Mr. J. W. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont):
Mr. Speaker, I desire to present
petitions from members of St. Andrew's church, Lancaster, and Knox church, Lancaster, opposing the enactment of legislation to incorporate the United Church of Canada.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 39, to amend the Act to authorize rearrangements and transfers of duties in the public service. He said: The purpose of this bill is to add a section to the statute passed in 1918, an act to authorize rearrangements and transfers of duties in the public service. The section provides that the powers, duties and functions assigned to the minister and officers of the branch from which the transfer is made shall automatically be vested in the minister and the officers of the department to which the transfer is made. A similar provision exists in statutes with respect to particular departments, and it is the suggestion of the commissioners having to do with the revision of the statutes that this section should be made general to secure clearness and uniformity.
Mr. HOCKEN:
Does this mean a reduction in the number of departments and of cabinet ministers?
Mr. LAPOINTE:
No.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil) (Acting Postmaster General) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution: Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act by providing that the Postmaster General may prescribe and enforce such regulations as to letters directed to be registered, as to him seem necessary, in respect to the registration of letters and other matter passing by mail, and to the charge to be made for the same, and to compensation for loss not to exceed one hundred dollars in any one case. He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the
Lausanne Treaty subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House. Motion agreed to. IMMIGRATION-QUEBEC RESTAUR-
On the Orders of the Day: Mr. HENRI E. LAYIGUEUR (Quebec County): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I notice in the Ottawa Citizen of this morning that the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Robb) is reported as stating that the canteen and restaurants in connection with the immigration buildings at the port of Quebec will be taken over by the government. The article quotes the minister assaying: Canada will welcome immigrants at her gates with good food at prices based on the actual cost of the service. . . A feature of the service will be lunch boxes which can be bought over the counter and which contain supplies especially selected for use on the trains. And so forth. The article goes on to say that Mr. P. W. Dugal has been engaged by the department to take over this work. I should like to know from the minister whether this report is correct.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Immigration) :
I have not read the article in the press referred to by my hon. friend, but for his information and for the information of the House I may say that the department have engaged Mr. Dugal, who had charge of the restaurant of the Quebec legislative assembly for a number of years. We have engaged him to take charge of the restaurant which will be available to immigrants at the port of Quebec.
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:
May I ask the minister if the contract has been signed, and when Mr. Dugal is to take over the work?
Mr. SPEAKER:
Order. The hon. member will have to put a question on the order paper. This is not a question of privilege.
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :
According to despatches from London it would seem that there is considerable misunderstanding over the Lausanne treaty and Canada's obligations thereunder. There are one or two points, it seems to me that ought to be definitely cleared up by the government at this time. According to the statement made the other day by the Prime Minister in Hansard, page 946:
We deemed it of the utmost importance that there should be no misunderstanding as to our position with respect to Canada's obligations in this and kindred
matters and we stated that in our opinion parliament *would desire, as respected the treaty with Turkey and any other instrument arising out of the Lausanne Conference, to reserve to itself the right to decide, on the merits of the ease, what action on the part of the people of Canada was right and proper.
If I understand that clause aright, the statement there given, according to the Prime Minister's own wording, was that this parliament should decide what action should be taken. The Prime Minister the other day emphasized the importance of procedure, that Canada was not invited to be present at the making of the Lausanne treaty, but I take it there is something more in it than that, and that is our present attitude and our present relationship under that treaty.
Mr. SPEAKER:
Order. The hon. gentleman knows the rule. No argument can take place at the present moment. Only a question can be put to the government.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:
I am sorry to
have had to preface my question with this statement, but it seemed almost necessary. I feel that in the first place we ought to have the attitude of the government more definitely brought before us and the matter cleared up.
Mr. SPEAKER:
Order.