Mr. DOHERTY:

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to take up the time of the committee discussing whether there would be any advantage in not dealing with the case now, but I should like to lay before the committee the simple facts as established by the records of three successive courts, and to point out what is the question involved. I think that when the hon. gentleman has realized that he will appreciate that his discussion about land "graft" is not pertinent to the question as it arises in the position in which the Harbour Commission of Quebec and the Government of Canada now stand.

The history of this case is that the Harbour Commission did-and this is not disputed-take possession of a property be-onging to this Park St. Charles Company, or which they claimed to be their property.

Mr. DOHERTY:

I will point out the distinction between the two cases. In the Belanger case it was still open to the courts to consider the question of amount. The difficulty here is that there having been an award, unless we can find some illegality or some irregularity to set that award aside it is not possible for us to go into the question of value; all the courts have held that we cannot do that. We took advice as to making a further appeal to the Privy Council, but we were advised against taking that course. There is the position in which we find ourselves. I do not want to discuss these statements about the Yamaska election; I know nothing about them. In fact, all this was before anybody was thinking about a Yamaska election; the final judgment was rendered in 1920 before the sitting member died.

Mr. DOHERTY:

So far as I am concerned, if any importance is attached to the time at which this item came down and if any hon. gentleman considers that, by reason of that, any useful purpose can be served by not proceeding now-of course, this is not my item; I intervene in this only because of the nature of the discussion that has arisen and only for the purpose of putting certain facts before this House in view of statements that have been made. I do not question that they are made in good faith, but I feel very strongly that they were made without adequate information.

Mr. DOHERTY:

It is so much in the harbour, as I understand, that it constitutes principally, if not entirely, beach lots. The action was brought by the parties to recover the value of the property taken. After the case had proceeded a formal agreement was entered into to submit the question to arbitration. The arbitrator was Mr. Cyrias Pelletier, a retired judge of the Superior Court.

Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :

It is quite true. The hon. gentleman did make an inquiry as to whether there had been any agreement on the part of Canada with regard to the mandate for the island of Nauru. I then said my very strong impression was there had been no agreement on the subject, and in looking into the matter I find that that impression was correct-there was no agreement to which Canada was a party, with regard to the mandate for Nauru. The mandates were conferred by the principal allied and associated powers. That for Nauru was conferred upon His Majesty, designated in the mandate as His Britannic Majesty, who has undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations. The .mandate so conferred in so far as it may be considered to be conferred upon a country, is, as I understand it, conferred upon Great Britain. Canada expressed no desire to be granted a mandate for any of the countries for which mandatories were appointed.