Apparently the relations between the Burrows and Fraser syndicate-I beg pardon, I mean the Burrows and Fraser group, are a little more intimate than the member for Dauphin has informed us to-night. I affirm that if there was nothing else shown on the records than the facts as they appear to-night, we have a right to an investigation as to that 500 square miles of timber, to find out from the ex-minister why he thought it was all right to go on in the ordinary way, and his brother-in-law sitting around here with a cheque for $5,000, which was slipped in .under the name of William Cowan. Those are facts from which the people of this country will draw their own inferences. The hon. member for Pictou says that my hon. friend from St. Antoine is making insinuations ; on the contrary I think that my hon. friend from St. Antoine has made the fairest and most reasonable statement that any man possibly could make on the records that are before this parliament. It will be for the people to judge whether the reckless assertions of the hon. member for Pictou are to be relied on in preference to the reasonable and well founded statements made by my hon. friend from St. Antoine on the records before this House. Now I want to emphasize this point. The ex-Minister of the Interior gets up and says that nobody made any objections. In the first place, he was there to do his work. He tells us that he is a great man, all his friends tell us that he is a man of great ability. He may be a very able man, but if so, how much greater was his responsibility when, although the mayor and board of trade of the town brought the facts before him in 1902 and asked that the timber regulations should be changed, yet this reform and business administration did not make any change until 1907. But what happens in the meantime ? The brother-in-law of the ex-minister is found possessed to-day of some 500 square miles of timber limits, part of which was obtained in the manner I have described. Now if the minister knows that it is practically impossible for anybody to examine those limits except the particular man who has asked them to be put up if he prevents anybody else from examining them, if he so hedges around the regulations and tries to work them that of necessity the limits must fall into the hands of the particular person who happens to be his brother-inlaw, it is as great an act of fraud against the people of this country as if there was some shuffling with cheques.
Now there is another thing that is rather amusing. The hon. member for Dauphin said he went over to the department and asked them to make up a list for him. Well, it is a great thing to stand well with the administration. When the hon. member for St. Antoine went over to the department to look at an original document, he had to get out of the office. If you are Mr BRISTOL.
the member for Dauphin, or the member for East Assiniboia, you will have all the departmental clerks working for you, you can have all the information the department has got, all this information which the hon. member for Dauphin was so anxious to give us to show that he paid $112 a square mile on the whole for the timber limits, and the Imperial Pulp Company had paid a certain amount* and somebody else had paid a little more. Now the price paid for a timber limit naturally depends as to whether you applied and got first choice, as Mr. Burrows, or William Cowan did in connection with 1048 and paid $5,000 therefor. or whether you paid for the second choice as Fraser did, who paid $1,000. As the hon. member for Dauphin did not want anything but the very best he paid more. But even if it was, he only paid apparently for 537 square miles the sum of $58,000. But he also went to a good deal of trouble to show that there were two or three cheques used in some other instances, and he spoke in a mysterious way as to some British Columbia lumber company having paid three cheques through Wyld and Osier. While I do not know anything about the facts connected with the matter I do say that if as a result of the investigation of the department they were only able to find, outside of the Imperial Pulp Company and Mr. Burrows, three cases where there had been more than one cheque, then we have established the contention that the three cheque proposition or the two cheque proposition was the invention of Mr. Burrows or the Imperial Pulp Company.
The suggestion was made that because a Conservative firm inclosed two or three cheques in one case a matter of that kind should not be criticised. You can always get a firm of lawyers to send in a certain number of cheques or to draw up tenders. Mr. Fraser drew up certain tenders but he handed them to Mr. Burrows and Mr. Burrows put in a certain number of cheques. We have not Wyld and Osier here, but Wyld and Osier could have acted in the same way although there is no evidence of it, Wyld and Osier could have written out a tender and another gentleman could have put in as many cheques as he thought proper. Yet, you have a great effort on the port of the department to show that what was done was usual and ordinary instead of being unusual and extraordinary.