The next in order is that of D. J. Morrison. The charge is made clearly and distinctly by my hon. friend, Mr. McCormick, in a letter dated July 6, 1912, and sent in due course to Mr. Duchemin for inquiry, so that there was no need of wasting any time finding out about it. I find that he took evidence of two lines and three words, and that finished the whole inquiry, and he sent in his bill in connection with that. It will be noted that it is the same day as the other:
To travel, issuing notices, subpoenas,
etc., conducting inquiries $15 00
" allowance for living expenses.. .. 2 50J' ferry fare
0 05" horse hire
*" paid for use of room for holding
0 40" service on witnesses
" stenographer (copying evidence and
" stationery and postage 0 Ou
Total $21 35
The next that happens to come to nay hand is that of Roderick Bain, an inquiry
held upon the same day and at the same place, with the same witnesses and in the same room. In connection with which I find this bill:
.To travel, issuing notices, subpoenas, etc., conducting inquiry re Roderick Bain, New Campbellton, N.S. 15 00 " allowance for living expenses.. .. 2 50" paid ferry fare
" Paid tram fare, North Sydney to
Sydney Mines 0 05
" horse hire, Sydney Mines to New
" paid for use of room for holding
0 40" service on witnesses
" stenographer (copying evidence and
1 35" stationery and postage
The last one is that of H. G. McKay; for an investigation held in the same place and on the same day, with the same witnesses, the same room, and crossing the same ferry. He does not set out the items as clearly as in the other. He says:
Allowance $15 00Living allowance
3 00Witnesses, typewriting, etc. . . 5 40
That is the full record of the charges that were made, and I have satisfied I think, the House-and Mr. Duchemin does not deny it-that all these services were performed the same day. I have pointed out what Mr. Duchemin's explanation is, and it is the explanation upon which the Customs Department thought they were safe in making the statement that I made a false representation to the House when I intimated that too much money was paid for this inquiry. In the Auditor-General's Report, 1912-13, Part F, Finance Department, there appears on page F-48 some correspondence about this matter, which I read:
Audit Office, Ottawa, June 13, 1913.
Sir,-With regard to the investigations held by Mr. H. P. Duchemin for your department,
1 presume your attention has been called to the statement made in the House of Commons by Mr. McKenzie. M.P., on the 23rd ultimo 0p- 10981, Hansard) that " on the 6th September last Mr. Duchemin held six investigations between three o'clock and six o'clock in the afternoon in a house at New Campbellton, or Big Bras d'Or, and rendered six separate and distinct bills, amounting to over one hundred dollars for three hours' work."
His account, dated 31st October last, shows that he charged for six days' services for portions of September 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, lrth and 12th in conducting investigations at Little Bras d'Or and New Campbellton.
In view of the discussion in the House, I
should like a statement in full detail from Mr. Duchemin showing how this time was occupied during the six days charged for.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
E. D. Sutherland, for A.G.
The Commissioner of Customs.
To that the Department of Customs replied:
Department of Customs,
Ottawa, June 26, 1913.
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 13th instant, in which you call attention to a statement on page 10981 of Hansard, with reference to investigations made by Mr. H. P. Duchemin, and enclose h'ewi'h a copy of Mr. Duchemin's report rn this subject.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
John McDougald, Commissioner of Customs.
The Auditor General.
I will read Mr. Duohemin's reply, which is not long, and before I read it I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of the House, to the fact that Mr. Duchemin explained here that he was working in connection with these investigations at Bras d'Or during the 11th, 12th and 13th of September, 1912, when in fact his own reports obtained from the department would have left his hands on the 7th, or one of them as late as the 9th, but all were clear of him before the 11th. I may point out that the date, 2nd September, is four days before the inquiry at Little Bras d'Or. His explanation is:
Sydney, N.S., June 21, 1913.
Dear Sir,-Replying to your favour of tne 17th instant, I beg to furnish details asked for by the Auditor' General, as follows:
Sept. 2, 1912.-Travel Sydney to Sydney
Mines, conferring with Mr. McCormick and arranging docket of cases; going over charges of local complainants arranging for places of hearing; for service of witnesses, etc. Also issuing subpoenas, notices and communicating by mail with local complainants from Sydney, in re Little Bras d'Or, Big Bras d'Or and Mew Campbellton cases; sitting at North Sydney to open hearing, J. J. McDonald case.
Sept. 4, 1912.-Further conferring with Mr. McCormick, Sydney Mines, and Mr. McDonald, North Sydney, in re Little Bras d'Or case; sitting at North Sydney, J. J. McDonald case (continued).
Sept. 5, 1912.-Travel Sydney to Sydney
M'nes, taking evidence in Day case, Arseneau and Dunlop cases. Sydney-issuing further
subpoenas Big Bras d'Or cases.
Sept. 6 and 7, 1912.-Travel from Sydney to Sydney Mines and Big Bras d'Or, sittings for hearings of evidence afternoon and night of the 6th at Big Bras d'Or; return to Sydney on 7th, going over evidence and partially preparing reports.
Sept. 9, 1912.-Taking adjourned hearing of Arseneau case at North Sydney. Further sitting J. J. McDonald case.
Let it be clearly understood that I said nothing at all about the cases of Day, Arseneau and McDonald; I know nothing about these bills and I made no complaint.
Sept. 11, 12 and 13, 1912.-Reviewing evidence, making findings, preparing and drafting reports in re the following cases: Arseneau, Dunlop, Day, Rod. McLeod, D. J. Morrison, Rod. McDonald, Rodk. Bain and Geo. Livingstone case; going over evidence in J. J. McDonald case; holding adjourned sitting McDonald case at Sydney, and meeting accused there; issuing subpoenas at request of accused for absent witnesses; further adjournment of bearing taking up McCurdy case with Mr. McCormick, and disposing of same; writing complainants in various constituencies for immediate closing all customs inquiries; conferring with Mr. Douglas and issuing processes re Mc-Aulay, McDonald and Peach inquiries.
This is as complete a report as I can furnish at this distance of time from the date of the inquiries.
I may say that Mr. McKenzie made some strange errors, during the course of the discussion referred to, in the House of Commons. He stated, for instance, that I had rendered six different accounts, in connection with these investigations. The Auditor General will, of course, know that this is incorrect. I have rendered but two accounts, covering in all eight days, one to your department for six days and another to another department for two.
Mr. McKenzie also stated that the six Investigations which he referred to were all held in one afternoon at Little Bras d'Or when, as a matter of fact, they were held at different points, namely, at Big Bras d'Or, at Sydney Mines, and at North Sydney, on distinctly different dates.
Further, Mr. McKenzie assumes that the sole work of a Commissioner of Inquiry is the sitting to take evidence, whereas, this is only a fraction- and in most cases a very small fraction-of the amount of time taken up. For instance: You will note that the hearing at Big Bras d'Or included one day to arrange docket, get names of witnesses, find out what evidence they were likely to give and determine to whom subpoenas should issue, fixing place of hearing, etc. Following this, was the sending out of notices, the issuing of subpoenas, the arranging for bailiffs to serve same, etc. He further ignores what is the largest item of all in connection with these investigations, namely, that of travel. Going from Sydney to Big Bras d'Or, holding the investigations, and taking the evidence there and return, alone consumed one and a half days and a night sitting for the taking of evidence.
* Further, Mr. McKenzie implied that my accounts have overlapped and that different departments were charged for same periods of time. In this, too, he is, of course, incorrect. My method has been as follows: I have kept strict account of the time during each month in which I have been engaged on the work of my commission. At the end of the month I have made up the exact number of days that I have been engaged on Government business as commissioner, and have determined as v^ell as might be, how this time should be apportioned between the different departments. This apportionment has, for obvious reasons, been