests. Are we doing that when we consent to an adjournment of this House which will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, when there is no reasonable justification to be advanced for such an adjournment? We are here in our places with such ability as we have, and it is our bounden duty to conduct the business placed before us in the Speech from the Throne to the best of our ability and in the best interests of the country.
I will not further delay the House, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to express myself as having this conviction. When the first motion was proposed I felt that we ought not to have an adjournment, and since the amendment, I feel even more strongly on that question.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the conduct of the government becomes more inexplicable as the hour advances. They seem to have laid it down as a dictum in this House that no adjournment is to be secured, and that hon. members are to be compelled to labour through the night unless they are prepared to surrender to their excellencies the government the rights enjoyed under the rules of parliament. They demand as a term upon which we may be allowed to go home at a reasonable hour, or within hours of a reasonable hour, that we surrender the rights which are ours. Hon. members support them in this dictatorial, autocratic conduct. I wonder how the government got that right so to dictate terms. Before they attempted to exercise that right I said in this House and declared to the government that we did not propose to take advantage of the one thing they appeared to fear; that we were quite prepared to go on with the debate as we went on with the first debate in this House. My assurance was refused by the leader of the government, who said that he declined to accept it, and he has compelled this House to go on until four o'clock in the morning in the fourth week of the session of parliament. The conduct of the government becomes more amazing, more indefensible, and more inexcusable as the hour advances. No one can say a word in defence of that policy.
In the course of this debate it was argued that we did not treat them courteously, because we did not give them a copy of our amendment. This comes well from a government whose first act this session, after having been furnished with a copy of our motion, was to refuse to furnish us with notice of a step

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
they proposed to take in violation of the rules of parliament. But the government knows- it is spread out upon the records of to-day- that this opposition never intended to move any amendment at all. This opposition moved the adjournment of the debate after it had proceeded to the regular hour. That motion was defeated at the instance of the government. That shows that we did not intend to move any amendment. We were forced to go on because the government refused to adjourn. The government compelled this House to go on to an unspeakable hour in order that they might exercise an autocratic dictatorial control over parliament. The Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) said "Oh, you wanted to adjourn so you would have the last speech." I have no right to the last speech in this House, as every member opposite knows. Any member opposite could have risen the moment I resumed my seat and been seen by you, Mr. Speaker, and you certainly would have seen him. So I say that all these things advanced not only are unworthy of the name of reasons, but are unworthy to be called excuses.
During the course of the debate serious charges were made against the administration of a special department of this government, the most serious charges I have ever heard in my twenty years' experience in parliament. Answer is made by a minister who gives his story of two or three of these transactions.
I know nothing of the facts on the one side or on the other, but I do know that serious charges made on the floor of parliament are not met by the mere answer of a minister. They can be met only by evidence upon oath, and the minister does well to say that he is prepared that there shall be an investigation, and an investigation on oath.
While I know nothing of the facts, I must be permitted to say that if the minister's reasoning as respects them is of no more value than his reasoning in respect of the motion for adjournment which is now the principal thing before this House, then I fear they will not stand very much in the way of disclosure before a committee of parliament. He comes to this House, the first minister who rose and ventured to give even a suggestion of a reason why we should abandon our work, dissipate our energies, spread ourselves over the country and forsake the duties we are here sworn to perform. The first suggestion of a reason is this: Oh, Mr. Meighen told us a little while ago that we were no good, and that we had no right to function, and now he has no right to stand up and say anything else. I wonder did the 
ministers ever hear a collection of words so illogical, I almost said so stupidly indefensible, as those. Certainly I stated they had no right to function, and I asked this House to decide they had no right to function. I asked this House, which alone can decide, whether they longer should be allowed to retain office or not; I asked this House to declare that they should not retain office. The House decided against me. The House decided, at the instance of the government, that they should retain office and operate and function as a government and as a committee of parliament in this House. Having asserted that right, having assumed that responsibility, it is now their duty to go on and discharge that responsibility, and that is all that is asked oif the House. Certainly if our motion had carried they never would have got to the stage where they are now. Our motion was defeated at their instance. By its defeat they assumed a responsibility from which now they shrink, and from which now they ask this House to allow them to escape. That is the only suggestion of a reason advanced by the Minister of Customs, and he starts to crow because I told him I was defeated by a majority of this House. I wonder why that is a subject of boasting. Certainly I was defeated by a majority of this House. What is the reason, what is the inference from that as respects which hon. gentlemen behind him commence to applaud? I do not know what they mean. The majority decided against me certainly. The majority had a right to decide. I think the majority decided wrongly, but the decision stands as the record of parliament, and as a member of this House by that decision I am compelled to abide. Now I ask the government to abide by it too. The government called for the decision; I asked the House to decide against them. They called upon this House to declare they were a fit government, ready to function in parliament, ready to bring in legislation and assume all the responsibilities of a government in this House. Upon their appeal the issue was decided. Now with what shadow of right can they come before us and say: We are not in shape to do it; our wings are clipped, our head is off, our arms dismembered, our legs are gone; let us go back to the country for repairs. Did my hon. friends to my left 'hear from the Minister of Customs any reasons which appealed to them? Even he, the most resourceful of all, even he, one of the quickest in debate of all the members of this assembly, had to sit down without a suggestion of a reason to any member why the main motion before this House should be supported.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry
Now it is stated by the Minister of Customs:
I am prepared to frame up a motion and to
submit this question to a committee of parliament. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to see the motion, and I give the Minister of Customs warning now that it will have to be worded more amply than the amendment he read with some show of pride before this House just a few hours ago. If the motion is ample enough, wide enough, that will satisfy me so far as the investigation is concerned. It is not a grievance we are after; it is an investigation we are after. An investigation granted in sufficiently wide terms we accept, and we are not particular whether the committee be composed of seven or nine members. We will let the government decide that, but I want to see the terms of it first.
My appeal now to this House is this: We are being denied our just rights as members of parliament by a government asserting autocratically and dictatorially the terms on which this House shall adjourn at the regular hour of adjournment. We are held here until after four in the morning merely because, having foresworn many of our rights under the rules, we have not gone quite far enough to satisfy the leader of the government of the hour. I do not wonder that hon. members are beginning to realize just the position they are being put in by this insatiate appetite of this government. I do not wonder they are beginning to turn upon those who have so long misled them, and for the life of me I cannot understand how any man with the blood of fair play in his veins can support the government in one single action that it has taken from the opening of the House until this hour. Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Hewitt Bostock: There should be an intermediate proceeding.


Arthur Meighen: That applies, Mr. Speaker, only to a motion to adjourn the House. There could not be any intermediate proceeding between two motions to adjourn the debate because there cannot be anything else but that debate. If you, Mr. Speaker, will look up Beauchesne you will observe that the comment upon the rule clearly indicates it can be applicable only to a motion to adjourn the House. I have not the page before me at the moment, but I read it two or three hours ago.


Ernest Lapointe: It will be by consent, Mr. Speaker. It may surprise you, Sir, after hearing the lecture the right hon. gentleman has served on us, to hear that we were in agreement before he spoke last, and that agreement having been entered into I think
my right hon. friend might have accepted it gracefully instead of preaching us a sermon for half an hour, and a sermon to which I cannot answer because the debate will be adjourned.
I agree to the adjournment of the debate and with the consent of the House move that immediately after its adjournment the motion respecting the adjournment of the House until March 15th next shall have precedence over the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne from day to day until disposed of.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand there is no objection to the adjournment of the debate?


Arthur Meighen: The government agree to the adjournment of the debate. I agree to the motion. It is the suggestion, indeed, that I made myself about five hours ago.


Hewitt Bostock: Then I have only to say "Carried" to the first motion.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Mr. SPF1AKER: Now I will put the other motion: It is moved by Mr. Lapointe, seconded by Mr. Robb, that the motion respecting the adjournment of the House until March 15th next shall have precedence over the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne from day to day until disposed of. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Motion for precedence (Mr. Lapointe) agreed to.



ADJOURNMENT-WEDNESDAY SITTING

Ernest Lapointe: I move that the House do now adjourn, and that when it adjourns it shall stand adjourned until to-day at three o'clock in the afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 4.02 a.m. (Wednesday).
Wednesday, February 3, 1926