July 22, 1903

THE KELLER HEATER CO. OF CANADA LIMITED.

LIB

Colin Francis McIsaac

Liberal

Mr. COLIN F. McISAAC (Antigonish) moved :

That the petition of R. T. Heneker and others, presented this day, praying that leave may be granted to the Keller Heater Co., of Canada, Limited, their petition for a private Bill, notwithstanding the expiration of the time for receiving such petitions to be read and received forthwith and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.

Topic:   THE KELLER HEATER CO. OF CANADA LIMITED.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).

Explain.

Topic:   THE KELLER HEATER CO. OF CANADA LIMITED.
Permalink
LIB

Colin Francis McIsaac

Liberal

Mr. McISAAC.

The Keller Heater Co. of Canada became incorporated by letters patent issued under the Ontario Companies Act. They purchased the rights of certain parties in a patent granted by the Dominion of Canada, issued on the loth of July, 1S97, on a certain invention for improvement of feed water heaters, condensers and hot air blast devices. The right to extend the patent, on payment of a fee of $20, expired on the 15th instant, and by inadvertence, the date was allowed to elapse without the fee being paid. The company was incorporated solely for the purpose of manufacturing and introducing this invention in Canada, and has expended large sums of money in preparing to carry on this business. They will suffer great lull'd ship if they are not allowed to make good the inadvertence which allowed the time for extension of the patent to expire without payment of the fee.

Topic:   THE KELLER HEATER CO. OF CANADA LIMITED.
Permalink

Motion agreed to, and petition received.


QUESTIONS.

FAST ATLANTIC SERVICE.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax)-by Mr. Johnston (Cape Breton)-asked: 1. Did the present government find in 1896, on assuming office, in any of the public departments, a contract signed by the government, or any minister on its behalf, and the Messrs. Allan, for a twenty or twenty-one knot steamship service between Canada and Great Britain, for a subsidy of $750,000 by Canada, and $375,000 by the Imperial government, annually, or for any other sum ? 2. Did the present government find any bona fide, definite offer to provide the above-named [DOT]


LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. Mr. FIELDING.

service for the sums stated above, without any modification or reservation ?

3. What were the reservations, if any, stated in the tender ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   FAST ATLANTIC SERVICE.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).

The government did not find in 1896, on assuming office, in any of the public departments that a contract had been signed by the government or by any minister on its behalf, and the Messrs. Allan for a 20 or 21-knot service between Canada and Great Britain; nor had any Order in Council been approved authorizing such a contract. A tender for a mail service had been made by the Messrs. Allan, but they placed a construction upon the terms and conditions of the tender inconsistent with the public advertisement, as follows .-

1. That steamers are to be provided ca-. pable of performing voyages at an average speed of 20 knots per hour, and that the voyages of each vessel are to be completed within the shortest possible time consistent with prudent navigation; but that penalties will not be exacted for reduction of speed1 during fog, snowstorms or heavy gales, when slowed to avoid danger in the vicinity of ice or land.

2. That temporary delay or disturbance to sailings due to such causes, or to serious marine disaster, strikes of workmen, or other causes which contractors could not avert or control, shall not involve the contractor in penalties, nor be regarded as breaches of contract.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   FAST ATLANTIC SERVICE.
Permalink

CENSUS, 1891 AND 1901.

LIB

William Samuel Calvert (Chief Government Whip; Whip of the Liberal Party)

Liberal

Mr. CALVERT asked :

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CENSUS, 1891 AND 1901.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) :

Real estate, orchard products. nurseries, vineyards

and market gardens .... 1 23Farm products

1 30

Live stock, animal products, home-made fabrics, furs

and farm labour 1 27

Industrial establishments.. ..1 23

* Forest products 1 22

Kind of Schedules. No. of No. of Schedules. Questions.

1891.-Con.

Shipping and mining

1 23Fisheries

1 30Totals

9 216. 1901.

Population-

General -schedule 1 34

Temporarily absent schedule

(A) 1 3

Personal schedule (B).. ..1 34

Buildings and lands, churches

and schools

1 35Deaths

1 15

Agriculture-

Farm land, fruits and plantations

1 37Field products

1 37

Kind of Schedules. No. of No. of Schedules. Questions. 1901.-Con.

Agriculture-Con.

Live stock and animal products 1 26Vadues

Manufactures- 1 25General schedule

Butter and cheese schedule 1 67(C) 1 30Clay products schedules (D) 1 29Forest products and furs .... i 51Fisheries i 130Mines i 104

Totals 15 657

3. Number of answers of persons enumerated on each schedule required in the aggregate for each schedule of each census respectively.

Kind of Schedules.

1891.

Population

Deaths and public institutions

Agriculture-

Real estate, orchard products, nurseries, vineyards

and market gardens

Farm products

Live stock, animal products, home-made fabrics,

furs and farm labour

Industrial establishments

Forest products

Shipping and mining

Fisheries

Totals.

1901.

Population-

General schedule

Temporarily absent schedule (A)

Personal schedule (B)

Buildings and lands, churches and schools.

Deaths

Agriculture-

Farm land, fruits and plantations..

Field products

Live stock and animal products

Values

Manufactures-

General schedule

Butter and cheese schedule (C)

Clay products schedule (D) ,

Forest products and furs

Fisheries

Mines

Totals.

Number of answers required in Total answers required.

Cardwell. Hal ton. Peel. 381,550 549,550 386,650 1,320.7502,132 3,666 2,691 8,48066,148 96,968 70,840 2.33,95672,390 83,670 59,220 215,28068,715 86,481 62,073 217,2695,865 13,823 6,164 25,85237,598 . 31,042 20,900 89,540637,398 865,200 608,538 2,111,136444,040 664,530 465,358 1,573,928243 300 252 7952,210 2,550 2,040 6,800100,310 155,435 106,500 362,2452,100 4,455 2,220 8,77588,800 111,814 71,484 272,09874,592 78,033 64,676 217,30159,540 69,992 53,040 182,57266,525 93,225 64,300 224,0501,876 1,608 4,288 7,772.160 96 128 38493 31 62 18676,500 63,440 32,691 172,6311,430 850 2,080728 1,560 624 2,912917,717 1,248,499 868,313 3,034,529

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CENSUS, 1891 AND 1901.
Permalink

INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT-

CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).

said Loy and the said Archambault will have no right to claim any compensation whatever.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT-
Sub-subtopic:   THE REPRESENTATION OF BEAU- HARNOIS.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

What date is this ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT-
Sub-subtopic:   THE REPRESENTATION OF BEAU- HARNOIS.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

This is in the terms of sale of the 4th of January, 189S.

It is understood moreover that in case there is an execution of the said contract or sale it will be inserted therein, that the said Amddee Archambault in case he should die, will allow a loan of $4,000 to be made in order to pay the mortgage, reference to which has already been made, and the balance will be paid to the said Loy towards acquitting the price of sale. The said Loy will consent to the lender of the said sum, that there will be a hypothec on the said piece of land. The said Loy obliges himself to pass a deed of sale according to the conditions hereinbefore set forth to all persons that the said Amedde Archambault will indicate to him as being in his lieu and place. If the purchaser sells a part of the property he will pay to the vendor in case there is still something due on the price of sale, in the following proportions : For lot 78 the part occupied by the stone building, one dollar a foot on a depth of 100 feet, and on the other part of the said lot seventy-five cents a foot on a depth of 100 feet; and in case the depth would be more than 100 feet the sum of fifty cents a foot on the additional depth; the whole to the acquittal of the price of sale according to the conditions of the present deed.

Now, Sir, I have mentioned that this transaction between the member for Beauliarnois who was not at that time sitting as a member for this House, and Mr. Archambault, was not registered. No effect was given to that promise of sale, and fifteen days after the first of June, the date of expiry of the delay, another deed intervened between Archambault and Mr. Loy completely re-siliating the previous contract between the parties, and the property passed into the hands of the present sitting member for Beauliarnois, who on the same day made a loau and granted a mortgage for the amount of that loan upon the said property. It is proper that I should mention that during the delay between the 4th of January, 1898, and the 1st of June following, a man named Leduc, a contractor, acting under the instructions of Archambault, I presume, moved the building which was on the front part of the property towards the back part, and the amount of about $800 became due to the contractor in consequence of this work. He sued Mr. Loy at that time for the amount due him for the work he had performed upon this property, and the defence was that the property did not belong to the defendant Mr. Loy, but that the owner of that property was Mr. Archambault. The contractor had failed to comply with the provisions of our Civil Code under the terms of which he might have secured a privilege upon the property; he had failed to give notice to the defendant as by law he was obliged to do. and failed to fulfil other formalities, and his action was dismissed upon a demurrer. My Information is that since that judgment the amount due to Mr. Leduc, the contractor, Mr. MONK.

has been paid by the sitting member for the electoral district of Beauliarnois or by other persons on his behalf. The claim has been satisfied, from which I think there is a reasonable inference, that although upon a question of law the action brought by the contractor was dismissed, nevertheless there is in that an acquittal of the debt by the sitting member or by other persons on his 'behalf proof that he recognized that even from the 1st of January, 1898, to the 1st of June following (from the time that the deed was resiliated) he was in reality proprietor of that property and bound for the improvements made to it. Now, Sir, in the month of October or November, 1902, as I am informed, an Order in Council was passed authorizing the purchase by the Dominion government of this property. These two sites belonging to the Dominion government where a post office might have been more conveniently erected than upon this site, were set aside. 1 may mention that my instructions are, and I believe that We will be able to establish it, that of those two government sites one was unnecessarily since 1S98, leased to a private individual for a term of 99 years. I refer to the site situated on the north side of the canal in the immediate vicinity of the cotton factories of the town of Yalleyfield. I have said that an Order in Council authorizing the purchase of this property was passed in the month of October or the month of November, 1902. A discussion upon this subject took place in the month of March in this House in Committee of Supply and the Minister of Public Works is my authority for that statement. He is reported at page 473 of ' Hansard ' :

An Order in Council passed on the 22nd November, 1902, authorizing the purchase from R. B. Johnston for the sum of $10,000. The land is 77| feet by 160 feet deep.

I believe the date is correct. I think there is no doubt that the authorization for the purchase of this site was adopted in council in the fall of 1902, and I believe the date given by the Minister of Public Works is the correct date. But at that period, in the month of November, 1902, my hon. friend from Beauliarnois was the owner of this property, because we find that it was only on the 1st of December, 1902, that by a deed passed before R. A. Dunton, notary public, he sold to R. B. Johnston- whoever he may be, I have not been able to discover-this very property for the sum $9,700. That deed was duly registered on the 12tli of December, 1902. The purchaser, R. B. Johnston, on the 20th of January, 1903. sold this property to the Dominion government by a deed passed before the same notary, R. A. Dunton, of Montreal, for the sum of $10,000, or $300 more than the price mentioned in the deed of the 1st of December, 1902, between the hon. member for Beauharnnis and R. B. Johnston, and the deed was duly registered on the 4th of February, 1903.

Now, Sir, I have every ground for stating that this Mr. Johnston acted as the prete-norn of the hon. member for Beauharnois. In reality, as I think the evidence will establish, it is the sitting member for Beauharnois who. from the 1st of January, 1898, without any intermission whatever, has been the owner of this property ; and resort was had to Mr. Johnston in order that the property should not pass directly from him to the government and in order to avoid those very stringent provisions of chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. I therefore submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a question into which it is the duty of this House to inquire.

As I stated in opening my remarks, there is no more precious privilege among the many privileges which this House enjoys than the privilege of the absolute independence of its members. The history of the House of Commons of England discloses that whenever there have been parliaments the members of which were dependent upon the Crown for offices of emolument-and there was, as members of this House are aware, a dark period in the history of that institution when almost three-quarters of its members did hold positions under the Crown-or whenever members of the House of Commons have had transactions of this nature with the government, that House has failed to fulfil the high function assigned to it. 1 believe therefore that we cannot guard too carefully against even the slightest suspicion of want of independence on the part of members of this House.

I hare placed a resumS of these facts in a motion which I now have the honour of placing in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that the question which I have brought to the attention of the House be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I may state that I have followed in this the procedure adopted in 1891, when under circumstances of a similar nature the matter brought to the attention of the House was, after discussion, referred to that committee. Allow me to state this additional fact, that the property in question, as I am informed, was not all sold to the government, but that a lot with the buildings erected thereon, was reserved, and also a lot at the back part of the property. I move :

Frederick Monk, the member representing the -electoral district of Jacques Cartier in this House, having declared from his seat in the . House that he is credibly informed and that he believes he is able to establish by satisfactory evidence :

That on the first day of July, 1897, George Loy, member representing the electoral division of Beauharnois, was the proprietor of a property in the town of Valleyfield, known as lots 78 and 100 of the official plan and book of reference of the town of Salaherry of Valley-field.

That on the 4th January, 1898. the said George Loy handed said property above described by rand virtue of a promise of sale to one AmSdee

Archambault, advocate, of Valleyfield aforesaid, for a sum of $8,000.

That it was agreed by said George Loy that the sale would he completed by a title in due form on the first of June then following.

That by the terms of agreement between said George Loy and said Amedee Archambault it was agreed that if at any time during the existence of the promise of sale in question, said Archambault disposed of said land in favour of any other party, he, the said George Loy would be obliged to give a title or conveyance in favour of such other or third party.

That the said promise of sale of 4th January, 1898, was never registered or completed, but was rescinded on the 15th June then following.

That on the first day of December, 1902, by deed before R. A. Dunton, notary, said George Loy, member of the House of Commons of Canada, representing the electoral division of Beauharnois, purported to sell said property (lots 78 and 100 of Valleyfield) to one Robert Brice Johnston for the sum of $9,700.

That on the 20th January last, 1903, said Robert Brice Johnston, by deed purported to sell said property to the government of Canada for the sum of $10,000.

That from the time the said George Loy handed his said property to Archambault up to the day of the sale of said property to the Crown or government of Canada, he never ceased to be the proprietor of said property, and that at the time of the sale of said property on the 20t'h January, 1903, said Robert Brice Johnston was merely acting for and on behalf of said Loy, who in said manner did indirectly sell his said property to the Crown or government of Canada in violation cf chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes of Canada ' An Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons.'

That the said property so sold to the government of Canada was sold at a price exceeding its real value, the assessed value of said property being $5,800.

That at the time of said sale the government of Canada possessed at Valleyfield various properties available for the same purpose for which it acquired the property in question, to wit : the erection of a post-office.

That it be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to inquire fully into the said allegations and especially, but without limiting the scope of said inquiry, to investigate all circumstances connected with the acquisition of said property by the government of Canada and all matters mentioned in the statement hereinbefore made with power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses upon oath or affirmation; and that the committee do report in full the evidence taken before them and all their proceedings on the reference and the result of their inquiries.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT-
Sub-subtopic:   THE REPRESENTATION OF BEAU- HARNOIS.
Permalink
LIB

George di Madeiros Loy

Liberal

Mr. G. M. LOY (Beauharnois).

Sir. Speaker, in answer to what has been said by the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) I beg to make the following statement of

facts

The property in the town of Valleyfield chosen as a site for the post office, and to which reference has been made, did at one time belong to me. About the end of July or beginning of August, 1902, a man named R. B. Johnston of Montreal, came to me at Valleyfield and asked if my property was for sale. I told him it was, and thereupon 1 he asked me if I would give him an option

for a few days. This I consented to do. Immediately afterwards, I went to Montreal to consult my business advisers, Messrs. McIntosh & Hyde, accountants. I asked Mr. Hyde if he knew Mr. Johnston, and whether he was a responsible party, and if I was safe in giving him an option. Mr. Hyde inquired of Mr. Dunton, the notary, who reassured him as to Mr. Johnston's position; and about the same time Mr. Dunton and Mr. Johnston called at Mr. Hyde's office, in the latters absence, and made a payment on account of the purchase price. Time was taken to inquire into titles, and I understand that a search was made as far back as 1840. In any event, the purchase by Mr. Johnston was completed about the end of November or beginning of December, 1902, when the balance of the purchase price was paid me by Mr. Johnston. The price paid for my property was about its market value, at the time. The property had been held in my family for over forty years. When Mr. Johnston secured an option on it, I did not know that he intended to resell it to the government; and in so far as I am concerned, I received from him merely its market value and no more. The money I received was paid by Mr. Johnston to myself.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT-
Sub-subtopic:   THE REPRESENTATION OF BEAU- HARNOIS.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).

When this matter was brought to my attention a short time ago, not being familiar myself with what had taken place, I asked my deputy to give me a memorandum from the particulars in the department, and he furnished me with the following :-

I have examined all the papers in the department having reference to the acquisition of the site for the construction of a public building at Valleyfield.

The Order in Council giving authority to purchase a lot of land 77J feet on Victoria street and 163 feet on Ste. Cdcile street from Mr. Robert Bruce Johnston, was passed on the 22nd November, 1902, the consideration money being $10,000.

The deed of sale was made before R. A. Dunton, notary, on the 20th January, 1903, and was registered on the 4th of February of the same year. The negotiations for the purchase were primarily carried on by Mr. U. H. Dandurand, real estate agent of Montreal, who was entrusted with the duty of procuring the property by the former minister, Hon. Mr. Tarte.

The property was examined by Mr. Routhier. an officer of the chief architect's branch of the department, who reported that the lot owned by Mr. R. B. Johnston would be a most suitable site, the drainage and water being available on both front and rear, the lot being nearly level. The officer further reported the price ($10,000) to be reasonable considering the location and the scarcity of sites available in the centre of the town. This officer at the same time reported a lot in close proximity only 53 feet by 150 feet put up at a price of not less than $13,000, this lot being No. 68, corner of Nicholas and Victoria streets. [DOT]

The chief architect having approved of the report of his subordinate, the ordinary report to Council was made for the acquisition of the property. The title was looked into by the Mr. LOY.

Department cf Justice and the deed was obtained as above stated on the 20th January, 1903.

I was verbally informed by Mr. Dandurand that he was the person who procured an option on the property from Mr. Johnston. There is no information in the department as to the manner in which Mr. Dandurand procured that option.

(Signed) A. GOBEIL, Deputy Minister.

After having heard the statement made by the hon. member, and in view of the facts as they appear in the records of the department, and in view also of the statement made by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) I think that it is beyond all doubt that the property bona fide belonged to Mr. Johnston months before its purchase or the Order in Council was passed. Everything goes to show that such was the case. There was delay, as reported from the Department of Justice, in completing the papers with regard to the title, even after the property had been offered for sale and the department had agreed to purchase it. I am satisfied, from everything I can find out from the documents and facts, that there was no collusion between the department and the other party to the transaction, that Mr. Johnston was the bona fide owner, that there was no knowledge whatever by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Loy) of the intended purchase by the government, and no arrangements between the hon. member for Beauharnois and the department. So far as I am concerned, I have no doubt that the facts have been fully placed before the House by the hon. gentleman.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT-
Sub-subtopic:   THE REPRESENTATION OF BEAU- HARNOIS.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. J. I. TARTE (Montreal, St. Mary's).

The negotiations which led to the purchase of the property under discussion were initiated by me. During the session of 1901, parliament authorized the placing of the sum of $10,000 in the estimates for the erection of a public building in the thriving town of Valleyfield. During the summer of 1902, although I know Valleyfield very well. I took the trouble of visiting that town. Several representations had been previously made to me regarding sites. I thought it my duty to go to the spot myself once more. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has just mentioned that, according to the information he has received, there were three available sites-the one acquired and two others. He added; that since 1898 one of these, which was formerly the property of the government, had been leased : Let

me tell my hon. friend that that property belonged to the Department of Railways and Canals, and when I went to the town of Valleyfield I was confronted by the fact that the only site which perhaps might have been considered had been leased for ninety-nine years. It therefore was out of the question, but in any case I would not have recommended that site which is located just opposite the bridge. If my hon. friend, when he next has the pleasure to go to

Valleyfield, will look at that site, he will find that it .is a narrow strip of property and could not possibly have been chosen for such a building' as the one we intended then to erect. It was too narrow. The other site, to which my hon. friend has alluded, is on the other side of the canal. It is not located in the centre of the town, as everybody who knows Valleyfield will admit. It therefore was also out of the question. I say without hesitation that the only available site for a public building was that which then was the property of my hon. friend (Mr. Loy). I felt the great difficulty in which I was placed. I knew very well that Mr. Loy could not sell to the government, as that would be a breach of privilege, not only on his part but on mine. If the sitting member for the riding of Beauharnois has been guilty of any improper action, I am more guilty than he. And if he is to be punished, I must suffer the same punishment, because I am the only guilty man, if there be any. Let me explain how the whole transaction was conducted. In my opinion that was the only site available. On that point I challenge investigation by any impartial man. Without saying a word to the sitting member, I instructed Mr. Dandurand, a real estate agent to acquire Mr. Loy's property. Mr. Dandurand has been for years the trusted purchasing agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway.

He has purchased for them hundreds of thousands of dollars worth, if not millions of dollars worth, of property. He is one of the best known real estate agents of the city of Montreal. I told him the facts and circumstances. He then arranged with Mr. Johnston, who, as I understand, is another real estate agent, to go to the town of Valleyfield, and, without making known the object of the purchase to the sitting member, to take an option on the property at the best possible price. Mr. Johnston represented to the sitting member, I believe, that some Montreal merchants intended to establish a large store in Valleyfield and that in view of this that he wished to purchase the property. I think. Sir, that I have not been guilty of any impropriety in purchasing the site under these circumstances. If I had to do it again, I would certainly do it as I did it in this case. The property was the only one available, the only one on which the building could be erected. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has alluded to the purchase of the property by the Hochelaga Bank. He has gone, on occasion to the town of Valleyfield, not to examine propei-ty perhaps, but on some other errands. He has not failed, if he has looked about him to locate the site on which the Hochelaga Bank has erected a branch. It _is far from the site on which the public building is to be erected. The two sites are not to be compared. I do not know the price that was paid by the Hochelaga 223

Bank ; ali I know is that Mr. Dandurand is one of the ablest real estate agents, 1 instructed him to pay the market value of the property of the sitting member for Beauharnois, I gave him positive orders not to let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Loy) know the object of the purchase, and I know that Mr. Dandurand carried out my instructions to the very letter. If there is an inquiry, my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier will find out that what I am stating represents exactly the real facts of the case. The hon. gentleman from Beauharnois is put to annoyance for a thing of which he has not been guilty. I place myself and my position in the hands of parliament. The expedient, if I may so call it, to which I resorted was the only one left. The whole matter was conducted in a thoroughly businesslike manner. The deeds have been examined by the Department of Justice. I initiated the negotiations and am responsible for the first part of the bargain. But I take full responsibility for the last part of it. My successor has confirmed my action, and I say without any hesitation that he has acted rightly, that he has done the right thing by the town of Valleyfield and by parliament. My hon. friends who do not know the town of Valleyfield may perhaps think the price a little high. Let me remind the House that, during the last five or six years the population of the town of Valleyfield has about doubled, and, with the increase of population there has been an increase in the value of property in even a greater ratio. It would be impossible to buy any site similar to the one my former department purchased for the same price. The figures that have been given by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, have been given to me. I have inquired personally and carefully into the circumstances of the case, and. so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to repeat under oath what I am saying now. And I know that Mr. Dandurand, the trusted real estate agent, whom I charged with the negotiations, will confirm every word I have stated on this occasion. The hon. member for Beauharnois has done nothing wrong. We carefully concealed our steps from him. As I say, Mr. Johnston went to the town of Valleyfield under the pretense of buying a site for a large store. It is under these circumstances that the government has become the owner of the property referred to in the motion of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT-
Sub-subtopic:   THE REPRESENTATION OF BEAU- HARNOIS.
Permalink

July 22, 1903