Mr. STEVENS:

No, just one paragraph.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

-he cannot think of any other substantial charge against the h-on. Minister of Customs than- the Aziz charge. That-leads up to the point I want to make. A perusal of my hon. friend's speech of February 2 fails to disclose the slightest suggestion -of the Moses Aziz charge. I again challenge him to point out where in th-alt speech from ohe end to the other there is one word or syllable referring to the Aziz case. His charges now are those which he discovered by -aidci'dent; he -does not raly upon any of the other charges he made alt thait time. This-charge was discovered through a letter sent by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) to the H-on. Mr. Boivin during the- stress of an election. I ask hon. members of this House if that, is not a fair statement of the kernel of the present charges.

Mr. STEVENS': Absolutely no.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I say absolutely yes, and

the whole tenor of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and the right

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Elliott

hon. leader of the opposition has been to show that the minister did not speak of the Moses Aziz case in exactly the same words on two different occasions. He told the story at one time and varied it slightly from the story he told at another time, and that is the offence for which this man is to be put out of the public life of this country. .

My hon. friend knows these charges well, and I am sure he will agree with me that the charge he is making against the minister at present is the Aziz charge, and nothing else.

Mr. STEVENS:

That is positively wrong.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

And how much of the hon. member's time in the discussion of these matters was devoted to the discussion of anything but the Aziz charge?

Mr. (STEVENS: If my hon. friend will

permit me to say so, I never discussed the Aziz charge at all; he will not find it in my speech.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Part of my hon. friend's

argument was that the Aziz charge would be dealt with by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). I want to ask hon. members of the House what charge has been made against the Minister of Customs other than the Aziz charge?

Oh, oh.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

It is all very well for my

hon. friends to laugh; it is fine to laugh when someone else is being charged.

Mr. MANION:

What about the Dominion

Distilleries charge?

Mr. ELLIOTT:

My hon. friend from Fort W illiam is very adroit in drawing a red herring across the trial, but he Should know by this time that he cannot do so with me; I am not talking of the Dominion Distilleries. This is a serious discussion; this is an important investigation, and I do not think it comes with good grace from any hon. gentleman sitting in the front benches of the opposition, with the experience of the hon. member for Fort William, to interpolate anything about Dominion Distilleries when we are discussing the Moses Aziz charge. His inquiry is as far away from the discussion as Peru is from Jerusalem.

Mr. MANION:

My hon. friend was asking

what other charges were against the minister.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

My hon. friend knows he

is not meeting the question fairly. The point I want to make is this. I stand in the judgment particularly of the independent gentlemen in this House as to whether the charge against the Minister of Customs is not as I have stated. If that is the charge against him is it not a fact that practically everything else has been abandoned, that practically no evidence has been submitted except in connection with a charge which did not form a part of my hon. friend's speech on February 2 at all?

Time.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I hear some of my hon. friends shouting "time". That is the last thing they want; that is the thing Moses Aziz did not want, and he was by no means the only one. Now I ask hon. members seriously if they think it is fairly meeting the charges made by my hon. friend on February 2 for him to now try and say "I have substantiated these charges by finding a peg for some other charge upon which I may hang my hat." Every hon. gentleman in this House probably had to come through an election campaign, and as a matter of fact some of us had to go through two of them.

Mr. MANION:

And you were lucky, too.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

We were fortunate. You heard the explanation given by the Minister of Custohis with regard to what happened at the time. He found that letter on his desk when he came in to look over the correspondence, and to answer what it was possible to answer. Will any hon. gentleman who has been through an election suggest for a moment that a man with an election campaign on his hands will go through a file of 100 or 150 letters and manage to get any idea of their contents? You all know the stress of an election, and you know very well that careful consideration cannot be given to matters of this kind at such a time. I ask gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, is there any hon. gentleman who will seriously say if he had been in the place of the Minister of Customs at that time he would not have done exactly as the Minister of Customs has done? There is not the slightest doubt about it.

I have endeavoured to call to the attention of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre the fact that if making out the charges contained in his speech on the 2nd of February were essential to 'his succeeding, then he has utterly failed for the charge against the minister has been a different charge altogether. That is a point that I think has been largely overlooked in the course of this discussion.

There is a great deal of difficulty for a minister in carrying out the duties of a de-

508S

Customs Inquiry-Division

partment where there is any ministerial responsibility involved. Every hon. minister who has presided over a department knows that, and I believe that when my hon. friends on the other side of the House consider seriously the situation the minister was in, there is not one of them but who in his heart of hearts will say other than that he in all probability under similar circumstances would have done exactly the same as the minister did.

Mr. BEAUBIEN:

Mr. Speaker, as the

hour is getting late and this is one of the most important debates of this session, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Mr. Beaubien moves,

seconded by Mr. King (Huron) that the debate be now adjourned. Shall the motion carry?

Mr. BOA'S: On a question of privilege,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement with reference to the vote. We met last night and had a definite and distinct understanding-

Order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. gentleman cannot speak now that the question is put. The hon. gentleman is always very courteous, and he should be treated courteously. If he wishes to rise immediately after the vote is taken, I will give him the floor.