Mr. F. B. WADE (Annapolis) moved :

That the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be now concurred in.

Mr. MONK moved in amendment:

That the said report be not adopted ; but that the appended draft report marked * B,' be adopted by this House in lieu and stead of the report laid upon the Table of this House

The Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections beg to report as follows upon the question of the purchase of a post office site at Valleyfield :-

In the opinion of the committee, the following facts have been established by the evidence adduced before the committee, which is annexed to the report of the committee :

1. As far back as the year 1898, when Mr. George Loy was mayor of the town of Valley-field, a petition of the citizens of Valleyfield to the government (exhibit No. 20), praying that a post office be built at the town of Valleyfield and on the property known as the Loy property, was circulated for signatures, and was forwarded to Ottawa and acknowledged by letter from the Department of Public Works to the mayor, Mr. George Loy, himself one of the signatories of the petition.

During the same year, the municipal council authorized two deputations to Ottawa to press upon the attention of the government the two

Mr. BOYD.

questions of sewers and post office building, and Mr. Loy, as mayor, formed part of both deputations.

(Evidence of Mr. LavimodiSre, secretary-treasurer.)

2. After the election of Mr. George Loy, as member for Beauharnois, in the autumn of 1900, and at the first session which followed his election, a sum of $10,000 was appropriated by parliament for a post office at Valleyfield, Mr. Loy being, at the time of such appropriation, the sitting member for Beauharnois, wherein Valleyfield is situated.

3. Mr. Loy's election was protested and declared void, but he was re-elected at the byelection of 1902, and the sum of $10,000 was revoted at the session of 1902 for the same purpose, the previous vote having lapsed, Mr. Loy being again the sitting member for Beauharnois.

4. On the 10th July, 1902, the Department of Public Works directed Mr. U. H. Dandurand, real state agent, of Montreal, to purchase the Loy property at Valleyfield, the instructions to that effect being conveyed in the following terms : -

(Translation.)

* Stanley,'

July 10, 1902.

Dandurand,

Real estate agent,

Montreal.

My dear Mr. Dandurand,-My department requires a site upon which to construct a public building at Valleyfield. The locality most suitable for us is a property which belongs to Mr. Loy, on the principal street, fronting on the canal on one side and on a street at the rear part. The fact that this property belongs.to the sitting member makes the purchase embarrassing for us. I request you, therefore, to purchase the property on the best possible terms. You have an extensive experience ; you will not say for whom you want to buy. I believe it was sold two years ago for $8,000. I fear you will not be able to have it for less than $10,000. You will, if you please, lose no time and obtain an option on this property without delay. I myself will pay you the usual commission. I have reasons for purchasing quickly.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) J. ISRAEL TARTE.

5. Pursuant to these instructions, Mr. Dandurand sent out to Valleyfield a sub-agent usually employed by him in similar cases, named R. B. Johnston, who arrived in Valleyfield in the afternoon of the 14th July, and on the same evening secured from Mr. Loy an option in the following terms :-

Valleyfield, July 14, 1902.

R. B. Johnston, Esq.

Dear Sir.-Confirming our conversation of this evening, I beg to say that I will give you an option until three o'clock, Wednesday afternoon, on the 16th instant, for the purchase of my property in tihe town of Valleyfield, consisting of a lot land situated on Victoria street and extending to the street in the rear, on which are two dwelling houses, i.e., one of stone and the other of wood, the price to be $10,000, payable in cash on day of sale, the buildings at present on the lot, one used as a storehouse and the other as a tin-shop, to be removed within sixty days from date of purchase. It is agreed that the present tenants

shall remove within the sixty days before mentioned.

Notice of acceptance or refusal of option to be given to me in Montreal on above date, or left at the office of McIntosh & Hyde, there. Yours respectfully,

Loy, Esq.,

Care of McIntosh & Hyde,

Montreal.

Dear Sir,-I beg to accept your offer to sell me your property on Victoria street for $10,000, as contained in your letter addressed to me, dated July 14, 1902, upon the terms therein mentioned, deeds to be executed before R. A. Dun-ton, N.P., with due diligence and within fifteen days. Price will be paid in cash on title being found satisfactory and deeds executed by you. Pleiase send all papers and titles to Mr. Dun-ton to prepare deed of conveyance if desired.

7. On the day of ithe acceptance of the option (the 16th July) Mr. Loy came to Montreal, went to the office of Mr. Hyde, inquired about Johnston, and Mr. Hyde, at Mr. Loy's request telephoned to Mr. R. A. Dunton, notary, as to Johnston ; later in the day the acceptance was brought to Mr. Hyde, with $100 to bind the bargain, by Mr. Dunton, said $100 being furnished by Mr. U. H. Dandurand, and Mr. Hyde forwarded the $100 to Mr. Loy.

8. The delay of fifteen days mentioned in the option expired, but nothing occurred according to the evidence adduced, until on the 8th September following when the secretary of the Department of Public Works wired Mr. Loy as follows :-

Kindly see the city clerk and ask him to forward us by next mail, if possible, a copy of the iplian of the city of Valleyfield, which is needed to complete the purchase of site for public building.

(Sgd.) FRED. GELINAS,

Secretary.

Mr. Loy sent up the plan called for with the accompanying letter :-

Fred. GSlinas, Esq.,

Secretary, Department of Public Work3, Ottawa.

Dear Sir,

Your telegram received last night. I send you herewith, inclosed, the only plan of the town which I could get. I am informed that Mr. Sullivan, the former engineer of the town has a new plan, but he is away from home to-day. T will see him on his return and if he will lend it I will send it or take it up to you. I-would call your attention to the fact that j at present there are two post offices in the town, one in the central part and another near

the Canada Atlantic Railway station, in Belle-rive ward.

I am, sir,

Tours very truly,

(Sgd.) GEORGE M. LOY.

And this letter from Mr. Loy was acknowledged by the Secretary of the Department of Public Works, as follows :-

Department of Public Works of Canada, Secretary's Office,

Ottawa, September, 16, 1902. Geo. M. Loy, Esq.,

Valleyfleld, P.Q.

Sir,-I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th September instant, inclosing a copy of the plan of the city of Valley-field, said plan being required by the department in connection with the purchase of Mr. R. B. Johnston's property.

I have the honour to be, sir,

Your obedient servant,

Dunton gave the committee a statement showing how he subsequently disposed of the balance. [DOT]

Here is the statement :

1902.

Dec. 1. Net cheque amt $9,600 00

Mr. MONK.

Contra.

Dec. 1. Paid Mr. Loy

$1,000 00" 6. N. Papineau

4,500 00" 18. Interest

731 90

Dunton, discharge. 7 30Paid balance, Loy

3,360 8011. It will be seen that Mr. Loy only received, in reality, $9,700, Johnston having been allowed by Loy to keep (and Johnston having kept) $300 on account, as he represented, of trouble, &c., in negotiating to procure the amount.12. The note of $10,000 matured in due course, hut the government cheque not having yet arrived, it was renewed at fifteen days from 31st December, 1902.

Pressure seems to have been brought to bear to cause the official cheque to issue. The papers were in the hands of the Department of Justice for examination as to title.

The Deputy Minister of Justice, on the 17th January, 1903, wrote as follows :

Sir,-I have the honour to request that you will send me a cheque for the compensation money in this case in favour of Robert Bruce Johnston and Robert A. Dunton, agent of the Minister of Justice. I would be glad to have this cheque immediately, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has telegraphed, asking that the purchase may be completed to-day.

Finally, on the 19th January, 1903, a cheque for $10,000 issued from the Finance Department, payable to the order of R. B. Johnston and of Notary Dunton, who was to act as agent of the Department of Justice, specially appointed, and it was forwarded to Mr. Dunton, who caused it to be endorsed by Johnston and went with the latter to the Sovereign Bank to take up the $10,000 note previously discounted, and at the same time Johnston signed a deed of sale in favour of the government, the Public Works Department being represented by Mr. Charles Archer, advocate, of Montreal.

(Deed dated 20th. January, 1903, similar in terms from Mr. Loy to Johnston, 1st December, 1902.)

13. ' Johnston's Interest.'-The only interest Johnston, the sub-agent employed by Mr. Dandurand, had in the transaction, was the remuneration given him by Mr. Dandurand himself, when Johnston returned from Valleyfleld and made his report, as well as handed in the option to Mr. Dandurand (page 126). Mr. Dandurand is quite clear in his evidence on this point.

Johnston was paid a sum, between $50 and $100, for his services.-(Deposition of Mr. Dandurand, page 134.)

The reduction of $300 on the $10,000, obtained from Mr. Loy, whereby the price was reduced to $9,700, was without Mr. Dandurand's knowledge, and was a matter between Mr. Loy and Johnston only. In all other respects, in signing the deeds, in obtaining the discount of the $10,000 not, in signing cheques, &c., Johnston merely executed the instructions given him by Mr. Dandurand and Mr. R. A. Dunton.

Mr. Dandurand paid the notary $22, amount of his account, but his commission of $500, due by the government, is not yet paid.

14. ' Mr. Loy's Knowledge.'-It is difficult to understand, even outside of the documentary evidence, how Mr. Loy could be completely ignorant of what was going on in respect to his property from the time he received Johnston's first and only visit at Valleyfleld, 14th July, 1902, until the day when he made the sale to Johnston, on the 1st December, 1902.

He never, as he admits, saw or endeavoured to see Johnston during that long period, until

he finally met him to sign the deed and draw money on the 1st of December, although in the interval correspondence passed between Mr. Loy and the government relating to the purchase of the Loy property.

He merely went to see a friend, Mr. Hyde, and had him inquire from Mr. Dunton if Johnston was all right.

The delay fixed in the option expired on the 30t.h July ; the Department of Public Works prepared its memorandum for Council, corresponded with Mr. Loy, the Order in Council was passed, there was a change of ministers, money had to be borrowed because the government cheque had not issued, the Loy contract had been delayed ; and of all this Mr. Loy states that he had no knowledge whatever, and never thought that the government was in reality the sole purchaser of his property.

The government part in the transaction must have been brought home to Mr. Loy when he received a formal demand from the Department of Public Works, on the 8th September, 1902, for a plan of the city of Valleyfield, which is needed to complete the purchase of site for public building.

Indeed, in his answer, accompanying the plan sent by him, Mr. Loy refers to the fact of their being two post offices in Valleyfield. Furthermore, information of a precise and definite nature was certainly conveyed to Mr. Loy, when the department, on the 16th September, wrote him officially that the said plan was required by the department in connection with the purchase of Mr. R. B. Johnston's property.

Under these circumstances, Mr. Loy could not have remained ignorant of the fact that Johnston, In the transaction with Mr. Loy, was an agent of the government.

In the opinion of the committee, the sitting member for Beauharnois was thus officially notified of the real state of affairs, and it became his duty not to carry out the sale of the 1st of December following, which he clearly was prohibited from doing under section 10 of chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes, which reads as follows :

' 10. No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or any agreement, expressed or implied, with or for Hie government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers of the government of Canada, for which any money of Canada is to be paid, shall be eligible as a member of the House of Commons, or shall sit or vote in the said House.'

In view of the fact, admitted by all witnesses, that the question of a post office site had been a burning question in Valleyfield since 1898, both while the property was held during four months by a Mr. Archambault, and since he retroceded it to Mr. Loy, after the four months, Mr. Loy cannot, in the opinion of the committee, plead ignorance of the real nature of the deed *which he executed in December, 1902, and it appears to the committee that the law quoted above has been violated.

Evidence was adduced in regard to the value of the property, and also in regard to the availability of two government properties at Valleyfield ; but the committee confines its report to the facts which establish the violation by Mr. Loy of the law quoted above.

Mr. SPROULE.

Before the House proceeds with the discussion, might I ask why we are expected to consider this report

without having the evidence printed ? I have inquired for a copy of the evidence, and I am informed that it is not printed. While the report has been presented to the House, members cannot do justice to it if they have not an opportunity to examine the evidence.

Question.

Mr. SPEAKER.

The question is on the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, before touching, as I will as briefly as possible, upon the evidence adduced before the Committee on Privileges and Elections, I would like to say a word of explanation in regard to the bringing before the House of the question of privilege which the House is about to consider. I have found it stated in the press and heard it stated elsewhere, and it was insinuated while the committee were proceeding with this investigation, that in provoking the investigation in question I had been moved by motives which I would be very sorry to see attributed to me. It was suggested in the public press and elsewhere that I had some personal rancour against the sitting member for Beauharnois ; and some went so far as to say that even further motives than that had animated me when I brought this very important matter to the notice of the House. I think it due to myself, and a duty on my part, to disclaim any such motive or intention. As a matter of fact, I state to the House now, and I trust that my statement will be accepted by the members of this House, that almost immediately after the purchase of this property by the government in January last, the circumstances of that purchase were brought to my notice, and, to a certain extent, were a matter of public notoriety in the county of Beauharnois and the surrounding counties and in the district of Montreal. Long before the. session opened these circumstances were disclosed to me by parties who were familiar with them ; and, whether I displayed a want of sufficient zeal or failed to take that interest in the matter which it seems to me a matter of this gravity should command, the certificate of search of the registrar and the other documents bearing on this question were placed in the hands of my hon. friend the member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain). Subsequently, when the session opened, and from time to time during the session, this matter, which seems to me to be one of real importance for the members of this House, was again brought to my attention. When my hon. friend the member for Montmorency was called to England on professional business, the documents remained in the possession of members who sit on this side of the House ; and, as the close of the session approached, a distinct impression was made upon me that if we failed to bring this matter, which had been laid before us with all its surrounding cir-

cumstances, to the knowledge of this House, that failure to perform a public duty would be attributed principally to carelessness on my part or to some other unavoidable motive. It was upon that impression, which was conveyed to me by unmistakable signs, that I deemed it my duty to bring the matter to the notice of this House ; and I trust, Sir, that in spite of the treatment which 1 received during the investigation before the committee, the members of this House will be persuaded by the explanation which I have given that, in calling the attention of the House to this grave violation of that salutary rule which guards the independence of parliament, I have been moved by no other motive than a sense.of a public duty, which every member of this House, under similar circumstances, would have discharged in the manner in which I have discharged it.

It was said before the committee, time and again, that there was procrastination, and that the result was the exclusion from this House of the sitting member for Beau-barnois (Mr. Loy). I need hardly tell the House that I did all in my power to have the investigation concluded in the shortest possible delay. I handed in the names of my witnesses, and the House will see by the proceedings of the committee that there is no justification whatever for the strictures of the chairman of the committee regarding delay. Indeed I have no hesitation in saying that I never before had to deal with a chairman who placed upon his duties as such the interpretation which the hon. gentleman who presided over this committee did place upon his.

The circumstances of the case are not very complicated. A very faithful recital of them is to be found in the Votes and Proceedings of this House of yesterday, which contain at length the minority report of ' that committee. With regard to the question of exclusion, when a question of privilege has been referred to a select standing committee, I do not think that the hon. member implicated is obliged to absent himself from the deliberations of this House. If he were, the House will realize what power there would be in the hands of hon. members to obtain the exclusion, during a long time, from the House of one of its members with regard to whom a question of privilege is raised. I have not had time to fully look up the authorities, but I would submit the following authority, taken from May's ' Parliamentary Practice,' page S93

On the 17th May, 1849, petitions were presented complaining of the conduct of three members, as railway directors. The members were permitted to explain and defend their conduct, but did not afterwards withdraw. It being contrary to the standing orders of the House to make a motion, or to enter upon a debate on the presentation of a petition, unless it complains of some present personal grievance, or relates to a matter of privilege, the conduct Mr. MONK.

of the members could scarcely be regarded as under the consideration of the House at that time, and as soon as the members were heard, the petitions were ordered to lie upon the Table, without further debate. One of the members withdrew, but returned almost immediately to Ms seat.

On the 28th of April, 1846, the House had resolved that Mr. W. S. O'Brien, a member, had been guilty of a contempt : but the debate upon the consequent motion for his commitment was adjourned until a future day : Upon which Mr. O'Brien immediately entered the House, and proceeded to his place. Mr. Speaker, however, acquainted him that it would be advisable for him to withdraw-, until after the debate concerning him had been concluded. The reason for this intimation w'as, that the member had been already declared to be in contempt, although his punishment was not yet determined upon. On the 30th, a request was made through a member, that he should be heard in his place: but this was regarded as clearly irregular, and he was not permitted to be heard. But a member not yet adjudged guilty of contempt may return to his place, when the debate is concluded.

I would infer from that authority that after the question of privilege has been debated and been referred to a committee for investigation, the hon. member concerned is at liberty to return to his place and may take part in the proceedings of the House until the committee has brought in its report and found him guilty. Any other interpretation would be contrary to justice and reason and would proceed upon an assumption contrary to all the principles of our parliamentary laws, that a man is presumed guilty until lie is proved innocent.

Let me refer briefly to the facts of the case. The fact is stated in the report that the question of the purchase of a property at Valleyfield for a public building liad been discussed in the county of Beauharnois up to the year 1900, and after that up to the time when the government decided to purchase the property in question. Petitions had been sent to Ottawa, deputations bad come to Ottawa, and the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Loy), who was then chief magistrate of the town, formed part of these deputations. A vote of $10,000 had been appropriated in 1901 for the purpose of a public building in Valleyfield. No effect was given to that appropriation, and during 1902, after the by-election rendered necessary by the unseating of the sitting member and after an election contest of a very violent character, In which this question was the topic of discussion, the hon. member was re-elected, and parliament again voted $10,000 for a public building in the town of Valleyfield. On the 14th of July a letter was sent by the Department of Public Works-and I invite attention to this because it is the basis of the subsequent negotiations-to a well known real estate agent in Montreal requesting him to acquire the very property subsequently purchased. That real estate

agent deputed a man usually employed by him for the purchase of property where it is important not to disclose the name of the principal, to obtain an option on this property. This sub-agent came out to the town of Valleyfield and offered the hon. member for that county the price mentioned in the letter of instructions to Mr. Dandu-rand, namely, $10,000. Mr. Johnston, whose evidence was by no means favourable to those who wished to establish the truth of the charge made in this case, gave it as his opinion before the committee that it was impossible that the member for Beau-harnois should have consented to a sale to the government had he known that in reality the government intended purchasing this property. But when Mr. Johnston, the sub-agent, is asked what grounds he had for that belief, he never having met the member for Beauharnois before that date, he relates the conversation which took place between himself and the hon. member on the lltli of July, and that conversation is referred to in the report. The very first question which the hon. member asked this emissary of Mr. Dandurand, and a very natural' question under the circumstances, was this. Mr. Johnston says :

' Well,' he said, * now it is not for the government, is it ?

I said : ' That, Mr. Loy, is a matter that

interests me, whether I wish to deal with the outsiders or the government.'

He said : ' I would like to know.'

I said : ' I have several.'

From which I think, Sir, it is fair to infer that at that moment the member for Beauharnois had a suspicion at least that this much talked of purchase of this very property of his by the government was in the mind and in the intention of this agent. Well, during the space of a very short interview, the sitting member for Beauhar-uois gave an option to Mr. Johnston ; that option is to be found in the minority report printed in the proceedings of yesterday. I wish to call the attention of the-House particularly to the fact that in that option, which is delivered to Mr. Johnston, who had acted on behalf of Mr. Dandurand, who was, for the purpose of this transaction, an agent of the government, conditions were imposed to that sale, and one of the conditions was that the sum of $10,000 should be paid in cash and the transaction completed within fifteen days, the deeds to be made out and the transaction completed within fifteen days, and the acceptance of the option to be made within two days, or on the 16th of July then ensuing. Mr. Johnston-this is established in the evidence-returned to Montreal, made his report to Mr. Dandurand, handed him in this option. and received the remuneration which he was entitled to, after having taken these steps towards the purchase of this property. The next day, if I mistake not, or on the 16th rather, the last day fixed for the acceptance, Mr. Johnston, or somebody

on his behalf, had an acceptance prepared, that acceptance was prepared by Mr. It. A. Dunton, and I wish to call particular attention to this point, that he had been chosen both by Mr. Loy and by Mr. Dandurand, as the notary who was to act in the matter. He had been chosen by Mr. Dandurand, as results from Mr. Danduraud's own evidence, and he was the notary chosen by Mr. Loy, as results from the statement made by Mr. Loy in his deposition ; that is, the notary in the matter was Mr. Dun-ton, of Montreal. This acceptance was taken over to the office of Mr. Hyde, one of Mr. Loy's friends, not his business agent, but one of his friends in the city of Montreal, with a sum of $100 on account, which sum was sent out to Mr. Loy at Valleyfield. Now, Sir, I wish to submit to this House that from that moment there were fifteen days granted to the parties to complete the transaction, fifteen days within which the deed which was to constitute the real purchase was to be made out and the money, payable in cash, paid over to the vendor. This is an important point, because it may be claimed here that the property, from the moment of the acceptance, vested in Mr. Johnston, that the member for Beauharnois parted at that moment with his ownership of the property, and that everything which occurred afterwards occurred between the purchaser of the property, Mr. Johnston, and the government. The proposition which I submit to the consideration of this House is this, that upon the expiry of the fifteen days within which the transaction was to be completed and the money paid over, there was no more ' vinculum juris,' no lien de droit, as we say under our law in the province of Quebec, between the two parties in the event of failure to carry out the essential conditions mentioned in the option. That is the law of our province, and, although 1 am ignorant of the law of the other provinces, I venture to believe that is also the law of the other provinces, that where an option is given upon a property, and the conditions mentioned in that option as to be performed within a certain delay, are not performed, then the binding force of the option lapses, and that after the month of July there was no title in that property in Mr. Johnston, and in reality that property remained vested in; the sitting member for Beauharnois. That, Mr. Speaker, is the law in our province, and the constant jurisprudence for many years. I think it is proper for me to give some proof of that proposition. Ever since 1876, and I believe long before-but I take that year as a starting point-the law in our province, such as I have laid down, has been so interpreted in our courts, both in the Superior Court and in the court of final jurisdiction in the province of Quebec. I quote from Stephen's Digest, of 1882, volume 2, at page 684, where a decision of the Queen's Bench rendered in 1876 is reported :

802-i

vendor. The sitting member for Beauharnois [DOT]was in the office of the notary, Mr. Johnston, who had not been seeu by anybody, very naturally from the moment on the 14th July preceding after he had fulfilled his part of the transaction was there, the notary was there and there was no1 money. What happened ? Through the interposition of Mr. Dandurand, the real estate agent chosen by the department to carry this transaction through, a note was discounted in the Sovereign Bank under the signature of Mr. Johnston without any credit that we could see attached to Mr. Johnston but on the representations made by Mr. Daudu-rand himself the personal note of Mr. Johnston with a bank with which he had never had any transaction whatever, was discounted for $10,000. The deed was then signed and the proceeds of the note were placed in the hands of the notary who was, as I have said, the agent both of the sitting member for Beauharnois as notary and as well the notary of the government. The notary handed over immediately the sum of $1,000 to the vendor and kept the balance to extinguish the mortgage of $4,500 and also to pay the amount of the accumulated interest which figured up I think to some $731. On the 18th, after having attended on behalf of the sitting member and on behalf also of the government to the discharge of this mortgage, Mr. Dunton, the notary, paid over the balance to the sitting member for Beauharnois, some $3,300. Now, the sale made by the sitting member to Mr. Johnston was for the sum of $10,000. but on the day when the sale, long suspended, was carried out, on the 1st December. Mr. Johnston seems to have reported to the sitting member that he was entitled to some $300. The evidence given by the sitting member is that the representation made to him by Mr. Johnston was that Mr. Johnston had trouble in negotiating to find the money. I assume, Sir, that we must give the sitting member credit for ordinary intelligence and he knew and knew positively, at that time that this Mr. Johnston had not in reality deeded this property over to the government that that part of the transaction had been decided weeks before ; yet, if we are to accept his statement upon the representation made by this man that he required $300, he abandoned to him this sum of $300, and the deed of sale instead of being for the sum of $10,000. the exact sum voted by parliament, the exact sum available and the only sum available for that purpose that year; the exact sum which is mentioned in the subsequent deed of sale by Johnston to the government, was for the sum 'of $9,700. How the sitting member could have accepted this statement that Mi-. Johnston notified to him in the official letter of the secretary of the Department of Public Works weeks previously as the man -who was selling this property to the government; how I say Mr. MONK.

the sitting member could have accepted this plea for the payment of $300 and accepted it upon the reasons alleged by Mr. Johnston, it is for the House to decide.

Now, Sir, this note for $10,000 was renewed. It was kept in the bank until further- pressure from some parties-whether acting on behalf of the sitting member or otherwise-until further pressure was brought to bear upon the government to issue an official cheque. That cheque was issued from the Auditor General, from the Department of Finance, and it was made payable to wrhom 7 It was made payable to Mr. R. B. Johnston and also to the order of the notary, Mr. Dunton, who was, I claim, the agent, the appointee, the chosen notary of the sitting member for Beauharnois as well as the notary also chosen by Mr. Dandurand, and finally designated specially by the Department of Justice to act for that department: in this affair. That cheque came to Montreal and on the day it arrived in Montreal, with the proceeds of that cheque, this note lying in the Sovereign Bank for over a month was taken up and Mr. Johnston signed his deed of sale to the gov-fernment. Now, Sir, it is apparent, I think, to the members of this House that Johnston never acted in this matter in any other capacity but as the agent of the government. It is clear from the documents produced and the evidence of Mr. Dandurand, that Mr. Dandurand was the agent directly named by the government, and that Mr. Johnston never for a single moment occupied any other position than that of sub-agent named by Mr. Dandurand to secure an option upon this' property. Therefore he had no interest in the transaction but that of a paid employee, and from the moment he returned to Montreal and handed over his option and made report to Mr. Dandurand that he had fulfilled the duty required of him, he was paid off and disappeai'ed from this transaction and never reappeared until the day when it became necessary-not to secure his intervention for any purpose relating to the completion of this transaction, not to treat with the government whose agent in reality he was as to the price, but merely to intervene in the notary's office to sign the authentic deed containing worjl for word all the stipulations contained in the previously signed deed between the sitting member for Beauharnois and this sub-agent himself. Sir, I do not wish to take up unduly the time of the House but it seems to me that the circumstances of this case disclose as clear an infraction of section 10 of chapter il of the Act relating to the independence of parliament as it would be possible to place before this House. Few cases I submit could be clearer. In matters of this kind as in many other matters with which members of the legal profession are familiar, where it is designed to evade the law, titles never pass directly ; it passes through the agency of interposed persons, and who

bears that characteristic more in the present instance than the man Johnston who acted throughout this transaction V As to the knowledge of the sitting member I say that it is impossible after the communications which passed between the member for Beauharnois (Mr. Loy) and the government itself, weeks before this sale was completed; it is impossible for members of this House to arrive at any other conclusion, than that, at the time the sale was made on the 1st of December, the sitting member for Beauharnois knew perfectly well what was the role filled and to be filled by Mr. Johnston in this matter. Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that the amendment which I have proposed is well founded, and I would repeat that it seems to me that in bringing this matter to the notice of the House I have fulfilled a duty of which not only the public but the members of this House themselves ought to be grateful in a certain sense and in a certain degree. There was a time Sir, speaking more particularly for my own province, when there was no law in reference to the independence of members who sat in the representative assembly. I venture to assert without fear of contradiction that since that time there has been a tendency to violate to a certain degree that cardinal principle of the absolute independence of the members of this House, without which this House would be reduced to a state of absolute inutility. Under these circumstances it seems to me that every effort made for the absolute restoration of that independence so essential to the proper working of our representative institutions, is a step taken in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I fee] that it is incumbent on me to answer the observations that have just been made by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I gladly acquit him of any improper motives on this occasion. He has stated, and I for one accept his statement in toto, that he has been animated by the desire of fulfilling his duty. He has invited his colleagues to take his word and I take his word. I would have been very pleased however if he had extended to myself and to Mr. Loy the same treatment, and had accepted our word. Mr. Loy and I have both stated on our word of honour the transaction as it took place. Mr. Loy stated on his honour that he had no knowledge of the purpose for which that property was acquired by Mr. Johnston. 1 stated on my word of honour that Mr. Loy never approached me and that I have never approached him when he was a member of parliament in reference to this matter. This personal question settled, permit me to call attention to the wording of my hon. friend's indictment. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) states first.

That in 1898 Mr. Loy bad sold his property when he was not a member of parliament, to Mr. Archambault.

With that the House has no concern. We have nothing to do with transactions carried on by gentlemen before they are elected to this House. The indictment as far as the sitting member is concerned is as follows

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 20th January, 1903, said Robert Brice Johnston was merely acting for and cn behalf of said Loy, who in said manner did indirectly sell his said property to the Crown or government of Canada.

This is a very serious charge. My hon. friend, on information that he had received, has made to the House a statement that when Mr. Johnston bought Mr. Loy's property, he, Johnston, was acting on behalf of Mr. Loy himself-that in point of fact Johnston had been appointed as the agent of Mr. Loy to sell his property to that department. This is the gist of the charge. I ask my hon. friend frjom Jacques Cartier whether he has substantiated that charge in any way whatever ? Has it been established by a tittle of evidence that Mr. Johnston was the agent of Mr. Loy ? Why, Mr. Loy and Mr. Johnston have stated under oath that they did not know each other. Johnston had never met Mr. Loy, and Mr. Loy did not know Johnston even by sight. The Department of Public Works did not know Johnston. As my hon. friend has just said, before taking his seat, Johnston acted as an agent for Mr. Dandurand. He was paid for his services, not by Mr. Loy, but by Dandurand himself. It is true, Mr. Loy consented to give him $300 of the price of sale ; but at that time Mr. Loy did not) know that Johnston had been acting for the government. Now, my hon. friend wTill be obliged to recognize that he has utterly failed to establish the real point of his statement, that is to say, that Johnston was acting on behalf of Mr. Loy. That is the only point with which the House is concerned. I will not discuss the law in the matter. I will not follow my hon. friend in the statement he has made that the law might involve Mr. Loy in trouble because the deed of sale was not passed immediately. The main fact is that Mr. Loy did not know Johnston. Johnston, then, did not act for Mr. Loy. It is in evidence that Johnston was employed by Mr. Dandurand. In what capacity did Dandurand act ? The letters that are in evidence show. When on a tour of inspection of the different works of the department I called at Valleyfield. Parliament had placed at the disposal of the department the sum of $10,000 to erect a public building there. It was then my duty to choose a site. I proceeded to the town, I found that a government site on which perhaps I might have cast my eyes was no longer available, as it had been rented by the Department of Railways and

Canals some time previous. There was no other government property which was tit for a public edifice. I made up my mind that the Loy site was the only one that was really fit, and I immediately instructed Mr. Dandurand, whom I knew very well, who is a trusted real estate agent in Montreal, to acquire immediately the Loy site. I was aware that I could not purchase Mr. Loy's property with his knowledge that the government was purchasing from him. 1 instructed Mr. Dandurand accordingly. Not to awaken a suspicion, he appointed a sub-agent. That sub-agent went to Mr. L*y, represented to him that he wanted the property for commercial purposes, and took an option on the 14th of July. On the 16th of July the option was completed in Montreal, $100 being paid down as a guarantee of good faith, the deed to be passed later on. From that date Mr. Loy was no longer the owner of his former property. He had nothing more to do with it. He had pledged himself to sell, and practically had sold. Every man of business will agree that when a man has given an option on a property, lie is no longer the owner of that property, but has sold it. The deed had to be executed ; that was all that had to be done. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier lays a good deal of stress on the fact that in the month of September, before the final deed of sale was executed, Mr. Loy was communicated with by the secretary of the Department of Public Works. I was away then. Mr. Dandurand, the government agent, had communicated to the department officially the fact that he had secured the property that was indicated to him. Let the House not lose sight of this fact, that in the month of August, before these communications took place between the department and Mr. Loy, Mr. Dandurand had officially notified the department that he had secured the property he had been instructed to secure. There is written evidence in the record of that fact. Then the department was officially acquainted with the fact that the property was ours. There was only the ordinary procedure to be followed, and that is just what was followed. When the department is notified that a site has been secured, before passing the deed, the department sends an official to ascertain whether the site has been rightly chosen, and whether the price agreed upon is not too high. That is just what was done in this case. Mr. Routhier, an architect of the Department of Public Works, proceeded to the town of Valleyfield, and carried out the procedure which I have just indicated, and it was to give effect to the sale of which we had been notified that Mr. Galinas, the secretary of the department, asked Mr. Loy, in the ordinary way of business, for a map of the town. Mr. Gelinas was not then aware of the different phases through which the sale had passed, X was not obliged to tell my Hon. Mr. TARTE.

officers what I had done. Mr. Galinas acted in the ordinary way of business. He communicated with the sitting member for information which he might have got elsewhere. Surely if there had been any desire to conceal that transaction from the public, the Deparment of Public Works would have acted differently. The whole thing was carried out in perfect good faith. My hon. friend was surprised at the delay that took place in completing the purchase. Well, in the month of August the ministers were away, I was away, and it was only on the 17th of September that I ordered a report to be prepared. There was no sitting of the Council, and some time afterwards I resigned. Therefore, the delay on which my hon. friend has laid so much stress is very easily explained. The correspondence between Mr. Gelinas and Mr. Loy is also very easily explained. I do not desire to say much more on that question; I am a layman, and am judging things of that kind in the ordinary way in which laymen judge them. Mr. Loy gave an option on the 14th of July. On the 16th of July that option was executed and a sum of money paid in cash as a guarantee of good faith. From that day Mr Loy considered himself no longer the owner of the property. Mr. Dandurand had appointed Mr. Johnston as his agent without the knowledge of Mr. Loy or the Department of Public Works. Mr. Johnston carried out his mission in concealing from Mr. Loy the object of his errand. He went to the town of Valleyfield and explained to Mr. Lov that he wanted the property for commercial purposes. Mr. Loy inquired whether the purchase was for the government, and Mr. Johnston said no it was for other purposes. Mr. Loy did not know a word about the object of Mr. Johnston's mission, he did not know Johnston. On information that he received, my hon. friend took upon himself to assert that he was in a position to prove that Johnston was acting on behalf of the sitting member and that the sitting member was trying fraudulently to evade the law. That is the charge made. It is that Mr. I.oy, knowing that he could not sell directly, appointed Mr. Johnston as his agent and that the two men were acting fraudulently. That charge my hon. friend has tried to prove. He has admitted himself that Mr. Johnston acted all through as the paid agent of Mr. Dandurand, and consequently of the government. It is evident that Johnston never acted as the agent of Mr. Loy. Then I ask: How can the sitting member be said to have been guilty of any fraudulent act? The House and the country will say no. Any man of good faith will say no. And without casting any reproach on my hon. friend, accepting his statement that lie has acted in good faith, I verily believe he would have acted more creditably to himself and have shown greater regard for

the honour and dignity of the House, if lie had agreed to the suggestion made to him by the right lion, gentleman who leads the House, and accepted the statement which Mr. Loy and myself made on our honour that the transaction had been carried out in the way it has been. But my hon. friend, proceeding on information he had received from the outside, saw fit not to accept our statement. The question was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Mr. Loy was examined under oath. He repeated under oath what he had said in the House, that he did not know for whom Mr. Johnston was buying his property. I was examined under oath, and I swore that Mr. Loy never approached me nor did I approach him since his election to parliament. It is true that in 1898, before Mr. Loy was a member, and when lie was the first magistrate of the town of Valleyfield, a petition was signed suggesting as a suitable site for a public building, Mr. Loy's property. Parliament had not then voted any money for a public building. But the citizens of the town of Valleyfield were anxious to have a public building, and they recommended the Loy property as the best site. When Mr. Loy signed that petition, he had sold his property to a Mr. Arc-hambault, and was no longer the owner. Later on, however, Archam-beault did not pay, and Mr. Loy took it back. When he signed the petition in 1898 he was not the owner, but even if he had been, he was not a member of parliament, and but only the mayor of the town; and though it might be said to be a little risky, he had right, as well as anybody else, to sign the petition. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has reminded the House that in 1898 Mr. Loy had sold to Mr. Archambault for the sum

einnAA0,?' tljat tlle government paid 8iu,uuo tor the same property; but my hon friend knows that it is clearly established in the evidence that from 1898 to 1902 property in Valleyfield has increased by leaps and bounds. One of the statements which my hon. friend has made in his indictment is that the property sold to the government was sold at a price exceeding its value, and that the assessors had valued it at $5,000. In point of fact, the indictment of my hon. friend, from beginning to end, is a charge of fraudulent conduct between Mr. Loy and myself, because if the property had been paid far too high, if Mr. Loy acted fraudulently in bonding it to Mr. Johnston, both Mr. Loy and myself are guilty. I am guilty for having closed my eyes to a trans-aetion in which a member of parliament was involved and also to the fact that the property was purchased at too high a price. Sir, I took every possible precaution, and the evidence justifies my course from beginning to end. The evidence has established that property in Valleyfield is assessed at two-thirds and sometimes one-half of its

value. One of the assessors, himself a political friend of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, swore that in his official capacity he was accustomed to value property at two-thirds and sometimes at one-half its real value.

That point is clear, and on that score, as to the others, my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) lias failed, I know he has acted in good faith. He had his information from parties who have told him stories that he should not have believed. The transaction was carried on in an honest way ; and, indeed, I can only repeat what I said on a former occasion, that I am so sorry that my hon. friend the sitting member for Beauharnois has been subjected to such an annoyance. Let me tell the House that no more honest man has ever lived in any country than my hon. friend from Beauharnois. He is an honest man in the very best sense of the word. And that is the main reason, perhaps why the French Roman Catholic riding of Beauharnois elected him, an elder in the Presbyterian church, as their representative in this House. He was an honest man then, he is an honest man to-day. He has not violated the law willingly or knowingly, and I hope he has not violated even the letter of the law. The proverb says that the letter of the law kills. I hope' it will not kill on the present occasion, for the spirit of the law has not been violated. The hon. member for Beauharnois did not know what I was doing in this matter. I concealed my actions from him ; the department concealed their actions from him. He has acted in perfect good faith ; he has sold at its real value a property that could be sold to-day at a profit. It is in evidence that a property smaller than his could not be bought then for less than $13,000 cash. The value of property in the town of Valleyfield has ^ been going up by leaps and bounds*within recent years.

Well, Sir, I think I have covered all the points that deserve to be covered : The property was not bought too dear ; Mr. Lov had no knowledge of the object for which it was purchased ; Mr. Johnston did not act as his agent. There remains nothing except the fact that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has been wrongly informed by parties who had other purposes to serve than promoting the public interest. I quite understand that political warfare must be carried on. It is a case of political warfare on the part of the Informants of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier. He lias given his word to us and to the country and I take his word. But our word must be taken also. While taking my hon. friend's word, as I am glad to do. and as I am bound to do. yet I say without hesitation that those who informed him have been acting from purely party motives. Such sentiments should not be-and I hope will not often have occasion to be-ventilated in this House. When the case is as clear as

it has been made, it seems to me we should not have held the long investigation we have held, the result of which is now known to the country at large.

A's I was a member of the committee to which this question was referred, and as I concurred in the minority report now under discussion. I desire to say, in as few words as possible, why I formed the opinion I did, that the minority report should be sent to this House, and why I think this House should receive and adopt it. The question was not one as put by the non. member for St. Mary s (Hon. Mr. Tarte) of the moral wrong or moral guilt upon the part of the member for Beauharnois, but whether that gentleman committed an act, which, under the statute relating to the independence of parliament voided his seat. The question arose under section 10, which is in these words :

No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the intei position of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement expressed or implied, with or for the government of Canada, on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any officer of the government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is to be paid, shall he eligible as a member of the House of Commons, or shall sit or vote in the said House.

Now, the sole question was whether Mr. Loy, while member for Beauharnois, had brought himself within the terms of that section. Of one thing there is no question whatever, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Public Works intended to buy this property from Mr. Loy. There is no question whatever that the department resolved to make that purchase through the interposition of an agent. The minister employed a Mr. Dandurand to make the purchase, and that agent of the government simply sent an employee of his to do the work. Now, what occurred ? Mr. Johnston, who was the sub-ageut or employee of Mr. Dau-durand, went down to Valleyfield and there saw Mr. Loy. After an hour's discussion, or less than an hour's discussion, Mr. Johnston obtained a written option from Mr. Loy for the purchase of this property for $10,000. Now, just here it is necessary to recall the fact that for three or four years prior to the closing of this transaction, the construction of a public building in Valleyfield and the purchase of property for that purpose was a burning question there. Before Mr. Loy became a member of the House, while he was mayor of Valleyfield, he had taken part in deputations that had come to Ottawa to urge that a public building should be constructed in Valleyfield, which was within what afterwards became his constituency. It was known to him that many of the people of Valleyfield were urging that Mr. Loy's own property should be purchased by the government for the purpose of this public building. Mr. Hon. Mr. TARTE.

Loy first became a member of this House in 1900, and at the following session there was a sum of $10,000 placed in the estimates for the purpose of this public building in Valleyfield. Under circumstances that we need not go into here, Mr. Loy lost his seat in this House, and was subsequently re-elected at a by-election. He became a member of this House again in 1902, and again the vote of $10,000 was placed in the estimates and granted by this House for the purpose of this public building. So it stood until July, 1902, when this Mr. Johnston being sent out by the agent of the government, saw Mr. Loy and negotiated with him for the purchase of the Loy property. And, shortly, they agreed that there should be an option given for two days to sell this property to Mr. Johnston in his name for the same sum of $10,000,, the amount that was in the estimates for the building at Valleyfield. Mr. Johnston, in the course of the conversation, was asked by Mr. Loy this question :

Well, Mr. Loy said, now it is not for the government is it ?

Now, Mr. Speaker, what induced Mr. Loy to ask that question ? Was it not his consciousness that what had been going on for three or four years was now culminating in the purchase of the property ? Was it not his suspicion, at least, that the person who was there offering to him, or willing to contract with him for $10,000 to buy this property, was really an undisclosed agent of the government ? He asked him a question, and what is the answer ? Mr. Johnston says :

That, Mr. Loy, is a matter that interests me, whether I wish to deal with outsiders or the government.

Now, surely that answer alone was sufficient to put Mr. Loy upon inquiry, he know- -ing at the time that he could not sell that property to the government without forfeiting his seat in parliament But the matter does not rest there. There are further circumstances that bring the knowledge more clearly to Mr. Loy. The acceptance declared that Mr. Johnston was to complete the purchase, and obtain his deed, and pay the purchase money within fifteen days. He did not do so, and apparently nothing was done. The matter was allowed to lie in suspense until December, but some correspondence passed in the meantime. On the 8th of September a clerk in the Public Works Department telegraphs to Mr. Loy :

Kindly see the city clerk and ask him to forward us by next mail, if possible, a copy of the plan of the city of Valleyfield, which is needed to complete the purchase of site for public building

Now, I would call attention to the fact that at this time the contract with Johnston was in suspense, no action was taken upon it. Mr. Loy knew that the question of the

public building related to his property ; he knew he had given an option to this man and had not yet received his purchase money, yet without a word with the department without a word of inquiry he sends the plan. ' Are you buying some property ; whose property are you buying ?- would have been natural questions for the member for the constituency to ask, especially in the interests of the citizens of Valley-field. He gets that plan, and he sends it to the Public Works Department with this letter :

Your telegram received last night. I send you herewith, inclosed, the only plan of the town which I could get. I am informed that Mr. Sullivan, the former engineer of the town, has a new plan, but he is away from home today. I will see him on his return, and if he will lend it I will send it or take it up to you. I would call your attention to the fact that at present there are two post offices in the town, one in the central part and another near the Canada Atlantic Railway station, in Bellerive ward.

These latter words ,are significant,, as' written by a gentleman who had no knowledge that his own property was being bought by the government. There Mr. Toy clearly shows that he knows what is the object of this purchase, it was in connection with a further post office that the town was claiming, and which the government was about to construct, and for which a vote was in the estimates of the year. The plan being sent, the clerk in the Public Works Department writes a further letter, which even more clearly brings home to Mr. Loy the knowledge that it was his own property that was being dealt with :

I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 9th September instant, inclosing a copy of the plan of the city of Valley-field, said plan being required by the department In connection with the purchase of Mr. R. B. Johnston's property.

Johnston was the man who held an option for the purchase of that property from Mr. Loy, the man who was in default, who had not carried out his undertaking to pay for the property within fifteen days. Johnston is apparently selling this property to the government, and Mr. Loy is to be assumed as supposing that he was acting as a man who had acquired and then owned the property, and was selling it again for an advance, perhaps, upon the price. Now, is it conceivable that that could be so ? Is it possible to conceive for one moment that a man of the Intelligence that we all know Mr. Loy possesses, would not see at once that Mr. Johnston was simply an intermediary of the government, and that he had been sent there to get round the provision of the statute ; Mr. Loy knew he could not sell to the government directly, that the government ought not to buy from, him directly, and so a Mr. Johnston was interposed ? Mr. Johnston gets an option to purchase, he does not carry it out, 252

but the transaction is going on in the Public Works Department, and Mr. Loy is asked to furnish a plan. He knows it is to be for a public building, and he knows it has relation to this Mr, Johnston who held an option from him, and he would have us believe that he had no suspicion that the purchase by Johnston was for the government.

Now, I do not wish to occupy any longer the time of the House. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has gone into the whole of the circumstances very fully. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that if, under such circumstances as are here stated, it is possible for a member of this House to sell property to the government through an intermediary, the Independence of Parliament Act is absolutely waste paper. Any member can buy from or can sell to the government, and the government can buy from any member by merely sending down a person to carry out the transaction, a third person, who is merely a nominal party in the bargain. I do not wish to comment further upon the case except to say this, that although Mr. Low was kept until the 1st of December- the option having been given in July, to be carried out within fifteen days-although he was kept until the 1st of December before he got his money, he allowed Mr. Johnston to keep $300 out of the prchase money ; instead of allowing him to keep $300 out of the purchase money, if there was anything that one side should be paid by the other, it was that Mr. Loy should have received interest from Mr. Johnstou.