Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

I am

just coming to it, Sir, I am now linking up the two. I was saying, Sir, that I had no mandate and that my constituents had given me no mandate to vote in favour of this amendment, I must first give the circumstances which led to my mandate. It seems to me that a certain latitude should be given to members of this House, and especially when it is four o'clock in the morning. I promise, Sir, that I shall establish the connection between my arguments and the purport of the amendment, should I appear to stray somewhat from the subject, I shall return to it by doing a little winding but not too long a one. I had the honour to study under our Speaker at the old University of Montreal. I learned from him constitutional law, and, Mr. Speaker, I also learned to bow to your decisions.

Mr. FAFARD (Translation):

All is well.

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

This reminds me of an incident, but I fear I would not be in order in telling it. A good parish priest, in the course of an election in which the hon. Speaker of this House had an interest, told his parishioners: " Here in the pulpit, one has no right to carry on politics, however, vote for the best (le mieux)," and the hon. Speaker of the House was a candidate at that election.

Now, Sir, I return to the purport of my speech, to the puzzle which has been put to the electors of the province of Quebec.

When an imperialistic newspaper asked the people to vote in favour of Mr. Patenaude, the so-called independent candidate, it was a mystery to everybody, and, one evening, at a large meeting in Lachine-and I well interpreted the thoughts of all my constituents- I said: "You, my opponent, who are a handsome fellow, do take off the mask which disfigures you." WTe knew what we were talking about. In fact, he was well masked and he laid down his .mask when he gave the "La-mourette" kiss to the hon. leader of the opposition, a few days after the meeting at the Forum. Well, Mr. Speaker, I, who obtained the votes of more than 20,000 electors of the county of Jacques-Cartier, am not allowed to frustrate their will and sub-

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Rheaume

stitute to the Liberal policy, one that they have never approved. I will vote against the amendment.

Mr. FAFARD (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why the hon. member tries to justify his conduct in this House this evening. because if the one who carried on the contest against him happened to be here, he would exactly follow the same procedure.

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

I entirely

agree with the remark of the hon. member.

The attitude taken by the Hon. Mr. Pate-naude, who will perhaps be taken in the future cabinet-if a new cabinet there must be,-is a challenge to public opinion of the province of Quebec. I wish to state that this is a lurid comedy and that the comedy will be repeated before the parliament of the nation.

Mr. LACOMBE (Translation):

Shame 1

shame!

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

Yes, you

are quite right to cry out shame! Young member of the county of Two Mountains, for whom success awaited not riper years; you are quite right. Beholding so much deceit, hearing my opponent in the county of Jaeques-Cartier proclaim that he was as far remote from the leader of the opposition as from Mr. King, nevertheless, putting all blame on one and not mentioning the other, I recalled a biblical passage where Rebecca, wife of Isaac-

Mr. DOUCET (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. Would the hon. member tell us what connection exists between the wife of Isaac or the wife of Jacob and the amendment at present before this House?

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

I am delighted to be able to give an immediate answer. These are the words of the great patriarch Isaac to his son Jacob who, disguised, was asking him for his blessing: "This is truly the voice of Jacob, but it is the hands of Esau." And this is the comparison: it is that there was in Mr. Patenaude as well as in Rebecca who had laid this stratagem as much deceit as there is in the amendment which is submitted to us. Is the hon. member for Kent satisfied? I mi^ht add to complete my thought that at the large meeting held in St. Laurent the people who were listening on the radio repeated not without reason: it is truly the voice of Jacob but it is the hands of Esau.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Prevost), notwithstanding a serious illness has found it possible to be loyal

to his duty of member in coming here to protest with us against the deceitful policy, which is wrapped up in the amendment. The hon. leader of the opposition, whom I had the honour to hear at the Forum-I was in the last row-

Mr. FAFARD (Translation):

There was

no one in the last row!

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

I was entirely alone. I heard his speech and his language was excellent. I understand him perfectly well. I congratulate him on his effort to acquire the French language, and should he wish to persevere in studying that language I know he will be able to come into our province to give us better reasons than those he gave us for having abstained from visiting us before the general elections.

I frankly admit, Sir, that when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre delivered his speech and spoke to us about people having been hung, murderers and robbers, the little hair I have on my head stood on end. We shivered, Sir, on hearing these charges. I thought: What, destroy public documents! There is not a member of the House who could be elected if he approved of such scandal. To charge the minister of having destroyed files, I say that it is the most formidable charge which can be levied against a public man who holds cabinet rank! Where would be our trust in public men, Sir, if ministers to hide their evil deeds, were to destroy the public files? For I acknowledge to the opposition the right to criticize. It is not without reason that the country pays to the leader of the opposition a salary of $14,000, it is that he may criticize justly. And, to his honour, I must acknowledge that he well earns his money, and if it depended on me I would wish him heartily to remain for a long time the leader of the opposition, in order that he might continue to criticize as he does with such ability the deeds of the government.

However, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has gone beyond the limit, he failed to substantiate his charge and it seems to me he owes the minister, not only on his account, but for the sake of his family, he owes him at least an apology or a public statement. If these charges had been made on the steps of the Chateau Laurier or anywhere else outside of this House, an action for damages would have been instituted by the minister so charged. I state that this is not courageous, that it is not generous to make such a charge when no proof is forthcoming; at least when we are aware that a false accusation has been laid, an

5094 COMMONS

Customs Inquiry-Mr, Mercier (Laurier-Outre mont)

apology should be made. This is the opinion not only of the House but that of the public in regard to this matter. . And they wish to make us believe that this member is in good faith when he moves such an amendment? For the amendment is truly his creation.

Mr. Speaker, when such charges are brought against a public man, the country has a right to expect an apology. I bear a great esteem for the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and I state that before this debate closes on this question-

Oh, ohl

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

Is this the crowing of the rooster? The debate on the amendment-I am in order, Sir, I am speaking on the amendment the whole time-the debate on the amendment will perhaps last until to-morrow. Perhaps it may end before. We have munitions to carry on. I see here gallant warriors, sharpshooters, if you will have it so, and who will, when I am through, empty their belts. However, I would request at this early hour when dawn approaches and invites one to prayers, I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to place his hand on his conscience and think: Do I not

owe an apology to the hon. minister whom I have vilified and against whom I have not substantiated my charges? I appeal to his heart and reason, and I feel convinced that before this session is over we shall have this apology. I think it is in the interest of the hon. member, humanity is the same all over, it has horror of injustice.

Now, Sir, I see that a number of members around me seem keen to take part in the debate. I have but one word to add. If the discussions in our public meetings were less bitter and especially in our parliaments, the public interest would be better served and the country would reap the benefit. I state that our public men have everything to lose in throwing mud at one another. I make such a statement on behalf of the good name of our country, because to-day, through the means of telegraph, these charges made in the nation's parliament do not remain there, they reach every part of the country, the United States, the old continent, and when we ask these people to send us their sons to help us in tilling the land of Canada, they answer: "But we are not going to emigrate to your country, the public funds can no further be trusted, public documents are no more in safety in your country, they are in the hands of political robbers." That is the effect produced in foreign lands by these non-substan-

tiated charges and 1 protest in the name of justice, honesty and in the interest of my country against these charges laid with a political aim and not substantiated nor retracted.

I shall close these few remarks, Sir, and I thank you for your kind attention. On the day of the celebration of the French Canadian national holiday, I conceived the idea of going together with a few friends to make a pilgrimage to the Notre-Dame cemetery. On entering we were faced with a magnificent mausoleum. Cut in the stone there was but one inscription, but one name Laurier. Surmounting it, there were nine women of bronze representing the nine provinces of the Dominion. The faces of all these women have different countenances but in each of these countenances, one can discover a common impression of sadness. They weep over tlhe one who has left us, the one who held the respect of all his fellow-citizens from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They weep over the man who gave more than fifty years of his life to his country; they weep over the one who gave fifteen years of prosperity and national grandeur to Canada which he loved so much. Union at death's door is an admirable thing. Indeed, union at death's door is a magnificent spectacle, but union in national life is still more beautiful. Canadians, hailing from Scotland, you that have preserved in your character something of the granite of its mountains; sons of the Emerald island; you that have left the shores of the proud Albion, and have preserved the motto of Trafalgar and are proud of it; you that have come from the sunny shores of old France, finally, you Canadians who have gathered from everywhere, let us put our shoulder to the wheel and let us work in the interest of the country; let us cease our fraticidal struggles, let us unite in brotherhood and justice.

Mr. J. A. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):

Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the morning it is with great diffidence that I rise to speak on the subamendment, but I have the utmost confidence in the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin). I am possibly the oldest friend he has in this House. I knew him when he was a young boy studying law, I know his honesty of purpose, I know the love that he has for his country and the great admiration that the province of Quebec has for him. The motto of my province is, "I remember". The province of Quebec will remember what this investigation has done and that this investigation did not go outside of that province; in fact it hardly went outside the city of

Customs Inquiry-Mr. Mackenzie King

Montreal. We in the city of Montreal and in the province of Quebec have the greatest admiration for the Minister of Customs, and we regret the action taken by this House tonight in defeating the first subamendment. I say to hon. gentlemen that the province of Quebec has remembered, remembers now and will continue to remember what was done to one of its most illustrious sons.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the amendment before the House at the moment you stated a few moments ago to be identical in its phraseology and in its terms with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Under the circumstances I see no reason why the amendment should not be accepted. In making that statement I wish, however, to make it perfectly clear that in accepting the amendment the government and hon. members of the House reserve their right to reject the amendment as amended or to amend the amendmerft as amended, as the rules of the House may permit. In these circumstances I think we will advance proceedings by a stage if it is understood that we on this side are prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) because it is in the same terms as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, for which we have already voted.

Amendment (Mr. Fansher) agreed to.

Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):

On the amendment to which has now been added the subamendment I have certain remarks to make which, at this late hour, it may be impossible to proceed with. I would therefore move that the debate be now adjourned.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Before this motion is put I should have said that the question now before the House is the amendment as amended.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Mr. Speaker, I desire to

ask the government if the report which is current to-night that an order in council has been passed appointing certain civil service commissioners is true, and also if it is true that just recently another has been passed appointing a senator; and also if the Prime Minister intends to make any statement as to the attitude of the government following three defeats to-night.