the mysterious Mr. Brown. There was a Mr. Brown engaged in financial arrangements for carrying on the business of the old Pacific board as between companies interested and ourselves, but he had absolutely nothing whatever to do with any negotiations-carried on for this merger. That is one Mr. Brown.
I forget the Christian name of the first Mr. Brown, but I have a second Mr. Brown. He is Mr. F. J. Brown, C B, C.B.E., who is a director and who is among the list of witnesses called at the conference in London in connection with this merger. He ' was called by the board of trustees, if I may use that term, of the Pacific cable board when they were investigating the condition of affairs in connection with that cable prior to the suggestion of a merger. Those are the only two Browns.
I understand from the Postmaster General that the other Brown was a gentleman who was here in the summer of 1927 in a financial capacity. I want to know whom he represented, what financial institution if any he represented?
stated a moment or two ago that this Mr. Brown was interested in the financial aspects of the whole question, or he used words to that effect. Am I to understand that he represents the Pacific cable board or another board?
hon. gentleman the information, but he has placed on my shoulders a heavy task in distinguishing one Mr. Brown from the other. I have told the hon. gentleman and the committee that the first Mr. Brown, of 1927, had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the merger that has been carried on of the Pacific cable and these other interests. Surely that ought to be satisfactory. As to Mr. F. J. Brown, I am informed that he was connected with the old Pacific cable.
paged, might I ask a question of the Minister of Justice? Does he consider section one good law? It says: that the governor in council- that means the government-can sell certain things " in the manner specified in the said act," the said act being the Imperial Telegraphs Act which is named, " and upon the terms set out in the said report," the report being the report of some conference. The report of the conference is not an annex to the bill; neither is the imperial act. I have sent for the imperial act and I have the report that it is not in the library, so that I do not know whether the conference report is an annex to it or not. So far as I know, it is not. Therefore we are committing ourselves to giving the government power to do a very important thing on the terms of an invisible report of a conference. Fifty years from now, when this comes to be interpreted, that report may not be in existence or not available. This is a very important matter. The members of the house do not seem to appreciate the point of view expressed by the hon. member for North Winnipeg. Does the Minister of Justice not think we should have as an appendix to the act or embodied in the act, the actual terms upon which this important transaction is taking place?
report and the imperial act have been laid on the table. I agree that perhaps it would be more convenient if the act had been printed as an annex to this bill. I do not, however, think it is essential that this should be done.