1911-04-27

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Uebntes

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 27, 1911.

Mr. HUGHES.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In the Ottawa ' Free Press ' and I understand in some other papers of recent date there appears an item, trival it is. true, but still more or less important, to the effect that I had apologized to the legal gentleman in the city of Montreal who had defended the prisoner in the recent Masonic trial in that city. I thought I was very fair to that gentleman in explaining to the House, and the country that he had not appealed on his own account to religious fanaticism in order to defend the prisoner. I think I went much further than I might have been expected to do. He explained, as I stated to the House, that his object in referring to religious fanaticism in the trial to show that the prisoner had no intent to commit robbery for the sake of robbery itself, but was carried away by the spirit of fanaticism characteristic of all religious fanatics. I made no apology to any one. I merely recited the statement in fairplay to the gentleman who conducted the defence on that occasion. The object of the barrister was to show that the prisoner was carried away with fanaticism, and had no intention to rob. That was the reason why he brought it in. The fanaticism was admitted as regards the prisoner, but not on the part of the lawyer further than to explain that the prisoner had no intent to commit robbery for his own advantage.



CHARGES AGAINST MR. A.


Mr.  W. M.@: GERMAN, (Welland). Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move that the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be now concurred in. Before submitting the motion, n is perhaps advisable that I should as
shortly as possible explain to the House mv views in regard to the evidence that was taken before that committee. The committee had several meetings, and examined a number of witnesses, and were aided in their investigations by counsel employed for the gentleman who made the charge, and for the gentleman against whom the charge was made. Speaking for myself, I wish to :say that the committee were very considerably aided by the intelligent manner in which those gentlemen conducted their respective sides of the case. They both showed themselves to be keen examiners, good lawyers, and very correct in their mode of conducting proceedings of this kind. The charge is a very serious one, in so far as a member of this House is concerned. That charge is as follows:
That in the course of the years 1908, 1909 and 1910, irregularities, abuses, frauds, malversations and robberies have been committed in the shops and stores of the government of Canada at St. Joseph de Sorel and in the city of Sorel, in the electoral district of Richelieu.
That barrels and tins of paint and other goods of this nature have been illegally and fraudulently taken and carried away from the said stores and shops and transported to the house of Mr. Adelard Lanctot, then and now a .member of the House of Commons of Canada, for the electoral district of Richelieu, which house was then being bnilt on George street, at Sorel above mentioned, and ready to be painted.
That with these goods and paint, paint works, decoration and varnish works, have been done by the employees of the government of Canada under the supervision of the painters' foreman employed by said government at the said place, at the government's expense and during the hours supposed to be devoted to the government and for which said employees were paid by the government, these men registering each day as if they had really worked for the government, and this during weeks and months; the materials and time, thus furnished, are valued at about one thousand or twelve hundred dollars.
That said goods were so fraudulently appropriated to, and said work so fraudulently done at the expense of the government of Canada for the benefit of the said Adelard Lanctot, then and now a member of the House as aforesaid, with his knowledge, assent and approval, the said Adelard Lanctot abusively and fraudulently profiting at the



public expense and to the public detriment by his position as member of the House.
Now, that appears to me to be a very serious charge made against an hon. member of this House, and before the tiouse comes to the conclusion that the hon. member for Richelieu is to be condemned on a charge so serious, it seems to me that the evidence, and all the evidence taken, should be very carefully weighed and very fairly considered. On the day the charge was given utterance to in the House, Mr. Lanc-tot, the member for Richelieu, made a statement in which he said that in 1910, in consequence of the serious illness of Mrs. Lanctot, his wife, who was away at a health resort, it was necessary for him to be considerably away from home, arid it was-I think he used the word ' impossible ' -at any rate, he was unable to get painters in Sorel to paint his house, and he, therefore, spoke to Mr. Jean Baptiste Page, who was foreman of the painters in the government yards at Sorel, to know if he could let him have the men to paint the house, and would look after the painting of the House. Mr. Page lived across the street from the building which Mr. Lanctot was having painted. Mr. Page told him that he would be glad to do it, the expression he used being ' with pleasure, if you can get the permission of Mr. Papineau ' who was the director or superintendent of the government shipyard at Sorel. The men were permitted to go and work on Mr. Lanctot's house. Mr. Lanctot said that he had on different occasions asked to have an account of the men's time and the paint that was supplied sent to him so that he could from time to time pay the men's wages, but Mr. Champagne who was the timekeeper at the government yards, and who kept the time of the men, told him to wait until the work was all completed, and then he would send in a full account of the whole work, and it could be paid in one lump sum. I apprehend, if that is the true condition of affairs, that no person inside or outside this House will condemn Mr. Lanctot for having fraudulently, or with intention of fraud, used the employees of the government, or government material for the painting of his house. It is simply a question as to whether that statement is true or untrue, as to whether or not the evidence which was adduced before the committee bears out the statement of Mr. Lanctot.
In the first place, it is alleged that he could have procured men in Sorel to do the work and that it was not necessary for him to go to the government yard to secure employees to do it. The evidence on that particular point is not voluminous. There were only three witnesses called, and the first witness called was Mr. Henry Proulx, a contractor in Sorel. He makes the state-Mr. GERMAN.
ment that there were four painting contractors in Sorel who could have done this work for Mr. Lanctot. His evidence will be found on page 48 of the printed evidence. But, he says this:
I do not know that they would have had the time to do the work.
So that his evidence as to that is more guesswork than anything else. He says that there are four painting contractors there who might have been got to do the work, but he does not know if they would have had the time. Of these four only two are called. A Mr. Georges Cartier, a painter is called, and Auguste Payette, a painter, is also called, two out of the four contractors whom Mr. Proulx said were able to do the work. Why the other two were not called I cannot understand because I may say that the committee gave every possible opportunity to the learned counsel, Mr. McDougall, who is a very able lawyer, evidently well accustomed to conduct a case of this nature, and well accustomed to conducting cases of any nature as he showed himself to be an expert cross-examiner, and an expert conductor of the case. But yet, he only calls two of these witnesses. What does Cartier say:


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: What page?


Mr. GERMAN.: Mr. Cartier's evidence will be found on pages 29-36. He says that in the month of November, 1909, almost a year before Mr. Lanctot's house was ready for the painter, he met Mr. Lanctot and asked him about doing the painting. He says that he asked for the job of painting the house and that Mr. Lanctot said he would not give the job without seeing him, but that he did not see him again. This was in November, prior to the July or August when the painting work began. Mr. Cartier, in his cross-examination, admits that during the year 1910 he was busy with other jobs of painting, that he had work to do. He went to the city of Montreal to do certain work, his time was occupied, and on cross-examination he had to admit that the painting work which he had done in Sorel had not been satisfactory to, at any rate, some of his customers. It was very evident from his own statement that he was not a man whom any person would 'be willing to trust with the responsibility of looking after work of that kind, particularly when the owner of the work and the man wh& wanted the work done would not be present himself. I think, therefore, that Mr. Cartier's evidence is not such as should impress the members of this House with the idea that he could have done the work, and done it with satisfaction. Mr. Augustin Payette gives' his evidence at page 120, and he says that one evening in March, 1910, he met Mr. Lane-

tot on the street about nine o'clock and said to him:
You won't forget me for the painting.
And that Mr. Lanctot said:
I will think it over.
Nothing was further said. These were the only two men who were called to even say that they could have done the work. Mr. Payette, on cross-examination, also showed very clearly that he was not a man of that standing as a painter, or as a contracting painter, whom a person would he willing to trust to do a good piece of work such as this was supposed to be. These are the only two witnesses, and this the only evidence to controvert the proposition of Mr. Lanctot, that he could not get men in Sorel during the months of July, August and September, when he wanted the painting done. I cannot imagine that any person with the feelings of fairness will say that Mr. Lanctot was overstepping the mark when he made the statement that he could not get men in Sorel during those months to do his painting.
That being the case he goes to the government yards. In May, 1910, between the 15th and 30th, he had a conversation with Mr. Page-acquaintances, it is sure, and no doubt, friends. He met Mr. Page and asked him if he could overlook the painting and lend men to him from the government yards. Mr. Page says:
Yes, if you will get the consent of Mr. Papineau, the director.
About the 29th of May-the evidence is the 29th, but it was evidently the 28th as the 29th was on a Sunday-he went to the government shipyards to see Mr. Papineau. Upon going there he saw Mr. Champagne, and he saw Mr. Page. He asked one of them to see Mr. Papineau and see if Mr. Papineau would consent to allow the men to work on the house. They found, and it is proved clearly now, that Mr. Papineau was away from Sorel. Mr. Papineau says that he left Sorel early in the morning of the 28th, went to Montreal where he stayed until Monday afternoon, attending some fete or church entertainment that was being held in Montreal on Sunday. It is very clear that Mr. Papineau was not in Sorel on Saturday the 28th of May or on Sunday the 29th of May. But, he did see Mr. Champagne. Mr. Champagne is the timekeeper, and would be the man that one would naturally be inclined to speak to with regard to a matter of this kind particularly when Mr. Papineau was away. Mr. Champagne said:
Yes, we can let you have the men.
And Mr. Lanctot said:
Keep an account of their time and I will pay you for the men's time.
On that day, or a day or two previous, he is not sure which, he had a conversation with Mr. Page, the foreman painter, .about the supply of paint, and he told Mr. Page to get the paint required from time to time from the firm known as Cyrille Labelle & Co., of Sorel, with which firm, Mr. Lanctot said, he had an account. Mr. Page said to Mr. Lanctot:	They may not have the
paint you will require. It was then arranged that if they had not the paint in stock which was required, Mr. Page was to lend the paint from the government store, was to keep an accurate account of the paint used; and Mr. Lanctot would pay for the paint after the completion of the job. That is all there was about the transaction so far as Mr. Lanctot was concerned. He was very seldom in Sorel during that summer; he was back and forth from time to time, but not very frequently. He saw that the work was going on, and that Mr. Page was looking after it. That being the case, and if that is all there was to the matter, surely there was no fraud and there was no indiscretion on the part of Mr. Lanctot. He went to these men to borrow the men required; the foreman consented to allow the use of the men; they were to keep an accurate account of the time of the men and of the supplies, and all were to be paid for. That, to my mind, is exactly what happened.
It is contended that the accounts were falsified, that certain men worked on Mr. Lanctot's house for a longer period of time than was charged for in the accounts. One Alfred Douaire, a painter, states in his evidence that he worked on Mr. Lanctot's house for eight weeks, during July, August, September and October. He kept no account or record of the time, and it will be noticed that in his declaration read to the House when the charge was made, he does not state that he worked eight weeks or any specified time. But he says in his evidence that bn his conscience he worked eight weeks during the period referred to. He is down in the account which was filed as exhibit No. 2, for only 15 days' work at $2 a day-and there is no dispute about the daily wages which are admitted to have been the correct wages the government paid the men. Now, it is contended that Alfred Douaire's evidence on that point is to be accepted, that he worked eight weeks instead of 15 days. Mr. Pagb says that he kept the time of every man from day to day. It was not shown that he has any personal interest in the matter. When he was first spoken to about it, he told Mr. Lanctot he would be willing that the men should go there if Mr. Lanctot got the approval of Mr. Papineau. He was to keep

the time of the men, and he swears he kept the time of the men and kept it accurately. He had his time book, which -was produced before the committee shown as exhibit 23. That book was criticised most carefully. He was cross-examined at great length by Mr. McDougall on his time book. Every opportunity was given to show inaccuracies or falsification; and, after a thorough examination by Mr. McDougall of Mr. Page and his time book, the book was shown to be in every particular absolutely accurate no suspicion of falsification in the book. He kept the time from day to day, and each week he supplied Mr. Champagne, the time-keeper, with a sheet showing the time of the men as he had kept it. These sheets were kept by Mr. Champagne until the work was completed and the account sent to Mr. Lanctot was made up from these sheets and from . Mr. Page's time-book. Now, it is asked that the statement of Mr. Douaire should be accepted in preference to the statement of Mr. Page, that we are to believe that Mr. Douaire worked eight weeks and that, instead of keeping an account of eight weeks' time in his book, Mr. Page deliberately and fraudulently failed to keep account of Douaire's time, and in that way defrauded the government. I do not quite see how any person of fair mind can possible reach such a conclusion. It can be easily imagined that Mr. Douaire is mistaken. He is not working continuously for the government. His evidence in that particular shows that for many days, and for weeks at a time, he was not working for the government but was laid off. It can easily be imagined that Mr. Douaire, in that matter, was mistaken. But we cannot reject the statement of Mr. Page without at the same time holding him responsible for perjury, for he deliberately says: There is my book; I kept the time from day to day; I marked it down each day in that book. He cannot be mistaken; either his statement is correct or he is deliberately perjuring himself. I will ask any hon. member which of these men he is prepared to believe. Are you going to say that the evidence of Mr. Douaire, who worked from time to time and who kept no record of his time-does not pretend that he did; admits that he did not-is to be taken against the evidence of Mr. Page, who did keep the time and kept it correctly. I should hardly think so; I should hardly think that any jury or any court would say that Mr. Douaire's evidence was to be accepted and that of Mr. Page rejected. The only man besides Mr. Douaire who says that he worked for a greater number of days than is shown by the time-book kept by Mr. Page is Mr. Louis Paul. There is a pecu-Mr. GERMAN.
liarity in regard to Mr. Louis Paul's statement. At page 61 of the evidence is given exhibit No. 14, in which Mr. Paul states that he worked 30 days or one month. It is shown in the evidence by Henri Proulx, who is called as a witness, that Louis Paul gave him this statement in which he says:
I_ declare that I have worked at Mr. Lanc-tot's house for one month, paid for at the government.
On the time-book, Mr. Louis Paul is down as having worked 20 days at $2 a day. When that statement was placed before the committee I unhesitatingly, and with the annroval of all the members of the committee, ruled that the statement was not evidence, it was only marked for identification, with the expectation that Mr. Louis Paul would be called as a witness to verify the statement himself. I submit that that statement should not have been offered as an exhibit in this evidence, and it should not be considered, because it is-certainly not evidence of any kind. There was no opportunity to cross-examine Louis Paul, this is his bald statement, not even made to the committee, but given to an outsider who is called as a witness. He says he worked thirty days, and even applying the same rule that you apply to Mr. Douaire and Mr. Page, where does it land us? Supposing Louis Paul had been there and made that statement; ' I worked for thirty days,' he kept no accurate account of it, he kept no account of any kind. Mr. Page did keep an account, and says he kept it correctly. I submit that the evidence of Mr. Page, on these matters should be accepted, rather than the evidence of Douaire, or the evidence of Louis Paul, even though that evidence were admissible, which it is not. Those are the only two witnesses called who say they worked a longer time than is shown in the time-book kept by Page. Well it appears to me that the committee would be doing a wrong thing to doubt the evidence of Page, who appears to be an eminently respectable man, and a highly intelligent man, who was not shown to be in any way personally connected with the matter, who states frankly, and above board, what his connection with the matter was, with an apparent desire to tell the truth, apparently having been desirous of keeping a correct account of the time of all these men. I say we should not place the statements of these men who kept no time as against the statement by Mr. Page, and as I say, those are the only two who were called, the only evidence there is of any time having been worked which was not charged for.
iBut it is said that the work did not cost nearly as much to Mr. Lanctot as it was
,7881

woTth, and that that is evidence that the men's time has not been fully accounted for, and that all the material which went into the painting of the house had not been charged for by the government and paid for by Mr. Lanctot. Now, what is the position with regard to that? We find that Mr. Lanctot paid the government for 217 days painting on his house. There were about four days of ordinary labourers, who were not working on the painting ivork, w'hich made it a little more than that; but the labour on the painting came to $367.59. Now, Mr. Douaire, the star witness of the gentleman who made this charge, himself admits, at page 36, that 216 days' work was all that was necessary to do the painting of that house, and 217 days work was paid for by Mr. Lanctot at the prices paid by the government, and Mr. Douaire says that 216 days' work is what he calculated. Now, we find there is $367.52 for labourers on the painting. An account was kept of all the paint that was supplied, and Mr. Page tells us what was done. He says that he mixed the paints himself. When he found that paint could not be obtained from Labelle & Company, at Sorel, he mixed the quantity of paint to be used on Mr. Lanctot's house, and set it apart for that use and for none other. The whole of that paint was not used, but the whole of it amounted,, in value, to $81.60. As soon as that account came in to Mr. Lanctot after the work was completed, he paid the money. Mr. Papineau replaced the paint, having purchased it from the same people, I presume, the government buy their supplies from; Mr. Papineau purchased the paint at $81.60, and Mr. Lanctot paid him the money. Then there was $18.95, an account with Labelle & Company, for paints, and there was an account of $25 with Mr. Joseph Rivet ifor [paintilng blinds, wint dows, &c., making a total of $493.07 for the painting. Now, we are reminded that Mr. Douaire says that the painting should have been worth $950, but he calculates in the $950, about 20 per cent of a profit. Another witness Isays about $1,(200, but they all admit that 217 days is the requisite number of days to do the painting, and then it is a question of what the paint itself was worth.
Now, to establish that with accuracy, three witnesses are called who give their evidence in regard to that matter at pages 201, 204,- and 215 of the evidence. The first witness is Mr. Trudeau, manager of the painting department of Henry Morgan & Company, of Montreal. He has occupied that position for 11 years, is an experienced man in painting work. He went to Mr. Lanctot's and measured the house, took the number of cubic yards in tilt
house which had been painted, and can speak rwith accuracy. These mien who gave their evidence as to the cost of painting did not measure the house, they all admit that they did not measure, the house, and they are speaking from guess. Mr. Trudeau went there and measured the house, and he put the number of yards at 685, and he puts the value of the painting done $491.38, as against $493 which it actually cost. Then we have at page 204, Mr. Joseph Dagenais, sworn. He lives at Montreal, he is a painter and contractor, and has been a painter for 16 years. He went to Mr. Lanctot's and made a measurement of the number of yards of painting that was done, and he put the value of the work at $502.71. Here I wish to distinguish between the cost and the value, because all these men say that in estimating the value they add a profit of 10 to 15 per cent; he puts the value of the work done at $502.71, and he measured accurately the number of yards of painting, and indeed went there for the purpose of making a statement of the value of the work. Then at page 215, we have the statement of Mr. Joseph Edmond Gauthier, of 354 Champlain street, Montreal, manager for the painting department of Castle & Sons, Montreal.	-
He has had many years experience at painting work. He went to Sorel, measured the house, took the number of yards of paint work and he puts the value at $461. There are three men of experience, none of them having the slightest interest in this matter, one way or the other, all leading business men of Montreal, and is there any person who will be bold enough to say that these men will come here and deliberately perjure themselves for the sake of satisfying the desires of Mr. Lanctot or any one else. They are experienced men, they went there to make the measurements, they did make them, they speak with authority, and that is the statement they give. Two of them are below the amount it cost Mr. Lanctot and one of them is only $4 or $5 above that amount. Remember they are including in that the contractor's profit as well as the cost of the work. So I say that when Mr. Lanctot made his statement in the House or in the committee, that he thought the work was costing him more than it should have done, he was speaking by the book. I cannot apprehend that any one will feel that the work cost Mr. Lanctot actually less than it should have cost. When you have got that far you have got just as far as the evidence will carry you-in regard to those particulars. In the first place was the time of the men, employees of the government, who worked on Mr. Lanctot's house, fully and completely paid for? The evidence is overwhelming


Robert Laird Borden: Did Mr. Lanctot understand that he was making this compact or arrangement with the men or with the department?


William Manley German: With the men through Mr. Champagne and Mr. Page. The evidence shows clearly what happened, and we cannot go outside the record. The evidence shows that Mr. Lanctot went to the yards, having first spoken to Page about being able to secure the men. He went to

the yeards to see Papineau, to get the consent of Papineau, he got the consent of Champagne, and Mr. Lanetot that day left Sorel, and was not back for several weeks, and was there for only a little time in the summer; Champagne and Page were the men exclusively and solely responsible for the sending of the employees and the providing of the paint.


Robert Laird Borden: I am merely asking for information. Might I be permitted one more question? Did the officials understand it in the same way as Mr. Lanetot? [DOT]


William Manley German: Does my hon. friend mean Champagne and Page?


Robert Laird Borden: I mean the men who made this arrangement-did they understand it in the same way that Mr. Lanetot understood it, according to my hon. friend's apprehension?


William Manley German: As to how the men understood it there is no evidence at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Not the men, but the managers, the foremen.


William Manley German: Champagne and Page understood it just as Mr. Lanetot understood it. They understood that the time of the men was to be kept and that Mr. Lanetot was to pay the men when the work was completed. Mr. Champagne, of course, understood that these men were being paid at that time by the government, but outside of Mr. Champagne there was no other official of the government who knew how the men were being paid. Mr. Page did not know; he kept the time and returned it to Mr. Champagne as being time for work done on Mr. Lanctot's house. Mr. Champagne, instead of sending in these accounts day by day or week by week to Mr. Lanetot, and having Mr. Lanetot pay the accounts, sent in the time to the government, and had it paid by the government, as if those men were doing ordinary government work, and kept it against Mr. Lanetot, and Mr. Lanetot paid it at the end.


Robert Laird Borden: The reason I asked was this: If the officials understood it in the same way Mr. Lanetot understood it, according to my hon. friend's view, I do not see why the government had anything to do with paying the men at all.


William Manley German: Mr. Champagne explains that in his evidence where he says that he did not want to pay the men himself, as they might think that he was getting more money than they were getting, and so he sent in the bill to the department, and the men were paid by the department^ As to the propriety of Mr. Champagne doing that, I have nothing to say, and I do not know that this House, on this particular question at this time, has anything to say; that
will be for the minister to ascertain later on. But at any rate, Mr. Lanetot knew nothing about that. Mr. Champagne knew the men were being paid by the government; he explains why he was doing it that way and claims that he believes he was acting properly. Whether he was or not is another matter, but Mr. Lanetot knew nothing about it, and Mr. Page knew nothing about it.


Mr.   TALYOR@Leeds: Lanetot knew he was not paying the men.


William Manley German: Lanetot knew the account was being kept and that the account would be rendered to him as soon as the work was completed, and that was done, and the money was paid by Lanetot, as soon as the work was completed. There was some evidence as to the men being instructed to carry paint in a roundabout way from the shipyards to Mr. Lanctot's house so as to avoid being seen by the merchants in Sorel, and by Mr. Papineau, the director, but that is a class of evidence that did not impress me, and I do not think it impressed the committee, as being of any great weight, if any weight at all, because it is absurd to suppose that these men would receive instructions to avoid Mr. Papineau when it is known that Mr. Papineau lived within a few feet of Mr. Lanctot's house, and directly on the same street. The whole evidence, Mr. Speaker, is divulged in what I have, stated. There are two or three men down on exhibit No. 2 as having done some day work-it seemed that Mr. Lanetot wanted a large telephone pole which was in front of his house and which was an incumbrance, removed, and the superintendent of the Bell Telephone Company said he could not get any men, but that if Mr. Lanetot would supply the men he would have the pole removed; which clearly demonstrates that even day labourers were not very easy to get in Sorel at that time. Mr. Lanetot had two or three men from the government yards help remove the pole, and their pay for a day and a half was paid by him. There is no doubt, and there is no dispute of the fact, that outside of Alfred Douaire and Louis Paul every man who worked on Lanctot's house was paid in full. As to that there can be no dispute. The only two men as to whom there is a suggestion that there was not complete payment is Alfred Douaire and Louis Paul, and I have stated what the evidence is in regard to these two. The rest of the account is correct and will be admitted by every member of the committee. Now, was all the paint that was taken from the government yards and used on Mr. Lanctot's house carefully and accurately returned?


Mr. PORTER.: What about the paint that was spoiled and not used?


William Manley German: I -will come to that in a moment. The only evidence as to the quantity of paint that was prepared and taken to Mr. Lanotot's house is the evidence of Mr. Page, and he is the only man who knows. There are men who did carry paint there, but they do not know, and do not say in what quantities they took it, but Mr. Page says he prepared all the paint that was taken from the government yards to Mr. Lanctot's house; he kept a correct account of all the paint, and he says that more paint was prepared and charged against Mr. Lanctot than was actually used as all the paint he had prepared for Lanctot's house had not been used in painting it, and some of it was still on hand when the work was completed, and as it was not the kind of paint that could be used in the government works it was not used, but Mr. Lanctot paid for it, and it was returned to the government stores. Now there is the question as to the independence of parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the hon. gentleman leaves the evidence-what business had this man, an employee of the government, to take away property belonging to the government and deposit it on Mr. Lanctot's premises? Was there any explanation of that? How did he come to do it? What justification is there for it, or what orders had he to do it? It strikes me as most peculiar.


William Manley German: He had no orders excepting the orders he took from himself and to himself. He was . asked by Mr. Lanctot if, being unable to get all the paint that was required from the Labelle Company, he might supply some paint and keep a recotd of it, and later he would return it. It will be remembered that Mr. Page suggested to Mir. Lanctot when he spoke to him about the paint and told him to get it from Labelle and Company, Mr. Pagd said:	They may not have all the
kinds of paint you want, and I will let you have some from the government, and Mr. Lanctot said: Keep a record of that paint, and I will return it, and Mr. Lanctot did return it. Whether or not Mr. Page should have done that is another matter, but Mr. Lanctot was 'acting in perfect good faith and every thing he did was perfectly justified by the circumstances as they arose.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose Page has been dismissed?


William Manley German: I do not think so. He did not say he had when he was before the committee, and I do not suppose he would be for he impressed me as being a good employee of the government. And whether or not that has been the custom in the yards of lending men to do work on private houses or lending paint for work on pri-Mr. PORTER,
vate houses I do not know. There is no evidence as to that, but at any rate Mr. Page appeared to feel that he was quite justified in what he did in lending the paint so long as he kept a correct account of it, and saw it was returned to the government stores. There is some question of Mr. Lanctot having violated the independence of parliament


Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: Before you leave the report, will you kindly give us some reasons for handing out this severe censure to Mr. Blondin?


William Manley German: Before I finish I will give my hon. friend from Winnipeg my view with regard to that matter. There has been a suggestion that Mr. Lanctot has violated the independence of parliament.
There is an Act of parliament which declares that certain things done by a member of parliament shall be a violation of that Act, and by reason of which he shall not be entitled to occupy his seat in this House; but that is a statutory enactment, and a man cannot be guilty of a breach of the independence of parliament unless he is guilty of a breach of the Independence of Parliament Act. The gentlemen who prepared what is known as the minority report probably feel that they cannot possibly succeed in establishing the charges made against Mr. Lanctot, and, trying to read between the lines, and perhaps to create some feeling of suspicion, they would like to accuse him of something. But I cannot see how Mr. Lanctot or any one else can be accused of a violation of the independence of parliament unless he has violated some Act of parliament. Now, the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Hag-gart) has asked what justification there is for the last paragraph of this report. That paragraph reads as follows:
Your committee feel that in view of the very serious nature of the charges made they should express an opinion on the propriety of Mr. Blondin making the charges in the manner he did. Your committee do not wish to state that Mr. Blondin did not believe there was truth in the allegations, or that he did not act from a bona fide belief in their truthfulness, but the committee think that before making so serious a charge against an honourable member of the House of Commons, he should have made some independent inquiry to verify the truthfulness of the charges made, and which he apparently did not do. The Minister of Marine was called as a witness. His evidence as to this on page 189, where he says he had information that no fraud had been committed and that all labour supplied by the shipyards had been paid for and all material supplied had been returned, and which information he would have been pleased to give Mr. Blondin had he applied for same.
Your committee think that if Mr. Blondin had made these inquiries he would not and should not have made these charges.

I think the assertion contained in that last clause of the report is absolutely justified. The evidence not only fails entirely to establish any wrong-doing on the part of Mr. Lanctot, but disproves any wrong-doing on his part. Mr. Blondin could have inquired, had he seen fit. from the Minister of Marine, and could have got every particle of evidence that was given before the committee, before he made his charge. Before a member of this House makes a charge of so serious a nature against another member of this House, it seems to me that he should exhaust every means of ascertaining the truthfulness of that charge, and that he should not on mere suspicion, or on the statements of men who had been employed by the government, and who were evidently disgruntled, make such charges as those made by Mr. Blondin. To my mind the evidence disproves every charge of wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Lanctot, and I have no hesitation in moving the resolution which I now have the honour to place in your hands.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of regret that in a controversy of this kind the Committee on Privileges and Elections was not able to come to a unanimous decision, because, as members of the House are well aware, when we are examining a matter before that committee, we are in a sense sitting in judgment upon our own selves, and dealing with circumstances which might become our own at any moment. We should, I think, before that committee, free ourselves as much as possible from partisan prejudices, and I must say that the annals of that committee to a very large extent bear out my contention, because on many different matters in the past it has come to unanimous conclusions. We must not forget either that that committee, perhaps the most important in parliament, has under its charge the care of the privileges of parliament, both collective and personal, and we know what the obtaining of those privileges^ and their maintenance has cost of struggles in the past. If my hon. friend had narrowed down his argument merely to the question of the quantum, of the amount, which the sitting member in this case has actually refunded to the government, I do not think the discussion would last a very long time. If we adopt this report, and if we sanction the principle that members of parliament can secure the officers of the government for the performance of works such as were performed in this instance, and all other analogous works- if we can have our houses built and repaired by government employees, and in other respects use them for our own ends, and purposes, I know sufficiently well the
temper of the members of this House, on both sides of it, to say that there never will be any very serious controversy about $66 or $99, or any other such sum in the settlement of the amount of the refund. But there is a far more significant and important question, the question of the principle upon which we are obliged to insist, upon the preservation of that principle depends to my mind the utility of every institution of parliament. History shows that without it parliament, from a body destined to represent and protect the people, has degenerated into an institution destined to betray the various interests which it was created to guard. The matter, therefore, to my mind goes far deeper and beyond what most of the argument of my hon. friend was addressed to. It is a most important matter, particularly at this moment, when we must admit that representative institutions have lost a great deal of favour, and with good reason, and that it is sought in every possible way to check the influence which those institutions are exercising.
Now, I do not wish to take up unduly the time of the House in discussing this question. I will come at once to the uncontroverted facts about which there is no doubt whatever. My hon. friend who has just spoken admits that. There are incidents as to which there is controversy, and as the debate progresses they will probably be insisted upon at greater length. I will speak of the facts regarding which there is no doubt whatever. What are they, Sir? Some years ago, in connection with the St. Lawrence ship channel the government established at Sorel extensive shipyards. Those shipyards are in the electoral division of Richelieu. The member for that division in 1909 started to build a house. I will not insist on the surrounding facts. They were excluded at the inquiry, and I think unwisely. I think it was unwise on the part of the committee to exclude the proof of what is the custom in those shipyards at Sorel, and what happened when Mr. Lanctot began the construction of that house.
The building of the fence and some of the woodwork was done by employees of the government. That was not laid down specifically in the charges and I will pass that over, but when you come to appreciate all the circumstances surrounding this incident, these are material facts. In 1910 the house was so far advanced that it was ready for painting and glazing. What did the sitting member do? He proceeded to have this part of the work-an important part of the construction and completion of the house-executed by government workmen, men attached to the shipyards and to have the material furnished from the government stores. The sitting member

pointed out that it was his purpose and intention that the cost of the work should be refunded. I state that immediately in justice to the hon. member. I assume that for the purpose of the argument, but to any man who reads the evidence, as I think the house will perceive as I proceed, the undertaking to refund was not made sufficiently clear. It is not sufficiently apparent, and it is impossible far any man of the world to read that evidence throughout, and not come to the conclusion that this gentleman, like all others in that locality, intended to avail himself of the custom prevailing to get work done by government employees without any refund. There is the evidence of Mr. Page that the sitting member declared that he would refund; ten times, says Mr. Page, during the summer, he offered to give me money and I refused, because I told him that the workmen might suppose that I intended to keep the money myself, and that it was better to wait till the end. When you have read the evidence through you cannot come to any other conclusion than that the sitting member, not realizing the exceptional position in which he was, intended to avail himself of a general popular privilege in the town of Sorel, a notorious privilege which is known to exist because it is a matter of public notoriety that a man who can exert sufficient influence may obtain materials and get work done without reimbursing anybody for them. But, I assume for the purpose of my argument that this refund was to be made. It is vouched for by the sitting member himself and by Mr. Page. I may say at once with regard to this man Page, and this observation is provoked by the question put a moment ago by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) who did not follow this inquiry, that his testimony is not worthy of confidence because at the beginning he started in to perpetrate an odious fraud upon the government.
I shall jiot follow my hon. friend (Mr. German) Tn his argument regarding the impossibility of having this work executed otherwise than by government employees. As a matter of fact there was only one witness produced, as my hon. friend says, a painter, a man of repute in the town of Sorel, who stated that he asked for the work, and that he was capable of executing it. It was not necessary to go further. Every man who has some experience knows that in the province of Quebec there is not a village where you cannot get painting done, and if the painting is of such a quality that it requires men of greater, skill you can get them in any large centre, in Sorel, or in Montreal which is only a few miles from Sorel. But, why insist upon this point? If the work was done illegally and irregularly, if the sitting member en-Mr. MONK.
tered into a contract that he had no right to enter into, it is no argument to say that he could not get workmen elsewhere. * If ho could not get the work done legally and legitimately he had to give it up; there was no other recourse for him. The circumstances do not authorize any illegality.
I repeat that I regret that we could not agree upon a report, but we have to deal with the facts as we find them without fear or favour since the question is before parliament to-day. The member seemed to think that he was in the same position as other people in the town of Sorel. I repeat that it is a matter of public notoriety in Quebec that these things are done daily in Sorel. You get material if you have sufficient pull, and you do not require much; you get cement, you get boards, paint, nails. Men have started stores from what they have obtained from the government workshops. The sitting member is supposed to know the law; he knows the disabilities that attach to a member of parliament. However, I will come to that in a moment. He occupies an exceptional position in the electoral division. He disposes of the patronage of the division. Unfortunately, under the baneful system which prevails in this country as to the exterior service, he disposes of the patronage, and we know that this regrettable system costs the country millions and millions of dollars a year in waste. Thai) is the result in our province at any rate. He knows that that is his position in the county and he should have thought of that when he undertook to deal with men who owed their nomination and maintenance to him in order to get this work executed. Could he possibly ignore the system which prevails in connection with public works at the government workshops in Sorel? My hon. friend (Mr. German) says that the sitting member did not know what Mr. Page and Mr. Champagne were doing in order to have this work executed. He could not ignore it, Sir, because it is not possible to believe that the sitting member did not know the system prevailing with regard to the distribution of work and material at the shipyards at Sorel. At the very outset the sitting member was informed by Page, the foreman to whom he went to get this work executed, that he would be glad to get the work done if the director of the works authorized him to do so. There, knowledge was given to him, if that knowledge was necessary, that nothing of that kind could possibly be done without the approval of Mr. Papineau. Starting with these data what were the methods resorted to in order to have this work executed? Let me point out in two words what the system prevailing at Sorel is. There is an army of employees of the

government under the control of foremen or clerks of works. By these foremen or clerks of works the men are placed upon different jobs. There is an official timekeeper who punches the work cards four times a day, at the time of starting and at the time of quitting. Reports are made by the foremen and the wages are charged up to the cost of the different government jobs in books kept for that purpose. The materials which are kept at the stores can only be obtained from the stores by requisitions from the foremen and by requisitions showing what these materials are wanted for.
There also records are kept; materials are measured, weighed, taken out of store and charged up, with the time of the men, to the different public works. Afterwards, pay-lists are made up from time to time. They are certified by the foreman and submitted to the director of works and the accountant. There are 600 or 700 employees at least. The director and the accountant certify the accounts, which are then sent up to Ottawa. A cheque is sent from Ottawa to the director, who deposits it. When the money is drawn the director hands it over to the paymaster on the pay-list and he distributes the money to the men. Now, you will not find in the books of the department at Sorel or in the records of the workmen's time or of the materials, one single jot or tittle having reference to this work on the Lanctot house-nothing whatever. Here were men working for the entire season, from June until November, and you will not find any trace whatever in the government records which will enable you to identify them with this Lanctot job. I speak from the evidence. How, then, is the trick done, how was the matter managed? If there was, as my hon. friend (Mr. German) stated a moment ago, an agreement fair and above board that this work was to be done, a strict account kept and afterwards the government to be reimbursed, it is all legal and legitimate if it was done in the way my hon. friend says. But what were the means resorted to, and why is it we can find no trace of this transaction in the books? It was done in this way: First, as to wages, a fraud was resorted to. The workmen were directed to have this work done by Mr. Page. Remember, I am giving facts as to which there is no controversy. Page and Champagne, both foremen, were the men who directed the workmen to this particular job, without any authority_ whatever. There was no order from the director of the works who alone had the right to give it. The men's time was punched on their cards by the time-keeper by agreement between the time-keeper, Page and Champagne. Their time was punched as workmen engaged on government work.
That is the important point. It was in that way that men who were supposed to be working on government jobs were working all the time for the private advantage of the sitting member; otherwise they could not have been paid upon the certified paylists as having been engaged on government work. The money was taken out of the public treasury, entered up in the books of the government against the various jobs. The whole thing was put through as being for material furnished and work done for government account. Therefore, I say, the government money was, in consequence of this, expended from June to November in payment of wages and material, and there was nothing in the record that could possibly raise a suspicion as to the real nature of the work done and destination of these materials.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any evidence to show to what particular work this was charged up in the books?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No; that is the peculiar point. Some of these pay-sheets are charged to job No. 169-I believe that is the number. But turn up 169 and it is not that at all. There is no difficulty on that point. These two foremen recognized that this work was done upon the supposition that it was being done for the government.
Now, as to material. These materials were sent by foreman Page to the Lanctot house. How could he get them with the system of record to which I have referred? The foremen send in requisitions for material for government work, and they always have a certain quantity of these materials. Page took these materials out of materials that he had obtained upon regular requisition approved of for government work, and sent them over. 'Consequently, these materials, at the time the requisitions were sent, were charged up to the different government jobs and not to any private undertaking. That is the way materials were obtained without creating any suspicion-it was by agreement arrived at between Page and Champagne, the time-keeper and the foreman. My hon. friend says there is no evidence that the sitting member was privy to this conspiracy-for that is what it was- to obtain these materials and get the work done. There is no evidence that I am aware of that the sitting member ever actually planned this system. But what I say is this, and we cannot ignore it, nor can the public ignore it-that the sitting member addressed himself to the foreman, assuming that he thought the foreman had authority for this work, though he could not do it without the permission of the director of work. Mr. Papineau was there continuously-perhaps he did not happen to be there on a Sunday or on the 28th of

May, but lie was there during the summer continuously. Mr. Lanctot was there, yet he never went to see Mr. Papineau. Is it conceivable that a member of parliament, under these circumstances and at such a juncture, should not have walked across the street to see the director of work and find out what was being done, if everything was regular and proper? And I would even say further that it is somewhat surprising that a man of affairs should go through an entire summer with this kind of mandate and never seek to find out at the head office, the place whence the direction emanated, what was being done, what expenditure was being incurred, how far his account had mounted up. An entire summer was spent, the whole building was finished, and not an inquiry. I say it is impossible, under these circumstances, to entirely exonerate the sitting member from responsibility in regard to these men. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) asked if these men had been dismissed. I will say a word from my personal acquaintance with Mr. Papineau, the director of works. Mr. Papineau is an absolutely honest man. It is utterly impossible for him to cause a cessation of the abuses that exist there if he is not vested with authority, and he is not vested with authority. A proof of the reputation he enjoys is the fact that this work was put through, and the whole summer was spent, and he never heard of it. He asks Mr. Papineau:	Would you
authorize such a thing as this? Well, he said, it would have to be a pressing case, I suppose a case of a fire, or something of that kind, [DOT] because otherwise I could not authorize it at all. But he was kept in ignorance the entire summer.
Now, as to the Tefund-I do not wish to diminish the importance of the refund. What are the facts? We are men, we know how these things happen. The summer had not yet passed, before this matter of the construction of Mr. Lanctot's house was public property in Sorel and Montreal, a matter of public notoriety. Affidavits were prepared. There were outside people-I had the visit myself of one of these men, who told me long before parliament assembled, at any Tate long before the matter came up, that he hoped the matter would be brought up, and he was a good Conservative. But there is no doubt that a question of this kind, even if we exonerate Mr. Lanctot from any evil intention, is one that arises above party, and we must be careful about consecrating the principle that parliament sanctions doings of that kind. Well, when it became a matter of public discussion in the town of Sorel, Mr. Page prepared an account. Mr. Page, while he was defrauding the government, using materials which he held Mr. MONK.
in trust, for certain private parties, and while he was countenancing the payment of men for government work who were employed on this private work, informs us that he kept a private memorandum of the time of the men. This was kept on loose leaves. I do not know that my understanding of the evidence exactly coincides with that of my hon. friend. My recollection is that this memorandum was kept on loose leaves, and slipped into a corner of the drawer in the evening; and at the end, a general memorandum was made up from them in a little book which was produced before the committee. I may be wrong as to that, but the memorandum kept was private, and from these leaves was prepared the statement of $375.60, which, on the 22nd of November, was sent up here. Parliament was sitting, and the sitting member sent a cheque down for the labour only, on the 22nd of November, for $375.60. That cheque was finally paid on the 12th of January following, and upon inquiry from the department, as before stated, the deputy minister wrote that he required a statement to place it in the hands of the Auditor General, so that the Auditor General might know what the object of this refund was. The sitting member went down to Sorel-and this is important, these circumstances are not trifling-he met Mr. Papineau on the street and told him, ' there are the materials, I will replace the materials out of my own pocket.' And in fact Mr. Papineau, having found out that those materials had been substracted from the government stores in the manner I have indicated, immediately got a statement as to the materials from Mr. Page, or Mr. Champagne, from this private memorandum, and gave an order, had the materials replaced, and paid them himself out of his own pocket, and then on the street reminded Mr. Lanctot that this bill was still unsettled, and Mr. Lanctot refunded the director of the works.
Those are the facts with regard to which I think there is no possibility of doubt, and no controversy. $375.60 for labour, $81.60 for the material. I think I can say, without really wishing to make any pleasantry in a matter so serious, that I never, in my own experience, heard of a house of that kind being painted inside and outside at so very low a rate. I do not wish to make that an issue, because I think the matter is far more important. But I think the affidavits mention $700 or $1,000, or $1,200 and that is what it would have cost most of us ordinary mortals to get that work done. In the meantime, affidavits had been made. I wish to sav this as regards the hon. member for Champlain that the matter was public property.

Under the terms of those affidavits which charged theft and robbery-the latter word was somewhat peculiar-but charged theft, what was the duty of my hon. friend? Those who sit on this side of the House in opposition know what these affidavits stated. The duty of the opposition under those circumstances was to lay those facts before parliament, and when those facts were laid before parliament, parliament ordered an inquiry. It seems to ime that the evidence adduced certainly brings to the knowledge of the House a most deplorable state of affairs. It is not a question of whether the sitting member wanted to defraud the government. There was fraud, there was conspiracy on the part of those foremen; undoubtedly they obtained these materials /and this Jabour in /an illegal manner. But if he was not a party, by his conduct and his silence, to that fraud, then we come to the interpretation of my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) that he made an agreement which he carried out. Could he make that agreement? Had he the right, under the Independence of Parliament Act, to make such an agreement? Let me quote to the House the sections bearing on that point from chapter 10 of the Senate and House of Commons Act:
14.	No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement, expressed or implied, with or for the government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers of the government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is to be paid, shall be eligible as a member of the House of Commons, or shall sit or vote in the said House.
15.	If any member of the House of Commons accepts any office or commission, or is concerned or interested in any contract, agreement, service or work which, by this Act, renders a person incapable of being elected to, or of sitting or voting in the House of Commons, or knowingly sells any goods, wares or merchandise to, or performs any service for the government of Canada, or for any of the officers of the government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is paid or to be paid, whether such contract, agreement or sale is expressed or implied, and whether the transaction is single or - continuous, the seat of such .member shall thereby be vacated, and his election shall thenceforth be null and void.
To my mind it seems beyond doubt that, even accepting the interpretation of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), the sitting member for Richelieu made an agreement with the government as to the completion of his house for which public money of Canada was to be expended and was expended. These are the words of the statute. To leave that out, what are we
asked to do by the motion of my hon. friend? To declare that the whole transaction was regular as far as the sitting member was concerned, is to be countenanced and is to be commended. Is there not, beyond the words of this statute, a tendency by cases of this kind, to weaken and impair the independence of parliament? When I heard doubt expressed as to the applicability of these sections of the Act I stated that I had an open mind, but no doubt whatever on the second point, that if parliament sanctions such proceedings as these, we are undoing the work of centuries in establishing the independence of parliament, we place a member in absolute dependence. He, by getting work done by a department of the government, places himself in a position of absolute control .and subserviency to this department. He loses, in other words, his independence, there is no doubt whatever about that. It seems to me that very far from commending and approving this conduct, we should, at any rate, in adopting this report, point out that this conduct is fraught with extreme danger and is a menace to the independence of parliament.
I have referred to Mr. Papineau. I say, on my responsibility as a member of this House, it is not necessary to produce affidavits of that, that the condition of affairs in Sorel is an eyesore in our province, it is a public scandal, it is notorious. How is that with such a director? Can the question be asked? In the first place he has been there for only a limited time, but what do we now see? We see these four men come up boldly and tell us the system under which they had been able to execute these works. A man employing men who had his confidence under these circumstances would not hesitate for a moment, he would dismiss them. They have forfeited the trust, they have betrayed the confidence placed in them and so they were justifying themselves before the director of the works and in the presence of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It is his own incompetency that is at fault. They should not have been allowed to leave the committee room if my hon. friend had time to satisfy himself on that point without his satisfying himself then and there, and dismissing them. Are we going to be told that with that state of affairs enduring for years, it would be impossible for a competent minister, acting for the people, supported by this House, to put a stop to that state of affairs within ten days? I say on the same responsibility that there should be a general inquiry. What is there to fear? If I am right in saying that this is a matter of public notoriety, the minister should have an inquiry, the government should grant one, and if there is an inquiry hon.

members of this House 'will see that this is not an isolated case, it is a small case, in reality, as far as the amount is concerned, but that system is general in the shipyards at Sorel. It is a general system, but it is time that it should stop and we certainly will not be stopping it by commending the sitting member for the district for his actions in this case. I, therefore, beg to move:
That the said report be not adopted but that this House adopt, in lieu thereof, the draft report suggested by the minority of said Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, as the same appears of record on the minutes of said committee marked ' B.'


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: parliament itself. It is the body which constitutes the courts, and we here, as members of this House of Commons, at any rate in dealing with this matter, are members of a court with the like responsibility resting upon each one of us as rests upon a judge himself in adjudicating upon the rights of a fellow man. If we look at this case from that standpoint, if we remember that it is something which ought to be decided, not upon appeals to political partisanship, but upon the evidence which has been given by the witnesses, and upon exactly the same principles as would govern us without doubt if we were sitting as jurymen upon the trial of a charge such as this, I venture to think, Sir, that there will be little hesitation in coming to a conclusion with regard to it.
I do not intend to discuss the details of the evidence. That has been done very fully, and I would think very satisfactorily, by the chairman of the committee, than whom no other member was in a better position to have discharged that duty. But I want to point out just one thing in that connection. The great majority of us who have now to pass upon this question have not heard the evidence, have not seen the witnesses who gave that evidence, are not in as good a position as our fellow members who constitute that committee were in, to come to a correct conclusion upon the question of what witness or what statement ought to be believed. If there is a contradiction between one witness and another, it is the function of the judge who hears and sees those witnesses, or of jurymen, if there be a jury, to come to a conclusion which man is, in their opinion, the more likely to be telling the truth, to weigh the evidence, and to draw, in the first instance at any rate, the deductions of fact. No judge, no human being, could be, from the nature of the circumstances, in as good a position to do that work as the men who hear the witnesses and who see the way in which they answer, and who judge as the words fall from the lips of the witnesses which of them is telling the truth. I seek to apply that in this case, only to this extent, that if there is a contradiction between one man and another man, if it is a question of which man is the better entitled of two witnesses to be credited, then we ought to rely upon the conclusions of the committee of our own members who heard and saw those men, and who have reported to us in that respect. But fortunately in this case I think there is less than the amount of contradiction between one witness and another that generally,
I am sorry to say, is seen in contested cases in our courts. The facts in this matter are really not open to dispute with regard to the main, and I think all (he necessary points in reference to this Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.
charge. There is no difference of statement among the witnesses who have been called. There is no question but that this work was done on the house of Mr. Lanc-tot by men who were in the general employment of the government; there is no question but that government supplies were used to a greater or less extent in the doing of that work; there is equally no doubt that that work was paid for by Mr, Lanctot, that those supplies which were used in the doing of the work were replaced at his cost, and that there is no loss in respect to them to the people of this country.
The transaction with regard to the supplies is plainly no transaction of purchase on Mr. Lanctot's part. No one can pretend to say that it is; no one does pretend to say that it is. The agreement between him and the government employees with whom he discussed the matter is perfectly distinct-that government supplies should be used for the doing of Mr. Lanctot's work, that an account should be kept of how much of such supplies were so used, and that goods of equal quantity and of equal quality should be supplied at Mr. Lanctot's expense to replace the goods so used. The chairman of the committee, in speaking of the transaction used the word 'lend.' I think it was not an inappropriate word. These goods were lent to Mr. Lanctot to be returned, not in specie, but in kind, exactly the same kind of transaction that often takes place between individuals, in which goods are handed over by the owner to another with the intention that they shall be consumed and that they shall be replaced by goods of equal value and equal quality as the goods which are given by the owner to the man whom he has accommodated and which are consumed. That was literally the transaction here. The evidence is not in dispute, the evidence is distinct that the man who was custodian of these goods in the government service set apart a certain quantity, which he measured and weighed as being sufficient to do the work which was in hand, that some- the greater part, but not all of these goods- were sent to Mr. Lanctot's house and were used in the doing of the work, and that after the work was done that quantity of goods, equal in amount and equal in quality, was supplied at the expense of Mr. Lanctot to replace the goods which had been taken. Now, in that respect, it is impossible for any one to argue that there has been any loss to the public. On the contrary, this evidence is quite distinct that in point of fact a slightly greater quantity of goods was obtained at Mr. Lanctot's expense than had been sent to his house. But whether there was a greater quantity or not, there was no sale, there is no pretense

that there was any arrangement for a sale of these goods to Mr. Lanctot by any one on behalf of the government, and it would not have made the slightest difference if there had been. It would not have been the slightest infraction of either the spirit or the letter of our Independence of Parliament Act.
Now, with regard to the work, very much the same condition of things exists. The arrangement which was made was distinct that the men who did the work were to be paid, at Mr. Lanctot's cost the exact rate of wages they were receiving when in the government service; in other words, if a man worked one particular day at Mr. Lanctot's houtse, the wages of that day were to be paid by Mr. Lanctot. Mr. Lanctot evidently thought that he was expected to pay as the work proceeded. He said that he was perfectly willing to do so. He asked for an account oveT and over again, not only he, but also the government official states. It was more convenient to the official that he should not be rendering an account periodically. As the chairman of the committee explained, he said that he was afraid that if he took money from Mr. Lanctot he would be told by some of the workmen that he had, in fact, received more money than he was giving to them, and not wanting to put himself in that position, he kept his account in the matter until the whole thing was over, and then that account was rendered. I ask your attention, as bearing on the question of whether there was evil mind in this matter, to the circumstances of the way in which that account is made out. That account was sent to Mr. Lanctot by post on the 21st November last, and it is an account charging Mr. Lanctot with a certain amount of money in Tespect to these services as being due to the Marine and Fisheries of Canada: ' A. Lanctot, Esq., Dr. to Marine and Fisheries, Canada, Post office address, Sorel. On the face of the document it is presented as a government account. How does Mr. Lanctot deal with it? He pays it within twenty-four hours, and in what shape? He pays it by his cheque and he makes the cheque payable to 'Department of Marine, or Order.' Well, if this were a charge in an election trial I think every counsel in the court would be somewhat astonished to find a charge of corrupt practices or of the improper use of money for election purposes supported by evidence of the payment of that money by cheque, and the payee named in the cheque one of the public departments of the government of Canada. I think I may appeal to the experience of hon. gentlemen in that regard, whether or not they are members of the legal profession; I ask any man of ordinary acquaintance with business affairs whether or not it is the mark of fraud that a man pays his debt by cheque upon his 250
bank account, thus preserving the evidence for any one who chooses to search the manner in which that payment has been made. That circumstance is one which is entitled to have, at the hands of any one considering what conclusion ought to be reached in this case, its due and proper weight. I present it to the House simply as one of the circumstances in this matter, and I say, without delaying to labour the details of the evidence, what the chairman of the committee has said, that I have read this evidence with all the care in my power and I cannot see any question of any importance in it which has not been truthfully and correctly summed up in the report of the committee, the adoption of which has been moved by the chairman. Those are the undisputed facts of this case. You may insinuate what you please, you may make political charges as much as you care to, but you cannot change the sworn facts in this case, and these facts are truthfully and correctly summed up in the report which has been presented to this House.
I say no more about the facts in this case, except to repeat what I said a little while ago, that I am not discussing the case at the present time from the standpoint of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or from that of the conduct of the men in charge of that branch of the department which is established at Sorel. I submit respectfully to you, Sir, that to do that on this occasion is simply beclouding the issue, and is seeking to whip, over the shoulders of a member of this House, the government which he supports, and to treat this question as one of party politics rather than that which it truly is-a question of the right of this man to retain his position, and his seat among us. Upon that question I have no more to say in so far as the facts of the case are concerned. Mr. Lanctot paid the bill which was rendered to him, he paid it promptly, and he paid it openly. If that bill was less than it ought to have been, unless you show some collusion on Mr. Lanctot's part with the man who made out that bill, Mr. Lanctot is not to be condemned in the premises. Condemn the men who did wrong, if they have done wrong, but on this occasion I am not discussing their conduct. I say the question here is simply, whether or not we shall adopt the report of the committee. That committee has dealt only with the charges so far as Mr. Lanctot is concerned. If it had been an investigation of the department, or of the conduct of the officials of the department, it is very likely, to say the least of it, that a good deal more evidence would have been given than has been given, and very different considerations would have arisen. Upon the question which was referred to them, it was enough for them to say that, at any rate, whatever opinion



7907
may be entertained by bon. gentlemen- depending upon their political sympathies -of 'the behaviour of the employees of the government, Mr. Lanctot has been clearly shown to have been guilty of no wrong.
Now, Sir, just one word-and I shall be very brief about it-in regard to the conclusions of law which are sought to be applied to this matter. In the report which was proposed before the committee by the minority members of the special committee appointed to draft a report, there are conclusions at the end which speak of the law, and which seem to be based upon a view of the law entertained by the hon. gentlemen who have joined in making that report. Under the heading 'Conclusions, these words appear:
It is our conclusion from the evidence that Mr. Adelard Lanctot, a member of the House of Commons, knowingly and unlawfully did procure the employees of the government of Canada to do certain work for him and on his behalf in the year 1910, he then being a member of the said House, and by collusion with the servants of the government did procure the payment of such labour by and out of the public -moneys of the Dominion of Canada -for his own purposes and benefit, without lawful right and contrary to the public interest.
That he did furthermore, knowingly and unlawfully, cause and procure certain materials, the 'property of the government of Canada to be delivered to himself for his own benefit and use, he then being a member of the House of Commons, and with such intent and purpose did collude and contrive with the servants of the Dominion of Canada to whom the said materials had been entrusted for use in the works of said government to so deliver the same to him by unlawful misappropriation, contrary to their duty and obligation to the government and contrary to law and the public interest.
And further it is our conclusion that the said Adelard Lanctot, by the acts and proceedings aforesaid, did infringe the independence of parliament.



S. BARKER, F. D. MONK.

[Stage Direction]
I suppose that the meaning of the conclusion that, by his acts the said Adelard Lanctot ' did infringe the independence of parliament ' is that he did thereby infringe the Independence of Parliament Act. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) shakes his head. I certainly would have been, but for that circumstance, at a losis to understand that a distinction was supposed to exist, between the infraction of the Independence of Parliament Act and the infraction of the independence of parliament. I suppose there is, in the mind of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk), if it is his hand which penned these words, some beautiful general idea of the spirit of the statute, some misty idea that something which is not struck at the statute and not made an unlawful thing, is to be considered Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.
as an infraction of the intention of parliament; that parliament had some other meaning in adopting this statute than that which is conveyed by the words which parliament used, and that that meaning is to be interpreted in the light of the political interests of the gentlemen who read it. Our independence of parliament is secured by the Independence of Parliament Act. The sections which constitute the Independence of Parliament Act are to be found in our statute relating to the Senate and the House of Commons, and they appear under these very words: ' Independence of Parliament.' And how, in view of that circumstance, any lawyer can seek to draw a distinction between the meaning of the expression ' Infraction of the Independence of Parliament,' and the meaning of the expression ' Infraction of the Independence of Parliament Act ' I leave to hon. gentlemen who entertain such ideas to attempt to explain. The independence of parliament is secured by these few sections, ten in number, of that particular statute, and the provisions of these sections are simply that any man who enters into or has a certain kind of contract with the Crown or public of Canada is ineligible to a -seat in this House. It is not every kind of contract which is prohibited; it is not an interest in every kind of contract which would prevent a man holding a seat in this House. There is, in the most distinct way, an express limitation and description of the only kind of contract which is struck at by this legislation or which parliament has seen fit to forbid to its members. That one particular kind of contract which alone is mentioned in this legislation is such a contract as involves the payment to the contractor of any public money of Canada. There is no prohibition whatever upon a man entering into a contract by which he is obliged to pay to the public moneys of Canada. The prohibition is only upon the reverse kind of contract, a contract under which he receives, not a contract under which he pays. The language of the principal section is perfectly clear on the subject, and the language of every other section of the ten I have referred to implies the same thing. The section which is the key to the whole group, and, which is absolutely distinct on the subject, is worded in this Way:
No person directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement, expressed or implied, with or for the government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers of. the government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada it to be paid, shall be eligible as a member of the

House of Commons, or shall sit or vote in the said House.
Now I ask how that would have been interpreted if these highly important words \ for which any public money of Canada is to he paid ' had not been present? Would there have been any question then but that any man interested, directly or indirectly, in any kind of contract at all with the government of Canada, was rendered thereby ineligible to hold a seat in this House? There could be none. But parliament deliberately refrained from enacting such a law, parliament deliberately said: It is not our intention to prohibit every kind of contract between the public and members of this House, it is only that kind of a contract for which the public money of Canada is to be paid that is a contract which will prevent a man holding a seat in this House. It would have been very simple to omit those words. Indeed, if it had been the intention to prevent an interest in every kind of contract whatsoever, it would have been very easy so to enact. An example of it was before the men who drafted this statute. In the Ontario Municipal Act there is exactly the wholesale kind of prohibition I refer to. Under the Ontario Municipal Act no man is eligible to a seat in a municipal council if he owes money which stands unpaid to the municipality ; even though there be no express contract between him and the municipality, the mere fact that he owes the debt implies in the law an obligation of a contractual nature resting upon him to pay that debt. The mere fact that a man might be owing to the municipality an unpaid debt, under the Ontario Municipal Act would disqualify him from membership in the municipal council. This parliament never meant to go that length, this parliament refrained from going that length; this parliament at any rate did not prohibit a member of this House from purchasing public stores or goods of Canada if it was decided to sell them. If there were an unused dredge belonging to the Department of Public Works which was being put up for sale by auction, there is nothing whatever to prohibit a member of parliament from purchasing that article, and if he purchased it, from paying for it, as would be his obligation, to the Receiver General of Canada. And just as Mr. Lanctot paid his debt in this case by his cheque to the department, and as his moneys have gone to the credit of the receiver general, so a member of parliament purchasing any goods which might be placed upon sale if there was no longer use for them by the government of this country, would pay his purchase money into the treasury of Canada, and in paying his debt he would in no respect infringe 2501
the statute governing the independence of parliament.
Now that it was the deliberate intention of parliament to prohibit only the transactions under which the contractor receives money or is to receive money from the public treasury, is not only the distinct language of the law which I have read, but it is the distinct inference from every other one of those sections of the statute. I suppose every hon. gentleman is alive to the fact that if he accepts any office of emolument under the Crown, he thereby vacates, his seat. That is provided for by the first one of this group of sections. But notice, it is the receipt of the money or the entering into the relationship which involves the payment of money by the government to the individual, which disqualifies him. If the office, in other words, is one which has no salary attached to it, there is no vacating of the seat, by express language of the enactment. The following section of this statute provides that unless that office is one which involves the payment of money to the holder of the office, there is nothing inconsistent in his being an office holder and a member of this House at the same time; and his acceptance of the office, provided there is no money to come from the public treasury to the individual, has no effect whatever upon his right to sit in this House. That is the express language of the enactment, and the wording of every clause in this group of ten sections which constitutes our Independence of Parliament Act. The views which I present certainly seem to me the clear meaning of the law in this Tegard, which is that any man who owes a debt to the government of Canada is entitled to pay that debt, and must pay that debt, notwithstanding the fact that he is a member of this House. If, on the other hand, any debt is owing from the government of Canada out of the public moneys of this country to an individual, he cannot take payment of that debt, (although it is his own money) as long as he remains a member of this House. If he is interested in any contract which involves payment to him out of the public moneys of this country, or any money the property of the Crown in Canada, that circumstance avoids hie seat in this House. But otherwise a contract such as this is one which any member of parliament in so far as its legal effect is concerned, can enter into with perfect impunity.
For that reason I must admit that I read the conclusions of this minority report with considerable astonishment. I am quite prepared to concede to every gentleman, whether he is a legal practitioner or not, his right to his view of the law just as I have a right to my view. I do not criticise in the least degree the use of the word
[Stage Direction]
* unlawfully ' in the different branches of these conclusions to the minority report, if the hon. gentlemen who have signed that report thought themselves justified in using that word. I have tried to point out why, to my mindi as a lawyer, it is perfectly clear, if any question of law can be clear, that there was nothing whatever unlawful about it. I should ibe certainly, as an advising .solicitor, unable to give a client any other advice, if he were to be sued_, under the provisions of the sections of the statute to which I have been referring, for the penalties that he would incur by sitting in this House if disqualified -I could not give him any other advice, I say, than that I have indicated, that he was perfectly free of any danger of the success of such an action in circumstances such as existed here. I am discussing it, in that view of the matter, purely and entirely from the dry legal standpoint; I am sure I am not misunderstood in that regard. I said at the outset that these facts might be viewed either from that standpoint, or as evidence of facts from which some one or other might, according to his political temperament, infer that there had been dishonest conduct, fraudulent conduct, if you like, on the part of the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Lanctot), but dealing with it from the standpoint solely of the legal responsibility, it seems to me the law is too clear to admit of two opinions.
One other thing I wish to say with reference to this conclusion of the minority report which we are now asked to adopt. I was astonished when I read these conclusions and saw affixed to them the name of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). He bears a name in this country of distinguished and honoured parentage. I had thought him a man of judicial temperament and a man who, however, strong his political feeling might be, would not put his name to a paper which suppressed the all important feature in this case, the feature which existed, to his knowledge as a member of the committee who heard the evidence, and which makes all the difference between the tauth and that half truth which is wholly a lie. In this report I find these two hon. gentlemen stating as their conclusion, to this House, that Mr. Adelard Lanctot did unlawfully, &c., procure the payment of such labour by and out of the public moneys of the Dominion of Canada for his own purpose and benefit; and leaving the matter at that and making no mention of the fact that every cent of the public money of Canada which had been used in the payment for this labour had been repaid and replaced by Mr. Lanctot, so that the Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.
treasury of this country did not lose one cent by the transaction.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight, o'clock.
Mr. C. J. DOHERTY (St. Anne, Montreal).: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that we were all most edified by the homily with which the Minister of Justice premised his most eloquent address of this afternoon. I am not quite certain that that homily was exceedingly necessary. It would perhaps not be unfair to suggest 'that the address that followed on it was rather of a nature to make one feel that the orator, as he rose, felt that he himself needed to be reminded of those very sound principles which he laid down as those which, should be our guides in dealing with this question. In my very humble Wiay, Mr. Speaker, I purpose trying to put into practice the doctrine which he so lucidly and so clearly and so forcibly set forth with regard to the frame of mind in which this House should approach the consideration of the question that is before us. I purpose doing that even though in the doing of it I shall find myself compelled to absolutely refrain from following -the example which the Minister of Justice set us with regard to the manner in which this question should be approached and judged, I rise with as high a realizing sense as any man could have, of the gravity of the duty that lies this evening upon the conscience of each and every one of us. I have no protestations to make with regard to my partisanship or absence of partisanship- protestations are something that I am not very fond of, and they do not carry much weight. I am willing to let my conduct speak, and to stand or fall by the testimony that that conduct may afford as to whether I be or be not a partisan. I must however, do the justice to the Minister of Justice of saying, that to a very great extent indeed he did follow his own advice that we should not make campaign speeches. He was not able to preserve quite to the end, however-and I believe it is to those who persevere unto the end that the crown is to be given-but he made a very successful effort for a considerable part of the time to avoid making a campaign speech. He made a speech, however, the tone of which is much more familiar to my ears than that of a campaign speech; he treated us with that eloquence (which characterizes him to the typical speech (of course done in its most perfect method), but after all to the typical speech of the counsel before a criminal court who stands

making the defence of a man about whose case the least that is said the better. The Minister of Justice was eloquent on the character of his client. Now, I have no desire to say one word that would Teflect on the character of the hon. member for Richelieu, save in so far as what I feel it my duty to say with regard to this particular charge may necessarily reflect upon his character. I am willing to assume, and I do so with pleasure, that we are approaching the consideration of the question, of whether, this gentleman hitherto enjoying an irreproachable character, is or is not guilty of the offence that is laid to his charge. The hon. the Minister of Justice was also eloquent on the penalty that might ensue if this House should decide that the hon. member for Richelieu was guilty of the charges brought against him. Hon. members who have had occasion to he present at criminal trials will have observed the pathetic tones with which counsel representing men whose offence carries capital punishment are apt to get far away from the question of the offence and to keep vividly before the eyes and the ears of the jurors the penalty that will follow if they find the accused guilty. That we had done this afternoon and done to perfection by the Minister of Justice. We were told that the question was whether the hon. member for Richelieu should be expelled from this *House, and yet, Mr. Speaker, you hold in your hand the motion and the amendment to that motion, and is theTe one word of suggestion in either motion or amendment as to the infliction of a penalty upon the hon. member for Richelieu. Before you proceed to inflict a penalty you have to *deal with the question of fact, and the question of fact is the whole question that we have before us for decision; the question whether as a matter of fact the hon. member for Richelieu is guilty of the offence charged against him, or, possibly as suggested by the hon. member for Welland in moving the motion, of some lesser offence that might be included in that charge that was made. That is the question we have before us. We have besides that, the question whether the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) has merited the censure that was passed upon him in the report of the majority of the committee. Those are the questions that we are called upon to determine; those are the questions that it is our duty to approach in that judicial frame of mind which the Minister of Justice so highly commended to us. And, we would be making just as grave a mistake if we allowed our judgment on those two questions to be swayed by the fact that the consequence of the finding in one way might be very grave for the hon. member for Richelieu, as we would be if we allowed ourselves in reaching a conclusion to forget that it is not only the hon. member for Richelie i who is gravely interested in the decisio: >
of this parliament, but that this parliament itself is gravely interested in the decision that it is .going to render. We are called upon in this decision to set before the people of Canada what the standard is that parliament thinks should be fixed for worthiness or unworthiness to form part of itself. That is a matter of no little importance. It is important to this whole country that the people of this country should be taught that the standard of morality, the standard of honour, of their representatives, if not of the very highest which I would like to see it set at, is at all events one which doe's not fall below the average standard of the people of this- country.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I address myself directly to the consideration of the questions that we are called upon to consider and decide. We have before us two reports from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, one of which tells us in substance that the conduct of the hon. member for Richelieu, as revealed in the evidence laid jsefore that committee, is above reproach-not only that, but that he was so stainless, that his conduct was so far above suspicion, that the belief, the acknowledged honest, sincere belief, of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin), that the hon. member for Richelieu is guilty or rather his action based on that belief is deserving of the condemnation of this House. We have, on the other hand, a minority report that finds in substance that the hon. member for Richelieu has been guilty of unlawfully procuring for himself the services of workmen paid with the moneys of the people of Canada and goods belonging to the people of Canada, that that work and those goods have been appropriated to his own uses, and that he obtained them by unlawfully combining or co-operating with employees of the government of Canada to place at his disposal that work and hand over to him those goods; and we have the further finding that, in the judgment of the minority of the committee, this conduct on the part of. the hon. member for Richelieu infringed the independence of parliament. So far, on the part of the two hon. members who have spoken in support of the report of the majority, it has appeared that they considered that the question that we have to decide, the great important question, was not how the member for Richelieu got that work done for him or how he got hold of those goods, but whether he paid for them or not. I think that very fairly results from what I consider, if I may be permitted to say so, the very moderate, and from his point of view very fair, laying before this House of the questions involved, by the hon. member for

Welland (Mr. German). It certainly appears absolutely clear from the speech of the right hon. Minister of Justice, who, in addition to the high character of the hon. member for Richelieu, dwelt upon the fact that his conduct, since this charge was made, has been such as to bring home to the mind of every fair man conviction of his innocence. And what was the particular act that he held up to us as showing that conclusively? Why, Mr. Speaker, he said that the hon. member for Richelieu, when he paid for these goods, paid for them with his own cheque to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. He made this payment in the manner that would make it the most public thing possible, that would make it absolutely susceptible of such conclusive proof that he that ran might read and be convinced. If the hon. member for Richelieu had felt that there was anything guilty in this payment, would he, the Minister of Justice asked, have made it in that way? The hon. minister was very eloquent on that point. But he completely forgot that the payment was not the thing with which the member for Richelieu was charged. The payment is the entire defence of the hon. member for Richelieu, and, the payment being his entire defence, wonderful to relate, and as conclusive proof of his spotless innocence, he took the trouble to provide himself with conclusive proof of his entire defence. Who can be so partisan as to think him guilty after that? I say that hon. gentlemen on the other side have treated this matter as though the question were whether the hon. member for Richelieu paid or did not pay. The hon. member for Welland seemed to consider that he having paid, that ended the matter, and there was no further ground of complaint. I am not clear what the view of the hon. Minister of Justice was of the nature of the act of payment, because he seemed to consider it something wonderful that that act should have been publicly performed ; but I take it that it was in that fact that he found the proof of innocence. Now, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. member for Richelieu paid in the end or did not pay, I submit, is not material to the substantial question which we have to decide. If we were dealing with the question of what penalty ought to be meted out to the hon. member for Richelieu, I am not prepared to say that this payment, made just as it was, might not avail as a mitigating circumstance; but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does any one doubt that there are numbers of thieves in the penitentiary to-day who would gladly have paid what they had stolen if thereby they could have avoided the penalty? Both of these hon. gentlemen who spoke are lawyers, and distinguished lawyers, lawyers of the very highest eminence; and yet they stand before this House, apparently expecting us * Mr. DOHERTY.
to accept their proposition, that it is of no consequence how the hon. member for Richelieu got the goods or got the work, provided only he paid for them. I wonder if these distinguished lawyers have heard of such a thing as compounding a felony. I wonder if they know that the victim of a theft who accepts restitution of the goods and undertakes not to prosecute the offender is guilty of an offence himself. And yet, if the charges brought against the hon. member for Richelieu, in regard to the manner in which he got the goods of this country, are true, then this House is being asked on his behalf to compound a felony because he paid. That is the position purely and simply. I am not saying at this stage whether the hon. member for Richelieu is guilty of these charges, but all I want to point out is that what is offered as a defence is absolutely no defence and has absolutely no bearing upon the question of his guilt so far as it is made to rest upon the proposition that he paid for these goods. The question is: Did he lawfully get these goods? If he got them unlawfully it did not become lawful because he paid for them afterwards. If he got them unlawfully it did not become lawful because he meant to pay for them later.


An hon. MEMBER.: When he was found
out.


Charles Joseph Doherty: An hon. gentleman says ' when he was found out.'


Mr. TALBOT.: That is a good Tory remark.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is a pleasure to hear the hon. gentleman, once in a while, approve of a Tory remark. But I was saying that even if it were true that when the hon. member for Richelieu got these goods he meant to pay for them, if he got them unlawfully, he is just as guilty as if he had not meant to. How many bank clerks, how many men in positions of trust, are in the penitentiary to-day expiating the offence of having embezzled the funds of their employers, who, nevertheless, when they took that money, honestly, sincerely and earnestly intended to pay and believed that they would pay?
Mr. Speaker, the question is not what was in the mind of the hon. member for Richelieu as to what he was going to do in the future when he got these goods; the question is not as to what he and these employees of the government from whom he got them, had in their minds as to wjiat was going to be done in the future when they handed him over these goods; the question is whether, when these employees delivered over to him these goods and undertook to pay out the moneys of this coun-trv to the workmen of the hon. member

for Richelieu, they had the right to do it, and whether the hon. member for Richelieu, when he took those goods from those men and when he took the benefit of that work and allowed the government of Canada to be called upon to pay for it, had a right to do it. It is on that point that I want for one moment to refer to one statement in the evidence because I think that the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) when he stated the evidence upon this subject-and I do not question but that he did it in perfect good faith-misapprehended the effect absolutely of the statement of these accused men themselves as to what was in their minds and what they said to each other at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Welland and, if I am not mistaken, the hon. Minister of Justice, speak of Page as an absolutely disinterested man, as some one entirely unaffected by the result of these charges. I was surprised at this, or rather I was not surprised because there are some things that the necessities of the case exact from a counsel. I recognize the familiar devices of a counsel to get around a difficulty and the Minister of Justice finds that he must absolutely separate the hon. member for Richelieu from the employees of this department. If I understand him aright his reasoning is: Well, perhaps the employees of the department stole those goods that they gave to Mr. Lanctot, but that has nothing to do with Mr. Lanctot, nothing in the world to do with him. Innocent Mr. Lanctot; guilty Mr. Page; guilty Mr. Champagne! Guilty of what?-giving the country's goods to Mr. Lanctot and paying the country's money to Mr. Lanctot's workmen. They may be guilty, the Minister of Justice says, and the Department of Marine may have many things to answer for, many wrong things may have been done, but, oh, turn your eyes away from the immaculate hon. member for Richelieu because he is not affected in the slightest!
Now, my proposition-and I think it is clearly demonstrated by the undisputed facts of this matter-is that if Mr. Page and Mr. Champagne misappropriated the goods and property of this country and handed them over to the hon. member for Richelieu he is an absolute and equal sharer in their guilt, and if they paid out the moneys of Canada to his workmen to paint his house he is as guilty as they of the commission of the offence. Inasmuch as we seem to live in an atmosphere where it seems to be considered that when you are dealing with the property and moneys of the people of this country, the ordinary words of the English language have no application, I would like to get down to the very simplest form of expression as to
what, it seems to me, the uncontradicted evidence here, show to have been the nature of the act of Mr. Champagne and Mr. Page. As applied to government property and government money, at all events in the Department of Marine, the operation is described as ' borrowing.' In the ordinary parlance of this country and in the language of the criminal code it is called ' theft.' For the information of the eminent lawyers who consider that the whole question is whether this cheque was paid, I would like to read the definition of ' theft ':
Theft or stealing is the act of fraudulently and without colour of right taking or fraudulently and without colour of right converting to the use of any person

You will notice there is no exception for members of parliament.
-anything capable of being stolen

Notice again absolutely no exception for things that belong to the people of Canada.
-with intent to deprive the owner or any person having any special property or interest therein temporarily or absolutely of such thing or of such property or interest.
On the undisputed facts, what did Page do when he gave that paint? What did Champagne do when he undertook, and when he did, by false pretenses, by falsehood, get the money of the people of Canada from the department here and pay it over to Lanctot's workmen? If Mr. Pagd did not convert that paint, which, so far as I know, is an object capable of being stolen, to the use of a person, which I understand the hon. member for Richelieu to he, I am at a loss to know what he did. And if he did not do that fraudulently and without colour of right, then, I would ask some of the defenders of this act who may follow me, to tell me just how he did do it. Page and Champagne were two servants of the people of Canada. Page had in his possession these things, the property of the people^ of Canada. He had them entrusted to him- he says so himself, and it would be impossible to deny it-for use in the works of the people of Canada. And what did he do with them, he gave them to Mr. Lanctot for use in Mr. Lanctot's house. And when he gave them to Mr. Lanctot he effectively and for all time, deprived the people of Canada of the ownership of those goods. But hon. gentlemen opposite will say: Ah, but he did not do it fraudulently. I have not heard them suggest that he did it with any colour of right, but if I understand rightly, they do attach a great deal of importance to the point that he did not do it fraudulently. I wonder what' the definition of these eminent lawyers is as to what constitutes doing a thing

fraudulently. Page has no .right to use these articles other than for the work of the people of Canada. He handed them over absolutely without right to Mr. Lanctot and so deprived the people of Canada of these goods. I wonder how one of these hon. gentlemen opposite would feel if he went home some evening .and found that some servant of his had given away-what shall I ,say?-these gentlemen are so devoted to harmony, let us say, the grand piano. The .servant had got a solemn promise from the gentleman to whom he gave it, that he would bring it back again, or would give the hon. gentleman another piano. I wonder how long it would be before there would 'be a policeman in the house to deal with the servant who had 

in such complete absence of fraud-given away the piano of the hon. gentleman. Why, the thing does not stand a moment's consideration. I give away another man's property, I turn it over from the purpose for which he entrusted it to me and give it to another person, and I have not acted fraudulently?
And now, with regard to the payment of the men-.and that is a thing upon which I venture to correct a statement, in regard to the evidence of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). That hon. gentleman seems to have gathered from the evidence with regard to these men, that Mr. Lanctot went on throughout this transaction under the supposition that he was dealing with Mr. Champagne, and would have to pay Mr. Champagne, .and that he did not know that the money of the government of Canada was being procured and paid over to these men. Now, the very evidence that the hon. member (Mr. German), cites as establishing the point, really shows that the hon. member for Richelieu could not have the very slightest notion of it. I am willing to take the statement of the hon. .member (Mr. Lanctot), that, at the outset, that is what he meant-that he meant to pay the money to Champagne, and Champagne to pay it to the men. But that was never carried out and the evidence shows that he knew who was paying them. He tells us he offered to pay to Champagne. And what did Champagne tell him. He said: ' don't give the money to me for the men will think I am not giving all that I get; I don't want the money to go through my hands at all.' And the hon. member for Richelieu, notwithstanding his desire to pay, acquiesced in that. And this thing went on for four or five months. Does anybody suppose that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lanctot), thought the men were not being paid at all? He knew he was not furnishing the money. He knew the money was not going through the hands of Champagne, be-Mr. DOHERTY.
cause Champagne absolutely refused to pay the men himself, and take the money from Lanctot, because, as he said-I am taking these versions to be true-the men will think I get more than I am paying. The hon. gentleman knew that the .men were being paid and that Champagne was not paying them, and that he himself was not paying them. And the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), would ask us to believe that he (Mr. Lanctot), did not know that the government of Canada was paying. But we need not indeed we must not use any inferences-though inferences sometimes are as conclusive as any proof imaginable-for we have been warned by the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth), that any inferences that we draw will necessarily be inspired by our partisan feeling, so, we will be careful not to draw inferences but will take the testimony of the hon. member for Richelieu himself, as to whom he was dealing with. Here is the wind up of his testimony :
Q. How did you come to send this cheque to Mr. Papineau when you had arranged about this matter with Mr. Champagne and Mr. Page?-A. Because the account that was sent to me was made in the name of the Marine and Fisheries Department, Ottawa, and was made: 'A Lanctot Dr. to the Marine and Fisheries Department of Canada, Sorel.'
Q. Was it the first time at that date, November 21, 11910, yon learned that you were doing business with the Marine and Fisheries Department for the painting of your house? -A. No, sir.
Q. Did you know from the beginning that you were doing business for the Department of Marine?

No doubt that means ' with ' the Department of Marine.
-A. Certainly. I knew that the men of the Department of Marine were working at my place, but not Mr. Champagne's men.
I think the hon. member for Welland himself, will (correct |his imprtessibn on that subject. The hon. member for Richelieu knew as well then as he knows now that these men were being paid with the moneys of the people of Canada, and, unless we assume that the hon. member for Richelieu is absolutely bereft of ordinary intelligence-and I am sure my hon. friends opposite would not ask us. to make such an assumption as that-he knew that these moneys were not paid to these men unless they figured on the pay-lists of the government of Canada. And to tell us now that he is absolutely innocent in regard to the means resorted to to get that money, to tell us that Champagne was the bad man in that connection, that all the benefit was going to the hon. member for Richelieu and all the guilt was on. the head of Champagne, why, it is childish, perfectly childish.

I say then, that the hon. member for Richelieu knew that these painters who were working for him were being paid with the money of the people of Canada, and he knew that that result could only be produced by a falsification of the pay-list. But whether he knew there was a falsification or not, is immaterial; he did know that they were being paid with the money of the people. I want to say here and now that it does not make any difference, so far as the member for Richelieu is concerned, whether that money was being paid without the knowledge of Mr. Papineau or with the knowledge of Mr. Papineau; that it does not make any difference whether that money was being paid with or without the knowledge of the minister, because that money was not Mr. Papineau's money and was not the money of the minister, and was not the money of the government; and neither Mr. Papine'au nor the minister had any more right, if they had known this, to pay that money out to paint Mr. Lanctot's house, than Mr. Champagne had. The only difference it makes is, who is the guilty man in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, that is all. But Mr. Lanctot's position is absolutely the same, whoever it was that paid that money. Surely I am not to be told that Mr. Lanc-tot may have innocently supposed that Mr. Champagne had a right to do that; that he may have innocently supposed that Page had any such right; that Mr. Lanctot may have innocently supposed that the minister had that light. If the minister had been the man that Mr. Lanctot dealt with, the only difference would have been that it was the minister and Mr. Lanctot who had combined to steal from the people of Canada; that it all.


William Manley German: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Supposing Mr. Lanctot had entered into a distinct arrangement with Mr. Champagne that the government officials were to be supplied to paint his house, that they were to be paid for by government money during the course of their work, and that he was to refund the money to the government; under those circumstances does my hon. friend think that Mr. Lanctot would be guilty of an offence?
Mr. DOHERTY I certainly think he would be guilty of a legal offence.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Manley German: The Independence of Parliament Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not discussing the Independence of Parliament Act, I am discussing the offences of which this hon. gentleman is accused, and I am somewhat pained to see the amusement created in the minds of some hon. gentlemen on the
other side of the House because I have suggested that if Mr. Lanctot went to Mr. Champagne and asked him to pay the money of the people of Canada to his workmen, because he, Mr. Lanctot, was going to pay him back again, Mr. Lanctot would have been guilty of an offence. If the laughter of the hon. members indicate their standard of what is right and wrong in the matter of dealing with other people's money, it is to be hoped that their views will not prevail in this House. Why, Sir, if I walked into a bank to-morrow and asked the teller behind the counter to go on and pay the bank's money out to my workmen and I would pay him by and by, and if the bank manager came down at the end of the week and found that young man short in his cash, I wonder whether that bank manager's standard would be that of the hon. gentlemen who laugh. I see my distinguished, and eloquent and eminent friend, the Crown prosecutor for the distrirct of Montreal, sitting opposite and listening to me with an attention that is flattering. I wonder if he would hesitate to indict the young man whose cash was so found short for having embezzled the funds of his employer. Why, the thing seems to me, as it must seem to every normal mind with ordinary ideas of the difference between meum and tuum, as absolutely self evident. I do not know whether it is that hon. members who are so much amused, having been so long now in the enjoyment of all the benefits and advantages tnat come from being faithful supporters of the present administration, have come to have a somewhat confused notion about whose the tuum is when it is a question of the money of the people of Canada. Do they apply a different rule in that case? I say that Mr. Champagne, when he paid the money of the people to the men who worked on Mr. Lanctot's house, stole the money of the people of Canada, and I say that Mr. Lanctot knowingly took that money which belonged to the people. It may have been salve to his own conscience-I am not here to judge this matter in foro conscientiae; we are living in the outside world where we have to judge of mens' intentions by their actions-it may have been salve to his conscience that he had paid the money back again. But whether he got these goods rightfully or wrongfully, they were not his and he owed for them, or was bound to restore them, and if he got them wrongfully, that made a double debt. So I say that on the undisputed facta, these men, to the knowledge of Mr. Lanctot, stole the money of the people of Canada to pay Mr. Lanctot's workmen. Possibly he may not have realized that to do so they had to falsify the pay-list, that is a matter of minor interest. But the great fact stands

there that they stole the money, they .stole the goods, or the Criminal Code does not mean what it says, and does not mean anything. It used to be said the receiver was worse than the thief. As I understand the position to-day, a man who is an accomplice is guilty of the offence; and Mr. Lanctot was as clearly as a man could be an accomplice in the acts of these men.
Now I am told that he had agreed to pay it back again, and he did pay it back again. The offence was complete when he got the goods, and the fact that he paid for the goods afterwards does not alter the fact that he had committed the offence; and what may have been the idea in his mind as to what he was going to do, I submit we cannot safely take as having any bearing on the question. We are told that he was in dire necessity, there was not a painter in Sorel. Mr. Lanctot's house had to be painted. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) spent some time this afternoon in showing how completely the attempt had failed to prove that there were any painters in Sorel. A convenient doctrine. I need something for my house, I cannot get it in Montreal.
My hon. friend the member for Welland has it. My hon. friend the member for Welland has a most agreeable and obliging servant who is a friend of mine. What more natural, what more absolutely innocent, what more positively commendable? It puts me on a pedestal as a hero. Why of course I go to my hon. friend's servant and I say:	You just give me this thing
which your master owns and I do not, and I will give you another one by and by. That is precisely the position. Why should we waste time discussing whether there were painters in Sorel or not? It does not make a particle of difference to the fact that this man gave away government property. Are we to have every time-keeper and foreman painter-because Champagne a time-keeper and Page a foreman painter- throughout Canada in any department of this government empowered to sit in judgment on the relative necessities of the citizens of this country and give them what they want, whenever such employees are satisfied that they cannot get what they want anywhere else. It is diflicult really, to have patience with pretensions of this kind, really difficult. Manifestly the pretended absence of painters in Sorel has no bearing on the question arising on the different reports of the committee, the question before us, namely, the question of how Mr. Lanctot got these goods. I fail to see how it is possible to describe the operation by which he was put in possession of these goods, and secured the payment of this monev to these workmen by any other word than theft. If the English language has another word, I would
Mr. DOHERTY
be glad to employ it. The word * borrow ' is suggested, and might be used if you could borrow from a man what is not his own, and what he has no right to lend, own, and what he has no right to lend, and if he may lend that without stealing goods; if that is so then Mr. Lanctot borrowed it. If you cannot do that, Mr. Lanctot got the proceeds of the thefts of these men and there is no other way to describe it. I was surprised to hear the Minister of Justice declare that there was nothing unlawful in all this matter, because, forsooth, there was no violation in his opinion of section 14 of the Independence of Parliament Act. Besides the Independence of Parliament Act, there*is the Criminal Code, and it makes a variety of things unlawful, amongst others, the appropriation of your neighbour's goods when you have no right to them. There is besides that a moral code which may be supposed to have some restraining influence over gentlemen worthy to be members of parliament, and so far as I understand the rules of that code, it likewise rather frowns upon the appropriating to yourself of the goods of other people when you have no right to them.
I need not waste time pointing out that Champagne's consent and Page's consent and Papineau's consent if it had been obtained did not bear upon the question in the slightest degree and that Mr. Lanctot knew that; but so far as it goes, even if we assume that Mr. Lanctot was in a state of ignorance I would be sorry to attribute to him, and did suppose that Papineau' the superintendent sat there with jurisdiction to determine when he was entitled to give the goods of the government away, we have it clearly shown that Mr. Lanctot being told that that was the essential condition, never got the permission of Papineau. As throwing light upon this state of perfect good faith that is attributed to Mr. Lanctot, I think it is our duty not to pass over the circumstances with regard to the obtaining of that permission. He proved to us by his own testimony as conclusively justifying his taking the stuff without permission, that he went to see Papineau, and Papineau was not in, and he seem-s to have .assumed that because Papineau was not in, that changed the whole nature of the situation with regard to the person who was entitled to control, even if we suppose that the superintendent had power to give these things away. He went immediately to Champagne and made his bargain with him, and it all had to be done in a hurry because he was [DOT]going to Saranac that afternoon, and he had to catch a train. This was on the 29th of May, and the painting went on until the 21st of November, and we have it on the testimony of Mr. Lanctot himself that the only thing about which there was any hurry on the 28th or 29th of May, was

that the carpenters were engaged in putting the clapboards bn the exterior, and there was some hurry to have a man put the priming on the boards before they got dTy. -Let us say that that justified Mr. Lanc-tot in getting a man to go and hurry up the job. But how does that explain his refraining from any communication with Papineau throughout the whole summer and fall? It is quite true there were some weeks when Mr. Lanctot was absent from Sorel, but we have his testimony that he got back on the 20th of June and was there until the 20th of July. He came again in August, and he was there for quite a period of time and all this work was going on; in fact the contention is, when it is a question of showing that Mr. Douaire did not paint as many days as he said, that there was little work done in July and August, and that the bulk was done in the fall after Mr. Lanctot came home and Mr. Lanctot with his knowledge that he should have the permission of Mr. Papineau at all events, never went near Mr. Papineau in any way. The testimony of Mr. Papineau, whom we are all agreed, is an honest and reliable man, in reply to my own question is that if he had been asked to do this thing he would not have done it. He adds that no subordinate of his, of course, had power or right to do a thing that he had not the right to do. He does say-because I do not want to mis-state it, although I do not think it has any bearing-that there might conceivably be cases of such urgency and necessity as to induce him to send a man out for a day. But he says that under normal circumstances he would not have done it, and that he considered no subordinate of his had a right to do that which he himself had no right to do.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Is it not a fact that Mr. Papineau lives right across the street from where that house was being built, that every day he saw these men working there and knew they were in the employ of the government?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is absolutely a fact that Mr. Papineau lives just about opposite Mr. Lanctot's house, but it is also a fact that Papineau swears-I do not know if the hon. gentleman throws discredit on his testimony-that he did not know that this work was being done. I am perfectly free to say that it is a great pleasure once in a while to be able to agree with people with whom you generally disagree. I am quite willing to say it is a matter of surprise 'to myself that Mr. Papineau did not know. I cannot claim any very intimate personal acquaintance with Mr. Papineau, but I have heard from all sides, and I think the minister will bear it out, that Mr. Papineau is a truthful man and he swears that he did not know.
There is just one word I would like to offer which perhaps the member for Belle-chasse may be willing tol isten to, although he seems very incredulous, and it is that what Papineau did not know was that these men who were working there were working for the government and being paid by the government. The fact that they were usually government employees and were working on that house might be explained. I have no brief for Papineau and it ' is immaterial to me whether he knew or not, but I think it is right to be fair to every man, particularly to a man in whose honesty you have absolute confidence, when it is put in question by my hon. friend. There was a custom in Sorel of which Mr. Papineau did know; a custom under which it did happen that people came to the department and said: Would you lend me a man, and men were lent in a way with regard to which I see no reproach to make-a man was actually lent, that is to say, the department said to him: Go and work for Mr. So and So, aud Mr. So and So will pay you and you will get your job when you come back, but in the meantime you won't be stamping on the clock and drawing your money from the government of the country.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: If Mr. Papineau is the man whom my hon. friend believes he is, does he not think he would inquire how these men got there and why they were there?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do think that Mr. Papineau would have been entitled to more commendation if he had done so, although I do not recognize I have jurisdiction to pronounce upon Mr. Papineau's actions. It did strike me as extraordinary that Mr. Papineau did not concern himself more about the matter than he did, but it is fair to say that . Mr. Papineau was not charged before us and was not offered an opportunity of giving an explanation, and I do not stand here to condemn him. I am trying to deal with the matter that is before us, and I am trying to be just to every one concerned. If the hon. member for Bellechasse thinks Re has any interest in convicting Mr. Papineau of some offence, I can refer him to Mr. Papineau's superior, the Minister of Marine, who, no doubt, will accommodate the hon. member. But I do say that Mr. Papineau swears, and he is not contradicted, that he did not know this kind of thing was going on, that if he had been asked he would not have permitted it. And Messrs. Page and Champagne, who were carrying out this job for the member for Richelieu, were very careful to see that nothing happened that came to the knowledge of Mr. Papineau. Mr. Champagne even went the length of falsifying his pay-list with no other object that I can see than to conceal the fact that

these men were working for Mr. Lanctot. There is every evidence that so far as these men could they kept it from Mr. Papineau's knowledge. There is Mr. Papineau's own testimony that he never knew, and there is the testimony of the men who swore-testimony at which the hon. member for Welland sneers, but which stands there, and finds remarkable corroboration in the fact that Mr. Papineau did not know-that they were warned when they carried the paint from the Sorel yards to take a route that would enable them to avoid Mr. Papineau. Much has been made of the fact that Mr. Papineau lived opposite and that they had to pass in front of his house, but the hour at which they were carrying the paint would be the hour at which Mr. Papineau would be on his way from his house to the works, and they were told to take certain streets so that they would not meet him. It was not a question of their being seen from Mr. Papineau's house; it was a question of their not being seen by Mr. Papineau on the way, because they were loaded with paint and Mr. Papineau might have asked inconvenient questions. I can quite conceive that Mr. Papineau may have known that these particular men were working on Mr. Lanc-tot's house, and may have supposed it was under this custom we were told existed there, of men being really and genuinely lent to outside people. There may be something to be said about the desirability of that custom, but at all events it does not mean employing the money of Canada for other people's advantage, or giving the goods of Canada to other people. For my part, I believe that Mr. Lanctot knew-because he could not help knowing-that these goods were in the Sorel yards for the people of Canada and not for him, that these men were working in the Sorel yards and that the money paid them was to be paid for the work they did for the people of Canada and not for him. That he could not help knowing that. If he had gone in there and stolen a barrel of paint would he be able to defend himself by saying: I did not know it belonged to the people of Canada, I did not know whom it belonged to. And if he could not defend himself in such a case, he can no more defend himself now by saying he did not know that that paint was not the property of these men who gave it to him. The two things are absolutely on a parity. So that I say, that not only did he know but he was warned with regard to Mr. Papineau that without his permission, at all events, he could not have these things. And if we assume him to be ignorant enough to think that Mr. Papineau's permission would have helped him, he never moved a finger to get it; never did anything after that one afternoon when he went down and found that Mr. Papineau was not in. I do not want to draw any inference or make Mr. DOHERTY
any insinuations, but I might be pardoned for saying that sometimes people do go calling and are not heartbroken when they are told that the person they go to call on is not in. At all events, this fact does stand out: that Mr. Lanctot succeeded very very much better in his mission, because Mr. Papineau was not there, for if Mr. Papineau had been there we have his own testimony that Mr. Lanctot would not have got this permission. On that branch of the case, to my mind, it is perfectly impossible to reach the conclusion of the majority of the committee that the hon. member for Richelieu was blameless in this matter; it is absolutely impossible unless you are prepared to say that a man may take what does not belong to him, and if he only pays for it afterwards it is all right. Unless you are prepared to say that every man who is prepared to pay for what he steals is entitled to steal. Mr. Lanctot cannot be acquitted in the way in which he has been acquitted by the majority of this committee. For my part I would be glad to take any charitable view that could possibly be taken of what has happened. I would be willing to make allowance for what may have been the habit in Sorel. but that is not proved and I do not want to affirm it. I must say that somewhat to my surprise Mr. Lanctot's counsel strenuously objected to proof that this kind of thing went on generally in Sorel. If I had been defending Mr. Lanctot-I am not now talking about what might have been the interest of the department or others-but if I had been defending Mr. Lanctot, I certainly would not have objected to that proof because it might at least have explained how he came to let himself slide into the idea that he could take these goods under the circumstances and not be guilty of any offence. That might have been in mitigation; that might have had to be considered when we came to deal with Mr. Lanctot's position from the point of view of any penalty that might be imposed. We are not at ali concerned to-night in determining, I repeat, whether Mr. Lanctot ought to be expelled from this House or not; we are not determining whether there should be any penalty meted out to him, or what penalty should be so meted out to him, we are concerned simply with the question of fact:	did he lawfully
or unlawfully get these goods and that money, the property of the people of Canada. And, the verdict that is going to be sent out to this country if the majority of the House stands behind the Minister of Justice and finds there was nothing unlawful, is going to be an invitation to the public in general:	Come on one and all;
here we are, the government of Canada,

maintaining workshops to do the work of the country, and you are quite welcome to come in and get your work done for you at cost price; we will pay the whole fixed charges and the operating charges and all the expense involved in the maintenance of these great establishments, and you will be the pink of honesty if you come in and get your goods from our employees even without our knowledge. Provided, you give us back exactly what the goods cost us and exactly what we pay the men, we will stand up and say that the people of Canada have lost nothing. Who pays to maintain that establishment? Who pays to put those facilities there, at the disposal of Mr. Lanctot, if they are at his disposal, and at the disposal of everybody else? Who pays for that entire organization of superintendents? Who supplies all the brushes and tools of every description that were used in this work? Everybody knows that paint brushes were used to paint the house, and yet there is not a solitary paint brush paid for. Who pays for all these things? Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the people of Canada have gone into the business of contracting painters, or any other business, they are entitled to have the reasonable profit that anybody else has; and Mr. Lanctot, if his payment has been made, is keeping in his pocket to-day the profit which the people of Canada were legitimately entitled to on that work.
I come to a point where, in his conclusion at all events, I am happy to be able to agree with the Minister of Justice; but it is not nearly as troublesome to me to get to my conclusion, and fortunately it does not need anything like the same eloquence as he devoted to his conclusion this afternoon; nor does it need any argument to support it. The Minister of Justice says that we have not proof of a violation of section 14 of the Independence of Parliament Act. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there has been proved a violation of the text of section 14 or section 15 of the Independence of Parliament Act, for one very simple reason: the Independence of Parliament Act deals with contractual relations between a member of parliament and the government of this country. In this case, to my mind, it is absolutely clear that there were no contractual relations between Mr. Lanctot and the government of this country. The relation that existed between Mr. Lanctot and the government of this country was the relation 'between a man who had unlawfully obtained another man's property and the man whose property had been so obtained, and which generates an obligation to repay it, and that is not a contractual obligation.
Now, I would stop here if it were not for what strikes me as the most extraordinary
feature of the report of the majority of this committee. I am free to confess that in the face of the evidence, I find the report as a whole extraordinary; but what is extraordinary beyond my limited powers of expression, is the censure which the committee has pronounced upon the hon. member for Champlain. And if anything could be more extraordinary than that censure, it is the reason on which it rests. It is worth reading:
Your committee feel that in view of the very serious nature of the charges made they should express an opinion on the propriety of Mr. Blondin making the charges in the manner he did. Your committee do not wish to state that Mr. Blondin did not believe there was truth in the allegations, or that he did not act from a bona fide belief in their truthfulness, but the committee think that before making so serious a charge against an honourable member of the House of Commons, he should have made some independent inquiry to verify the truthfulness of the charges made and, which he apparently did not do. The Minister of Marine was called as a witness. His evidence as to this on page 189 where he says he had information that no fraud had been committed and that all labour supplied by the shipyards had been paid for and all material supplied had been returned and which information he would have been pleased to give Mr. Blondin had he applied for same.
Now what is the information that Mr. Blondin could have had? Had it any bearing on how the member for Richelieu got these goods or this work? Not a particle. It was that the hon. member for Richelieu had paid for them. What I said at the outset, I think, quite disposes of that. If it were true that the hon. Minister of Marine had said, as he is made to say in this report, that he had information that there was no. fraud at all in the matter, and had been in a position to satisfy Mr. Blondin the hon. member for Champlain of that, there might be something to be said, though for my part I question the soundness of the proposition that a man who has credible information that very grave offences have been committed, is bound to go to any minister in this government or any other and absolutely abandon them on the ipse dixit of the minister. I am not in that desirous of being understood as wishing to question in any way the truthfulness of the particular minister. I am speaking as a general proposition. To say that with the strong testimony Mr. Blondin had it was his duty to go further before he laid those charges, and that the going further meant that he should have gone to the minister and been satisfied with what he said, is, I submit, absolutely untenable. But more than that. Stop for a moment to reflect on what the committee knew. The hon. member for Champlain rose in his place and made these charges and read these affidavits; and the

hon. member for Richelieu rose in his place and thanked the hon. member for Champlain for giving him an opportunity of disproving them, admitting in the most caltegorical wajy that there was' ground for suspicion and that he was labouring under grave and serious suspicion which he had an interest to remove. I am not inventing that. You will find that in the very first statement of the hon. member for Richelieu:
I mast say that I have no objection whatever to the motion of the hon. member for Champlain, asking that the charges preferred against me as a member of this House be referred for investigation to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I am glad that he has brought this matter to the attention of the House, and I court the fullest and the most complete investigation of it.
Now, if the hon. member for Richelieu did not know that there was a prima facie case, and a strong prima facie case against him, would he have said that he was glad to have the charges brought forward and to have an investigation? But, more tthan that: the Minister of Marine and Fisheries sat in the House and heard these charges and this answer, and if he had then in his possession this information which was absolutely conclusive and which would have led the hon. member for Champlain to abandon his charges, did the hon. minister quite do his duty when he did not put that information before the House? I am not imputing to him that he did not do his duty, because I have no hesitation in saying that there is nothing in the evidence which the hon. minister laid before the 'committee which justifies 'the conclusion that if the hon. member for Champlain had gone to him and had heard what he had to say, he would have adopted a different course. The minister in giving his testimony was very careful, I think quite properly so, to express no opinion whatever on the lawfulness of what had been done. I would like to read that testimony because it is important in its bearing on this branch of the case. Now, this is what the hon. member for Champlain would have learned if he had gone to the hon. minister-I am not going to read it all. He would have learned, in the first place, that the hon. minister had a letter from the hon. member for Richelieu denying these charges. And just while we are passing, to show how conclusive a basis that would have been for the hon. member for Champlain to have accepted as a reason for abandoning these charges, let me point out that there is on the very face of that letter an absolute falsehood. We have had the conduct of the hon. member for Richelieu, since the charges were made, held up to us as a reason for concluding in his perfect inno-Mr. DOHERTY
cence and yet, on the 6th December-and this is a part of the evidence that the majority of the committee think should cause my hon. friend from Champlain to withdraw his charges-the hon. member for Richelieu, in answer to a letter from the minister, calling ihis attention to the charges, writes:
Mr. Douaire states in his declaration that certain painters of the Department of Marine and Fisheries have worked at my house, and have been paid by said' department. This is true; but as soon as their work was finished I reimbursed the department as per understanding with the officers.
So far so good.
I did the same with regard to borrowed material. The whole was paid several days before the filing of those documents.
These documents were dated on the 30th November. There was no settlement for the materials until the 12th December, six days after that letter was written in which the hon. member for Richelieu affirmed that the whole was paid several days before the making of the declaration.


William Manley German: Is it not fair to state that Mr. Lanctot had made an arrangement with Mr. Papineau that the materials were to be returned prior to the date you have mentioned?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It would be fair to state it, but I think it would be a mistake.


William Manley German: No, that is right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will just show the testimony of Mr. Lanctot himself as to when he made that arrangement.


William Manley German: There was not more than a day or two difference anyway.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Before I go on to show that there was no settlement before this letter was written with regard to the materials, I want to point out that in any case it wa3 absolutely untrue to say that the whole was paid for before the 30th November and before the declarations were made. That was absolutely untrue.


William Manley German: Well, it had been arranged for.


Charles Joseph Doherty: To get right down to the question of whether, when that letter was written, there had been any settlement for the paint, let us take Mr. Lanctot's own testimony. If it shows me to be mistaken I shall acknowledge it most fairly and most unhesitatingly, because I have no desire to be unfair. The account dated December 12, 1910, will be found on page 24, of the evidence. I want to take the evidence verbatim so that there may be no question as to what Mr. Lanctot himself says about it.

Q. To who did you ask the accounts for paints?-A. To Mr. Pagd?
Q. Did he make a bill for it?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you got it?-A. Yes, sir. It was sent to Mr. Papineau.
Then he gives us the bill which is the bill that Mr. Papineau paid to the people who furnished the goods. I think that, as Mr. Papineau's honesty has been questioned, we here have the evidence of it. Mr. Papineau did not wait for Mr. Lanctot to come and make a settlement. When he found that the goods for which he was responsible had disappeared he ordered and paid for similar goods with his own cheque and restored the things that had been within his custody and that he was responsible for although he had no guilty knowledge of how they had disappeared.


William Manley German: What was the date of the bill that he paid?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The 12th December, 1910. Mr. Lanctot is asked:
Q. I do not understand this account, Mr. Lanctot; this account is from the Mount Royal Color and Varnish Company, Limited, of Montreal, to the Department of Marine?- A. This is the account that was sent to the Department of Marine and Fisheries to replace the materials I had got from the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I will explain how it was done: After having sent my cheque to Mr. Papineau on the 22nd of November, 1910-which was Tuesday or Wednesday, I believe-the following Saturday, I think, I came from Ottawa to Sorel. I saw Mr. Papineau at the Department of Marine who told me:

That is a little remarkable. He does not go to Mr. Papineau to get his bill but he saw Mr. Papineau, and the latter said to him.
-'You have an account for paints; you had some paint; you had some material from Mr. Jean-Baptiste Page. Here is his account.'
Q. He had the account?-A. Yes, he had the account. He told me: 'You want to return these goods, do you not?'

That is not an offer to return them.
-' I said: ' Yes, as it was understood with Mr. Page.'
Q. At what date did this take place?-A. I could not say exactly at what date. I know it was a Saturday, at all events.
Q. How many days had elapsed from the time you had sent your cheque to the time you had this interview with Mr. Pagd?-A. I do not know. It was the following Saturday or the Saturday after or the fortnight after

That was either the first Saturday or a fortnight after he had the interview with Mr. Papineau.
-I coud not say exactly. It was not very
long after anyway.
Q. Then it was the following Saturday, or the Saturday a week following?-A. I suppose so. Perhaps I saw him on the street; I do
not remember. Mr. Papineau told me: 'I will send Mr. Page's account. I will give a requisition to get the same quantity and the same quality of material from the factory to correspond with the material you got from the shop.'
Q. I repeat my question. Did you receive an account from Jean-Baptiste Page for the paint that was furnished to you?-A. I tell you it was sent to Mr. Papineau. I do not remember having seen it.	,
Q. Will you, if you please, answer directly to my question and say if Mr. Page furnished you with an account?-A. I do not remember. At all events if I got an account from Mr. Page, I took it to Mr. Papineau. Mr. Papineau sent a requisition for the same quantity and the same quality to the same factory and the goods were shipped to Sorel and I paid the freight for the carriage of the goods from Montreal to Sorel.	. .
Q. Will you explain, Mr. Lanctot, how it is that on the 22nd of November, 1910, you had settled, according to your statement, with the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the sum of $375, amount of your cheque for the work done by the men at your house and you did not settle on the same day for the material and paint furnished?-A. It is because I was not to pay for the material. I had borrowed it and 1 was to return it. . [DOT]
Then below:
Mr. Papineau paid the factory and I reimbursed Mr. Papineau.
So that, unmistakably, he had not paid Mr Papineau on the 6th December. Thus, I say whether this understanding with Mr. Papineau was or was not before the 6th December, it is clear that he had not paid for the material before the declarations were made, and clear that he was not to pay for the material at all but was to return it. I think the letter does say that he was to return it. The testimony of Mr. Papineau shows that there was quite a long delay, shows that it was in December. This is what Mr. Papineau says at page 109:	He is asked about the painting of
the house:
When did you see Mr. Lanctot in connection with this account, Exhibit No. 20?
That is for painting.
A. Well, I saw him-at the time of receiving the letter. I expected to see him within a few days and then I acknowledged the receipt.
So that on December 2, when Mr. Papineau acknowledged the receipt, he had not yet seen Mr. Lanctot.
When I saw he was not turning up in Sorel I acknowledged the receipt of the letter,
I hope the hon. member is satisfied that he had no arrangement previous to the 2nd of December.
-and a few days afterwards I had occasion to see him in Sorel and I mentioned the account.
That is the second, the day on which Mr. Papineau wrote, and he had not yet any

pretense of a settlement. Four days after that, on the 6th, Mr. Lanctot was in Ottawa. He can hardly on the interval have made a settlement, And even if he had, was it right that he should say he had made a settlement long before the 30th of November? It is inconceivable he should have done that if he were trying to tell the truth.
-'which account, the account Mr. Champagne had given you?-A. The account for material. I told him I thought the best plan would he to have the same quantities of material returned to the department. He was quite willing that I have that done for him.
Q. That was the last communication you had with him on that subject?-A. I do not recall a'ny other.
Q. Well, in writing you, for instance, inclosing the cheque to pay for the mens' time did not he also tell you there would be an account for material, for paints? Did he say anything about that?

A. I do not think he said anything, but I knew it about the same time.
Q. Then you knew it from Mr. Champagne? Well then he agreed to return the materials to the department?-A. Yes.
Q. Well, how were the materials got?-A, About the same time

That is, about the time the settlement was made-about the 12th December, I put it at:
-about that time there was the manager of the Mount Royal Paint and Varnish Company-
Q. Mr. Lamontagne?-A. Mr. Lamontagne- happened to be in Sorel and as he was one of the men supplying material for the department at one time and another, I gave him a list of what we required; you see the list was according to that memoranda.
Q. The memoranda of Mr. Champagne? Exhibit No. 20?-A. Yes. Mr. Page, so that Mr. Lamontagne agreed to send the goods to the department, and I gave him my personal cheque.
Q. Have you any cheque with you, Mr. Papineau?-A. Yes. Then at the next

Q. Will you exhibit your cheque?-A. Yes.
And the -cheque is dated 12th of December, and the goods were charged on the 12th, and delivered, I think, on the 13th. So, I think I was making no mistake in saying that not only was there no payment but there was no settlement with Mr. Papineau when Mr. Lanctot wrote that letter. In the second place, the minister himself says that he would not have undertaken to say a word to Mr. Blondin, if that hon. gentleman had gone to him, about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of what had happened, what he would have told him was that the goods had been paid for. Well, of course, if that settled- matters we would not be here this evening. But the whole point is that we do not settle an unlawful appropriation of goods by paying for them. This is what the minister says on the subject, I quote from the portion of his evid-Mr. DOHERTY
ence which hears on Mr. Blondin's conduct. The minister (Mr. Brodeur), is being examined by Mr. Laflamme:
Q. Well now, just one question: from the 22nd of November up to the 6th of March, did Mr. Blondin ever inquire from you directly or indirectly, verbally or in writing, personally or through outside parties, whether or not the labour had been paid as well as the material ?
Question objected to, but the Chairman allows the question.
Hon. Mr. -Brodeur.-No, he did not.
By the Chairman-
Q. Could he have ascertained by inquiry from you that Mr. Lanctot had paid for the labour -that was done on his house and also had returned to the department -the material which had been supplied to him for that purpose?-A. Yes, Mr. Blondin, being a member of parliament, and making an inquiry of that kind, I would be very glad, of course, to have given him -the information which I bad in my department concerning the matter.
By Mr. Laflamme-
Q. That is to say, you bad on the 6th of March all the information required to inform the House generally

We know the minister did not inform the House generally:
-as well as Mr. Blondin, that the material had not been fraudulently appropriated, robbed or stolen?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. But had been borrowed?-A. Immediately after I got that information, as I told you, I inquired from Mr. Lanctot, and later on from Mr. Papineau, and I was informed that the labour had been reimbursed, had been paid by Mr. Lanctot and that the material had been given back.
Now, if there is -anything in that to satisfy one that the labour and material had been lawfully got, then Mt. Blond-in -should have withdrawn his charges. But to say material illegally got had been paid for or returned, leaves the charge exactly where it was.
By Mr. McDougall-
Q. As I understand, that would be a matter of opinion. You considered at that time the matter to be lawful and others may have considered it unlawful?-A. 1 do not speak of the lawfulness of the matter. -I speak of the information which I had been given.
Q. The information which yon had?-A. Yes.
Q. And the information -which you had consisted of letters of Mr. Lanctot saying that the matter -was all right, that he had borrowed the goods and -had paid for them?-A. Yes. He told me .that it -was true that some men had worked on his house

This also is important as showing -that Mr. Lanctot-different from the impression of the hon. member for Welland-knew that these men were on the pay-lists.
-and were retained on the pay-list, but that he had had reimbursed the money.

Q. And from that you drew an inference?- A. I must say, however, if I remember aright, in all justice to Mr. Lanctot, that he did not think those men were to be put on the list.
Q. And from that you drew the inference that everything was all right. As minister, you were prepared to impart the information to iMr. Blondin or to anybody else that everything was all right?

And here again the minister was guarded.
-A. Without passing judgment on the irregularity of the proceeding, I would have ready to give any member of parliament all the information I had because I thought it was for the benefit of all concerned.
I think that is all that bears on the statement that Mr. Blondin could have got the information if he had asked- for it.
So, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin), has been censured by this majority report in this respect, because he did not go to the minister by whom he would have been told that Mr. Lanctot had paid for the work on the 22nd of November, and had returned- the goods some time after. Now, if it were not that sufficient weight, is attached to the fact to build on it -this condemnation of the hon, member for Champlain, I would not refer to it, but it is a signifl-cant fact-which might have influenced the judgment of the hon. member for Champlain as much as the statement -of the minister, which no doubt was perfectly true according to the information he had received

that what the hon. member for Champlain would have learned is that the sending of this cheque with great promptitude on the 22nd of November, the bill being made on the 21st, was singularly coincident with the fact that the minister, on the 22nd of November had sent instructions to Sorel to institute further investigation into the Marine and Fisheries Department. Now, was that a circumstance that would have added, in the mind of the hon. member for Champlain, any very great weight as bearing upon the manner in which these goods were obtained, to the fact that payment had been paid on that very -specific date? All these circumstances would still have remained, that all this thing had been carried- -on in secret without the knowledge oi Mr. Papineau, that there did not exist in any book of the government at any period one single charge to show that Mr. Lanctot had ev-er got anything from the department, that from the beginning to end this thing had been kept concealed- until this date, the 22n-d of November, coincident with the day on which the Minister of Marine sent instructions to Sorel for further investigation.
I am speaking now only from the point of view of the question whether the hon. member for Champlain had reasonable 251
.cause for going ahead. He might well (have thought that there was not much weight to be attached to the fact that payment was made just when the investigation was being started, for work and goods the disposal whereof had been withheld from everybody representing the department up to the 22nd of November. Might he not well have thought, that does not mean much, this payment made just when is coming the time when the people will find out what has been done. You have to look at the position of the member for Champlain, and the reasons he had for forming his opinion on that matter. What would he have had reason to believe had he gone to the minister and got that information? He would simply have got the information that after the thing was all done, when the cat was just coming out of the bag, a payment had been made.
It does seem to me an extraordinary thing that a committee whose standard was so low that it could see no harm in what the member for Richelieu had admittedly done, should suddenly take so lofty a position when it came to be a question -of the degree of prudence which the member for Champlain should have exercised in making these charges If it were not for the eloquent protests of the Minister of Justice, one would have been tempted to think-of course my thinking so might have been attributed to partisanship-but one would have been tempted to think that there had been perhaps a slight grain of partisanship in the balance that he was holding as between these two gentlemen. I must apologize to the House for detaining it so long on this case. I have spoken to this length because I thought it was my duty to do what I could to clearly convey my view of what is the proper conclusion to be reached on this matter, and thus to show at least that I realize how deeply the public interest is involved in parliament coming to a right decision on this important question.


Mr. V. GEOFFRION (Verchbres).: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Doherty) who has just taken his seat was very impressive in his opening remarks. I would be glad if I were able to congratulate him on a change in the length of his addresses; because when he was judge in Montreal his judgments were_ as long, and interminable, and as wearisome to the advocates practising before him, as his speeches are in this House. Sir, the reasons given by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) why the majority report should be adopted, have been commented upon at great length. The Minister of Justice has treated exhaustively the legal question, and I will make a very few remarks on a point that does not appear to have been touched by hon. members. The only question for me is



whether the charges made by the hon. member for Champlain have been proved. We are not concerned with the question whether any employees of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in Sorel have exceeded their duty. That might form, if necessary, the basis of another inquiry by another committee; but surely the Committee on Privileges and Elections has been instituted only for the purpose of ascertaining whether members sitting in this House are duly qualified to do so. Now I regret that some newspapers in this country have seen fit to try to prejudice opinion, both in the public and in this House, without having had the privilege, as members of the committee have had, of hearing and seeing the witnesses who were being examined. They have discussed the question mostly on hearsay. But lawyers and judges know that it makes a great difference in forming a judgment whether, you have the privilege of seeing the witnesses when they are examined. They seem to make a kind of hero of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) who has made the charges. What were the charges made by the hon. member for Champlain against the hon. member for Richelieu? I shall read a part of them for the sake of my argument. He charged:
That I am credibly informed, and 1 believe that I can establish by satisfactory evidence:-
That in the course of the years 1908, 1909 and 1910, irregularities, abuses, frauds, malversations and robberies have been committed in the shops and stores of the government of Canada at St. Joseph de Sorel and in the city of Sorel, in the electoral district of Richelieu. . .
That said goods

That is the goods sent- to Mr. Lanetot's house.
Were so fraudulently appropriated to, and said work so fraudulently done at the expense of the government of Canada for the benefit of the said Adelard Lanctot, then and now a member of the House as aforesaid, with his knowledge, assent and approval, the said Adelard Lanctot abusively and fraudulently profiting at the public expense and to the public detriment by his position as member of the House.
I submit that these charges have not been proved. I shall briefly review the evidence in the case. Mr. Lanctot, in 1910, at the date mentioned in the report, was building a house in Sorel. A good many people in this House know and many at Sorel knew that Mr. Lanctot's wife was very ill at Saranac lake. This was known by everybody on this side of the House especially, because we had more friendly relations 'with Mr. Lanctot than hon. members opposite. Being obliged to absent himself often, and having need of painters to finish his house which was ready to be painted, Mr. Lanctot went to the govern-Mr. GEOFFRION.
ment workshops to get painters. Hon. members may laugh as they please at the idea that Mr. Lanctot could not get painters at Sorel. Every member of the committee who wants to be fair knows that it has been proved that there were only three painters in the city of Sorel who were not in the employ of the government at the time, and that two of them were unfit to fill the job and the other could not do it. Mr. Lanctot went to the workshops and tried to see Mr. Papineau and Mr. Papineau being absent, He went to Champagne whom he knew well, and asked him if he could let him have some painters to finish bis work. I need not go minutely into the evidence in the case. He was answered that he could have them, and he said that if Champagne would keep the time of the men he would reimburse the government or that he would pay the men iand was ready to pay them himself every week if necessary. Is it extraordinary that a man should go to an extensive workshop like that in Sorel to get workmen when he could not get them anywhere else? It is done in the great cities, in every place where there are large workshops. It is known also that these large shops employ a great number of workmen in certain seasons of the year, that they do not have so much need for these men at other seasons; they sometimes would prefer to see workmen going out and working somewhere else, but they do not want to send them away, and thus he deprived of their services when they need men. This is done every day. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say that the government ought not to do it. It may be so, but anyhow it is not extraordinary that Mr. Lanctot should have gone to those shops, the only place where he could get those workmen, and he got them. He paid them, the evidence is clear on that point; he got (Some material for which he also paid. Where is the proof of robbery charged by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin)? I am sorry to say that the hon. member for Champlain in making such grave charges- against .a colleague in this House had not the courage to offer to resign his seat if he could not prove the [DOT]charges which he had made. There is probably no example in this House or in the parliament of any other country of a member making so grave o. charge as that an hon. member or colleague had rendered himself guilty of robbery, of fraudulently obtaining money or merchandise under false pretenses and not having the courage to say:	If I am not able to prove those
charges then I will resign my seat. If the hon. member for Chamipiain had simply said:	I hear that there are irregularities
committed in the workshops of the government at Sorel and I ask that they be investigated, well and good; hut he charges

a colleague with fraud and robbery, and he has not the courage (to put his seat in jeopardy. Mr. Lanctot in this House has answered the charges. He made an honest, fair, straightforward! declaration. Witness after witness has been examined by the member for Champlain and his counsel, and all the evidence which we got from them went exactly to prove that the declarations of the hon. member for Champlain were correct. Mr. Blondin declared that he had been credibly informed, but the evidence has raised some doubt in my mind as to whether he was very credibly informed. He got his information from discontented men who had been dismissed from the department, from blackmailers, from suborners of perjury. This has been proved before the committee. We had a witness there who declared that an affidavit had been obtained from him under false pretenses.
Another of the witnesses had sent a letter to the member for Richelieu trying to blackmail him if he would not get him contracts; others of the witnesses admitted that they had been dismissed from the department, and this is the company in which we find the hon. member for Champlain and by which he was credibly informed that fraudulent acts had been committed. The hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) dealt with the question of the independence of parliament, and as usual he pretended he was sorry to have to attack an hon. member on this side of the House, although he is generally very unfair when he is dealing with party questions of the kind; the hon. member (Mr. Monk) pretends that the independence of parliament has been infringed by the acts committed by Mr. Lanctot. Well, I believe that the opinion of the Minister of Justice is the true interpretation of the Independence of Parliament Act, and the hon. member for St. Anne himself admitted that there was no infringement of that Act. I believe that to infringe the Independence of Parliament Act one must make a contract by which he derives some pecuniary benefit from the government-. Suppose a member. of parliament-and I understand that members on both sides of the House do it-should go to the King's Printer and have copies of his speeches printed and pay for them, is he not making a contract and violating the Act if we wanted to put a severe interpretation upon it? I do not wish to be personal, but I would like to ask my hon. friend from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty), who has left the Chamber, whether a judge yfho has descended from the bench and who is paid every year a sum of money by the country is not infringing the Independence of Parliament Act when he sits here and votes the money which is paid to himself? The hon. member comes here and 251J
makes tragedian speeches in which he lifts up his hands and calls to his aid a high moral tone, and he sits in this House and votes the money which is paid to him, but he covers his head with ashes at the actions that have been committed by the hon. member for Richelieu. The delicate conscience of my hon. friends opposite was not touched so much some years ago when one of their friends on their side had some work done in the Department of Maxine and Fisheries at Prescott, when he had a boat painted. He made a declaration which, for my part, I accepted in good faith, and from this side of the House no one lifted his voice to blame him because we accepted that he was in good faith, and that he had paid as he declared he had paid. But his actions were exactly the same, if not worse, as those of the hon. member for Richelieu. We did not raise a row about it. But the delicate conscience of hon. members opposite is touched because a member on this side of the House, by an error of judgment perhaps, has committed similar acts to those committed by their own friends, and in whose case they sat there dumb and condoned the action they are actually blaming now. I wish in ' conclusion to say that I agree with the interpretation of the evidence given by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) and with the interpretation of the Independence of Parliament Act given by the Minister of Justice. I believe that the majority of the committee having heard the evidence and weighed it, could not come to any other conclusion than that the hon. member for Richelieu had acted in good faith. The work which he had done by employees of the department was paid for, the material which he got was paid for, everything was paid for, and if any blame-I am not going to say that there should be any blame attached-but if there is any blame to attach to any one it must be to the employees of the department who perhaps exceeded their powders. I will vote for the adoption of the majority report.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: I wish to ask the hon. member (Mr. Geoffrion) a question.
I was not in the Chamber a moment ago, but I understand that the hon. member made the statement that I had a boat painted in Prescott a few years ago. Did the hon. gentleman make that statement?


Victor Geoffrion: I simply said that I was bo informed. At the time I knew "who the hon. member was, but I do not at the moment know whether it was the hon. member (Mr. Reid), or not.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Victor Geoffrion: I did not name anybody.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name.


Victor Geoffrion: If my hon. friend wants to know, I can get the name very soon and give it to him.


John Dowsley Reid: I heard that my name had been mentioned, and if so I want to say that the statement is absolutely untrue and false.


Mr. T. W. CROTHERS (West Elgin).: Apart altogether from the intent of the hon. member for Richelieu, of which I shall speak later, the facts in connection with this matter are few, simple, clear, admitted, and it is not easy to understand intelligent and honest men differing as to the conclusion in law that should be drawn from these facts. The Richelieu river runs in a northerly direction and empties into the St. Lawrence about 45 miles below Montreal. On the easterly side of its mouth is the city of Sorel, containing a population of about 10,000 people, and just opposite, on the westerly side of the river, are the government shipyards and storehouses. The river runs through the constituency represented by the hon. member for Richelieu, who lives in the city of Sorel. The principal officers of the shipyard are Mr. Papineau, who is director, Mr. Terreault, Oscar Champagne, time-keeper, and John Baptiste Page, foreman of painters. The hon. member for Richelieu was building a palatial residence on George street, in the city of Sorel, in the years 1909 and 1910. On or about the 29th of May, 1910-and at present I am only stating facts that are admitted all-Mr. Lanctot went over to St. Joseph de Sorel, and there saw Mr. Champagne and Mr. Page. He asked Mr. Page to send some painters over to this new house that he was building on George street in Sorel. Mr. Page told him he would have much pleasure in doing so if he would get the authority of Mr. Papineau, the director of the shipyard. Mr. Pagd says that Mr. Lanctot promised to see Mr. Papineau and get his authority. Mr. Lanctot admits that he never did see Mr. Papineau. That you will find in his evidence on page 19:
Q. Did that conversation take place on the 29th of May or sooner in the month of May ?


A. I canot say so at present.
Q. Did you ever go to Mr. Papineau's after that to obtain his authorization?-A. No, sir.
Q. You never spoke to him of the matter? -A. No, sir. Mr. Papineau lives opposite my house, at about seventy-five feet from me.
*So that on the 29th of May, Mr. Lanctot saw Mr. Page and Mr. Page told him he would send the painters if he got the authority of Mr. Papineau, he agreed to get the authorization of Mr. Papineau, and he never spoke to Mr. Papineau about it until' the work was all completed in the latter part of November, although Mr. Papineau lived Mr. GEOFFRION.
only 75 feet from. him. He went and induced an inferior officer of the government, Mr. Pagd, to send workmen to paint his house; he knew that while these men were working at his house, extending from the 3rd of June till the latter part of November, between five and six months, the time that they were giving to his house was being charged up against the government, and he knew that the government was paying these men for the work they were doing upon his house. Now, what follows from that? It follows that he, in connection with Page and Champagne, defrauded the government out of money that was paid to these men while they were doing the work on his house. It is no answer at all to say that he agreed to pay the money back afterwards. It follows from these facts that he was guilty of conspiracy with these men to get from the government or the people of Canada the money that was paid to the men while they were working at his house. It follows further that that money was obtained from the people of Canada through this government by false pretenses of Mr. Lanctot and Mr. Page. Now, is that so? The Minister of Marine and Fisheries would tell you that he consented to the payment of this $375, believing the pay-sheets that were sent to him from Sorel, representing that these men during these five months were working on government work. So that the minister was deceived and the money was obtained from the government by false pretenses. Therefore, I say that the hon. member for Richelieu was a party to defrauding the government; he was one of the conspirators for getting the money from the government; he was a party to getting that money from the government by false pretenses. And that is not all; he induced them to take from the government storehouse in St. Joseph de Sorel to his house on George street, in the city of Sorel, some $80 worth of goods belonging to the government of this country. Now, those goods were not loaned. You cannot borrow a thing unless you return that identical thing. There was no intention of returning the thing. The property in it passed forever from the owners, the people of Canada or the government, to Mr. Lanctot's house. In this connection, I want to read a sentence or two from the third edition of James Crankshaw on the Criminal Code of Canada. At page 413, in considering the section of the code which was read by my hon. friend from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty), section 347, he says:
Theft defined.-Theft or stealing is the act of fraudulently and without colour of right taking, or fraudulently and without colour of right converting to the use of any person, anything capable of being stolen, with intent,-
(a)	to deprive the owner, or any person having any special property or interest there-

in, temporarily, or absolutely, of such thing, or of such property or interest; or, _
(b)	to pledge the same or deposit it as security ; or,
(c)	to part with it under a condition as to its return which the person parting with it may be unable to perform; or,
(d)	to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition at which it was at the time of its taking and conversion.
And so by putting the paint and putty on Mr. Lanctot's house, they dealt with them so that they could not return them, and there is no evidence that there was any intention of returning the identical goods that they got from the government storehouse.
2.	Theft is committed when the offender moves the thing or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable, with intent to steal it.
So that as soon as these goods were taken from the government storehouse the offence was complete.
3.	The taking or conversion may be fraudulent, although effected without secrecy or attempt at concealment.
4.	It is immaterial whether the thing converted was taken for the purpose of conversion, or w'hether it was, at the time of the conversion, in the lawful possession of the person converting.
In commenting upon this section, at page 413, the learned author speaks as follows:
It is generally laid down that any act whicli is an interference with the dominion and right of property of another is a conversion. A conversion does not mean a destruction of the goods nor does it necessarily import an acquisition of property by the defendant or n total or absolute loss of the goods to the owner, but it consists in any wrongful act by which the defendant deprives the owner of his goods either wholly or for a time. To constitute a fraudulent conversion, the owner must be deprived of his property or money bv an adverse using or holding.
Under the terms of section 347, theft by conversion is committed whenever a person,, already in possession of a specific article of personal property with the owner's consent, fraudulently and without colour of right converts it to his own use or to the use cf any other person than the owner of it, with intent to deprive the owner of it, either temporarily or absolutely, or with intent to deprive any person having any special property or interest therein, temporarily or absolutely, of such special property or interest, or with intent to pledge the same or to part with it under a condition, as to its return, which he may not be able to perform, or to so deal with it that it cannot he restored.
This was what the Act dealt with because in this case it was impossible to return the goods.
The effect of section 347 is to put all persons whomsoever, whether they are or are not clerks, servants, employees, hankers, merchants, brokers, solicitors, factors, agents or bailees, upon the same footing, and to make every person whomsoever, without any distinction, guilty of theft by conversion (or what may, perhaps, he more properly termed embezzlement), when, having become rightfully possessed of something belonging to another, he, instead of handing it over, in specie or instead of doing with it what he was entrusted to do, fraudulently and without colour of right, converts it to his own use or to the use of any other person than the owner. In other words, embezzlement by clerks, servants or other employees, fraudulent conversion by bankers, merchants, brokers, solicitors, factors or other agents, of property entrusted to them for safe custody, &c., and larceny by bailees, are three only of the various ways of committing the offence of theft by conversion treated of by section 347. So that it may not be out of place to briefly review some of the authorities on these three subjects.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in taking these goods belonging to the people of Canada from an inferior officer who had no authority to give them the hon. member for Richelieu was strictly within the terms of section 347, of the Criminal Code and was therefore guilty of theft. What is the difference between the position occupied by Mr. Lanctot with reference to these goods and that of a man who goes to an inferior officer in a bank-the teller or the ledger keeper and get $1,000 from him saying to him: I will return this money in a week? The teller or ledger keeper had no authority to give him $1,000, he gives him $1,000, he invests that in margins, at the end of the week the $1,000 is not paid and the clerk is arrested and convicted of embezzlement or theft. The intention of both parties was to return the money at the end of a week or at the end of a month. Why, our prisons are full of men who have embezzled thousands and scores of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars intending all the time to return the money. I remember that a short time ago a man from our city stole $287,000 before "being arrested, embezzled it, intending every moment to return it as soon as her made it, but he kept on losing and losing, hoping against hope until finally the whole matter was disclosed and he was sent to penitentiary for twelve years. He did not intend to cheat anybody, he intended to return the money just as this man, admit that if you like, intended to return these material's. He did not borrow these goods, but he got these goods promising to return a similar quantity and a like quality of goods just as the young man who gets $1,000 from a bank intends to return, not that identical $1,000, but a like sum of money in ten or thirty days as the case may be. He fails to do it and he is guilty



ALFRED DOUAIRE.

[Stage Direction]
Declared before me, the undersigned,
at Sorel, the first of March, 1911.

[Stage Direction]
Notary.
The original one, I believe, was -dated the 30th of November. There are others; one by Mr. Pr-oulx, which I will no-t take up the time by reading, though it is in English. He said he was sent for to go to Mr. Lanctot's house; that he went; that his two uncles were present there with him; that Mr. Lanctot then -and there asked him to sign another affidavit saying that the previous one he had signed was untrue, and telling him -that if he did so he would use his influence to get him reinstated in a government job. That i-s set forth in the statement of Mr. Proulx and also in his evidence given before the Committee of Privileges and Elections, and it is corroborated by his uncle. Another statement was by Mr. Peloquin, which I shall not read. There is also one by Mr. A. Sen-eeal, and one by Napoleon Laroche, and one by H. Lambert. There were others in the hands of the lion, member for Champlain, set forth in unrevised' ' Hansard,' of March 6th, but as -they are in French, owing to my defective early education I shall not attempt to read them. But the hon. member for Champlain had these -six or eight affidavits setting forth the facts as I have stated them. With these affidavits in his possession, what was his duty. This committee, or rather a majority of the committee, state that he should have gone to the Minister of Marine an-d Fisheries and asked- him about the whole matter. But what does the Minister of Marine and Fisheries say to us now? He appears before the Committee on Privileges and Elections -and -has no-t a word to say in condemnation of this whole transaction.
He was present in that committee, and he quoted from this report of the majority which we have before us, exonerating com-
[Stage Direction]
pletely Mr. Lanctot, justifying this whole transaction, and condemning the hon. member for Champlain for having called public attention to it. And he is the man to whom it is said the hon. member for Champlain should have gone and accept his ipse dixit as to this whole transaction. Well, I was surprised at the Minister of Marine and Fisheries voting for that majority report, for the department, he administers has been in the public eye for several years, and the people to a large extent have lost confidence in the way in which that department is managed. It was found by a commissioner appointed by this government, Judge Cas-sels, that scores and scores of men in the employment of that department had been guilty of defrauding the government. Some of those who were proved guilty were superannuated on large superannuation allowances, one or two, or perhaps a few more, were dismissed. But there were no prosecutions issued against either the bribers or the bribees, although there were scores and scores of cases reported by Judge Cassels of crimes committed against the government and people of Canada, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not see fit to prosecute any one of them. If the law had been enforced in that case we would not have had such an exhibition as we have seen here, in what will come to be known in this_ country as the Lanctot job. Yet the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, it is said, is going to England to represent Canada. It is said that later he may have a seat on the Supreme Court of this country. And that is the man who has been at the head of this Marine Department, and whose record is well known in this House and in this country for the last three or four years in reference to these transactions; and that is the man to whom the majority of this committee suggests that the hon. member for Champlain should have gone when he received these sworn statements showing that this government had been defrauded, and showing conspiracy, showing that money had been obtained by false pretenses" showing theft. And forsooth the majority of the members of _ this committee, intelligent members of this House, come forward with a report and say to the people of Canada: All this is perfectly regular and honest, we subscribe to the whole thing; and we denounce the man who exposed it.
Well, I was to a certain extent surprised that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries should vote approval of this whole matter, saying in substance: It is all right, saying to the people of Canada that the department over which he presides permits this sort of thing to be done. Not a word of condemnation of it, but instead of condemnation for these offences and these crimes, there are words of condemnation of the hon. member for Champlain who, in the dis-Mr. CEOTHEES
charge of his duty, brought these frauds and these thefts to the attention of this House and the people of Canada. Why, Sir, a majority of this committee suggested that the member for Champlain should have gone to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and got from him-what? A statement of the accused. Affidavits similar in substance were sent to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in November, and what did he do with them? Why, he actually sent the original affidavits to Mr. Lanctot and asked him what he had to say about them. Did you ever hear of such a thing as that in your life? A man is charged with conspiracy, with defrauding the government, with getting money under false pretenses, with theft, and the papers charging him with all these crimes and offences are sent to him and he is asked what he has to say about them. He makes his reply, and that is what the minister says he was perfectly willing to give to the member for Champlain. The minister was examined before this committee, and he, in answer to leading questions put by council for Mr. Lanctot-because that is the position that was taken there-said over and over again: I was perfectly willing to give Mr. Blondin all the information that I had if he had come and asked me. Now to have taken the course that is suggested, that my hon. friend from Champlain should have gone to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, would have been to take a course like that which the Minister of Finance took when he sent for the manager of the Farmers' Bank and accepted his statement as to the frauds that were charged against him, with all the disastrous results that have followed. What do we do where a man is charged with fraud, with conspiracy? Do we send for him and ask what he has to say about it? And if he declares through his counsel that he is innocent, do we say to him: Depart in peace, may the Lord be with you?
If I was surprised a little to find that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was endorsing this majority report, I was surprised to a greater extent in listening to the Minister of Justice this afternoon. The Minister of Justice told us he was a strong partisan. It was not the first time he has told us that in this House. Whenever he is called upon to defend an indefensible transaction, he prefaces his remarks by telling us that he is a strong party man. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any other Minister of Justice having a seat in the government of Canada ever found it his duty to rise in this House from time to time and tell the people's representatives, and through them the people of Canada, that he was a strong party man. Why, Sir, it was not necessary for him to say that. I want to say

7y54
to him now-I am sorry he is not present, but he will read what I have to say-I for one will excuse him from ever repeating that again in this House. It never was necessary. We in the province of Ontario, who have known him for the last thirty years, know well that he has always been a strong party man, one of the most bitter partisans we have in the whole province of Ontario. He is the man who represents the goddess of Canadian justice, who gets up in this House and endorses every word that the majority report contains. He has stated that he has read the evidence over two or three times, and there is absolutely no proof of wrong-doing.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what are we to think of that? That the Minister of Justice in this government, the representative of' justice in Canada, declares to the people of this whole country that to get workmen from the government, as these men were got,_ to use them while the government is paying for them, to make false paylists, by misrepresentation to get money from this country, taking the goods and the; property of this country, and therefore being guilty of theft under the law-that he* the Minister of Justice, sees absolutely no wrong in all that. And that does not come from a back bencher, that comes from the representative of justice in Canada and it may be read from the Atlantic to the Pacific as the opinion of the Minister of Justice in this country that any man may treat the government of Canada as Mr. Lanctot has done, and if he be a good Liberal he will have not only the Minister of Marine and Fisheries backing him up in all these transactions, but he will have the representative of the sacred Goddess of Justice rising in this House and justifying him.
If I had time I would go over the evidence upon which I found these statements in order that the people might be able to read that evidence, but I shall not do so. I wish to call attention to the intent of Mr. Lanctot. Mt. Lanctot promised Mr. Page and Mr. Badeau that he would see Mr. Papineau and get his authority for the use of these men and for the taking of these goods, but he never did so; he never saw Mr. Papineau although he lived only 75 feet away, just across the road from him. For six months this was going on. He promised to see Mr. Papineau. He was in Sorel over and over again but he did not. Why did he not? Was it because he knew that Papineau would not approve of this if he did see it? Evidence of that will be found on pages 19, 130, 172 and 173. He never spoke to Papineau about paying for this paint, Papineau spoke to him first about, paying for it, and you will find if I remember right, evidence of this on pages 23 and 24. ,Another piece of evidence as to intent is his trying to get
these two or three men who made these affidavits, Douaire and Proulx, to sign other affidavits denying what they had asserted in their first affidavits, and promising that if they would make other affidavits denying what they had said, he would use his influence to get them jobs under the government. What does that indicate? How does that affect the question of intent? How does that affect the question of guilty knowledge? In this letter inclosing a cheque for $375 for the men's time, pages 23 and 24, he said nothing about the paint, and that letter was sent on November 22. The account for the paint is dated November 16, as you will find on page 109. This account for the paint taken out of the government stores and going to Lanc-tot's house, amounting to $81.60, is dated November 16. Champagne sent to Mr. Lanctot his account for the wages of the men, $375 on November 22. Nothing was said in that letter of the 22nd November about the paint although the account for it is dated November 16, 12 days before the letter was sent with reference to the_ pay for the men. In his letter to the minister, of December 6, he stated that he had settled for the paint, and that statement was not true. Look at page 177 and you will find Mr. Lanctot's letter to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, dated December 6, 1910. The minister had sent him these affidavits that were made in November, and -what does he say?:
This is true; but as soon as their work was finished I reimbursed the department as per understanding with the officers. I did the same with regard to borrowed material. The whole was paid several days before the filing of those documents.
Follow the dates:	This is dated December 6. If you turn to page 111 you will find, beyond any peradventure, that_ that money was not paid even by Papineau until'December 13, so Mr. Lanctot in his letter to the minister of December 6, declared he had paid not only for the men's wages but for the goods that had been delivered to him, and on page 111 you will find the account for $81.60 paid on December 13 by Mr. Papineau. a week after Mr. Lanctot had said he had paid it, and Papineau's evidence shows that Mr. Lanctot did not pay him until some time after he had paid the company in Montreal. So there you have a statement of facts that is utterly untrue. Remember that he did not mention anything to Papineau, it was Papineau who went to him. This account was sent to Papineau who says he had occasion to see Mr. Lanctot and he told Mr. Lanctot after Mr. Lanctot had sent the account for the men's wages, $375, that the accounts were paid. Mr. Lanctot did not say anything to him about the paint. Did Mr. Lanctot intend to pay
[Stage Direction]
for the paints at all, Mr. Speaker? His statement is untrue. Then he stated further that there were no other painters at Sorel. Well, there are three or four witnesses to show that is not true. A good deal has been said about the cheque sent for $375. He did not pay Papineau with a cheque. I wonder why? I would like to see that cheque if it every was given; it was not produced.
Mr. LENNOX.: He says it was paid in cash.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: And when he wrote to the minister on December 6, that he had paid the wages of the men and had paid for the goods, that was absolutely untrue, and he knew it was untrue when he wrote the letter. Papineau himself had not paid it at that time, or until December 13, and a copy of the receipt is given on page ill, dated Quebec, December 12.
I am very sorry I have not time to refer to some other matters, but the evidence I have adduced as to the intent of Mr. Lanctot will suffice. Why did he make statements that were not true if that intent was honest .all the way through? Why resort to these petty and paltry excuses of there not being painters in Sorel? We have evidence that there are two or three competent painters in that city of 10,000 inhabitants. But suppose .there was not a painter in the whole city of Sorel does that justify his being a party to conspiracy and theft. If his wife was ill we all deeply sympathize with him, but what under1 heaven has that to do with it. That is no excuse whatever for being a party to these offences I have mentioned. Why are these little insignificant side issues brought in; why these false statements made by this man who is now accused? He said nothing to the minister when he sent the letter with the cheque for $375; he knew that the paint had been taken to his house before .that; he told the minister that he had paid it on the 6th December, whereas it was not paid until the 13th of December; he promised to see Papineau, and why did not he see him? These are all ear marks of the fraud and guilt that I have brought to the attention of the House; these are indications that would justify any jury in any part of Canada in finding that on the part of the member for Eiehelieu this was not an innocent transaction. I must now conclude my remarks.
Some hon. MEMBEES. Go on.
Mr. CEOTHEES, No, I have a train to catch, and I cannot stay longer. Let me read whait the Ottawa ' Free Press ' said about this matter on April 20, and mind you, this is the Liberal organ of the capital city of the Dominion. Deferring to Mr. Lanctot, it says:
Mr. CEOTHEES
But what he should have done the moment the charge was preferred against him was to hare resigned his seat and appealed to his constituents for re-election. He could then have been re-elected by acclamation; whether he could do so now is another question.
Where a member of a party in the control of the public business places himself, wittingly or unwittingly, under the penalties of the parliament Act there is only one course open for him to take, and that is what Mr.-Lanctot should have done.
For him to now ask a majority of the House of Commons to excuse his fault is to ask many of them to cancel their own records, and we do not believe that they will do so.
Even the ' Free Press ' would not believe it, 'but I fear we will be forced to believe it by this vote to-night. We will be forced to believe that not only a majority of the Privileges and Elections Committee, but that a majority of the men supporting the government, including the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, including the man who occupies the high and sacred position of Minister of Justice of Canada. I fear we will see every one of them expressing their approval of this very thing that their own organ disapproves of. The Montreal ' Herald,' another Liberal organ says:
What is irritating about the case is that Liberals in and out of parliament are assumed to he ready to defend Mr. Lanctot, to maintain his right to get his house painted by the government's workmen and with the government's paint, because it is supposed that in defending Mr. Lanctot they are defending the Laurier Cabinet. The 'Herald,' for one, does not propose to rest its confidence in the Laurier administration on any such basis. The fact is, indeed, that the house painting was done by connivance between the member for Eiehelieu and subordinate officials at Sorel.
That comes from the Montreal ' Herald,' the great Liberal organ of the city of Montreal :
And that the Minister of Marine was actually demanding the facts about it when the investigation was brought on by Mr. Blondin. And Liberals are expected to testify their confidence in Mr. Brodeur's administration by affirming their satisfaction with what was done, to the injury of the reputation of Mr. Brodeur's department, without his acknowledge and without his approval. It will not down.
That is what the great English speaking Liberal organ in the great metropolis ol Canada says; that this will not down, but so far as that is concerned and so far as they can, it will be downed to-night by the pliable mechanical majority if big enough on the other side of the House.
Evidently Mr. Lanctot, for all the ability he undoubtedly possesses, has failed to realize that a public man is under a responsibility towards those who give him their confidence and towards the leaders and the rank and file of his party.

Not only Mr. Lanetot has failed to realize it, but the majority of the members of the Privileges and Elections Committee have failed to realize it, the Minister of Marine has failed to realize it, the Minister of Justice has failed to realize it, and the Liberal members of parliament and the Prime Minister not only fail to realize it, but actually appear to applaud and support it.
He seems to be content to prove that he paid for the painters' time and replaced the materials used on his place. He does not seem to recognize that it was unworthy of him as a member of parliament to arrange with subordinate officials, without the knowledge of their superiors on the spot, even, to have men working for him whose services were all the time being charged to the Crown and presumably apportioned against some work that had been ordered by parliament. If Mr. Lanetot cannot see the unworthiness of that, he ought to be in some other role than that of a Liberal party leader. Certainly no government, Liberal or other, can be maintained in this country on the principle that its supporters in parliament are justified in such enterprises.
There is the opinion of the Liberal organ of the city of Montreal. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard anything so far from my rigtoit hon. friend the Prime Minister. Is it to be said of him-and it will be said of him and justly said of him what the * Herald ' has said of Mr. Lanetot, and if he votes for the adoption of the majority report he will make himself just as guilty as Mr. Lanetot. I had hoped; yea I have told several of my friends, that while I was not a supporter of the right hon. gentleman, and while I have not as much confidence in him as a great many other members of this House have, yet in the last two or three days I have told in private several of my friends that Sir Wilfrid Laurier would never stand for the frauds and the crimes that were set forth in this evidence, and I really believe he would not stand for it, and I had hoped until the last moment that there would be at least one man big enough on the other side of the House to get up and condemn this transaction. I hope I will hear after I get home to-morrow, that the right hon. gentleman rose equal to the occasion and showed to the people of Canada that he was big enough to protect the best interests of the people of this country which are their moral interests, and to protect justice in this country. And although his Minister of Justice by the address he delivered here tonight degraded the Canadian goddess of justice as she has never before been degraded in this parliament of Canada, I hope I will hear to-morrow that the Prime Minister of this country has risen equal to the occasion and denounced the conduct which I submit, every intelligent and honest and patriotic Canadian must in his *heart condemn.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.).: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and I attended regularly every sitting of that committee while the subject now under discussion was before us for investigation. I am one of the members of the committee who_ signed the majority report, and I desire to state a few reasons which led me to the conclusion I came to with respect to that report. The position taken by hon. gentlemen who are opposing the adoption of this report is somewhat different from that which was taken by them in the committee. So far as I have been able to appreciate the objections made by hon. gentlemen .who support the minority report, I am led to the conclusion that they no longer contend seriously -that the Independence of Parliament Act has been violated. _
There can be no longer any question of doubt as to that, having regard to the ar-eument addressed to this House by the hon. Minister of Justice this_ afternoon. Having conceded that, what is the conclusion that we must come to with respect to hon. gentlemen opposite? If the hon. member for Richelieu has not * committed an infraction of the Independence of Parliament Act, then it must be that hon. gentlemen opposite are seeking to invoke some higher law, with respect to the conduct of the members of this House which perhaps they are not ready to apply to themselves or to their associates. Another question which was brought into the discussion, and now practically dropped from further consideration is whether the hon. member for Richelieu has fully paid for the services rendered to him by the department at Sorel, and adequately compensated the department for the goods which he borrowed. That point has not been emphasized this evening, but hon. gentlemen who have spoken have said that whether or not the hon. member for Richelieu paid for the labour he received or the material supplied to him, he is guilty of having committed an offence in respect of the manner in which they were procured. With that much conceded, the task which falls to hon. gentlemen supporting this report is very much lightened. We come then to the discussion of the general principles which the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) sought to apply to this case. I must confess that I had not very much experience as a member of the Committee on Privileges and Elections when the sittings commenced to hear the case against the hon. member for Richelieu. I endeavoured to inform myself as well as I could as to what was the action of this House and the action of hon. gentlemen opposite and the action of hon. gentlemen supporting the government, in similar cases. In the course of the address delivered by the hon. member for Vercheres (Mr. Geoffrion) to-night, he made

reference to charges that had been established in the Public Accounts Committee in a preceding session which the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Eeid) understood as applying to himself. I want to read the following from page 9774, volume 5, of 'Hansard' of the session of 1907-8:



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.

Mr.  J. D.@: Reid (Grenville). I rise to a question of privilege. On my arrival here this morning I noticed in last night's issue of the Ottawa 'Free Press' the following headings on an article.
'A Conservative member of parliament got yacht repaired at country's expense.
Dr. Reid of Grenville has received favours from the Marine Department at Prescott- Uprwin paid on the repairs to his tug 'Victor" but Conservative member has not made good.'
I want to say that this is absolutely untrue. So far as I am concerned, the government works at Prescott never did any work on jny yacht, so far as I know, that I have not paid for. . . . This matter will come up in the committee on Wednesday next, when I shall be present, and I hope the Minister of Marine will be there too, so that the question can be gone into thoroughly. In the meantime I state that I deny the whole matter absolutely.
Having been made aware that a matter similar in character had come up in parliament in the session of 1907-8, I thought it well to inquire what were the circumstances surrounding the particular incident to which the hon. member for Grenville had reference, and I have procured a copy of the evidence. I desire hon. gentlemen, particularly the hon. member for Grenville, not to understand me as going into this question for the purpose of arguing that he had committed any offence against the independence of parliament. I simply do so for the purpose of pointing out that in the conclusion which I have come to with reference to the charges made against the hon. member for Richelieu, I have been guided by the evidence elicited in the case in which the hon. member for Grenville was concerned. This is the evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee on June 10, 1908. The witness on the stand is Mr. J. Offspring, an official of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, in the town of Prescott:
Q. Tell me the names of some of the boats or vessels you worked on in 1905 P-A. There was the 'Reserve,' the 'Maisonneuve,' 'Lot-biniere'.
Q. And the 'Dack'P-A. Yes.
Q. What did you do to her?-A. Hauled her out in the fall, kept her over all the winter on the ways, and in the spring did some work on her.
Q. By whose instructions did you haul her out?-A. A. J. F. Fraser's.
Q. What work did you do to her?-A. Put a caulker, a carpenter and a labourer on her.
Mr- KYTE.
Q. How many days did the caulker work?- A. Two days, I think.	[DOT]
Q. Who paid this man?-A. Well, I tried to find Dr. Reid and could not, and I went to the office and told Mr. Noble that the man wanted to go home in the morning, and Noble paid him.
Q. Was it paid from the government or private funds?-A. I understand that Mr. Noble paid it out of his own pocket.
Q. What Dr. Reid are you referring to? -A. John D. Reid.
Q. What .is his business?-A. He has a starch factory at this time.
Q. Was he the owner of the boat?-A. I understand that he was.
Q. Who also worked on this boat-other employees?-A. Well, Malone put in the planking.
Q. What is the business?-A. Ship carpenter.
Q. How many days did he work?-A. Two and a half days I think, he put in six planks.
Q. And who else?-A. Mr. McGarr did the scraping and some painting.
Q. Have you any knowledge of how many days he worked?-A. I could not say exactly.
Q. Well, we will get that another way-However, he worked some days on this boat? -A. Yes.
Q. Was he in the employ of the department?-A. Yes, he was a government man.
Q. Anybody else?-A. John Earner-he was one of the labourers.
By Mr. Northrup:
Q. How many labourers?-A. McGarr and Earner.
By Mr. Carvell:
Q. Do you remember Lalonde?-A. That is a carpenter.
Q. Yes, did he work?-A. Yes, two and a half days.
Q. What were his wages?-A. $2.25 per day.
By Mr. Northrup:
Q. Was there a man named Malone and one named Lalonde?-A. It is one man I think. He goes by both names; I cannot tell you which he had then.
By Mr. Carvell:
Q. Lalonde is a carpenter?-A. Yes.
Q. Salary $2.25 a day and he worked how long?-A. Two and a half days.
Q. Did you have to do any work in order to get things ready to get this boat out of the water?-A. Yes, we had to get ways in.
Q. For the purpose of getting this boat out? -A. Well, for all of them.
Q. How many did you haul out?-A. Four altogether.
Q. How much time was occupied in getting the ways in?-A. I .	.	. well it cost about
$200. We had everything ready to haul out for $290.
By Mr. Northrup.
Q. That is for the ways?-A. Yes.
By Mr. Carvell.
Q. And after the ways once got ready you pulled out for boats?-A. Yes.
Q. The yacht 'Dack' was one of them?-A. Yes, of course.
Q. Did the other boats that you have named belong to the department or to private parties? -A. They belonged to the department.
Q. All the boats you worked on, with the exception of the 'Dack,' belonging to the department?-A. Yes.

Q. Well, now, who kept the men's time for this work along with other work?-A. Well, we had a time keeper.
Q. Did yon keep books yourself?-A. I made out the time and put it in the office.
Q. Have you these original books that were kept?-A. No, I haven't got them. When we have done with the books we return them to the office.
Q. Who was the official who kept the books in the office?-A. Mr. Mundle.
Q. Do you know that they make up a regular time sheet every month?-A. As far as I know, they do.
Q. I have here the time sheets for the month of May produced by Mr. Boyle, who is the officer in charge. We could have Mr. Mundle here to swear to them if necessary. I notice in this time sheet, over the marks representing the work on days by Mr. McGarr, that the letter 'R' is marked?-A. Every man who worked on the boat for Reid you will find his name marked with an "R".
Q. That means that on that day he worked on Reid's boat?-A. Every man who worked on Reid's boat I marked their name, so that there would be no mistake about it.
By Mr. Northrup:
Q. Is that your sheet?
Mr. Carvell.-No, it is a copy.
By Mr. Northrup.
Q. Are you prepared to swear that that is your sheet?-A. No.
Mr. Carvell.-We can call Boyle as to that.
By Mr. Northrup:
Q. When you handed in your time sheets were you particular to mark the number of days that each man worked on Reid's boat? -A. Very particular, and took all pains to do so.
Q. Now, on this document produced as the official time sheet we find the letter 'R' over marks representing day's work by McGarr, and these 'R's' are over the days of the 9th, 10th,	11th,	12th,	13th,	15th,	16th,	17th,
18th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th of May, 1905. Do you know, as a matter of fact, that in the month of May, 1905, McGarr worked on Reid's boat?-A. Yes, I know he worked on the boat.
Q. But you do not know, as a matter of fact, the exact days I have mentioned?-A. I could not say that.
Q. But in the month of May he worked on Reid's boat?-A. Yes.
Q. I find ' R ' over these days in the month of May, and you say that for some days he worked on Reid's boat, and you so reported it?-A. Yes, I reported every day he worked on that boat.
Q. Now, Lalonde-did you also report to the head office the days Lalonde worked on Mr. Reid's boat?-A. Well, I cannot mind exactly whether I did or not.
Q. Well, now, I find in this sheet on the 9tb of May, 1909, the letter * R ' marked over one-half day and ' R ' marked oyer the 10th and 11th against Lalonde; that is ' R ' over two and a-half days' work of Lalonde in 1905. Did he work on Reid's boat two and a-half days?-A. Yes, he put in six planks on that boat in the two and a-half days he worked.
Q. This man Lalonde, the man you said was paid by Noble?-A. No; his name, I think, was David Mountry. I do not know whether
that is the right name or not, it is always the name he went by.
By Mr. Carvell:
Q. Do you know who prepared this account I am showing to you, that is do you know of your own knowledge?-A. I think that is Mundle's writing.
Q. Give me this man's name as nearly as you can?-A. David Mountry, I think. I cannot find it on the government pay-list for the month of May. It may be spelled differently, but I cannot find it on the official time sheet.
Q. There is a D. Montrel, a calker?-A. That is the man.
Q. You look at that list for the month of May, and see if the letter ' R ' is over anv of his day's work?-A. I do not find it.
Q. Did you find it over any of his day's work?-A. I do not.
Q. Did he work after the 7th day of May, in the year 1905?-A. I cannot tell you exactly what day it was.
Q. According to this time sheet did he?-A. No, sir.
Q. Did Dr. Reid have any other boat repaired at the government expense?-A. Yes, he had one hauled out since.
Q. Yes, the name, please?-A. The 'Helen.'
Q. What was done to her ?-A. Just hauled out.
Q. Reid furnished his own men for the work on her?-A. Yes, and the timber.
Q. All the department did was to loan the ways for him to do his own work on?-A. Yes.
Q. And, so far as you know, there was no charge to Reid for that?-A. Not so far as I know.
Bv Mr. Northrup.
Q. Were you there?-A. Yes.
Q. Tell me how you came to haul Reid's boat up?-A. Dr. Reid spoke about hauling the boat up.
Q. Spoke to who?-A. To the office.
Q. You ought to speak of your own knowledge. What was it first that you knew?-A. He came to me and said he had leave to haul out his boat.
Q. And what was said by you?-A. I said, you get around and as soon as I am ready I will haul her up.
Q. And what then?-A. He sent around the boat to our slip.
Q. His factory is near you?-A. Yes.
Q. So that it was only a few feet to haul around?-A. Yes.
Q. He had his men bring it around?-A. I believe they did and tied it to the slip.
Q. Dp you know why his men did not haul her up?-A. I think they did not have enough men.
Q. Why did they not pull her up?-A. Well, I think they did not know enough to pull her up.
Q. Then she was left there at the ways?-. The ways were not ready at the time. She was left there until the ways were ready.
Q. How long did it take to pull her up?-A. I don't think it was more than an hour. We hauled her from the water 110 feet.
Q. Do you think you did that in an hour? You haul these boats along two rails, do you? -A. No, I used holders outside the rails.
Q. Then your power comes from what?-A. A capstan.

Q. How many mem?-A. I did not liave any men to work the capstan, I had a horse.
Q. Do you remember what repairs were made on the ' Dack '?-A. Scraping and painting and puttying, and putting in six new planks and caulking.
Q. How long would the six planks be?-A. They were 16 feet planks, one and a quarter inch stuff.
Q. Six pieces of one and a quarter-inch stuff were put in?-A. Yes.
Q. As a practical man, how long would you say it would take to put in those six planks? -A. It took a carpenter two days and a half.
Q. Did he do all that himself?-A. All himself, except that when he wanted a plank to be lifted he called the labourers.
Q. The labourers being for work on the ground?-A. Yes,
Q. When he wanted a plank lifted he would call one of the labourers to help?-A. Yes.
Q. Besides putting in the plates, you painted and puttied and caulked?-A. That is right.	.
Q. And the caulking was done by this man Montrel?-A. Yes.
Q. And there -was no charge made to the department for that?-A. Not that I know of.
Q. How long did it take a man to scrape that boat?-A. It would take one man three or four days to scrape her.
Q. Do you remember, as a matter of fact, that any one .man did work three or four days?-A. McGarr worked on it.
Q. Did he do all the scraping?-A. Yes, as far as I remember.
Q. Now, about the painting?-A. McGarr did the painting, too.
Q. What else was there? We had the calking accounted for, the putting in of the plates, the scraping and the puttying. What else was done on the boat?-A. That is about all I know of.
Q. Then we are quite clear that one man did the painting and another man the carpentry and put in the plates, and he had another man to help him when he wanted to lift a plank, and the man McGarr did the scraping?-A. Yes.
Q. And the puttying?-A. Yes.
Q. That accounts for all the work done?- A. All that I know of.
Q. .So far then we have only McGarr and the carpenter (Lalonde). These are the only two. We won't bother about the caulker, for he was paid outside?-A. There was somebody else. I did not remember. There was a man called Aimer, he worked on it.
Q. What do you say he did?-A. If I remember right, Aimer helped to put her back into the water.
Q. You say that one .man, a carpenter, put in the planks, another man, McGarr, also did the puttying and also the scraping?-A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you tell me anything that was done besides carpentry work, painting and puttying?-A. Putting her in the water.
Q. That is not repairs. So that all the work on that boat outside caulking was done by carpenter Lalonde and McGarr?-A. That is so far as I know. .
Q. And you were there all the time?-A. I was there all the time.
Q. That being the case, what would you I think of this extraordinary document (time sheet produced). I see we have McGarr ap-Mr. KYTE.
parently working sixteen days?-A. I cannot tell you how many he worked.
By Mr. Northrup-
Q. Would you pledge yonr oath that this man McGarr worked for fifteen days?-A. I cannot tell you how many he worked.
Q. There is an entry here for a caulker, paid at $3 a day or $2.35 a day, paid to May 5. Do you remember this man?-A. No man worked for $2.25.
Q. It is here $3 a day?-A. That is right.
Q. Leland, as a caulker, was paid to May 5 at $3 a day, and then there are the figures $2.25 paid and then three hours?-A. I do not know anything about that.
Q. You would not say that ie made np from your sheet?-A. I do not know anything about that. I know he caulked more than two days.
Q. Do you remember the fact of this caulker working for the government at the same time and then being paid off?-A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember that he was working for the government and that he was paid off, and that he then worked for Dr. Reid?- A. Dr Reid asked me three days before, and I told him I could not put on a caulker just then, but that I would in a short time, and that as soon as the work was done I would put him on.
Q. He was discharged from the government and afterwards worked for Dr. Reid?-A.Yes.
Q. The government have nothing to do with the caulker at the time he was working for Dr. Reid?-A. Not at all.
Q. If the government pay-sheet shows six days charged against him, that would be wrong?-A. I cannot say.
Mr. Northrup.-According to this account put in, there are a caulker, painter, carpenter and two labourers apparently, and then two men had half a day each, so there would be four or five labourers apparently.
Q. Can you give me any idea of your own knowledge of wbat took place, wbat labourers would be doing on that boat?-A. Labourers were painting.
Q. You told me that McGarr did all the painting?-A. McGarr did the painting, he was a labourer working on the boat.
Q. The painting was all done by McGarr?- A. As far as I can tell you.
Q. If any labourers time is charged for, would you say that that was for hauling her out or putting her hack?-A. I suppose that is what it would he for.
Q. I find this item:-' To getting ways ready and hauling out, $28.56/ Did you send in any items from which that would he made up?- A. I think Mr. Mundle took over the matter.
Q. When?-A. The same fall.
Q. How would you average up?-A. We averaged up and then we charged Dr. Reid.
Q. Yon told us a little while ago that you thought the ways cost about $200?-A. Yes in the neighbourhood of $200.
Q. How did you arrive at this $28.66 for getting ways ready and hauling out?-A. We took the $200 and put so much ou the heavy boats and put a little on Dr. Reid's boat. We divided it up as far as we could.
Q. The department has spent $200 on their ways. They had had four boats on ways and they figured out that Dr. Reid's proportionate share would he about $28.66?-A. Yes.
Q. When you charged $28.66 it is clearly un-
79G5

derstood that that was not based on the particular time that any man took. It was just based on the average cost?-A. The average cost.
Q. This took place in 1905 and you handed in your slips day by day, reporting what was done in May, 1905. Did you ever ask Dr. Reid to pay any bill?-A. I had nothing to do with that.
Q. You did not know of any bills being rendered?-A. No.
Q. When you handed in your slips, did you do anything more?-A. No.
Q. What brought the account to your mind. You started in May, 1905, when did you next hear about these charges against Dr. Reid?- A. I did not hear anything about it until some time this summer or the spring.
Q. The spring of 1908?-A. Yes.
By Mr. Reid (Grenville):
Q. Was there any work done on Sunday on that boat?-A. Not that I know of.
Q. Are you positive?-A. I never have any of them working on Sunday.
Q. You are sure?-A. Yes, none of my men worked on Sunday.
Q. If that time-sheet shows that some of them worked on Sunday, you would say it was untrue?-A. There might have been a watchman put on on Sunday.
Q. Supposing it mentioned that any of these men worked on Sunday at that, you would say it was untrue?-A. I do not remember any of them working on Sunday.
Q. Take McGarr, you are sure that McGarr did not work on Sunday at that boat?-A. Not that I know of; I do not think so.
Now, one other matter referred to that, I think, has special application to the charges made against the hon. member for Richelien:
Q. Did you know anything about a gas tank? -A. I placed it myself.
Q. Where was it?-A. Down at the east fence on the government property.
Q. Take this plan. Will you point out where it was? Was it placed as close to the starch factory as you could get it?-A. Yes, on the government property.
Q. But as close to their property as you could get it, and yet have it on your own property?-A. Yes, right inside the fence.
Q. I think there was correspondence ahont that, we may as well have that, too. I find this letter:
October 19, 1904.
Dear Dr. Reid,-On further consideration it seems to me to be practical to roll the steel store roller on the east side of the depot. There will he less pipe required this way than any other. I have given instructions to have this carried out at once.
Yours obediently,
F. F. FRASiER, Commissioner of Lights.
Q. What 'was meant by steel store roller?- A. That must be the same gas holder.
Q. That must he the gas tank placed on the east side of your lot?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it says there will be less pipe required this way than any other. What was the pipe for, do you know?-A. I guess we ran the pipe down from the valve, down to the ground and under the fence.
<3. Where to?-A. We ran it under the fence so that Dr. Reid could attach his pipe.
Q. Did Dr. Reid attach his pipe to your pipe?-A. Yes.
Q. And carried it to his factory?-A. Yes.
Q That was in your own knowledge?-A. Yes.
Q. Did Dr. Reid use acetylene gas from the government works?-A. He used some.
Q. For how long?-A. I cannot tell. There was a man there trying some new process. I heard of it. They could not get along without gas and they used the gas for that.
Q. For how long?-A. I think they filled three times to my knowledge.
Q. Kindly explain what you mean by filling?-A. Putting gas in.
Q. Ho-w much gas would it take to fill it?- A. I 'think it would hold about 70 atmospheres.
Q. And you pumped that in three times?- A. Three times to my knowledge.
Q. What would be the value of that gas to fill the tank once?-A. I cannot give the figures.
Q. Anyway you know there would he 210 atmospheres pumped in ?-A. Somewhere about that.
Q. Do you know whether a government dredge did any work in front of Dr. Reid's property, the starch company's property?- A. I had a dredge digging there and she ran two outs, one down and one back. I do not know who it was done for.
Q. Was it done in front of his property?- A. Yes, in front of 'his property. She took one cut down and one back, two cuts.
It is only fair to the hon. member for Grenville that I should read the evidence given by him in answer to the evidence I have just read:


Dr.   J@: Reid, M.P., called, sworn and examined.
By Mr. Northrup:
Q. Dr. Reid, the Department of Marine charges this account against you for hauling out your _ boat, the ' Daek ', on the ways at Prescott in the fall of 1904, putting some repairs on her in the month of May, 1905, what have you to say about that?-A. The only thing that I wish to state about that-in fact I want to state first that so far as this matter is concerned I consider it was rather unfair of the minister to bring it up in my absence.
Mr. Carvell.-Tell'us the facts, you are in the witness box now, doctor, and you are dealing with facts.
Mr. Northrup.-That is one of the facts connected with this matter.
Hon. Mr. Brodeur.-Matters have been brought up in my absence very often.
A. In the fall of 1904, I wanted to haul out this small yacht, as is customary, with all small yachts which are hauled out in the winter on account of the ice. I did not haul her out for the purpose of making any repairs, I did net expect there were any repairs bo be done on her. Of course, at the end of the spring it is always necessary to have a little caulking done, and at the end of the winter I remember speaking to Mr. Offspring and asking him when he got through with the caulker that he had there, doing work for the government, and when he ceased to he a

government employee I told Mr. Offspring I would like to get the services of the man for a couple of days to do some caulking that might be necessary on my boat. I did not know of any repairs being done, nor did I expect that any repairs would be done, and from that time until now I never knew of anything about any repairs being done; nor have I ever had any accounts presented to me for repairs done on that boat by the department. I may say that in so far as the hauling out of the boat is concerned, I asked permission of Mr. Prefontaine to haul the boat out on these government ways, government ways that were built and were there in place for their own work. At the time I asked permission from Mr. Prefontaine I mentioned to him that I wanted to do it with my own men, as on no account would I allow or would I wish that any of the government men should be employed doing that work. I never knew from that time until this investigation came on, or until about a week ago, that the government men had even hauled out the boat. I inquired from a man, who was my foreman at that time, if the government men did actually haul out the boat, and the answer he made to me was: that I had told him to take the boat round and haul her out with our own men, and he took the boat around prepared to do that, but Mr. Offspring said to him: 'Never mind, I will haul her out in fifteen minutes, when we are hauling out our own boat/
By Mr. Northrup:
Q. When were you told that?-A. About a week ago, when I asked him if our men had not hauled her out. I had, at that time very many men in my employ, and could have done it, and would have done it, but I have'nt any doubt that Mr. Offspring told him that thinking it was only a matter of a few minutes to haul her out. and that he did not think anything of the matter further than that.
Q. Now. about the caulking?-A. The caulking was done, I saw Mr. Noble afterwards, and asked him what charges there were against me, and he replied $6. I paid it, and I have never heard one single thing from that day until this about the charges; that is all T know as far as the yacht is concerned.
There are one or two other matters which have been referred to, which I would like to speak of, there is the question of acetylene gas for the Starch Company. Let me say about that that we had secured a chemist from Chicago, a new man, that wanted to use gas for testing purposes, for lighting purposes. We had no gas in the town of Prescott and he wanted me to put in an acetylene gas plant which would cost a good many hundred dollars; he was not quite sure whether acetylene gas would work, and in order to have a simple test of this acetylene gas, I asked Mr. Fraser if he would allow me to use a little acetylene gas just for a day or two in order to test it. Mr. Fraser did put this gas over there and we tested it, and it would not work. It was only jnst for the test, and the result was we did not put in an acetylene gas plant that I would have put in if it had worked. So far as I was concerned, I did not consider that we had used any quantity or that the value of it would he hardly anything. Now. that is all about the acetylene gas, hut I Mr. KYTE.
personally derived no benefit whatever from the use of that gas.
Q. Excuse me, it was a company?-A. Yes. it was the company that derived any benefit there may have been from the use of the gas.
Another matter that was mentioned here was with reference to an engine. Now, I wanted we started up our works and I had
pdered machinery which had not arrived, and we wanted to start, and the government had an engine in store which I understood was one which had been laid aside for many years, but that it would answer the company for a short time until we could get our own. 1 asked Mr. Fraser if he would allow the company the use of this engine until we could get our own. The engine was in a bad state of repair at that time on account of not having been in use for many years. I took it over to the machine shop and got it repaired up and used it for a short time, and then returned it in better condition, I believe, than when ,we got it.


John Dowsley Reid: Would the hon. gentleman also read the evidence of Mr. Noble, the man who was in charge of the matter?


George William Kyte: I should be glad to read it if I could put my hand on it.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Noble was in *charge of the plant and right there all the time.


George William Kyte: I will pass the book over to the hon. .member (Mr. Reid, Grenville), and perhaps he will find it for me.
Now, I desire to say that I was led to an expectation as to the manner in which the charges against the hon. member for Richelieu would be dealt with having read the evidence elicited in the Public Accounts Committee in the charge made against the hon. member for Grenville. We have theTe a case of the hon. member (Mr. Reid, Grenville) who was then, as now, a member of the House seeking to get a favour from the government. I am going to admit at once that the hon. member for Grenville paid the bill when he knew what was due. I will admit that the hon. member might perhaps have been deceived when the caulkers were put to work upon his vessel as to being still upon the pay-roll of the government.


John Dowsley Reid: I object there. The caulkers ' the hon. gentleman speaks of were two men who had never before been in the employ of the government. They were brought from Kingston, where they were the employees of Davis & Sons. They were brought down just to caulk three boats, and the minute they were through they were discharged, and ceased to be government employees.


George William Kyte: I am merely stating what I read from the evidence. It may have been

a mistake to continue their names on the government pay-roll.


John Dowsley Reid: They were never on the government pay-roll for caulking government Boats prior to being on my boat.


George William Kyte: I do not desire to enter into a wordy controversy with the hon. member with respect to it. I read the evidence taken from the Public Accounts Committee and which will appear upon the ' Hansard ' to-morrow. The evidence is available, and any one who desires can read it. With regard to the repairs made uipon the boat, and the painting upon the boat of the hon. member for Grenville, the same thing applies. The hon. member, I presume, paid for it when it came to his notice that their time had been charged against the government.


John Dowsley Reid: There was never any account presented' to me.


George William Kyte: Then it is not paid yet, so it is all the worse for the hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Richelieu desired the use of some men to do work upon his house. He went to the person having charge of these men, who consented that they should go and work upon his house. The time was kept in the same manner in which it was kept in the case of the hon. member for Grenville, and when the work was all done the bill was presented to the hon. member for Richelieu, and he paid the bill, in the same way the member for Grenville would have paid the bill had it been presented to him. Now, with regard to the paint that the member for Richelieu borrowed from the employees of the government at Sorel, the situation is exactly the same as in the case of the hon. member for Grenville. in borrowing the acetylene gas and borrowing the engine, with this difference, that there is no testimony that the member for Grenville ever paid the value of the acetylene ga? or the rent of the engine. The member for Grenville said that -he needed an engine for some special work in his factory, he could not get another one anywhere else, and he went to the Superintendent of the Marine and- Fisheries Department in the town of Prescott, he borrowed an engine, and used it as long as he had any use for it, and then returned the engine to the government. I submit that is the exact set of circumstances in respect to the hon. member for Richelieu. It is true, as the Minister of Justice pointed out, that the member for Richelieu did not return the paint in specie, but he returned it in kind. The person who had control of paints in Sorel swears that he kept an absolutely correct account of the material, and after 252
the work was done he made out a bill for the .material, he gave it to the time-keeper, who handed it over to Mr. Papineau, and the moment the member for Richelieu ascertained the value of the material that bad been used in his house, he gave instructions to have it purchased from the same manufacturer, and he paid the bill, thereby returning to the department at Sorel every penny's worth of material that had been loaned to him. Now, I submit that the circumstances surrounding the transaction in which the hon. member for Grenville was connected are on all fours with the charges made against the member for Richelieu. The member for Richelieu got men from the Department of Marine and Fisheries to do work for him, for which he paid. The hon. member for Grenville, in equal good faith, I presume, got men from the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Prescott, to do work for him, and I am free to admit that if he did not pay for it, it was not his fault, but he would have paid for it if the bill had been rendered to him. Now, there was no hon. member in this House who stood up in his -place in 1908, and charged that the hon. member for Grenville had been guilty of fraud, perjury and malversation, in his dealings with the government in the circumstances I have detailed. If the member for Grenville feels that he has not violated the spirit or the letter of the Independence of Parliament Act, and if hon. gentlemen surrounding him on the opposition side of the House feel convinced that the member for Grenville did not violate the Independence of Parliament Act, then I ask them, in all fairness and in .all honour, how they can ask this House to censure the member for Richelieu in like circumstances. Taking the argument used by hon. gentlemen on the opposition side that were addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, and talcing particularly the arguments used bv the member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty), and the member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers), every censure and every condemnation addressed by them tq the member for Richelieu, might apply with equal force and weight, against the member for Grenville, and I think it would put their casuistry and their talent for making fine distinctions to a severe test to convince you that while the member for Grenville has not violated the Independence of Parliament Act and has done nothing for which he should be censured, the member for Richelieu has done something for which he should be censured and condemned under the same circumstances.


John Dowsley Reid: I would not probably have said anything in this discussion, were it not for the remarks



which the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) has made concerning myself. I cannot conceive that any hon. member of this House, if he had read the evidence as he should have, would have got up and made the statements the hon. gentleman has made about me here to-night. He has produced the evidence, as he states, in this case, and the hon. member admits that he did not read the evidence, he only read part of the evidence.


George William Kyte: I read the statements that were germane to the. case.


John Dowsley Reid: When I asked the hon. member to read the balance of the evidence he said that he couldn't do it, that he hadn't it. It is not here now, he has only got the one sheet of the evidence. He had not read the evidence of Mr. Noble. Mr. Noble is one of the leading officials of the Marine and Fisheries Department, he was stationed at Prescott at the time, and was living there every day, and the hon. member, if he read Mr. Noble's statement, would see that he denied absolutely the statements made by the hon. member for Richmond. Mr. Noble stated that he had never heard anything about these repairs until it was brought up at that committee. Now, let me state how this thing happened. The hon. member read my evidence, and I denied the whole of the affair, and there was nothing to prove that my evidence was different. Let me tell the House now how this little matter of mine happened to come up. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is here now, we are face to face and we had better have it out. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows that at that time there were investigations going on in the Public Accounts Committee concerning his department. We all know that there were very serious charges against the Marine and Fisheries Department, The minister was up there defending the department, as he should. We had charges there so serious that if the people of this country knew of them, I do not believe they would tolerate this government for one minute. What did the Minister of Marine and Fisheries do in that case? He sent his private secretary out to Prescott and kept him there a week or two as a private detective, to see if he could not find some evidence. After a week or two he got two of these witnesses, the evidence of one of whom the hon. member was reading. He is a man whose oath would not be taken in any part of Prescott or in any other part of Canada, a man who, was himself kept out of jail by his friends. That is one of the men, and the minister has him there yet. Both are men whom you can buy for $10 at any time. But when you get to Mr. Noble, a man of honour, he denied the whole thing. Mr. Noble said Mr. REID (Grenville).
he never heard of it. The caulkers spoken of were not regular government officials, they were only there for two or three weeks, they were brought there from Davis & Sons, of Kingston, and after they were dismissed and were returning to Davis Bros. I had two men for one day each, or $6, and I paid that to Mr. Noble because he paid the men, as they were going away. I never heard of anything being done on my yacht, and I believe that not one dollar's worth of work was put on it; had there been anything put on it, I am sure the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, with the venom he had against me, would have produced the evidence. I defy the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to say that he ever produced an account or rendered an account to me; he never rendered an account, and the account that man swore to was something like one gallon of paint, a few pounds of nails, something like $3.80. Then they charged me, in order to bring up a fraudulent account, with part of the ways -that were built some years before and which are there yet, for which any man knows I would not be expected to pay anything. That was charged up to make a fraudulent account. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows that I was in the Public Accounts Committee every day until this one day, when I had to go and attend a meeting in my county, and then he sprung on this false evidence when I was not there to ask questions. The evidence he read was given when I was not present. I never like to strike below the belt. At that time the Minister of Marine and Fisheries did strike below the belt, he took advantage of me when I was not present, and I do not believe there is another man in the House or another minister who would have stooped to such a mean, low trick as he did.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Dowsley Reid: Then after that, Mr. Speaker, what did I do? I went to the Minister of Marine.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think those words * mean low trick ' are not parliamentary.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish to use any unparliamentary language, and, of course, if that is out of order, I wall withdraw it. But when the Minister of Marine did such an act as that on me, 1 told him there and then that I would certainly do what I hated to do, I would expose him. Well, Sir, this man Lanctot


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Mr. REID (Grenville)

who has been
accused of theft.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Dowsley Reid: This man Lanc-tot, the member for Richelieu


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you on a point of order. Has the hon. member the right to call an hon. member ' this man Lanctot '?


John Dowsley Reid: I withdraw that; I said that hon member for Richelieu. I apologize for using his name in that way. I said, this hon. member for Richelieu has been accused by members who have spoken, of theft, common theft. Every person knows that means a common thief.
Some hon. members. Order.


John Dowsley Reid: Hon. members have accused him of common theft, and that has not been disputed from the opposition side. _ He is accused of taking men and materials and never intending paying for them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Mr. BRODEUR.: Who?


John Dowsley Reid: lit was Roy. You know him well because you put him. there, and you knew he was robbing the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Marine knows that down there at Sorel they have been breaking up the buoys right on the dock and selling them for scrap iron; robbery and common thievery going on there all the time and there is nothing to stop it; going on there with the consent of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That is exceeding the limit of debate.


John Dowsley Reid: I make the statement that he knows it, and I cannot take back what I know is true.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member cannot say that thieving is going on with the consent of the minister.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, Mr. Speaker, I say with the knowledge of the minister. He knew well enough what is going on, it is in the public press that it is going on, and he knows it. That is what is going on in the Marine and Fisheries Department. Look at the statement that was brought up here that tire Prime Minister was ashamed of the other night. There were $23,000 expenses for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: No.


John Dowsley Reid: That was shown.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Was it not read out $23,000 for the Marine and Fisheries department?


Wilfrid Laurier: That might be the total expenses for the department.


John Dowsley Reid: And some $8,000 of that was for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries himself.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, no.


John Dowsley Reid: I read it in the official statement.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: 


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: What about the acetylene case?


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is trying to attempt to trump up a charge against me of that kind, and take advantage of me in that -way, but so far as I am concerned I want to state here, so far as this little matter of mine is concerned, I never in my life went to any official or any member of the government and asked them to allow one man to be employed by me. In fact, the evidence shows that I said I would not allow any government official to have anything to do with my property. There is not an official there that will .swear that I ever asked him to put on any government officials for me. I never did, and I never had any account rendered to me because the statement was not true. I think this Sorel affair is one of the most outrageous things ever done in this country, and I think it is unfair for the Minister of Marine to put up this gentleman here a few minutes ago to try to iget out of this thing in this way. So far as I am concerned, I believe that this affair in connection with the member for Richelieu is one of the most disgraceful things that ever took place in the history of this country. I cannot believe for one minute that the right hon. the Prime Minister is satisfied with the way the Department of Marine is going on. The Minister of Marne has all his government officials at Prescott, and I have told him there is not Mr. SPEAKER.
*any doubt at all but that there has been the same kind of thievery going on there in the same -way right along.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Dowsley Reid: But, if I wish to say what I think, I do not believe the minister cares whether it is going on or not as long as it benefits his party. That is the way I put it, because it is all his own political friends who seem to get these favours. And so it is all along the line. We have cases up there in the Public Accounts 'Committee that witnesses are keeping away because, as I believe, they don't want to expose 'the minister, so much graft is going on in that department. The Prime Minister surely must take cognizance of all those things going on there. If these statements are true in the press that he is going to appoint this man on the Supreme Court

Som hon. MEMBERS. Order.
Mr. REID (Grenville*)-where it requires a gentleman who will judge a case honestly.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, shame.
Mr. REID (Grenville)-I think the Prime Minister is going pretty far if he does it. So far as the Minister of Marine is concerned there were other cases that really on account of the feeling we have towards him and others we did not investigate. Why, when he was appointed Minister of Marine the Prime Minister know-s well the statements that were going around this House about the position he occupied before that. Will the Prime Minister- look up and see that while he was Speaker of the House the amount he charged up to this government were such that no other Speaker of the House or any half dozen of them ever spent so much.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Dowsley Reid: We have a head of the Marine and Fisheries Department, and we have a right to discuss these matters in connection with the man in charge of that department. I do not blame those fellows that are stealing from and robbing the Marine and Fisheries Department so long as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries either from ignorance or knowledge is willing to let it go on. It is -going on there, and it is either through his ignorance or within his knowledge, and any member of this House judging by his . past experience from what we have seen can judge which it is. So far as I am concerned," I have my own opinion and every other member can have his opinion. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty), men from -Quebec, men who

know the situation, don't hesitate to say that the public thieving and robbery that is going on at the Sorel works is publicly known all over the district of Montreal, an'd that being so surely the Prime Minister must know it. Is he going to allow this to go on? When I brought this matter up about the Marine Department a few years ago he stood up here and said he was going to clean out this department, going to purify it, and what is the record now? I tell him that if the previous minister, the late Hon. Raymond Prefontaine, could stand up here to-night and see the way this department is going on since he left it, he would be ashamed of the government for running it the way they have been doing since. The record of it is something awful. We can bring it before the Public Accounts Committee, but there is no notice taken of it. I tell the Prime Minister that if he is going to allow things to go on as they have been going on in that department his time will be limited.


Some hon. MEMBERS: We have heard that before.


John Dowsley Reid: I believe the Prime Minister thinks that the people will not stand for robbery. Will the Prime Minister say that the people will stand for robbery?


Mr. DEVLIN.: I rise to a point of order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but for the decorum of this House it is -time we should have your ruling Mr. Speaker, whether an hon. member of this House may be permitted to say that with the knowledge of a minister, whether the Prime Minister of the country or the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, thieving is going on, and thereby saying that the minister may be mentioned as a party to the crime, because-[DOT]


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I cannot allow the hon. member to make a speech.


Some hon. MEMBERS: , flit down.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on my point of order. I say that any member of this House who' charges a minister of the Crown with knowingly allowing thieving to go on in his department is making a statement that the minister himself is guilty of theft, and such a statement should not be allowed in the House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I did not hear any such statement.


John Dowsley Reid: With regard to what the hon. member has stated about thieving and robbery going on at Sorel, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier made a statement in this House this afternoon,
on his responsibility as a member, that it was going on.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: That does not prove that it is true.


John Dowsley Reid: It has been stated in this House that it is going on, and we have proved beyond a doubt that it has been going on. I made a statement in this House that it was going on, and the Prime Minister took me to task, and I proved it. He appointed Judge Cassels to inquire into it, and it was proved that it was going on. Why did the gentleman who made that statement not make some charge against me? No man ever made a charge against me, because they knew that it was not true; and another thing- they never sent me any account.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: We are not built that way.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish to refer any more to this matter. I did not intend to make any statement on the affair, but it does seem to me pretty small that the Prime Minister, through his Minister of Marine and Fisheries, would put up a member to try to bolster up such an outrageous case of robbery and theft as this is, by citing my case. I do not think the Prime Minister would believe for one minute that I would be guilty of trying to do what these men say.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not care what the gentlemen behind him say. I have that confidence in the Prime Minister, at any rate, that he would not think I would do anything of that kind. The hon. member has asked me something about the little question of gas. Well, to the best of my knowledge and belief, after questioning Mr. Fraser and the other gentlemen there, the value of the gas used-because I think it was used only one day-was about 50 cents. I explained at the time that the company I was connected with had given the government a right-of-way over our property for their railway, which they have got to-day, and I believe that Tight-of-way was worth anything from $1,000 -to $3,000, and they never charged them a cent. The company also gave the government the use of their wharf. The dredging they talk about, was, it is true, in front of a wharf owned by this company, tout it was done for the advantage of a wharf alongside owned by the government. I did not want it; I was not using that wharf; but the government boats were using it, and the dredging was in front of the company's wharf for the purpose of enabling the government boats to go to the wharf that was beside the wharf owned by the company

with which I was connected. It was done for their sole benefit. After that, down comes this private secretary, Mr. Wiallard, sent iby the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to see if he could not get up some cock-and-bull story for the purpose of injuring me. Well, I came before the electors, and the people there, including Liberals, were disgusted that any government would do so mean an act against any member. They could not believe it was true, and at the next -election, although the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, as-I understood-because I heard on what I considered pretty good authority-sent some thousands of dollars in to try to defeat me


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman should not make that statement.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, I withdraw it, if the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says it was not so. But notwithstanding that fact I had the largest majority I ever had, although more money was used against me than I believe was used at any other election, and I can judge from the rumours, of the source from which it game. I did believe that the evidence we had in the Publi-c Accounts Committee would have some effect on the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; I expected that we would have a better management of that department, but I must confess that knowing all the departments, even the Public Works Department, which the public think is so bad, in my judgment the Marine and Fisheries Department is the most disgracefully run department in the whole government. If there is robbery and thieving going on in the departments, that department is the worst of them all. Now, I do not intend saying any more. I simply rose because of the remarks made against me. I am not a bit afraid of what the minister or any member of the government or any member of this House can do against me in my constituency. I was born in that county, I have lived there all my life, I have run five elections there, and I am satisfied- that I can run another, even with the whole government against me, and I can have as big a majority -as I had at the last election.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that we had met here to-night for the purpose of discussing the question which is now before the House-the report which has been made and which has been proposed by -the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), and the report which has been proposed, by the -hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I Mr. REID (Grenvillp)
find, however, by the speech which w-e have just heard, that we have gone absolutely out of the way and out of the rules which are generally followed in such cases. I want to say immediately to the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid), that when he says that I had something to do with the statement which has been made to-night in connection with the investigation which took place some years ago, or, to use the expression which he employed several times, that I had put up the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), he is making an assertion which is absolutely unfounded.


John Dowsley Reid: I had it several days ago that you were going to do it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I never spoke to the hon. member for Richmond in regard to it. I never mentioned the matter in any way, shape or form, to that hon. gentleman or to anybody else, and I am surprised at the statement of the hon. member for Grenville because he cannot show that anything of that kind came from me in any way whatever. When he makes that erroneous assertion I say that he does something which is absolutely unfair and uncalled for. However, I do not care very much, and I am glad that the hon. member has seen fit to speak of the administration' of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, because since I have had charge of the administration of that department I have tried to conduct its affairs in such a way as to enlist the confidence of the people.


John Dowsley Reid: You have not done it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have done it not only to my own satisfaction but to the satisfaction of all fair-minded men in this country. 1 admit that at one time the department was under a cloud. What did I do? I took the necessary steps to investigate everything connected with the administration of the department. When the Civil Service Commission came into the department, I said to them that they could examine everything, and I put at their disposal all the papers which were in the department. Later on, when they stated that there were some frauds, or some general charges against the administration, or against some officials of the department, I asked my colleagues to appoint one of the most eminent judges in this country to investigate thoroughly the affairs of the department. If we had been afraid of any wrong-doing I never would have recommended such an investigation. But, I had the best lawyers in the country, I had one of the most eminent judges to be found in Canada, to investigate the affairs of the department, and when that investigation was over and when it was found that some

people were guilty of wrong-doing, I did not hesitate for one moment to recommend to my colleagues the dismissal of those officers who had violated the rules of honesty and rectitude. With regard to the statement that stealing and thievery are still going on, I may say to the hon. member for Grenville and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that I will always be disposed to do everything in my power to put an end to anything of that kind. The hon. member for Grenville says that there are steals going on still in Prescott. What would be the duty of the hon. member for Grenville in such a case as that? The hon. member for Jacques Cartier also stated this afternoon that in September or October last, he knew there was something irregular and illegal going on at Sorel. What would be the duty of these hon. gentlemen? Are they not obliged, like ministers of the Crown, to see that the administration is honestly carried on? If they know of something wrong in any branch of the public service is it not their duty as members of the House to advise the minister of the wrong-doing, or to get up in parliament and say what has been done? The hon. member for Jacques Cartier stated this afternoon that he was advised in September or October last that there was something wrong in Sorel. Why did he not come and tell me? Why did he not advise the minister what was going on? The hon. member for Grenville states also that there is some thieving going on in Prescott. If the hon. member knows that, it is his duty to get up and state what is going on and to give me the particulars in order that the guilty parties may be punished.


John Dowsley Reid: I will tell the minister why-because the minister, up in the Public Accounts Committee, defends these rascals instead of prosecuting them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. member has the audacity to state that I am protecting rascality


John Dowsley Reid: Sure, you are.
Mr. BRODEUR

when I dismissed and
suspended no less than 29 officers of the service who had been found guilty by a Royal Commission I did this under my sense of duty and _ the next day the Montreal 'Gazette,' which is a respectable paper, praised the action which I then took. I say now that if there is thieving, if there is stealing in some parts of the department, it is the duty of any member to see that these steals are put a stop to and to denounce these things. My hon. friend can bring his facts before the Public Accounts Committee, he can state the facts to. the minister and he will always find that I will take the necessary steps to prevent any stealing or wrong-doing. I may say in connection with this matter
that some time ago a member of the opposition, anxious, I am sure, that the administration should be honestly carried out, bi ought to my notice something which was wrong and I immediately advised the necessary inquiry with the view of punishing the guilty parties. I may inform my hon. friend that in spite of everything that he has said to-night against me, I will always receive any information which he will give in that respect and he may be sure that the necessary steps will be taken to put an end to any wrong-doing which may be disclosed. The hon. member for Grenville has thought fit to refer to all sorts of things with which I have been connected. I say that I am not afraid to put my record before parliament and before the country. My record is just as good as that of any member of this House. I have been trying to do my duty and I think I have done it. I have punished and dismissed culprits, I have sent to jail persons against whom I have been able to secure convictions and I will punish wrong-doing so long as I have anything to do with the administration of the public affairs of this country.
I do not want to discuss at any great length the question which is now engaging the attention of the House. But, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word or two as to the circumstances which surrounded that question. In the month of May last, the hon. memeber for Richelieu seeing that he could not get workmen in Sorel to paint his house went to the time-keeper of the shipyard to ask if he could procure the services of some men for this purpose. There is no great harm in that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly not. What harm could there be so long as there is no fraud, and the public service does not suffer? Some hon. members opposite say this cannot be. I say, on the contrary, that sometimes it is even a good thing to do in order to retain the services of men who are employed in the government works there. The men employed in the government works in Sorel are generally very good men, and fulfil their duties in a very satisfactory manner. But there may be times in the year when there is not so much to do, and, if we have a chance to secure work for our men elsewhere, it means that we shall be able to retain their services. I do not see how it can be stated that the mere fact that the member for Richelieu asking for men to work on his house is a very bad thing. Some time ago we had a case where we did not absolutely need the services of a certain man, but had we dismissed him he would have gone 1 elsewhere and we would have lost the I services of a man we could not easily

replace. We found some work for him outside the yard, and I say in such a case there is no harm in it, on the contrary, it is 'to the advantage of the yard.


Mr. BARKER.: Did the minister continue to pay that man?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. But when I made my first proposition I had in mind the suggestion of some hon. members opposite that this should not be done in any case. I say that sometimes it should be done. The circumstances under which the hon. member for Richelieu made his request for men were these:	His wife was, unfortunately, very ill. He was unable to stay in Sorel, but had to remain with her at Saranac Lake, where she was being treated. He asked the foreman whether he could not get some men, and the foreman, Mr. Champagne, answered that he could get these men. In June a few days' work was done. Mr. Lanctot was absent most of the time. A few days' more work was done in July, but properly speaking, the painting was done in September and October, and finished in November. So far, there is certainly no harm. Mr. Lanctot asked the foreman painter Mr. Page where he could get the paints for his house. It was suggested that he could get them from Cyrille Labelle & Co., but on that remark the foreman said that he did not know -whether it would be possible to get all the paint from that firm, that there might be 'some qualities that they would not have. Mr. Lanctot said that in such a case Mr. Page could supply the paints and he would see that they were replaced. Mr. Page agreed. That is all that was done. As to the men there was no agreement except -that they were to be paid by Mr. Lanctot. Nobody suggested the contrary; nobody suggests that Mr. Lanctot was not to pay these men. The best evidence is that during the progress of the work Mr. Lanctot asked several times for his bill. What was done in this case by Mr. Champagne? Mr. Champagne did what I consider a very irregular thing, but under circumstances which I think it only fair the House should understand. Mr. Champagne had known other instances of men being set at work outside, and he had paid these men, having the money from the person for whom they were working. But Mr. Champagne was severely criticised, so he tells us, and some of .the men insinuated that he had put some of the money in his pocket which otherwise would have gone to them. To protect himself, without the knowledge of Mr. Lanctot and without the knowledge of the officers of the department, he kept .these men on the pay-lists, but without any intention of defrauding anybody. He had no intention of stealing the money or doing anything wrong; he acted Mr. BRODEUR.
as he did simply for the purpose of protecting himself against such insinuations as has been made against him. And when the work was finished his statement of account was sent to Mr. ^Lanctot, and immediately a cheque vras returned for an amount, and the transaction was consequently closed.
Now, with regard to the paint, it was understood that the paint should be taken from Mr. Cyrill Labelle, but at the same time it was agreed between Mr. Page and Mr. Lanctot that if the latter could not get all the paint he required for his house, he might get it from the department. Mr. Page was the foreman of the painters. We put at his disposal from the stores a certain quantity of paint which is not charged to any particular work, because this paint has to be mixed, and when it is mixed it is used on different works. Mr. Page renders every week	an account to	the shipyard
cost clerk stating the amount he has spent upon such and such a work. In that way he has at his disposal a certain quantity of paint, and out of that he took a small quantity to be used on Mr. Lanctot's house. It was understood that the paint was to be returned, it has been returned, or has been paid for. So far as the money is concerned, it cannot be said that there was any theft, or anj conspiracy amounting to a crime. The hon. member for Ste. Anne (Mr. Doherty) has tried to show that there was theft under the circumstances, and that word is also to be found in the charges made by the member for Champlain. But I am convinced, and I am sure the majority of the members of this House are convinced, that there was no theft in the circumstances which have been proven. What constitutes theft? There must be an intention to steal, to defraud. Was there any intention shown to defraud in these circumstances? Certainly not. Was there any intention of stealing? Certainly not; it cannot possibly be said that any crime has been proven. What is the situation today? A minority report has been brought down signed by the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and the member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker). Do these two hon. gentlemen in their report intimate that there was a crime, that there was robbery? Not at all, they simply state that it was a violation of the Independence of Parliament.


Samuel Barker: We said it was unlawful.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But they do not say it was a criminal offence, they do not say that there was theft, they do not say that the charges made by the member for Champlain have been proved. The member for Champlain charges that there was a theft committed. The hon. member for Hamilton does not say that, and I would be greatly

surprised if he should now say that there was theft under the circumstances. How does it come then that these charges of theft are now being made? The Minister of Justice showed conclusively that there was no violation of the Independence of Parliament Act, and after his speech the member for Ste. Anne's discovered that the motion made by the member for Jacques Cartier could not stand criticism. Then hon. gentlemen opposite started these charges of theft and robbery. Well, I say there is absolutely nothing in the evidence whicli would justify the charge on the part either of the foreman or of Mr. Lanctot. Why is Mr. Lanctot being prosecuted to-day? Why have these charges been, made against him? Of course, we should not refuse to receive information, no matter from what source it comes. Who brought these charges against Mr. Lanctot? Who are the men who have been surrounding the member for Champlain and urging him on to make these charges against the member for 'Richelieu? It is well known that if Mr. Lanfitot had been willing to get the Department of Marine and Fisheries to make a certain contract with a certain gentleman whose letters are filed in this case, if Mr. Lanctot had been willing to support the contentions of the man who wanted to blackmail the department, who wanted to get a contract with the department that we were not willing to make, there would have been no charges against Mr. Lanctot. Hon. members of this House who have followed the investigation know that a certain gentleman was applying for a contract with the department, he wanted to sell us some machinery that we did not need, and I informed the hon. member for Richelieu that we were not going to purchase that machinery. This man's name was Lamoureux, and Mr. Lanctot informed him that the department was not going to purchase his goods, that they were of no use to us.


Mr. PAQUET.: At what date?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Some time in the month of September and October, also in November. Then, what does Mr. Lamoureux do? He writes a letter to Mr. Lanctot on the 23rd of November, 1910, page 185, of the evidence. This is what he says:
My Dear Adelard,-What news will you bring me Saturday? You will have seen the minister, I suppose. I count on your bringing me a favourable reply.
If the minister refuses to grant me what I ask of him, after 'having made promises to me, and having heard what he has said to me, if he refuses, I say, I declare to you, my dear Lanctot, that I will be obliged to attack strongly and to bring to light things about Which I feel reluctant. My determination has reached its height, whatever may be the consequence.
Do your best, my dear Lanctot, because a refusal will certainly have grave consequences.
You have enough in hand to make the minister give in, if he keeps his word, and what he has written, as I have no doubt he will.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) J. O. LAMOUREUX.
Here is a letter which speaks fox itself. He states in his letter that I made him some promise to purchase his machinery. I saw the man some time afterwards and said:	On what do you rely in stating I
have given you a promise? You know I have been refusing all the time to purchase these goods, because we do not need them. He said: It is true, but I have done it in order to induce Lanctot to do still more towards you and to induce him to work more strongly in my favour and to represent me. He felt it was only just to write me the following letter:
If from the letter which I addressed to Mr. Lanctot, our member, on the 23rd November, 1910, the inference was drawn that I was making malevolent insinuations against you, I state that my thoughts were not translated properly.
I had not the slighest intention in the world of attacking or tarnishing your reputation. On the contrary, I have never ceased to regard your reputation and your character as absolutely unattackable, and. in addition to that, Mr. Minister, I have no reason to doubt your perfect honesty.
Perhaps my letter was not sufficiently precise for those whose interest it is to alienate from me your esteem. However, it appears to me evident, in its entirety, that the hard words it contains are for him to whom it was addressed, and not for you, Mr. Minister, because I have always thought that if I did not obtain that which I asked, it was because Mr. Lanctot did not take the interest in me that I had hoped from him. Several times he showed himself very reticent.
If in my letter I speak of promises and of encouragements that you could have given me, it was the object of stimulating the zeal of Mr. Lanctot and of proving to him you were not as strongly opposed to my requests as he wished to make me believe.
Once more, Mr. Minister, I have never for an instant doubted your perfect honesty, and I have never wished to tarnish your reputation.
These explanations would have been unnecessary, I am convinced, Mr. Minister, had not the persons interested in depriving me of your esteem sought to draw from any letter a meaning which I had no intention of conveying.
I am confident, Mr. Minister, that my explanations will satisfy you and that you will continue to believe in my best consideration and most respectful sentiments.
Your humble servant,
(Sgd.) J. O. LAMOUREUX.


Haughton Lennox: A regular patent medicine letter.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is a very significant letter. Here is a man who some time ago stated that if a certain contract which he was expected to make was not consum-

mated, he would make some revelations and he said the minister had given him a promise. Then he writes a letter stating that he did that just to induce Mr. Lanctot to work more strongly for him. That explains to a very large extent the charges which were later made in this House. I do not know if the member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) is here or not, but if he is here I suppose he will admit that this man Lamoureux has been one of those who have approached him and induced him to make these charges against Mr. Lanctot. Who are the other men who had instigated chiefly these charges against Mr. Lanctot. Two men were in the service in Sorel whose services we had been obliged to dispense with. These men come later on and say: We worked at Mr. Lanctot's house for a couple of months. One of them said he had been working there for four months and that he was being paid by the government during all that time. Honest man! Did he come and tell his superior officers that he was at the same time working for the government and also for Mr. Lanctot. That he was stealing from the government? Why did he not go and say to the director of the shipyard: We are in receipt of money from the government which we do not earn. No, but afterwards, when they were dismissed and sent away from the work of the department those men went to see my hon. friend from Champlain (Mr. Blondin) in connection with the men who wanted to blackmail Mr. Lanctot and they started these charges which are now made against Mr. Lanctot.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. minister not know that every material fact spoken
of by these witnesses has been admitted by Pagd and Champagne?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It has been stated several times here by members who have spoken on the other side that the member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) should not be blamed for anything in connection with the charges which have been made before this House. I say the hon. member should have stated when he made his charges that the amount had been paid by Mr. Lanctot. It was a very important fact, why did he not state it? He simply took the statements of these men Lamoureux, who wanted to blackmail Mr. Lanctot, Douaire and Proulx, who had been dismissed from the service of the department. Of course every member is free to take evidence from any person, I admit that, but at the same time I think the word of those men who had been dismissed from the public service for cause should not be received and accepted so readily and more especially that charges of thi9 serious nature should not be brought against fellow-members of this Mr. BRODEUR.
House upon such testimony. I am sure the members of this House should be convinced now that the charges made against Mr. Lanctot were not well founded, that he did not violate the Independence of Parliament Act, and that he did not commit any theft or crime as suggested by the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) and the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Crothers). Under these circumstances I say that we should clear the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Lanctot) of the charges which have been made against him.
As the House is aware, the hon member for Richelieu (Mr. Lanctot) was placed in a very trying position. He was obliged to be absent from his city a great deal in order to be with and to nurse his wife, who was very ill. In that situation, he had the sympathy of every man in Sorel, every man was willing to help him; and because some men may have been a little indiscreet in the way they extended sympathy to him, I say that we should not, under the circumstances, do anything which would add to his anxiety.


Mr. W. B. NANTEL (Terrebonne).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I will refer in the first place to the words that the hon. the Minister of Marine has just uttered. He tells us that he asks nothing better than to be duly informed of what is taking place. For my part I shall not fail to tell him of the abuses and thefts committed, especially at the Sorel works. I hold here a certain number of affidavits concerning those frauds, and there are many others. The abuses referred to have taken place within a year at the Sorel yards, and the minister should know of therm


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) The hon. member is doubtless aware that six accused persons have been arrested.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) But have you held an investigation such as will satisfy public opinion? I may tell you that had such an investigation been held the hon, member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) would never have pressed his charges.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) An investigation was held two years ago.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) It was not a complete investigation. In any case I *could, if Inacessjary, produce some fifty affidavits concerning the abuses taking place at Sorel; if I may be allowed to do so.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) If the hon. member will hand me the affidavits in his possesssion, I will hold an investigation immediately.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) We on this side of the House do- not want Mr. Lanctot's

head; we require an investigation satisfactory to the public and which will throw light upon the doings of certain government employees at Sorel. I might mention certain names, in fact I will do in the course of my remarks. A certain Mr. Oscar Champagne-for there are several of the name-who checks and prepares pay lists, is said to have answered; ' I do not want to have anything to do with the payment of the men, as I would be accused of not giving them their full pay.' That the government would pay them and Mr. Lanctot refund the money. Men's services have been loaned and honestly so to certain persons in Sorel. There is nothing to be said against that. There is, for instance, the case of Amable Lussier, who secured the services of government painters; he paid them himself and they did not report on such days as having worked for the government. Might not Mr. Champagne have said to Mr. Lanctot; If you want painters you will get them, but you must pay them yourself. An appeal to sentiment is made on the ground that Mr. Lanctot's wife was v'ery ill when the work began. I fail to see why this is constantly brought before the public. A man of courage would not resort to such means for the purpose of attracting sympathy and condoning actions of which the public cannot .approve. Concerning the illness of Mrs. Lanctot, I sympathize with the member for Richelieu, but I do not approve of the tactics which consist in calling attention to the illness of the lady in order to attract sympathy to himself. Mr. Lanctot's wife should not be called in to protect him.
At all events, was the hon. gentleman constantly at Saranac lake? Was he not at Sorel on June 3 when the work began? He spent most of his time at Sorel. There was no such pressing haste as has been contended and he might easily have seen Mr. Papineau and made arrangements with him to obtain more men. It is established that Mr. Papineau was only two days absent, May 28 and 29. It will not be believed that the member for Richelieu might not have met him had he so wished.
The organization of the Sorel shipyards should be known. We should be in a position to decide whether it is imperfect or incomplete. There are legions of employees there.
The investigation which has just taken place has given us and the public much information. If, as I have just remarked, the organization is not perfect, it is at least complete in this sense that there are numerous employees of all classes and kinds. It is not perfect because it has been found wanting in a verv simple matter.


Mr.   L@: Papineau is the manager of the Sorel shipyards. His assistant is Mr. H. A. Terreault.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) Will the hon. member allow me to ask whether the member for Richelieu made any effort to^see the deputy manager of the Sorel works on finding that the manager was absent?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) Not the slightest. On May 28 or 29 he called at the office of Mr. Papineau who happened to be absent at Montreal. He made no effort to see Mr. Terreault, nor did he seek to meet Mr. Papineau on his return.
Mr. Alfred Baril is the accountant. Mr. Norman Masse is keeper of the stores in which the materials employed in construction work at Sorel are kept.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) Does the hon. member know anything against Mr. Baril?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I will hand in affidavits against Mr. Baril and if I am not mistaken I can get several.
Mr. Jean Baptiste Page is foreman of painters. Mr. Arthur Lavallee, his assistant, distributes the paint for different works. Mr. Cecil Doutre is the purchasing agent.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Doutre does not reside at Sorel.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Whether he resides at Montreal or at Sorel he is supposed to form part of the staff. Mr. Oscar Champagne is time-keeper; he also prepares the pay lists. The branch dealing with the cost of construction is under the direction of Mr. Ulric Latraverse, with Mr. Albert Prud-homme as assistant. Both have books to keep; by means of statements furnished by other branches, they aTe in a position to compute the cost of all construction or other works in the Sorel shipyards. Mr. Desire Champagne is paymaster. Mr. Cuthbert Champagne is keeper of the 'punch' by means of which the men register their time. Mr. Napoleon Badeau is foreman of the wood construction. Mr. Gendron is foreman of day labourers.
There are a number of other employees whose names I will not mention. Each man working at the Sorel shipyard is given a number and every different work is also numbered. The organization cost $42,000 and it is now found defective. It was devised by one Falconer and supposed to be excellent.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Does the hon. member contend that such a sum was spent for that organization or that Mr. Falconer appointed those employees?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It cost $42,315.02 to establish a good system of book-keeping and instruct the assistants.
We find therefore at Sorel an army of employees, managers, assistants, guardians,

time-keepers, foremen who rub up and seemingly interfere with one another. All are bound to protect the property of the government and of the people at Sorel. However, in spite of this complicated machinery there -was found to be, in the year of grace 1910, a man, a lawyer by profession, who succeeded in having his house painted and by government materials, tools and men and at the cost of the government. The work was begun as soon as the house was ready to be painted, i.e. the 3rd June, 1910, and was finished only on the 21st November following.
During that period of about 23 weeks, government men and government paint *were used for that private work. Until the 21st November seven or eight men at a time worked there and were paid regularly by the government every two weeks. An extraordinary feature is that the government was officially informed of this only on the 22nd November, 1910, by a statement of the wages of painters and labourers accompanied by a cheque for $375.62, addressed to Mr. L. G. Papineau, the manager. The statement was handed in by Jean Baptiste Page, who -was not the official book-keeper but assumed those duties for the occasion.
Mr. Papineau must have been very much surprised on receiving such a statement and cheque! Until then the government was kept in the most absolute ignorance concerning the painting of this now notorious house. The cheque covered the payment of wages only and not the cost of material. The matter now being known, steps were taken to recover the cost of paint and other material, and Mr. Papineau determined the mode in which this recovery should be made. He decided to obtain the paints from a Montreal firm-the Mount Royal Colour & Varnish Company-to the amount of $81.60 and to return it in kind to the government. Mr. Papineau gave his personal cheque in payment. The goods reached Sorel on December the 12th, 1910 and were stored by the department on the 13th.
The hon. member for Richelieu repaid Mr. Papineau the amount of his personal cheque and also the cost of transportation. But how was the whole of this 'tour de force' managed? for in reality it is a 'tour de force.' Very simple and the matter as a whole shows the true value of the army of government employees at Sorel.
The hon. member for Richelieu spoke first of all to Mr. Oscar Champagne, the timekeeper, whose office is next to that of the manager, Mr. Papineau and of Mr. Terreault, the assistant manager. He said to him:-Mr. Papineau is not in his office, can you send me painters as my house is ready to be painted? With pleasure, re-Mr. NANTEL
plied Mr. Champagne. The member for Richelieu met Mr. Jean Baptiste Page, foreman painter, as he left Mr. Champagne's office, and repeated the same request; can you send me any painters? With pleasure replied Mr. Page, if Mr. Papineau consents.
Some time later, between the 15tli and the 20th May, according to some *witnesses, between the 15th and the 30th, according to others, but in any ease before the month of June, as the painting began on June 3, the member for Richelieu had asked Page for paint and material, requesting him to keep a seperate account, as all would be returned. It was not more difficult than that. That is all. Nothing was done towards seeing Mr. Papineau, although he was absent from Sorel only on the 28th and 29th May, two days in all. It was not worth while to see him or his assistant. Neither Jean Baptiste Page nor Oscar Champagne cared to see Mr. Papineau and submit the case to him.
Thus, from the 3rd June to the 21st November, government paint,, material, brushes, were abundant, painters, and even labourers flocked the house in question.
It has been attempted, in the course of the investigation, to prove that it was not possible to find painters at Sorel; but laborers at least could be obtained.
At all events, from June 3rd, all the government employees were placed at the disposal of Mr. Lanctot without anything being changed or disturbed in the routine of the yards. Painters and labourers registered each day as if working for the government, when they could; when they could not do so themselves, Cuthbert Champagne, the complainant guardian of the 'punch' registered' for them, having been so instructed by his namesake Oscar Champagne. Then Oscar Champagne, who alone with his pal Jean Baptiste Page knew what was going on, prepared his pay list regularly and, each fortnight, and painters doing the private work of the member for Richelieu, were paid by the government,
As I have said, each work bears a special number and all the employees engaged upon it are also numbered, so that it is quite possible, if the rule be observed, to compute the cost of each undertaking. The director of construction work can give, at any time, a statement of the cost of any one undertaking. In the present case that was not done. For the work in question was carried on outside of the knowledge of the manager, Mr. Papineau; it was kept secret from him and done behind his back, although his office was next to that of Oscar Champagne and the house in question a few yards away from his own residence; the whole according to a secret and collusive understanding between the hon. member for Richelieu, Oscar Champagne and Jean Baptiste Page, under the higher direction of Mr. Baril.

Nothing of this private work, conducted by two subordinate employees of the government, appeared in the regular books of the department at Sorel. J. B. Page, foreman, appears to have noted the men's work in his personal note book or on loose sheets which he handed to Oscar Champagne. The latter kept them in a private drawer and manufactured or falsified the pay lists every two months, making it appear that the men had really worked for the government. In this manner was prepared the account of $375.60 handed to L. G. Papineau on November 22nd, 1910, with a cheque for $375.60 bearing the same date, which was charged and deposited in the Federal Treasury on January 11th, 1911


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Is my hon. friend now reading from the evidence?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Is that what you are anxious about?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Yes, because you have no right to read your speech.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It is an extract from the evidence. In any case, I am in the hands of the Speaker.
At the Sorel shipyards, in order to obtain material from the stores, paint, for instance, a written requisition is required. It appears that in spite of this rule, the foreman may obtain large quantities of paint and in fact it is from what friend Jean Baptiste Page had in hand and which he had obtained for other purposes and other works, that he furnished the member for Richelieu with the material for painting his house.
J. B. Page appears to have noted on a blotter the amount of paint and material so furnished, the value of which amounted to $81.60. But, most unfortunately, the blotter was lost as soon as the account had been prepared and it has been impossible to find it. Had it been lost beforehand, what would have been the position of the member for Richelieu? It is evident that this matter of paint was not an ordinary one and that it required all the influence that a government member of parliament may exercise over government officials at the Sorel shipyards to persuade them to take the chances they did.
It will also be admitted that in computing the cost of this undertaking, the bookkeeping we have had before us is very crude and rudimentary when we reflect upon the fine organization obtaining at Sorel. Quite plainly Messrs. J. B. Page and Oscar Champagne are by no means official but rather under the circumstances officious accountants.
If they were acting in good faith and anxious to do everything openlv and above board as is their boast, why did they not proceed in the usual manner prescribed for every undertaking in the Sorel shipyards? If it was desired to paint the house of the
member for Richelieu, why *was not a special number given to the undertaking? So much paint might then have been requisitioned for and charged against the number assigned to the work. All the statements would then have been transmitted to Mr. Ulrie Latraverse, who, immediately after the completion of the work, would have stated: the cost is so much, neither more nor less. The matter would have been clear, clean and no more said.
But it is contended that this was a loan of men and of material. During the investigation, Mr. Amable Lussier told us that on a certain occasion, the department had loaned painters to repair his premises. But he paid those men himself; there was no connivance between the men and their foreman to register as if working for the government. He also paid for the material.
Mr. Napoleon Badeau, superintedent of wood construction and foreman of carpenters, also loaned men to Mr. Lanotot, but he made sure that they did not register as if working for the government.
Speaking of Mr. Badeau, do you know, Mr. Speaker, that if Mr. Badeau had not been superintending the wood construction at the Sorel shipyards, if in his place there had been a man less anxious to do his duty, less scrupulous, a man in fact of the stamp of Page and Champagne, instead of having to pay the cost of the paint only at the house in question, the carpentering and woodwork would have come in as well. If you doubt it, listen to Mr. Badeau's deposition at the investigation ; it is the evidence of an honest man. And really, had a minister of the Crown not testified therein. I would say that Mr. Napoleon Badeau is the most honest man -heard before the committee.
Here is an extract which I find at page 179 of the printed evidence:	,
Q. You knew that Mr. Lanotot was building a bouse on George Street, at Sorel, in 1910.-[DOT] A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had Mr. Lanctot previously spoken to you with a view of obtaining men from you?
Mr. Laflamme, K.C., attorney for Mr. Lanc-tot, objects to that question as non pertinent to the charges referred to the committee. _
The objection is maintained by the president.
Q. Did Mr. Lanctot go to your place and ask you to send some of your men that were working for the government, to work at his house, and did you tell him that you would send those men onlv on the order of Mr. Papineau; did Mr. Papineau give the order and did you send the men?
Objected to by Mr. Laflamme as illegal.
Allowed by the president.
A. What do you ask?
Q. Did Mr. Lanctot go to your place and ask you to send some men to work for him, and did you answer him, that you would do so only on the order of Mr. Panipeau; did Mr. Papineau give the order and did you send the men?-A. Mr. Lanctot asked me if I had

what he wanted. I told him I had it not at the time, hut that it could easily he prepared. I told him then, that to hare what he wanted, he would have to ask Mr. Papineau first.
By Hon. Mr. Bureau:
Q. On that occasion, did you send some men
at Mr.  

?[DOT]-A. I heg your pardon, the men
have been paid at Mr. Lanctot's house, because I told these men not to have their tickets punched before leaving; I also told the puncher not to punch their tickets.
By Mr. Maedougal:
Q. What did he ask for?-A. He asked me to send some timber first

.
Q. Go on with your answer. What did he ask you to send, first?-A. He asked me to send some timber. I told him that I could do so only with the permission of Mr. Papineau.
Q. Did Mr. Papineau give the order, and did you send the timber?-A. I never heard about it, after that.
Q. How long after that did you send some men?-A. The men were sent about that time.
Mr. Laflamme declined to cross examine the witness.
I am surprised that we have been allowed to make that proof before the committee, because we were not given much latitude by the president and the majority of the committee. They constantly objected to all circumstantial evidence, and to every thing that could throw some light on the intentions of the people concerned. The moment we tried to bring in such a proof, we were called to order. We were not allowed to speak about anything else but paint. Every time we tried to bring in. some other subject, we were promptly brought back to the paint, under the pretense that the investigation was to be restricted to the painting of Mr. Lanctot's house.
When we offered to prove that men in the employ of the department had removed Mr. Lanctot's furniture into his new house, after it had been painted, the committee promptly closed the mouth of the witness Arthur Cayer, who had been summoned expressly to prove that charge. The question not being allowed, the witness had to withdraw.
It is true that the painting has been done in broad day light, as it is so inconvenient to paint during the night; but it is equally true, that outside of a few intimate friends, as J. B. Page and Oscar Champagne, nobody knew that the wages and the paint were paid for by the government. All were under the impression that the wages were paid regularly by the proprietor of the house, as well as the materials furnished by the' department. If Mr. Papineau had not been under that impression, if he had had the least doubt on that point, and had not put a stop to such practices, he would have proven himself to be as dishonest as J. B. Page and Oscar Champagne. Mr. Papineau became aware of the state of things, onlv when he received the bill.
Mr. NANTEL


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: He was living right opposite.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I admit that, and if the hon. member for Bellechasse's intention is to convince the House, that Mr. Papineau was looking at the skies, not to see what was going around, it is his own business.
On the timekeeper's list, exhibit No. 2, Alfred Douaire is credited with only 15 days work at Mr. Lanctot's house, during September and October, but he actually worked during July and August-48 days in all. He said so himself under oath, and the fact is corroborated by A. E. Payette, Henri Proulx and Alfred Thibodeau.
Louis Paul is credited with 20 days' work, and it has been proven that he worked one month, or 26 days. But hon. gentlemen opposite do not mind a few days more or less; they give no importance to such small matters. It is also stated at page 49, that Arthur Plante has worked for two weeks, but his name is not even mentioned in the bill.
It would appear that the paint furnished by the department only amounted to $81.60, and no charges are made for the plant. The wages paid to the painters are said to be $375.60. Mt. Lanctot admits that all the paint required for his house was taken from the workshops of the department, with the exception of the doors and windows, which had been painted the winter before with materials bought by Mr. Lanctot from Mr. Rivet. That paint cost $13, and the workmanship, $12. If you compare the two cases, you find a wide difference, But, a few pounds, more or less of paint, the brushes and all other necessary tools, what is that for our hon. friends opposite?
If the hon. member for Richelieu cannot find in the city of Sorel a single labourer to remove a telephone post, in front of his door, without making application to the government, it might seem strange to us, but for hon. gentlemen opposite, it is another small matter unworthy of notice.
In fact, the whole transaction itself is only a small affair, a common incident, such as happen every year at the department's workshops at Sorel. But the important thing is the principle implied. The gist of the inquiry is that in 1910, at Sorel, the hon. member for Richelieu succeeded in having his house painted with materials belonging to the government, by men in the employ of the government, at the expense of the government, without the knowledge of the superintendent of the workshops, by means of a secret understanding, of a conspiracy between himself and two inferior officials of the department: that the government became cognizant of the thing, only when the work was completed, by the reimbursement of part of the wages and the return of the materials by Mr. Lanctot, when com,plaints began to

be beard on every side and public opinion forced him to make restitution.
Long before that, on the 24th of September, and on the 17th of October the government had been notified that irregularities and wrong doings were going on at Sorel, and disclosure was threatened. If we had been given the least latitude before the committee all that would have been proven.
What is the name to be attached to such a transaction? Shall we call it an irregularity, a fraud, a conspiracy with intent to defraud, an abuse of influence on the part of a member of parliament, a violation of the Act on Independence of Parliament? I do not care what you call it; the transaction is there and it required to be investigated.
Was there intent to defraud, from the beginning? Naturally we were not allowed to prove any kind of intention. We have been strictly limited to the brutal fact. All the people concerned might have a conscience of a special kind, a crooked conscience, and it is possible that they said to themselves:	All these things belong to
the government; we are the government; the government is ours, let us help ourselves. The orticials helped themselves, everybody helped themselves, and the member for Richelieu was given help.
But if you look closely into the matter, you can easily find ample proof that every thing was premeditated and so arranged before hand that if the member for Richelieu had been insolvent, if, for one reason or another, he had not been in a position to pay the bill, the government would have lost every cent. If such a thing had happened, what name would you put on the transaction? You would call it embezzlement; there is no other qualification for it. The cashier who takes the money of the bank for his own use and promise to return it, do not act differently.
If, at the beginning of November, before the 20th, the government had ordered an inspection of the books at Sorel, if they had sent some one to take stock at the workshops, they would have come across that painting contract at Mr. Lanctot's house. If J. B. Page and Oscar Champagne had lost their note-book before preparing their statement, what would have happened?
Such transactions would necessarily disturb the bookkeeping ' of any large establishment. What confidence can we have in the bookkeeping of the department? What guarantee have we that the cost of a boat built at those 'workshops is as stated when sufficient materials to paint a whole house can be taken away for several weeks without the knowledge of the government?
Things were so arranged before hand that all those concerned had an interest in keening the matter concealed. Return of materials and payment of wages was
sure to arose suspicion and make trouble. They were all interested in keeping the matter secret and in making no payment.
On the 6th December, when the hon. member for Richelieu wrote his letter, the paint had not been returned. It was'pretty well known all around Sorel that those faithful public servants, J. B. Page, Oscar Champagne and others, committed to the safe keeping of public property, were allowed such privileges as having a canal built on their premises, a kennel for their favourite dog, a carriage or a yacht painted and taken out of the river at the end of the season; all that with the materials belonging to the government and with men in the pay of the government. But the painting of a whole house was out of the ordinary, and it is to the hon. member for Richelieu that honour is due for the change.
Now, has the hon. member for Richelieu violated the Act of Independence of Parliament, chapter 10, R. S. of Canada, sections 14 and 15? I say yes.
A bargain, a convention, a contract has been entered into between himself and certain officials of the department, in their individual capacity, if you like, whereby the house of the hon. member was to be painted with materials belonging to the government and by men in the pay of the government. Later on, the government, in accepting the reimbursement of the wages and the return of the materials, has ratified the bargain.
Has the hon. member for Richelieu been benefited by that bargain? Has he derived from it any advantage or favour? Again, I say yes, and it- has been proven.
Could any advantage result from that transaction? Yes. Was that advantage of such a nature that the hon. member Could be influenced by it? Yes. If instead of having to pay $500 or $600 to another party, he could have that work done for $300, is that an advantage and a favour? And was not that favour of such a nature as to influence his vote in this House? If a member of parliament buys a property from the government under the real value; if he pays, say $8,000 for a property valued at $10,000, does he not derive a benefit and if such benefit does not constitute an infringement of the Act of Independence of Parliament, I am at a loss to know what it is.
Moreover our critics are not directed so much against the hon. member for Richelieu. as against the general system in vogue at the workshons of the marine department at Sorel. The investigation that we asked for, was not in the doings of the member for Richelieu, but in the general administration of the department. The first resolution that we intended to submit was asking for a general investigation ; if there is any doubt about it I can produce the original

document, but that demand would have been rejected and the hon. member himself would have been the first to 'stand in his place and tell the House that things in the workshops of Sorel were as clear and limpid as the waters of the Richelieu river. As a last resort, we decided to carry the war into Africa. .


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: In what part of Africa ?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The hon. gentleman is eminently witty, but his sallies may become tiresome, in the long run, and he is apt to say things that he would not dare to repeat outside of this House. He may rest assured that I am not in the least intimidated by his more or less absurd interruptions.
We have been hampered on every side in this investigation. All circumstantial evidence has been eliminated ; we have been denied the right to prove any fact likely to throw some light on the intentions of the parties interested. The committee would not hear the witness Arthur Cayer, who was ready to say under oath that he had removed the furniture of the hon. member for Richelieu into his new house during the time he was in the employ of the government and that he was paid by the government and also that his wages had never been repaid to the government. In the course of the investigation it was incidentally disclosed that during the summer of 1910, some painters in the employ of the department, had done some work at the church of Sorel, and immediately, a motion, was made and carried by the majority to have that part of the evidence rejected.
If it had been clearly proven that high officials in Sorel, are trafficking behind the back of the government that they are selling at low prices or giving away articles taken from the stores of the department, that they are doing odd jobs for their friends and receive money or favours in exchange ; if I say, these charges had been proven, it would have required but one step further to prove the main object of the investigation.
If it had been demonstrated that in the workshops of Sorel high officials entrusted with the safekeeping of public property, are nothing else than thieves pilfering upon the government for themselves; and their friends, and if it had been demonstrated afterwards, that the hon. member for Richelieu had dealings with those thieves, it would have been in the nature of throwing light on the whole transaction and of making known the intentions of the bargainers. But we were not allowed to do it. At every step, the heavy fist of the majority would come down upon us, and restrict us to the painting of the house.
It is by mere accident that the evidence about the church, as I stated a moment ago, Mr. NANTEL
came out of the bag, in spite of the exertions of those who were keeping watch around the witness box, to see that the truth could not'escape. That witness, Napoleon Badeau, has lent some men to the hon. member for Richelieu, but he saw to it, that their tickets would not be punched, as if they had been working for the government, and he saw to it that they should be paid by the right party. That man Badeau received other requisitions from Mr. Lanc-tot. He was asked for some timber, but he insisted upon having the authorization of Mr. Papineau, and heard no more about it after that. The member for Richelieu did not bother him any more; he knew then what kind of a man he was.
Complaints about all those wrong-doing at Sorel were made long before the 24th of September. When the money was refunded the clouds were gathering and the storm was on the verge of bursting. I am informed that in other transactions, quite independent of the one we are dealing with, moneys were refunded in anticipation of an investigation. It was no use to try to prove those things to show the intention of the parties. The big fist of the majority was always there, ready to crush all effort fn that diretcion.
We are not after the head of the hon. member for Richelieu. We want a thorough cleaning of those modern Augean stables known as the Sorel workshops. We want a complete investigation by a commissioner who, instead of trying to conceal the truth, would direct all his energies and his ability to find out the truth, the whole truth.
I intend to read a few of the affidavits that I hold in my hand so that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who is asleep at the present moment, can read them to-morrow in the Hansard. I will begin by the affidavit of Mr. Henri Proulx, taken before Mr. Bourgeois, on the 23rd of December last. The fifth section says:
5.	That since the 20th of November last, about twenty men employed by the government, at the same dockyards, have, to my knowledge, made written declarations, charging high and low officials of the Department of Marine, at St. Joseph de Sorel, with theft of cement, iti some cases, in other cases, of timber, of paint, varnish, &c., hardwares, &c., and above all with directing the men in the employ and in the pay of the government to do different works fo'r the benefit of private citizens, and on all these charges, the public is asking an investigation.


Mr. TURCOTTE (Quebec).: Is that affidavit before the House?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: No, but I will lay it on the table.


Gustave Adolphe Turcotte: I rise to a point of order. I object to the hon. gentleman reading papers that are not regularly before the House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman has the right to read these papers.


Mr. NANTEL (reading).: 6. That since- it is rumoured that there will be an investigation. I have been solicited and supplicated, night and day, by the said Mr. Adelard Lanetot, and by others; they wanted me to destroy or to handle to some party interested in their suppression, the written declarations made by myself and by others, and of which I was at the time the guardian.


Gustave Adolphe Turcotte: I ask that the motion and the amendment now before the House be read, to see if these documents have any relation to the said motion or amendment.
Mr. (SPEAKER. According to the Rules of the House, the motion can be read only at the close of the debate.
wages for the time I was spending at Mr. Lanctot's place, by order of my chief, MK J. B. Page asked me one evening, about 8 o'clock, to help him to carry away a box several feet long, made in the workshop of the government, and beautifully finished; in fact, I did help him to carry the said box at his own residence, and I have never s^en it since.
6.	That about the 5th October, 1910, I was ordered by I. B. Page to glaze three double doors at Mr. Adelard Lavallee's place, at Sorel; he told me then: Go and register as if you were present; get your card punched before leaving, and I done so. I was paid by the government for that work that took considerable time.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who gave that affidavit?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Mr. Alfred Douaire; a man that you have dismissed. .


Mr. NANTEL (reading):: 7.	That during those trying times, one of the head clerks, in the store of the government was suspended, but he threatened to disclose all what he knew against the other officials and he has been reinstated since three
di7S.
8.	That the watch word amongst those who feel that they might he affected by the investigation, is to reimburse as quickly as possible the price of the materials and the wages of the men, and as a man cannot he a good judge in his own case, I know one of them who thinks he is as white as snow, because, a few days ago, he sent a few dollars to the government in settlement of an enormous debt.
9.	That in the interest of Justice and of the country an investigation is necessary; if it is not granted the losses will be immense.


Victor Geoffrion: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that that affidavit is a forgery?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I am not aware of it. and I deny it.


Victor Geoffrion: The hon. gentleman makes a mistake. He is alluding to the witness Lambert. *


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The part I am reading is the one I was not allowed to .read before the committee, because it did not concern the hon. member for Richelieu.


Gustave Adolphe Turcotte: I rise to a point of order. I ask for the application of rule 20, of the Rules of this House, which says:
Any member may require the question under the discussion to he read at any time of the debate, but not so as to interrupt a member while speaking.
Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman is out of order, and I invite him to take his seat.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I will now read sections 5 and 6. of the affidavit of Alfred Douaire:
5.	That during the time that I was in the employ of the government and receiving good 25,1


An hon. MEMBER.: He had a grudge.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: If nobody had grudges, there would never be any investigation, and it is the grudgers that defeat the governments.
I come now to the affidavit of Hermene-gilde Lambert;
1 That I have been in the employ of the Dominion government at their shipyards, situated at St. Joseph de Sorel, from 1900 to 1930, inclusive, that is to say ten consecutive years, the first four years as caulker, and the six last as overseer of labourers. I have given up that work on December 28 last, and have not taken it up since, although, I have been offered an increase of salary of fifteen cents per day.
2.	That while I was thus in the service of the said governement, especially within the last three years, Mr. Alex. Gendron, then and still of the labourers' department, head man, and consequently my superior, has often instructed me to send sometimes one, sometimes two and sometimes three of the men under my orders and in my gang to work at Sorel for private parties, especially for Alfred Baril and Oscar Champagne, two high officials at the time, and still in the same department, and for Adelard -Lanetot, M.P., to carry on works and repairs at various buildings.
3.	That on receiving these applications, I sent the number of men required to work for the benefit of these persons, and when each foreman was called to give to the head foreman the time of these men, I said to Mr. Alex. Gendron: 'I have one, or two or three men who have been working at Sorel for the above mentioned.' Then Alex. Gendron, when he was present, and Adolphe Joubert, his clerk representing him, when the latter was away, would say: ' Do not mention the absences which go unnoticed; these men have punched and will be paid by the department.'
4.	That Mr. 09car Champagne, employed in the government stores, has had turf taken at St Joseph's Pointe to Sorel to grade his property and embellish the grounds around his house at Sorel, which work was done by Andre Cotnoir, a man in the employ of the government, who worked between three and four days, while at the same time having their



ca ids punched every morning and getting their pay from the government, at the knowledge of'the said Oscar Champagne.
5.	That in the course of the summer of 1910,
that same Mr. Oscar Champagne caused to he drawn, by the government teams and by men in the government pay,, iron pipes taken from the government and had these carried to Sorel and utilized for a tunnel in a stream going through his property, and that this whole expenditure has been supported by the government, which is the looser in this last instance of about $200. That to my knowledge instructions have been given to the men entrusted with the drawing of the pipes to do so in' such a way that the great Chief Papi-neau should have no knowledge of it. As a matter of fact, the drawing was effected about seven o'clock in the morning previous to Mr. Papineau's arrival.	.
6.	That in every instance where time or material was thus embezzled, urgent departmental work was interfered with.
7.	I am free to acknowledge that Mr. L. G. Papineau (great chief) of the department, is gn honest man.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Who gave that affidavit?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Hormenegilde Lambert.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I might inform my hon. friend that that question came before the department some months ago. An investigation was held, and it was proven that the pipes in question had 'been sold to that man by Mr. Papineau himself. That is all the scandal that there is in it.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: If the investigation had not been held ex parte, we could probably get more out of it.


Hon. Mr. BRODEUR  .@: That man Lambert has been dismissed.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: 
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I suppose that the hon. gentleman who has just read that Mr. NANTEL
affidavit takes the responsibility of the charge therein, that a man in the employ of the government has worked for the church of St. Joseph?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I take the responsibility of what I say, but just now I am reading from affidavits that ought to open the eyes of the minister and of the department and urge them to take immediate action.
I charge J.-B. Page with having sent me, Henri Proulx, to Mr. Pierre Paulhus to paint a carriage with paint taken from the store of the government, during the time I was paid by the government; that I was there in the company of J.B. Page, and when the question of the price came up, J.-B. Page said it would cost Mr. Paulhus nothing, as he, Page, liked to help friends; also
I charge J.-B. Page with having lent brushes belonging to the government for painting a hotel and a house, the property of Mr. J. D. Guevremont; also
I charge J.-B. Page with having sent me, Henri Proulx to Mr. Edouard Gauthier's place, to ' imitate ' and varnish three doors with materials belonging to the government and that I have been paid by the government; also
I charge J.-B. Page with granting at least ten days leave to Omer Fortin, so he could organize a demonstration; and with granting a three days leave to F. X. Page, Theodore Hemond, Arthur Peloquin, Alpheche Champagne, Henri Pronlx and myself, to organize the same demonstration, on the time of the government and during the time we were all paid by the government. The said demonstration was on the occasion of_ the 50th anniversary of the said J.-B. Page.
I charge J.-B. Page with having given paint and gold in sheets taken from the government store for the decoration of the hall in which was held, on the 10th August last, the aforesaid celebration; also
T charge J.-B. Page with giving money to Adelard Letendre and sending him to the town to buy liquors, on the time of the government ; also
I charge J.-B. Page with giving orders to two men to break through a window at the building No. 10, on the government dockyards, expecting to find liquors in the building and and have the keeper dismissed.
Delphis Mongeau declares ;
That during the summer of 1910, I saw men in the employ of the federal government carting away, in a wagon belonging to the government, with a horse belonging to the government a certain quantity of iron pipes and cement; that the said articles were deposited at the further end of the property of Mr. Oscar Champagne, also in the employ of the government; that afterwards, the same men laid the said pipes on the button of a brook on the property of the said Champagne, so as to make a drain, a work of considerable importance for the said Mr. Champagne.
Now, here is what Andronique Senecal has to say:
I. Andronique Senecal, carpenter of the city of Sorel, solemnly declare that I have worked

at. the residence of Mr. Oscar Champagne, time keeper, in the Department of Public Works at Sorel, and that I have been paid by the government as it can be shown by a pass for the ferry, signed and delivered by Champagne, on the 3rd May, 1909. One day, I made repairs to doors and cupboards, at his residence; at another time I made repairs to a fence and installed a wire 70 or 75 feet long, on the said fence. I worked there, at least three days.
I further declare that I worked three days at Mr. Adelard Lanctot's residence, to repair the fence and that I have been paid by the government.
I further declare that I worked once at the residence of Alfred Baril, accountant of the Departement of Marine and Fisheries, when he was living above the store of L. T. Trempe. Later I worked at the house were he presently resides, on George Street; Joseph Berard was working with me. We laid carpets and oil cloths, put on mouldings to hang frames, and built a kennel for his dog. I also set the furnitures in place, in the house. We must have worked at least two weeks. 1 declare that during all the time I worked for Champagne, Lanctot and Baril, I was paid by the government. I remember that when I was working for Mr. Baril, it was pay day, and Baril told us that be would get the money for us, himself. He did so, and Baril and myself signed a receipt on a printed form, furnished by the government, the same as the one we have to sign when we are on sick leave.
One more affidavit; it is from Elie Senecal:
. 2. That during the month of September, 1919, one of my customers told me that he would not buy any more cement from me at 65 cents per bag, as he could buy much cheaper at the government store at St. Joseph de Sorel. I immediately called on M. Norman Masse, an official at the government store and asked him if it was true that they were selling cement, and that they had sold high grade cement for 30, 35 and 40 cents per bag. Though I had put that question politely, M. Masse got very mad and told me that it was none of my business, that as long as a liberal government would be in power, himself and the other liberal officials would do as they please, without having to account, &c., &c.	'
Up to 111at: time I had always considered M. Masse as a friend of mine," and when I saw him in such a bad humour, I suspected that he had already been annoyed, or expected to be in trouble about that matter, and that there was some truth in it. I called on several contractors and they admitted that they had bought cement from- M. Mass6 at the government store, much cheaper thru 1 was selling it. I notified the federal government of what was going on, and we exchanged several letters that I did not keep on file, except those herein inclosed.
Mr. Cecil Doutre was sent here and made an informal investigation, but took good care not to examine me nor the contractors that are using cement, although they live quite near fhe government store. A few days after that, Mr. Masse was suspended, but he was soon reinstated, because he was threatening to make 2534
damaging disclosures against the other officials. From the above facts, and from other information I have had since, I am in a position to state and I do state that I would not have lost the trade of several customers of mine, during the summer and fall of 1910, if they had not been in a position to buy cement at the government store at a much cheaper price than I could afford to sell mine.
3.	I also declare that I was told by Mr. Alfred Desorcy, known also as ' frere Desorcy ' labourer of St. Joseph de Sorel, that in 1910 lie was in the employ of the government, under Mr. Lindsay, foreman of the labourers, and that himself and seven other labourers had loaded two cars of good timber belonging to the government and taken from the dock yards of the government, that the two cars were afterwards coupled to an engine and sent to Mr. Lindsay's place, at Sorel. That statement of Mr. Desorcy, is corroborated by a great number of citizens who declare that the government have lost the price of these two carloads of timber.
4.	I declare further that since Mr. Des-barats left, there is an inconceivable lack of discipline and that the time of the men is very loosely kept. It is to my knowledge that Mr. Masse has supervised and directed the repairs to his house, Augusta Street, at Sorel, and has absented himself from the government store during a considerable space of time, on that account. It is to my knowledge that he has done the same thing, in 1910, when he made repairs to his other house on Ramsay Street, at Sorel. It is also to my knowledge that he is interested in the manufacture of cement blocks, at the corner of Augusta and Acadie Streets, at Sorel; that he represents for several insurance companies, and that by reason of these numerous occupations, he deprives the government of a good portion of the time that he should give to his regular duties. It may be said, also, that several other officials, give a good portion of their time to personal business.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As to that man Senecal, I might say to my hon. friend that he was challenged to make good his charges against Masse. Some correspondence took place, and I can show it in this House. Upon being challenged to prove those accusations, he has never been able to do it. We had- an inquiry and that inquiry has shown the contrary.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: You have had an inquiry behind closed doors. That is not sufficient nor reassuring for public opinion.
Evidently, in Sorel, the government is considered something as personal. Those people are saying:	We are ourselves the
government. Everybody helps himself, and we must not 'be surprised if the hon. member for Richelieu has been helped.
Once m'ore, the hon. member is not attacked. Tlhe public wanted an inquiry into all those things where it would be represented and whpre it could have the right to be heard. I am not asking for an inquiry before a committee of the House, because I am sure that would not be the

way to get at the truth. There is too much partisanship. I admit myself readily that I am not without fault in that respect.
The only way to get justice would be an inquiry before a royal commissary who would examine all those facts. Such an inquiry would give satisfactory results.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Am I to understand that my hon. friend has read all the affidavits that he had?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I have read several of them'; I will submit them to the House.
I can have fifty more if it is necessary, and it will be a pleasure for me to submit them to the House.


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montclam).: (Translation). Since this discussion has been opened, we are witnessing, Mr. Speaker, a somewhat strange spectacle. I understand how the hon. member for Terrebonne has been able to draw certain conclusions from the evidence submitted, but what I cannot make out is about the hon. members on the left who have preceded him, because they do not agree with him. Before proceeding any further, I will beg leave to read the conclusions of the minority, so as to see if the hon. gentlemen will concur in what the hon. member for Terrebonne has just said.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who has signed the report jointly with the member for Hamilton East, has said:
' We conclude, moreover, that the said Ade-lard Lanctot, by the acts and proceedings as aforesaid, has violated the independence of parliament.'
What can the hon. members who have signed that report say as against the declarations of the hon. member for Terrebonne? He has just said that the independence of parliament has not been violated. Still, those hon. members have read the same evidence and they are in presence of the same proceedings.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to draw your attention on the accusations brought against the member for Richelieu. The thing is very serio-us, and when the hon. member for Terrebonne says that he has nothing against him, I must confess I do not know what he means. But it is he who is accused; it is he whom they are seeking to ruin; it is he who is accused of being a thief, a highway thief, who is accused of robbery. [DOT]
Does my hon. friend for Champlain know what is meant by such a word? If he knows the meaning of it, he has been somewhat rash in his accusations. Because his hon. friends who have discoursed this afternoon and to-night have objected to reach those conclusions, they say that it. is due to a mistake if the English text contains that- word.
Has mv hon. friend ever Tead the Cr'm-Mr. NANTEL
inal Code before using such a word? Let me draw his attention on section 445 which defines the word 'Robbery':
Robbery is theft accompanied with violence or threats of violence to any person or property used to extort the property stolen, or to prevent or overcome resistence to its being stolen.
If the hon. member for Champlain had read those articles of the Criminal Code he would not have dared to make such a charge. As he did not know the meanmg of it, I will readily forgive him. He has never studied the laws of his country. He is more versed in the ' pills of his jiro-fession.


An hon. MEMBER.: He is a notary.


Mr. BLONDIN.: I have never practiced medicine. I ask my hon. friend to withdraw that word. I am a notary, not a doctor.


David Arthur Lafortune: Well, I will change the formula. If you are a notary, you are the more guilty, because notaries are acquainted with the law, perhaps not the criminal law; but in any case, your colleagues are ashamed and reject that accusation. Your colleagues have just told you that you were not right' in accusing the member for Richelieu of robbery.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Whom do you mean?


David Arthur Lafortune: The learned member for Terrebonne has just said who it was. Before signing a mandate of that kind one must be careful. When a plaintiff goes before a court of justice in a case of robbery, the judge does not proceed before having had a preliminary inquest. In the present case such a charge cannot foe substantiated, and not a single member of the left has even attempted to do it.
We have heard of theft, of breach of trust, of malversation. I have listened attentively to all that has been said. I have studied the evidence, I have read and reread it and I say that not a single reasonable man acquainted with the criminal law would pretend that the evidence is sufficient to lay ground for an accusation of robbery. I challenge anybody to prove that the evidence on file would be accepted by a magistrate. The hon. member for Richelieu may have been perhaps imprudent, but I repeat that nothing has been proven to substantiate an accusation of robbery. All that is only a false pretense and we all know what i'3 meant by that.
Let them read the law, to know what is meant by false pretenses. Evidently, those hon. gentlemen who had a grudge against the department now attack the member for Richelieu and make him pay for the bad temper that they feel. We have the admission of one of your own men. My hon.

friend of Terrebonne has just declared that there is no grudge against my hon. friend of Richelieu, but rather against the Marine Department. Then, why don't you behave like brave and courageous men, and don't you lay a direct accusation against the hon. Minister of Marine, with your own seats at stake.
If it is true that this department is as corrupted as you say, and that infamous things are there going on, you-ought to have enough courage to make a formal accusation against the hon. minister whom you are seeking to ruin in public opinion by insinuations rather than direct accusations, because you know very well that you would not be able to prove them. In your ill-temper, you throw yourselves on the back of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier ... I beg pardon to my learned friend, it is he himself who goes for the hon. member for Richelieu.
The hon. member for Champlain ought to have known that my hon. friend of Richelieu had pledged himself to reimburse the government, and that therefore there could not have been neither a theft nor an intention of theft. I understand that his declaration has been made too late, but it was nevertheless too daring. If you examine the evidence, you can see that the declaration of reimbursement has been made at the very origin of this transaction, before anything had yet been delivered. I say that in such a case, it is impossible to prove an accusation of theft. Nobody who has studied criminal law would dare sustain such'a pretension. There must be, for a crime, an intention of criminality. Now, in this circumstance, there has never been any intention of theft. I prefer the declaration of the member for Terrebonne who tells us that the intention was primarily to have a general inquiry into what is going on in the Marine Department at Sorel. But then, why now call the member for Richelieu a thief, a highway robber? After the spectacle that they have given us, I am sur I should have good reason to doubt their sincerity.
They say that because Mr. Page and Champagne have proceeded irregularly, it follows that the member for Richelieu is a thief. Even if Page and Champagne had acted as the member for Jacques Cartier has said they have ; even if they had had no right to act as they have done; even if they had acted with imprudence and without authorization, should the conclusion be that there has been a theft? But every day our courts are asked to waive illegal contracts, things that there was no right to do. 'Should we perforce come to the conclusion that those persons are thiefs? It is an 'easy thing to say, but the proof of it is another affair.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier says that the evidence of Page is not to be believed. That is what he says, but where is the proof of it? Who was it that doubted the sincerity of that witness? Where can you see in the inquiry that the declaration under oath of that witness has been contested? One should never forget the principle that the evidence of a witness holds good, so long as the regularity or the sincerity of a witness has not been contested. Where can you see in the evidence that his sincerity has ever been questioned ? You are proceeding against this witness * ex iparte.' But why not give him the chance that is not refused to the greatest criminal to pay his debt. That is agreed, on the floor of the House everything is allowed when it comes to proffer an accusation; hut outside of this House, you would not dare to make a charge of perjury against this very same man.
They say that the work was done a.t Mr. Lanctot's house, next door to where lives the inspector-in-chief Mr. Papineau, and that no permission had been obtained from this gentleman. Would that constitute a theft? Even if Mr. Papineau had not been consulted; even if it had been shown that Champagne and Page had gone beyond their powers, and that they had no mandate to act as they have done, would that constitute a theft? If all those who overstep their-powers had to go to jail, I know some people who would not be here. If, for instance, the member for Champlain admits that he has exceeded his mandate; if he was asked to just'fy this accusation; if he was told: you have been imprudent, reckless, you have acted wickedly in proffering such art accusation against the member for Richelieu, what would he answer to that?
I hear some of those hon. gentlemen laughing. You can laugh, hut the wife and the children of the member for Richelieu are not in the same agreeable mood.


Eugène Paquet: I make a call to order. If we want to uphold the dignity of the deliberations of this House, I must ask the hon.. member for Montcalm to please address; himself to the Speaker and not to members.


David Arthur Lafortune: I have just said to the hon. member the accuser that he could have a laugh over what he had done, but ! that the one he has accused is not in the I same mood, since this wicked accusation has been made against him. He will never j be able to repair the wrong he has done to 1 that family. I have no doubt whatever that the member for Richelieu will be exonerated; but the result of that wicked accusation which has been hawked about' every where, and which stand in bold letters, in the press of the country, as a splendid advertisement for the member for Champlain, the result, I say, will he an incalculable wrong for the member for Richelieu, a wrong which the member for Champlain will never be able to repair for himself and his family.

They say that the work had been going on next door to Mr. Papineau. Well, the member for Richelieu who had asked Champagne and Page to do that work had a right to believe, from the answer received from those two men, that they had permission to do the work. Nothing could be more natural and .more logical. When those men came to do that work, it was because they had had the permission of Mr. Papineau. _
When an officer or a civil servant is asked to do a thing, if he answers : Very well, but I will ask permission of my chief. And if on the morrow I see that man at work, my conclusion is that the necessary permission has been granted.
They say that Mr. Papineau is an honest man. Others are in doubt or unwilling to say so. Who is to be believed ? The necessary conclusion is that Mr. Papineau knew what was going on, and that the member for Richelieu was in no necessity, as was said, to make further inquiries about it, since the men he had asked for were at work.


Eugène Paquet: Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question ? Has he read that part of the evidence of Mr. Papineau, in which he declares that he has no knowledge of what was going on ?


David Arthur Lafortune: We hear, as an accepted fact, of the frightful things that are going on at Sorel. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has not been very affirmative on that point, but the member for Terrebonne went farther than that. He told us that abuses and frauds were going on there. But we are not obliged to believe all that. It is easy to throw accusations to the wind. When I am studying a case, I read the evidence and the affirmations made ' ex parte ' have to be controlled.
I may be allowed, I think, not to entertain the same opinion. The people in Sorel are just as respectable as anywhere else. They are honest and industrious. You say that there are scandals going on, but you show no proof of that.
At the time that those hon. gentlemen were in power, the finances of the country were in a sore plight. But now that we have a liberal government, millions of dollars keep flowing to us and this yeaT we have a surplus of thirty millions. You have never been able to show as much. Those hon. gentlemen are still going through the same dreams and they think they are still in power. They should not forget, however, that we are in power since 1896, and that is why the millions keep coming to us.
The member for Jacques Cartier has said: There has been nothing entered in the books. That is a gratuitous affirmation and one which must be taken subject to verification The evidence shows the contrarv. Books have been kept, and statements'regularly Mr. LAFORTUNE.
made every night. Why not state the true facts ? It is true there was no ledger ; there was perhaps no ledger. But for that kind of work, there is no necessity of books in double entry for the time of the men and the few materials which were brought there.
That is then a gratuitous affirmation, and we are not obliged to accept his 'ipse dixit'. I would rather rely on the evidence.
My learned friend has said it is a trick. We are playing no tricks, in our party, that is something to new for us. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier may know a good deal about tricks. Well, let him keep the patent of it, if he has it.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who is a professor at Laval, must be acquainted with that part of the law where it is admitted that the sending of materials, to the knowledge of those who possess them, does not constitute a theft and does not justify a writ of imprisonment. You can come to the law firm to which I have the honour to belong since five years, and you will be told that such an accusation cannot be deemed sufficient to get your man arrested. There may have been an imprudence, but when it comes to a question of having a man arrested, to ruin that man and to deprive him of what is most dear to him in the world, one must look at it twice before leaping.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has just declared, in contradiction to what the member for Elgin has said a moment ago, that there was no conspiration. The member for Elgin says :	They are conspirators.
Who is to be believed ? When, in doubt, there should be no condemnation.
When I see that the accusers themselves do not agree, I cannot help having serious doubts. One says white the other says black. If there has been conspiration, then I ask where is the fraud? I have no need to remind you that fraud must not be presumed. Who has proven it? Where is the witness? Is it not the accused who has to prove his innocence; but it belongs to the accuser to show where lies the culpability of the one he accuses. The proof then lies with you. If you cannot show that nroof, then the accused is acquitted. What you say is not sufficient to prove that d't is the truth. Where is the witness who has shown that theTe had been a theft or an intention of fraud, or even the existence of a false pretense? On the contrary, the intention to reimburse has been expressed at the very origin.
That the accused may have been imprudent, I concur with you in that. I belong to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I have been present at all the meetings of this committee. I have listened to what has been said in this House. I have read all the evidence', and I say

that is simply a case of imprudence that that does not transgress the (independence which a member must possess. But to allege that my hon. friend for Richelieu must perforce be a thief, that he has committed' highway robbery, that he has taken possession of things under false pretenses, you will read that in the 'Devoir', but it is not true. It is a doctrine which has no currency. It may be heard in partisan papers, in speeches of small importance, but it is evident that my hon. friend for Richelieu has incurred neither censure nor blame, as those hon. iriembers of the left would fain have us believe.
Can it be said that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who has signed the minority report, is this time in the right? I do not mean that he is not habitually in the right. A man cannot be acquitted nor forgiven because of his intention to reimburse. There are a great many criminals in our penitentiaries who would gladly reimburse, if they could be liberated on that chance. But in these cases, it is paying after the accusation has been proved, and after sentence has been pronounced. Even if a convict would be ready to pay, that would be too late. He could thus satisfy his conscience, but for human law it would be too late.
I have some experience of it, Mr. Speaker. Every day, there are men arrested and condemned, who regret what they have done. They are always ready to reimburse what they have stolen, but it is then too late. That is the principal laid down by the member for Jacques Cartier. But we cannot proceed by analogy. In the present case, there has been neither arrest nor conviction, and everything had been paid before a complaint had been laid against him. Not a day passes, in our ipolice courts, but that a denunciator complains of a transaction, and pretends that there has been fraud and false pretenses. What does then the magistrate? He does not deliver a writ of imprisonment. He has the accused brought before him. He asks him explanations, and if a discussion follows on the transaction the magistrate puts definitely the question and says to the individual:	There	has been a misunderstanding between you, you have obtained certain things under false pretenses, are you ready to return them? But certainly, will answer that individual. After that, could my learned friend get a writ against the one of whom he complains and who had no intention to steal. Never, and that is what occurs every day. Montreal is a large judiciary centre, the largest there is in our country. A great many denunciations and complaints are made there all the time. Not a week comes but justice has to intervene, and magistrates
deem it their duty to settle those disputes without arrest.
The member for Jacques Cartier has declared that Mr. Lanctot's house had been painted at too cheap a price. Where is the proof of that? On the contrary, have we not, in the evidence, the proof that the full and whole value of the work has been paid? That the amount paid by the member for Richelieu has been declared by disinterested men, and men knowing something about painting, to be fully sufficient to repay the government for what had been advanced, and more. But let us say that it was not more.
I have to call into question the affirmations of those gentlemen of the left. In order to be convinced, one must need have the truth of the facts. What we have to do here is to exercise our judgment and to appeal to our experience. Now, can we conclude, as has been said, that there was a theft. Not at all. We are ready for the fray, and we can keep it up with our friends of the left benches, because we are just as experienced as they are. The legal evidence which is submitted to us does not prove the accusations which have been brought. Indeed, after having heard the eloquent speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. Minister of Justice, no more doubts can subsist. Here is indeed a talented and superior man. He has shown that the independence of parliament had not been transgressed. He has shown that as clearly and peremptorily that two and two make four.
The hon. member for Terrebonne is not sufficiently versed in law to destroy that demonstration. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier would be the only one to try it, but without any hope of success.
I say that when those hon. gentlemen came to talk of malversation, of theft and of fraud, they are not serious. They have admitted that the one they wanted to reach was the hon. Minister of Marine. Here we can have an idea of the sincerity and frankness that the member for Terrebonne has put in that declaration.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has pretended that my friend of Richelieu has conspired. Let us suppose it is true. Well, Mr. Lanctot is guilty. But why has he conspired ? It has not been proved that there was a reward for him. Now, crime is always proceeded by a motive of gain, interest or profit which the criminal will derive or hopes to derive from his act. What was the interest of the member for Richelieu in conspiring ? Conspirators do not go into that game for pleasure, they never do Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) has shown surprise at the accusation laid against him. He was real mad. Yet, that

was only a small matter. But, when it comes to others it is a considerable affair. He has been asked several times to tell what he knew about gasoline. That was not agreeable to him. He said he paid for what he had got, because he does not admit that he got anything from the government. He has even said : You accuse me wrongfully, and you are wrong in trying to pick that quarrel with me, because I have given to the government a value of nearly three thousand dollars. How generous of him to thus give three thousand dollars to a liberal government. How is any one to believe that he has ever given three thousand dollars for a railway in which he had no interest.
Here is indeed a man whose declaration may well be called into question. A man who is at war with the Minister of Marine, whom he accuses of graft and theft. He went even so far as saying to the Prime Minister : Be careful, do not call Mr. Bro-deur to the Supreme Court, that would be a disgrace.
As the hon. Minister of Justice has so well said, we are here the members sitting as judges in this cause. The preliminary inquiry, which goes on before the magistrate, has taken place before the committee. Five men have been charged to make the preliminary inquiry and to examine the facts. And when we see men having the merit of the members for Welland, Vercheres and Richmond, I say to the two others : You have talent and merit, but partisanship makes you see with eyes that are not the eyes of truth, and ail that because you cannot get the inquiry that you ask for. It is not fair to thus throw revenge on a member of this House, and all that because the government has not deemed expedient to grant them what they ask for.
The member for St. Anne has not dared to speak of the independence of parliament, and he had good reason for it. The member for St. Anne must have looked askance at all those who have spoken about independence, as for instance the member for Jacques Cartier.
* As has been said by the member for Vercheres, when that gentleman did judge convenient to leave the bench of magis-trature in order to sit here as a member of this House, he had the good sense to cast his vote in favour of drawing a pension of $4,300 a year as an ex-judge, and he has d'one well not to broach that subject. He was unwilling to speak about independence, because he was not without reproach in that respect.
Two weights and two measures, one for friends and the other for adversaries.
I have listened with attention to what the hon. member for Elgin West (Mr. Crothers) has said. He has exDressed himself without Mr. LAFORTTJNE.
the least gentleness and without caring in the least whom he might hurt. He had said to the House that this was a fraud and that there had been false pretenses. If he had opened any book upon criminal law or our own code, he would have seen what is meant by the word theft, and then he would not have spoken as he did. How can any man pretend that there have been false pretense when there is nothing to sustain an accusation of that kind.
He has quoted extracts of two papers which have taken our defence, and particm larly the Montreal 'Herald'. He has said that this was an important paper. I assert that the 'Hearld' has not then interpreted our sentiments. Besides, I must say that I have no fondness for a paper published by Mr. Walsh, who is always to be found in company with Mr. Henri Bourassa.


Eugène Paquet: What about the 'Pays'?


David Arthur Lafortune: That is another case of disappointment.
Mr. Walsh bestows praise on Mr. Henri Bourassa. He is there in bad company. The 'Herald' has not then -acted as a liberal newspaper should have done.
He has also quoted the Ottawa 'Free Press' What does that paper know about the evidence? What legal knowledge does he possess, that we might be prone to lay the opinion so luminously expressed by the hon. Minister of Justice. Here is a jurist whose life has -been -spent in the study of law. Could the publishers of those papers say the same thing? They may have acted in good faith, but I deny the legal authority of those papers. I say that they have not the necessary aptitudes nor the legal experience which would entitle them to throw blame on what has been done in the present case.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was saying that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not approving that, the intention being here to have one believe that the Prime Minister was not in full agreement with his colleagues. It is a case of one can't have too much of a good thing. They ought to know that there are no traitors among us in the cabinet; that among us all are jointly and severally liable.
The hon. member for Elgin says all the contrary to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. He says that there has been- a conspiration. This is a new attack. He also sees false pretenses. There is not a word of that in the evidence. But those gentlemen, one after the other, have a new accusation to bring forward. If they were before a jury, I am sure they would not meet with much success. They would not get many convictions. We have heard about some malcontents. I remember so well what has occurred when the hon.

Minister of Marine was dismissing men in the employ of the government in Sorel. The next day, Conservative papers were denouncing him with violence. I will repeat here Iio-night to the hon. minister what I have told him elswhere. His mistake has been to tolerate too long old Conservatives who are there, playing knaves to the devil. If, on March 8, 1892, Honore Mercier has fallen from power, it was due to the traitors who were conspiring against him. I say then to the hon minister: Be firm, be just, but do not give to your adversaries an opportunity to overthrow you, that is tlheir function, and that is -what they will do on the first occasion.
The two gentlemen who have signed the minority report have no more merit, experience or honour than the three members of the sub-committee who have signed the other report. Why would we accept the minority report? Could those gentlemen have, by adventure, a monopoly of probity, merit and legal experience? They say that the evidence shows such and such a thing, and that the House is bound to accept that opinion. Their conduct does hot authorize us to believe that they are worth more than the others.
According to the hon. member for Terrebonne, there should be a general inquiry into the Sorel shipyards. If the government was appointing an impartial royal commissary, he would approve him. But, in order to have a commissary who would enjoy the confidence of those gentlemen of the left, it would be necessary, I suppose, to chose him in their ranks. If he was a liberal, they would criticise and paralyze him. The choice of a commissary would have to remain with them. Otherwise, he would be no good.
According to the hon. member for Terrebonne, Page and Champagne are frauds, and it follows naturally that my hon. friend of Richelieu must be guilty. What a nice way of reasoning! What a fine logic! If something could have been proven, it would be very different. But there is nothing in the evidence against Mr. Lanctot. according to the member for Terrebonne, Champagne and Page are thieves who have delivered goods from the Marine stores at Sorel to the member for Richelieu. It appears that they have had a dog-kennel built up, a cart painted, and a sewer-drain dug up.
How terrible, a dog-kennel! It appears that a cart has been painted. Just imagine such a scandal, coming after those of the Curran bridge, the Louise Basin and Me-Greevy. Those gentlemen of the left benches have so long lived among scandals that they see scandals everywhere. But those scandals were precisely the reason that made them lose the power. It was because
they had put under the ban of public opinion that they were forced to give up the power. They cry out to-day against scandals. They should keep quiet, because they could never find anything to equal what they have already done.
The hon. member for Terrebonne has admitted that, in themselves, those alleged scandals were insignificant, but that the question of principle was very important. Indeed they have principles. Their principle is to come back to power as soon as possible, but they will not see that day yet for a long time. And then we will see what their principles are. But we will denounce your principles.
It is very tedious to be in the opposition, when one is used to power, but those gentlemen of the left had better be comforted, because it will be at the very least 15 years before they get out of it. The public will be gracious to them only when the men he has been used to shall have disappeared and when others will have taken their place.
The member for Terrebonne has read a good many affidavits. It is an easy thing to get an affidavit ' ex-parte,' which is taken in the back-ground. But, Mr. Speaker, you cannot recall the past of any one without hearing what he has to say. The greatest criminals have the right to say to their accusers: Bring down your charges, meet me in a court of justice. But, ' ex-parte,' you could heap up lots of things against me which could not be accounted for. And why should we mention those things in this House, when they have been denied.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that I have answered categorically to those hon. gentlemen of the left.
I have not left anything without an answer. I noted carefully all that was said. I noticed in the first place their discrepancies, the lack of unanimity. People who are in the right necessarily agree ; truth by nature is simple and indivisible. So I note in the. first place their lack of agreement and of consistency ; their lack of sincerity. I have the proof of this in the last words of the member for Terrebonne ; it is not Mr. Lanctot who is guilty ; but if we are making such a fuss about the matter, it is because we were refused the investigation we asked for. The member for Richelieu will be exonerated of all wrongdoing; he will return home carrying his head high. But I say to these hon. gentlemen, have you the right to make of the good name and honour of your fellow-members a subject of laughter ? To-morrow, on meeting him, you will be the first to extend the hand of welcome.
I 'shall conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying to the member for Champlain, who is the immediate and direct cause of the wrong done to this man : You will never live old

enough to make up for this, and the responsibility of it all will rest on you. He will find out that the harm done to others is very often avenged on one's own family, and if he himself is not made to pay the debt, his own people will bear the burden of it ; for the responsibility he has assumed in respect to that family is enormous, he may never be in a position to liberate himself in this connection.
I shall leave the learned member with that to ponder over, and as for us we shall fulfil our duty.


Eugène Paquet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) has claimed for himself the monopoly as it were of sincerity and patriotism. As to that he is greviously in error, and I for one shall undertake to look into this matter guided solely by the dictates of my conscience as a member of parliament and a citizen of Canada.
However, at this stage of the discussion, I cannot think of going over the whole ground once more and of making a thorough review of the facts connected with this unfortunate affair. I shall merely with the leave of the House, offer a few remarks and protest with all my might against the report of the majority of the committee on privileges and elections.
On March 6th, 1911, Mr. P. E. Blondin, member for Champlain, stated in the House of Commons that he had reason to believe that some varnishine and painting had been done by men in the employ, and with material the property of the Department of Marine at Sorel, for the benefit of Mr. A. Lanctot, member for Eichelieu. The charge was to the effect that, in the carrying out of such work, there had been wrong-doing, abuses, frauds, and embezzlement resorted to. It was charged that the hon. member for Eichelieu had unlawfully, in 1910, had men in the employ of the government to do work for his own benefit. Painting and painters' supplies, the property of the government, had been paid for out of the public funds of Canada, and the hon. member fox Eichelieu, it was stated, had profited thereby. The hon. member for Eichelieu asked for an investigation into such charges.
On that same day, the hon. member for Eichelieu acknowledged that, in the year 1910, he had had some painting done at his house by the men in the employ, and which supplies the property of the Department of Marine at Sorel; but that he had paid the salaries of the men and the cost of the supplies. There is one important point in respect to which the whole committee agreed; and it is this, that such work done for the benefit of a private citizen, was done outside the knowledge of the Department of Marine, of the superin-


David Arthur Lafortune: tendent or deputy [DOT] superintendent of the yards at Sorel.
In thus endeavouring to protect the property of the government against one of his fellow-members and the men in the government's employ at Sorel, my hon. friend from Champlain has fulfilled a patriotic duty. He is entitled to the gratitude of the people for having thus endeavoured to do away with abuses which are a humiliation for parliament, degrade the dignity of parliament and tend to make fraud and embezzlement rampant among public servants.
The committee was entrusted with the task of determining in what measure the hon. member for Eichelieu, in his capacity of representative of the people, was affected by the charges and revelations of his colleague from Champlain.
The supporters of the government have not given expression to the slightest regret in connection with the wrong-doing, the abuses and the frauds, the existence of which nobody dares deny. They have got out a report which grievously pains those who are intent on doing away with the worst frauds committed in the handling of the people's money. Let us look into some of the facts.
It appears from the evidence that work was done at the house of the member for Eichelieu at the expense of the government and by men in the government's employ.
True, Mr. Lanctot refunded in November and December last the salaries paid to the painters and the cost of the supplies; but it is a crying abuse that a great public administration should be transformed into a.private undertaking for the benefit of a private citizen or a member of parliament. However, the majority of the committee have not a word of blame for the hon. gentleman from Eichelieu.
In the yards at Sorel, Mr. L. G. Papi-neau, superintendent, and Mr. H. A. Ter-reault, deputy superintendent, are exclusively empowered to order any work. The hon. member for Eichelieu acknowledges Mr. Papineau's powers; nevertheless, in Mr. Papineau's absence, he applies for men and supplies to officials in the employ of the government who are without authority and have not been empowered by their superior officers to comply with the wishes of the member for Eichelieu. The latter gentleman gets painters and supplies. Mr. Papineau spends the summer at Sorel, but Messrs. Lanctot, Page and Champagne, abstain, as guilty people, to apprise him of the work being carried on at Mr. Lanctot's house. In so doing was not Mr. Lanctot attempting to procure men and supplies outside the knowledge of the authorities.
If Mr. Lanctot was anxious to obtain men and supplies from Mr. Papineau, why did he apply to Mr. Page previous to March 29? Why did he call on Mr. Page previous

to calling on Mr. Papineau? Why did he not apply to Mr. Terreault, deputy superintendent? The hon. member for Richelieu is a barrister. He is acquainted with the law, and is aware that servants such as Messrs. Page and Champagne have no right to lend men or supplies the property of their employers without the knowledge and consent of the latter. Such action has brought about the falsifying of the pay lists for the Sorel yards, the falsifying of the accounts of the Department of Marine, and the infringement of all rules relative to the relations of chief and subaltern in the yards there. All of these transactions are clandestine. Why did Messrs. Lanctot, Page and Champagne go secretly about it? From June until November the people's money was used to pay for work done on behalf of the hon. member for Richelieu. What a sorry lesson of righteousness given to the people of Canada. Official publications do not supply us with any information enabling us to know with certainty that the amount reimbursed by Mr. Lanctot corresponds to that paid out on his account by the government. We have to rety on the word of men who falsified the pay lists. Is that satisfactory? However, the majority of the commission did not have a word of censure as regards the member for Richelieu. According to the report of the majority, Mr. Lanctot paid full value. On the other hand men have sworn that accounts had not been faithfully rendered to the Department of Marine. Thus, Alfred Douaire, painter is recorded as having worked only 18 days at the Lanctot house, while he swears he worked there for eight weeks. His evidence is supported by that of Henri Proulx and by that of Alfred Thi-baudeau. However, the majority of the committee entirely lose sight in their report of the evidence of that honest man. Questioned as to his reasons for having this work done by men in the employ of the government, Mr. Lanctot stated, among other things, the lack of available help. Now, the evidence shows that there was at the time, at Sorel, other painters which were not in the employ of the government and who would have been in a position to do the work at the house of the hon. member for Richelieu. Some of these painters even applied for the job, but were refused.
In answer to Mr. McDougall, Mr. Cartier, painter, stated: 'Mr. Lanctot came to me at the place where I was working-I was painting a house for Mr. Baril-and I applied for the job right there.'
Mr. Payette stated under oath that he was in a position to paint the house of the member for Richelieu. Such facts have no meaning in the minds of the hon. gentlemen making up the majority of the committee.
In 1910, Mr. Lussier, merchant at Sorel, got painters in the employ of the government and paid for them. Why did not the hon. gentleman follow the example of that citizen? In spite of evidence as to facts of the most grievous character, the majority state that the charges made by the hon. member for Champlain have not been supported. According to their report, Mr. Lanctot, in dealing with employees of the government which he supports, to his own advantage and to the detriment of the public, has not done anything contrary to the dignity of his office. What an example of dishonesty set out before the eyes of young Canadians !
That is a new easy-going principle enabling the servant to dispose of his master's property. Fortunately that obnoxious principle is condemned and repudiated by the newspaper men of the old liberal school.
I shall read the following extract from the majority report of the commission.
(Text.) Your committee feel in. view if tlie very serious nature of the charges made that they should express an opinion on the propriety of Mr. Blondin making the charges in the manner he did. Your committee do not wish to state that Mr. Blondin did not believe there was truth in the allegations, or that he did not act from a bona fide belief in their truthfulness, but the committee think that before making so serious a charge against an honourable member of the House of Commons, he should have made some independent inquiry to verify the truthfulness of the charges made and, which he apparently did not do. The Minister of Marine was called as a witness. His evidence as to this is on page 189 where he says he had information that no fraud had been committed and that all labour supplied by the shipyards had been paid for and all material supplied had been returned and which information he would have been pleased to give Mr. Blondin had he applied for same.	.
Your committee think that if Mr. Blondin had made these inquiries he would not and should not have made these charges,
(Translation.) My friend from Champlain has fulfilled his duty with prudence and enlightened patriotism. The member for Richelieu, the Minister of Marine and the Prime Minister of Canada had long been aware of the facts which were brought to the attention of the House on March 6. As far back as December 5, 1910, the hon. Minister of Marine had in his possession statements of a very important nature. At the time, men in the employ of the government were charging one another with thefts and graft. Cases of fraud and embezzlement were being ventilated. Why did not the hon. member for Richelieu and the hon. Minister of Marine make a clean breast of the whole matter previous to March 6?
How can the government newspapers and their supporters in this House decently cast aspersions on the hon. member for Champlain, when it is known that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, on January 18 wrote in the

following terms to a staunch liberal at Sorel, Mr. Albert Thibodeau?
Dear Sir,-In answer to your letter of the 16th instant, I have the honour to inform you that if any wrong doing has been carried on at Sorel, it is not the intention of the government to prevent such facts from being made public, on the contrary. Should there be any information in your possession, or in the possession of anybody else, as to what has been going on, the greatest latitude will be given you to make such facts known in the manner you think fit to do so.
Such words justify my hon. friend from Champlain.
Why did not the hon. Minister of Marine on March 6, show the lawfulness of the conduct of the member for Richelieu? Had he not at the time an exceptional opportunity for defending the hon. member? Let us be candid about it. The hon. minister entrusted with the honour and dignity of this department, was unwilling to take upon himself the responsibility of refusing an inquiry. He agreed to it. no doubt, as the best safeguard under the law against abuses and frauds. In granting this inquiry, he joined hands with us towards effecting a work of justice.
The supreme tribunal condemns with the utmost severity the men who favour by their silence administrative acts which smack of fraud and theft. We are called upon to pay taxes. However, the majority of the commission were not big enough to condemn abuses and show their gratitude towards the member for Champlain who has thrown light on a system of frauds bearing heavily on the country's finances. Their verdict does not contain even a gleam of hope for those who are anxious that grafting officials in the service of the State be done away with. They have only insults for a member who is unwilling to grant his protection to offenders against the common law. A little more, and the majority would have dubbed with some high sounding title the hon. member for Richelieu, together with Messrs. Page and Champagne. A little more and that majority would have branded as an unworthy citizen the member for Champlain who concerned himself with the interests of the Canadian people.
Important documents, solemn declarations were handed to my hon. friend from Champlain by respectable citizens. He would have betrayed his mandate by remaining silent, and the hon. member for Champlain is no traitor. The majority of the committee have whitewashed the hon. member for Richelieu. I refrain from congratulating them in this connection. At this very moment, independent newspaper men, whether Liberal or Conservative, unhesitatingly condemn the verdict of the majority of the commission. They refuse to cast aside the principle that public funds Mr. PAQUET.
should be applied exclusively to public ends.
Here is what I find in a good liberal paper, the ' Witness,' in its issue of April 7, 1911:
All the same, the evidence, though severely restricted, has been largely read, and people have formed their own opinion of government as carried on in Canada, and find it very hard to understand the exculpation given to the administration of the shipyard at Sorel. It is time the Marine Department was turned inside out. It is, we are repeatedly told, about to pass into the hands of a new chief, a man of action and in more robust health than Mr. Brodeur. If this be true, Mr. Lemieux has a task before him that will make or mar him.
(Translation.) Then we have ' La Patrie ' of April 6, 1911:
Now, government supporters, who necessarily have the upper end whenever the committee come to a decision, after conscientiously looking into the facts, which in any case are undeniable, pronounced this judgment, which will remain as a monument, in the history of this country:
(1)	Mr. Lanctot is exonerated from all blame.
(2)	There is no exception to be taken to the system in vogue in the shipyards at Sorel, to lend to all comers men and material which are government property and paid for out of public funds.
(3)	One thing only should be condemned; that is the charge brought forward against Mr. Lanotot; one man only should be frowned upon, that is Mr. Blondin whom the majority of the committee condemn most severely.
We believe that the parliament buildings never before witnessed such a farce.
On April 20, the * Herald,' unable to control any longer its indignation expressed itself as follows in an editorial entitled ' The shoe on the wrong foot.'
(Text.) He seems to be content to prove that he paid for the painters' time and replaced the materials used on his place. He does seem to recognize that it was unworthy of him as a member of parliament to arrange with subordinate officials, without the knowledge of their superiors on the spot, even, to have men working for him whose services were all the time being charged to the Crown and presumably apportioned against some work that had been ordered by parliament. If Mr. Lanctot cannot see the unworthiness of that, he ought to be in some other role than that of a Liberal party leader. Certainly no government, Liberal or other, can be maintained in this country on the principle that its supporters in parliament are justified in such enterprises.
(Translation.) It is generally known that the ' Herald,' the largest English liberal organ in the metropolis of Canada, is the organ of the hon. Minister of Agriculture. The latter gentleman is aware that I have towards him feelings of great respect, on account of his honesty and his

untiring industry. He cannot doubt of my sincerity.
According to ' La Patrie ' that editorial of the ' Herald ' has caused a profound sensation. It is the legitimate and undisguised condemnation of the conduct of the hon. member for Richelieu.
It is interesting to read the following extracts from ' La Patrie,' of April 21:
It is an objectionable means of forwarding the interests of a party to approve doings of its members which the law and mere common sense show to be worthy of condemnation.
If the Committe on Privileges and Elections had, while granting to Mr. Lanctot the benefit of attenuating circumstances, condemned the abuses which the investigation clearly showed to have been committed, public opinion might have approved their stand.
But by obstinately closing their eyes to abuses, by even giving evidence of boldness and stupidity to the point of censuring Mr. Blondin for having drawn the attention of the House and the country to such facts, the majority of the committee have discredited themselves in the eyes of the country at large, and merited the condemnation even of liberal members.
I shall quote further an extract from the organ of the liberal party in this city. The ' Free Press ' published the following on April 25:
(Text.) But what be should have done the moment the charge was preferred against him was to have resigned his seat and appealed to his constituents for re-election. He could then have been re-elected by acclamation; whether he could do so now is another question.
Where a member of a party in the control of the public business places himself, wittingly or nnwittingly, under the penalties of the parliament Act there is only one course open for him to take, and that is what Mr. Lanctot should have done.
For him to now ask a majority of the House -of Commons to excuse his fault is to ask many of them to cancel their own records, and we do not believe that they will do so.
If Mr. Lanctot has committed a breach of the parliament Act, his is the offence.
Why should the Liberal party as a whole accept any share of his blame?
(Translation.) I am glad to say so, Liberal papers give evidence of a spirit of fairness which overrides the judgment of the majority of the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Conservative members of the committee aforesaid did not wait for the expression of such feelings of indignation to condemn the hon. member for Richelieu. They have assumed a patriotic duty and risen above mere considerations of friendship to condemn the deed's- of Mr. Lanctot. I heartily approve of the report of the minority, and, if the House will allow me, I shall read the conclusions of that judgment which will surely be sanctioned by public opinion:
(Text.) It is our conclusion from the [DOT]evidence that Mr. Adelard Lanctot, a member
of the House of Commons, knowingly and unlawfully did procure the employees of the government of Canada to do certain work for him and on his behalf in the year 1910, he then being a member of the said House, and by collusion with the servants of the government did procure the payment of such labour by and out of the public moneys of the Dominion of Canada for his own purposes and benefit, without lawful right and contrary to the public interest. ,
That he did furthermore, knowingly and unlawfully, cause and procure certain materials, the property of the government of Canada to he delivered to himself for his own benefit and use, he then being a member of the House of Commons, and with such intent and purpose did collude and contrive with the servants of the Dominion of Canada to whom the said materials had been entrusted for use in the works of said government to so deliver the same to him by unlawful misappropriation, contrary to their duty and obligation to the government and contrary to law and the public interest.
And further it is our conclusion that the said Adelard Lanctot, by the acts and proceedings aforesaid, did infringe the independence of parliament.
(Translation.) That investigation of a decidely narrow scope has brought to light what is possibly a mere sample incident in the management of the government yards at Soiel.
Is not the government property in that city in the hands of officials unworthy of the confidence of the Canadian people? There public servants have transgressed the most commonplace notions of equity. Their moral responsibility is not so great if they are the unfortunate victims of that political pressure -which bears as heavily as lead on the shoulders of all throughout our province.
The hon. Minister of Marine confines building materials, goods and the management of -men in his department to the care of officials who have falsified entries in the public records. And if the House, approving of the principles of the majority of the committee, refrains from condemning the abuses found rampant at Sorel, and- censures the patriot anxious to cut out the diseased parts, then, will not these officials commit to-morrow deeds still more obnoxious.
According to the solemn declaration of Mr. D. Peloquin, several men in the -employ of the government at Sorel, charge one another with stealing cement, timber, iron, paint and particularly the time of government men who are sent out to do work for private parties while drawing pay from the government. Within the last two years, the government must have lost at Sorel more than $50,000 on account of frauds and thefts.
It would- be an easy matter to obtain numerous statements giving evidence of

graft and thefts at Sorel. As stated in 'La Patrie'.
Public rumour points to a large number of schemes still unrevealed, whereby building materials and other goods belonging to the shipyards have become the-property of private parties without the government being paid for them. Following on the evidence taken under oath, it is imperative that a thorough investigation should be made into the inside management of the yards at Sorel. It is a matter of doing away with thefts, and the voice of consicence should just now be heard in preference to that of the petty interests of political factions.
I attach the greatest importance to these remarks of 'La Patrie'.
The Minister of Marine cannot hope to appease the fears and suspicions of the people by entrusting officials of his department with the task of carrying on an investigation in this connection. Our national life suffers from abuses, thefts and dishonesty in the handling of public funds.
The government should appoint a Royal Commission to thoroughly overhaul the management of the Sorel yards. Confidence in the Department of Marine should be restored by finding out who are the wrongdoers and punishing them for their crimes. But let us not strike the men who aTe courageous enough to point out abuses and thefts. It is not a secret inquiry I am asking for, but rather a public investigation, for publicity is the terror of criminals.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Speaker, I shall be
brief, not wishing at this late hour of the night to give my opponents an opportunity of charging me with a further offence, that of prolonging the debate. I regret that the right hon. Prime Minister should not be in his place, as I would have liked to put to him a question which can properly be answered only by himself ; and I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise at the indifference shown by the right hon. gentleman in respect to this debate ; I wonder whether pangs of conscience have not tardily induced him to abstain from playing a part in the criminal farce which is going on here just now.
The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is bold enough to insinuate that I should have made inquiries from him before making these charges. To this my answer will be very brief. He was in the House when I made my charges. Since he had in hand, according to his contention, the proofs of the innocence of the member for Richelieu, why did he not then rise in his seat and make known these proofs? I would have "withdrawn my charges and an investigation would not have been required.
But Mr. Speaker, that contention of the Mr. PAQTTET.
minister's ia merely blundering and trickery on his part. The evidence has shown that, even had the minister been willing in good faith to carry on with me a private inquiry, he would not have discovered anything ; for they had been very careful to cover up all their tracks, and the books which we might have looked into would not have supplied any information, for they were falsified. I challenge the minister to contradict me when I say that even at the present time he is not in a position to carry on a thorough investigation, tihe documents having been destroyed and the books falsified.
I realize that I am not to discuss the evidence, the facts, or the report of the committee in this case wherein I stand as one of the parties, but I wish to protest with all my might against that part af the majority report which reflects on me personally, and attempts to make me play the part of the guilty party in connection with this inquiry.
The political bias of the hon. gentlemen supporting the government, their blind and vicious partisanship has prevented them from seeing for themselves the stupidity of the course they took in an effort to show me in a bad light ; but public opinion voiced in the newspapers throughout the country, to whatever party they belong, and even in some of the most influential of the liberal organs, has finally recalled these hon. gentlemen to a sense of decency and caused them to pass silently over that shameful paTt of their report.
This eveniug not a single one of them dared to make reference to that part of the report; they remained silent as they are all ashamed of it, and have heard the whole country condemning them; and these same gentlemen who yesterday were threatening to eject and lynch me, have no longer a single word of condemnation, and stupidly keep their mouths closed while I throw out to them from my seat the expression of my contempt.
The supporters of the government have exerted all their efforts, their eloquence and their intellectual resources, to throw a red herring across the trail, with a view to inspiring sympathy on behalf for the member for Richelieu, and restricting this whole debate to a petty question of dollars and cents. But they will not succeed in misleading the honest common sense of the Canadian people; they will not mislead this clear-minded, far-seeing and honest judge, who, long before the ridiculous attempt of to-night, severely condemned the member, the department and the methods which I denounced. Let these hon. gentlemen opposite make up their minds that this question by far surpasses all of them, from the smallest to the greatest; it implies the most important of our principles of government.

that of the integrity of parliament and the honour of the nation. That is the true scope of this debate; and it cannot be reduced a single inch.
Let those who listen to me and stare at me from the government side, listen to this: I have for Mr. Lanctot all the sympathy and all the regard which a member of this House owes to a fellow-member; I have for hon. gentlemen on the other side, as well as on this side, all the respect which they are entitled to, but let me say one thing: whenever that sympathy conflicts with my bounden duty, I shall not hesitate for one moment to sacrifice it and trample it under foot; and whenever they stand between me and the fulfilment of my public duties, as well as the dictates of honesty and of my conscience, they may rest assured that I shall run them down without any compunction.
And if they will allow me to repeat it, it is not here a matter of discussing Mr. Lanctot, or the Liberal party or anybody else in this House, but solely the good management of public affairs and the honour of the nation.
An hon. member who has to do with criminal matters in the district of Montreal, the member for Montcalm (Mr. La-fortune), has attempted to play on the emotions of hon. members, in the midst of the stupid things making up his farcical speech; he hurled at me maledictions, omens of ill, as an old-time sorcerer might have done, and called on me to make amends for the tears for the shedding of which I am to be held responsible. He forgot for a moment-an unusual occurrence-the position he is entrusted with. Appearing from day to day, as he does, before the criminal courts, on behalf of the Crown, to have all offenders punished, what would he answer were I to ask him to make amends for all the sorrows he thus causes from day to day, he who is constantly arguing for the imposition of penalties, corporal punishments and even the capital punishment.
Now, I am aware that the right hon. Prime Minister will be here shortly and that he will vote in favour of the motion to w'hitewash the member for Richelieu. May I request of him to state to the country if, in so voting, he means to condone in every respect the conduct of the member for Richelieu, and whether he intends to inform by to-morrow the thousands of public servants, the representatives of the people, the public men who will read the report of this debate, and whether he wishes to have it repeated in all the homes and families throughout the country, that it is a lawful thing to embezzle the public funds and property for the benefit of individuals, and whether he is ready to throw the august mantle of the Prime Minister of Canada to cover up such wrong-doing, provided the
moneys which have been taken are subsequently returned?
House divided on amendment (Mr. Monk).
YEAS:
Messieurs.
Armstrong,	Middlebro,
Arthurs,	Monk,
Barker,	Nantel,
Barnard,	Paquet,
Best,	Perley,
Blain,	Porter,
Blondin	Price,
Borden (Halifax),	Reid (Grenville),
Burrell,	Rhodes,
Chisholm (Huron),	Roche
Cowan,	Russell,
Crosby,	Schaffner,
Crocket,	Sexsmith,
Crothers,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Doherty,	Smyth,
Donnelly,	Sproule,
Edwards,	Stanfield,
Elson,	Staples,
Fraser,	Stewart,
Gilbert,	Taylor (Leeds),
Goodeve,	Taylor (New Westminster),
Henderson,	
Herron	Thoburn,
Hughes,	Thornton,
Lake,	Wallace,
Lennox,	White (Renfrew),
Lortie,	Wilson (Lennox and
McCall, '	Addington) and
Magrath,	Wright.-56.
 NAYS: Messieurs.
Allard,	McAllister,
Allen,	McCoig,
Aylesworth (Sir Allen),McCraney,	
Beauparlant,	McGiverin,
Beland,	McIntyre,
Brown,	McKenzie,
Bureau,	McLean (Huron),
Carrier,	McMillan,
Carvell,	Marcile (Bagot),
Champagne,	Martin (Regina),
Chew,	Martin (Wellington)
Chisholm (Antigonish), Meigs,	
Chisholm (Inverness), Michaud,	
Clarke (Essex),	Molloy,
Congdon,	Murphy,
Currie (Prince	Neely,
Edward)	Oliver,
Delisle,	Pardee,
Demers,	Parent,
Devlin,	Paterson,
Douglas, Dubeau,	Pickup,
	Proulx,
Ecrement,	Prowse,
Emmerson,	Pugsley,
Ethier,	Rankin,
Fielding,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fisher,	Richards,
Fortier,	Rivet,
Gauvreau,	Ross (Middlesex),
Geoffrion,	Ross (Rimouski),
Gervais,	Roy (Dorchester),
Girard	Roy (Montmagny),
Gladu,	Rutan,
Graham,	Savoie,

Hunt,
King,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Low,
Macdonald,
MacNutt,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Sperry,
Templeman
Tobin,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nioolet), Turcotte (Quebec county),
Turgeon, Warburton and White Victoria, Alta.)-98.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-day?


Wilfrid Laurier: Bills, and, if we have time the reciprocity discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: Not the Bank Act?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Mr. PERLEY.: It would be convenient to the members on this side if they knew which particular Bills would be proceeded with.
PAIRS:
Messieurs.
Ministerial.
Brodeur,
Harris,
McLean (Sunbury),
Borden( Sir Fred.),
Harty,
Clark (Red Deer),
Wilson (Laval),
Mayrand,
Conmee,
Papineau,
Turriff,
McColl,
German,
Smith (Stormont),
Bickerdike,
B1 ack,
Miller,
Fowke,
Guthrie,
Stratton,
Cash,
Talbot,
Hodgins,
Gordon (Kent),
Major,
Martin (St. Marys),
Law,
Verville,
Nesbitt,
Todd,
Robb,
Amendment negatived.
Main motion agreed to on same division reversed as recorded.


Mr. PARDEE.: The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) have not voted.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am paired with the hoh. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart).


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I am paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Owen). I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont).: I am paired with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). I vould have voted against the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: 


Wilfrid Laurier: All Bills with the exception of the Bank Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 4.42 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 28, 1911.