Mr. BOYS:

Last night the whips of the

three parties in this House decided that we would to-night vote upon this question. It seems to me the arrangement thus made by the whips should be respected by the various parties in this House, and I desire to state that when the motion to adjourn was made it was certainly contrary to the understanding reached by the whips.

Mr. OASGRAIN:

I may be permitted to

say a few words on the same subject. It is true we met and had a certain agreement that we would try to finish the debate this evening, but at that time there were only two motions before the House, one by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and the other by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We Voted on one of those. motions. As the House is well aware, this motion was defeated and immediately afterwards a new motion was added to the main motion, absolutely and entirely different from the other; it was not expected at all. There was a ruling by Your Honour which was not sustained, so that a new feature was introduced in this debate. We are in the same position as we were last night.

Mr. THEODULE RHEAUME (Jacques Cartier) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, previous to voting on the amendment which is before the House, I deem it my duty to say a few

words so as to explain the vote which I shall be called upon to give presently. The amendment before the House is evidently one presented in bad faith. It has been given a virgin robe, but this virgin robe fits it just about like a green suit would fit the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards), on the 12th of July, the national day of Orangemen.

I say, Sir, that this amendment is in bad faith; first, because the censure does not include a member who is quite as guilty-if it is a question of guilt which is being considered by the House-and that gentleman is not included for the simple reason that he is not sitting on the government side. But why do they wish to censure the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin)? Because, Sir, he complied with requests which are of daily occurrence. Is not a member often merely an interceder with those in power? We are likened to saints and called upon almost daily to intercede. And, because a member accedes to the request of an unfortunate elector, a mountain is made of it. Looking upon the shocked expressions on the faces of gentlemen opposite when the name of Moses Aziz was mentioned, I asked myself: Is there no

mirror on thait side of the House1

I see the member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) smiling; he the Parisian par excellence. What, Sir, they are shocked with the Moses Aziz affair! I say, search among yourselves! How many Moses are there within your ranks? Most astonishing, everyone was shocked, they blushed like scandalized young virgins. No Sir, those who had charge of affairs during the war have no right to be shocked over the Moses Aziz incident 1 The members who sold those old jades, not to be forgotten, have no right to protest. The member who swapped an old horse for two ducks and then sold it to the government for $150 cannot very well blush when confronted with the Moses Aziz incident! The Tory member who got $175 from the government for an old mare that had gone through the South African campaign and died the day following the sale, has no right to be perturbed over the Moses Aziz incident! No Sir, I say that the members of the opposition are wearing masks for the occasion. You have disguised yourselves under a false cloak. You are recognizable. Drop that cloak, your past demands it: Drop it, the veil is too

thin.

Censure the minister of Customs; why? Because he did what all the ministers have done since confederation, and what precedents applicable to similar cases allowed him to do. There is moreover another reason for

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Rheaume

which I cannot register nry vote in favour of this amendment. I have no mandate from the electors of the county of Jacques-Cartier to put into power the right hon. leader of the opposition. In the course of the last electoral campaign he did not think it worth while to come into one single county of the province of Quebec in order to propound his policy. Oh! you may answer, the policy of the opposition found supporters in Quebec. Yes, there came to the historical county of Jacques-Cartier, that I have the honour to represent, a party leader who bid desperately to win over my constituency. This gentleman proclaimed in Jacques-Cartier and throughout the province a doubtful independence which at first dazzled the people, but could not convince them. What a cunning duplicity! The Hon. Mr. Patenaude hastened to repudiate the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen. He was as far remote from Mr. Meighen as he was from Mr. King. Nevertheless, his blows were concentrated on the latter. At about the same time the leader of the opposition boasted at Charlottetown that he would carry 35 seats in Quebec, when not one candidate of the opposition could be nominated without first having received the silvery blessing of the Hon. Mr. Patenaude.

There must have existed a pact, if not, there were hidden and powerful interests which were backing my opponent, helping him to form a group in this House, capable of directing a certain policy which you all know.

Mr. FAFARD (Translation):

Will the hon. member allow me a question?

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

With

pleasure.

Mr. FAFARD (Translation):

Did the hon. Mr. Patenaude come forward as the Messiah?

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

As the

Saviour also. Only he saved no one, he not even saved himself. However, Sir, what is most astonishing: a few months after the famous defeat of the Saviour, the Messiah, who was to replace the leader of the opposition; after his famous defeat, I say, what a drama did the country witness? At a large popular meeting held at the Forum where by din of trumpets and advertisements posted everywhere, they had succeeded in rounding up a good crowd, we there witnessed the leader of the opposition, who had been publicly repudiated seven or eight months previous by Mr. Patenaude, shower compliments upon compliments on the latter.

Mr. FAFARD (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the hon member, but I wish to draw his attention to the fact

that at the last meeting held in Montreal, the hon. leader of the opposition presented flowers to the Hon. Mr. Patenaude, while he made no mention of Mr. Monty.

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

I congratulate the hon. member for so closely following our meetings at Montreal. That is really what happened to the great scandal of many good Conservatives who had carried on loyally with Mr. Monty the struggle during more than four years in favour of Mr. Meighen. How ungrateful is politics, the roses are often for the eleventh hour toiler! Those who performed the noble task of the sower are not there to reap.

A funny coincidence: a few days after the meeting at the Forum, the Hon. Mr. Patenaude, in a solemn interview given to the press, publicly gave the "Lamourette " kiss to the Hon. Mr. Meighen.

No, Sir, I have no mandate to vote in favour of the amendment, because I am aware that this amendment was moved to obliterate all the benefits of the Liberal administration and in particular the Robb budget, one of the best budgets that has ever been brought down in this House, a budget which, at the time, was applauded even by our opponents. All were unanimous to acknowledge that after the financial crisis the effects of which are still felt, the hon. Minister of Finance had found the means of balancing the country's finances. Deficits have disappeared and have made way to surpluses. Our opponents came to the following conclusion: If we allow the government to take advantage of their good work, we are lost; and it is then, Sir, that they thought out the Clever idea of bringing Charges and thus blind the people by throwing mud without mercy, without thought whether they attacked irreproachable men, whether they blemished the reputation of honest public men and which often, in the public opinion, it is impossible to rehabilitate even after a whole honourable life.

These are the circumstances which have

prompted the opposition to bring its charges. But this is not all. One of the reasons which prevents me from voting for the amendment of the opposition is that the liberal party had adopted a policy of .moderation wishing to give fair play to all parts of the country, an equitable tariff policy which allowed .the manufacturers to exist and also protected the consumer from being bled alive by exorbitant prices.

The government were carrying out a policy of autonomy which pleased all who loved freedom, a definite autonomous policy, not

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Rheaume

one which takes refuge in silence in presence of questions put to them, an open, frank policy capable of being appreciated by all free .men in this country. The other day wdien the question was put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) to the leader of the opposition as to where he stood on that question, the House witnessed the sad performance of a party leader to whom I recognize great talents, who squats in his seat and declines to enlighten the House on this question of autonomy so dear to all Canadian hearts.

Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont) (Translation):

I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier. Would he tell us about the conduct of Mr. Patenaude towards Mr. Meighen at the meeting which took place at the Forum? The hon. member for Jacques-Cartier knows that Mr. Patenaude came forward against him and he is fully aware that Mr. Patenaude repudiated Mr. Meighen

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

Mr

Speaker, I enjoy questions.

Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont) (Translation):

What do you think of the

conduct of the Hon. Mr. Patenaude towards Mr. Meighen after having repudiated him in the last Quebec campaign?

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

I shall

frankly give [DOT] you my opinion in regard to the conduct of Mr. Patenaude and Mr. Meighen. It is also that, I think of the whole province of Quebec, of the whole country: it is that these two gentlemen were, during the 1925 campaign and since, two mournful humbugs.

For the last fifty or sixty years we have had elections every fourth or fifth year, with the exception of when the Tory party prolonged its own existence.

Mr. DOUCET (Translation):

With the Liberal party's consent.

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

Pardon, if the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Doucet) has a question to ask me, I shall be delighted to answer it.

A MEMBER (Translation): He has not even the politeness to rise.

Mr. DOUCET (Translation):

Politeness

is not lacking in me.

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

The discussion has been gracious up to now and I trust I may continue in this manner. I am aware that the hon. member for Kent is

to-night or rather this morning as it is five minutes to four, under the influence of a delirious emotion. He had an inextinguishable thirst for power and this morning, the day after the St. John the Baptist holiday, he still has a thirst, one which is not yet quenched. However, we do not know what the future has in stock for us. The hon. member for Kent is in an exceptional situation. Much will be forgiven him, because he has much loved, even scandals.

I note that there are in this House gallant fighters. The hon. member for Laurier and Outremont (Mr. Mercier) whispers in my ear this advice: Let us fight and win out. It is surely what the Liberal party intends to do. There is still life left in the heart beats of the government. It was struck at this evening, one might say in a treacherous way. This attack reminds me somewhat of the way the old city of Champlain was attacked by General Wolfe. I acknowledge the bravery of the English general's troops who have left an everlasting name in history. It was at an hour like this one, an officer appears and attempts to pass by the " Anse-au-Foulon," the sentry cries out: Who goes there? France! answers the officer, thus he prepared the way for the English army to reach the plains of Abraham where was to be decided the battle which gave to England what was the finest jewel of the crown of France. The battle abounded in feats of heroism, but the historians agree that this incident was not worthy of the courage of Wolfe and his grenadiers. Well, to-night when I witnessed the attack directed by the opposition, the whole of this drama recurred to my memory and I thought: Why do they not come out openly, why do they seek a winding path to escalade the Ottawa fortress. Gentlemen, it is for you to decide, if there might not have been more glory for the opposition to triumph on the merits of its own principles, its own definite programme than to triumph by a subterfuge as the one which they have adopted here under the form of a hypocrite amendment which is at present before the House.

Mr. Speaker, during this famous campaign, of which I have just spoken, what words of despondency have we not heard! Every candidate of the opposition wore a crepe on his hat and shed crocodile tears. " We were on the verge of bankruptcy, it was the ruin of the country if Mackenzie King continued to carry on the affairs of the country and yet. at the end of seven months, the Minister of Finance found it possible to bring down a budget which balanced our finances and re-

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Iiheaume

lieved the ratepayers of a large share of the burden which had been imposed upon them by the Tory government.

As I see the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Rogers) entering the House, I avail myself of the circumstance, to repeat that the Patenaude movement in tihe province of Quebec was concocted at the Windsor Hotel, in Montreal, anid that the hon. member for Winnipeg South was not a stranger to the birth of this child. He was himself sponsor at the christening.

Mr. FAFARD (Translation):

May I ask

the hon. member the reason why he did not give the child his father's name?

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

He did

not tell us, he gave no reason. The search for paternity is always allowed in the province of Quebec according to the French law. and it is exactly in virtue of this old French law which has remained on our statutes that we sought the Patenaude paternity, and found it. The people themselves found it.

On many an occasion in the course of our splendid meetings at Jacques-Cartier, I put various questions: "Mr. Patenaude, why at such a date, about five o'clock in the afternoon, were you at the Windsor Hotel, in Montreal, with the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Rogers) ? What took you there?" There was no answer. And as we, on this side of the House never bring forward anything without proof to back it, I call as witnesses the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) who came to lend me a helping hand, I call to witness the member for St. Henri (Mr. Mereier) as well as the member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) and many others. The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Robitaille) whom I notice is smiling with the smile that draws to him the majority of the lady voters; and our Holy Father (Saint-Pere) of Hochelaga, can all bear testimony to such statements. In order that you may understand how the Patenaude movement was looked upon with suspicion in the province of Quebec. I may say that at two o'clock in the morning, in the riding of St. Henri, there were still eight hundred people listening to the Liberal members and it was our Saint-Pere of Hochelaga who pronounced the benediction.

We had other questions that we put to the new Saviour.

How did it happen. Sir, that an Imperialist newspaper found it possible to carry on the Hon. Mr. Patenaude's campaign? We asked ourselves this question. I put it to my constituents of Jacques-Cartier.

Mr. SPEAKER (Translation):

I would

ask the hon. member to keep within the bounds of the amendment. I listened without too much distraction to the speech of the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier and, up to the present, I have not been able very well to see the relationship of his remarks with the purport itself of the amendment.