April 27, 1911

?

Mr. J. D.@

Reid (Grenville). I rise to a question of privilege. On my arrival here this morning I noticed in last night's issue of the Ottawa 'Free Press' the following headings on an article.

'A Conservative member of parliament got yacht repaired at country's expense.

Dr. Reid of Grenville has received favours from the Marine Department at Prescott- Uprwin paid on the repairs to his tug 'Victor" but Conservative member has not made good.'

I want to say that this is absolutely untrue. So far as I am concerned, the government works at Prescott never did any work on jny yacht, so far as I know, that I have not paid for. . . . This matter will come up in the committee on Wednesday next, when I shall be present, and I hope the Minister of Marine will be there too, so that the question can be gone into thoroughly. In the meantime I state that I deny the whole matter absolutely.

Having been made aware that a matter similar in character had come up in parliament in the session of 1907-8, I thought it well to inquire what were the circumstances surrounding the particular incident to which the hon. member for Grenville had reference, and I have procured a copy of the evidence. I desire hon. gentlemen, particularly the hon. member for Grenville, not to understand me as going into this question for the purpose of arguing that he had committed any offence against the independence of parliament. I simply do so for the purpose of pointing out that in the conclusion which I have come to with reference to the charges made against the hon. member for Richelieu, I have been guided by the evidence elicited in the case in which the hon. member for Grenville was concerned. This is the evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee on June 10, 1908. The witness on the stand is Mr. J. Offspring, an official of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, in the town of Prescott:

Q. Tell me the names of some of the boats or vessels you worked on in 1905 P-A. There was the 'Reserve,' the 'Maisonneuve,' 'Lot-biniere'.

Q. And the 'Dack'P-A. Yes.

Q. What did you do to her?-A. Hauled her out in the fall, kept her over all the winter on the ways, and in the spring did some work on her.

Q. By whose instructions did you haul her out?-A. A. J. F. Fraser's.

Q. What work did you do to her?-A. Put a caulker, a carpenter and a labourer on her.

Mr- KYTE.

Q. How many days did the caulker work?- A. Two days, I think. [DOT]

Q. Who paid this man?-A. Well, I tried to find Dr. Reid and could not, and I went to the office and told Mr. Noble that the man wanted to go home in the morning, and Noble paid him.

Q. Was it paid from the government or private funds?-A. I understand that Mr. Noble paid it out of his own pocket.

Q. What Dr. Reid are you referring to? -A. John D. Reid.

Q. What .is his business?-A. He has a starch factory at this time.

Q. Was he the owner of the boat?-A. I understand that he was.

Q. Who also worked on this boat-other employees?-A. Well, Malone put in the planking.

Q. What is the business?-A. Ship carpenter.

Q. How many days did he work?-A. Two and a half days I think, he put in six planks.

Q. And who else?-A. Mr. McGarr did the scraping and some painting.

Q. Have you any knowledge of how many days he worked?-A. I could not say exactly.

Q. Well, we will get that another way-However, he worked some days on this boat? -A. Yes.

Q. Was he in the employ of the department?-A. Yes, he was a government man.

Q. Anybody else?-A. John Earner-he was one of the labourers.

By Mr. Northrup:

Q. How many labourers?-A. McGarr and Earner.

By Mr. Carvell:

Q. Do you remember Lalonde?-A. That is a carpenter.

Q. Yes, did he work?-A. Yes, two and a half days.

Q. What were his wages?-A. $2.25 per day.

By Mr. Northrup:

Q. Was there a man named Malone and one named Lalonde?-A. It is one man I think. He goes by both names; I cannot tell you which he had then.

By Mr. Carvell:

Q. Lalonde is a carpenter?-A. Yes.

Q. Salary $2.25 a day and he worked how long?-A. Two and a half days.

Q. Did you have to do any work in order to get things ready to get this boat out of the water?-A. Yes, we had to get ways in.

Q. For the purpose of getting this boat out? -A. Well, for all of them.

Q. How many did you haul out?-A. Four altogether.

Q. How much time was occupied in getting the ways in?-A. I . . . well it cost about

$200. We had everything ready to haul out for $290.

By Mr. Northrup.

Q. That is for the ways?-A. Yes.

By Mr. Carvell.

Q. And after the ways once got ready you pulled out for boats?-A. Yes.

Q. The yacht 'Dack' was one of them?-A. Yes, of course.

Q. Did the other boats that you have named belong to the department or to private parties? -A. They belonged to the department.

Q. All the boats you worked on, with the exception of the 'Dack,' belonging to the department?-A. Yes.

Q. Well, now, who kept the men's time for this work along with other work?-A. Well, we had a time keeper.

Q. Did yon keep books yourself?-A. I made out the time and put it in the office.

Q. Have you these original books that were kept?-A. No, I haven't got them. When we have done with the books we return them to the office.

Q. Who was the official who kept the books in the office?-A. Mr. Mundle.

Q. Do you know that they make up a regular time sheet every month?-A. As far as I know, they do.

Q. I have here the time sheets for the month of May produced by Mr. Boyle, who is the officer in charge. We could have Mr. Mundle here to swear to them if necessary. I notice in this time sheet, over the marks representing the work on days by Mr. McGarr, that the letter 'R' is marked?-A. Every man who worked on the boat for Reid you will find his name marked with an "R".

Q. That means that on that day he worked on Reid's boat?-A. Every man who worked on Reid's boat I marked their name, so that there would be no mistake about it.

By Mr. Northrup:

Q. Is that your sheet?

Mr. Carvell.-No, it is a copy.

By Mr. Northrup.

Q. Are you prepared to swear that that is your sheet?-A. No.

Mr. Carvell.-We can call Boyle as to that.

By Mr. Northrup:

Q. When you handed in your time sheets were you particular to mark the number of days that each man worked on Reid's boat? -A. Very particular, and took all pains to do so.

Q. Now, on this document produced as the official time sheet we find the letter 'R' over marks representing day's work by McGarr, and these 'R's' are over the days of the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th,

18th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th of May, 1905. Do you know, as a matter of fact, that in the month of May, 1905, McGarr worked on Reid's boat?-A. Yes, I know he worked on the boat.

Q. But you do not know, as a matter of fact, the exact days I have mentioned?-A. I could not say that.

Q. But in the month of May he worked on Reid's boat?-A. Yes.

Q. I find ' R ' over these days in the month of May, and you say that for some days he worked on Reid's boat, and you so reported it?-A. Yes, I reported every day he worked on that boat.

Q. Now, Lalonde-did you also report to the head office the days Lalonde worked on Mr. Reid's boat?-A. Well, I cannot mind exactly whether I did or not.

Q. Well, now, I find in this sheet on the 9tb of May, 1909, the letter * R ' marked over one-half day and ' R ' marked oyer the 10th and 11th against Lalonde; that is ' R ' over two and a-half days' work of Lalonde in 1905. Did he work on Reid's boat two and a-half days?-A. Yes, he put in six planks on that boat in the two and a-half days he worked.

Q. This man Lalonde, the man you said was paid by Noble?-A. No; his name, I think, was David Mountry. I do not know whether

that is the right name or not, it is always the name he went by.

By Mr. Carvell:

Q. Do you know who prepared this account I am showing to you, that is do you know of your own knowledge?-A. I think that is Mundle's writing.

Q. Give me this man's name as nearly as you can?-A. David Mountry, I think. I cannot find it on the government pay-list for the month of May. It may be spelled differently, but I cannot find it on the official time sheet.

Q. There is a D. Montrel, a calker?-A. That is the man.

Q. You look at that list for the month of May, and see if the letter ' R ' is over anv of his day's work?-A. I do not find it.

Q. Did you find it over any of his day's work?-A. I do not.

Q. Did he work after the 7th day of May, in the year 1905?-A. I cannot tell you exactly what day it was.

Q. According to this time sheet did he?-A. No, sir.

Q. Did Dr. Reid have any other boat repaired at the government expense?-A. Yes, he had one hauled out since.

Q. Yes, the name, please?-A. The 'Helen.'

Q. What was done to her ?-A. Just hauled out.

Q. Reid furnished his own men for the work on her?-A. Yes, and the timber.

Q. All the department did was to loan the ways for him to do his own work on?-A. Yes.

Q. And, so far as you know, there was no charge to Reid for that?-A. Not so far as I know.

Bv Mr. Northrup.

Q. Were you there?-A. Yes.

Q. Tell me how you came to haul Reid's boat up?-A. Dr. Reid spoke about hauling the boat up.

Q. Spoke to who?-A. To the office.

Q. You ought to speak of your own knowledge. What was it first that you knew?-A. He came to me and said he had leave to haul out his boat.

Q. And what was said by you?-A. I said, you get around and as soon as I am ready I will haul her up.

Q. And what then?-A. He sent around the boat to our slip.

Q. His factory is near you?-A. Yes.

Q. So that it was only a few feet to haul around?-A. Yes.

Q. He had his men bring it around?-A. I believe they did and tied it to the slip.

Q. Dp you know why his men did not haul her up?-A. I think they did not have enough men.

Q. Why did they not pull her up?-A. Well, I think they did not know enough to pull her up.

Q. Then she was left there at the ways?-. The ways were not ready at the time. She was left there until the ways were ready.

Q. How long did it take to pull her up?-A. I don't think it was more than an hour. We hauled her from the water 110 feet.

Q. Do you think you did that in an hour? You haul these boats along two rails, do you? -A. No, I used holders outside the rails.

Q. Then your power comes from what?-A. A capstan.

Q. How many mem?-A. I did not liave any men to work the capstan, I had a horse.

Q. Do you remember what repairs were made on the ' Dack '?-A. Scraping and painting and puttying, and putting in six new planks and caulking.

Q. How long would the six planks be?-A. They were 16 feet planks, one and a quarter inch stuff.

Q. Six pieces of one and a quarter-inch stuff were put in?-A. Yes.

Q. As a practical man, how long would you say it would take to put in those six planks? -A. It took a carpenter two days and a half.

Q. Did he do all that himself?-A. All himself, except that when he wanted a plank to be lifted he called the labourers.

Q. The labourers being for work on the ground?-A. Yes,

Q. When he wanted a plank lifted he would call one of the labourers to help?-A. Yes.

Q. Besides putting in the plates, you painted and puttied and caulked?-A. That is right. .

Q. And the caulking was done by this man Montrel?-A. Yes.

Q. And there -was no charge made to the department for that?-A. Not that I know of.

Q. How long did it take a man to scrape that boat?-A. It would take one man three or four days to scrape her.

Q. Do you remember, as a matter of fact, that any one .man did work three or four days?-A. McGarr worked on it.

Q. Did he do all the scraping?-A. Yes, as far as I remember.

Q. Now, about the painting?-A. McGarr did the painting, too.

Q. What else was there? We had the calking accounted for, the putting in of the plates, the scraping and the puttying. What else was done on the boat?-A. That is about all I know of.

Q. Then we are quite clear that one man did the painting and another man the carpentry and put in the plates, and he had another man to help him when he wanted to lift a plank, and the man McGarr did the scraping?-A. Yes.

Q. And the puttying?-A. Yes.

Q. That accounts for all the work done?- A. All that I know of.

Q. .So far then we have only McGarr and the carpenter (Lalonde). These are the only two. We won't bother about the caulker, for he was paid outside?-A. There was somebody else. I did not remember. There was a man called Aimer, he worked on it.

Q. What do you say he did?-A. If I remember right, Aimer helped to put her back into the water.

Q. You say that one .man, a carpenter, put in the planks, another man, McGarr, also did the puttying and also the scraping?-A. Yes.

Q. Now, can you tell me anything that was done besides carpentry work, painting and puttying?-A. Putting her in the water.

Q. That is not repairs. So that all the work on that boat outside caulking was done by carpenter Lalonde and McGarr?-A. That is so far as I know. .

Q. And you were there all the time?-A. I was there all the time.

Q. That being the case, what would you I think of this extraordinary document (time sheet produced). I see we have McGarr ap-Mr. KYTE.

parently working sixteen days?-A. I cannot tell you how many he worked.

By Mr. Northrup-

Q. Would you pledge yonr oath that this man McGarr worked for fifteen days?-A. I cannot tell you how many he worked.

Q. There is an entry here for a caulker, paid at $3 a day or $2.35 a day, paid to May 5. Do you remember this man?-A. No man worked for $2.25.

Q. It is here $3 a day?-A. That is right.

Q. Leland, as a caulker, was paid to May 5 at $3 a day, and then there are the figures $2.25 paid and then three hours?-A. I do not know anything about that.

Q. You would not say that ie made np from your sheet?-A. I do not know anything about that. I know he caulked more than two days.

Q. Do you remember the fact of this caulker working for the government at the same time and then being paid off?-A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember that he was working for the government and that he was paid off, and that he then worked for Dr. Reid?- A. Dr Reid asked me three days before, and I told him I could not put on a caulker just then, but that I would in a short time, and that as soon as the work was done I would put him on.

Q. He was discharged from the government and afterwards worked for Dr. Reid?-A.Yes.

Q. The government have nothing to do with the caulker at the time he was working for Dr. Reid?-A. Not at all.

Q. If the government pay-sheet shows six days charged against him, that would be wrong?-A. I cannot say.

Mr. Northrup.-According to this account put in, there are a caulker, painter, carpenter and two labourers apparently, and then two men had half a day each, so there would be four or five labourers apparently.

Q. Can you give me any idea of your own knowledge of wbat took place, wbat labourers would be doing on that boat?-A. Labourers were painting.

Q. You told me that McGarr did all the painting?-A. McGarr did the painting, he was a labourer working on the boat.

Q. The painting was all done by McGarr?- A. As far as I can tell you.

Q. If any labourers time is charged for, would you say that that was for hauling her out or putting her hack?-A. I suppose that is what it would he for.

Q. I find this item:-' To getting ways ready and hauling out, $28.56/ Did you send in any items from which that would he made up?- A. I think Mr. Mundle took over the matter.

Q. When?-A. The same fall.

Q. How would you average up?-A. We averaged up and then we charged Dr. Reid.

Q. Yon told us a little while ago that you thought the ways cost about $200?-A. Yes in the neighbourhood of $200.

Q. How did you arrive at this $28.66 for getting ways ready and hauling out?-A. We took the $200 and put so much ou the heavy boats and put a little on Dr. Reid's boat. We divided it up as far as we could.

Q. The department has spent $200 on their ways. They had had four boats on ways and they figured out that Dr. Reid's proportionate share would he about $28.66?-A. Yes.

Q. When you charged $28.66 it is clearly un-

79G5

derstood that that was not based on the particular time that any man took. It was just based on the average cost?-A. The average cost.

Q. This took place in 1905 and you handed in your slips day by day, reporting what was done in May, 1905. Did you ever ask Dr. Reid to pay any bill?-A. I had nothing to do with that.

Q. You did not know of any bills being rendered?-A. No.

Q. When you handed in your slips, did you do anything more?-A. No.

Q. What brought the account to your mind. You started in May, 1905, when did you next hear about these charges against Dr. Reid?- A. I did not hear anything about it until some time this summer or the spring.

Q. The spring of 1908?-A. Yes.

By Mr. Reid (Grenville):

Q. Was there any work done on Sunday on that boat?-A. Not that I know of.

Q. Are you positive?-A. I never have any of them working on Sunday.

Q. You are sure?-A. Yes, none of my men worked on Sunday.

Q. If that time-sheet shows that some of them worked on Sunday, you would say it was untrue?-A. There might have been a watchman put on on Sunday.

Q. Supposing it mentioned that any of these men worked on Sunday at that, you would say it was untrue?-A. I do not remember any of them working on Sunday.

Q. Take McGarr, you are sure that McGarr did not work on Sunday at that boat?-A. Not that I know of; I do not think so.

Now, one other matter referred to that, I think, has special application to the charges made against the hon. member for Richelien:

Q. Did you know anything about a gas tank? -A. I placed it myself.

Q. Where was it?-A. Down at the east fence on the government property.

Q. Take this plan. Will you point out where it was? Was it placed as close to the starch factory as you could get it?-A. Yes, on the government property.

Q. But as close to their property as you could get it, and yet have it on your own property?-A. Yes, right inside the fence.

Q. I think there was correspondence ahont that, we may as well have that, too. I find this letter:

October 19, 1904.

Dear Dr. Reid,-On further consideration it seems to me to be practical to roll the steel store roller on the east side of the depot. There will he less pipe required this way than any other. I have given instructions to have this carried out at once.

Yours obediently,

F. F. FRASiER, Commissioner of Lights.

Q. What 'was meant by steel store roller?- A. That must be the same gas holder.

Q. That must he the gas tank placed on the east side of your lot?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it says there will be less pipe required this way than any other. What was the pipe for, do you know?-A. I guess we ran the pipe down from the valve, down to the ground and under the fence.

<3. Where to?-A. We ran it under the fence so that Dr. Reid could attach his pipe.

Q. Did Dr. Reid attach his pipe to your pipe?-A. Yes.

Q. And carried it to his factory?-A. Yes.

Q That was in your own knowledge?-A. Yes.

Q. Did Dr. Reid use acetylene gas from the government works?-A. He used some.

Q. For how long?-A. I cannot tell. There was a man there trying some new process. I heard of it. They could not get along without gas and they used the gas for that.

Q. For how long?-A. I think they filled three times to my knowledge.

Q. Kindly explain what you mean by filling?-A. Putting gas in.

Q. Ho-w much gas would it take to fill it?- A. I 'think it would hold about 70 atmospheres.

Q. And you pumped that in three times?- A. Three times to my knowledge.

Q. What would be the value of that gas to fill the tank once?-A. I cannot give the figures.

Q. Anyway you know there would he 210 atmospheres pumped in ?-A. Somewhere about that.

Q. Do you know whether a government dredge did any work in front of Dr. Reid's property, the starch company's property?- A. I had a dredge digging there and she ran two outs, one down and one back. I do not know who it was done for.

Q. Was it done in front of his property?- A. Yes, in front of 'his property. She took one cut down and one back, two cuts.

It is only fair to the hon. member for Grenville that I should read the evidence given by him in answer to the evidence I have just read:

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
?

Dr. J@

Reid, M.P., called, sworn and examined.

By Mr. Northrup:

Q. Dr. Reid, the Department of Marine charges this account against you for hauling out your _ boat, the ' Daek ', on the ways at Prescott in the fall of 1904, putting some repairs on her in the month of May, 1905, what have you to say about that?-A. The only thing that I wish to state about that-in fact I want to state first that so far as this matter is concerned I consider it was rather unfair of the minister to bring it up in my absence.

Mr. Carvell.-Tell'us the facts, you are in the witness box now, doctor, and you are dealing with facts.

Mr. Northrup.-That is one of the facts connected with this matter.

Hon. Mr. Brodeur.-Matters have been brought up in my absence very often.

A. In the fall of 1904, I wanted to haul out this small yacht, as is customary, with all small yachts which are hauled out in the winter on account of the ice. I did not haul her out for the purpose of making any repairs, I did net expect there were any repairs bo be done on her. Of course, at the end of the spring it is always necessary to have a little caulking done, and at the end of the winter I remember speaking to Mr. Offspring and asking him when he got through with the caulker that he had there, doing work for the government, and when he ceased to he a

government employee I told Mr. Offspring I would like to get the services of the man for a couple of days to do some caulking that might be necessary on my boat. I did not know of any repairs being done, nor did I expect that any repairs would be done, and from that time until now I never knew of anything about any repairs being done; nor have I ever had any accounts presented to me for repairs done on that boat by the department. I may say that in so far as the hauling out of the boat is concerned, I asked permission of Mr. Prefontaine to haul the boat out on these government ways, government ways that were built and were there in place for their own work. At the time I asked permission from Mr. Prefontaine I mentioned to him that I wanted to do it with my own men, as on no account would I allow or would I wish that any of the government men should be employed doing that work. I never knew from that time until this investigation came on, or until about a week ago, that the government men had even hauled out the boat. I inquired from a man, who was my foreman at that time, if the government men did actually haul out the boat, and the answer he made to me was: that I had told him to take the boat round and haul her out with our own men, and he took the boat around prepared to do that, but Mr. Offspring said to him: 'Never mind, I will haul her out in fifteen minutes, when we are hauling out our own boat/

By Mr. Northrup:

Q. When were you told that?-A. About a week ago, when I asked him if our men had not hauled her out. I had, at that time very many men in my employ, and could have done it, and would have done it, but I have'nt any doubt that Mr. Offspring told him that thinking it was only a matter of a few minutes to haul her out. and that he did not think anything of the matter further than that.

Q. Now. about the caulking?-A. The caulking was done, I saw Mr. Noble afterwards, and asked him what charges there were against me, and he replied $6. I paid it, and I have never heard one single thing from that day until this about the charges; that is all T know as far as the yacht is concerned.

There are one or two other matters which have been referred to, which I would like to speak of, there is the question of acetylene gas for the Starch Company. Let me say about that that we had secured a chemist from Chicago, a new man, that wanted to use gas for testing purposes, for lighting purposes. We had no gas in the town of Prescott and he wanted me to put in an acetylene gas plant which would cost a good many hundred dollars; he was not quite sure whether acetylene gas would work, and in order to have a simple test of this acetylene gas, I asked Mr. Fraser if he would allow me to use a little acetylene gas just for a day or two in order to test it. Mr. Fraser did put this gas over there and we tested it, and it would not work. It was only jnst for the test, and the result was we did not put in an acetylene gas plant that I would have put in if it had worked. So far as I was concerned, I did not consider that we had used any quantity or that the value of it would he hardly anything. Now. that is all about the acetylene gas, hut I Mr. KYTE.

personally derived no benefit whatever from the use of that gas.

Q. Excuse me, it was a company?-A. Yes. it was the company that derived any benefit there may have been from the use of the gas.

Another matter that was mentioned here was with reference to an engine. Now, I wanted we started up our works and I had

pdered machinery which had not arrived, and we wanted to start, and the government had an engine in store which I understood was one which had been laid aside for many years, but that it would answer the company for a short time until we could get our own. 1 asked Mr. Fraser if he would allow the company the use of this engine until we could get our own. The engine was in a bad state of repair at that time on account of not having been in use for many years. I took it over to the machine shop and got it repaired up and used it for a short time, and then returned it in better condition, I believe, than when ,we got it.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mt. REID (Grenville).

Would the hon. gentleman also read the evidence of Mr. Noble, the man who was in charge of the matter?

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
LIB
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID (Grenville).

Mr. Noble was in *charge of the plant and right there all the time.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE.

I will pass the book over to the hon. .member (Mr. Reid, Grenville), and perhaps he will find it for me.

Now, I desire to say that I was led to an expectation as to the manner in which the charges against the hon. member for Richelieu would be dealt with having read the evidence elicited in the Public Accounts Committee in the charge made against the hon. member for Grenville. We have theTe a case of the hon. member (Mr. Reid, Grenville) who was then, as now, a member of the House seeking to get a favour from the government. I am going to admit at once that the hon. member for Grenville paid the bill when he knew what was due. I will admit that the hon. member might perhaps have been deceived when the caulkers were put to work upon his vessel as to being still upon the pay-roll of the government.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID (Grenville).

I object there. The caulkers ' the hon. gentleman speaks of were two men who had never before been in the employ of the government. They were brought from Kingston, where they were the employees of Davis & Sons. They were brought down just to caulk three boats, and the minute they were through they were discharged, and ceased to be government employees.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE.

I am merely stating what I read from the evidence. It may have been

a mistake to continue their names on the government pay-roll.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID (Grenville).

They were never on the government pay-roll for caulking government Boats prior to being on my boat.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE.

I do not desire to enter into a wordy controversy with the hon. member with respect to it. I read the evidence taken from the Public Accounts Committee and which will appear upon the ' Hansard ' to-morrow. The evidence is available, and any one who desires can read it. With regard to the repairs made uipon the boat, and the painting upon the boat of the hon. member for Grenville, the same thing applies. The hon. member, I presume, paid for it when it came to his notice that their time had been charged against the government.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID (Grenville).

There was never any account presented' to me.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE.

Then it is not paid yet, so it is all the worse for the hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Richelieu desired the use of some men to do work upon his house. He went to the person having charge of these men, who consented that they should go and work upon his house. The time was kept in the same manner in which it was kept in the case of the hon. member for Grenville, and when the work was all done the bill was presented to the hon. member for Richelieu, and he paid the bill, in the same way the member for Grenville would have paid the bill had it been presented to him. Now, with regard to the paint that the member for Richelieu borrowed from the employees of the government at Sorel, the situation is exactly the same as in the case of the hon. member for Grenville. in borrowing the acetylene gas and borrowing the engine, with this difference, that there is no testimony that the member for Grenville ever paid the value of the acetylene ga? or the rent of the engine. The member for Grenville said that -he needed an engine for some special work in his factory, he could not get another one anywhere else, and he went to the Superintendent of the Marine and- Fisheries Department in the town of Prescott, he borrowed an engine, and used it as long as he had any use for it, and then returned the engine to the government. I submit that is the exact set of circumstances in respect to the hon. member for Richelieu. It is true, as the Minister of Justice pointed out, that the member for Richelieu did not return the paint in specie, but he returned it in kind. The person who had control of paints in Sorel swears that he kept an absolutely correct account of the material, and after 252

the work was done he made out a bill for the .material, he gave it to the time-keeper, who handed it over to Mr. Papineau, and the moment the member for Richelieu ascertained the value of the material that bad been used in his house, he gave instructions to have it purchased from the same manufacturer, and he paid the bill, thereby returning to the department at Sorel every penny's worth of material that had been loaned to him. Now, I submit that the circumstances surrounding the transaction in which the hon. member for Grenville was connected are on all fours with the charges made against the member for Richelieu. The member for Richelieu got men from the Department of Marine and Fisheries to do work for him, for which he paid. The hon. member for Grenville, in equal good faith, I presume, got men from the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Prescott, to do work for him, and I am free to admit that if he did not pay for it, it was not his fault, but he would have paid for it if the bill had been rendered to him. Now, there was no hon. member in this House who stood up in his -place in 1908, and charged that the hon. member for Grenville had been guilty of fraud, perjury and malversation, in his dealings with the government in the circumstances I have detailed. If the member for Grenville feels that he has not violated the spirit or the letter of the Independence of Parliament Act, and if hon. gentlemen surrounding him on the opposition side of the House feel convinced that the member for Grenville did not violate the Independence of Parliament Act, then I ask them, in all fairness and in .all honour, how they can ask this House to censure the member for Richelieu in like circumstances. Taking the argument used by hon. gentlemen on the opposition side that were addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, and talcing particularly the arguments used bv the member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty), and the member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers), every censure and every condemnation addressed by them tq the member for Richelieu, might apply with equal force and weight, against the member for Grenville, and I think it would put their casuistry and their talent for making fine distinctions to a severe test to convince you that while the member for Grenville has not violated the Independence of Parliament Act and has done nothing for which he should be censured, the member for Richelieu has done something for which he should be censured and condemned under the same circumstances.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. D. REID (Grenville).

I would not probably have said anything in this discussion, were it not for the remarks

which the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) has made concerning myself. I cannot conceive that any hon. member of this House, if he had read the evidence as he should have, would have got up and made the statements the hon. gentleman has made about me here to-night. He has produced the evidence, as he states, in this case, and the hon. member admits that he did not read the evidence, he only read part of the evidence.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
LIB
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID (Grenville).

When I asked the hon. member to read the balance of the evidence he said that he couldn't do it, that he hadn't it. It is not here now, he has only got the one sheet of the evidence. He had not read the evidence of Mr. Noble. Mr. Noble is one of the leading officials of the Marine and Fisheries Department, he was stationed at Prescott at the time, and was living there every day, and the hon. member, if he read Mr. Noble's statement, would see that he denied absolutely the statements made by the hon. member for Richmond. Mr. Noble stated that he had never heard anything about these repairs until it was brought up at that committee. Now, let me state how this thing happened. The hon. member read my evidence, and I denied the whole of the affair, and there was nothing to prove that my evidence was different. Let me tell the House now how this little matter of mine happened to come up. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is here now, we are face to face and we had better have it out. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows that at that time there were investigations going on in the Public Accounts Committee concerning his department. We all know that there were very serious charges against the Marine and Fisheries Department, The minister was up there defending the department, as he should. We had charges there so serious that if the people of this country knew of them, I do not believe they would tolerate this government for one minute. What did the Minister of Marine and Fisheries do in that case? He sent his private secretary out to Prescott and kept him there a week or two as a private detective, to see if he could not find some evidence. After a week or two he got two of these witnesses, the evidence of one of whom the hon. member was reading. He is a man whose oath would not be taken in any part of Prescott or in any other part of Canada, a man who, was himself kept out of jail by his friends. That is one of the men, and the minister has him there yet. Both are men whom you can buy for $10 at any time. But when you get to Mr. Noble, a man of honour, he denied the whole thing. Mr. Noble said Mr. REID (Grenville).

he never heard of it. The caulkers spoken of were not regular government officials, they were only there for two or three weeks, they were brought there from Davis & Sons, of Kingston, and after they were dismissed and were returning to Davis Bros. I had two men for one day each, or $6, and I paid that to Mr. Noble because he paid the men, as they were going away. I never heard of anything being done on my yacht, and I believe that not one dollar's worth of work was put on it; had there been anything put on it, I am sure the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, with the venom he had against me, would have produced the evidence. I defy the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to say that he ever produced an account or rendered an account to me; he never rendered an account, and the account that man swore to was something like one gallon of paint, a few pounds of nails, something like $3.80. Then they charged me, in order to bring up a fraudulent account, with part of the ways -that were built some years before and which are there yet, for which any man knows I would not be expected to pay anything. That was charged up to make a fraudulent account. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows that I was in the Public Accounts Committee every day until this one day, when I had to go and attend a meeting in my county, and then he sprung on this false evidence when I was not there to ask questions. The evidence he read was given when I was not present. I never like to strike below the belt. At that time the Minister of Marine and Fisheries did strike below the belt, he took advantage of me when I was not present, and I do not believe there is another man in the House or another minister who would have stooped to such a mean, low trick as he did.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Order.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID (Grenville).

Then after that, Mr. Speaker, what did I do? I went to the Minister of Marine.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Order

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
LIB

James Kirkpatrick Kerr (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

I think those words * mean low trick ' are not parliamentary.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. REID (Grenville).

I do not wish to use any unparliamentary language, and, of course, if that is out of order, I wall withdraw it. But when the Minister of Marine did such an act as that on me, 1 told him there and then that I would certainly do what I hated to do, I would expose him. Well, Sir, this man Lanctot

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. J. D.
Permalink

April 27, 1911