Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Mr. Speaker, I

would like to call the attention of the government to the fact that at present Canada is getting a great deal of undesirable advertising in Great Britain in connection with companies which are described as fraudulent companies incorporated in Canada. I would direct the attention of the government to the exposure made in the press of the British Associated Oil Company, Limited, of Canada, and of the Westminster Finance Company, Limited, of Canada. I am now looking at the issue of the Daily Mail of March 8, in which these companies are described as being ptrrely fraudulent in character, taking money from and exploiting the public, and the article holds up conditions here in the worst possible light. I desire particularly to ask if the government will see whether incorporation has been granted by this House or any department of the government to those companies, and if so what steps will be taken to remedy the wrongs done the English public.

Mr. ROBB:

I recall a couple of years ago talking this over with the High Commissioner in London, and pointing out to him the injury it would do Canada if some of the companies, some land companies as well as mining companies overseas-

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

These are oil

companies.

Mr. ROBB:

As my hon. friend knows, we

have our troubles in this country also. The operations of fakirs are not limited to the United Kingdom. I will direct the attention

Maritime Rights Commission

of the Secretary of State to the question of the incorporations. I think it quite important that we should watch those things but my hon. friend knows that the government are powerless to prevent people from investing their money upon the representations contained in highly coloured prospectuses.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Parliament is

not powerless to prescribe such rules and regulations as will make it difficult for these frauds to be practised. However, I just draw this matter to the attention of the government.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has yet appointed his commission to investigate Maritime rights and if so, who compose such commission? I would also like to ask if the government have abandoned stalling that question.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I might say in reply to my hon. friend that the government have been endeavouring to secure, as chairman of that commission, a gentleman whose name is already well known in this country. We have been a little delayed in getting a final reply from him. I am not ready at the moment to announce the name but we have received word which is satisfactory, and I hope in the course of the next week to be able to announce the appointment of the commission and its personnel.

Mr. HANSON:

May I say to the Prime

Minister that of the three provincial governments of the Maritime provinces one, Nova Scotia, has already framed a bill of rights on this very question, and in the other two provinces the same course is being followed. Would it not be well to wait and see what steps those governments have taken before this government puts into operation this commission, which has been unanimously rejected by members on this side of the House.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Perhaps my

hon. friend will be pleased to know-I do not wish to give him the terms of the order in council with reference to the commission- that the government had observed just what he has said. One of the governments of the Maritime provinces, I am aware, has framed certain representations-I do not know just how to designate them-but at any rate our government was of the view that it would be proper to refer all these representations to

such a commission. It was thought that this would be in accord with the wishes of the provinces as well as those of the Dominion, and we intend to act accordingly.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

I desire to draw the attention of the government to a rather important matter-the character of the returns made to orders of the House. Sessional paper 130 is a return made on a motion by myself asking for a copy of all reports associated with the Hon. William Pugsley in connection with alien enemy property and the like. A return has been tabled, but it merely has to do with the release of money seized from enemy subjects, such release being made on the ground of necessitous circumstances. Nothing else is in that return. I just want to point out to the government that either the resolution brought in last year by the then Secretary of State, Mr. Copp, was entirely misconceived, or this return is absolutely wrong. I invite attention to Hansard of last year. There was a governmental resolution providing for the payment of claims for reparation for losses suffered by Canadian nationals; that resolution was supported by the then Secretary of State and also by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) . I refer the government to page 4519 of Hansard of last year, where the Secretary of State points out that decisions had been given by the Hon. William Pugsley involving amounts aggregating seven or eight million dollars. Not one of those decisions is shown in this report. The Minister of National Defence, at page 4523 of Hansard, said:

Hon. Doctor Pugsley held a great number of hearings, and has made his report on practically two-thirds of all the claims that were made; and the principles which he settled in the cases whioh he decided would probably apply, I understand, to the easy determination of all the other claims.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if returns are to be of the slightest use, the returns must be what they say they are, and I point out that while we had a resolution presented last year authorizing payments running up to five, six, seven or eight million dollars, based on the judgments and reports of the late Hon. William Pugsley, and while the return on its face is supposed to be complete and to contain all these judgments and reports, it contains not one of those cases.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Mr. Speaker, I have no personal knowledge, of course, of the matter to which my hon. friend refers, but I shall draw the attention of the hon. Sec-

Interim Supply

retary of State (Mr. Lapointe) to it, and I have no doubt that he will be able to give a satisfactory explanation.

PEACE RIVER BLOCK On the Orders of the Day:

Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):

Mr. Speaker, now that we have with us our new Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), whose abilities and genial disposition we all welcome, I would like to ask him a question with reference to a despatch appearing in the Vancouver Daily Province in connection with the Peace river block. The despatch is dated Victoria, March 12, and reads:

British Columbia's request for the return of the Peace river block to provincial control for use in subsidizing northern railway development will be laid before the federal government shortly after parliament

resumes its session nsxt- W6-6&;

May I ask the minister if the government is seriously considering or actually dealing with the Peace river block, and whether or not it is in consultation with Premier John Oliver of British Columbia in reference to the matter.

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, no such application has reached me yet. Possibly among the accumulation of other matters, there may be such an application, but it has not reached me yet.