February 4, 1926

RELEASE OF ALCOHOL FROM DISTILLERIES


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


ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS


The House resumed from Wednesday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Lapointe that when the House adjourns immediately after the conclusion of the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, it stand adjourned until March 15, 1926, and the amendment thereto of Hon. Mr. Stevens.


CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday I was referring to the supplementary address which had been presented to parliament by the Prime Minister on January 28, through the lips of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Perhaps it would be well for 14011-47i

me to read this address which was presented on that occasion. It is as follows:

Ottawa, January 28, 1926.

J. S. Woodsworth, M.P.,

House of Commons, Ottawa.

Dear Mr. Woodsworth,

Replying to the letter received from Mr. Heaps and yourself, dated January 7, in which you ask whether it is the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation with regard to

(a) provision for the unemployed, and

(b) old age pensions, I would refer you, respecting provision for the unemployed, to the answer given in the House of Commons to-day by the Hon. Ernest Lapointe on behalf of the government in reply to a question by yourself and which indicated the government's intention of carrying out with respect to emergency relief the practice adopted in co-operation with provinces and municipalities in the years immediately following the war. In answer to a question from Mr. Neill, Mr. Lapointe further intimated that it was the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation with respect to Old Age Pensions. You will observe that the statement made by Mr. Lapointe was in accordance with the intimation which I gave to Mr. Heaps and yourself at the time of our interview, following the receipt of the communication herein referred to.

With respect to amendments to (a) the Immigration Act, (b) the Naturalization Act, and (c) the Criminal Code, which were referred to at the time of our interview, I would say that having since taken up the proposed amendments with the ministers concerned, I feel I am in a position to assure you that legislation on these matters will also be introduced in the course of the present session.

Yours sincerely,

W. L. Mackenzie King.

Prior to bringing this matter up I had been referring to the feeling which prevails in the country that a good deal of bargaining has been going on between the government and some of the groups in this House with a view to the continuation of the government in office. I referred to a Canadian Press report on that occasion, which was denied by the chief whip of the Progressive party and also by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), which press report contained this statement:

The Progressive party will sell its support in the best interests of the west.

This statement was denied by those gentlemen, in so far as the word "sell" is concerned, and I accept their denial; I do not question their veracity at all. I have always had a good deal of respect for the hon. gentlemen who sit behind the leader of the Progressive party, and I am sorry that I am not able to say as much for their leader. But there

is something further in that report which the hon. member for Mackenzie did not deny, and it is as follows:

What legislation it can secure in the interests of the west is the fundamental question that will decide its actions.

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

Apparently they have been satisfied in their demands, because the government have promised in the Speech from the Throne to introduce legislation-mark the words " introduce legislation ", perhaps not expecting it to pass- along the lines desired, although in years gone by the government had used their best endeavours to defeat such legislation. Apparently the leader of the so-called Labour group in the House became jealous of the influence which was being exercised by the Progressive party. Although he and his colleague had approached the Prime Minister and had received verbal assurance that their request would be complied with they were not satisfied, and1 insisted that before the next vote wag taken they should have a definite statement from the Prime Minister, over his own signature, as to what he would do under the circumstances. Is it any wonder that the people of this country have become alarmed, that the press of Canada is filled from day to day with references to the bargaining which it is claimed is going on in the House of Commons. At this point, in order to give still further point to my remarks, I might refer to my last few observations before the House rose at six o'clock last night. Referring to the letter from the Prime Minister to M!r. Woods-worth, I stated that it is:

-the clearest and most emphatic proof of the fact that there has been bargaining in relation to matters of great public importance in this country with a view to securing support in this House to enable a government which was defeated at the polls, to carry on in defiance of public opinion. And the government is now asking for a six weeks' adjournment in order to build up its shattered forces.

Those hon. members who were in the House yesterday and listened to the Minister of Justice will appreciate the situation more accurately when I read the words which the minister made use of on that occasion. He said:

Now, we are the government and we are only asking fair play, the same fair play that we should have been pleased to extend to my right hon. friend if he had been successful, and had carried a majority in this House. We desire an adjournment to permit the Prime Minister to undertake and to carry through the task of filling vacancies and to reconstruct the government in order to proceed regularly with the legislative, parliamentary and administrative work of government.

This is an admission on the part of the leader of the government that they are unable under present conditions to carry on. The importance therefore of having the representatives of groups in this House lend their support to the government will be appreciated. The Minister of Justice goes on to say:

-that the government should be complete and that every department should be represented here by a minister.

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

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

ship, and the Minister of Justice makes the plaintive plea "Give us fair play. We would do the same to you under similar circumstances." Ah! has he forgotten the statements of this same William Lyon Mackenzie King with regard to the right hon. gentleman who leads the major group in this House after the general election of 1921 when the latter endeavoured to secure re-election in a constituency close by and where he was well known? Why there was on that occasion,

I might almost say, gross misrepresentation by the man who now claims to be Prime Minister, to say nothing of the same petulance which he is manifesting in the Prince Albert by-election. This ought to be a sufficient answer to the Minister of Justice. It indicates what hon. gentlemen opposite would do under similar circumstances.

As I have already said, the Speech from the Throne intimates that certain departments are to be merged. We do not know how many ministers will be seeking re-election, possibly not any outside of the Prime Minister. Then why this adjournment? Last night I quoted a statement from the Winnipeg Free Press published on the day following the general election. That journal anticipated that the only thing the Prime Minister could do under the circumstances was to send in his resignation, and recommend His Excellency to call upon the right hon. leader of the opposition to form a government. But the Prime Minister and his ministers decided not to do that, they determined to hang on to office let the consequences be what they would. But they did announce that parliament would be called at the earliest possible moment, and that it would assemble on December 10 in order to transact the business of the country. The date of the opening of parliament was afterwards changed to January 7. The House has now been in session for nearly a month, and it is quite evident that the administration admit their inability to carry on and despatch public business. The Speech from the Throne is absolutely at variance with the professions while in office of the leader of the party opposite and his government. I referred to those yesterday, and in particular to the question of the building of the Hudson Bay railway. On that occasion the Minister of Railways, the Right Hon. George P. Graham, made the statement that parliament as then constituted would not vote money for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. At that time the Liberals had a following of 117 members in this House, and 63 or 64 members of the Progressive party were in the House

advocating the building of the road. But now, with their forces decimated, with their ranks depleted, there has apparently been an effort to get Progressive support. My hon. friends opposite say to them, "We will promise you members of the Progressive party anything, if you will only support us and enable us to carry on." Is it any wonder that the Progressives in this House have absolutely no confidence in the King government? They have good reason not to have any confidence in it. They realize to-day that the government is dependent upon them in order to enable it to carry on. The government must now concede everything that the Progressives ask in order to secure their support. I have altogether too high a regard for my hon. friends of the Progressive party to think that they have any faith in a government which is forced under such circumstances to grant such concessions in order to secure their support so that the government may be enabled to hang on to office. 'Surely there is something higher and nobler in public life than merely to hold on to office.

But the most significant, yes, the most amusing thing that has happened in this House in many years was the introduction of the .motion to adjourn parliament for six weeks, or until the 15th day of March, without any explanation from the leader of the government as to why this should be done-not a word. The motion came before the House and the debate began without any attempt to justify it. We had no explanation to warrant such action, although a number of the members were here in the House, until yesterday when the acting leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe) rose and made his plea. He found fault with hon. members on this side of the House for depriving him of an opportunity to speak when the motion was introduced. I do not think a more-I will not say ridiculous, but unusual claim, was ever before advanced; because it is well known that the hon. leader of the House had a perfect right to speak on the motion, and should have done so. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) would gladly have given way to him had he shown any evidence of a desire to speak on that occasion. After the debate had continued for some time he took the floor and made the plea, "Oh, give us fair play; do not embarrass us in our distress. We are anxious to serve our country and1 are particularly anxious to carry on the government. We do not like to go out into the cold shades of opposition."

It was rather significant that this motion was sprung in the House on the 2nd day of

Adjournment - -Casio,ns Inquiry

February. Hon. members know that there is an old adage that the bear, who has a habit of going into a warm place and hibernating during the winter, on the 2nd day of February comes out and surveys his surroundings, and if the sun is shining brightly he concludes there are to be six weeks more of winter and he immediately goes back to stay in his nest for another six weeks. That is what the government are doing. When they found that on the 2nd of February the sun was shining brightly all day long, and there was every prospect of storm and stormy weather for the next six weeks, they said1 to us, '"Now if you fellows will only go home for six weeks and wait until the spring arrives, we .will then take up again the business of the country."

This appeal was followed! by an address by my good friend the Minister of Finance. What was his plea? We would expect from him some good1 sound argument which would appeal to the judgment of members of this House as to why an adjournment should be granted. Did he favour us with such an argument? I listened to his remarks and I looked over Hansard this morning, and I cannot see that he has done so; but he attempted to belittle the charges which were made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), the most serious charges that were ever preferred against a government in Canada. Did he deal with those? Well, in his own way he did. He says, "It is quite true that the bootleggers are a very strong force in this country at the present time. Parliament voted $350,000 a year ago to suppress smuggling and bootlegging and things of that kind, but the government are absolutely helpless. The automobile enables these men to frustrate the efforts of the government." I could not help thinking what a force the government could have let loose on the country if they had only manned the automobiles which they have at their command. But only some $23,100 of that $350,000 vote was used *for this purpose.

The Minister of Finance says, "Why, these bootleggers from Montreal endeavoured to defeat me in my election," and he attempted to connect them with the Tory organization in the city of Montreal. I am glad to hear that there is a Tory organization in the city of Montreal; I was not aware of it before. The effect of the bootleggers' assistance so far as the Tory party was concerned in the province of Quebec was not anything to boast about, but I recall the fact that while the Minister of Finance was a candidate in his own constituency there were other candidates

who had other difficulties to contend with. I remember the election very well, and I think I will remember it for some time. I am sorry that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) is not in his seat. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance introduced this matter, I think I am justified in relating some of the things which took place in other constituencies. We remember that in the last session of this parliament-indeed it has been brought up every session-a proposal urged and agitated by hon. members to my left, with the supposed endorsation of the government, namely, what is known as the transferable vote in single member constituencies. But no measure to that end was put into effect. In fact the bill was not introduced by the government, although it remained on the order paper until the last day of the session. But in the recent election they adopted an entirely new system. Notwithstanding the fact that they had 83,000 election agents paid out of the public treasury of the country during the last election, they put into effect a brand new system-not the transferable vote in single member constituencies, but t'he transferring of the voters themselves bodily into other constituencies with a view of assisting the government in their distress. I am fully conscious of the responsibility of a member of parliament in making statements on the floor of this House. It is true that very often recldess statements are indulged in by some speakers at the time of an election, but when we are in the parliament hon. members should be careful what they say. I have made the statement that the government adopted a different system; in view of the fact that the transferable vote in single member constituencies did not go into effect they transferred the voters bodily from one constituency to another, in fact from one province to another.

I see some of my hon. friends from Quebec looking very intently at me, as though I was making a rather reckless statement. They may be surprised to know that a carload of the residents of Quebec were brought into the constituency of South Oxford and that deliberate attempts were made to put those men on the voters' list in that constituency. After failing in several attempts they succeeded in getting at least seven of them on the list in one polling division of that constituency. It was only on the day of nomination. when the registrar for that constituency handed in his list of names which had been added by him, that I ascertained that these men's names had been placed on the voters' list. Perhaps I had better make clear the extent to which I realized the need for caution,

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

the need for watching closely what was going on. On the 19th of October I had published in the press of the constituency a notice to this effect:

Warning

To the returning officer and registrars appointed to make up the voters' lists in South Oxford.

I have personal knowledge of the fact that names are being placed on the voters' lists for this election in South Oxford by registrars in the rural districts, of persons who are not only not entitled to have their names on the list, but who have already had then-names registered as voters in other parts of this constituency-

I have affidavits to that effect and I can prove it before the Committee on Privileges and Elections when it is appointed.

-and are therefore guilty of the offence of personation, the penalty for which offence as a fine of $2,000 or a term of imprisonment of two years.

I have been informed by one of the registrarsappointed that these names were added with theknowledge and consent oif the returning officer. I

have since confirmed this by telephone conversation with the returning office.

As the time [DOT]for revising these lists will expire

to-morrow, October 20, at six o'clock p.m.

I herewith issue this warning to the returning officer and to all registrars for this constituency fto take immediate action to have the voters' lists made up according to the regulations contained in the Dominion Elections Act.

Unless this is done, action will be taken against all who have violated their oath of office and also against those guilty of the offence lot personation.

What happened then? An editor from western Canada, a man who had resided there for many years, was sent into the constituency, and he edited a full page in one of the local papers day after day. "Oh," he taunted, "this is an election bluff; the candidate has nothing to substantiate anything of that kind." What happened? I immediately took steps to see that these people who had been transported from another province into the constituency of South Oxford would not vote there in that election. As a result, a warrant was issued by the crown to arrest the leader of the party who was responsible for adding these names. Who do you suppose it turned out to be? One of this army of 83,000 agents appointed by the government, one of their deputy returning officers. Is it any wonder that they are asking parliament to adjourn for six weeks in order to bolster up their shattered forces? This man was arrested by the crown when I informed the authorities what had happened and gave them the evidence to substantiate it. He was let out on bail, brought before a magistrate and convicted of perjury. This was one of the election officers to whom I had referred in the warning which I had caused to be published a few days previously.

Others from western Canada were also very active in the campaign in that constituency, but I need not refer to more than two or three of them. They were men who had been associated with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) for many years, men who had first been elected to the legislature of Alberta in the same year that the Minister of the Interior was elected, one of whom had drawn $19,900 odd out of the treasury of this country while he was an organizer for the Liberal party and who was eventually forced off the payroll. I warned the government time and again with regard to what was going on, and one of the most disgraceful scenes that I ever witnessed in parliament took place when I was prevented from discussing the matter on the floor of this House. One of the ministers who was responsible for blocking that discussion is no longer in parliament. This man, so far as I know, is now off the payroll. He was appointed organizer for Ontario on behalf of the Liberal government. Time and again he came into the constituency to secure a candidate so as to link up in some way the Progressives or the United Farmers of Ontario, as we call them, and the Liberal party in South Oxford. Finally he succeeded in doing that to his satisfaction by getting the executives of the two parties to meet together in a little hall after dark in a most obscure place in the constituency. They decided that they would coordinate. That is the word they are frequently using; they speak of the need of coordination or co-operation. Having succeeded in this, they secured a man who for years had been very active as a member of the United Farmers of Ontario, or as a Progressive and had opposed the Liberal party. But they decided that the Liberal party would nominate this man as their candidate and that the Progressive party would work behind him, and in that way they hoped to defeat the candidate on behalf of the opposition. This worked out all right for a little while. The elections came on and everything was going fine. The editor from western Canada who was editing this page in a local paper loaded' it up from day to day with the most ridiculous statements that were ever advanced in any election, until finally another ex-member of the government of Alberta arrived to bolster up the forces. I do not like to refer to this gentleman today, because I believe he is now being tried at Edmonton for the alleged offence of looting the treasury of that province. But this is what happened, and these are some of the things which I had to contend with in the

744 COMMONS

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

last election. I am not surprised that the Minister of Finance has gone out of the chamber. He has heard enough; he is already convinced that his complaint about bootleggers operating in his constituency on behalf of the Conservative party has paled into insignificance as compared with what has been going on in some other parts of the country. Yes, Mr. Duncan Marshall, organizer for the Liberal party, and Mr. George Peter Sinith, were colleagues of the Minister of the Interior until 1921 when they were turned out of office by the people of the province of Alberta. The people of Alberta evidently were heartily sick and tired of that government, but they were not content to retire to private life. From day to day the gallery of this House has been, I will not say adorned, but at any rate occupied by a man who has been active, if not in the public life of this country, at least behind the scenes with the Liberal party in Canada for many years. I referred to this matter last session on several occasions, as the Minister of Justice will recall, at the time the Petersen contract was before parliament. I referred to the author, the man who was responsible for making the contract and who was directing and advising the government in the matter of that contract. He was going to save Canada, so he claimed, from the great octopus which was draining the life blood of the farmers of the west, and in fact of Canada as a whole. The government, we were given to understand, were by this scheme to break up the North Atlantic shipping combine, although the government had the Canadian Government Merchant Marine in it.

Now it is rather significant that for many years, as far back at least as I can recall, this man has been an active agent of the Liberal party in Ontario and in the Dominion of Canada. In 1,903 or 1904 the Patrons of Industry were organized in Ontario, and it is just as well for us to understand that these farmers' organizations do not spring into existence altogether from any desire on the part of the farmers to participate in politics; there is a much felt need among those engaged in agriculture to organize with a view to legitimately furthering their interests. At that time the author of the Petersen contract was the organizer for the Liberal party in the province of Ontario.

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
LIB

Jean-Joseph Denis

Liberal

Mr. DENIS (Joliette):

I rise to a point

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

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

I

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

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
LIB

Jean-Joseph Denis

Liberal

Mr. DENIS (Joliette):

I ask, Mr. Speaker, for a decision on the point of order.

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Hon. members taking

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

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

I

am perfectly satisfied that Your Honour will see the relevancy of my remarks in this connection to the motion before the House. If the hon. member for Joliette does not see it it is not my fault, but I assure you, Sir, that I shall be able to connect the Petersen contract with the present situation and particularly with the motion under consideration. I shall show why this House should not adjourn for six weeks in order to enable a discredited party to carry on, with certain officials in the gallery of this House directing their policy. The Prime Minister cannot come in and take a seat in this House but has been dodging around the corridors since parliament met, until a week ago. He is now in the constituency of Prince Albert whining about having as opposition a young man there who is he claims going to lose his $200 deposit because he presumes to oppose the great Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my remarks last night, as it is to-day, is to show the connection between the feeling which prevails in this country, in regard to the bargaining that has been going on for support in this House, and the situation as we have it at the present time; and I am going back a few years to prove that this connection has been maintained right along and is being kept up to-day by the agents of the Liberal party who were operating in the province of Ontario a few years ago. The matter was referred to last night by several speakers. In 1893 and 1884, Mr. W. T. R. Preston was the paid organizer of the Liberal party in Ontario and in the same years Mr. Duncan Marshall was the paid organizer of the Patrons of Industry in that province. These associations continued for a number of years until the final merging process took place about the year

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

1898, and it is significant that these are the men who were directing operations in the recent election in the endeavour to merge the Liberal party with a farmers' organization which was originally created and intended to serve a useful purpose. After this amalgamation had been accomplished in 1898, the organizer for the Patrons of Industry, Mr. Duncan Marshall, ran as a straight Liberal candidate in the constituency of Muskoka, where he was decisively defeated and rejected. He then went out to the west where he Succeeded in getting a foothold in the legislature of Alberta, where he represented the smallest constituency in that province. I do not think that there were ever so few people who had a representative in a legislature. After all these years, after being turned out of office, he was found sitting the morning after the election of 1921 on the door-step of the Minister of Agriculture, whom he was asking to take care of him. The minister did so, and when the vote to provide for him was before the House, referred to him as "my special messenger, Mr. Duncan Marshall." When this man was directing operations in Ontario a carload of people were brought into South Oxford, residents of the province of Quebec, and some of them put on the voters' list there. Reference has been made to perjury committed in this connection: it was only by the adoption of heroic measures and the arrest of the ringleader of the gang that we succeeded in putting a little scare into them. Had that not been the case I do not know how far they would have gone. I have considerable faith in the people of my constituency, and when they realized what was going on there was a revulsion of feeling which was unmistakable. The methods that had been adopted in that election were resented.

Now what I have been saying leads up to one of my objections to the adjournment of parliament. I made representations to the chief electoral officer and I noticed that the statutory report of that officer has been tabled in the House. I am curious to know what is contained in that report. A most unusual thing happened. After I had reported to the chief electoral officer he communicated with the returning officer, and in a long letter covering Several pages he complained about my attitude in taking exception to certain things. Some of the deputy returning officers had failed to comply with the act, had in fact absolutely disregarded it to such an extent that, when the official count took place, in several polls we were not able to find a statement as to the result of the poll. This letter,

I was informed, had been received from the returning officer. Immediately I wrote back and pointed out that his attempt to justify and exonerate the man who had been convicted of perjury was sufficient evidence to show that he was absolutely unfit for the position which he held. He referred to the evidence which had been given by one of his deputies as being very straight evidence. This party was not called at all; he was being tried on a criminal charge. His counsel knew better than to place him in the witness box; the crown could not do so. After he had been found guilty of perjury I did something that I had no right to do. The crown attorney beckoned to me. I went over to him and said that so far as I was concerned I hoped that the young man would not be sent to prison. He was let out on suspended sentence by the magistrate. The fact that he was so discharged is being held up by the returning officer-and I am afraid that it will appear in the report which has been presented to parliament-as evidence that his offence was not very serious. As is well known, in a case of conviction for perjury there is no option to impose a fine; the one convicted must be sent to prison. It is most significant that a few years ago this young man lost his position a3 telegraph operator for forging a pass. I did not realize that that was the nature of his offence at the time, and I interceded for him and secured a position for him in the government telegraph service in western Canada. He had been in contact with those people in the vicinity of Edmonton who were I believe responsible for this whole trouble which developed in South Oxford. It was directed by those people, and he was the manipulator in getting the names improperly placed on the voters' list. I intimated that I would have those men arrested. I started out determined to do so, and I did not understand until later, when I went to the registrar, that this young man had made an affidavit that those people were entitled to vote, although he knew very well, that they had only been in the township a few days. They were living on a car on the Canadian National Railways, and I believe were brought into the constituency to vote against me. One of them, the foreman, when subpoenaed'-and they were only served with subpoenaes after they had got out of the constituency and were on their way east-admitted in court that their names were on the voters' list in the province of Qudbec, and they were anxious to go back there because they had just learned that they had not been in South Oxford long

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

enough to entitle them to vote. The news spread quickly that I was going to have them arrested, and they were already on their way east when served with summonses to appear; it was only by means of a swift automobile that we were able to overtake them and 'have them brought back. Does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) think that the statement made by him in the House yesterday that bootleggers had been employed against him by the Tory party and were being backed up by them is going to receive much credence?

The government are responsible 4 p.m. for bootleggers. Do not forget that. They cannot shift the responsibility to any other quarter. It is admitted that smuggling on a very large scale has been going on, and the government have been charged by an hon. member of this House with a guilty knowledge of the illicit traffic, so they cannot shift their responsibility to any other quarter. The fact that parliament last session voted 8350,000, and that only 823,100 has been spent in an attempt to cope with the evil, is sufficient to condemn them. There is not any question as to that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before leaving the election scandal in South Oxford, I am going to refer just for a moment to a letter which I sent to the chief electoral officer, because I do not know whether or not it will appear in his report:

Ingersoll, December 24, 1925.

Colonel O. M. Bjggar,

Chief Electoral Officer,

Ottawa.

Dear Sir,

I have vour letter of the 11th inst., regarding complaints made by me against certain election officers in South Oxford.

In view of your correspondence with returning officer C. H. Denton on the matter, I cannot agree with your suggestion. I think Denton's letter of December 3, to you, should be attached to your report now that it has been written, as it more than bears out the correctness of the most serious complaints made by me. He attempted to defend Todd,-

That was the party convicted of perjury.

-one of his appointees convicted of perjury. His statement that he was quite positive Garner had placed the names of the voters from Quebec on his list several days before the 20th is not the statement he now attributes to Garner, viz., that he had not made any additions to the list on representations made to him after six o'clock.

As a matter of fact there have been repeated attempts made to get these imported voters on the lists for several weeks, not only in No. 5 North Oxford, but elsewhere in the constituency. The returning officer must have known of this. His attempt to excuse and justify the violation of the oath of office of his appointee after he heard the leader of the gang swear the names of these parties were on the voters' list in Quebec and after he heard Garner swear that he had not put their

names on the list until after six o'clock on October 20 bears this out.

As to the deputy returning officer's statement of polls referred to by me, I may say no such statement was enclosed in the ballot box any more than in the case of the three referred to from Ingersoll.

Yours very truly.

Permit me to make another reference to .the western editor, who was conducting the publicity page after the conviction referred to had been made. There is a full page and at the bottom a notification that the Liberal *candidates for North Oxford and for South Oxford are responsible for its contents. I shall read only this short extract:

Technically and legally, Mr. Donald Sutherland of South Oxford imay have won a great political and moral victory. When-by that process of a law which demands stem justice-he succeeded, through hiis instrumentality-in having placed "the brand of Cain" upon a young man, a neighbour in his own township, whom an officer of the law decided had been guilty of perjury. Believing in the majesty of a just law, comment is reserved as to the details of the case, and as to the merits or demerits of the judgment, the general public we believe will find a full report of the evidence in Monday's issue of the London Advertiser and the Sentinel-Review. They may read that evidence, and draw their own conclusions. The underlying principle at stake, so far as it affects the election an South Oxford and Canada generally, is that this Tory ex-M.P. sought to here to deprive of their franchise a half-dozen French-Canadians, employees of the Canadian National Railways-Canadians whose fathers for possibly 150 years have called this soil their native land. To stop them from voting- to take away their franchise-to win a paltry halfdozen in the count for himself-Mr. Sutherland spread wide open his life's book, after twenty-three years of public favour and public pay, so that his neighbours could judge of hiis size and calibre. To win a petty political advantage for himself-to teach the lesson of stern justice as lie would exact it-he lifted the veil over his closing political career so that his neighbours might discern the dictates of the mind that-as Shy,lock did-demanded its pound of flesh. And the result was the arrest for perjury of one of his neighbours, a young man of his own township who has already received some slight recognition from those neighbours, and whose parents have guarded a family name so that .it might be handed on without stain to their children and their children's children. The curtain may well be drawn. The electorate can well be trusted to award a just verdict after the evidence has been weighed so far as Donald Sutherland is concerned. But suppose that young man haa been the son of Donald Sutherland-who is quits conceivably old enough to (be his grandfather? Suppose, Mr. Elector, that young man had been your son? Suppose, mother of other boys, he had been vour son? What would you do if the "Brand of Cain were placed for life upon the brow of your boy?

That-, Mr. Speaker, was the sort of campaign conducted in the constituency of South Oxford against me during the last general election, headed by those who were then and have been for years living as parasites and barnacles on this country. I may say that the result of that election in the province

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

of Ontario is a great tribute to the intelligence of our people. Repeated attempts have been made to interject other things than the tariff into the issues before the people.

I wonder what my hon. friends from western Ontario who are supporters! of the government think of present methods when they come to this House and find that the Liberal policy, so far as their 'party is concerned, has been forgotten. The Prime Minister himself has denounced it, and now it is to be a case of bargain and barter -with the various groups of this House in order to continue in office. But the leader of the government, the Minister of Justice said yesterday "Look at the last vote which took place. We only had a majority of one. If we find it necessary for a member to resign and go to the country, it is quite evident what will happen. We cannot afford to do it, so now be generous to us; allow us to continue in the seats of the mighty." Well, I think Mr. Speaker, that the government are very anxious to continue in office, and I am afraid that the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) are to no small extent responsible for that anxiety. Let me tell the government that if they intend to remain in office they had better withdraw this motion now on the order paper, because I have altogether too much faith in the honesty of the hon. members of the Progressive party to think that they will stultify themselves by voting for a six weeks' adjournment to enable this government to bolster up their shattered forces. As the Winnipeg Free Press pointed out, the natural thing to do was for the government to resign and advise His Excellency to call on the leader of the opposition to form a government, We on this side of the House have not made any promises or pledges of any kind. I want to say further, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister-or the supposed-to-be Prime Minister-was referred to by the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) as having a more refined and exalted sense of honour than himself. But let me quote some statements made by the Prime Minister. On June 6, 1922, referring to an address made by the right hon. leader he said:

He knows as well as I do that at the time of being selected leader of the Liberal party I spoke before the convention which drafted that platform and expressed my view in regard thereto, Broadly I stated that I would regard that platform as a chart which indicated the direction that the Liberal representatives assembled expected the party to take if returned to power, but that I would be guided as to how far it was wise to go at any particular time by the collective wisdom and judgment of the ablest men whom it might be possible to bring together to direct the affairs of this country.

Does the platform of the Liberal party indicate in any way the chart that is now being followed by that party? Have the wisest counsels in the nations been consulted by them? What does the Toronto Globe, the mouthpiece of the Liberal party of this province for generations back, advise them to do? It is not necessary for me to refer to that.

Mr. Mackenzie King: The platform of 1919 was certainly inserted in the handbook and it would have been an extraordinary thing if it had not been, but the platform of 1919 was not put forward throughout'this last campaign as a pledge or promise on the part of the Liberal party of its proposals if returned to power.

The platform of the Liberal party has been discarded, and there is no need of referring to it. Expediency is the platform of the Liberal party to-day. Their attempt to hold pn to office is being encouraged by certain groups in this House. I think the 'letter of the Prime Minister under date of January 28 of this year is conclusive evidence that it was necessary for them to secure the support of my hon. friends sitting opposite under the leadership of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Let me quote a statement once made by Hon. George Brown, who was at the time the leader of the Liberal party in Canada. Hon. George Brown said:

If, Sir, public man avows certain principles, agitates those principles, and seeks to overthrow the government of the day and establish those principles; and if, when he attains power he laughs at his principles and casts his professions to the winds, he is aiming a blow at public morality.

Have this government no regard for the influence their actions are having and are bound to have on the youth of our country? History is one of our most useful assets. It enables us to realize what was in the minds of people in the past. When the record of this parliament comes to be written, after we have retired to private life, are we going to feel proud of our contribution to the parliamentary history of Canada? It is for the members of this House to exercise their rights as citizens of Canada; to see that honour is maintained in public life, and to see that the representatives of the people uphold parliamentary institutions, under which we have the greatest degree of liberty enjoyed by any people in the world. Democracy in its best sense is, or should be, represented here, and you violate the principle of democracy if you enter into a conspiracy to obtain something not in accordance with the oath taken as a member of this parliament. We have had altogether too much sectionalism, too much provincialism for the good

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

of Canada. We must have a broader conception of things if we are going to realize the destiny in store for us. We cannot look forward with too much optimism to the possibilities of development when this great big throbbing country, with its vast stores of wealth, begins to function as it should. One good harvest has a tremendous influence on the financial condition of this country, yet we find the government endeavouring, in the [DOT]Speech from the Throne, to claim credit for what the people of Canada are alone entitled to. It is the duty of a government to administer the affairs of a country and to do so in the most economical manner, not to retard its development in any way. Have the *present government been doing that? Their admission that the scandals connected with the Department of Customs have been going on for years to their knowledge is evidence of their unfitness for office. We might just as well deal with this matter now as later on, because the government are not going to continue to carry on in this country. They were defeated at the polls; they cannot continue to disregard the fact that the people .failed to give them any such mandate. The popular voice must be heard and must be listened to, otherwise the gravest possible injury will be inflicted1 upon what is known as democracy or freedom in this country. It is a matter of small importance to the individual member which political party is in power; but it does mean something to this Dominion whether there should be a Strict [DOT]observance of honour or whether a government are to be permitted to resort to trickery in order to maintain themselves in office.

I referred to a few things that took place in the constituency I represent. I have no doubt that these were duplicated elsewhere. Think of it-an average of three hundred and *forty-three election officials many of them agents of the government appointed under the Dominion Elections Act in every constituency [DOT]in Canada to assist in returning them to power! Do hon. gentlemen realize what a handicap the party with which I am associated laboured under at that time? It is possible [DOT]that hon. gentlemen to my left suffered in a (similar way because we know how the Prime Minister characterized them as outlaws. And yet many of our Progressive friends come forward and vote confidence in the government. The first one to come to their assistance was the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) the leader of hon. gentlemen to my left. He [DOT]was very much worried to think that the government were being put in such an indefensible position, and he rushed to their sup-

port without, I believe, having any well defined idea as to what he was about to say. I am sure his followers felt more embarrassed after he had resumed his seat than they did before he rose to speak.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel satisfied that the [DOT]government will consider the wisdom, even at this late stage, of withdrawing this motion because if they do riot do so I am quite satisfied they will enjoy but a very short existence. (Because, Mr. Speaker, there is some sense of fionour left in the hearts of the people's [DOT]representatives. It is not a case, as some persons sneeringly say, of drawing sessional indemnities; but hon. members will see to it that this government shall Observe in the administration 'of public affairs the ordinary rules which are demanded in private life.

I have nothing further to say with regard to that matter, I am sorry to have been compelled to speak as I have done; but I wish to point out before resuming my seat that the Minister of Customs and Excise adtnitted the truth of many of the charges made by my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) and intimated that a committee would be granted to investigate them. Under those conditions an adjournment for six weeks is no light matter. The Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) delivered a speech in Montreal a short time ago, after the government got over the first difficult hurdle and secured a majority of three-not with united support but with considerable support, from hop. gentlemen to the left. The report which I am about to quote appeared in the Montreal Star of January 21, and the Minister of Customs and Excise is represented as saying:

He denied that the Hudson Bay railway was a concession to the Progressives. The road was nearly finished, the Conservatives having spent twelve millions on the 'building of the greater part of it. It was the duty of the government to look to the interests of all parts of the country.

You would infer from the minister's observations that this party had been committed to it, and as a matter of fact, the statement is true; but do not forget that the building of the Hudson Bay railway has been dangled before the people of western Canada for many years. In 1911 it was talked of during the election but the Liberal government were decisively defeated. They had a majority of 47 when they appealed to the country, but the people returned the Conservatives with an equal majority. The significant fact, however, is that for years the Liberals played with the people of the west in regard to the Hudson Bay railway. It is true they called for tenders for the building of the road just before the election but no contracts were

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

let until after the election. Three days after the defeat of the government the then Minister of Railways, Hon. George P. Graham, signed the contract for the construction of about two-thirds of the road. The incoming government were committed to the project by their predecessors. They went ahead with it, and they spent practically all the money that has been disbursed in the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. It was only because of the serious situation which arose during the war that the work was stopped. Now the present government are trying to create the impression in the province of Quebec, and particularly in the city of Montreal, that the Conservatives have committed the country to this policy and that they are not responsible for it at all. I wish to call the attention of hon. gentlemen to my left to these further statements on the part of the Minister of Customs:

The Liberals had never been free traders, and never would take away the protection to which eastern manufacturers were entitled.

I say this to hon. gentlemen to my left. After you had voted confidence in the government they adopted this attitude: Why, free

trade is not part of our policy, we are protectionists. As to the Hudson Bay railway that is an old Tory scheme. They have committed the country to that obligation, and as to those Progressives, they had' better be careful. I quote further from the speech of the Minister of Customs and Excise:

The Progressives have been described as "Liberals in a hurry". If they remained Liberal, the King government would continue in power, but if they proved to be in too great a hurry, then Mr. King would have to appeal to the people again.

Talk about bids being made, bargaining with a view to continuing in office, could any greater reflection be cast upon their honour than to suggest that the main objective in life of my hon. friends to my left is to draw their salaries as members of this House. These hon. members are actuated by just as high and lofty motives as are others and to say that if they get in too much of a hurry Mr. King will have to appeal to the people again is to insinuate that personal interest and not public duty is with them the paramount consideration.

That brings me to a matter on which I am raising my protest against an adjournment of six weeks. I demand that these election scandals shall be cleared up during the life of this parliament and that the committee on Privileges and Elections shall be appointed and see to it that their present returning officers in this country who did not discharge their duties in the last election

shall not carry on during the next election. Mr. King would have to appeal to the people again-yes, he would like to have this army of 83,000 back of him in another election. Instead of resigning as he should he is going to ask-so the Minister of Customs and Excise says-for the right to again appeal to the country. This is one question I rose to emphasize and I am satisfied that the government, notwithstanding their desire to cling to office, have reached the breaking point, and must let go. When they do the light is going to be turned on the administration which we have had in this country during the last four years. It is in the public interest that that should be done, and although they may sit here dumb as they have been to a great degree with regard to any reasonable request for information with regard to reasons for an adjournment, they must again face the people and give an account of themselves. The right thing and the only thing that can be done is to listen to the voice of public opinion. The people must be supreme. Whether we shall have another general election in the course of a few months is a small matter compared with the importance of having representatives in parliament who will realize and appreciate their duties to their constituents and their country.

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):

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

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

expects the business people of Canada to carry on under a burden so unequal, and to meet the competition of those neighbours in our own markets.

For the benefit of those people who are wont to say that prosperity has returned or that prosperity is just around the corner, as the government has been declaring during the past three years, I wish to give one or two illustrations from my own city of Vancouver. I believe that if there is any city which is prosperous in Canada to-day Vancouver most nearly approaches that condition. But our industries in Vancouver are suffering, just as they are suffering in every other city in Canada. I have no hesitation in naming two of those industries, with their permission, I may say. One industry is the Tyee Machinery Company in Vancouver. In 1921, :when this government came into office that company was employing thirty men and turning out about one logging engine per month. In 1923 this government cut the tariff on logging machinery, and since that time the business of that company has disappeared. I hope my Progressive friends are listening and that we can arouse their interest in our problems, and I hope that before this parliament closes they will be interested in other problems than that of growing grain and of building the Hudson Bay railway. I wish to point out to them that the Tyee Machinery Company in 1923, when the present tariff was imposed, were employing thirty men, had a payroll of $8,000 per month and trade accounts of $12,000 per month, whereas to-day that industry is employing four men, and what do you think they are doing? They are repairing logging engines imported from the United States-four men repairing American machinery and the proprietor of that plant is the agent of the American concern. I hold this government absolutely responsible for the loss occasioned in this industry. Many other industries have suffered in the same way. The proprietor of that plant, who invested all his money in the industry, is the agent of an American firm which is manufacturing logging engines.

This is the condition of industries in the city which I represent, and that is not the worst. I desire to direct the attention of the Minister of Customs to this feature. A sister industry in that city, since the tariff on logging machinery was reduced, tendered and had an opportunity to manufacture machinery for a very large sawmill which was being constructed on Vancouver island. The order for that machinery would have given em-

ployment to a hundred men for six months and would have kept at home in this country our citizens probably to the number of at least a thousand. Instead of that, they were forced to desert their homes and go to the United States for employment to manufacture that machinery there. Further, in connection with that very order which this particular company lost, the American company which got the order dumped the machinery into this country at an under-valuation, and on inquiry being made by the Department of Customs it was found that they had escaped payment of duty to the extent of $32,000. I believe to-day-and I draw the attention of the Minister of Customs and Excise to this fact-that sum has never been recovered by that department. That is another charge against the Department of Customs and this government to be investigated. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) laughs. This loss of revenue, to the Minister of Justice, is a laughing matter.

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I was not laughing in

connection with my hon. friend's remark.

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARK:

I take my hon. friend's

statement. The minister was certainly laughing.

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I am sorry, but I was

not listening to the particular remark of my hon. friend. The smile was otherwise directed.

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARK:

The condition of affairs

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

Adjournment-Customs Inquiry

had tendered. What has happened? Subsequently, that order was farmed out in small lots, and thirty per cent of the order has come back to this Vancouver industry which originally tendered on the work at the same price for which it was awarded to the American company. Why should Canadians submit to such a state of affairs? We welcome the investment of American capital, but we want American capitalists to play the game by Canadians, to patronize Canadian industry. Not only do we want that; but this party demands it, and when this government sees that the proper and only course for it to adopt is to resign and act accordingly, this party will see to it that it is made possible for Canadian industry to secure Canadian business and that Canadian markets are reserved to Canadian industries as should be the case.

I see the Minister of Customs in his seat. I believe the suggestion made by the Minister of Customs the other evening when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) moved his resolution for a customs investigation, was a mere gesture on his part. I make that statement and charge in all seriousness. I point out to the Minister of 'Customs, the Minister of Justice and this government that the Department of Customs had full knowledge ten months ago of every detail presented by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I suggest to the Minister of Customs that he had knowledge and I charge him with knowledge of the situation from the moment he took office and became Minister of Customs.

M'r. BOIVIN: I rise to a point of order. I deny absolutely-

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARK:

Mr. Speaker, I object to

denials. I suggest the Minister of Customs speak to the question at the proper time.

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

There is a point of order.

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
LIB

Georges Henri Boivin (Minister of Customs and Excise)

Liberal

Mr. BOIVIN:

I deny having had any

knowledge whatever of anything connected with the Department of Customs at the time that I took office.

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink
CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARK:

I said: From the moment that the minister took office.

Topic:   ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MOTION, MR. LAPOINTE-AMENDMENT MR. STEVENS
Permalink

February 4, 1926