May 19, 1908

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.


John Gillanders Turriff



It was customary in dozens and dozens of cases when tenders were put in to inclose several cheques.

Subtopic:   W. S. DWINNELL.

Edmund James Bristol

Conservative (1867-1942)


limits In the west. To give that as a reason in defence of the ex-Minister of the Interior in view of the protest of the mayor and Board of Trade of Prince Albert with reference to the time allowed for the examination of these 500 square miles seems to me certainly an extraordinary perversion of justice. My hon. friend was anxious to show that the method of tendering adopted by Mr. Burrows and by the Imperial Pulp Company was quite usual, and his evidence is as follows:

Q. Some of the tenders received in connection with these timber berths did not state the amount of the bonus offered P-A. Some of them did not.

Q. You have noticed that, was it a common thing?-A. Yes, a good many did not.

Q. A great many did not?-A. No, a good many did not.

Now, Mr. Speaker, among all these that were produced I am not aware of more than three which did not state the amount of the bonus and yet my hon. friend tells us that in a good many instances they did not.

Q. Have you from casually going through the files noticed tenders put into the department that did not state the bonus offered prior to your going into the department?-A. I do not remember.

Q. Did the tenderers always have a certified cheque or cash or both?-A. Sometimes one, sometimes the other and sometimes both.

Q. It was not an unusual thing to have the monies in cash and cheque?-A. No.

Among all these cases there is only one case where there was cash and cheque and yet my hon. friend says it is not unusual.

Q. It was not then an unusual thing to have cash accompany the tender?

I am not aware except in the two instances where the Imperial Pulp Company put in typewritten tenders and in ink was written $1,000 and in red ink was written $2,500, that any case occurred where the money was in cash. And yet we are told by this hon. gentleman that it was not unusual. And so we have the statement of this hon. gentleman, we have the statement of the hon. member for Dauphin, and we have had the statement of the solicitor, Mr. Fraser, and instead of asking Mr. Burrows why he put in double bids, and two or three cheques, and wrote tenders without stating the amount, and wrote tenders without even mentioning the cheque, we have the solicitor called to give under oath reasons that Mr. Burrows alone had in his own mind. And yet these gentlemen opposite speak of the fullness and fairness of this so-called investigation. Another humorous thing in connection with this is in respect to 1018 and 1019. We have had a good deal of explanation from Mr. Burrows, but we have not had any in respect to these two

Subtopic:   W. S. DWINNELL.

Edmund James Bristol

Conservative (1867-1942)


In this case what do we find? We find the member for Dauphin putting in a tender and supplying a cheque to Mr. Nolan to put in another tender in the same transaction. Did Mr. Burrows know there was no tender? What was his idea in putting in a fake bid himself as if he were beaten, and as if Mr. Nolan apparently got these limits? But Mr. Nolan inside of twenty-four hours executed an assignment of these limits to the Imperial Pulp Company. What was the object of the Imperial Pulp Company using other names? We have not had any explanation of that, but perhaps I may give one. I do not think that my hon. friends from Dauphin and East Assiniboia are quite as popular to-day as they were a year ago because during the last three months the people of this country have got on to the fact of who it is that were getting the timber limits. Up to the present time it was shrouded in mystery except as regards those limits obtained in his own name by Mr. Burrows, but latterly he was getting limits in Nolan's name. The Imperial Pulp Company only bid nine times and the last four bids out of nine were put in the name of others outside the pulp company. The Imperial Pulp Company itself was not sufficient to shroud Mr. Burrows and his associates and so they resorted to Mr. Nolan and Mr. Fraser, the solicitor.

I venture to think that as an opposition we have done all that it was possible for us to do in respect to this matter. We have got all the original documents we were permitted to get at; we have obtained all the facts that these documents would throw light upon ; we have examined to the extent to which we were permitted the public accounts in respect to this matter. But, Mr. Speaker, we were prevented both in connection with Mr. Finnie and by the narrowness of the investigation to get at the facts. We wanted in connection with Mr. Finnie to find out whether on the 7th of March when there were five cheques out apparently in Mr. Burrows' name, these five cheques had been charged up in the bank on that date against Mr. Burrows and the order in which they were charged up. That was a perfectly fair and proper question, but my hon. friend from Pictou who says he was anxious to give the fullest possible investigation objected, and the chair sustained the objection and Mr. Burrows was going to be called. But Mr. Burrows never was called and there never was the slightest intention of calling him and for the very obvious reason that they intended to let him make a statement here instead of where he could be cross-examined. I venture to think in view of the facts we have before us; in view of the clear and absolutely uncontradicted statements which my hon. friend from St. Antoine has made in reference to this matter; in view of the extraordinary success of the bidding of the hon. member for Dauphin ;

in view of the still more extraordinary success of the Imperial Pulp Company in bidding; in view of the fact that Messrs. McDonald and others who apparently bid against Mr. Burrows only succeeded fourteen times out of thirty bids, and paid three and a half times as much as the next highest bidder for the limits they obtained while Mr. Buri'ows only paid 6 per cent higher; in view of such an extraordinary set of circumstances as has been shown here, I believe it would be only proper and fair in the interests of the people that an investigation should be granted now, and if the right hon. gentleman does not grant an investigation the time will come when the people of Canada will have their rights in this matter and when there will be an investigation and when restitution will be made to the country.

House divided on the amendment (Mr

Lake). YEAS : Messieurs

Alcorn, Lancaster,

Amos, Lennox,

Armstrong, McCarthy (Calgary),

Avery, McLean

Barker, (Queens, P.E.I.),

Barr, Martin

Bennett, (Queens, P.E.I.),

Bergeron, Monk,

Blain, Osier,

Borden (Carleton) , Owen,

Brabazon, Porter.

Bristol, Reid (Grenville),

Broder, Roche (Marquette),

Chisholm (Huron) , Schaffner,

Christie, Sproule,

Clements, Staples,

Cockshutt, Taylor,

Crocket, Walsh (Huntingdon),

Daniel, Ward,

Henderson, Wilmot,

Herron, Wilson

Hughes (Victoria), (Len. & Adding.),

Jackson (Elgin), Worthington,

Kemp, Lake, Wright (Muskoka)-46.

NAYS : Messieurs

Aylesworth, Doggie,

Beauparlant, Lovell,

Beland, Macdonald,

Bole, Maclean (Lunenburg),

Borden Macpherson,

(Sir Frederick), McColl,

Boyer, McCraney,

Brown, McIntyre (Perth),

Burrows, McIntyre

Calvert, (Strathcona),

Carvell, McKenzie,

Cash, McLean (Huron),

Chisholm McLean (York, C.),

(Antigonish), Marcile (Bagot),

Clarke, Marcil (Bonaventure),

Copp, Martin (Montreal, St.

Crawford, Mary's),

Cyr, Martin (Wellington),

Delisle, 281 Meigs,















(Kings, P.E.I.), Hunt,

Jackson (Selkirk), Johnston,



Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville),

Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier

(L'Assomption), Lavergne (Drum. & Arth.), LeBlanc,










Reid (Restigouche), Robitaille,

Roche (Halifax), Ross (Cape Breton), Ross (Kimouski), Ross (Yale-Cariboo), Schell (Oxford), Sinclair,


Smith (Nanaimo), Stewart,









Wilson (Russell), Zimmerman.-91

PAIRS : Messieurs

Ministerial. Opposition.

Logan, Lefurgey,

Greenway, Tisdale,

Galliher, Stanfield,

Smith (Oxford), MacLaren.

Kennedy, Foster,

Lemieux, Haggart,

Oliver, Northrup,

Carney, Elson,

Gordon, Macdonell,

Savoie, Paquet,

Emmerson, Maclean (York, S.),

Dyment, Seagram,

McCool. Fowler,

Brodeur, Leonard,

Bickerdike, Ganong,

Tobin, Morin,

Sifton, Pringle,

Guthrie, Clare,

Hall, Smith (Wentworth)

Adamson, Marshall,

Caldwell, Lalor,

Wright (Renfrew), Perley,

Ratz, Beattie,

Contnee, Boyce,

Finlay, White,

Grant, Lewis,

Law, Thompson,

Bureau. Forget

Amendment negatived.

Subtopic:   W. S. DWINNELL.

George Taylor (Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)


The hon. members for East -Hastings and LTslet have not voted.

Mr. PAQU-ET. I have paired with the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Ross). Otherwise, I would have voted for the amendment.

Subtopic:   W. S. DWINNELL.

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)


I have paired with the Minister of the Interior or I would have 1 voted for the amendment.

Subtopic:   W. S. DWINNELL.


Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply. Progress reported. Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)


What business tomorrow ?

Subtopic:   J8835 COMMONS

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)



Supply, Mounted Police, Civil Service, Railways and other like matters.

Subtopic:   J8835 COMMONS

Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 2.32 a.m., Wednesday.

Wednesday, May 20, 1908.

May 19, 1908