May 3, 1911

CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER.

I -think it necessary, under the circumstances, that the Prime Minister should be here before we vote. The Finance Minister can send out for him.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS AFFECTING HON. MR. OLIVER.
Permalink
CON

James Davis Taylor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).

Now that the right hon. the Prime Minister has returned to his seat, I might be permitted to mention the matter which my hon. friend

the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) has asked to be included in the scope of the investigation. It is this. I stated that information was given me in the corridors of this House yesterday that Mr. Daniel McGillieuddy had said that the second deposit, photographed in the reproduction of the bank account, related to a matter in my own riding. I said that this deposit was coincident with the date of a confiscation of certain property there, and the award of that property to other parties, which matter is before the courts. I said that I did not wish to go into it further than to say that I understood the defence in court by the minister to be that the transaction was in its- outcome in the public interest. I said also that this was outside the limitation which the Prime Minister wants to put upon the inquiry, whereupon my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior said he was willing that all his official acts should be brought into the lime light and judged on their merits, and is willing that this particular transaction should be included in the inquiry. I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he would also widen the scope so that this transaction should be included and be judged, not only on the point whether or not it was in the public interest, but whether it be proper that a minister of the Crown should accept under- trust-if he did, as rumour says, and I do not vouch for it-concurrently with a transaction of that kind, even though the transaction be shown to be in the public interest ; accept under trust a large sum of money from the beneficiaries by it. It was suggested to me that the Prime Minister might permit that subject to be included in the scope of the inquiry.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS AFFECTING HON. MR. OLIVER.
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

This is a very long statement, and rather involved; I do not know that I understood it accurately, and I would understand it better if I saw it in writing. My hon. friend can make it the subject of a substantive motion of his own.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS AFFECTING HON. MR. OLIVER.
Permalink
CON

James Davis Taylor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).

I would remind the First Minister that I premised my statement to the House with the suggestion that the First Minister had already obtained this information from Mr. Daniel McGillieuddy, because I do not think Mr. McGillieuddy would state in one office in town what he would not state in seven interviews in the Prime Minister's office.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS AFFECTING HON. MR. OLIVER.
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

That matter?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS AFFECTING HON. MR. OLIVER.
Permalink
CON

James Davis Taylor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).

Yes.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS AFFECTING HON. MR. OLIVER.
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Never heard of it until this day.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS AFFECTING HON. MR. OLIVER.
Permalink
CON

James Davis Taylor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).

And as to the statement in writing, of course

when we eome back at eight o'clock there will be available to the First Minister the ' Hansard ' report of what I said to the House.

House divided on amendment of Mr. Borden (Halifax).

TEAS:

Messieurs.

Ames, Lennox,

Armstrong. Lewis,

Arthurs, Lortie,

Barker, Macdonell,

Barnard, McCall,

Blain, McCarthy,

Blondin, Magrath,

Borden (Halifax), Meighen,

Bradbury, Middlebro,

Bristol, Monk,

Burrell, Northrup,

Campbell, Perley,

Chisholm (Huron), Porter,

Clare, Roche,

Cowan. Russell.

Crosby, Sehaffner,

Crocket, Sexsmith,

Crothers, Sharpe (Lisgar),

Currie (Simcoe), Sharpe (Ontario),

Daniel. Smyth.

Donnelly, Sproule,

Edwards, Stanfield,

Elson, Staples,

Foster, Stewart,

Fraser, Taylor (Leeds),

Gilbert, Taylor (New

Goodeve, Westminster),

Haggart (Lanark), Thoburn,

Haceart (Winnipeg), Thornton,

Henderson, Wallace,

Herron, White (Renfrew),

Jameson, Wilcox,

Kidd. Wilson (Lennox a

Lake, Addington) and

Lalor, Wright.-69.

Lancaster,

NAYS:

Messieurs.

Allard, McCoig,

Allen, MoColl,

Aylesworth (Sir Allen), McCraney,

Beauparlant, McIntyre,

Beland. McKenzie.

Borden McLean (Sunbury),

(Sir Frederick), McMillan.

Boyer, Major,

Brodeur, Marcile (Bagot),

Brown, Martin (Regina),

Bureau, Martin (Wellington)

Car veil, Meigs,

Chisholm (Antigonish), Michaud,

Chisholm (Inverness), Miller,

Clarke (Essex), Molloy,

Congdon, Murphy,

Currie Nesbitt,

(Prince Edward), Neely,

Delisle, Papineau,

Demers, Pardee,

Devlin, Parent,

Douglas, Paterson,

Dubeau, Pickup,

Emmerson, Proulx,

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS AFFECTING HON. MR. OLIVER.
Permalink
CON

James Davis Taylor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).

Ethier. Prowse.

Fielding, Pugsley,

Fisher, Rankin.

Fortier, Reid (Restigouche)

Fowke, Richards,

Gauvreau, Robb,

Geoffrion, Ross (Middlesex),

German, Roy Dorchester),

Gervais, Roy (Montmagny)

Girard, Rutan,

Gladu, Savoie,

Gordon (Kent), Sealey,

Graham, Seguin,

Guthrie, Sinclair,

Hodgins, Smith (Middlesex)

Hunt, Smith (Nanaimo),

King. Smith (Stormont),

Knowles, Sperry,

Kyte, Temple man.

Lachance, Todd,

Lanctot (Laprairie- Turcotte (Nicolet),

Napierville, Turcotte (Quebec

Lanctot (Richelieu), County),

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Turgeon,

Law, Turriff,

LeBlanc, Verville,

Loggie, Warburton and

Lovell, White (Victoria,

MacNutt, Alta.)-102.

McAllister,

PAIRS:

Messieurs.

Ministerial. Opposition.

Lemieux, Doherty,

Stratton, Gordon (Nipissing)

Harris, Beattie,

Talbot, Owen,

Low, Broder,

Schell, Hughes,

Harty, Osier.

McGiverin. Reid (Grenville),

McLean (Huron), Boyce.

Conmee. Worthington,

Tobin, Paquet,

Tolmie, Marshall,

Clark (Red Deer), Forget,

Bickerdike, Price,

Black, Madin,

Ecrement, Nantel,

Macdonald, Rhodes,

Cash. Best.

Amendment negatived.

At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS AFFECTING HON. MR. OLIVER.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Siim-coe).

Before you proceed further with the motion before the Chair, I wish to call attention to the matter very briefly, and I propose to end with an amendment to the motion moved by the First Minister. I listened attentively to the whole argument, and particularly to the argument advanced by the Prime Minister. Notwithstanding his great skill, I failed to find that the propositions he advanced were convincing, and it seemed To me that the Prime Minister, whether intentionally or

835Q

otherwise, was grasping at a shadow and avoiding the substance of the difficulty presented to the House. He pointed out that the article that appeared in the ' World did not at most amount to more than an insinuation. I daresay that is true. The item in the ' World * is merely a comment upon a very distinct and specific charge made in the * Telegram and whilst it may be true, as the Prime Minister says, that what appears in the ' World ' is shadowy and indefinite, there is no difficulty about the main article upon which that comment rests. What I would ask the government to' do is, not to investigate a comment, not to investigate a mere guess by a newspaper, perhaps one of many guesses made by newspapers throughout Canada, but to investigate the specific charge made against _ a minister of the Crown. This charge is made definitely m two ways. In the first place, Mr. McGillicuddy went to the Prime Minister and made a definite and clear charge against the Minister of the Interior, made a specific and grave charge against him and demanded an investigation. That matter is before the House, first, by reason of the subsequent publication of it in the ' Telegram,' and secondly, by the statement of the First Minister to the House the other day. As regards the statement of the First Minister, I submit that the whole item appearing in the ' Telegram ' was placed before the House by the First Minister, if not by actually reading the whole of it, by reference to it, and, therefore, incorporating it in what he said to the House. So we have this fact upon the statement of the Prime Minister, that a gentleman made a charge against one of his ministers of a very grave offence, and asked for an investigation. The minister in referring to that, therefore, incorporates it, and puts the House in possession of that circumstance. What the Prime Minister says that no name was disclosed in the ' Telegram,' is irrelevant. When Mr. McGillicuddy went to the Prime Minister there was nothing indefinite about who was spoken of. He charged this matter against the Minister of the Interior, mentioning him by name. The First Minister admitted he knew who was being attacked, and he said Ho Mr. McGillicuddy, I have confidence in my colleague, I will believe in his innocence, and will continue to believe in his innocence until he is proven guilty. That is the position of the matter to-day. So we have a clear and definite charge against the Minister of the Interior by a responsible newspaper in the city of Toronto, made in temperate and guarded language, clearly identified by the subsequent events as to the hon. gentleman to whom it Tefers, and setting forth in the article the photograph of the bank account, showing that a large sum of money had

been actually handled in a way that is 'not yet accounted for, and we ask that if there is an investigation, it shall not be merely an investigation into a guess by a newspaper, to wit, the 'World,' but that it shall be a bona fide, honest and complete investigation into the source of this money, to ascertain whether the source is an honest one or not.

Now we are not without experience in. this House of similar farcical investiga-. tions. In the case of the Hodgins investi-. gation, we urged the government to give us a wider scope than they were willing to give us, we urged them to do that in the interest of the public. The First Minis-. ter refused, and we had a perfectly farcical investigation as a result, and in the end we. were told that everything in regard to the Transcontinental railway was proved to be all right. We had another investigation along^ somewhat similar lines in the Lumsden charges, narrowed down in the House, narrowed down more completely in the committee, resulting in another statement by a committee of this House that everything was all right. We have the fact that, not-. withstanding these two certificates by a committee of this House, upwards of half a milion dollars of over classification, and for over-break and matters of that kind has been disclosed by the gentlemen sub-, sequent!y appointed, in part at all events, by the government. So we will go on in the same way if the First Minister pursues the same tactics, we will have this farcical investigation, and no practical result will follow. This is a little worse than anything we have had yet .in this respect. We start out with an absolutely clear propo-. sition that the government proposes to investigate something that can lead to no re-, suit whatever, investigate ia mere comment by a newspaper, while we refuse to investi-. gate what it is .important to find out, namely, the source from which this money came, what were the purposes to which it was applied, to ascertain whether it was or was . not applied to any proper purpose. We have no desire to pry into the private concerns of a minister of the Crown, but in the public interest it is necessary that this . matter should be thoroughly investigated. I, therefore, move that all the words after -' that ' be left out and the following be substituted therefor:

A Royal Commission do issue for the purpose of inquiring and reporting whether the . two sums of $50,000 and $19,350, or thereabouts, alleged to have .been deposited to the credit of the Hon. Mr. .Oliver, the .Minister of the .Interior, in a bank at Edmonton, in or about the month of October, 1907, and in the month of December, 1909, were received or obtained by the 6aid the Hon. Mr. Oliver in such manner, under such circumstances , or from such 60UTces as would render the ,

said minister's acceptance thereof prejudicial to the public) interest.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS AFFECTING HON. MR. OLIVER.
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. A. MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie).

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS AFFECTING HON. MR. OLIVER.
Permalink

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.


Mr. FIELDING presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General. transmitting supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1911, which on motion, were referred to Committee of Supply.


BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE.


Mr. MILLER moved that the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce be granted leave to sit while the House is in session.


CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mir. HENDERSON.

Does the quorum still remain at twenty-one, or has it been reduced?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

Mr. MILLER.

The House has been asked to reduce the quorum, but has not consented, and the quorum remains at twenty-one. Several meetings have been called, and we have not been able to proceed with business, because of the lack of a quorum.

Breton? If so, when is the work to be commenced?

2. Is the old canal to be abandoned? If so,

for what .reason?

3. What is the estimated cost of the proposed new canal ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE.
Permalink
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM.

$150,000 has been voted by parliament for this work. The details have not yet been decided on. It is estimated that the entire cost of the work will be in the vicinity of $300,000.

There appears to have been no answer given to the second part of the question as to whether the old canal is to be abandoned, and if so, for what reason? Will the minister be good enough to supplement his answer?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE.
Permalink
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM.

Whether the old canal can be enlarged or whether it would he wiser to construct a new canal is now under consideration by the department, and no decision has been arrived at as to the better method.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

What is the difficulty about using the present canal?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE.
Permalink

May 3, 1911