Mr. SPEAKER:

Of course under rule 14

two days' notice is demanded, but if it is by unanimous consent the hon. gentleman may proceed.

Mr. BOIVIN:

I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Cardin:

That a special committee of this House, consisting of nine members, be appointed forthwith to investigate the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise and alleged serious losses to the public treasury because of inefficiency or corruption on the part of officers of the department and others, and that such investigation extend back over such period of time as the committee may decide and have regard to all matters affecting the prevention of smuggling, the prosecution of offenders, the seizure, storage and disposal of smuggled goods, or goods seized for the purposes of excise or other taxes, the appraisal of goods for revenue purposes, the collection of customs and excise duties, the knowledge of ministers or officials of offences or irregularities affecting the public service in said department, the efficiency of the administration thereof, and the necessity of safeguarding the public revenue and the public treasury, and that such committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place, to print the evidence taken before the committee, and to report from time to time.

I do not intend to offer any extended remarks in connection with the motion. I only desire to thank the right hon. leader of the opposition, and also the hon. member for

Customs Inquiry Committee

Battle River (Mr. Spencer), for the courtesies extended to me in connection with the drafting of the motion and during the negotiations which took place between us concerning the motion which is now before the House.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I have

agreed to the terms of the motion as read. There is only one comment which I wish to make, and I make it at the present time because I consider it most appropriate. The committee consists of nine members which necessitates a division of 4-4-1 for the government, this party and the Progressive party. It places the membership representing the government benches on an equality with the membership representing these benches, notwithstanding the fact that we have a substantially larger number in the House. I would have preferred, and indeed was anxious, to secure a membership of ten or of eight, an even number, as a proportion more exactly representing the relative strengths of the parties in the House than has been secured. But the government insisted upon having an equality with ourselves, and this required, of course, an odd number on the committee. I know it is usual that the government have a majority on a committee-

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Hear, hear.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

but in response to the "hear, hear" of the leader of the government I would say it has been very usual also for the government to have a majority in the House.

Mr. BOIVIN:

Hear, hear.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

That is the trouble.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I quite admit that is

among the first of the government's troubles. The consequence of the disproportion of the committee is inevitable. It is one of the anomalies which flows from the anomalous situation in which we find ourselves because of the government's tenacity in holding on to office.

I want to make mention of another feature. It was thought, and in this there was no divergence of view, that there should not be restriction upon the committee as to the period over which it might view the Customs department's administration. While the charges are confined to a comparatively limited period1 of time, it is. quite manifest that files may relate back over some considerable period, and that it would be unfair to restrain the committee in respect of time. I know the country will expect, and we will all expect, that the committee will not use this liberty

to dissipate its energies and to spread thinly over a tremendous period an investigation, which must necessarily be deep and thorough as to the actual facts that are now in question.

Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):

I take this opportunity of suggesting to my hon. friend the Minister of Customs and Excise, and to the House, that a series of resolutions under the order of "Notices of motion for the production of papers" relating to the inquiry might also be passed on to it by unanimous consent so that the committee might at least have these papers available at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. BOIVIN:

Mr. Speaker, the request

made by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre is a very reasonable one indeed, and I would be disposed to grant it immediately were it not for the fact that it would cause considerable upheaval in the ordinary procedure. I hasten to say to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that all the returns which he has asked for are now being prepared in the department and will be available for the committee as soon as possible after it begins its work.

Mr. SPEAKER:

While the House is in good humour, might I refer to a little incident which occurred yesterday when the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) was addressing the House? He spoke of the members of His Majesty's loyal opposition- "and rubber stamps," referring to members of

Pacific Cable

another group. Exception was taken to that appellation, and I ruled and said:

In common parlance we i?ay, "So-and-so is nothing but a rubber stamp", meaning that he is a dummy.

I do not find the term unparliamentary.

I am not an expert in the use of slang, if this be considered, slang. I have hunted up all the dictionaries on slang and I cannot find the expression, but I have heard it quite often. I had heard it in this House and no exception had been taken to the expression. It might be used as an expression of irony or sarcasm, but I do not think it is unparliamentary. The duties of the Speaker are sometimes rather arduous and when matters such as this arise I rely upon Hatsell, a famous authority on the rules and procedure of the House of Commons. I read the following passage for the information of the hon. members:

It is impossible to lay down any specific rules upon this point, or to declare before-hand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; so much depends upon the tone, and manner, and intention of the person speaking-something upon the person to whom they are addressed, whether a minister in a responsible station, or a private member not in office; - whether the words are meant to be applied to his public coonduct, or to his private character;-the degree of provocation which the member speaking had received from the person he alludes to: all these considerations must be attended to at the moment, as they are infinitely various, and cannot possibly be foreseen in such a manner as that precise rules can be adopted with respect to them.

It is therefore rather difficult for me to say whether the intent of the hon. member in using a rather strong and strange expression was to introduce language of a scurrilous or insulting nature. Yesterday I did not find in the expression of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard anything which constituted an attack upon the character of any of his fellow members in the House. The expression appears to have been the hon. member's way of characterizing the attitude of the party to my right. I appeal to the good sense of the House to be as gentle as possible in the use of such expressions during debate.