1926-06-29

FORMATION OF MINISTRY-PROGRAMME OUTLINED-STATEMENT PRESENTED BY SIR HENRY DRAYTON

Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Leader of the House):: Before the proceedings open I desire to give to the House a statement prepared by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) in connection with changes in the ministerial situation. The statement is as follows:
14011-323i
Immediately following the resignation of the late government and the adjournment of the House yesterday, His Excellency, the Governor General sent for the Right Honourable Arthur Meighen, leader of the Conservative party and requested him to form a new administration. Mr. Meighen advised His Excellency last evening that he would undertake this task, and was sworn in this morning as Prime Minister, Secretary of State for External Affairs and President of the Privy Council,
Having in mind the fact that the present session has now continued for almost six months, and is very near its close, Mr. Meighen believed it to be the first duty of any government he might form to conclude with all convenient despatch the work of the present session. Such a course in preference to a somewhat prolonged adjournment was demanded also by a just regard for the convenience of hon. members, especially those who come from a great distance.
It was manifestly impossible to effect this result if a government was to be formed in the usual way and if ministers were to be assigned portfolios necessitating the vacating of their seats and consequent by-elections. The delay thus involved would, especially at this period of the year, have entailed unnecessary hardship. The Prime Minister accordingly decided to constitute and submit to His Excellency a temporary ministry composed of seven members, who would be sworn in without portfolio, and who would assume responsibility as acting ministers of the several departments.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am delighted to hear the applause of hon. gentlemen opposite and to note thedr anxiety to have the session brought to a close.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read the statement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. gentlemen are unnecessarily alarmed. Let me repeat the statement which they apparently approve:
The Prime Minister accordingly decided to constitute and submit to His Excellency a temporary ministry composed of seven members, who would be sworn in without portfolio, and who would assume responsibility as acting ministers of the several departments.
This step has been taken and the following members have accepted office as ministers without portfolio:
Sir Henry Drayton.
Hon. R. J. Manion.
Sir George H. Perley.
Hon. H. H, Stevens.
Hon. Hugh Guthrie.
Hon. W. A. Black.
Honourable R. B. Bennett is on his way ito Ottawa from Calgary and will be asked to accept similar duties upon arrival. S<ir George Perley will, during Mr. Meighen's absence from the House, have charge of matters affecting the Department of External Affairs and of the Privy Council.
These men have been assigned responsibility as acting ministers as follows: 'Sir Henry Drayton, Finance department and Railways department. Honourable R. .T. Manion, Department of Health, Department of Soldier's Civil Re-establishment, Post Office department, Immigration department, jand Labour department; Sir George Perley, Department of Secretary of State and Department of Public Works; Honourable H. H. [DOT]Stevens, Customs department, Interior department, Department of Indian Affairs and Mines, Agriculture de-par ment, and Trade and Commerce department; Hon.

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
Hugh Guthrie, Department of Justice and Department of National Defence; Honourable W. A. Black, Department of Marine and Fisheries.
Mr. Meighen having accepted an office of emolument under the crown, namely that of Prime Minister, has thereby vacated his seat, and has asked me to assume temporarily the duty of leading the government in the House. As already stated the government deems it its first duty to give parliament an opportunity of dealing with all such matters as should be disposed of prior to the close of the session. Among these is the resolution of the Honourable member for St. Henri, for adoption of the report of the special committee which investigated the Department of Customs and Excise, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stevens, as amended by the amendment submitted by Mr. Fansher. The government feels that under all the circumstances it has no other course than to ask the House to take up and dispose of this subject in the same way as others which appear on the order paper. While in opposition the present Prime Minister announced to parliament the acceptance by his party of the amendment moved by the Honourable Mr. Stevens, as amended by the amendment of Mr. Fansher. This position the same party takes now when in office and the adoption of such amendment so amended represents the view of the government and the advice of the government to the House. So soon as prorogation takes effect Mr. Meighen will immediately address himself to the task of constituting a government in the method established by custom. The present plan is merely to meet an unusual if not unprecedented situation.
PRIVILEGE-MR. MACKENZIE KING Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):	Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a question of privilege to read to the House an article which appears in the morning press-I am reading from the Ottawa Citizen of June 29, but I assume that the same article has appeared in other papers throughout the Dominion. As the article contains a reference to His Excellency the Governor General which reflects on His Excellency as well as on others, I think it important that an immediate statement should be made with reference thereto. The article is as follows:
The Canadian Press understands that His Excellency the Governor General consented to sign only such of the aippointmenta submitted to him 'by the Prime Minister as had been made on Friday, before the adverse votes to the government, and these included the two senatorships, W. M. MaeDougald, Montreal, Quebec, and Dr. Daniel Riley, High River, Alta., and the judgeships already announced, as well as the two appointments to the Civil Service Commission, these being made Friday.

The government had also determined appointments to the vacant senatorship in Nova Scotia, to two judgeships in Quebec, and one judgeship in Ontario, it is stated, but as these were not submitted to His Excellency until after Friday's votes, Lord Byng felt himself unable to assent to them.
To the last paragraph I give an emphatic denial. Not one word of it is true, Mr. Speaker. The paragraph to which I give denial is this:
The government had also determined appointments to the vacant senatorship in Nova Scotia-
Appointment to the vacant senatorship in Nova Scotia was never determined by the government and no 'recommendation whatever was made to His Excellency in reference thereto.
-to two judgeships in Quebec and one judgeship in Ontario, it is stated, but as these were not submitted to His Excellency until after Friday's votes, Lord Byng felt himself unable to assent to them.
May I say as the one who was occupying the position of Prime Minister at the time, that I did hot present a single order to His Excellency the Governor General which His Excellency declined to accept at the time, except the one order asking for dissolution of this House, which His Excellency said he was unable to assent to.
While I am referring to this matter, Mr. Speaker, may I draw Your Honour's attention and the attention of the House to the position which I took with His Excellency after the last general election? I then took the position that owing to the uncertainty which existed a? to the control of parliament, I would not ask His Excellency to make any appointments to office, nor would I commit the government to any new course of action without the House in the first instance de* ciding upon the party that had the right to carry 0n. I shall expect that the Prime Minister now in office will give the same undertaking to His Excellency-that no appointments will be made and that the government will not be committed to any new courses of action until it is definitely known whether the right hon. Prime Minister enjoys the full approval and confidence of this House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to assure my
right hon. friend that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) will conduct himself in his office with the most perfect propriety.
, REPORTS
Eighth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills-Mr. Brown.
Ninth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills-Mr. Bowen.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Rin/ret



FREE METHODIST CHURCH OF CANADA

Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City) moved:: That the promoters of Bill No. Ill, an act to incorporate the executive council of the Free Methodist Church in Canada, having signified their intention of not proceeding further with the said bill during the present session of parliament, the bill be withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRED W. BOWEN (Durham) moved:
That in accordance with the recommendations contained in the ninth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, all bills reported in the eighth and ninth report of said committee be placed on the orders of the day among private bills for consideration in committee of the Whole this day.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac):	Mr. Speaker, I think there are certain names mentioned in one of the reports that I may have to object to. Therefore I ask that this motion stand as a notice of motion.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands as notice of
motion.



CUSTOMS INQUIRY


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mercier (St. Henri) for concurrence in the report of the special committee appointed to investigate the Department of Customs and Excise, and the proposed amendment thereto, as amended, of Hon. Mr. Stevens.
Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, before I attempt to resume this debate, I cannot resist the temptation to outline the different aspect that this House has taken since, the last time we met. If my memory went back to only a few months ago, I think I could find fluttering around me some of the arguments that my hon. friends opposite-now pretending to be the government-used at the time regarding what they called the "truncated and incomplete" government of that time. I look in vain at the gallery, and I wish my eyes could pierce the walls, to see if I might not find in the lobby the pretended Prime Minister of to-day. I see before me some of the ministers who are without portfolios, although at the same time every one of them pretends to act for a number of departments. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) are each burdened with five or six departments, although they were eager at the time
to claim that no government could function under circumstances which were much better than we find them to-day. We were also told, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Mr. "Myself" had been called to take charge of the Department of Finance. I was just going to rise to a point of order and state that we had never heard of such a gentleman, and to inquire as to his identity when we found that it was no other than the same gentleman who early in January was so definite in stating that no government could function under such conditions. I am surprised to see the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), enter into a combination completely opposed to the stand he took in the House in the early days of this session.
If I say this, Mr. Speaker, it is merely to underline the fact that our revered leader took the proper course when he advised dissolution, and I am sorry that we of the Liberal party have not been allowed to bring before the people of Canada, who after all are the real judges, the question which has come to a crisis in this House. It is well to point out that politicians should be very careful in the stand they take in this House. In speaking for two months at the opening of the session hon. gentlemen opposite made it very easy for us to find a heap of arguments, a lot of statements, the character of which may not suit us but which would very well depict them in their own words. Perhaps I may be permitted to add that whether he sits as the Prime Minister or merely as the member for Prince Albert, we of the Liberal party are united in the fullest admiration and confidence in the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.
As for the debate which we are continuing to-day, I am under no difficulty whatever in making the statements I should have made had I remained on the other side of the House. I hold the same views; I have the same arguments to present and circumstances have not in the least altered my opinion of this report and the amendment which has been moved. I say that because I think we should approach this question without the least sense of partisanship and look at it squarely and frankly. I think on the whole the speeches which have been made not only by the ex-ministers, if I may call them so, but by some of the independent members as well have been above partisanship, and it is my intention to do likewise. But I would like to put this principle first, that if we show no partisanship in the defence of our case we should expect none in the attack. When I heard members sitting on these benches, now

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Rinjret
sitting across the floor, applauding some of the speeches made during the course of the debate, I could not help thinking that these members were less concerned in reforming the Customs department than in embarrassing the then government. They were not so anxious to prevent smuggling as to smuggle themselves into power if they could. And it reminded me of a scene during the last campaign in our province. I attended a political meeting of one of the candidates then representing Mr. Patenaude, who perhaps will represent Mr. Meighen to-morrow, and he was depicting the ruin which he claimed had come over this country. The more ruin he depicted the more applause he commanded from his Tory hearers; the more gloomy his picture the more enthusiasm he created, and when he finally concluded by saying that this country was on the very verge of bankruptcy nothing could control the exuberance of those good Tory patriots. I had the same impression when listening to some of the speeches during this debate. An hon. member who sat on that committee depicted what he said were the conditions of smuggling in his own province, and the more cases he brought before the attention of the House the louder became the applause of the Conservative members sitting around him. It was easy to see, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members were rejoicing over what they thought they had found, and were only too sorry that they could not find more. That was the measure of their patriotism, and that is what I want to prevent when dealing with this matter. I would like to deal with it not as a member of the Liberal party, not as a member of the Conservative party, but rather as though I belonged to the third party, who claim that they should have the deciding voice in this contest.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) took the stand that we were the defendants, the other side the prosecutors and the third party the jury. I would be quite willing, Mr. Speaker, to take him at his word, but I would not leave it to him alone to decide or to the three or four other members of that group who appear to be of the same opinion. I would be willing, however, to leave it to a majority of the independent party. If the hon. member takes the stand that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals should vote because they are prejudiced by party spirit, to follow his own reasoning he should himself follow the majority of what he calls the independent jury. Has anyone ever seen in the justice courts of this country a case decided by a minority of
[Mr. Rinfretj
the jury? If you have a jury composed of twenty-five or thirty members would any case be decided by five of those members as against the wishes, the opinions, and the decision of the remainder of the jury? I say to the hon. member for Mackenzie that if he wishes to be consistent-and I will give him every credit for sincerity-instead of registering his own vote against the motion and perhaps later on against the ex-government, he should rather find out the opinion of the majority of the independents in this House, and he and all other members of that group should then unite to see that that sentiment is carried in the House. Any independent member who holds the view that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are unprejudiced in this matter should not vote according to his own individual viewpoint, but he should vote in order to see that the wish of the majority of independents is carried out. That is why I say that when the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) or any other member votes censure of the ex-government in this matter or of the ex-Mnnister of Customs, he is following only his own individual opinion; he is not following at all the opinion of the majority of independents in this House.
I now come to the report, and I desire to say that I am in accord with much that is contained in it when it was first presented to the House. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) said that the committee had been unanimous in bringing in this report; but we should take into consideration the fact that unanimity in such a report is always arrived at by way of compromise on certain matters dealt with in the report. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre told us that there had been reservations regarding the minister, and that on that point the committee could not agree, that there was a composite opinion. I look to the proceedings which are printed with the report, and I can see very well, Mr. Speaker, why there was a diversity of opinion on the matter of censuring the minister. It was simply because members on the other side of the House who formed part of that committee were willing to censure the minister, and were even willing to include censure of such hon. members on this side whose names had come before the committee, but they were perfectly unwilling to include in the report the names of hon. members of their own side of the House. That, Mr. Speaker, was the nature of the difference of opinion which obtained at that time. It was a remarkable state of things, and it should be pointed out even to-dav that hon. gentlemen opposite wished to exercise

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Rinjret
undue severity where an hon. member of this side was concerned, but they became remarkably lenient when a member on their own side was concerned, and were prepared to consign all such matters affecting their own side to oblivion. If there was a composite opinion during the preparation of this report, it was only on that point. The Liberal members on the committee had no censure to offer of hon. members, whether on this side of the House or on that, who had followed the established custom of making representations to the department on behalf of certain of their constituents. The member representing the Progressive party on the committee was in favour of censuring all the members whose names had been exposed before the committee; he would not consent to censuring the minister alone. These were both logical attitudes to take. What is to be thought of hon. gentlemen on the other side who want to exercise the strictest kind of severity against either our minister or the members of our party, and at the same time plead for the fullest measure of indulgence for members of their own party who had done the very same thing, only that one happened to be a Conservative and the other a Liberal. That is the stand that was taken on that matter in the committee.
The report gives us certain findings, the most radical in my opinion being contained in clause 6, which says:
The evidence submitted to the committee leads to the general conclusion that for a long time the Department of Customs and Excise had been Slowly degenerating in efficiency and that the process was greatly accelerated in the last few years.
Without discussing, Mr. Speaker, whether the evidence submitted justifies that finding, we find the Conservative party taking the stand that the only words in that paragraph which count and to which they assent are the words applying to the four years we have been in power. Though they admit that the Department of Customs had been slowly degenerating for a long time, the only charge they make against this government is that it had not been able to stop that process of degeneration which had started under the Conservative administration.
Let us see what the Liberal government in office tried to do to stop that process of degeneration, which in the opinion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre himself, had obtained in that department for a long time. The House has been reminded of the fact that the ex-government put legislation through the House in order to make the preventive service more effective. It has also been pointed out to the House that the ex-government had
entered into a treaty with the United States in order to make the prevention of smuggling between the two countries more effective. It has also been pointed out to the House that before this committee was asked for, the Minister of Customs had started a departmental inquiry, and it is only to his credit to state that the main findings of the committee were nothing else but a substantiation of What had already been found out by Mr. Duncan, acting under the very instructions of the then Minister of Customs. We have in this country a situation which is to-day unprecedented as regards the administration of the Customs department. It has been said before, and I wish to emphasize it, that we have a border 4,000 miles long to protect. We have, on the other side of that border, and in some of our own provinces on this side of the border, laws prohibiting the use of alcoholic drinks, which are in themselves the strongest incentive to the smuggling of alcohol on both sides of the border. We have had at the same time the development of a system of good roads and the enormous development in the automobile industry, which two combined have afforded to the smuggler every facility that he could ask for in order that he may carry on his contraband trade. These are the conditions the ex-government had to contend with; and to these conditions, in my opinion, the development of smuggling between-the two countries is due to a great extent. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has dealt at length with the treaty which was negotiated with the United States. But let us see what the conditions in that country are? Are they any better than in Canada? Will it be claimed that the Coolidge administration does not enjoy the confidence of the people of the great republic or that it has displayed energy in seeking to stamp out this evil? Yet the Coolidge administration has not been able, any more than we have, to contend with this problem and to solve the difficulties created by the new conditions which now exist between the two countries. Therefore why should we censure the late Canadian government because it has not been able, with less resources at its command and in the same amount of time, to solve a problem Which the Coolidge administration has failed equally to solve? The problem with respect to the smuggling of alcohol still confronts both countries, and both countries are trying to fight it. They have entered into a treaty in order to try and cope with it more effectively; and if they have not succeeded in doing so on the other side of the line, or if we in Canada have been equally unsuccessful, it would be most unfair

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Rinjret
to censure the late government and the exMinister of Customs for failure to deal with the problem.
In this connection may I quote paragraph 24 of the report? It reads as follows:
The real solution of (the difficulties at such points as Windsor, Ndagana Falls, where traffic is heavy, and where a thorough examination of vessels and vehicles cannot foe carried out, will foe found in the discovery in advance by investigators of the secret service of the (persons who make a practice of smuggling at these points, and their arrest when passing the customs barrier. The committee recommends that at bridges, ferries and main highways, where traffic enters Canada, in addition to tihe regular customs supervision, vessels and vehidles should be searched at frequent irregular and uncertain times. The uncertainty as to what vehicles will foe examined, and as to when such examinations will be made, should operate as a strong deterrent of smuggling.
I draw your attention, Mr. 'Speaker, to this 'paragraph. Do you not see that it admits the great difficulty which exists in the prevention of smuggling at such points as those referred to? Even hon. gentlemen opposite themselves do not say that the government or the department can stop this contraband traffic. They recommend, in consquence, the hiring of secret service men who-at uncertain periods, at irregular intervals and se-cretly-shall proceed in such a way that they may be able to catch some of the smugglers. But is there not evidence in this very paragraph that the problem is a most difficult one to deal with, and that it would be most unjust to censure the government because -although it has improved conditions to some degree-it has not finally succeeded where other governments have failed to achieve success? And is it not the height of injustice for the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to have stated, as he did, that the late government had entered into partnership with a group of bootleggers? Could any statement be more immoderate or more unjust in view of the difficulties of dealing adequately with a problem so baffling and so intricate in its character as this one?
I have said already that the recommendations of the committee had been unanimous, but may I point out that there was unanimity merely because of the necessity for compromise which always arises with the framing of such a report as this. Actually there is not unanimity with respect to that report; I know several members opposite who do not agree with its recommendations. Then why do they support those recommendations? For no other reason, and I wish to emphasize the point very strongly, than to gain a political advantage. They will support a report in whose recommendations they do not believe-and perhaps the same may be said as

to some hon. members on this side also; I am not trying to be partisan in any way- for the sake of endeavouring to secure censure of the late government, which simply resolves itself into a question as to which party shall succeed to the treasury benches and nothing else. Now my argument is that if we could remove such political considerations from the report, if we could suppress any amendment that would have a tendency to obscure the real issue, we could deal with the findings of the committee in a way that would be useful to the country. But if the issue is merely to endeavour to place one party in the right and the other party in the wrong, then, all the advantage which the country should derive from the customs inquiry will be lost. We should come to the consideration of the report animated by a desire to see whether its recommendations are in the best interests of the country and of the Department of Customs and Excise. We have not been able to do that. Why? Because in the five or six days of debate that have token place there has been nothing but jockeying for position in the House and to obtain power, which in my mind is a much less important matter than that of curing the evils which lie at the root of the customs problem. That brings me back to my first line of argument, which is this: Although hon. gentlemen opposite pose as saviours, as angels of purity, struggling to combat with all their strength what they call corruption, they do not seem anxious at all to reform the Department of Customs and Excise. They are merely seeking to create an issue whereby they may possibly gain a temporary advantage and form a temporary-in my opinion very temporary- government such as we have to-day.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the inquiry has not been completed in so far as the ground which should be covered is concerned. Nobody denies that. I do not take any stock in the argument that the inquiry was confined to the province of Quebec, my argument would be the same if the inquiry had been confined to the province of Ontario; but my contention is that the investigation should be extended to a'll the provinces of the Dominion and cover all parts of Canada before we affirm any opinion as to what the situation in respect to the Department of Customs and Excise is. There should be a full and complete inquiry; it should not be limited to one province. There is another reason why we supported an amendment the other night asking for a judicial commission to continue this inquiry and make it complete. It has

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Rinjret
not been complete as to years; it has covered only the last four or five years. It may be interesting to find out to what extent Conservative members on the committee were justified in stating that for a long time the Department of Customs had been degenerating. The scope of the inquiry should be enlarged so as to cover not only all Canada, but all Canada over a period of years, in order that the House may come to a proper decision on a matter of this kind.
As I have said my hon. friends opposite were not concerned about reforming anything except their own position in this House, and they think they shall have achieved their aim if they can put through a motion of censure that will leave this matter where it is. For that purpose-and I am sorry for them because I think this is a grave injustice-they have singled out the former Minister of Customs claiming that he personally in the discharge of his duties during the last number of months has come under the censure of the House.
As members of this House and public men- and again I do not speak as a partisan-we should be fair; we should admit conditions of public life as we find them and as they are. I was elected seven years ago; I am not an old member; but I have been long enough in public life to know that our constituents come to us and ask us to do services of all kinds for them. They 'regard us, every member in every individual constituency, not only as legislators, not only as their representatives in this House, but as public men to whom they can come when they are in distress and in need of help. If we go one step higher and come to the ministers of the crown, it is our duty or at least it has been the established practice in this country for us to go to them and to plead for benevolence pn behalf of our constituents. These are conditions that have obtained in this country under all regimes and all governments of both political parties.
Our constituents come to us with requests not only in connection with the Customs department but in connection with every department of the public service. For instance they want to bring in immigrants who perhaps do not strictly conform with the requirements of the law but who. by the discretion of the minister, may be allowed to enter. When a man has been sentenced for a number of years and has served part of the sentence they ask us to apply to the Justice department to have him liberated on parole. They come to us to obtain delays in payment of their taxes because they are embarrassed in
their business. There is no service of any kind that they do not expect from their member.
At the same time I think we can say that on both sides of the House, whenever such a demand is made upon us, we make it our duty to go to the minister. It has been established in this debate that such has been the practice of members of all parties, even of the opposition, to go to the minister on behalf of constituents. If my words are too strong I will bow to your ruling, Sir, but I speak in a general way not applying my remarks to anyone in particular. Are we going, whether in power or in opposition, to take the hypocritical stand in -this House that what everyone of us-and I apply this to myself as a member now-has done .many a time and thought it our duty to do, will become a crime because it has been found out before a committee of inquiry of this House? I for one will not stand for such a thing. I do not know what the decision of the House will be on the motion of censure towards the exminister of Customs, but he has my full support because I realize that what
3 p.m. has been asked of him has been asked of our ministers by every one of us. I will never try to screen myself because they have not found me out and have found someone else out. It is nothing short of sheer hypocrisy to try to make a crime out of what the ex-M mister of Customs has done in this matter when the same thing has been asked for and done over and over again and will be done again in the future by everyone intrusted with such responsibility.
If there is any censure in this matter 1 claim my share of it as a public man and I claim the same share of censure for every public man in this House. If you do not want such conditions to obtain, do away with the discretion you give to the ministers, because there is no doubt there was a discretion left to the minister in this case. If he had had no discretion how could his intervention have been made effective? If he could not interfere, how could his interference have had any effect in having the sentence delayed? The fact that he did interfere and succeeded in having the man's sentence suspended is sufficient proof to me that he had discretion in the matter. If he had had no discretion he could not 'have exercised any effectively.
In this very debate we have had before us cases showing that this has been done before. The ex-Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) in a very remarkable speech pointed to the details of the Plamondon case. He could have

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Rinjret
read a part which I have before me and which shows that the .Piamondon ease was only one of many which are on record in this very inquiry. At page 2153 we find the evidence of Richard Alleyn on Wednesday May 19. After dealing with the Piamondon case, the Hon. Mr. Bennett puts this question:
The arrangement was approved of by the department, by which ihe was to do so?
Mr. Alleyn's reply is:
Yes. As a matiter of fact, in the other six cases the department did not want those persons sentenced to jail; they told us they did not wish these people to go to jai'l; -not only in the Piamondon case.
Here in four lines of the report are seven cases Which are the same as the case of Moses Aziz and which occurred1 under the regime of the Conservative party.


An hon. MEMBER:: What date?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The Piamondon case was in 1920. There are six other cases bunched up as the departments are now bunched up in the hands of several of the hon. gentlemen opposite.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) after he had finished his speech was reminded that he himself only a few months ago, indeed in April last asked the same favour from the Department of Justice and it was referred to the Department of Customs. The case was exactly the same. Here was a man who had been convicted of making home brew and who could not pay his fine. The hon. member for Mackenzie thereupon asked, and properly so, that he be given time to pay up so as to avoid his being sent to jail. He applied to the Department of Justice and his application was transferred to the Department of Customs; and so much was it a matter of routine that it never even came before the minister of that department. It was decided to suspend the sentence. Now what is the difference between that case and that of Moses Aziz, which the hon. member has described as criminal? So far as I can see the two are identical; it is the same sort of offence. In both cases the man is sentenced to gaol; in both cases a member of parliament applies to the department for suspension of sentence; in both cases the sentence is suspended. I can see no difference whatever between them, and it is strange that the hon. member for Mackenzie should argue that it is a crime to suspend a sentence in August, 1925, but very proper thing to suspend one in April, 1926. I see no difference at all. And the Piamondon case is more striking. Here was a man who was caught in possession of an illicit still. He was sentenced to imprison-

ment, and not only was sentence suspended, but upon 'his becoming informant against other people he was paid by the department a sum equal t'o the amount of his fine. He received for informing against others money enough to discharge his fine, with the result that he was not punished at all. That was done under the government of my hon. friends opposite.
Now as an ordinary member of the House and not as a member of the party to which I belong I ask hon. gentlemen this question: Why should we single out the ex-Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) and try to make a case against him in respect of something which has taken place under various administrations at the instance of various members of parliament? I hold that it would be the height of injustice and hypocrisy on the part of this House to adopt a vote of censure on the exminister in a matter of this kind.
This is not a question of mere justice. It seems to me that justice devoid of all other considerations is merely another form of injustice. If we want to do away with all possibility of appeals to ministers, then we should in my opinion fully accept the proposal contained in the amendment to the amendment, and abolish all ministerial discretion. If under such circumstances a minister, having no authority to exercise any discretion in a matter of this kind, undertook to use his own judgment then he would be liable to censure. But under existing conditions I cannot see any reason whatever why we should single out the ex-Minister of Customs and try to derive from the inquiry some political advantage for the party opposite. It is very poor politics indeed for this House to attempt to give any party such an advantage at the expense of the reputation of a minister who, I contend, deserves no censure at the hands of hon. gentlemen.
I have not dealt in detail with this case because it has been fully reviewed in the House. I merely wanted to remind the House that other cases of a similar character had been brought to light. We could, I have no doubt, find many other instances if we went through all the files under any government. This case is insignificant in itself, and is it not remarkable that although the inquiry has lasted many months and, as my hon. friends opposite admit themselves, was conducted in the most impartial way-in fact some of them are inclined to think that the party then in power rather erred on the side of too much impartiality, having to bend backwards in order to be straight-yet this is the only matter which the investigation has been able to bring out. Not a single

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Rinjret
case of bribery, not one instance of unlawful profit of any kind, not one charge against the honesty of any of the members of the government or of any of the members of this party has been disclosed. Is it not, I ask, a remarkable fact that practically the only matters which were brought out before the committee were such as had been discovered by Mr. Duncan himself, who carried out his investigation on the instructions of the then Minister of Customs. If we remember that the conditions obtaining between this country and the United States to-day are quite abnormal, owing to the existence in that country of the prohibition law and the extended facilities of which the bootleggers have been able to avail themselves, we can readily understand that smuggling should have been engaged in on an extensive scale. It seems to me, therefore, that far from censuring a group of men who have done their very best to improve the conditions that have arisen as a result of the introduction of prohibitory laws on the other side of the line, the members of this House, and more particularly the independent element, should continue to cooperate with us, and instead of adopting this motion of censure, which will lead nowhere, accept the main motion so as to have the recommendations of the committee carried into effect. It is necessary in my opinion that the investigation be continued, and this party supports that view. The inquiry should be made exhaustive in all parts of the Dominion, and should cover an adequate period, to enable us to understand just what has been the situation, not only in the last few years but over a more extended time. Only in the light of such a complete investigation can the public form a proper opinion on this question.
Just a word more with reference to the motion of censure. In previous parliaments when there were but two parties and when the government could command a clear majority among its supporters, a motion of censure was a very different thing from what it is to-day. In those days, when an opposition moved a vote of censure they had no hope that -the motion would carry, with a *consequent defeat of the government and the abandonment of the work of the session. It was merely a/ way of recording an opinion. The party wanted to go on record that regarding a certain question it differed in opinion from the government, and so it voted for the motion, which was defeated by a majority of the supporters of the administration. It was, as I say, merely a matter of record before the country. To-day however the situation is different, and with a motion
of censure against a government there is involved not only the defeat of the government but the destruction of the whole governmental programme. That was -the situation when the motion of censure was moved last week. Now we have been sitting here for six months and putting through legislation of a very varied character-legislation which did appeal at times to all members of the House and on other occasions to the majority. Certainly not one of these measures was defeated, some having passed unanimously; and practically all of them have gone to the Senate.
I urge that the independents-who, as they themselves say, form the jury in this House- when voting on this amendment must not lose sight of the fact that by their vote they will also decide as to which of the two parties shall retain the reins of power and, what is more important still, as to what political spirit shall prevail in this country. I appeal to my Progressive friends, some of whom have been in the House for the last five sessions, while others have been here only for this session, that, although they are a small minority to-day, they represent the wishes and the aspirations of the west very much as do our Saskatchewan friends of the Liberal party-I ask them, have they not found in the late government a true friend, the first government that was ever really anxious to try to do something for the provinces that they represent? That is an important -point. "Oh," you may tell me, "we may secure a certain degree of assistance from the new supposed-to-be government"-to speak as our friends opposite did of us last January. To which I reply: "How long will it last? Will it last until the next budget speech, unless the new minister then renounces the whole Conservative programme? It can not." So I say to these independent members representing western constituencies -that in considering how they will vote on -this motion of censure they must have an enlarged outlook and view the whole political situation; they cannot take an isolated view and regard this particular case alone. If I were a Progressive member and told my constituents on my return home this summer, "Well, the Liberal government during the past six months yielded to our demands for the continuation of the Hudson Bay railway, they gave us a measure of rural credits, they tried to put through the House an Old Age Pensions Bill, and they gave us other legislation;" naturally my constituents would say, "That is very good. We hope you gave the Liberal government full support." What would they say when I re-
5106	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Rijijret
plied, "No, I withdrew my support because a certain man in New Brunswick was gaoled in the month of December instead of August." I think my constituents would tell me that not only was I ungrateful to vote against that government, but that I lacked foresight in turning out of office such a government and putting in its place the very party who have steadily refused all these measures and opposed them until this year, when they modified their stand because they thought they might possibly make an agreement with the Progressive party.
It is a matter of record, Mr. Speaker, that while the Conservative party has tried to divide this country on economic problems, has tried to draw the east against the west, we of the Liberal party in the east have stood for co-operation between all the provinces. We who went through the last federal campaign in Quebec remember that our Conservative friends told us-and I wish my Progressive friends to listen to this because it is very important-they told us that we had sold Quebec to western interests. That is how they tried to prejudice us in the eyes of our people. That was the strategy of my hon. friends opposite in the last election, and that will be their stand again as soon as they feel they can act independently of any Progressive support in this House. We all know that the Conservative party stand for selfish, private interests, and the King government has consistently opposed those interests in order to secure a good national understanding and to be fair and just with all the provinces. This is a matter of history, Mr. Speaker. It is a statement of facts, not mere argument.
Therefore before I move the amendment I would remind my Progressive friends that the issue now before us is very much greater than this paltry, shabby, lamentably insignificant case of Moses Aziz. It is even greater than the reform of the Department of Customs. The issue is not so much as to which government shall retain power, but what spirit shall prevail in this country. After having worked together during five years in an effort to foster a spirit of good-will between east and west, are we to go back to our constituents and report that the whole thing has fallen down because a poor individual who had in his possession a few bottles of liquor was not jailed in a certain month of the year? If we do so, what will our people say? I readily understand that hon. members on the other side should grasp this occasion to try to oust us from power and take our places, for they are playing the political game; but from the bottom of my heart I must say that I can-

not understand that in the face of the circumstances a single independent member in this House should support such a move. It may be a vain hope, but in all sincerity I do hope that when our Progressive friends come to think over the situation they will at least agree that the Moses Aziz case is so paltry as to be unworthy of the consideration of this parliament for weeks and weeks. There are urgent national problems before this parliament which might more profitably engage our attention. I ask those members who have found in the Liberal programme all that they wanted in a broad, general way, whether they are going to falter now and abandon that programme for a paltry case of this kind. I cannot believe it, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I have every confidence in moving an amendment which will do away with the motion of censure and provide for the continuation of the inquiry on a larger and more effective scale, in order that all the facts may be presented to this House before we pass judgment. I move, seconded by Mr. Prevost:
That ithe amendment as amended be further amended by striking therefrom -the following words:-
"The evidence further discloses that ministerial action has been influenced by the improper pressure of political associates and friends of the minister, or acting minister administering the department, resulting in the suspension and in some instances the abandonment of prosecutions against those charged with violation of the statutes, and in the loss of revenue to the country. Moreover successful appeals have been made to the minister and acting minister administering, the department to improperly interfere with the course of justice between the conviction of the offenders and the execution of judgment thereon. The Prime Minister and the government had knowledge for some considerable time of the rapid degeneration of tihe Department of Customs and Excise, and their failure to take prompt and effective remedial action is wholly indefensible. The conduct of the present minister of the department, the Honourable George H. Boiivin, in the case of Moses Aziz is utterly injustifiable".
By adding after the words "for reasons of politico/ expediency" at the end of the second paragraph thereof, the following words: "or personal advantage".
And by adding to /the proposed addition to paragraph four of the report of the committee, after the words "and to prosecute all offenders" the following words: "and to examine former ministers of the Department of Customs and Excise with respect to any matters which in the opinion of the commission may reflect on their administration;
The said commission to be composed of three judges, one to 'be nominated by the Prime Minister of Canada; one by the right honourable the leader of the opposition; and one by the honourable the leader of the Progressive party, said commission to have a 111 the powers conferred upon such commissioners under the Public Enquiries Act;
The said commission to have power to make findings and recommendations, and to report the same to parliament at the opening of the next session together with the evidence taken before said commission".
In so many words, Mr. Speaker, this amendment would do away with the mention of

Customs Inquiry-Point of Order
censure and would provide for the establishment of a commission to continue the inquiry as I have indicated.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I rise to a point of order. I submit that it does not require very much debate to demonstrate wherein this amendment is entirely out of order. The House has already determined that the words referred to in the Stevens amendment shall stand. The object of this amendment, as shown by the speech of the hon. member, is to strike out the Stevens amendment, upon which the House has already passed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. gentlemen say no. This House has already said that the words of that amendment shall not be struck out, and it has been passed upon to that extent. As to that there is absolutely no question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hear murmurs *of no, no. I would like to know what else was the object of the amendment offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre <Mr. Woodsworth). The whole purpose was to strike out these words and get rid of censure, which is the purpose here. It is entirely against the rules of the House to again submit a question upon which the House has .already passed.
That is my first point; my second is very short, and I am sure it is well known to you, Sir. Under the practices when the House amends a motion or a proposed amendment in its latter part the former part cannot then be amended. Here in this case by the adaption of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) this House amended the latter *part of the Stevens amendment, and by so -doing prevented amendment to any of the 'foregoing part of that amendment. .


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, if the reasoning of my bon. friend were to be accepted, it would be very difficult indeed to ever move more than an amendment to the amendment which is before the House. But my hon. friend was entirely wrong when he said that the House had already voted in favour of retaining the words which are moved to be struck out by the present amendment. What the House adopted was the amendment offered by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher):
That the word3 "and that the committee for suoh -purposes be r svived"-

be struck out and that they be replaced by certain other words, but he moved to strike out only the words "and that the committee for such purpose be revived." The House has never voted in the way my hon. friend has intimated, -and even if the amendment of my hon. friend from Last Mountain had been to strike out all the words of the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), it would only be for the purpose of replacing them by other words as moved by the hon. member for Last Mountain-striking out some words to replace them with others, not accepting those words absolutely. The only thing that has been adopted by the House is the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain, so much so, Mr. Speaker, that you now have to put the question for the adoption of the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre as amended. We have never * voted to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. You have to put the question to the House, Mr. Speaker, in order that that should be voted on. There is no doubt in my mind that the amendment moved by my hon. friend for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) is absolutely in order.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Minister of Justice):: I think my hon. friend who has just addressed the House (Mr. Lapointe), if he will more calmly consider this question, will see that the objection is well taken. The position in brief is this: An amendment was offered by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mx. Stevens), to which my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) offered a subamendment, which sought to change the amendment offered by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre in very material parts. That amendment offered by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre was negatived by the House. Subsequently the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) moved a subamendment which was accepted by the House. So now we have the original amendment amended. It has already been amended by the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain, and has become a definite and distinct question, and we have a right to have that question passed upon by the House in that form-the original amendment as amended by the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain. It is true, as my hon. friend has said, that the amendment of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre has never yet been voted on, but the form of the question to be submitted to the House was definitely settled

Customs Inquiry-Point of Order
when the House adopted the amendment of my hon. friend from Last Mountain. It became then the amendment as amended, and the question to be put to the House is: Shall the amendment as amended be adopted? I submit that under the rules it is impossible to change the form of that question by striking out any 'portion of it, or by inserting any new words in it save at the end; it is permissible to add new clauses. The whole matter is very succinctly set out in Bourinot. In a reference to May's Parliamentary Procedure, the matter is so well put that I shall read it to the House. Bourinot at page 318, says:
It is laid down in the highest English authority that "when the House has agreed that certain words shall stand (part of the question-
As we did when we amended the amendment,


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all.


Hugh Guthrie: That is my argument.
It goes on:
"-it is irregular to propose any amendment to those words, as the decision of the House has already been pronounced in .their favour, but this rule would not exclude an addition to the words if proposed at the proper time. In the same manner when the House has agreed to add or insert words in a question-
As we did by adopting the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain:
" decision may not be disturbed by any amendment of these words; but here again other words may be added."
I submit that the only opportunity of amending the question now is to add clauses at the end of it. The question as it should be submitted to this House has been settled as to form. If further clauses are to be added, they can be. moved, but the precise language of the amendment as amended cannot be changed either by striking out or substituting certain other words. There have been many cases based on the dictum which I have just read to 1 our Honour, and I believe that it is a well understood and a well settled rule. If it were otherwise, this House would be undoing w'hat we have already done. We have adopted the amendment offered by the hon. member for Last Mountain to the amendment offered by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre. That is the decision of the House, and are we now going to negative what we have done by another amendment? It would make an impossible situation, and that is the reason for the rule. The only recourse now open.' to those who desire any change is to submit clauses which are additional and not , by way of substitution.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw your attention to what I said at the time the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) was accepted1. My words will be found in Hansard at page 5095.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the amendment before the House at the moment you stated a few moments ago to t>e identical in its phraseology and in its terms with the amendment moved by the hon_ member for Winnipeg North Oentre (Mr. Woodsworth). Under the circumstances I see no reason why the amendment should not be accepted. In making that statement I wish, however, to make it perfectly dear that in accepting the amendment the government and hon. members of the House reserve their right to reject the amendment as amended or to amend the amendment as amended, as the rules of the House may permit. In these circumstances I .think we will advance proceedings by a stage if it is understood that we on this side are prepared to accept the amend-ment moved by the hon. member for Last Mount In (Mr. Fansher) because it is in the same terms as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, for which we have already voted.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it was only on that understanding that the government at that time were prepared to accept the amendment to the amendment. If any objection had been raised, or if any opposite view had been expressed the debate would have been permitted to proceed without that amendment being accepted.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said a moment ago that the precise language of the amendment cannot be changed. I would submit to my hon. friend that if the precise language of the first part of the amendment is retained, then if it be true that we have a government in office opposite, that language will have to be changed, or hon. gentlemen opposite will bb voting censure on themselves. .


Hugh Guthrie: It cannot be changed
without the consent of the House.
' Mr. MACKENZIE KING:	Further, it
speaks of the conduct of the present minister of the department. We were informed a few minutes ago that the present minister of the Department of Customs is the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) himself, so if it be true, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend from South Wellington has just said, that it is impossible to change the precise language of the first part of the amendment, then I am afraid hon. gentlemen opposite will find themselves in a strange predicament.
My hon. friend said a further word as to-not negativing the .early part of the amendment. What the amendment before the House

Customs Inquiry-Point oj Order
at the moment does is to amplify certain parts of the amendment as amended and to delete certain parts in accordance, as I have already said, with the right which the rules of the House give to amend the amendment to the amendment before it is considered.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend the other day did refer to the right to make further amendment in accordance with the rules of the House. I would certainly say that right exists, but it must be in accordance with the rules. The point of order at the present time is that of the necessity of conforming to rules or to parliamentary usage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I make
my point perfectly clear? In using the language I did, I was speaking directly to His Honour in a manner equivalent to asking His Honour to intimate if the construction I was there putting on the motion was not absolutely right, and no exception was taken.
Hon. H. II. STEVENS (Acting Minister of Customs and Excise): With all due deference to the right hon. gentleman, he can scarcely expect the House to accept an utterance of that character in the face of the actual rule. The statement was clear:	He
reserved the right on behalf of any hon. member, to move a further amendment within the rules of the House, and I want to say to him now that no one on this side would question for a moment that right within the rules. What we are challenging is this: We say that this amendment is not within the rules of the House on several very definite grounds. My hon. friend has quoted Bou-rinot but May, 13th edition, page 261, will also assist in the consideration of this question. I will also read from Beauchesne's* Parliamentary Rules and Forms, and I desire to draw Your Honour's attention to perhaps two, if not three, distinct grounds upon which this amendment could be ruled out of order. The first ground is to be found in rule 336, which reads as follows:
After a decision has been given on an amendment to any part of a question, an earlier part cannot be amended.
And so forth. It is very dear that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) places this motion clearly within that rule, and makes it contrary to the rule to again amend it except by adding to the amended motion. These rules are not arbitrary or unfair. They are rules arising out of long years of experience, designed to keep questions within reasonable bounds of discussion, and to fix some period during which amendments or
*changes may be made in a motion. The second rule to which I would like to draw Your Honour's attention is rule No. 337, reading as follows:
An amendment on a question must not be inconsistent with a iprevious decision on the same question given at the same stage of any bill or matter.
It will be recalled at once that the hen. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) moved that all the words after the word "instructions" in the original motion be struck out. That was his motion, and he added that certain other words should be substituted therefor.
Now, if Your Honour will look at the amendment submitted by myself, it will be found that the present amendment offered by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rin-fret) strikes out precisely-no not precisely but almost precisely-the same words as the original amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre struck out; that is it strikes out all of the main clause of the original amendment. I submit that on that ground also this amendment is distinctly out of order. Furthermore the House came to a decision on that very question; it decided by an adverse vote to reject the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The House declared that in its opinion the words which he moved to strike out should remain in the amendment. That I think must be admitted.


Hewitt Bostock: From what number of
Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms is the hon. member quoting?


Mr. STEVENS:: From rules Nos. 336 and 337. Rule 336 reads as follows:
After a decision has been given on an amendment to any part of a question, an earlier [part cannot be amended
And so on. Rule 337 reads as follows:
An amendment on a question must not 'be inconsistent with a previous decision on the same question given at the same stage of any bill or matter.
Now I submit that this is in almost precise terms the same amendment as that offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Then I would draw Your Honour's attention to rule No. 338, which reads as follows:
An amendment that is merely an expanded negative cannot be proposed by the Chair.
That may not be quite as clear, it may be a little more obscure, but I think it must become evident to Your Honour that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. James differs very little from what may be called an expanded negative. It is
5110	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Point oj Order
another way to express a negative with respect to a question which has already been decided and rejected by the House.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Acting Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: A citation
from Bourinot has already been given but the rule is laid down so plainly in May, 12th edition, that I wish to read it even if it does involve a certain amount of repetition. On page 262 the author states:
Several amendments may be moved to the same question, but subject to these restrictions. No amendment -can be made in the first pant of a question, after the latter part has been amended, or has been proposed to foe amended, if a question has been proposed from the chair upon such amendment.
The latter part was amended by the acceptance of the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain. I continue quoting: -^but if an amendment to a question be withdrawn, by leave of the House, the fact of that amendment having been proposed will not preclude the proposal of another .amendment, affecting an earlier port of .the question, so long as it does not extend further back than the last words upon which the House has already expressed an [DOT]opinion.
Well, the last words upon which an opinion was expressed were those of the subamendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain, which were added to the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. But let me read a little lower down, and the opinion in this is even more clear than in the other quotation. On the same page May says: .
When the House has agreed that certain words shall stand part of a question, it is irregular to propose any amendment to those words, as the decision of the House has already been pronounced in their favour: But this rule does not exclude an addition to ithe words, if proposed at the proper time.
That is so clear and distinct that I think there is no way of getting around it. I should like to read it again if I may because it is ' so clear as to be unmistakable:
When the House has agreed that certain words shall [DOT]stand part of a question-
And remember that in accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain the House has agreed that it shall stand part of a question-
When the House has agreed that certain words shall stand part of a question, it is irregular to propose any amendment to those words, as the decision of the House has already been pronounced in their favour: But this rule does not exclude an addition to the words, if proposed at the proper time.
In view of that rule the only possible amendment so far as I cam see is an addition, but nothing of the kind is proposed by my hon. friend.


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester):: The contention laid down by the new minister 
without portfolio would be perfectly correct if the House had decided or taken a decision or divided on the amendment moved by the other minister without portfolio, or so as to make no mistake, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). But the House has taken no decision; there has been no division, and therefore everything alleged on the other side crumbles down.
Mr. MAN/ION:	Does the House not take
a decision just as well without a division as with one?


Lucien Cannon: The only way for a House to express itself is through a vote or through unanimity, and I do not think anybody will contend that there is unanimity in this House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was on Friday night a unanimous adoption of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher). It was unanimously adopted and was so pronounced by the Speaker.


Lucien Cannon: The Fansher amendment was moved and then I understand the Fansher amendment was accepted as something to be added to the Stevens amendment; but the Stevens amendment has not been adopted so far as I know and it is not going to be adopted for a while yet. So long as an amendment is before the House and the House has not taken a decision on it, we are free to :move any other amendment. I do not think either May or Bourinot or other constitutional authority will be found to give a contrary opinion. The whole question is whether the House has taken a decision or not. It has not and therefore we can move any amendment we wish.


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: May I call the attention of this House and in particular the attention of the ex-Solicitor General to the words of the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as reported on page 5095 of Hansard?
Under the circumstances I see no reason why the amendment should not foe accepted.
That is to say the then Prime Minister accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain. He went on:
In making that statement I wish, however, ito make it perfectly clear that in accepting the amendment-
There is a definite statement by the then Prime Minister that he had accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain.	[DOT]
-the government and hon. members of the House reserve their rightt to reject the amendment as amended-

Customs Inquiry-Point of Order
That is the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre as amended by the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain which the then Prime Minister and the House had accepted. The then Prime Minister, speaking for members of the House, reserved the right to reject the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre as amended by the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain when the amendment as amended was submitted to the House. He went on further:
-or to amend the amendment as amended, as the rules of the House may permit. In these circumstances I think we will advance proceedings by a state if it is understood that we on this side are prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Last Mountain.
Then you, Mr. Speaker, on the same page of Hansard, summing up the position in which the House then stood made this statement:
Before this motion is put-
That is the motion for adjournment of the debate.
-I should have said tihat the question now before the House is the amendment as amended.
That is the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain was accepted by the then Prime Minister and the House and incorporated with the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and that was the next motion that would have been put but for the adjournment of the debate. The facts as stated in Hansard are absolutely clear.
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Shefford): I have only one word to say on the point of order and I will begin by saying that I consider that my hon. friend (Mr. Bury) is perfectly right in his concluding remark when he said that had it not been for the motion of adjournment the question which would have been submitted to the House by Your Honour would have been the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre as amended. We all agree on that point. That was the question which was before the chair when the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) rose in his place this afternoon [DOT]to do as he undoubtedly had a 4 p.m. right to do, to make an address [DOT]	on the question before the chair
and then move an amendment to that question. If Your Honour will look at page 316 of Bourinot you will find that there are several ways in which a motion may be amended. It may be amended by leaving out certain words; second, by leaving out certain words, in order to insert or add others; 14011-324
and. third, by inserting or adding certain words that are not already in the motion. The object of the English rule, the object of the Canadian rule which has been followed since confederation, the object of the rules which have been cited by my hon. friend opposite, is to prevent any hon. member from wasting the time of this honourable House by repeating over and over again the same amendment and obliging this House to vote over and over again on the same question. Bourinot is very clear that there can be at one time only one amendment and one subamendment to a question; but Bourinot is equally clear that when an amendment has been amended the amendment as amended then becomes the amendment and it may be amended as often as hon. members see fit, providing, however, that the amendments are within the rules.
It is argued that since the House has voted upon and accepted a subamendment, the words accepted by the House cannot be deleted from the amendment. That precedent will be found on page 310 of Bourinot and happened during the session of 1871, where after a motion had been amended and the amendment had been amended by a subamendment, it was then proposed to take out certain words that had been added by the subamendment. If we were attempting today to remove from the amendment as amended certain words which this House unanimously agreed to accept when we accepted the Fansher amendment. I think the point raised by my hon. friend opposite would be well taken, at least according to the precedent established in 1871, with which by the way I do not entirely agree. Nevertheless under that precedent the point would be well taken.
What I want to point out to the House and to Your Honour is that the question now before the House has never been decided before. That is the whole point of order. What has this House decided? This House decided on one occasion that it would not consent to wipe out entirely the whole Stevens amendment for the purpose of substituting therefor the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth). That was the decision taken by this House. It was voted upon and a majority decided that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) should not be inserted as a substitution for the Stevens amendment. On that we voted and on that point we all agree. Then ithe same amendment was proposed, not by way of substitution, but as an addition to the Stevens amendment which was still before

5112	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Point oj Order
the Chair, but which had not been voted upon. On its being proposed as an addition to that amendment it was unanimously adopted by the House as such, but it was not adopted as additional to something upon which the House had already voted. It was adopted as an addition to a question on which the House would be called upon to vote and which, therefore, was still subject to amendment according to every constitutional authority.
Now, how can an amendment be made? It may be made by striking out certain words and adding others. Let us take for granted that we cannot remove such words as the House has unanimously agreed to accept. Very well; Your Honour will see that we do not propose to delete any of those words. The words which we seek to delete are words which have never been accepted by this House, words which have never been voted upon, and words which, before they could be a-ccepted, the House would have to pass upon. The question is now upon the amendment as amended; that is the question which Your Honour would have placed before the House if a motion had not been made for adjournment the other night. That is the question which Your Honour was supposed to submit to the House to-day before the hon. member for St. James rose to his feet, and when he concluded his remarks he exercised his undoubted right to remove certain parts of the amendment which have not yet been accepted by the House, and to substitute other words therefor. I respectfully submit that the amendment is in order.


Ernest Lapointe: The present confusion is due in part to the fact that questions of this kind are not put in the British House of Commons as they are here. In the British House of Commons, when an amendment is moved of such a character as that submitted by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) the other day, two questions are put. In the first place the question is put whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the question. The British House first votes on this question and, if it is decided that the words which it is sought to delete shall be struck out, then the House votes on the second question, namely, whether the words moved in substitution shall be inserted in the amendment. I refer Your Honour to May at page 283. Let us apply this practice to the present instance. The hon. member for Last Mountain moved in amendment that the words "and that the 'committee for such purposes be revived", as they appear at the end of the amendment, be struck out and other words

substituted therefor. He moved two things: first, that certain words of the Stevens amendment-not all-be struck out, namely, the words I have just quoted. If we followed the British practice Mr. Speaker would have to put, first, the question whether the words "and that the committee for such purposes be revived" should stand part of the question. The House would vote on that question and if it were negatived, that is to say, if these words were not to stand part of the question, then the words moved by the hon. member for Last Mountain as an addition would have to be put as a new question. It is because of this practice in the British House of Commons that, in my opinion, hon. gentlemen opposite were led1 into the mistake of quoting May and others as they did. The main amendment has not yet been put to the House. The only words that have been put for deletion are the words "and that the committee for such purposes be revived", and I contend that the House has not voted to retain the words which the amendment now proposed seeks to delete.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has made a very good argument but it is based only on one resolution. He argues that the words which it has been decided to strike out are only the concluding words of the Stevens amendment. My hon. friend argues, at least by inference, that an amendment to strike out the whole of the Stevens amendment would be out of order and he points out that all that the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) proposed to delete was the last sentence of the main amendment. I think I am within the judgment of hon. members when I say that the amendment now submitted by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinifret), having for its purpose the striking out of exactly the words proposed to be struck out by the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), is according to the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) himself not admissible. I submit therefore that the point of order is well taken.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: The ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), speaking in the House on Friday last, declared that he saw no reason why the amendment moved by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) should not be adopted. That amendment was carried unanimously, and rule 36 states clearly that after a decision has been given on an amendment to any part of a question, an earlier

Customs Inquiry-Point oj Order
part cannot be amended. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Last Mountain was clearly an amendment to the Stevens amendment, and in view of this rule I should like to hear the opinion of the exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe).


Ernest Lapointe: I do not agree with my hon. friend.


Mr. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):: I take exception to the regularity of this proposed amendment on another ground. I think it is axiomatic, and would be so conceded by anybody who was asked to pass judgment dispassionately upon this amendment, that the latter part of a question after being amended is an answer to any attempt to amend a previous part. The answer to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) and by the late Minister of Justice-


Ernest Lapointe: I am not deceased yet.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: -is simply this:	If
the form in which the resolution is drawn does not appeal to any hon. member, then it is his duty to vote against it. But the point I wish expressly to raise is this. On Friday night the Fansher amendment was passed. It provided for a royal commission, with the usual authority given to such a commission. This amendment is distinctly at variance with, yea. in contradiction of, the action of this House on Friday night, when it unanimously accepted, at the instance of the then Prime Minister, the Fansher amendment. Now the House is asked by this resolution to set up:
The said commission to be composed of three judges, one to be nominated by the Prime Minister of Canada; one by the right hon. the leader of the opposition; and one by the hon. the leader of the Progressive party, said commission to have all the powers conferred upon such commissioners under the Public Enquiries Act;
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is directly contrary to what this House decided on Friday evening, and that therefore the resolution is out of order.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask a question of
the hon. gentleman: Quelle est l'autorite sur laquelle il base son raisonnement?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Vous avez tort.


Hewitt Bostock: Does any other hon.
gentleman desire to speak to the point of order?
I have listened very attentively to the argument from both sides of the House. I must first of all put in concrete form, a synopsis of the main motion, the amendment, 14011-324J
the first subamendment, the second subamendment, and the third subamendment.
Mr. Mercier, chairman of the committee, moved the adoption of the committee's report. To that an amendment was moved by the hon. member now Minister of Customs (Mr. Stevens), the purport of which is to censure a certain minister of a former administration, and in fact that administration itself. To that a subamendment was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the purport of which was to strike out all the words of censure in the main amendment and to substitute therefore a judicial inquiry and to add the name of the ex-Deputy Minister of Customs to those whose heads should fall. This subamendment was defeated. Immediately the member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) rose and moved another subamendment, differing from the preceding subamendment in just one particular; instead of being substitutionary of, he made his subamendment supplemental to the main amendment.
The question now is: Did the House by adopting the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Last Mountain at the same time accept the censure which is contained in the main amendment; and should the Speaker when putting the question take this view as granted?
I have looked up the various authorities as to the effect of a subamendment when it has been added to an amendment. The House may not be aware of the fact that on the complex question of amendment and subamendment we do not follow the British practice. The hon. leader of the House (Sir Henry Drayton), and one of his colleagues later on during the argument, laid great stress on what Bourinot says at page 318, fourth edition:
But an amendment once negatived by the House cannot be (proposed a second time. It is laid down on the highest English authority that: "when .the House has agreed that certain words shall stand (part of the question, it is irregular (to propose any amendment to those words, as the decision of the House has already been pronounced in their favour, but this rule would not exclude an addition to the words if proposed at the proper time. In the same maimer when the House has agreed to add or insert words in a question, its decision may not be disturbed by any amendment of these words; but here again other words may be added.
This is strictly the British practice. That is why it is cited between quotation marks. But if the House will turn to the bottom of the preceding page the following note will be found:
In the British House the practice of putting amendments is quite different from that in the Canadian par-
5114	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Speaker's Ruling
liamemt and from that in practice generally in colonial and foreign .parliaments. The British practice can be defended on logical grounds but it has some inconveniences. That usage, however, has not been adopted in Canada.
In other words, in England the Speaker, when putting an amendment to the House which purports to leave out or to insert words, puts each question separately; for instance: Shall those words stand part of the motion? And the House having pronounced upon that question, he puts the further question. If we followed the British practice, the argument advanced by the hon. leader of the House would be irrefutable; but we are in the Canadian House of Commons, and Bourinot states that we have not in Canada adopted that usage. Hon. members will find the subject dealt with at length at pages 316 to 322 of the fourth edition of Bourinot. As he points out, the practice is quite different here. After a subamendment has been moved and adopted unanimously, if you please, the Speaker must again put the question before the House and ask: Is the amendment as amended adopted? Bourinot adds that any number of subamendments may be moved. Of course, only one is considered at a time. Now I ask the House to judge, leaving technicalities aside: Is it possible that on Friday, or rather Saturday morning, the Hon. menuer for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) and his colleagues agreed unanimously that censure should be pronounced against themselves?


Robert James Manion: We agreed upon the form of the, amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: Under similar circumstances in England the government would have censured themselves, but the procedure in Canada differs according to the practice laid down by Bourinot.
Let me add that once in this House of Commons Mr. Speaker Sevigny forgot to do what I am bound to do when the question is put, that is to ask: "Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment as amended, be adopted?" and he corrected himself the following day. You will find that in the Journals of the House, 1916, at page 201:
Mr. Speaker: After the vo-te taken a-t yesterday's sitting on the amendment proposed by Mr. Bennett (Calgary) on Mr. Stevens' resolution, I decided that the amendment having been voted in the affirmative there was no need to again propose the principal motion, as amended, to the House.
I have since carefully examined this question and ' have ascertained, by referring to authors, that the question, as amended, should have again been placed before the House.
And he gives many precedents. He quotes the third edition of Bourinot, while I have quoted the fourth edition. At page 439 of the third edition Bourinot says:
If the amendment foe negatived, the Speaker will again propose the mam question, and a debate may ensue thereon or another amendment may then be submitted. On the other hand, if the House adopt the amendment, then the Speaker will again propose the question in these words: 'Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the main motion so amended'."
The hon, member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) and the Minister of Customs (Mr. ,Stevens), I think, cited from Beauchesne a moment ago what they called rule 36. This .mark well, is not a rule; it is an obiter dictum under rule 36, probably taken from one oi the English authors. In this case I declare that having considered this question seriously I come to the conclusion that it does not come under the British practice. The House has not agreed that the words of the first amendment shall stand part of the question, nor has any action been yet taken upon the main amendment. It is therefore still open to amendment. I repeat it; it is u.t the practice in Canada to put the motion that certain words shall stand pan oi tne question. The method of the British House of Commons in putting amendments is peculiar to the British parliament and is regarded as illogical and inconvenient by other assemblies, as pointed out in the above citation from Bourinot's third edition. The practice in the Canadian House is quite different, as explained in the fourth edition in the note at the foot of page 317.
In the Canadian House when a motion has been amended the Speaker will then put the question, "Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion as amended shall be adopted?"
As I have already stated, this point was once decided by Mr. Speaker Sevigny, and it is based on Bourinot and Canadian parliamentary practice.
In my humble opinion the subamendment is in order


Mr. GEARY:: Mr. Speaker, in all respect
I wish to appeal from your ruling.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr Speaker having decided that the subamendment moved by Mr. Rinfret was in order on the ground that it is in conformity with the practice of the Canadian House of Commons and the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) appealing from that ruling, the question now is, Shall the ruling of the Speaker be sustained?

Customs Inquiry-Division


Mr. MEWBURN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. HANNESSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. FONTAINE:: Mr. Speaker, I was
paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. GEORGE SPENCE (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, here we have the unprecedented situation of members calling on the provisional government to resign, and there being no one here to resign.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do you want an
election?


George Spence: Yes, tomorrow. I had two elections last summer; I beat both my opponents, and my good electors thought so well of me that they presented me with a Ford car. I won two elections in one year and am ready for another one.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Do you want another
car?


George Spence: Never
mind about the car. I think it is the duty of every hon. member to place himself on record upon this very important question. We have heard an attack made in this House, and let me say that it was a submarine attack, to drive one of the members of this House, a young man, out of public life. We have been told that this is the highest court in the land. If that is the case, I hope a sense of justice will prevail here that is in keeping with such a court. But I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case. Here in an atmosphere surcharged with passion, in which party and political prejudices run high, we have the accused condemned before he is even heard, and hon. members rush out of the House so that they shall not hear his defence. I ask those of you who still pray to get down on your knees to-night and pray that you will never be tried in such a court.
I am glad, Mr. Speaker, on such an occasion as this, to be a member of parliament. Goodness knows that there are many things in connection with the life of a member of parliament that are not very agreeable, but this is one of the occasions when I feel proud that I can stand up in this House and register my vote for a higher sense of justice than

we have had exemplified here by hon. gentle-ment opposite. They dig up their precedents in musty law books, but there is a higher sense of moral justice, that cannot be found in law books, for it is not written there. It is that sense of justice and comradeship that prompted the men on the Lusitania when she was sinking to cry, "Women and children first," and to provide the helpless and innocent young victims with life belts, while the men threw themselves overboard and were swallowed up by the sea.
Now, let us examine and see who are to be the judges. I for one will not stand up in this House and condone the conduct of anyone who has been guilty of wrongdoing, but at least I want to make sure that the accused shall get a fair hearing. Are we all such paragons of virtue that we can sit in judgment on this man's character? Here is a man being tried who showed clemency to a certain individual and the judges are to be the men who condemn him for that clemency while they themselves interceded in order that clemency might be granted to others. The greatest sin of whiidh the ex-MiniSter of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) was guilty was that he told the truth about himself. In the one case the man for whom clemency was asked was accused of being a trader in liquor; in the other case clemency was sought for a man who was making home-brew, making a poison dangerous to human life itself. The one is languishing in gaol while the other, I understand, is a free man. Is that justice?
I am very glad to support this amendment because I feel it will result in granting a full and impartial inquiry, and I for one would not like to leave this House until an investigation of that character was guaranteed. But hon. gentlemen opposite say:	"Give us the
reins of government and we will continue the investigation.". Is anyone credulous enough to believe that statement? Does anyone think for a moment that the hon. member who preferred the charges against the late administration will continue the probe into the conditions in his own port of Vancouver? Is anyone foolish enough to believe that? I am not. Is anyone foolish enough to believe that this inquiry is complete when only one province has been attacked, and when the international boundary line extends for a distance of 4,000 miles, thus leaving a vast territory untouched? I do not. Narrowed down as it has been, this investigation is an attack upon the province of Quebec. I pause to hear denial from hon. gentlemen opposite, but no one there opens his mouth in denial.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)


An hon. MEMBER:: They are quieter over there now.


George Spence: Ah, yes, it
is very easy to accuse, very easy to enter a court charged with prejudice as the court proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite would be. "But they cried, saying, crucify Him, crucify Him." I am opposed to the tactics of hon. gentlemen opposite and have been opposed to them from the very first. I have been opposed to the way in which information on this .matter was secured and presented to the House. In the report itself there are many recommendations with which I do not agree, many which are entirely impracticable. One recommendation proposes that the minister shall have no discretion in the case of sums amounting to over $200. I say that when the royal commission which is to be appointed proceeds from one coast to the other and investigates the conditions along the international boundary line, it will find that the recommendation contained in paragraph 8 of the report is entirely impracticable. You have an international boundary where there is a crossing into Canada every mile, and in some cases the distance is shorter than that. Horses and cattle cross the international boundary freely, from the western ranges of the United States into Canada and vice versa. On my farm to-night there may be 100 head of horses which have found their way into the pasture, yet under such a regulation as proposed I could be thrown into gaoil for that. Is it fair? It is not only unfair; it is preposterous. In this investigation we have been only scratching the surface, and we think we can only cure the existing conditions by enacting a. set of laws.
It does seem strange to me that the report before the House does not contain a reference at least to the actual cause of smuggling. I do not think it was the duty of 'the committee, or that it was within their province, to say that the tariff should be lowered; but I do think they should have drawn the attention of the House and the country as a whole to the fact that tariffs do lead to smuggling-that tariffs, and particularly high tariffs, are the cause of most of the smuggling that is indulged in. That being the case I submit to you, Sir, that the recommendations contained in this report are very unsatisfactory. I am only a humble member of this House, yet I feel I could stop smuggling in twenty-four hours by putting on the free list the articles which are being smuggled. Why has the committee not even referred to such a
possibility as that? But no, somebody had to be made the goat, somebody had to be crucified so that hon. gentlemen opposite could get into power for a few hours.
The right hon. the Prime Minister, the member for Portage la Prairie, is a man whom I have always admired. He is a very bright lawyer. I remember the time when he entered this House twenty years ago; I knew him when he was in Portage la Prairie. But I am not going to congratulate him on his victory, short-lived though it may be. If I were to do so I should be a political hypocrite. At the same time I extend my sympathy to him for the position in which he finds himself to-day-the Prime Minister pro tern with a cabinet of seven. It reminds me of that fine picture of the seven-headed monster drawn in Revelations which predicted the end of all things. I think we can make dismal predictions of the combination in the present case.
I studied astronomy, Mr. Speaker, many years ago, and I had the pleasure of looking through one of the most powerful telescopes to be found anywhere in the world. Sometimes there would be a little shadow or a dim outline on the object glass, a mere speck, but this would prevent me from seeing that part of the universe beyond. I sometimes think we have to get a little distance away from the situation in order to view matters in their proper perspective. We have some mute, inglorious Moses Aziz who has been guilty of nothing more nor less than of being a free trader. He has not gone to gaol quite so soon as some hon. gentlemen opposite would like to see him go. I contend that a gaol sentence for smuggling is wrong; I am absolutely opposed to it. I wish some future historian could view the situation as we view it here to-day, and in order to get that perspective of distance I am going to read now what I thinlk some future historian will say about this occasion. I think it is quite in order to write what a future historian would have to say. If the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) were in his seat he would be digging up precedents and quoting from musty books. I am going to try a new method and to read from future history:
The natives of that period-
Meaning this.
-were a remarkably queer people. Their womenfolks wore low-necked dresses in winter and furs in summer. The working men spent a great deal of time and energy in building things which they called railroads, traces of which can still be found near a spot in the parish of Ontario where once stood the great city of Toronto-a prehistoric word meaning "good".
5118	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Spence (Maple Creek)
They also spent vast suras of money in digging ditches which they called canals. The remains of one of these canals was quite recently discovered at a place called Welland.
Concrete roads intersected the international boundary at strategic points offering facilities for tourists to enter the country. Luxurious tourist camps were, even in that unenlightened day, provided to offer hospitality to the stranger within the gates, but only after he was subjected to the most humiliating search of his person at the border. This proved very repugnant to the class who had the leisure and the means of travel and consequently the roads and camps were little used by the people of this period of which we write.
Scores of millions of dollars went into harbour improvements so that the great ships of all the nations of the earth seeking pleasure arid trade would find anchorage and hospitality. Large sums of money were spent in sending trade commissioners to foreign Lands to encourage international trade so that industry at home might grow and flourish. But strange to say this remarkably energetic people were no less remarkable for their stupidity. For, incredible as it may now seem, they passed laws preventing nations from trading with them except in a limited degree. Some of these laws placed embargoes on raw materials. Although die meaning of the word is somewhat obscure, at any rate authorities are in entire agreement as to the effect upon the country, for railroads rusted for lack of traffic and expensive wharves rotted in disuse. In the light of what we now know about trade and commerce one would think that these things 'had only to be stated to be understood.
The record is somewhat broken at this point, but it is now almost universally believed that what were known as the "common people" and another tribe known as the "consumers", were far in advance of the legislators of this period. So far, indeed, in advance were they that the customs and trade laws were disregarded and some of them openly violated even, it is reported, by the legislators themselves, although this latter has never been properly established.
Trade treaties still in existence supply the onily authentic evidence that reforms were sought by the most liberal and progressive element of the people, but prior to the twentieth century little progress was made owing to the opposition of the Tories, a race now happily and totally extinct. The Tories blocked every Libera! and Progressive measure for tariff reform until things went from bad to worse. The government of the day offered an timmenee reward to anyone who could invent a tariff wall with valves in it that would open outward for manufactured products but not for raw materials and that would open inwards for aw materials but not for manufactured products. Many attempts were made to invent such a wall, but without success, because it was found impossible to distinguish between raw materials and finished products.
Tliis led to a great deal of trouble resulting dn international complications. The practice of what we now know as "free trade" was called smuggling and became so prevalent that every means, legislative and otherw:se, was tried to put a stop to the practice. Men were thrown into gaols and dungeons for breaking the customs and trade laws, but upon release they invariably resumed their operations in the practice of smuggling because they were becoming too advanced to regard free trade as a crime. As a consequence of this, trade continued to flow then as now through the channels of [DOT]least resistance.
Records of this time show that a society called the Protective Association tried to force their will and .persecution upon a loyal but disobedient people. At this point the records are not clear as to whether this association was the same as the Canadian Manufac-

turers' Association or an entirely separate association. The best authorities differ and the matter may never be finally determined. This much, however, is dear that a veritable shower of terror and sparks descended upon Ottawa, then the seat of government and disorder. Matters were brought to a head by the greatest statesman of the period, one George Boivin, whether cf French or Scotch extraction is not now clear. Mr. Bui-Vin, allowed some mute, inglorious peasant called Moses Aziz to remain in gaol for three months for having smuggled goods in his possession. This raised such a storm of protest and indignation all over the country that a movement was started that resulted in the greatest reform of all times that we now enjoy, namely, universal free trade and peace and prosperity has returned to a smiling land.
That is, I think, somewhat along the line of what the future historian will write of this occasion. In conclusion, I am very glad that the amendment of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) has been declared in order and that we are to have a full and impartial investigation of the whole customs matter. It would be a crime if at this time a new government, if it is capable of sustaining itself in office for a few brief months, should have within its power to shut off investigation into the period before they left office in 1921 and to discontinue that probe into sections of the country where the investigation has not been carried so far. I look to get results from a full and impartial inquiry, results so great that this country, whatever the Judgment of the House may be on this particular resolution, will speak in no uncertain voice in vindication of the ministry which has just retired and of the honour and integrity of one of Quebec's greatest sons.


Mr. ARMAND SYLVESTRE (Lake St. John):: On any other occasion I would have ventured to address the House in English but as the question now under consideration is of such importance I think I had better speak in my mother tongue, with which naturally I am more familiar.


Armand Sylvestre: I have
closely followed this protracted debate. I have listened attentively to the speeches delivered. There was one which especially impressed me, and that was the speech of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Rheaume), who clearly disclosed to the House one of the most shocking political plots, a real scandal in its truest sense. I mean the plot which was hatched last autumn in my province in regard to Mr. Patenaude's event. This new saviour, this new messiah, who, contrary to our Divine Master, was not born in a crib but in a hall at the Windsor, one of the finest hotels, in Montreal. The hon. member for Jacques-Dartier very clearly showed us who was the father of this new

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Sylvestre
saviour, we discovered his paternity, and the hon. member further added-and it is a fact 

that according to the civil code we have a right to carry on searches so as to discover the paternity; this right also implies the one of carrying on the search, I think, so as to discover the maternity in order to definitely establish to what concubinage or adultery Mr. Patenaude is the offspring.
Now that I have established my premises, I want to show the deceit which exists on one side of the House, where a mountain is made of the Moses Aziz incident, wheen it is they, the so-called very virtuous gentlemen, who impeach us the most., that are responsible for a state of things ten times worse. Because this new Messiah, sir, did not only carry on his propaganda in Montreal, he rambled through the province, he came to my county, and I well remember one night when this fine chub-cheeked baby recently dressed in swaddling-blue clothes was taken off the train with great precaution; he wished to impress us with the idea that he was born and likely to live, and all he was able to say on that occasion was this great axiom: " The country' before parties "; as if it were not the parties who direct the country's policy. A scandal is at present being made of an insignificant affair, the Moses Aziz incident, it is simply the case of a man who was put into jail in December instead of August. There is another incident which is brought to light in this inquiry, a far more serious one than that of Moses Aziz, and upon which very little was said; I, nevertheless, intend to bring before the House the facts in all their details in order to expose the odium of those who seem to have a monopoly of all virtues and honesty; I wish to mention the Plamondon case. This incident did not occur under our reign, but under that of those virtuous gentlemen who have just crossed over to the right. This Plamondon case dates back to the year 1920. I first pick up the report of the inspectors of the department which is as follows, at page 214S of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Special Committee on the Customs Department inquiry:
Sir,-I beg to enclose horowil.h seizure report 699 of three red copper stills ami one galvanized tin still of the capacity of about thiirty gallons, three lead worms, about 2,000 gallons wash, forty-five gallons spirits, 1.7 U.P. and a large q.uamity of other articles as enumerated on seizure report No. 699, excise form No. 4, executed on the eleventh instant aigainst Mr. Olivier Plamondon, jobber and manufacturer of this city.
At 2 ,p.m. on the 11th instant, I was informed of a large illicit distillery being operated by Mr. Olivier Plamondon at 45 and 47 Saul t-an-Matelot street, Lower Town, Quebec.
Accompanied by Mr. Excise Enforcement Loon Hardy 1 proceeded immediately to the .premises above mentioned and we found the doors locked. Mr. Officer Hardy then broke open the doors and we found on the second floor the throe copper stall installed on three gas stoves ready to work. The four floors of the building were filled with barrels of wash which were transmitted to the stills through a rubber hose. We then seized the contents of the building, and officer Hardy was left in charge to supervise the work of removing all the stock.
Police Sergeant Ludger Couture was requested by me to have a constable in attendance at the doons of the building all the time so as to keep away the public and .protect the plumbers I had hired to discotnnect all the machinery, and labourers to destroy all the wash and help carters to remove all articles seized to the Customs examining warehouse. As Olivier Plamondon though was not found on the premises w'hen we entered the building, it was apparent that somebody had been there operating the stills a few moments before our arrival. We could not place Plamondon under arrest immediately, but early on the morning of the 12th instant, as it was feared that Plamondon could escape,
I have given instructions to Mr. L. Moraurl, attorney for the department, to have necessary _ proceedings entered in court so as to have Plamondon placed under arrest. I am informed by Mr. Attorney Maraud that the warrant was immediately issued and executed and Plamondon pleaded not guilty before Hon. Judge Ghoquette yesterday and held for hearing on Thursday, 19th next on $2,000 bail.
Under these circumstances I think it would be advisable if the department were to instruct the attorney to take proceedings ait once against Plamondon before the hearing of the case on the 19tih (because it is opportune that a severe punishment should be given the case in this instance sx>
as to put a stop to this illicit trade which has been going on on a large scale.
This, Mr. Speaker, is far more serious than the case of Aziz, who had in his possession a few bottles of whisky. Here is a man who had in his possession four stills, 2,000. gallons wash and a complete apparatus ready to start, so much so that the inspectors of the department, on their arrival, were able to verify that it had just been used but that those in charge had probably been able to escape. It was certainly a very serious offence. If a man has a small personal still in order that he may distill for his own use a little whisky or what is called home 'brew, it is of course contrary to the law, but if a man possesses four stills, 45 gallons of whisky, 2,000 gallons wash-I am not a chemist in order to know what quantity of alcohol could be extracted, however, I state that the cases of Plamondon and Aziz cannot be compared, " the worst political scandal "-as our opponents exclaimed-that the country has ever witnessed, because a man had three bottles of smuggled whisky in his possession! What happened after? The attention of the lawyers having been drawn to these facts by the Inspectors, they immediately wrote to the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, on August 18, 1920, the following letter:
Dear Sir,-We beg to send you herewith a preliminary report of proceedings taken by us against
5120	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Sylvestre
Olivier Plamondon, Jr., in whose (possession three stills *and a great quantity of alcohol and malt were found last week.
As it was urgent that proceedings foe taken without delay, and as Messrs. Sevdgny & Siiois, your solicitors, seemed to represent the defendant, M. Larue, your [DOT]Quebec representative asked us to take the necessary steps for the immediate arrest of Plamondon.
We have acted in accordance with his instructions [DOT]and PI anion don was arrested immediately. The accused then was let out on bail of $2,000, and the date see for the preliminary hearing in hiis case was tb* 19th of this month.
Owing to the fact that we have not received instructions from you, and due to Mr. Sevigny's absence to-morrow, we had that date changed for the 20th. and the preliminary hearing will take (place on the later date.
We were informed this morning that Plamondon intended to plead guilty and as iwe feared that the magistrate might be too lenient towards the accused, we took it upon ourselves to have the following complaint sworn to before the magistrate.
(a)	For manufacturing spirits illegally;	.
(b)	For having had in his possession spirits which he knew had been illegally manufactured;
(c)	For having had in his possession an empty barrel of spirits on which the marks have not been- obliterated ;
(d)	For having sold spirits which he know had been illegally manufactured.
Now, according to the act, these charges were justified because they represent as many infractions as there are mentioned in the letter of Messrs. Moraud and Alleyn:
The letter continues:
We have also been instructed to lay an information against the party who 'had made stills.
The above informations were laid with a view to convincing the court that the accused is a dangerous criminal, so that he would get a proportional sentence, should he plead guilty.
This affair has moved the public opinion very deeply hereabouts, and has taken much importance, and the public opinion seems to expect that .the guilty party or parties will be severely dealt with.
That is why we have thought it advisable to have the revenue officers to lay the above informations.
Will you kindly let us have your instructions without delay.
Yours truly,
[DOT]	(Signed) Moraud & Alleyn.
Here are the crown attorneys, who speak from facts and state, under their signature, that Plamondon is a dangerous criminal, that the whole affair has greatly stirred the population of the district. All these details are given; the department's attorneys fearing that the judge might be too lenient request that an exemplary punishment 'be inflicted-[DOT] even should this man plead guilty-because he is a dangerous criminal. What happens after this? On August 19, with reference to the letter of the 18th, the following telegram is sent by the crown attorney to the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue:

Quebec, August 19, 1920.
Georges W. Taylor, Esquire,
Deputy Minister, Department of Inland Revenue, Ottawa.
Your telegram received re Olivier Plamondon. The accused, through his attorneys Sevigny & Sirois . . . .
A nice situation! Note that it is therein mentioned " The accused through bis attorneys Sevigny and Sirois ". At first they were the department's attorneys.


Mr. DOUCET (Translation):: Was that
Mr. Sevigny whom you mentioned, a minister at the time?


Armand Sylvestre: Mr. Sevigny was Minister of Inland Revenue and Speaker of the House when the Conservatives were in power.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	What
department had he?


Armand Sylvestre: The department of Inland Revenue, I think.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: Who was
then Prime Minister?


Armand Sylvestre: Mr. Meighen.


Mr. GERVAIS (Translation):: Was it the same Mr. Meighen who is Premier to-day?


Armand Sylvestre: Yes, the very same. It is stated in the telegram: " The accused through his attorneys ". These lawyers who were Crown attorneys in 1920, had suddenly shifted in the scene; they became attorneys of the accused and Messrs. Moraud & Alleyn, who had acted promptly on the instructions of Mr. Hardy, had the pleasure of seeing their mandate confirmed in spite of the fact that Messrs Sevigny and Sirois were the Crown attorneys. The scene had shifted. Moraud & Alleyn were acting for Crown and Sevigny & Sirois became the attorneys of the great criminal.
I now return to the telegram of August 19, 1920, sent to Mr. George W. Taylor, Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue:
Your telegram received re Olivier Plamondon. The accused, through ihis attorneys Sevigny & Sirois, offers to plead guilty and pay the minimum fine of $200 without imprisonment and denounce the other parties implicated. Please give us your instructions before to-morrow if possible.
Lucien Moraud.
On August 29, 1920, the following letter is addressed to Mr. Lucien Moraud, barrister: Your letter re Plamondon received. Proceed as stated	
At the time Mr. Moraud had told the department that five complaints, five charges

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Sylvestre
had been laid against Plamondon. He received instructions to proceed.
Your letter re Plamondon. Proceed as stated. See amendments mailed for increased penalty under section 185. No preliminary hearing should take place for complaint under 180, and case should be tried *summarily as provided by 132.
This is not all, Sir. Probably overtures took place not only by letters and telegrams but also by the intermediary of the attorneys of the accused, and this was necessary, so as to establish the chain of evidence which might have been found wanting in the series of *documents which were produced.
On the 20th of the same month the following letter was addressed to Mr. Moraud, the Crown Attorney:
August 20, 1920.
Xucien Moraud, Esquire,
Barrister, Quebec.
Dear Sir,-With further reference to my recent correspondence respecting the case oif Mr. Olivier Plamondon, 1 am advised by Messrs. Sevigny & Sirods, attorneys for Plamondon, that the latter has given you the names of four other parties connected with this case, with the understanding that he is pleading guilty under *section 180 but would be condemned to the minimum fine.
Such were the results of the steps taken Plamondon who is caught in the act, in violation of the act, for the sake of escaping the penalty provided in the Code, makes known the names of four other persons implicated in this affair, with the understanding that he will plead guilty and that he would be condemned to the minimum fine. The letter *continues as follows:
I beg to state the department approves of this -agreement and you are therefore instructed to lay one [DOT]complaint only against Plamondon under section 180 of the act, either for having distilled spirits or for having *a still in his possession.
Mr. GERVAI3 (Translation): Who signed that letter?


Armand Sylvestre: I have
not finished reading the letter; I shall mention it at the end. So, the department was aware of the fact that they are dealing with a dangerous criminal; the department was aware of the fact that Mr. Moraud, on the instructions of the Inspectors, laid five charges against Plamondon.
The department was aware of the fact that Mr. Moraud on the instructions of the inspectors, laid five charges against the offender; moreover the department writes to Moraud: Act as you state in your letter, it is quite right. Only, on August 20 things are somewhat shifted around; Plamondon first says: If you will but condemn me to a fine. . . . Here we have a criminal caught in the act, -who starts by making dishonest proposals
which 'are finally accepted, and he further says: I shall divulge the names of four persons who are implicated with me, with the understanding of course, that one charge only will be laid against me and I shall be condemned 'to the minimum fine. One must not lose sight that the act states: a fine of at least $200 and not exceeding $'500. That makes a great difference. Plamondon adds: " If you condemn me only to the minimum fine, that is $200, without jail, I shall plead guilty and make known the names of the other guilty parties." It is then that the department gives instructions to their attorneys to entirely approve these stipulations. The only reason why such stipulations were approved, were that Plamondon consented to give the names of four persons who were implicated with him in this affair. Extraordinary indeed, the department agreed not only that he should be let off with the minimum fine, but there was no mention of a jail sentence. And the letter is as follows:
You will note that section 180 states that the minimum penalty shall be $200 and one month's imprisonment. The department will not, therefore, insist on the imprisonment portion of the sentence, and the magistrate's attention sihould be drawn to section 1028 oif the Criminal Code, which provides that whenever the offender shall be liable to different degrees or kinds of punishment, the ipunislhment to be inflicted shall, subject to the limitation contained in the enactment, be in the discretion of the count or tribunal before which the conviction takes place.
The department through the intermediary of its Deputy Minister had already begun to bring pressure upon the judge. And so very scrupulous gentlemen, who were shocked at the sight of a man having a few bottles of whisky in his possession, and that a minister used his discretion in delaying his jail sentence, find it an ordinary incident, a natural thing, that an absolutely undue influence should be exercised on a judge, that his duty should be dictated to him, and that he should be told: " The act lays down such and such a thing, according to the act a fine and imprisonment should be imposed, but it matters little, lay these considerations aside." And these gentlemen are not shocked. When our hon. friends were in power, everything was permissible, everything seemed natural, they even had the right to try and influence a judge before he gave his decision in order that he should give judgment so to comply with a purely political object.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame 1


Armand Sylvestre: And the intrigues were still being carried on, Sir, the case goes from worse to worse. According to a letter dated August 25, 1920, addressed to
5122	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Sylvestre
the Deputy Minister by the crown attorneys, the following is to be found:
Sir,-Section 1028 of the Crimiraail Code provides that whenever the offender shall be liable to different degrees or kinds of ,punishment, .the punishment to be inflicted shall subject to the limitations contained in the enactment, be in the discretion of the court or tribunal before which the conviction took place.
It is true.
It would appear this applies to section 1080 of the Inland Revenue Act, which imposes both fine and imprisonment. In fact this was decided in the case of Rex vs. Robiidoux, 2, C.C.C. page 19, and also ex,parte Kent, 7, C.C.C. page 447. It was ruled in these cases that unless there is express provision to the contrary, an enactment which authorizes both fine and imprisonment for the summary conviction the offence is to be construed as giving discretion to the magistrate to impose fine or imprisonment, or both.
That is the crown attorney wrote a letter which is absolutely in keeping with the provisions contained in the Statutes. When a penalty includes a fine and imprisonment, it is according to law, and it was decided in the cases cited that the judge may impose one or the other or both at the same time. The judge, yes, but not the crown. The government has no right to direct the judge, as it was done in this oase, to act in such and such a way, to influence his decision, to dictate to him his duty. Mr. Speaker, never have we witnessed such a disgusting procedure; here we find a minister, who for purely political aims, being fully aware of the situation and having to deal with a dangerous criminal, instructs the department to begin overtures in order to give this dangerous criminal his freedom. The letter continues:
If you refer /to these decisions you will note that they were given with regard to prosecution taken under section 180 Oif the Inland Revenue Act, which is section 150 of the old act, so that there ds not, in my mind, the slightest doulbt that section 1028 of the Criminal Code applies to all prosecutions taken under above quoted section of the Inland Revenue Aot.
This a.parently does not satisify Mr. Justice Choquette of Quebec City, before whom the department has taken a certain number of prosecutions, under section 180 of the Inland Revenue Aot. Mr. Justice Choquette claims that as this section provides for both fine and imprisonment, he has no other alternative than to send him to jail, if the department may not insist on itlie imprisonment portion of the sentence. He has therefore requested the department, before rendering sentence, in each case, to obtain your opinion as to whether or not he may dispense with the imprtiisoaiiment, and I shall be glad to have you advise me in this regard at your earliest convenience.
As the sentence against the parties concerned has been suspended pending expression of your opinion, I would request you to give the matter your immediate attention.
Now, it is included in the evidence that the department at that time took serious steps and proceedings in order to try to influence the decision of Judge Choquette who

wanted to sentence the man to both a fine /and imprisonment, as it was his right, and they endeav-oured.to find some way out, some means in order to protect a dangerous Criminal by simply imposing a fine.
, And this, Sir, did not occur under a Liberal government, it did not occur under the reign pf those who, according to the Tories, have po knowledge even of what may mean the word virtue, but it did take place under a Tory administration, under the reign of our good Conservatives, under those who are shocked at a trifling, under the government of those gentlemen who are not aware that they are living in glass houses and that it is very dangerous for them to throw stones into their neighbour's garden; all this happened under the over virtuous administration which held power from 1911 to 1921!
These gentlemen were in too great a hurry to cross over to your right, Sir, where they are at present, I' am confident that they will still make a quicker crossing to this side which they have just left.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: By leave of
the House, Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a motion referring to private bills.


Hewitt Bostock: It cannot be made at
this stage unless by leave of the House.


John Livingstone Brown: By leave of the House I
move, seconded by Mr. Evans:
That all bills reported this day in the eighth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, be placed on the order paper amongst private bills, for consideration in committee of ithe Whole, forthwith.


Hewitt Bostock: I am sorry to say that
this motion is out of order; such a motion requires unanimous consent. The same motion was made this afternoon, and the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) asked that notice be given. Otherwise it might be adopted unanimously.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York) :: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair might I make a suggestion? A number of divorce bills on the order paper are being held up through the prolonged consideration of one other private bill, and I would like to see them brought forward first.

Red Lake Railway Company


Hewitt Bostock: This motion was made
this afternoon, and an hon. member objected, as it is his right to do. According to rule 40 notice must be given, and notice was given this afternoon.



BED LAKE AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from June 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. 95, to incorporate the Red Lake and Northwestern Railway Company-Mr. Heenan-Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
iMr. CHURCH:	I do not wish the House
to think I am taking an unfair attitude in regard to this bill, but there is a great public principle involved; the whole railway question of Canada is wrapped up in the principle involved in this particular bill. The province of Ontario is vitally interested in it; the territory to be covered is a part of the newer section of Ontario, and I believe it to be National railway territory. No matter on what side of the House I sit, I support my principles first, last and all the time, and I believe a great question of public rights is before the House now. The people of Canada have spent two billion dollars on railways and to-day the policy of Sir Henry Thornton is pro-American. He has millions of dollars in Vermont and millions of dollars in Michigan, but he has no money to build branch lines into the richest territory in Canada. The wealth of this country is unknown and unexplored; it contains about 4,000 prospectors, who require this service.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the province of Ontario, which according to a return which I received from the Deputy Minister of Railways only yesterday, pays $780,000 a year to the Dominion government out of a total revenue of $946,000, should receive more consideration. The young ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) and the Progressives succeeded in having $28,000,000 spent on branch lines in the west for the benefit of agriculture. I am a supporter of New Ontario ; I supported it in the old days when we wanted iSir Adam Beck to electrify the Temis-kaming and Northern Ontario railway in order to preserve the great mineral wealth of that country for the people of Ontario. Now that wealth is controlled by American capital, together with the water-powers existing there. Once you give away the water-power you automatically give away the dominant factol in the industrial life of the country, and I contend that if the Canadian National Railways can afford to spend $28,000,000 on branch
lines in the west they can afford to build a branch line here and preserve this territory.
I believe I am representing a great public policy and a great public principle in forcing a showdown with the administration of the National railways, so that New Ontario will be given -what it deserves. I do not want the young member for North Timiskaming (Mr. O'Neill) to think I am opposing this bill because of any personal reason, but I want to see justice done to that territory not only by this House, but by t'he government of the province of Ontario as well. The Toronto Globe has been running a series of articles dealing with the Red lake district, its wealth and its transportation needs. I opposed this bill in the Railway committee on public grounds, because I believe Ontario to-day is only a way-station for the rest of Canada. Speaking of a ginger group, I believe that is the thing we in Ontario need; no province is suffering more to-day from a lack of transportation than is Ontario. The old Grand Trunk railway in Ontario was taken over by the government, and the money which should have been invested there was put into the National Transcontinental railway. What was the result. From that day to this the older sections of Ontario, as well as new Ontario, have been suffering untold ills from the lack of transportation; farmers have been unable to get their crops to market, there has been rural depopulation and lack of production.
In referring to the principle involved in this bill, I wish to quote from the report prepared in part by the present Acting Minister of Railways, the Drayton-Acworth report, which has a direct bearing on this particular charter. This report was made to parliament in 1917, after an exhaustive survey of the waste and duplication of railways in this country, railways that had been built without any possible hope of making dividends, let alone interest and sinking charges. This report says:
We recommend that the jurisdiction of the railway commission should be enlarged. Charters for new railways are granted by the Dominion parliament in great numbers. In the years from 1900 to 1908, 116 charters were granted for 37,862 miles of line. Only 453 miles were actually built. In the two following yeans there were granted, according (to a statement made in the Senate by the Hon. Mr. Davis, on April 6, 1910, respectively, 68 charters for about 68,000 miles and 75 charters for about 75,000 miles.
The commission further recommends:
We think that no charter should be granted, til! the *proposals made have been investigated by the commission, and the commission have reported whether or not, in their opinion, the construction of the proposed line would be fo-r the public advantage. The opinion of the commission will not necessarily bind the action of parliament.
[Stage Direction]
Red Lake Railway Company
Mr. HEENAN:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is discussing the principle of the bill. This bill has been before the Railway committee and is now being considered in committee of the Whole here, and I submit that we should be discussing the clauses of the bill at this time, not the principle.


The CHAIRMAN:: I have to rule that the point of order is well taken. We are now on clause 1, which refers to the incorporation of the company.


Mr. CHURCH:: The clause we are discussing involves the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill is in every section. I would like the hon. member from Kenora-Rainy River to tell me what connection Mr. Backus has with this particular bill.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Backus is opposing this bill, so he and the hon. member for Toronto Northwest are in the same boat.


Thomas Langton Church: It is well known that Mr. Backus went to the Ontario legislature in the days of the Farmer-Labour government, and that that government gave to Mr. Backus a whole kingdom up in New Ontario. Mr. Backus wrote a letter to the Railway committee offering to build this railway himself. I want to criticize the policy of Sir Henry Thornton and of the National Railways for giving up this territory. The other night we passed a vote of $3,000,000 for the Hudson Bay railway, and here it is proposed to build a line that will take away business from that railway. The province of Ontario has been sidetracked so far as branch lines are concerned.
So far as the principle of this bill is concerned, this is not a project for the general advantage of Canada. It cannot be considered such by the wildest stretch of imagination. The railway is to be built wholly within Ontario, and the promoters should have gone to the Toronto legislature for their charter. It was admitted that to come within the jurisdiction of this parliament the road technically had to cross the border into Manitoba. The Minister of Railways was asked in the railway committee what the policy of the government was regarding this particular railway, and he could not tell the committee. The National Railways have millions of dollars to spend on golf links and hotels and improving the system in the United States, in Michigan and Vermont, but when it comes to developing the mining industry of this country, where are they? We allow private interests, largely American, to get these franchises, and I say that it is the duty of

this parliament to stop issuing these paper charters. We have a new Acting Minister of Railways, and his report was on the right lines when he recommended that we should go slow in granting such charters as this. This bill, Mr. Chairman, is 95 per cent a mining and a power bill, instead of a transportation proposition. I protest against the province of Ontario, which contributes 46 per cent of	the	taxation collected	by	thetreasury of this country, being sidetracked in the matter of branch lines. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan the National Railways are building branch	lines that will never	paydividends, let alone interest charges, and as one of the representatives of Ontario I protest against	the	shortsighted policy	of	theNational Railways in failing to give Ontario the branch lines it needs, not only in the older parts of the province, but in the newer portions, in	the	Red lake district,	for	instance, and other portions of the province where branch lines are required to develop the mining industry in this province.
The richest mining country in the world today lies in the northwest section of the province of Ontario, including the Red lake district; as far as the Manitoba boundary, and also in the Cobalt and other districts where mines are being worked. This being the case I am sorry at the shortsightedness of the government of Ontario in writing to the Railway committee of the House of Commons and saying they had no interest in this bill. If there is one district in which the government of Ontario should be interested, it is New Ontario with its untold wealth. There are approximately 4,000 prospectors in the Red lake district at the present time and they can get a good road in there for a very small amount of money. But every member from Ontario who is loyal to his province should be in favour of the National railways building into that territory. If this bill passes, then good-bye to any possibility that Sir Henry Thornton and the National railways will do anything to develop this part of northern Ontario. Sir Henry Thornton has already spent millions of dollars on building golf courses and installing radios, on giving terminals to Detroit, and providing facilities in the state of Vermont, but when it comes to developing New Ontario that gentleman has no money at all available. I suppose if a branch line to the North Pole were needed he would not find it difficult to obtain the necessary financial aid. I believe those hon. member's who are opposing this bill are acting in the public interest. If we mark time for a few days there is a possibility that the National Railways may yet be brought to

512fr
Red Lake Railway Company
time and made to realize the necessity of *building into the Red lake district.


Mr. DUNNING:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? A few days ago, when I was Minister of Railways, my hon. friend insisted that I should make a statement of the policy of the government of that day regarding this particular railway. Can he inform the House what the policy of the present acting, shadow Minister of Railways is with respect to it?


Thomas Langton Church: It is all very well for
the hon. gentleman, who is a new member of this House, to talk.


Charles Avery Dunning: I merely asked a question.


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. gentleman is
"the young Napoleon" who has come out of the west but I tell my hon. friend-


Charles Avery Dunning: Will the hon. gentleman
answer the question?


Thomas Langton Church: The Canadian Pacific Railway on a hotel is spending $5,000,000 in developing his own town of Regina. I say further that he and the management of the National Railways have been able to get millions of dollars to spend on terminals in Detroit and other cities in the United States, but when it comes to something likely to benefit New Ontario they have not a cent for the purpose. The policy of the management of the National Railways is a most shortsighted one in view of the wealth waiting to be developed in New Ontario. The province of Ontario is entitled to better treatment than it has hitherto received, and the time has come for the formation of a "ginger group" to stand up for its interests in this House. A lot of money is voted for development work in other provinces but nothing for Ontario. I do not blame the late Minister of Railways for looking after his own province, in which he displays great interest; I am only sorry that we have not got somebody in Ontario as powerful and equally alive to the interests of the mining camps of that province. I have the utmost respect for the minister and he has shown great regard for the development of his own province. I read the recommendation of Sir Henry Drayton a while ago that all private charters should be reported by the railway commission.


Charles Avery Dunning: Answer my question.


Thomas Langton Church: I am sorry that the mining industry of the province of Ontario has not received the support which it should have received. One of the greatest mistakes made by the late Sir James Whitney-and he
did not make many mistakes-was in failing to electrify the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway, and undertaking to provide cheap light and power for the miners and. prospectors in northern Ontario. Had he done that, New Ontario would have had a population of half a million people instead of a population of 80,000, and the gold and silver production of the province would be ten or fifteen times what it is at present. A further result would have been that the population of Ontario would have grown to such a figure that it would have been entitled to a representation of ten more members in this House, and then that province would have got justice from this parliament. It is really most discouraging and most humiliating that the tax payers of Ontario, who pay 46 per cent of the taxation of Canada, cannot get one necessary branch line built into the northern districts of the province where untold wealth is waiting to be mined.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Timiskaming):: Coming from the north country and being very closely allied with its interests I wish to speak on this question for a few minutes. We who went to northern Ontario before the advent of railroads are thoroughly familiar with its problems. We had hoped in past years that the provincial and the Dominion governments would be the chief agents in developing the great industries of northern Ontario. I was a member of a delegation which interviewed Sir Adam Beck and asked him to get the Hydro Electric Commission to develop power in New Ontario. We were flatly turned down on that occasion. We were told that the Hydro Electric would not undertake the development of power in the north country; it would cost them more than it would cost private interests. At that time we were paying $250 per horsepower in the mines but to-day as a result of development by private interests it costs only from $50 to $60 per horse-power. There would not have been a wheel turned in the north country to-day if it had not been for the ingenuity and the energy of private.interests. I believe that if it were possible the Ontario government and the Dominion authorities should come in and carry on development work; but if they will not do so why should private interests be debarred from doing the necessary development? I say here to-night that there would not have been many mines discovered in northern Ontario if we had relied only on the provincial or federal government. Every mine discovered there has been discovered by a prospector, the pioneer of the north country.

Red Lake Railway Company


William Findlay Maclean: How were the nickel mines at Sudbury and the silver mines at Cobalt discovered except through public ownership and the construction of a railroad by the government of the late Sir James Whitney? That country was not developed by prospectors, it was developed as a result of the policy of Sir James Whitney in causing a railway to be built through the mining district.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: No
mine was discovered by any. government. Both the Larose and the McKinley-Darragh mines were discovered by prospectors, not by the Whitney government. The provincial government, it is true, sent a prospecting party to co-operate with the prospectors. They also started a property known as the Provincial Mine, but it was not followed up and it turned out to be a dud. Since then the provincial government have entirely abandoned the policy of prospecting the north country; they have left it entirely to the prospectors, who are deserving of credit for the energy and heroism which they have displayed. I want to say another thing for those prospectors. In that country we are greatly indebted to prospectors who go into remote districts and make discoveries, although they have no money and scarcely anything but a grubstake. They have to take in their train a canoe in the summer or a dog-team in the winter. It costs twice the price of the ordinary express on the National Railways. That is what the National Railways do to assist prospecting. It is almost impossible for some of the poor prospectors to take their equipment from Cobalt to a point west of Red lake. Some interest must be shown in the prospectors.
We have attached great importance in past years to the work of the pioneers in agriculture. The agricultural area in our country depends entirely upon the mining area. You cannot send your agricultural products out of our country; the agriculturists have to depend upon the mining people for a market, and mining and agriculture in our part of the country go hand in hand. Since I came to that country more than a hundred thousand people have been brought in. If the government do not intend to do something in this connection they should give private ownership an opportunity. I am not speaking particularly in favour of this railroad or against it, but I am in favour of allowing private enterprise an opportunity of building up a greater northern Canada.


Mr. EVANS:: I would have thought, after
the many times this bill has been before the

House, the promoters would have withdrawn it for good. They must, however, be admired for their persistence. The many times this bill has been before the House I have tried to get some information as to the promoters and as to the need for such a railway. It is a project that does not appeal to most of us and it cannot but be detrimental to the National Railways. As yet we have had very little information forthcoming. Trying to get some information regarding the feasibility of this road, I find that Mr. Lloyd Moore, financial editor of the Toronto Globe, has lately given a detailed account which goes to show that not only is the railway not needed but the whole thing is simply a gigantic swindle.
His article in the Globe reads:
After four days cxf travelling around Red lake, it seems quite apparent that the snow-stakers are showing little interest in real work now that the fictitious market for claims has settled to a more reasonable level. Dome and McIntyre are carrying most of the load. 'Much credit is due Dunlop, Red Lake, for the aggressive policy that is being pursued. Some encouragement has been given in the work done already, and there is a reasonable probability that the outlook will improve as the exploration programme is advanced further. The effort being made by the Dunlop syndicate deserves a more detailed description which will be given out later.
But as to the other great syndicates and those who are responsible for the rush, he says that they are simply marking time. The date of this paper is June 25. The writer goes on to say:
With hardly a single exception, the other syndicates are resting on their oars making no real attempt to fulfil the glittering promises made when Red lake syndicate flotations were in vogue. Here and there small parties are at work, but the whole situation is much 'less active than might be expected, taking into account the obvious importance of the Howey discovery and the favourable geological conditions that prevail over a large part of the Red lake district. The prospectors have not made the most of their opportunity. No work whatever has been done on the many scores of locations that want attention. Some snow-staked ground was sold early in the season at fancy prices and the unsold claims have been left alone. Such neglect does not affect the public as directly as the inativity of syndicates in which investors have placed then-money.
The whole thing seems to be almost a great swindle. As many went in there before the winter was over, much hardship ensued as a result of the fa'se news spread throughout the country by syndicates and prospectors who had no other interest in the whole matter than that of prospectors' earnings. But now apart from all this there is another feature that ought to appeal to this parliament at this time. While we were trying to get some policy laid down by parliament, the former Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) said that

Red Lake Railway Company
they had no interest in the matter. I am sure that the present Acting Minister of Railways, (Sir Henry Drayton), who has taken over his office to-day, after his very exhaustive report of some years ago when he advised that there should be only two railway systems in Canada, will have something to say on this matter. But there is an interesting side for the people of Canada to consider regarding granting charters of this kind.
According to the Canada Year Book our railway debt to-day amounts to more than $2,000 000,000. Many are favouring private enterprise. I think we should encourage private enterprise all we can; but in answer to the hon. member for South Timiskaming (Mr. Armstrong), I want to say that the railways are public utilities and should never be allowed to drift into private hands. The people should keep them under their ownership and control. It has become a habit with some of our big men, bank managers, railway magnates and others, to denounce government ownership, and to denounce the National railways in particular. They would at this time give the National Railways back into private hands because they say it is too costly for the people. The cost to the people will be the same whether it is for private gain or even to make lip a deficit. The substance of these remarks generally is to the effect that the National Railways are too heavy a load for the people to carry, but the fact remains that while our National Railways to-day are showing a deficit annually, the privately-owned system is returning very handsome profits each year. Some 10 per cent dividend is paid year after year by that system and in addition to this very large surpluses are added to reserve. There is no doubt that had both systems been under one efficient management our railways in the year 1925 would have reported a surplus instead of a deficit.
Our railway situation at the present time is something like this. While the taxpayers have to find money to meet a heavy deficit in connection with the national system the earnings from carrying charges as shown by the private concern have left a very handsome profit in the final accounting. The result is that the deficit in connection with the national system and the profits made by the private company are together a heavy burden on the industry of the people, for the extra amount which we have to pay in the form of charges for railway service may be described as taxation. If the railways were all under one management the Canadian people would this year, I repeat, have had the benefit of a surplus in connection with the National Railways.
The dangers attending public ownership seem to be a bugbear to some people. They would take our railways to-day and place them in private hands, but they want to leave the debt for Canadians to bear later on. There is a sum of $2,400,000,000 to-day on which interest must be paid, and it is not likely that any private concern would take over the railways at that capitalization. While speaking on this subject I am reminded of the words of the Acting Minister of Railways (Sir Henry Drayton) contained in the report which he submitted along with Mr. Acworth in the year 1920, to the effect that there should be only two systems of railway in this country from henceforth.
Why should we at this time start another system of branch railways as a result of which we should have probably a repetition of the debacle that now faces us? Facts and figures are sometimes presented in such a way as to mislead the public. The opponents of the National Railways never tell us that the reason for their hostility to the public ownership of public utilities is the fact that it interferes with what they consider the sacred right of some people to exploit the public for private profit. It is certainly strange, as the president of the Canadian National Railways pointed out recently in one of his speeches, that no danger was apprehended when the Canadian National Railways were piling up a huge operating deficits, which their opponents were quite willing to have the country bear. No one appeared to worry over that fact. But now that times have become more stable, now that the country is coming back to normal conditions, there is no doubt that, with the various roads making up the system coordinated and operating as a unified and efficient whole, large operating profits are anticipated. And as the president of the national system remarked, "whispers of death" and other newspaper articles have begun to appear in the press. I quote the words of Sir Henry Thornton:
Can it be that our great financial experts would rather see out national road making tremendous operating losses than see them get out of ^he red ink and operate on the right side of the ledger to the tune of, say, $32,000,000 a year?
According to the Canada Year Book at the end of 1924 the total capitalization of the National Railways has stood at $2,326,411,356 of which $608,624,084 represents stocks, leaving a funded debt of $1,717,787,272. A very large part of this immense sum was lent or given by the government to these roads when they were in private hands and bond issues were guaranteed in respect of it. The part of the debt which is not to-day represented



Red Lake Railway Company
hy earning capacity is as much a part of the puDiic debt as even our war expenditure and should be so considered. The railways should be relieved of this burden. But when we have a project such as this, which is going to add rather than take from the burden of the debt which we now owe on our railways, it is time for this parliament to outline a specific policy regarding our railways. I must confess that I am in favour of government ownership. It has been one of the planks of the farmers' platform for many years and we have seen no reason to change our mind on the subject. When we have such a legacy of debt to meet, bequeathed by the unreasoning optimism of the boom period, which came to an end just about the time the war began, surely we should consider this matter very carefully.
A few years ago it was not safe for anybody to say anything against the boom in railway construction. Anyone who at that time demurred against the credit of the country being granted in aid of railway promoters was thought fit perhaps for a lunatic asylum. Now we have to pay dearly for our ill-considered expenditures during those years. Today the Red lake district is not suffering for lack of a railway. No one knows yet whe1-ther t'he settlement there will be permanent, and as one writer says, those who have gone in there are simply biding their time, leaning on their oars and waiting for somebody else to take the burden of developing the country.
When we were building branch railway lines ahead of settlement our bank presidents did not take the trouble to warn the people of over expansion of our railway system. I must add that they did not refuse to profit by the commissions which were paid them for acting as financial agents for the government or the railway promoters. Nor do the annual statements they now publish show that they have suffered at all by what they call the intolerable burdens the country has to bear. We know the burden of taxation year by year is increased by railway deficits, all because of the indiscriminate granting of railway charters in years past-charters for just such projects as this Red Lake railway. These men boast of their great prosperity, but a glance at the market reports showing the prices at which the shares of their companies are quoted would indicate that they at least are all right while the people are still carrying the burden. The same interests who would transfer our National railways to private control complain bitterly of the additions to our railway debt, but they were absolutely necessary to provide capital to put our railway system into a con-

dition of operating efficiency. There is no doubt that those interests would prefer to see the Canadian National Railways starved so that the country would in sheer desperation be eager to turn the system over as a gift. Those selfish interests would1 be willing to see the Canadian National Railways go from bad to worse until we were willing to abandon the property on any terms. Then our financial benefactors could step in and salvage it on their own terms, but leave the debt on the hands of the public.
Now, when a private corporation finds that as a result of inflation or over-expansion its capital is far in excess of the dividend-earning capacity of the plant it writes the capital down and the shareholders bear the loss. If to-day the capitalization of our National railway system were written down to something like its true value-during the years of the boom we paid at least one-Third too much for all our material-that system would show a profit on operation. A recent noteworthy example of this writing down of capital is the great English company of Vickers Limited, a company of international reputation. Its share capital has been written down some 160,000,000. It would be better perhaps if we put the capitalization of our National railway system at something nearer the real value and earning power of the road. If that system were returned into private hands does any hon. member suppose for a moment that its capitalization would not be written down?
Progress reported.



CUSTOMS INQUIRY


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mercier (St. Henri) for concurrence in the report of the special committee appointed to investigate 9 p.m. the Department of Customs and Excise, the proposed amendment thereto, as amended, of Hon. Mr. Stevens, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Rinfret.
Armand Sylvestre: Mr. Speaker, may I
ask the government if there is any ground for (die rumour that they will resign by reason of the adverse vote this afternoon?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We appreciate jokes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Dispense.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We may dispense with the joke.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Sylvestre


Ernest Lapointe: It is a good thing you do.


Armand Sylvestre: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, 1 had reached the point where the Department of Inland Revenue had begun to have doubts in regard to the interpretation of Section 180 of the Inland Revenue Act connected with Section 1028 of the Criminal Code, which determines what penalty the judge had a right to inflict. This section 180 is as follows:
Every person who without having a license under this act, then in force,-
(a)	distils or rectifies any spirits, or makes or ferments any beer; or
(b)	assists in disltilling or rectifying any spirits, or in making or fermenting any beer or wash in any unlicensed place; or
(c)	imports, makes, commences to make, sells, offers for sale or delivers any still, worm, rectifying or other apparatus suitable for the manufacture of wash, baer or spirits, or for the rectification of spirits, or any
part of such apparatus	is guilty of an
indictable offence, and shall, for a first offence, be liable to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars, and not less than one hundred dollars, and ito imprisonment, with or without labour, for a term not exceeding twelve months and not less than one month, and,- in default of payment of the penalty, to a further term of imprisonment not exceeding twelve months and not less than six months.
This section 180, has been amended by the Statutes 10-11 George V, chapter 52, clause 4 and the minimum fine was then fixed to $200 instead of $100 as it was previously. The government of that day, that is the Department of Inland Revenue, under the direction of a good Tory, absolutely wished to save the hide of his friend, Mr. Plamondon, and as the attorneys had been communicated with as to doubts existing whether the judge should sentence the man to both a fine and imprisonment or simply to a fine, the case was referred to the Department of Justice. On August 25, Mr. Moraud, at the time attorney to the department, received the following telegram:
Have sentence against Olivier Plamondon suspended pending opinion of Justice I>eipartanent on section 180 Inland Revenue Act. Instruction to prosecute other panties being mailed.
On August 25, the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice had been received, certainly an authority on the matter, his answer was as follows:
Referring to your letter of this date, No. 4552, in connection with the prosecutions pending before Judge Choquette, of Quebec City, under Section 180 of the Inland Revenue Act, I am o.f the opinion that Section 1028 of the Criminal Code clearly authorizes the court to impose a fine or imprisonment or both for infractions o-f said Section 180 of the Inland Revenue Act.
14011-325J
Now, Section 1028 of the Criminal Code is as follows:
Whenever it is provided that the offender shall be liable .to different degrees or binds of punishment, the punishment to be inflicted shall, subject to the limitations contained in the enactment, be in the discretion of the court or tribunal before which the conviction takes place.
The letter to which I have just referred, dated	August 25,	1920,	was signed	by W.Stuart Edwards, Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice. That is to say the Department of Inland Revenue, so as to have a clear conscience, having referred the facts to the Deputy Minister of Justice, the latter confirmed by letter	the	decision of	JudgeChoquette who had come to the conclusion, after	Plamondon	had	pleaded guilty, tosentence him to a fine and jail. The situation was critical, both' for the protectors and protected. Other means had to be found. What	was done?	On	August 27,	another
letter was sent to Mr. Lucien Moraud, attorney to the department., which is as follows and is signed by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue:
I beg to enclose herewith a communication received from the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice, with regard to the interpretation of Section 180 of the Inland Revenue Act. You will note that it is therein stated that Section 1028 of the Criminal Code gives the magistrate discretion to impose either a fine or imprisonment or both in any prosecution under the above quoted section of the Inland Revenue Act.
The instructions were therefore clear and precise. By all means a way out had to be found so as to prevent that dangerous criminal, to which the department's attorney had referred to, going to gaol. What was done? Overtures were started in order to withdraw the charge which at the time was before the judge, and to which Plamondon had pleaded guilty, an attempt was made to withdraw the charge in order to substitute another, and this time in such a manner that Plamondon would only be sentenced to a fine. What happened? A letter dated September 2, 1920, signed by Moraud & Alleyn, attorneys to the department was sent to the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue:
Sir,-In accordance with your instructions contained in your wire of the 28ith of August, and confirmed yesterday by 'phone-
It was urgent, they wired, wrote and telephoned.
-we have made a new complaint against Olivier Plamondon under Section 185 o>f the Inland Revenue Act, and have applied for withdrawal o.f the complaint already laid under section 180.
Mr. Justice Ohoquette hesitates to take it upon himself (to allow us to withdraw our complaint for the following reasons: Plamondon on first appearing before Mr. Justice Ohoqueitte after his arrest, pleaded
5130	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Sylvestre
not guilty. A few days later, after the department has been consulted and an understanding reached that. Plamondon should plead "guilty," he would not be condemned to jail, he again appeared before Mr. Justice Ghoquette and changed lias plea of "not guilty" to one of "guilty."
We applied this morning to be allowed to withdraw that complaint, but the court refused, on the ground that we could not withdraw such complaint when the accused had pleaded "guilty." The latter immediately moved to be allowed to change his plea of "guilty" to that of "not, guiilty, " so that we could withdraw our charge.
Mr. Justice Choquet-te took the motion "en delibere" holding that Plamondon could not be allowed to change his plea again, and stating that he would submit the matter to the Attorney General of the province of Quebec, in older to know whether he could accept this new change o-f -plea.
The matter is now in the hands of the Attorney General, and should the latter be willing to permit it, Plamondon will be alb wed to change lids plea so as to enable us to withdraw our charge under section 180.
The other accused parti& have been arrested, and their trial is bound to come up next week. We will keep you informed of any new development.
I respectfully submit, Sir, if ever we have had a gross example of denial of justice, of odious interfering, it is in this case. Here is a man who has pleaded guilty to a charge bearing both a fine and gaol. The judge sentences him to both. Proceedings are started. The accused's attorney, who is no more nor less than the ex-Minister of Inland Revenue himself, the Hon. Mr. Sevigny, who was even Speaker of this House, applies to the same department, to induce them to have the judge's decision changed. As a rule, everybody has a great respect for judges. The courts enjoy the respect of ail, one never interferes, neither directly nor indirectly, nor especially by means of undue influences, in order to shield a political friend. But in this case they want absolutely to whitewash Plamondon and it is requested that the department should bring weight to bear upon the judge. And it is what the department does, by letters, telephones and telegrams, however, without success. It is then that the attorney general shortly after came to a decision, because when a charge is laid before the court, especially when the accused has pleaded guilty, it is not a question of private interests between two parties, but of public right, as for instance, whether the law has been observed or not. Consequently no one had the right to withdraw this charge, no one had a right to prevent the carrying out of the sentence which had been passed by the judge on Plamondon. Nevertheless, for gentlemen who become very scrupulous when they learn that a man has been so unfortunate as to keep three inoffensive little whiskey bottles at home, they are deaf to this state of affairs, they close their eyes and

give us evidence of bad faith by not blushing ten times more than in the case of Moses Aziz!
And still the case goes on. It is real romance this affair of Plamondon. Never did political men take steps with such assurance and with such gross violation of the law, purely and simply to shield Plamondon who was a political friend.
Furthermore, on September 9, 1920, another letter from Messrs. Moraud & Alleyn which is as follows:
Ottawa, September 9, 1920.
Dear Sir,-With further reference to the action taken against Olivier Plamondon, in connection with the seizure o>f stills, we beg to report as follows:
As mentioned in our letter o-f the 3rd of this month, on instructions from you, we applied for withdrawal of the complaint laid against Plamondon, under section 180, and laid a new complaint against hikn, under section 185, on whiiich he pleaded guilty. Mr. Justice Ghoquette then stated that he could not allow us to withdraw our complaint against Plamondon, under section 180, because the latter had pleaded guiilty. He took the case en delibere and rendered judgment yesterday morning. By his judgment he decided that Plamondon could not change his plea of "guilty" to that of "not guilty" on the charge laid under section 180 and that we could not withdraw our complaint. He therefore proceeded to sentence Plamondon to $200 and two months tin jail. The latter has taken an appeal and has been liberated on bail, pending the decision of the court in the appeal. Sentence has been suspended on the charge laid under section 185 until the Court of Appeal has decided the other case.
The Co-urt of Appeal will sit in October. Kindly advise us what your instructions are concerning the appeal entered by the defendant. Will send you a complete report on the Whole matter in a few days.
Yours truly,
Moraud & Alleyn.
What happens next? On September 9, Plamondon was condemned to S200 fine and two months in gaol. What was there to be done to have the sentence commuted? All the witnesses which had given evidence, all the attempts made to try and prevent him from going to gaol having failed, there remained blit one last procedure, a last straw to save the drowning man: it was quickly seized. The Prime Minister of the present government, the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, stated the other day that the moment a sentence is passed, no one has a right to intervene; well, what happens in the present case?
Steps were taken in order to have the sentence commuted, and they succeeded, for on October 7, 1920, a letter from the Acting Deputy Minister of State is sent to the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue and later communicated to the crown attorney. The letter is as follows:

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Sylvestre
Canada, Department op Secretary of State,
Ottawa, October 7, 1920. Sir,-Referring to your letter No. 4852 of the 18th ultimo to the Remissions Branch, Department of Justice, dealing wi'tih an aipplioaitdorL of demeney made by Sevigny & Sirois, Barristers, of Quebec-
This is always Mr. Sevigny, the ex-Minister of Inland Revenue and ex-Speaker of the House.
I continue to read the letter:
-cm behalf ocf one Olivier Plamondon, who was racenrtly sentenced by His Honour Judge Choquette to pay a fine of $200 and to serve two months' imprisonment for possessing an illicit still, I am commanded to inform you tihait. his Excellency the Governor General has been pleased to order that Plamondoai be not called upon to serve the sentence of two months' imprisonment, and that he be released from further liability for this sentence as soon as itlie $200 fine has been paid.
His Excellency's decision has this day been communicated to the Solicitor for Plamondon.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
P. Pelletier,
Aching Under-Secretary of State. To the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue,
Ottawa, Out., Canada.
Here is a man who is sentenced by the jourt- to a fine of $200 and to two months in gaol. An appeal is made, why? The case which I have just submitted is not based on supposition, but on evidence, on facts proven at the Committee of Inquiry on the administration of the Customs Department. An appeal is made but only for the form, for there is evidence to show that little attention was given to this appeal from the moment the sentence of gaol was commuted by the Governor General. The principal reason why Plamondon escaped being lodged in gaol was also established. It is that he, the most guilty one besides being caught in the act, promised, in order to save his hide, to become a Crown witness so as to have four men, who had assisted him, sentenced. He denounced his employees-as it came out in the evidence that these men were employed by Plamondon 

and as a reward for his treachery, his gaol sentence was remitted and he only had to pay the fine of $200. Furthermore: he was given the share which was owed to him as an. informer. He paid the fine to which he was sentenced from the money he received as an informer and he pocketed the balance.
To sum up the case, here is a man who in August is found in possession of three copper stills and another galvanized tin still of a 30 gallon capacity, three lead worms, about 2,000 gallons of wash, 45 gallons of spirits-a sufficient quantity to quench the thirst of many people. This man escapes the severe penalty which he deserved from all angles
and in all justice for the simple reason that he was a political friend of the government, of that day-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Clause 4 of the report of the special committee is as follows:
Notwithstanding the time devoted by the committee to the taking of evidence the matters referred to it by the order of reference could not be completely reviewed. Much evidence was taken in connection with the port of Montreal; the situation at Beebe and Rock Island, Quebec; and the operation of distilleries. The committee have also with some detail examined Into liquor smuggling in the Maritime provinces. The committee have examined in a general way the conduct of business at certain customs ports of Ontario. The com-

mittee have not dealt, except incidentally, with the middle west and the Pacific coast. To a degree, therefore, this report is incomplete and suggestive rather than final. Full audit and extra-departmental investigation would be profitable in improving the service and recovering a large amount of revenue.
I submit, Sir, that so far as the public of this country is concerned that representation discloses a very distinct limitation in matters as they stand at present. It discloses that the investigation was incomplete in many particulars; incomplete as to the localities investigated and incomplete as to industries investigated, in particular, several distilleries and the business they are carrying on. It is incomplete, moreover, as to the parties investigated; incomplete in fact for the most part with respect to many phases of the subject matter the committee was called upon to inquire into. The evidence was sufficient to disclose that there is great need for a very full, complete and exhaustive inquiry into the evil of smuggling and into the problem of collecting the revenue as it has developed. The people demand to-day that the matter be not allowed to stand where it is at present but that the fullest possible investigation be made from the Atlantic to the Pacific, in order that something comprehensive and constructive may come from the discussion which has taken place in this House. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be nothing short of a public scandal if, after the amount of time devoted to this inquiiy by the committee and after the discussion which has taken place in this House with respect to the committee's report, matters were permitted to drop before the public was perfectly satisfied that the investigation had been thorough and complete on all essential points.
May I now draw the attention of the House to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the minister without portfolio, who at present is administering the Department of Customs (Mr. Stevens). That amendment contains no suggestion of a continuation of the investigation; the amendment is largely confined to a vote of censure on ministers of the crown and is a political amendment purely and simply, evading altogether the matter of primary interest and concern to the people of Canada, namely, whether or not means can be discovered effectively to combat the smuggling evil, to what extent frauds may be taking place in different parts of Canada, and to what extent there is need for redress. I cannot dwell too strongly, Mr. Speaker, on that phase of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, because it illustrates two things: one, that he who has taken

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Mackenzie King
the most interest in the work of the committee evidently felt satisfied when he had completed the investigation at Montreal and the investigating of a few officials from the province of Quebec and one or two officials of the Department of Customs here, but he was not ready to move in this House that an investigation should be continued into the customs ports of such large centres as Toronto and Winnipeg, his own city of Vancouver, and the cities of Halifax and St. John; also was not prepared to advise the House that a complete examination should be made into the affairs of the distilleries that have not been investigated.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that what the public wants is a very full investigation into all the phases of this matter which I have indicated. It was not until the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) moved an amendment that the House had before it the constructive proposal of a judicial investigation to continue the investigation which the special committe commenced-a judicial investigation that would take up the work that had not been reviewed by the committee, and that would also afford opportunity where there was reflection upon the personal character of any man, for him to have a judicial hearing before being condemned in the eyes of the public. That, Mr. Speaker, is an all important feature of the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; he did have regard for what in British fair play and justice is regarded as all important, namely, that a man whether he be a humble citizen of the land or a minister of the crown, before he is condemned should be entitled to an investigation conducted in a judicial manner and in a judicial atmosphere.
When we on this side were in office we accepted the proposal of a judicial investigation. We intimated that if it were given to us to carry on, that investigation would be made comprehensive, that it would extend to the different centres that I have mentioned and to the different industries to which I have referred, and that it would be made a thorough inquiry, so that this House when it assembled at the next session would have before it the evidence which was taken by that commission, and would also have before it the report of the commission itself, the findings of the commissioners and any recommendations they might have to make, and that the House might be in a position to do something really constructive by way of such further reform as might be considered necessary. However, the amendment was voted down, as the House will recall, by a majority I think of two.
Then what to all intents and purposes was the same amendment was moved by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher), and that subamendment was agreed to and was added to the amendment. May I point out this circumstance to hon. members of the House? When that amendment was carried in that form, the one criticism that I heard coming from the official opposition, and which I heard made also by members of the Progressive group and others in this House, was that that judicial investigation would be carried on by the government of the day, and that the government of the day would appoint as investigators judges in whom they might have confidence, but in whom perchance members of the opposition, members of the Progressive party and citizens of the country generally would not have equal confidence; in other words, that the judicial commission would be a commission chosen by the government of the day to conduct the investigation in a manner that would please the government of the day. That was the criticism that was directed against the amendment as amended as it stood at the time the late administration went out of office. Before going out of office we considered very carefully that phase of the question. We believed that the people of this country would expect the government that undertook the work of cleaning up this smuggling evil to appoint a commission in which there would be absolute confidence, a commission with respect to the findings of which not an hon. member of this House, nor a single citizen of this country, could take any exception. We conferred among ourselves as to the manner in which that all important end could best be attained, and we came to the conclusion that the manner in which that end could best be attained would be through the appointment of a commission of judges, three in number, one to be named by the Prime Minister of the day, the second to be named by the leader of the opposition, and the third to be named by the leader of the Progressive party. I submit. Mr. Speaker, and I wish to say it as emphatically as I can, that I believe it is a commission of that character, and of that character alone, that the people of this country will be satisfied with on this all important national problem. I venture to say that those whom hon. gentlemen opposite, members of the Conservative party, represent, will expect them to name on the commission a judge in whom the Conservatives of this country will have confidence. I know that so far as the Liberals of this country are concerned, they will expect that an opportunity will be given for the Liberals to name
5134	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Mackenzie King
a judge in whom the Liberals of this country have confidence, and I believe that the same will be found to be true with regard to those whom the Progressive members of this House represent, that their constituents will expect them, if the opportunity is offered, to give favourable consideration to an amendment which will give to their leader the right to name on a commission to investigate this all important matter one in whom they have entire and perfect confidence. I repeat that no other commission will satisfy the public demand at the present time. I submit that all the discussion that has taken place in the last few months before the committee of this House, and the discussion that has taken place in this House of Commons has aroused public feeling with respect to the hideousness of certain features of this national evil and national menace.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen say, " hear, hear." Then I say that if hon. gentlemen are sincere in their "hear, hears ' the one way to bring about reform is to give to this country a commission in which the entire country will have confidence. I submit further, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the manner in which this whole question of vital national importance has become a matter of political controversy and of political strife, nothing will satisfy the people of Canada to-day, with respect to settling this question in a proper way other than a commission that will have on it representatives of the three parties that compose this House of Commons. I want the House to stop and consider, as I ask the country to stop and consider, what better guarantee could be given to the nation that the work will be done thoroughly, that the work will be done honestly, that the work will be done effectively, than that each political party in this House will be put in the position of vying with the other political parties in seeing that there is brought to light in the fullest possible way everything that should be disclosed in connection with the existing situation. The late government was prepared to make that proposal had it continued in office.


An hon. MEMBER:: When?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
government went out of office, the amendment which was proposed to-day was shown to several hon. members of this House, and it was indicated very plainly that that was the amendment which was intended to be moved from the then government side as a subamendment to the amendment as soon

as opportunity was presented therefor. Such was the case. However, it makes little difference whether such was the case or not, so long as at the present time the House has before it an amendment to that effect. The amendment which the opposition, through one of its members, has offered to the House today was in the same language and the same words as the amendment which the late government had intended to offer. I say it is due to the people of this country, it is due to these who are represented by the different political parties, that such a degree of confidence as to the thoroughness and fulness of the investigation shall be given to them now that the opportunity has presented.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Do we not consider our judges trustworthy, and is the right hon. gentleman suggesting that each party should name one judge who would be practically a representative of that party?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Assumedly all the judges of the country are trustworthy, but I do say that human nature being what it is, the public would have more confidence in a tribunal constituted in the manner I have suggested, nominated by representatives of all sides of the House than they would have in judges appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite.
May I further direct the attention of the House to this fact: Hon. gentlemen opposite who have been most active in the work before the committee have carried the work just as far as it would suit themselves. If the subamendment to the amendment is not carried we will have to consider the amendment as amended, and that amendment will give to hon. gentlemen opposite solely, and only to them, the nomination of the judicial commission that is to carry on the inquiry. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the public will not have the same degree of confidence in a commission appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite in that way as they would have in a commission appointed in the manner I have indicated. I say that without any desire to reflect on hon. gentlemen opposite because when I had the honour of filling, the position of Prime Minister, in seeking to suggest a commission that would invite and secure public confidence, I proposed to give to the leader of the opposition and to t-he leader of the Progressive party that very opportunity for the reasons I have mentioned.


Mr. QUINN:: Did you do that when you
appointed a commission on Maritime rights?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will take
one commission at a time. My hon. friends

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Mackenzie King
opposite will have an opportunity to have such a commission if they have not faith in the Maritime rights commission as now constituted. But what I wish to make clear at the moment is that I do believe that nothing short of an inquiry by a tribunal as representative as I have mentioned, conducting an investigation in a manner as thorough as we have proposed, will be satisfactory to the people of Canada.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Will the hon.
member tell us the occasion on which he proposed that the judicial commission he now speaks of should be appointed? I am not asking this for the purpose of challenging his statement, but merely because I want accurate information with respect to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have mentioned that already. I have said that before the government went out of office I had shown the amendment to several members in this House, and those members are within the hearing of my voice at the present time. It was not an amendment I presented, because an opportunity had not been afforded for doing that; it was an amendment prepared in advance because of the criticism that the amendment >as moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and amended by the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain, left to the government of the day, and to the government of the day only, the appointment of the judges who were to compose thaff tribunal.


Leslie Gordon Bell: On what date
was that amendment drawn up?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say
offhand. However, I am not standing here for the purpose of being cross-examined; I have given my word and I hope my hon. friend will accept it. May I add this further word as to why that subamendment seemed to me all-important? The amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, as I have already indicated, was aimed1 primarily at passing censure on the Prime Minister and members of the government, at passing censure on the Hon. Mr. Boivin, at passing censure on persons who had no opportunity whatever of appearing to answer charges that might be brought against them. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite when was I, as Prime Minister, told that there were to be charges in the form of censure against myself and members of the administration in any amendment to the report which the House would be asked to adopt? When was the Hon. Mr. Boivin told there was going to be a finding in the nature
of a vote of censure by this parliament? No chance whatever was afforded him to appear before a judicial tribunal and disclose whether or not those charges were well-founded. I stated the other day, and I repeat to-night, that the former Minister of Customs and Excise, Mr. Bureau, states that he is prepared to go before any judicial tribunal.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why did he not go
before?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was not a judicial tribunal of this character for him to go before. However, he asked that I should state on his behalf in this House that he was prepared to go before any properly constituted judicial tribunal and answer for his administration as Minister of Customs and Excise with respect to the particular matters mentioned in the report, and any other matter which could be alleged against him. 1 made the further statement that I thought a commission of that kind1 should be appointed that I thought the Hon. Mr. Bureau should go before such a commission; that he should be heard; that that commission should examine thoroughly into his whole management of the department, and that if the commission found that in any way he was wanting in the discharge of his duties or was guilty of conduct which was not befitting a minister of the crown, I as the leader of the Liberal party would ask him to resign his seat in the Senate of this country and would expect him to do so. I wish to repeat that announcement at this moment. If that commission is appointed on which the Conservative party will have the naming of a member, on which the Progressive party will have the naming of a member and on which the Liberal party will have the naming of a member, I will expect Mr. Bureau to appear before that commission to be examined by each one of those judges, and I will expect this House to have before it at the next session of parliament the finding of those judges upon the conduct, behaviour and administrative character of the work of the late Minister of Customs. If as a result of that finding there should be anything that reflects upon Mr. Bureau's character or upon his management of the affairs of the Department of Customs, then, as I say, I will as leader of . the Liberal party ask and expect him to resign from the 'Senate of Canada. In accordance with the principles of British justice can anything be fairer than that?
As the amendment is brought in this afternoon it applies solely to the hon, member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) who until two or three days ago was filling the position of
5136	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Mackenzie King
Minister of Customs in this House. The amendment moved by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) does not confine investigation to one minister of customs; it extends the investigation to an examination into the administrations of any or all ministers of customs. It takes the very charges that are being made by hon. members opposite against the hon. member for Shefford and it states to all intents and purposes that inasmuch as the late Minister of Customs has never had an opportunity pi appearing to be heard before a judicial tribunal in his defence in a manner which would' enable him to have his position stated as a judicial body would state it-	_


Charles Avery Dunning: And never been censured by the existing committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and as my hon. friend says, never been censured by the existing committee, he should be given such an opportunity before he is condemned in this House. Inasmuch as the committee which brought in this report did
10 p.m. not find that it was possible for a majority of their number to agree upon a censure of the late Minister of Customs, why should this House, without an opportunity of reading the evidence, which opportunity I venture to say none of us has had, without an opportunity of having the benefit of the knowledge which they had, purely and simply for political reasons condemn the hon. member for Shefford in this manner? The public who have a sense of fair play and justice will demand that that course be pursued; they will not be satisfied with any other course than a judicial inquiry. There will always be a lurking suspicion that the amendment of my hon. friend, should it carry, was an amendment moved for purely political reasons. No man or woman in the country will feel secure in his or her mind that real justice has been done to those whose names are mentioned in the amendment.
Further, with respect to anyone whose name is mentioned in the report or in the evidence, I do hot care who he is, be he a member of parliament, be he an official of the Department of Customs, be he a citizen of the country who is neither an official of the government nor a member of parliament, J in any particular there be reflection upon his name or character in what has come before that committee, he too should be made subject to investigation by this judicial tribunal. Can anything be fairer than that? That opportunity should be given to anyone who is named in any way.

I understand that in the committee itself the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy)-and I mention him specially at the moment because I think he will wish to see justice done in this matter-was unwilling to vote especial censure against the hon. member for Shefford, the late Minister of Customs. I ask whether the hon. member for Peace River, having regard to his desire to see justice and fair play done to a fellow member of this parliament, is not going to be satisfied that all the public interest as well as the ends of justice and truth will be rightly served if he along with his leader has an opportunity of naming one of the judges on this commission and the commission is composed also of a judge appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite as well as a judge appointed by the present opposition. These are considerations of a practical and immediate character and should be taken into account at the present time.
More than that, over and over again we have heard, during the course of this late inquiry, query after query as to why it was that only ministers of the late government should have their administration investigated and that there should be no inquiry into the administration of the Customs department when hon. gentlemen opposite had some of their friends and their number at the head of affairs. I do not reflect and I do not wish to reflect upon any previous ministers of the crown; but knowing the character of the men who have surrounded me of late, I do*not propose to say that hon. gentlemen opposite have men of any finer character in their party. I venture to say that an investigation of the Customs department as it has been conducted during the last ten, fifteen years, will bring to light a good many things that will help to explain the situation that we are trying to account for at the present time.
Hon. gentlemen speak about degeneracy in the service. Degeneracy does not start in one or two years; it is a matter of years, and you discover degeneracy only after the evil has had several years to run. The source of degeneracy lies in the past, not in the present. Degeneracy is the fruit of past evils, and I think it will pay this country to have an investigation made that will go back into the past and see how the Customs department was administered under hon. gentlemen opposite. But do you suppose if it is left to my hon. friend opposite to make an inquiry, should by any chance this phantom administration continue, they are going to extend it back into the past? I would have to have more confidence in them than I have at the

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Stevens
moment to believe anything of the sort. So I say, whether we have regard to the subject matters to be investigated, whether we have regard to the extent of the investigation, whether we have regard to the individuals whose conduct should be inquired into, whether we have regard to public officials, ministers of the crown, past or present, the course which has been suggested in the amendment now before the House is the right and proper .course and the only one which will completely satisfy the citizens of this country.
Let me in conclusion say this: If we have to wait till hon. gentlemen opposite get their government into working order we may find in the Customs service new developments which will not be wholly creditable to the country. Ministerial responsibility surely stands for something. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre talks about ministerial responsibility in his amendment. I should like to know what ministerial responsibility we have in Canada to-day. We have opposite four or five hon. gentlemen without portfolios, each one of whom assumes ministerial responsibility for half a dozen departments. I say, Mr. Speaker, it will be a miracle if within the departments of the public service conducted under such management there do not develop difficulties and problems of a character one would hesitate to suggest. I say that the interests of the country demands, not that the invesigation should be postponed until doomsday, but that immediately there should be appointed such a tribunal as I have indicated, which will be able to conduct the inquiry in a thorough, efficient and perfectly impartial manner, and submit to this House such material as may be necessary as a basis upon which to make needed improvements in the public service and to remedy the evils that have been complained of. What is required is a tribunal which will serve the national welfare in a way the country has reason to expect.


Henry Herbert Stevens: With the concluding
words of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) I am in hearty accord, namely, that a judicial inquiry should be made without delay and should be carried forward to a conclusion with all expedition possible under the circumstances. May I at once direct the attention of the House to the fact that in the amendment adopted unanimously the other evening on the motion of the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher), amending the motion which I myself had made, this recommendation is proposed:
Your commiittee recommends the appointment of a judicial commission with full powers to continue and complete investigating the administration of the Department of Oustoms and Excise and to prosecute all offenders.
The other day my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen), on behalf of his followers in the Conservative party, accepted that amendment in toto, and I am authorized to state to the House now that the right hon. gentleman, as well as this government, will stand or fall by it. This amendment was accepted as a full expression of the wish of those who desire that such an investigation should be in the nature of a judicial inquiry, and it was frankly and freely received and given the unanimous endorsation of the House. Now the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) comes forward and moves another amendment. The hon. gentleman always speaks with great courtesy and skill as well as with moderation, but I would point out that in substance his amendment has for its object not the appointment of a judicial inquiry, but rather the striking out of that portion of the original amendment proposing the censure of those responsible for the breakdown in the Department of Customs in the past. That is the object of the hon. gentleman's amendment; of that there can be no question; and the addition of the words suggesting that the inquiry shall be conducted by three judges is really immaterial.
Let me examine the situation as briefly as possible. What is a judicial inquiry? Under all known' precedents in this country and in accordance with the method which has been followed from time immemorial, a judicial inquiry is one conducted by a member of the judiciary, and it has been universally recognized in the past that the judiciary of Canada were of such a trustworthy character that any judge appointed to inquire into any subject might be expected to make a report that would be genuine and that would meet with public approval. The proposal of the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is that three judges shall be appointed, of whom one shall have the peculiar confidence of the Liberals of Canada, one the confidence in particular of the Conservatives, and the third the confidence of the Progressive party. I submit that the very nature of such a commission indicates that it will represent partisan or political views. There is no escape from that inference. In other words, the suggestion is that in the appointment of such a commission we shall free these judges of nonpartisan restraint and ask them instead to represent us respectively as Liberals, Conservatives and Progressives.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Stevens


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of
what the hon. gentleman has just stated, does he consider that the judges so appointed would necessarily Icse their judicial character because they were nc minated by the parties?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. I do not want to be disrespectful, but I do submit that the amendment is not a sensible one, because, in my opinion at least, a judicial inquiry presided over by a judge of the land1 would in any event have the confidence of the Canadian people for the reason that we believe our judiciary to be a non-partisan body.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hope would be that the judge named by each party would be of such well known character and reputation that 'he would command the confidence of the entire country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can only remind the
right hon. gentleman of his own words. A moment ago he asked whether anyone in this House would believe that a judge appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite-pointing to ourselves-would conduct a fair and judicial inquiry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. I said, would command the same measure of confidence as rif each party had the right to name one judge.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will be conceded, I think, that the meaning is the same. However, we wtill not quarrel over that point. What I am trying to bring to the attention of the House is the fact that a judicial inquiry such as the House has already approved of by unanimous vote is the sort of inquiry we propose to give.
I come now to the next point raised by the leader of the opposition. The right hon. gentleman says that action should be taken without delay. I may assure him, on behalf of the present government and those on this side of the House, that action will be taken in the immediate future, as promptly as possible, and that this judicial inquiry will be vigorously prosecuted. I go further. We have approved of the report, and we do not purpose to delay for a year or for nine months putting it into full effect while an inquiry is being held. This report contains many valuable suggestions and proposals that ought to be put into operation forthwith.
Now, the right hon. gentleman says there was no opportunity for him to appear before the committee.


Mir. ROBB:: Before leaving that,-my hon. friend has promised an immediate inquiry,

which we all desire. Will he or the leader of the House say, on behalf of this government, with only one member properly sworn in, the others all acting ministers, that they have any right to make appointments of any kind until they are approved by the people?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That point has been raised two or three times.


James Alexander Robb: It was raised earlier in the session.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will proceed to answer my hon. friend. I would suggest this to the fair-mindedness of hon. members, many of whom possess that quality in a considerable degree. This government came into office under most extraordinary circumstances. My right hon. friend walked into the House yesterday and without notice stated that he had resigned, giving no opportunity for' the formation of another government. Within twenty-four hours a government-certainly not a finished government, as we all know- was formed. A few hours ago my hon. friend from St. James fMr. Rinfret) twitted us a little on being somewhat in the position of my right hon. friend when he met parliament. in January last. But he had two full months to form a government; we had twenty-four hours. That is a vast difference. We are not pleading for any special consideration on account of these circumstances, but in all fairness and justice it ill behooves any member, particularly any member of the late government, to reproach the present government because it is not fully organized within twenty-four hours.	.
Now, my right hon. friend said there was no opportunity for him to appear before the committee. This committee was in daily operation for four and a half months, and held one hundred and fifteen sittings.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point is. there was no opportunity to appear to answer the charges there that were made.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The only charge made was one which my right hon. friend knows is a perfectly proper charge. It is a charge that his administration, having had control of affairs for a period of years, must be held responsible in the eyes of parliament and of the country for the condition of the department at the end of that period. There was not a sitting of the committee when the right hon. gentleman and any of his colleagues, or the ex-minister himself, would not have been welcome before it. My right hon. friend and other hon. members have rather suggested that in some way or other I am responsible

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Stevens
for his failure to appear before the committee. Let me again remind the House that we-[DOT] speaking for the party to which I belong- were never in control of the committee. I want to say in justice to my hon. friend from St. Henri (Mr. Mercier), chairman of the committee, to the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott), who for a time was on the committee, to my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Goodison), and to my hon. friend from Vancouver North (Mr. Donaghy), that they were fair. There were sharp cleavages of opinion at times, but I have not a single complaint to make of the treatment I received on that committee. Now I say to my right hon. friend there was opportunity at any time during that period- and many things arose which called for the presence of the late Prime Minister or his colleagues to explain-for him to have appeared if he had chosen so to do.
To-night, as I think he did on Friday evening, my right hon. friend defends the late minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take immediate issue with that expression. I have made no defence whatever of the late minister. I cannot make that too plain. I have no defence of any character whatever to make for the late minister. All I do say is, the late minister should be given an opportunity to defend himself before he is condemned, and he should have that opportunity before a judicial tribunal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot put any other interpretation on my right hon. friend's words than that of a very hearty defence of the late minister, but I accept-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not defend for one minute anything respecting the late Minister of Customs. I expect him to answer for himself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am very glad to have that statement from my right hon. friend and I accept the correction. I should like, however, to point out to the House that in my estimation it is altogether late to offer excuses for the ex-minister, and to say that another tribunal should be erected before which he can go and defend his position, because the report contains these words:
The Hon. Jacques Bureau, the then Minister of Customs, failed to appreciate and properly discharge ihe responsibilities of his office, and as a result there was a lack of efficient, continuous and vigorous control of subordinates by the headquarters staff at Ottawa.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that that is not what might be called a violent censure of the exminister-


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will allow me? In fairness to everybody I would remind him that there is one word, and a very important word, left out in the quotation he has just read-the word, "apparently."


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will read the whole
clause:
The evidence submitted to the committee leads to the general conclusion that for a long time the Department of Customs and Excise had been slowly degenerating in efficiency, and that the process was greatly accelerated during the last few years. Apparently-


Lucien Cannon: There it is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -the Hon. Jacques Bureau, then Minister of Customs, failed to appreciate and properly discharge the responsibilities of his office,
And so on. I admit that that is not what might be termed a severe censure of a minister; it does not condemn any personal delinquencies. But here is the point, Mr Speaker:	This minister had passed off the
scene, he was out of the department, and it was known to the committee that there were matters which might have been brought forward, but which perhaps it was desirable should not be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There I say, Mr. Speaker, that in fairness to any man those matters should be brought forward and the ex-minister should be given a chanice to answer them. There should be no innuendoes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am going to deal with that in a moment, I desire to be fair, but I do say that it was not our business to persecute the ex-minister, to piillory him. He was no longer the minister of the department, and this finding was perhaps the best that could be secured from a committee consisting of four of 'his friends, four of his opponents, and one independent.
Another word with respect to the report. I beg hon. members to take note of this

 the report itself suggests a full audit and an extra-departmental investigation. These are, I may say, my own words, and were the best I could geit into the report. I think in the original draft the suggestion was put in stronger language, but my colleagues agreed with me that such an investigation, whatever form it might take, should be of an extradepartmental character. It was felt it would be unwise to recommend to the House that the department itself should conduct the investigation, and there was unanimity in this recommendation, which left it open to the government to determine what form that extra-departmental investigation should take. Let me state what led to 'the wording of this

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Stevens
clause. It was suggested that perhaps the Audit Board could make the investigation, then that the Finance department, being vitally interested in the class of service rendered by the Department of Customs and Excise, might conduct such investigation Then it was suggested that perhaps the Auditor General might be the proper officer, or that it might be a special commissioner or a judicial inquiry. They left the matter open for the House to determine, or for the government to determine, and we have determined that by the amendment which I have read. This my right hon. leader and all his colleagues have accepted in toto, a judicial inquiry as suggested by the hon. member for Last Mountain.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I take another point. My right hon. friend says, "Why, this government will only investigate the actions of the late government; they will not go back." Then he called in question the action of the committee in not digging into the past, although he added the assurance that he did not wish to reflect on that committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That has been on the lips of several; my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Dunning) says, " hear, hear." Let me just say a few words in regard to that, and let us look at it very frankly. For four and a half years the late government had absolute, untrammelled access to all the records of that department. For at least two years, or at least eighteen months, they were aware that something was seriously wrong within the department. With that knowledge, with full access to the files, with all the records before them, I ask whether it is fair for the right hon. gentleman to come to the House now and say this committee has not discharged its duty, that it should have dug into the past. If there was anything wrong it was the duty of the late government to expose it. Not only is that the case, but when I made my motion in February the original draft suggested that a committee of the House be appointed to investigate conditions in the Customs and Excise Department within a certain limited time. So far as I was concerned that limit was prompted because of the knowledge that conditions within the department, as the report stated, had been accelerated in the last few years, or had been more pronounced in the last few years. Then the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), then Minister of Customs, suggested an enlargement of that motion. My right hon. leader accepted that suggestion and no limit was placed beyond which the inquiry should not
rMr. Stevens.]
go. Now I ask the House in fairness to myself whether I should be blamed personally for a delinquency in that regard; I ask the House if it is reasonable to ask me to have done a great deal more than I did-and I am speaking now in the personal vein. I had a certain definite task to perform; I did my best, and while my actions may have been faulty and many others could have done better, I say with a clear conscience that I did my best in the circumstances. Hon. gentlemen opposite placed four men on that committee, four of their own members. Other than sitting in the committee, where only a portion of the work was done, they did not join with me. Most of my work was done outside of the committee, preparing for the work therein. But those members sat on the committee and served well and faithfully; they had every opportunity I had; they certainly had a willing minister to help them; they had everything the minister could give them in the way of files and information, and while I do not say there is any blame, if there should be such I submit to the House that it should not be placed upon my shoulders, but should rest upon their own party.
I think my right hon. friend was not only a little but very unfair to me in the suggestion-I was going to say innuendo-which he made. He said, "Why, the hon. gentleman only investigated one or two ports; he centred his attention on Quebec." I pause at that point to say that there was no suggestion whatsoever of centering upon Quebec. In Quebec we have a city of which I think every Canadian is proud. I am not saying this in specious flattery, but because in Montreal we have a metropolitan city of which any country might well be proud, not only 'because of the beauty of its position but also because of the immensity of its commerce. In that great metropolis there was necessarily a concentration of activity in regard to this matter. You would not go to some little outport to look for the seat of the trouble; it was because this activity converged on Montreal .more than on any other centre in Canada that the investigation was centred there. And 'let me say also that I did my utmost, without support, to uncover the conditions which obtained at Windsor and at Niagara Falls. I did achieve some success, but not very much. I want to say to my right hon. friend, however-and I will deal, with some of these matters in a moment; I do not wish to be too long, but I think it is important more or less to cover the subject-that nearly all of the investigation having to do with liquor smuggling was

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Stevens
centred in the province of Ontario. It is true that the head office of one concern affected was in the city of Montreal, but -the main activities were either on the Atlantic coast o-r along the Great Lakes. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not correct -to say that the investigation centred -only in Quebec.
And the -right hon. gentleman said more. I find his words in Hansard of the other day and he repeated them to-day, so I am sure he will not question them. He said, "Why, I have been informed that the smuggling in Vancouver was worse than at any other port."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very good. For four and a half years he had the reins of office and he now tells this House-condemning himself out of his own -mouth-that he knew that smuggling in Vancouver was worse -than in any other port of Canada. Is it proper, is it fair or just for -the ex-Prime Minister to come forward -now and say, "For four and a half years I had the reins of office; for eighteen months. I have been thoroughly apprised of the conditions within the Department of Customs", and yet he tells us that for a portion of that time Vancouver has been the worst place in Canada and not -one single thing has -been done by him or by his late government to remedy conditions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say
that I knew there had been smuggling in Vancouver. My words will -be found in Hansard, and I said that I had been told.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those are my words-that I -had been told there was more smuggling at Vancouver; I had been told that within the past week or so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I have the very
words -my right hon. friend has mentioned, and -I will read th-em:
The facts speak for themselves. . . . the port of Vancouver has not been investigated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Some hon. members
sitting around him said at that time, as they say now, " hear, hear ". This is the way my right hon. friend approached it to-night. He proceeded thus the other day:
I am told there is more smuggling going on in the port of Vancouver than in any other port in the Dominion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "I am told"
-hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The taunt was against
myself, that I had deliberately suppressed an investigation into the port of Vancouver, and had turned my attention to Montreal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is quite wrong. I was not reflecting on him at all. I was urging that there should be an investigation of the port of Vancouver. I was not making any reflection on my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I accept my right hon.
friend's explanation, and I am very glad to have it. But the point is this, Mr. Speaker:
I give to the House frankly and fairly this statement, that I did what I could within the four and a half months of the inquiry. If any man could have worked harder-I may have worked foolishly-I would like to know in what respect it -could have been done.'
Now let me turn to a little different phase of this question. Since this debate began, about a week ago, arguments have been advanced somewhat to this effect; that the criticism of the opposition of that time when my amendment was moved was prompted wholly by political motives.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All right. We will not
at the moment debate or combat the suggestion. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in what I thought was a very moderate and well-reasoned speech, used that argument very strongly, and he pleaded for himself this:	Being here in
the House almost isolated, how could he be expected to share in the partisan views of either the Conservatives or the Liberals? That was, I think, very largely his argument. Now I put this in fairness to my hon. friend. Suppose the situation were to be reversed; suppose he were sitting in this House, by the changes in political fortunes, at the head of 100, 110 or 120 members of the Labour party of Canada. Does he not think that in any move that he might make as an individual he would in that case be open to precisely the same charge of being partisan if he proposed or opposed a certain thing? How could he escape that charge? He has a logical and a philosophic mind, and I ask him how, under such circumstances, he could escape that charge. I say this to my hon. friend, and to my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) also, because he made some remarks along the same line:	The only way in which it
is possible for an individual to escape being charged with partisanship is to separate himself entirely from others, and to stand alone as an individual and as a pure independent.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Stevens
But not very much, either in the nature of progress or reform, in the suppressing of evil in public life, has been accomplished or can be accomplished by individual effort. There must be co-ordination of effort, there must be co-operation amongst those holding common ideas. I ask my hon. friend at least to give me credit for this, that whatever may be the circumstances in which I raised this question, I was actuated by a genuine desire, as I think he has been and is, to do what I could, as I saw it, in what I believed to be the best interests of my country.
Strange to say, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) on the same evening, if I remember rightly, denounced us because we have allowed the estimates of the Customs department to pass last year, and the year before, I think he said. Now what were the circumstances? and here I call my hon. friend the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to witness. He knows, and there are others on the other side who know, that the Hon. Jacques Bureau when he came into this House with the estimates he was in such a state of health that all of us knew he was not fit to be in the House attending to his duties. We knew that, and my hon. friend knew it-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What does my hon. friend mean by that remark, "not fit to attend to his duties?'*' Does he intend by that remark to cast any reflection upon the character of the Hon. Mr. Bureau?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am speaking at this
moment with all the sympathy that one human heart can have for another.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not
speaking of sympathy, but of justice. Does the hon. member intend to reflect by that remark in any particular on the character of the Hon. Jacques Bureau? I ask him that question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot understand my
right hon. friend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think everyone else will understand me. I ask him, is he in his remarks directly or indirectly reflecting upon the character of the Hon. Jacques Bureau?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In what I was saying at that moment there was not only no reflection, but I was speaking out of the full sympathy of my heart, absolutely, and I was going to add this. My hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton), who was then financial critic for the opposition, came to those of us on the other side of the House at that time and said: "The Minister of Customs is in bad health, and his estimates, so far as
rMr. Stevens.]
we know, are all right." At that time we had no idea whatsoever that there was anything wrong within the department, and the hon. member for West York asked us, as his colleagues, to let the estimates of the Minister of Customs go through with little or no criticism, and that, as a matter of fact, is what happened. There are hon. gentlemen opposite who are gentlemen enough and who are fair enough to agree that these words are absolutely correct. Now my hon. friend from Joliette taunted us that that had been done, that we had let those estimates pass, and he said that because we had allowed them to pass, because we had not criticized the department, we were to blame for the degeneracy in the department. That is not a fair argument. So far as I am concerned I had not the remotest idea, Mr. Speaker, until last winter that there was anything seriously wrong in the Customs department. I add this: I have known the Deputy Minister of Customs for twenty years, and it was not until this inquiry commenced and I had access to the files, to the correspondence and the facts, that I became aware of the delinquency of the Deputy^ Minister of Customs. I say that I had known him intimately for twenty years and had held him in the highest esteem, and there was nothing more painful to me in this inquiry than to be forced by my knowledge of the facts to put my imprimatur upon a report that reflected somewhat harshly upon that gentleman.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to another point that has been repeatedly discussed, and which I think deserves some consideration. It has been stated that the information which formed the basis of this inquiry was, to use the words of the exJVIinister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), stolen. The accusation was that I had virtually connived at the stealing of this information, and had used it as a basis for attack.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not stolen,
but smuggled, I think was the expression.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let us look into that
closely for just a moment. First of all my right hon. friend said, speaking of myself:
AL1 of this iniformation was from government sources and from Inspector Duncan.
Now in the first place, Mr. Speaker, that statement is not accurate. Inspector Duncan, as far as I know, dealt with a certain branch of the department, and so far as the information which he secured is concerned-I shall deal with that later in a moment-certainly it was used. But so far as all of the information regarding alcohol and the dealing in

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Stevens
alcohol was concerned, there was not one single item that originated in government sources. All of that information I had to dig up myself. I dug it up out of the files, yes: but the original information was information that was secured outside of the department altogether.
Now what are the cases dealt with by Mr. Duncan? There was the case of Rock Island. All of that information was public. It was well known. It was secured by Mr. Sparks, of the Commercial Protective Association, and by Mr. Duncan when he was in their employ. They had all that information, and certainly they gave me that information. There is no question about that; nobody denies it. But it was not stolen out of the department. As a matter of fact, that information was given to the government, and paid for by the Commercial Protective Association, and it was given to me as well. Take the Gaunt case. That was a case before the courts in Montreal. It was known to the world and open to the world, and every bit of my information in regard to that case came from the records of the courts, records that had no government origin at all. We found on the files of the Gaunt case that a complete audit 'had been made by the department of which I had no knowledge at all on February 2. A complete audit had been made which bears out almost in toto the report of the auditors, Clarkson, Dilworth & Gordon.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: May I ask my hon. friend when that information came to his knowledge?


Henry Herbert Stevens: What information?


John Campbell Elliott: The information contained in the-


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the Gaunt case?


John Campbell Elliott: In the Gaunt case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It came into my possession I would say, early in November.


John Campbell Elliott: What year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The year 1925. Now the .Gaunt case was tried in the courts before that; I think some months before, but I cannot recall for the moment. However, the point is this:	All the information supplied
to me by Mr. Sparks, of the Commercial Protective Association,-all the evidence for which they had ipaiid,-they had obtained themselves before it was ever handed over to Mr. Duncan as a report to the department at all, and it was verified by the files in the department after we came into possession of it.


John Campbell Elliott: Will my hon. friend permit me another question? Is it not a fact that Inspector Duncan was actively at work, loaned by the Department of Finance for this purpose, from October 1, 1924?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, yes. I am sure my hon. friend will excuse me if I am not precisely accurate in my dates, but Inspector Duncan was loaned to the Commercial Protective Association in the fall of 1924, and he worked for them through, I think, until the summer of 1925. Then he was taken off and did not go on to that work again until the minister sent him to Montreal on December 1, 1925. That is as far as I can recall. There are many other things, but what I want to say to my hon. friend is that practically every bit of information that I secured was information in the possession of Mr. Sparks and the Commercial Protective Association before the government took the matter over at all. When they were paying for it they had a perfect right to it. That information is the information which I secured. Furthermore, none of it came to me, none of it was given to me, until after Mr. Sparks was convinced that the members of the government were not taking the matter seriously.


James Alexander Robb: Will my hon. friend allow me? I am sure he would like to have his record correct. It is quite true what he says about Duncan having been employed until the summer of 1925 when we had to take him off for a period to put him on another case, but the difficulty was that while Sparks was always going round and insinuating we never got anything, it was the Minister of Customs who sent Duncan down with instructions to round up Bisaillon and the whole crowd.


Leslie Gordon Bell: When he knew
that there was t-o be an investigation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say this to my hon.
friend: These are the bare, bald1 facts. After it was known that my resolution would appear on the order paper of this House, these steps were taken. I am not going to cast any reflection other than to state the facts. That is why the ex-Minister of Customs and Excise sent Duncan to Montreal on the expedition on which he went.
Now, the Solicitor General the other evening-


Mr. MALCOLM:: Was it not on February 10, 1925, that a writ was issued giving Duncan full authority to search all premises?



Customs Inquiry-Mr. Stevens


Henry Herbert Stevens: It probably was; my hon. friend seems to have the writ under his hand. I am not questioning that and I hope my hon. friend will not question it. I would like to remind my hon. friend also, not in the case of Mr. Duncan but in the case of Mr. Duncan's assistants, that in December, 1924, or thereabouts, they were given authority to arrest. It was, I think, on January 17, 1925, I am not very far away, that the Hon. Jacques Bureau curtailed that by ordering them first to report before they arrested, and also ordering them to report to Bisaillon who at that very time was under arraignment in the courts of Quebec but was later on acquitted as far as that particular charge was concerned. He was arrested December 24, 1924 and tried, I think, on February 13, 1925. As to that, however, I may be a day or two out.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend will find that on February 10 a complete writ was issued
giving Duncan authority " to search, break into, and examine."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, Mr. Duncan has
had such powers right along. It may be they were a little enlarged in connection with the Department of Customs and Excise. Mr. Duncan is an old officer. That is not the case with the others. And by the way, when Lenetsky Brothers were arrested for silk smuggling they were about to be released because Knox's right of arrest had been taken away from him, and the only way they were really held was because Mr. Duncan, having been supplied by the Minister of Finance with the authority, stepped in and exercised the power of arrest.


James Alexander Robb: And for that reason my hon.
friend would now present a resolution to condemn me.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I do not condemn my hon. friend, and have never condemned him. I do condemn the ministry for this reason: Under our constitutional form of government when a delinquency within a ministry is known and-shall I say?-protected, or when it is not remedied and eradicated, then the whole min-istrj'- must take the responsibility for the delinquency of one of its members.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I deny absolutely that the delinquencies were known to the ministry.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This attitude on the part of my right hon. friend is what I cannot understand. He comes before the House and asks for consideration. He asks, as the hon.
I Mr. Malcolm.]
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) suggested, that we should be gentle with him and his colleagues because we are all human and liable to err; and these hon. members pleaded the very human doctrine that we should not condemn one another. But I want to point out that that doctrine applies when the individual to whom it is addressed is penitent at least, that is a prerequisite to the case. But it does not and cannot apply to responsible ministers in office. Responsible ministers cannot dissociate themselves from the ordinary treatment accorded man to man. Take my hon. friend who has just vacated the portfolio of Minister of Customs and Excise. 1 want to say this now, because perhaps I could not say it at any better moment: He and his colleagues will look in vain for one single utterance of a personal character denouncing him; but I have called in question, and I will show it in a moment again, his ministerial acts. If the business of this country, or the business of any country, is conducted on the basis that you cannot condemn a government, that you cannot challenge a minister, that you cannot challenge a man's public acts because, forsooth, we must be kindly one to another or that we must recognize the doctrine "Judge not that ye be not judged," and other such reasons, there is a black time ahead for the administration of this or any other country. It is a doctrine that cannot apply; there is a vast difference between the two.	[DOT]
My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) in a delightful speech the other night -and he is always delightfully irresponsible; he is one of the most forceful and eloquent of members, but ever the actor-made a most extraordinary charge against us. He said that when the $350,000 vote was before the House members of the Conservative party had refused to take out from under the Civil Service Commission the appointments under that vote; therefore, he said, the preventive service fell down. The hon. member's leader and the hon. member himself, the ex-Solicitor General, have accepted this report in toto, and I will direct the attention of members to section 17, subsection 2, which states:
That such chief preventive officer-
Of whom lie was speaking when he was denouncing us.
-be authorized to select his staff in consultation with the Civil Service Commission.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Stevens
He has accepted the report, accepted that recommendation, and then he condemns us because last year we insisted that appointments to the preventive service should be made under the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton) :: My hon.
friend is not suggesting that the report brings them under the control of the Civil Service Commission?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. The recommendation in the report is the opinion of the committee. As I said a moment ago, my right hon. friend stated the other day that he accepted every line of it. We have accepted that report and we propose to put it into effect.
I wish to refer to a statement made by the ex-minister when he interrupted my right hon. leader the other day. In this instance we were referring to the alcohol question, that is the 82,000 gallons of alcohol that the Dominion Distilleries had sold. This is not my only complaint, but my chief complaint as regards the administration of my hon. friend. Let me say again that it is his administrative acts in this regard that I am calling in question. We were dealing with that question, the point being that I charged, if you like, that 82,000 gallons of proof alcohol had been sold by the Dominion Distilleries as potable spirits to the United Staes; that it should have, under those circumstances, carried an excise tax of $10 a gallon. I charged that Mr. Hush-ion, ex-M.P., a Liberal associate of my hon. friend, negotiated the sale of 16,000 gallons of these 82,000 gallons and that this with the balance was sold in the way I have mentioned. I am going to deal with this matter, and if the House will follow me I believe I can substantiate to the hilt this statement, or if the House so chooses to interpret it, this charge.
If I am accurate in my argument 11 ,p.m. this involves, according to the report of the auditor which I have in my hand, a loss of revenue of $749,396.09. I will now quote the statement made by my hon. friend and I will ask the House to judge my hon. friend on his own ground. Let the House take his own words and then follow the facts in the evidence which I shall now give, .and see whether or not I am justified in the -position I take. I am reading from Hansard at page 4970. Mr. Meighen had been speaking and he used the phrase:
Because it was used for potable purposes.
14011-326i
The ex-minister rose in his place and interrupted, making this satement:
Mr. Boivin: When it is proved 'by my right lion friend from the evidence taken before that committee, that the liquor was used for potable purposes, this government will take the responsibility and not before.
I turn to the evidence itself and I will read to the House some of it. I will take first the evidence of Leo George, who was one of the directors if not one of the chief directors of the Dominion Distilleries, the firm in question which I charge had handled this liquor, and an intimate friend of Mr. Hushion, who negotiated the sale with the minister. This is from page 2416 of the evidence. Since the moving of our paraphernalia over to this side I think my marked copy is mislaid, -but perhaps I can find' it even at that. I had it all marked and it is not easy to find from an unmarked copy. This is the evidence of Mr. George, who was being questioned in the committee by Mr. Bennett:
Q. Did you ship denatured alcohol to the United States in the same way as you did whdskey?-A. Yes, shipped alcohol to the United States.
Q. And you used the same methods?-A. Yes, the same methods.
Q. But alcohol was being shijpped through in the same way?-A. Yes,
Q. Do you do any blending?-A'. Yes, they blended.
Q. Have you yourself have anything to do with the d1 ending?-A. No, I know nothing about it at all.
Q. Now, this denatured aJoohofl that we have been referring to, was denatured by a certain process prescribed by the government?-A. I suppose it was.
Q. Do you know anything about it?-A. No.
Q. You know alcohol was shipped to the United States, by the same genera*! methods?-A. I was told it was.
Q. As was used with respect to whiskey?-A, Yes.
Q. Do you know anything about the abstraction of the denaturing substance from alcohol after it gets into the United States?-A. I understand that they can abstract, in the United States.
Q. Do you know they do that?-A. I understand they do.
Then on page 2419:
Q. Is that the way you exported your denatured spirits?
That is by Ford or Sandwich over the Detroit river.
A. The some way.
Q. They were dealt with in the same way; a party would come into your office and put down his money? -A. Yes.
Q. I notice from December 7, 1925 to January 19, there are about 15 cars, most of which were shipped to Mr. Scherer ?-A. Yes.
I pause here to say that Mr. Scherer was a bootlegger of whiskey for potable purposes into the United States and nothing else. That was his business.	He could not take this
liquor in as denatured alcohol; he could not get access to the United States with this

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Stevens
alcohol as denatured, because it did not comply with the United States law. So it was taken in for potable purposes just the same as whiskey.
Mr. Cooper also on page 2452 gives evidence in this matter. I am sorry that I have mislaid this, but the point is this that both Leo George, Cooper and Hushion declared in evidence that this liquor was shipped into the United States for potable purposes. Denatured alcohol of this grade never brings more than a dollar a gallon even in comparatively small quantities, and even when sold in large quantities it brings from sixty-five to eighty cents a gallon. There is only one instance in all the auditors' reports where as much as a dollar a gallon was paid for this class of alcohol. Yet these men sold it at prices ranging from $7 to $10 a gallon-a great deal of it at the latter price-at places in the United States, chiefly in Detroit and Oswego. Mr. Hushion before the committee stated in his evidence that he had with him at the time an offer for as much more as he could produce at $5 a gallon, proving conclusively that the alcohol was being used for potable purposes. And in their evidence both Mr. George and Mr. Cooper stated that the process followed was to take the No. 1-F special denatured alcohol and extract from it the denaturants, thus making it immediately potable.
I want to turn now to the law and the regulations governing it. In the Excise Act it is provided in section 368:
In this part special denatured alcohol means-
That is, the No. 1-F special to which I have been referring.
-alcohol in suitable admixture with such denaturants as have been approved by the minister.
And 371 reads:
(2)	Specially denatured alcohol shall only be sold ol delivered under a departmental permit to dealers and manufacturers to be used in the arts and industries in cases where denatured alcohol would be unsuitable, and shall only be moved or transported under such conditions as the minister may by regulation prescribe.
(3)	No alcohol shall be manufactured or sold under the provis ons of this part for beverage purposes.
That is the law. Now I come to the regulations prescribed by the department. This grade No. 1-F special to which I have referred is authorized for use in the manufacture of rubbing alcohol compound exclusive^. Let me pause to make this point clear. The only reason why the Dominion government, through the Department of Excise, permits the manufacture of this alcohol is the fact that full denatured alcohol is useless for external use in rubbing, for the purposes of hospitals, for the infirm and for other uses not of an ordinary industrial nature. Wood
I^VIr. Stevens.]
alcohol can be sold without any difficulty in this country but the regulations restrict its sale to certain persons. For instance, the following provision appears in the regulations :
The rubbing alcohol compound shall no-t be put up in packages containing more than sixteen fluid ounces each.
I call the attention of the House to the fact that this alcohol to which I have been referring was sold in five gallon tins by the carload, some 82,000 gallons of it having been disposed of for the most part to Scherer and some of it to Evans. These were the only two men who got it, and both of them were notorious bootleggers, known to be such and to be the sole medium through whiskey had for years poured into the United States contrary to the laws of that country. The regulation is that rubbing alcohol shall be put up in packages containing not more than sixteen fluid ounces, and the words "rubbing alcohol" must appear in conspicuous type. It is further provided in another regulation:
The sale of 'Tubbing alcohol compound by (persons or firms holding permits (hereinafter called permit holders) is in future to be confined exclusively to wholesale druggists recogmized and such by the pharmaceutical associations of the respective provinces; retail druggists licensed to carry on business as such under the statutes of the respective provinces; bona fide hospitals; bona fide practising physicians; benevolent and religious public institutions caring for the infirm and sick.
The maximum quantity is sixteen ounces.
Another regulation is to the effect that special denatured No. 1-F shall be used as rubbing alcohol compound exclusively and may be sold only to persons or firms holding permits specifically issued for that purpose, and who are required to observe certain conditions which are fully set forth.
Now I claim that under the law the minister had no right to allow the Dominion Distilleries to sell that alcohol to any persons except those stipulated in the regulations, and the only answer than can be made is that the alcohol was sold for exiport. There is no other defence possible, because the minister cannot exceed the ambit of the law and the regulations. If it is contended that the alcohol was sold for export then it should have paid the excise tax, because under the regulations no whiskey, no liquor, no alcohol may leave the lake ports without having paid that tax. Yet these people were allowed to sell this liquor. Again I direct the attention of the House to the statement of Mr. Hushion under oath that he came to Ottawa as a missionary in this business. I therefore charge the ex-minister with having failed properly to protect the rights of the treasury by allowing the Dominion Distilleries 'c 'sell this

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Stevens
alcohol for potable purposes for use in tihe United States. That is my argument; that is the charge I make.
I do not desire to delay the House much longer but I shall discuss for a moment now the Aziz case, about which a great deal has been said. Up to this moment I have not mentioned it in any of the arguments I have put forward. Let me point out that the Aziz case is not the whole question before the House. There are many grounds upon which the late administration has been .called in question; there are many grounds which form the basis of the motiion now under con sideration. Among these there is the charge that as far back as December, 1924, at least, as established by an abundance of evidenat the late ministry were aware of serious delinquencies in the administration of the Customs department. I charge that in the sale of this alcohol the minister who has just left office (Mr. Boivin) was derelict in his duty. Now I do not charge him with any personal delinquency in the matter, but I contend that he as minister did not iproperly discharge his duties. And I want to suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite that when we make charges of this kind it is beside the point to insinuate that we are trying to drive a man out of public life and from the association of his fellows by attacking him personally. Surely the House knows perfectly well that there is no personal animus in the matter. But when a man takes office he must assume the responsibility that office entails. Similarly, when a man assumes the responsibility of a member of parliament he must expect criticism when he lays himself open to it. And for the reason that the late government failed to discharge its duties in so far as the 'Customs department was concerned, I say they are open to censure. I go further. The government did not dare last Friday to take a vote on the main amendment, nor do they dare now to let the House vote uipon that question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Take it right
away.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, my right hon. friend succeeded in casting a cloud over the whole issue by seeking to have the words of censure deleted from the motion and an innocuous amendment substituted in its place.
Coming now to the Aziz case, all I need say is this: it is not a matter of the ex-ministsr having yielded to the importunities of a friend. That is not the point. I do not see why the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) should be described, in the language which has been used against him, as having been
recreant when he has been guilty of appealing to a minister who responded to his appeal. Hon. members opposite say that he was wrong in appealing to the ex-Minister of Customs, and they condemn him in language which I will not repeat. They condemn the hon. member (Mr. Robichaud) out of hand and describe his conduct as inexcusable. Well, if the hon. gentleman has done wrong is not the minister who granted his request still more guilty? That is the whole thing in a nutshell. For the space of a week now, Mr. Speaker, you have been listening to hon. members referring to the ex-Minister of Customs by name, in absolute contravention of the rules. You will at least, Mr. Speaker, acknowledge that in my language in parliament I observe the rules, or 'try to, and that I have always referred to the ex-minister as "the hon. member for Shefford." But right along- and I break the rule now to draw attention to it -it has been said, "Are you going to drive George Boivin out of public life?" This appeal has been made to the House in contravention of the rules and amenities of parliament, and I submit the practice should not have been continued, because after all it is not the person we are attacking, it is not my hon. friend, whose friendship I would cherish, that I am attacking; but I cannot separate him from his office, as I cannot separate my right hon. friend from the responsibilities of first minister which he held for four and a half years, and if we call in question at all the administration's dereliction of duty, then those who happen to be in that position must, forsooth, share that responsibility. Therefore I wish that the House would in considering this question keep away from the personal feature of it and view it wholly in the light of their duty.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth)-I see he is again in his seat-made an eloquent appeal, in the course of which he quoted Edmund Burke's opinion that we should have towards our fellow-beings that feeling of humanity and consideration which recognizes that we are all weak and liable to err, and that there is much good in all men. Now I ask my hon. friend' and other hon. members to listen to these words of Edmund Burke, which I think are far more applicable to the immediate situation before the House than those quoted by my hon. friend, grand and noble as they were. I am reading from the works of Edmund Burke an excerpt from his impeachment of Warren Hastings. Burke said:
There are persona who flattered themselves that the corruptions of India would escape amidst the dissensions of parliament.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Stevens
Yes, Sir, there are those who would say mat amidst the dissensions of parliament, amidst appeals against persecution, those who have been derelict and recreant in their duty may escape. Then he continues:
What the greatest inquest of the nation has begun its highest tribunal will aoconm>lish.
I call the attention of hon. members to these noble words:
My llordfi, the business of this day is not the 'business of this man, it is not solely whether the (prisoner at the bar be found innocent or guilty, but whether millions of mankind shall be made miserable or happy.
Again I pause. The business of the day, Mr, Speaker, is not the welfare of any individual. The business of the day is this: Shall the fair name of Canada be sullied by those who have been recreant in their duty, and they go not reproached? Shall they? That is the question. Shall the rights of the millions of Canada be passed over simply because w-e do not desire to cast any reflection upon a fellow-member of this House? Burke continues:
Your Lordships will see, in the progress of ithis cause, thait there is not only a long, connected, systematic series of misdemeanours, fount an equally connected system of maxilms and principles invented to justify them. Upon both of these you must judge. According to the judgment that you shall glive upon the past transactions in India, inseparably connected as itihey are with the principles which support them, the whole character of your future government in that distant empire is to be unalterably decided. It wiE take its perpetual tenor, it wiE receive its final impression, from the stamp of this very hour.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, with these words, that just as this House decides in this- matter just so in the future will administrators of departments, those who are appointed to conduct the affairs of this country, be influenced so that in the hour of temptation perchance they will not deal lightly with matters which in this report, which comes out of the turmoil and out of the partisanship- shall I say?-of this investigation, have been demonstrated to' be not in the interests of the country. And so I say to hon. members to-night, let us get away from the idea of personalities. It is not this man, no; it is the record of the administration, entrusted with this great trust, who have been recreant in their duty, which is now called in question.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, to begin with let me say
that I enjoy having the Conservative party in power because that keeps them just that much further away from me. I have resented since I came here five years ago, and particularly this session, the self-righteous attitude of the Conservative party. In their opinion they
fMr. Stevens.]	.
have the divine right to rule: they are smug and self-righteous. I am afraid that is only the plain statement of a truth. I should like to feel as one human being should feel towards another towards my colleagues of the Conservative party who sit in- this House, but their attitude has always prevented me, except towards a few who are personal friends of mine, from entertaining the feeling that I would like to entertain for them and that I do feel towards those who compose the Liberal party. That, however, is a personal feeling and has nothing to do with what I shall say later.
I think now I might say something that I have never said before. I wish to say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the women of Canada, and possibly to the people of Canada generally, that it is quite time more women came to this House. They could not do worse than the men have done; of that I am fully convinced. At least they would not talk quite so much, and when they did it would be about something. The mountain of jwords that overwhelms the most trivial business in this House is a perpetually amazing thing to me. I hope the time is not far distant when women will sit in this House representing the sentiments that the different parties now represent. I do not believe in a woman group, much as I believe in groups, but I do believe that women should now come to the House of Commons, because they will take direct action, because they are interested in human welfare more than in making long speeches that are very difficult to follow.	i
Eor a person who is trying to take an honest and non-partisan view of this customs probe-
'Some hon. MEMBERS:	Oh, oh.


Miss MACPHAIL:: As a matter of fact that is the view I am taking, and it has nothing to do with what I feel about the actions of. hon. members

it is most difficult to arrive at an honest conclusion. One does not know what to believe, and I want to say quite frankly that the rumours and counter-rumours that have come to my ears in the last week about this thing have almost, if not quite, destroyed my faith in human nature. I want to go back to the country people, to the plain everyday working citizens of Canada, to the people who labour with their hands, to see if I cannot revive within myself some confidence in human nature. Members have come to me almost with tears in their eyes, tremendously excited, telling me that all the evidence was not before us, that there were other and more terrible hidden things which would rise up in the future and haunt us if we took other than

Customs Inquiry

Miss Macphail
one action. I think hon. members have no right to make such suggestions. If there is hidden evidence, bring it out and let us see it. We as members of parliament should' not be asked to pass upon something of which we have no knowledge at all. I do not know whether or not there is hidden evidence; I tried to run many of these rumours to the ground and found a great number of them led nowhere. It may be, however, that they did lead somewhere and I did not follow them to the right place; I do not know. I do know that the things that are being said, the whisperings going on and the members visiting other members in private rooms are not creditable to members of this House or to the institution of parliament.
Although our group may vote in different ways it does not make any difference; we are all trying to get a complete clean-up of this customs affair, and I also want to say that I will not for one moment question the motives of those in our group, with whom I have been associated for five years, who vote differently from myself. I know we are striving for that one thing, a complete cleanup of this customs business.
Now I come to something which pains me exceedingly; I wish I could get out of saying it and I have come to the place where I almost wish I had gone to Europe the other morning; it would have been much more comfortable. I have, however, in agony reached the conclusion that the late government was well aware for quite a period of time-possibly from March to November- that all was not well in the Customs department. It is possible that they knew that Bisaillon was the head of the Montreal underworld and chief preventive officer at one and the same time. I am afraid it is true that it was not until the Stevens motion was mooted that the eleven charges which had been laid against Bisaillon were investigated, and I believe it is true that Mr. Duncan was able to secure the arrest of Mr. Bisaillon four days after he was really given authority to do so. The Department of Customs is the revenuecollecting department of government, doing a business possibly 150 per cent greater than that done by the Canadian National Railways, and one can safely assume that through the corrupt administration of this department large sums of Canadian money were lost. Much as one may feel disturbed about this, or by condemning anyone, it is not a thing that can be lightly passed over or winked at. When we came here at the beginning we entered into a co-operative agreement with the Liberal party, believing it more likely
that we would get the legislation we wanted through that party than through the Conservative party. I happen to be one of the executive of our group, and as such have many times met the executive of the cabinet.
I want to pay a tribute to the actions of those men; they were in every sense of the word kindly gentlemen, and with perhaps one little slip I think were absolutely true to the co-operative pact into which we entered. I want to pay the highest tribute I possibly can pay to those gentlemen for their adherence to that pact, and I want to assure them that more than words can utter I regret the action I am forced to take.
I am not concerned about which party are in power; the fortunes of parties make no difference to me. I do not believe in the party form of government, in fact I do not believe we will ever have good government in Canada until the party system as we know it is broken to pieces. I think if this kind of scrapping and nonsense keeps up that breakup will perhaps be faster than it otherwise would be.
I have a political creed, and it may be of interest to the House to know what it is. I believe we need a change in the form of government which will allow questions to be debated on their merits, and in which the cabinet will be a committee of the House. I believe in good will and the creation of a peace psychology to replace war and militarism. I believe in social credit; I believe that humanitarianism should be expressed in our social laws. I believe in the low tariff. I believe in enabling laws for co-operation. I believe in .electoral reform. I came here to try to work these things out with one party or with the other or with all, and I hope the day is not too far distant when, as sensible human beings, we may be able to vote on the merits of each question and all work together for the good of Canada. At present we have one camp lined up against the other, not working for the good of Canada; I do not think I am going too far when I say that parties do not work for the good of Canada but for the good of party, and I think it time we stopped that nonsense. I believe the people of Canada will also think it time that sort of thing ceased.
I have come to a decision, whether rightly or wrongly, and to that decision I intend to adhere. I am going to vote against the last amendment, and in favour of what is really the Woodsworth amendment plus the Stevens amendment. It is not all I would like; I favour the commission of judges appointed by the three groups in this House, and I think the party now in power might well grant that. I

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Coote
do not think it unfair to say that even judges win their positions through political influence, and if the present government wish to be fair this board should be composed of judges appointed by the different groups in this House.
I have no particular trust in the gentlemen now sitting on the treasury benches; I know that too many of them have also figured in scandals. I would- like to trust them, but common sense tells me that I cannot do so too much. Therefore I think this board should be above criticism by any party, and one in which the people of Canada would have complete trust; I think if the party now in power would accept that suggestion they would go a lonig way towards convincing the people of Canada that they are not trying to make political capital out of this matter but are honestly trying to clean up the Customs department. I do not want particularly to discredit the ministry who vacated their seats yesterday; I do not want to discredit anyone, but I am forced to this action on the very facts of the case revealed in the evidence which I went over in part to-night. So I plead with the present government to go this far; I think they should do so. 1 do not know whether or not they will, but at least I believe they would be doing a good thing for Canada and at the same time a good thing for themselves if they accepted this suggestion.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: When this House assembled in January last, Mr. Speaker, neither of the old parties had a clear majority which would enable them to carry on business. They would not co-operate with each other, and if the business were to be carried on it was necessary that the group in this corner of the House should'co-operate with one party or the other. After careful consideration we decided to assist the Liberal government to carry on; we agreed upon a certain programme of legislation, and I think I can claim that I gave consistent support to the government in carrying out that legislation. I may say, however, that had we decided to co-operate with the Conservative party in carrying on the government I would have endeavoured to give them the same measure of support.
When the Customs committee report came before this House, however, we had to deal with an entirely different matter. It was a question of administration, and not a question of legislation. We had not been connected in any way with the administration of affairs in this country. As a matter of fact, the things which are complained of in this customs report happened before we started to

co-operate with the Liberal government. We have to deal with this question on its merits. It has been debated in this House for the past week, and I am not going to debate it to-night for more than a very few mii.utes. I would like, however, with the permission of the House, to review some of the votes which took place on Friday last.
First of all, I could not support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) because it seemed to me that it was avoiding the issue which was placed before us in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) asked me to second his amendment. I did so out of courtesy to him and because I approved of the things which were asked for in that amendment. When it was presented to me, Mr. Speaker, I did not consider whether it was in conformity with the rules of this House. It was ruled out of order by Your Honour, and listening to your judgment on that occasion I concluded that you were right in your ruling that the amendment was out of order. Therefore I voted to sustain your ruling, as I have consistently done, I think, throughout this session.
Later on I twice voted for amendments to adjourn the debate. I understand that I have been criticized in some quarters for doing so. After co-operating with that government all through this session, I felt, Mr. Speaker, that I could not do less than extend to them the courtesy of voting for a motion to adjourn the debate if that was desired by that government. Further, Mr. Speaker, you and all the members of this House know very well my objection to this House sitting after midnight; I have made that known on more than one occasion. I hope the time will come when we shall not be compelled to sit to such unearthly hours. On Saturday morning, when the last motion to adjourn the debate was voted on, it was coming daylight. That was not a fit hour for members to decide such a momentous question. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I had reached the limit of my endurance, and I think a great many members of the House were in the same plight. I might add that if this debate were to go on for another week, I think we would all have reached the limit of our physical endurance. For that reason I appeal to all hon. members to try and bring this debate to an end as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, to-day I had the unpleasant duty of being compelled to vote against your

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Marcil
ruling because I felt that your ruling was not right. I do not claim to be very well versed in the rales of the House, but it did seem to me that the rules certainly were not Intended to permit of endless amendments, and possibly because I am so weary of this debate I was opposed to the moving of further amendments. I simply wished, with the permission of the House, to offer this explanation of the different votes which I have recorded in connection with this case up to the present time.
I have listened carefully to the debate on this question for the past week and I have come to the decision regretfully I must admit that the statement contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is justified, and I do not see how I can possibly vote against it. I am not opposed to the principle contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), but as its adoption would do away with the amendment which is offered by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, I must oppose it.
May I say, before I sit down, that I hope the members of the late government and the members of the Liberal party will not take it too much to heart. I am voting this way simply because I feel it is my duty to do so, after giving careful consideration to this matter. It is quite possible, Mr. Speaker, that we are not sentencing the Liberal party to any long sojourn in the wilderness. After forty days and forty nights, it is possible they may come back. The people will judge, and we must leave it to the people to decide. So far as I am personally concerned, as I have said before, I am not concerned with the fate of political parties, or particularly with the fate of governments. I am sorry that in this country we have a system of government under which it is impossible for us at times to have a real government, and because of this faulty system we have to-day what somebody has called an imperfect or a makeshift government. But we must do the best we can under this system and until there are enough members come to this House with the determination to reform the system itself, we shall have to put up with it.
We are planed in this difficult position, Mr. Speaker. A very great principle is involved in this case, that is the responsibility of the government to protect the revenues of the country and to give honest administration to every department. It is on that basis, and on that basis alone, that I am casting my vote to-night, if the House will allow us to come to a vote.
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL .(Bonaventure):
I do not wish to give my vote, Mr. Speaker, without a word of explanation. I appreciate thoroughly what has been said by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), and I hope the day will come when our debates will be curtailed and our hours of sitting as well.
I am about completing my twenty-eighth session. I have seen between five and six hundred members of parliament come and go, and parliament renewed seven times, and only half a dozen remain of those of us who were here more than a quarter of a century ago. But the tactics employed then are the tactics that are employed to-day, except that in those days we had two parties, and now we have a third party acting as arbitrator.
As I heard you, Mr. Speaker, give your decision this afternoon it reminded me that ten years ago the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and myself worked hand in hand. There have been occasions in this House during that time, a quarter of a century, when men on great issues rose above party and worked together willingly for the national good, and that was one instance, ten years ago, when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and those who were associated with him did me the honour of asking me to second a motion that he was submitting to the House for war-time prohibition. It was not popular for a Quebec member to undertake that task. Quebec, consulted in the matter of prohibition, had voted it down by 125,000, but I came here imbued with the idea that during the war time at least, when Canada's efforts were needed to be given to the utmost for the prosecution of the war, prohibition of the importation, manufacture, and sale of liquor, which is at the bottom of all this trouble here since the United States have adopted prohibition, should be enacted. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre and myself did the best we could. He made the best speeches; he always does the best he can, and I backed up my assertions with letters from the whole hierarchy of the province of Quebec, and with thousands of petitions. I thought I had made out a pretty good case, but-strange how things happen in this world -the man who was put up by the govern' ment of the day to move an amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and myself was the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), who will be Minister of Justice to-morrow in this new government. We took the position that war-time prohibition should be adopted on moral and economic grounds, and showed

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Marcil
the House that our liquor -bill amounted to something over $300,000,000 a year. However, we were voted down, and as I heard you, Mr. Speaker, give your decision this afternoon I was reminded that on that occasion ten years ago the hon. member for West Calgary moved an amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. The amendment, having been put to the House, carried. After the amendment had been carried I called upon the Speaker, as I find by referring to the Hansard of 1916, to put the main motion as amended. Sir Robert Borden objected, "The amendment is carried," he said, "that puts an end to the matter." But on the following day Mr. Speaker Sevigny gave the decision to which you referred this afternoon, in which he showed that the adoption of an amendment amending a motion is not the end of the story, but that the amended motion must be put, and that is the reason for the debate at the present time. We have never voted on the Stevens amendment, so-called. It has been put by you, Mr. Speaker, to the House for the purpose of enabling the House to amend it still further or adopt it.
I want to say one word about the work of the committee. I think the members of that committee are entitled to the greatest credit. They did the best work that could possibly be expected of them, -but I am sorry to say their work has been incomplete. They do not themselves claim that this investigation is in any way complete. In the early days of the session, following the remarks made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) I called the attention of the Minister of Customs to the fact that in the territorial waters o-f the gulf of the St. Lawrence, smuggling was being carried on -from St. Pierre Miquelon on an extensive scale. These territorial waters are closed waters for the purpose of fishing, but it appears that the extraordinary stand is taken that for smuggling they are international waters, and the result, as we see it, is that schooners drop anchor threee or four miles from shore and keep open bar year in amd year out, demoralizing the population of that district, not only on the Quebec side but on the New Brunswick side as well. That is an important phase cJf smuggling which has not been touched at all by this committee, and one which should be taken up whether this matter is referred to a judicial commission or otherwise.
I do not want to refer any further to the report of the committee because I want to be lenient and merciful to the House. We are

saturated with this discussion on the Department of Customs and1 Excise, and the country is heartily sick of it. The country wants a decision taken and an end put to the whole business as far as this House is concerned, because this question is being dealt with here according to political bias which will carry no conviction to the country; the country will be divided just as this House is divided. To the final decision, rendered by a judical commission of the character proposed, full value and effect will be given.
I am sorry that the subamendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. James is meeting with opposition in this House. I had thought that the wording of the subamendment was so fair and reasonable that it would appeal to the minds of all Canadians irrespective of party. Here is what the subamendment proposes:
The said commission to be composed of three judges, one to be nominated .by the Prime Mdniister of Canada; one by the right hon. the leader of the opposition; and one by the hon. the leader of the Progressive party, said commission to have afll the powers conferred upon such commissioners under the Public Enquiries Act;
The said commission to have .power to make findings and recommendations, and to report the same to parliament at the opening of the next session, .together with the evidence taken 'before said commission.
I think that is a fair proposition, and one that should have met with the approval of all. I have been a long time in the political game, having had forty or fifty years' experience, and I have known judicial commissions appointed by governments in the past that were far from satisfactory to the public at large. In the present instance the commisisoners would be chosen somewhat as the arbitrators are chosen by the parties to arbitration proceedings. I hope the House will accept this solution of the problem and that we will be able then to put an end to the existing difficulty.
I do not want to say any more on this point except to add this: Owing to the adoption of prohibition in the United States the smuggling question 'has become one of the most difficult on this continent to deal with, not only for the Canadian government but for the authorities at Washington. To-day that question is taxing to the limit the efforts of United States prohibition officers, and millions of dollars are 'being spent in the attempt t-o put down smuggling. The adoption of prohibition in the neighbouring republic has resulted in increased smuggling so far as Canada is concerned. I remember when the late Hon. William Paterson was appointed Minister of Customs. In those days the

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Bourassa
smuggling was not so extensive as it is today; there was not the same amount of profit in it. If there was no advantage in bringing liquor into the United States, none would be brought; but the higher the tariff was in Canada tihe more incentive there was to smuggling. I am speaking, from experience, and I am well aware that there, are men in this House who know how true it is that smuggling is carried on because smuggling is profitable; when it is not profitable it will to a large extent disappear. That is the reason why the government has been confronted with a problem such as no other government had to deal with in the past.
To an impartial tribunal, freed from the partisan spirit whidh prevails in this House, the case which has been made out by the exMinister of Customs and Excise would carry conviction; it would have that effect with any jury in this country. But the charges have been brought before a political court and if that court renders a verdict it will be political in its nature. I am not unaware of instances of men, held in high esteem by this country, who have been condemned in political courts and yet their honour has not been impaired in the slightest. Nevertheless I hope the House will take this opportunity of constituting a judicial tribunal which will give entire satisfaction to the Canadian public. There is this important fact to be borne in mind as well: the department involved1 here produces revenue to the extent of over $300,000,000 a year, and that revenue must be safeguarded in every respect. I am sure that a judicial tribunal such as I have indicated'could make very important recommendations in addition to those which have been made by the Customs inquiry committee. One of its first recommendations should be to remove from the Minister of Customs and Excise the discretion which the law now gives him. If that discretion had not existed, no such appeals as those complained of would have been made to the late minister or to his predecessors. I myself have knowledge of such appeals, which, indeed, have been made to every member of parliament; and hon. gentlemen supporting for the first time the present government will, if the present cabinet remains in office, find themselves before long, urged to make similar appeals, because there is always a tendency when a man gets into trouble to say, "Give him another chance," and so on. The experience of the past has demonstrated what will haptpen unless the whole system is radically changed, and that can best be done through the findings of a judicial commission.
I am going to vote for the subamendment with the greatest satisfaction, because I know it is in the interest of the country. On the other hand I will vote against the amendment of tihe hon. member for Vancouver Centre because I deem it to be nothing but a political move.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to explain the reason why I am going to vote against this subamendment. The other day I voted quite reluctantly for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) and I explained why. I am opposed to this report; I am opposed to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), and I am more convinced than ever that this House is not in a position to pass judgment upon this question or any issue connected with it. I reluctantly supported the amendment moved by the hon. member'for Winnipeg North Centre the other day because it carried the principle of the appointment of a judicial commission. This seems now to be accepted by the whole House.
I do not want to connect my name and my vote with any further amendment, subamendment, or subamendment to the amendment as amended dealing with this issue, which has become a political football and does not at all advance parliament, the late government, the present nucleus of a government, or the people at large in any realization of the actual situation.	.
I think yesterday, if I may say this word, the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) took a manly attitude and did the only right, the only proper thing which he could do; and he did it in the proper way. The explanations which he gave to the House as to his resignation should bring before the attention of the people of this country an issue far more important in my eyes than the issue uow before the House. Not that I do not attach importance to the proper management of any great department of state; but, I repeat, the issue on its merits is not properly before the House. It will have to be dealt with by a judicial commission, and the House when it is seized with the whole question will be in a position to pass judgment on the findings of that commission and upon the findings of the committee.
But with regard to the constitutional issue raised by the resignation of the Prime Minister in the extraordinary circumstances which he has. related to the House, I think it is high time that we should brush aside this matter and consider the larger question on its merits.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Bourassa
If this government succeeds as it carried its votes on Friday, very well. Let us have done away with this customs issue. I understand a commission will be appointed; it will go on with the investigation. After this is done, in the few days that are left to us, we have several other questions to examine. We have to know upon what platform and what programme this intended government propose to rule this country. We have to know what legislation they propose to carry on during the remainder of the session. We have to know what policy they propose
12 m. to pursue if they remain in power.
Therefore I am going to vote against any further complication in this matter, against this subamendment, against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre as amended and against the motion moved by the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) for the adoption of the report. The only motion I would be inclined to support would be one purely and simply for a reference of the whole matter to a judicial commission for investigation.
It has been amply demonstrated to the people of this country that this House is not the proper place and this is certainly not the proper time to deal with a matter of this kind in a judicial way. This is demonstrated by all speeches of the last week, that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and my own included, but at least we have been candid enough to admit that we do not feel prepared and we are not prepared to act like judges. The attempts which have been made since then to put a new complexion to this House prove that the intention of acting judicially on this matter is simply a put-up job, I was going to say, by one party after the other. The question at issue between the two parties at the present time is which parcy is going to rule. Evidently this is another question, and I want to disconnect it as soon as possible from the matter at issue. The present government is neither going to be sustained nor thrown down by this question before the people of Canada.
Another reason why I am not prepared to vote for this subamendment or any other motion calculated to precipitate the issue before the people of Canada is, that I should deplore the idea that an issue should be made before the people simply and solely upon the dirty matters with which we have been dealing for the past eight days. I hope the next time the people of Canada are appealed to, whether it be this summer, this fall, or next year, -they will have something else to deal with than these matters that will no more be properly
[Mr. Bourassa.J
exposed to the people than before this House by the work of this committee, good men as they are, or by the debates that take place in this House. I hope that in these few words I have made myself clear to the members of this House and to the people whom I represent.


Mr. A. L. BEAURIEN (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will pardon me for getting up at this late hour, but I will follow my usual practice and be very brief. We have had the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who made the motion which brought the committee into being. We have also had added to it the amendment of the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher). We also have the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). I view this question just as I would view a case in a court room. A man or a group of men are brought before a court where a jury is sitting. The case is never given to the jury until the whole evidence has been completed. In this report, which I understand was a unanimous one by the committee, clause 4 states:
No/t withstanding the time devoted by the committee to the taking of evidence the matters refrrd to it by the order of reference could not be completely reviewed.
I ask any man who has a sense of British fair play:	Are we going to condemn a man
or a group of men until the evidence is completed? I am taking the committee at their own words. They know more about the matter than I do; they have sat for months; they have heard the evidence, and then in their report they say that the matter could not be completely reviewed. I am not going to pass judgment which will condemn one man or a group of men without hearing all the evidence.
I had a dream last night. I dreamt I was in a court room. The ex-Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) was arraigned to answer the very charge which is now brought against him, of keeping Moses Aziz out of gaol. The judge having heard the evidence discharged him with a warning to use better judgment in the future. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) was also in court charged with having written a letter to the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) with a request to keep another man from going to gaol on the ground that he could not pay his fine. The judge heard the evidence in this case also and found that while the hon. member for Mackenzie had been indiscreet he had been guilty of no very serious offence.

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Beaubien


Mr. CAMPBELL:: What did the judge
say about the ex-Minister of Justice for approving of the application of the member for Mackenzie?


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I do not blame the
hon. member for Mackenzie, because I might have done the same thing myself. Members of parliament are in duty bound to represent their electors, and if an elector who is in trouble seeks advice, it is only right for his representative to put his case before the minister concerned, whose duty it is to listen to such representation. If we do not want ministers of the crown to have any power of discretion in the future, then let us so provide by law and let us inform the public accordingly. Electors expect members of parliament to do anything and everything and I hope my voice will carry throughout this Dominion when I say to-night that if the people expect their representatives to make certain appeals on their behalf they must not turn round and condemn them afterwards.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. James is to my mind the fairest that has been submitted in this debate. It gives to the group in this comer an opportunity to have some say in the appointment of the commission. This is the first time in the history of parliament that it has been proposed that any minority group should participate in such an appointment. Am I going to throw that precedent away? It seems to me a healthy state of affairs that different groups should be consulted in a matter of this kind. This is the conclusion to which I have come after serious reflection. I may be wrong in the eyes of some people but I am acting conscientiously. The ex-Minister of Customs was probably indiscreet, but I refuse to admit for ,a moment that he is open to censure. I have sat with the 'hon. gentleman in this House for the last five years, having come into contact with him both personally and in his official capacity as minister of the Department of Customs, and speaking from my experience of him I believe that the honesty, the integrity and the ability of the hon. gentleman are beyond question. Certainly his ability he has demonstrated in this House; and of his honesty I am convinced from personal experience. I do not think it would be according to British fair play to condemn the minister as proposed in the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I do not take any stock in the rumours one hears around these corridors. They do not amount to anything in my estimation. Let us have a proper judicial
commission before whom all the facte can be brought out to the satisfaction of the country, and let members of that commission represent impartially the views of the parties constituting this parliament. I did not want to speak at any length to-night but I could not let this occasion pass without putting myself on record and paying the ex-Minister of Customs the tribute to which I think he is entitled.
The House divided on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Rinfret) which was negatived on the following division.
++YEAS
Messrs:
Baldwin,	King, Mackenzie
Beaubien,	(Prince Albert),
Benoit,	Lacombe,
Bettez,	Laflanime,
Bird,	La nc tot,
Boivin,	Lang'.ois,
Bothiwell, '	Lapierre,
Bouchard,	Lapointe,
Boucher,	Lavigueur,
Brown,	Letellier,
Cahill,	Lovie,
Cannon,	Macdonald (Glengarry),
Cardin,	Macdonald (Antigonish-
Casgrain,	Guysborough),
Delisle,	MacLean (Prince),
Denis (St. Denis),	McLean (Melfort),
Denis (Joldette),	McIntosh,
Desaulniere,	McKenzie,
Descoteaux,	McMillan,
Deslauriers,	McPhee,
Dionne,	Malcolm,
Donaghy,	Marcil,
Donnelly,	Mercier (St. Henri),
Dubuc,	Millar,
Duff,	Morin (Bagot),
Dunning,	Morin (St. Hyaointhe-
Dussault,	Rouville),
Elliott,	Motherwell,
Euler,	Neill,
Evans,	Parent,
Evanturel,	Perms,
Fafard,	Pouliot,
Fiset (Sir Eugene),	Raymond,
Forke,	Rheaume,
Fournier,	Rinfret,
Gershaw,	Robb,
Gervais,	Roberge,
Girouard,	Robichaud,
Goodison,	Robitaille,
Goulet,	Ross (Moose Jaw),
Guerin,	St. Pere,
Hall,	Sanderson,
Hatfield,	Seguin,
Heaps,	Spence (Maple Creek),
Heenan,	Steedsman,
Howard,	Stewart (Edmonton
Jacobs,	West),
Jell iff,	Stork,
Jenkins,	Sylvestre,
Johnston (Long Lake),	Tobin (Richmond -
Kay.	Wolfe),
King (Huron North),	Tobin (Wetaskiwin),
King (Kootenay East),	Totzke, [DOT]
5156	COMMONS
Customs Inquiry-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
Vallance,	Woodsworth,
Verville,	Young (Saskatoon),
Wilson (Vaudreuil-	Young (Weyburn).-107.
Soulanges),
NAYS Messrs:
Anderson (Toronto -High Park),
Anderson (Halton), Armstrong
(Timiskaming South), Armstrong (Lamiibton East), Arthurs,
Baker,
Barber,
Belli (Hamilton West), Bell (St. Antoine),
Bell (St. John-Albert), Black (Yukon),
Black (Halifax), Bourassa,
Boutillier,
Bowen,
Boys,
Bristol,
Bury,
Caban,
Campbell,
Cantley,
Oasselman,
Chaplin (Kent, Ont.), Chaplin (Lincoln), Charters,
Church,
Clark,
Coote,
Cotnann,
CudJigan,
Davis,
Dickie,
Doucet,
Drayton (Sir Henry), Duncan,
Edwards
(Waterloo South), Embury,
Esliing,
Fansher,
Fish,
Flemming,
Foster,
Fraser,
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Garland (Carleton), Goitt,
Grimmer,
Guthrie,
Hamilton,
Hanson,
Harris,
Hay,
Hocken,
Hodgins,
Hubbs,
Johnstone (Cape Breton North-Victoria),
Jones,
Kaiser,
Kennedy (Peace River), 
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre), Ladner,
Lennox,
Lucas,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Macdonald (Kings), Macdonal d ( Richmond -West Cape Breton), MacdougaM,
MacLaren,
Maclean (York South), MacNiitt,
Macphail (Miss),
McClenaghan,
McGiibbon,
McKillop,
McQuarrie,
Maloney,
Manion,
Maybee,
Messervy,
Mo rand,
Mullins,
Murphy,
Nicholson,
O'Neill,
Peck,
Penley (Sir George), Pettit,
Preston,
Price,
Quinn,
Robinson,
Rogers,
Ross (Kingston City), Rowe,
Ryckman,
Ryerson,
Senn,
Short,
Simpson,
Sinclair,
Smith,
Smoke,
Spence (Parkdale), Spencer,
Stansell,
Stevens,
Stewart (Leeds), Stinson,
Stirling,
Sutherland (Oxford South), Sutherland (Oxford North), Thompson,
Tolmie,
Tummon,
White (London),
White (Mount Royal), Wilson (Wentworth), Wright.-119.

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.) Messrs:
Howden,	Hannesson,
Lacroix,	Edwards (Frontenac),
Cross,	Bennett,
Power,	Mewburn,
Fontaine,	Chabot.
P revest,	Langworthy,
Mercier,	Geary.


Hewitt Bostock: I declare the subamendment lost. The question now is on the amendment as amended.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question I desire to say a few words thereon. I am satisfied that every hon. member is exceedingly anxious that the judicial commission which is to be appointed by the acting government shall be of a non-partisan character. There is no doubt that it should be such. I would therefore suggest that the time is not yet too late when the acting government may accept an amendment which will allow them to go to the country feeling that at least their commission will have the confidence of the people. Like the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maophail), I have very little confidence in either of the political parties as such. I have a great deal of confidence in several hon. members of both parties. I am not willing, nor do I think the public will be, to accept the findings of a royal commission appointed by the Conservative party any more than I would be ready to accept the findings of a royal commission appointed by the Liberal party. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) :
That the amendment as amended be further amended by adding thereto the fallowing words after the words "and to prosecute ail'l offenders":
and fchait such judicial commission should consist of a judge to be named by the two judges of the Exchequer court of Canada, ithe said judge aoting as a commission to have ail the powers conferred ujpon such commission under the Pub Lie Inquiries Act. The said commission to have power to make findings and recommendations and to report the same to parliament at the opening of the nexit session, together with the evidence taken before the said commission.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I simply rise
to say that this amendment is one which, it seems to me, this House can accept; the government certainly can accept it. Our idea is to have a commission just as impartial as we can get it. We do not want partial judges; we do not want judges named by this or by that party, to fight one with the other. We do want to get a commission as impartial and as far-reaching in its effects as is possible,

Customs Inquiry-Division
and the hon. gentleman 'has found a means of taking away the selection of this commission from politicians of all stripes; on behalf of the government I have much pleasure in accepting it.


Lucien Cannon: I wish to congratulate the hon. gentleman who has moved this subamendment. We cannot have too many safeguards from the present government, and if the leader of the House had not accepted the amendment I would have supported it on division. When I consider the past records of these gentlemen, royal commissions have been instituted under Tory regimes in the past-and I wish gentlemen sitting to my left to remember- this-reports were brought in, and those found guilty are still sitting in this House supporting my hon. friend.


Mr. CAHILL:: I do not wish t'o detain
the House on this question, but it is quite apparent from the amendments which have been offered that members of parliament have no confidence in their ability to appoint a commission; neither have the government. I think the only proper course to take in the circumstances would be for this parliament again to appeal to the final arbiters, the electors of Canada, and if this amendment were not before the House I would move that that be done. Since this amendment is now before us, I cannot do so.
Amendment (Mr. Garland) agreed to.


Hewitt Bostock: Before the question is
put, I wish to inform the House that there is added to Mr. Stevens' amendment the subamendment of Mr. Garland (Bow River), and previous to that the subamendment of Mr. Fansher. I wish the House to keep that in mind, so that it will know on what it is voting.


Hewitt Bostock: The question now is on the main motion as amended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Carried on the same division.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Carried on the same division.
Main motion (Mr. Mercier) as amended agreed to.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved the adjournment of the House.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon, friend one or two questions? Is it the intention of the government that the House shall sit on the 1st of July?


Henry Lumley Drayton: In connection with the business of the House, Mr. Speaker, it has become now entirely a matter for the House, and we would very much like to have the opinion of the House. So far as I know, we have got rid of the only contentious matter remaining before parliament. I do not think there is anything at all contentious remaining on the order paper. We have the estimates, which are my right hon. friend's estimates, and we are prepared to put them through. In addition to those estimates, we have the legislation of my right hon. friend which is here in this House or in the other House, and we are prepared to do everything we can to facilitate that. In other words, so far as we are concerned I see no reason why this House should not close its business to-morrow night, but that, of course, is entirely for the House to say. If on the other hand parliament thinks there are a lot of other matters to be discussed, that we have not been here long enough, or that there are some contentious issues arising out of my right hon. friend's own estimates or legislation, why then the government is perfectly willing to sit on the holiday if the House desires. But if we are to have a lot of contentious business brought on, perhaps it is not worth while sitting on the holiday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In connection with the legislation, does my hon. friend include the bill for the transfer of the natural resources to Alberta, which appears on the order paper as a resolution?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have not as yet had time to go into what has been done by my hon. friend in that connection, but it has been noted. We do not propose to take any action one way or the other in the dying days of this session in connection with that legislation.
' Mr. MACKENZIE KING: That means no action?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No action this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will be gratifying, I am sure, to our friends from Alberta.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, they will not be shocked, because they have been gently prepared by no action at all on the part of gentlemen opposite, who have had lots of time to act, which we have not had.

Private Bills


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend what business is proposed to take up to-morrow, and in what order?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have some bills that I think should be got rid of. There is the bill in connection with the Montreal harbour commission, and a bill regarding which my hon.' friend the ex-Minister of Finance has been good enough to send over to me to-night a memorandum, having regard to the Civil Service Superannuation Act. Apparently that is a bill about which there should be very little trouble, and I take it from what his memorandum discloses that it is something which should be disposed of. I think we ought to facilitate all the legislation which ought to be handled at all.


Ernest Lapointe: You are very nice indeed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is
a little late in paying me that tribute, which I know the House feels I so wonderfully deserve. After that we shall take up the estimates. We know there will be very little trouble about my right hon. friend's own estimates, but we shall be governed very largely by their criticism.


Hewitt Bostock: May I suggest to the
House while it is in the mood for passing bills and estimates holus-bolus, that perhaps after the six months we have been here this session it is about time the report of the special committee appointed last year to reduce the length of the session and reduce the length of speeches was adopted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is only
one other question my right hon. friend asked that I did not answer. He asked whether we would sit on the holiday. So far as the government is concerned, if the House cannot get closed up by to-morrow night, but wishes to go and wind up the work of the session as quickly as possible by sitting on the holiday we are content to work on the holiday.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. (Wednesday).
Wednesday, June 30, 1926