Mr. McMASTER (Brome) moved concurrence of the House in the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh reports of the committee charged with the investigation into agricultural conditions. He said: These reports have been on tun Table of the House for some days, and it is my desire now, with the unanimous consent of the House, if I may obtain it, merely to move formally their adoption, and to defer any remarks I may have to make until I see whether there is any criticism offered in connection with these reports.
Mr. SPEAKER:
I would ask the hon.
member to postpone until to-morrow what he wishes to say in regard to these reports. Notice can be given for to-morrow.
Mr. McMASTER:
I bow to the ruling. I give notice that to-morrow I will move the adoption of and concurrence in these reports.
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MEIGHEN:
I have not observed that the order is yet down which called for the correspondence respecting the cattle embargo. I would think that all the objections the minister could have to bringing down the correspondence would be over to-day about five o'clock. Perhaps, we could expect it then.
Mr. FIELDING:
Seven o'clock.
Mr. MEIGHEN:
Perhaps we can expert it this evening.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:
I was not aware
there was any objection to bringing it down. We have been busy getting the files ready. They required a good deal of sorting. I think they are all ready and some of them .are now in my office in this building and I will be ready to submit them to my hon. friend this afternoon.
Mr. MEIGHEN:
When the file comes down we will see how much it is that requires the government four months to sort out.
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):
I call attention of the government to a despatch from Washington which, no doubt, all hon. members have read, to the effect that a communication has passed from this government to the United States intimating an unwillingness to complv with a request that had been made for cooperation in the prevention of shipments of liquor against the law into the United States. Would the government intimate what correspondence has been sent from Washington to this government and from this government to Washington on the subject?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):
I am obliged to my right hon. friend for bringing up the matter, because, having read the despatches to which he refers, I think they are calculated to create an entirely erroneous impression. It is true, the government has received from Washington a communication asking if it would be possible for the Canadian government to assist in promoting the observance of certain liquor laws of the United States. The communication relates to mattens particularly appertaining to the export of liquor. When the communication was received it was referred to the departments of government concerned. The reply sent to Washington related exclusively to a statement of the law as it stands and the position of the Canadian authorities in meeting the request that has been made. There has been nothing sent forward to Washington with respect to the government's policy in the matter of endeavouring to co-operate with American authorities in securing observance of their laws. So far as' the government's policy in that matter is concerned, I would say that we have every desire to co-operate with the American authorities in helping them to secure the
observance of their laws in precisely the same manner as we would hope to have the American authorities co-operate with us in
securing the observance__of our laws. Such
action as has been taken up to the present has been entirely of a departmental character. The government is sending a communication to Washington intimating that, as soon as the present session is over, we will be pleased to receive at Ottawa an officer from theAmerican government to discuss with ourofficials possible ways and means ot neipmg
to meet the situation to which they have referred. Our attitude in this matter is entirely a friendly one, in an endeavour to fur-
The Union Bank
ther, so far as it may be possible for us so to do, the best of relations with our American neighbours.
Mr. MEIGHEN:
When did the request
come? And, was there not time to receive the American delegate so that the government's policy might get beyond the bounds of desire and into legislation? I noted that the Prime Minister stated that they had taken care that the delegate would not come until the session was through, when it is impossible to put any more legislation on the statute books for another year. When was the request received and why was action not taken before?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:
The request
was received some little time ago. When it was received, it was referred to the departments of government concerned, and I think such delay as has taken place has arisen out of the circumstance that legal opinion had to be given by the law officers as to the position of the law, and the extent to which it would be possible to go under the law as it stands in meeting the situation as presented to us. My impression is that it was about three months ago, the request was received. There was no intention of delay in the matter. It was dealt with entirely departmentally. As regards the larger question, that of policy, the government would like to be able to view all sides of the situation before taking final action.
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave, under rule 39, to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, to call the attention of the House to certain statements appearing in the press, apparently of an authentic nature, regarding the financial position of the Union Bank of Canada; and the necessity of safe-guarding the public interest in every possible way.
Mr. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to move the adjournment?
And leave having been granted: