For a return showing the disposition of the $485,957.06 paid for legal services for the year .1926-27 according to Auditor General's report, giving the names of the lawyers or law firms and amount paid in each ease.
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, and other documents in connection with the dismissal of John Stinka from the position of postmaster at Drobot, Saskatchewan, and also all similar papers in connection with the appointment of his successor.
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, and other documents in connection with the dismissal of C. J. Sorrell from the position of postmaster at Sheho; and also a copy of similar papers in connection with the appointment of his successor.
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and orders in council between the government of Mexico or Mexican railways, and the government of Canada or the Canadian National Railways, asking for the loan of Sir Henry Thornton, president of the Canadian National Railways, to report on the railways situation in Mexico;
And also for all correspondence between the government of Canada and any person or persons objecting to the aforesaid and objecting to the utterances and letters of the Mexican consul at Toronto, L. Medina Barron, on the same subject.
I should like to draw attention to one feature of this motion. It asks for two sets of correspondence, one relating to the visit of Sir Henry Thornton to Mexico, and the other to certain utterances by the Mexican consul in Toronto. The rules provide that papers should be called for on one subject at a time. If my hon. friend is agreeable to amend his resolution so as to leave out the second paragraph, then so far as the first paragraph is concerned, the government will have no objection to bringing down all the official correspondence relating to Sir Henry Thornton's visit to Mexico. Regarding the second part of his motion, I would like to say to my hon. friend and to the house that there is a considerable amount of correspondence which has come to the government from different persons throughout Canada, some of them objecting to the utterances of the Mexican consul referred to in
The Mexican Situation
the resolution, others commending them. I do not think it would be in the public interest to bring down that correspondence. A great deal of it is very extreme in its phraseology. Some of it appears to have been written only for the purpose of provoking controversy. I fail to see wherein its production can do any possible good, and I do see wherein it might do a great deal of harm, not only within the confines of our Dominion, but in international relations as well. I hope sincerely that my hon. friend will be content to have the house receive the correspondence relating to the visit of Sir Henry Thornton to Mexico and drop the other part of the motion.
I have no objection if the Prime Minister wishes to have the first and second paragraphs divided. The first part of the question is a proper one. It is a publicly owned road and we should find out who are these people who are asking to have Sir Henry Thornton sent to Mexico without the authority of parliament, and should have full information as to the public policy involved. The second clause of the resolution speaks for itself. A private member on the government side gave notice of this matter and then dropped it. My motion raises a great public question of status and our relations with a friendly country-Mexico-and the rights and prerogatives of consuls within our borders-also an important international problem. I object to withdrawing this motion and will not do so. It is in order to ask the government for all these public papers. They are not private papers, but were received on a matter of government policy. If the Prime Minister wishes to do so, let him take the responsibility of voting my motion down.
The motion, in my opinion, should be divided. The first paragraph should be the subject of one motion and the second, paragraph the subject of another motion, because the one does not flow from the other. If the hon. gentleman chooses he may place another motion on the order paper dealing with the subject mentioned in the second paragraph.
I think the hon. gentleman who moved this motion should be given the opportunity of converting the second paragraph into a motion which might appear on the order paper at a subsequent sitting of the house.
I rise to a point of order. Both paragraphs conform strictly to the rules of the house. Canada wants some action taken on this particular question. The motion raises a great public principle. I object to the second part of this motion -being ruled out. I think the motion is in order, and that it is not permissible to amend it in the way proposed.
It seems to me that before the question is put there should be a clear understanding as to what the issue is. The hon. member for Toronto Northwest moved a notice of -motion, and the right hon. the Prime Minister raised a point of order. He said that he did not think that this was a proper motion and that the rules of the house require that a motion for papers should cover only one subject. Your Honour, in my opinion quite properly, ruled that the motion was a double motion, and therefore the only portion of it that was now being dealt with was the first portion. The other portion dealing with another matter should be placed on the order paper by the hon. member at a later date if he so desired. That is my understanding of the matter- Therefore there can be no amendment in any sense in view of the ruling of the Chair.
trying to facilitate my hon. friend's desire to get a part of this information. He can have it immediately if he is agreeable to having his motion amended, and that is all my amendment contemplates. The first part of his motion would be perfectly regular, and if the
Great Lakes Shipping
hon. member wishes'subsequently to introduce another motion covering the second portion of his resolution we will be prepared to consider that when the time comes.