1. Wliat was the total amount paid by the government of Canada during the year ended 31st March last to Mr. Treau de Coeli, immigration agent at Belgium?

2. What was the total number of Belgian immigrants that arrived in Canada during the same period?

3. What men were returned to the government by Mr. Treau de Coeli as employed by him for government work during the months of December and February last, how much was paid to said men so employed and what work did they do?

4. What official residence in Belgium did Mr Treau de Coeli attribute to said men so employed in his report?

1. $5,125.87, made up as follows:

Salary of Mr. de Coeli.. .. $1,558 31

Salaries of staff 716 76

Expenses 2,850 80

Total $5,125 87

2. 1,608.

3. One only, Mr. George Mercier, of

Dumas, Saskatchewan, employed as a farmer delegate in Belgium for three months, January, February and March, 1911. $394.69 was paid.

4. See answer to 3.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Pursuant to the notice I gave the House yesterday, I beg to move: '

The statement having been made in certain newspapers that on the recommendation of the Hon. Frank Oliver, Minister of the Interior, an order in council was passed on 8th May, 1967, giving the Canadian Northern Railway Company power to select in the province of Saskatchewan 600,000 acres of land in place of lands granted to the Manitoba and Southeastern Railway Company, and that on 3rd October in the same year $50,000 was paid into the Imperial Bank at Edmonton to the credit of Mr. Oliver, and that about one year later the further sum of $19,000 was similarly paid into the same bank to the credit of Mr. Oliver.

And Mr Oliver having on the second day of May instant stated from his place in this House that no foundation whatever existed for the insinuation or suspicion that the said payments of money or either of them were made on account of the passing of the said order in council or by reason of the making of the said land grant, or in any way in connection therewith or on account thereof.

Resolved, that it be referred to a special committee of five members to investigate and inquire into the truth of the statement, and matters above set forth and that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine persons on oath or affirmation, and to report from time to time. *

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is now proposing a motion, which, in its effect, is practically the same as the one which he proposed yesterday, although it is not in the same form. The effective words of the motion are, in this case, preceded by a recital which has been read to the House by my right hon. friend. That recital is in these words:

The statement having been made in certain newspapers that 'on the recommendation of the Hon. Frank Oliver, Minister of the Interior, an order in council was passed on 8Hi May, 1907, giving the Canadian Northern Railway Company power to select in the province of Saskatchewan 600,000 acres of land in nlace of lands granted to the Manitoba and Southeastern Railway Company, and that on 3rd October in the same year $50,000 was paid into the Imperial Bank at Edmonton to the credit of Mr. Oliver, and that about one year after the further sum of $19,000 was similarly paid into the same bank to the like credit of Mr. Oliver.

And Mr. Oliver having on the second day of May instant stated from his place in this House that no foundation whatever existed for the insinuation or suspicion that the said payments of money or either of them were made on account of the passing of the said order in council or by reason of the making of the said land grant, or in any way in con-nectioij therewith or on account thereof.

Resolved, that it be referred to a special committee of five members to investigate an! inquire into the truth of the statement, and matters above set forth and that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine persons on oath or. affirmation, and to report from time to time.

Before saying a few words about the character of the motion which the Prime Minister proposes, I would like to remark that this is very much of a family quarrel between the supporters of the right hon. gentleman, The Prime Minister introduced the subject into the House last Friday, the 28th of April. He then alluded to a gentleman who had had several interviews with him, and who had made charges against one of his colleagues. He did not at that time name the gentleman who had made the charges, nor did he name the colleague. He did, however, refer to an article which had appeared in the Toronto 'Telegram' of the previous day, the 27th of April, and the Prime Minister in bringing the matter to the attention of the House said this:

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I deem it my duty to call attention to an article which appeared yesterday in the Toronto 'Telegram,' in which direct reference was made to me. The article is a long one, and I need not read it all.

As a matter of fact, the right hon. gentleman read very little of it, and he did not read some of the most important parts. His speech continues as follows:

It will be suflicient to read the matter which has reference to my name. The article proceeds to say that on the 2nd of March this letter was addressed to me.

Then the right hon. gentleman quotes the letter, and one part of that letter quoted is as follows:

Recently evidence has come to me that one of your colleagues is a grafter and a boodler. I shall be in Ottawa for a few days, and am wilting to .submit the evidence to you as Ta.rte was willing to 6ubmit his evidence of the Langevin-McGreevy iboodling to Sir John Macdonald. Should you see fit to take immediate action it would go no further. The alternative would he to place the document,

83 !1

letters and photographs of cheques, &c., in the hands of the opposition.

After quoting that letter, the right hon. gentleman alludes to a letter which was written by his secretary at his direction under date 3rd March, 1911, in which the gentleman who had written this letter to him was informed that the Prime Minister would be in his office at ten o'clock on the following day, Saturday, March 4, and would be ready to see the gentleman who was preferring these charges. Then the right hon. gentleman refers to the interview, and he uses this language:

The gentleman in question waited on me, as Stated in the rest of the letter, several times. Without committing my memory as to the number of times, I know it was more than once, but the tenor of each conversation between us on these occasions was of the same nature. The gentleman in question, with whom I had in former years friendly relations, but with whom I have not been in communication for many years, called on me and gave me the name of one of my colleagues and said that he had lost the confidence of the party, particularly in his own province, that he was a boodler and a grafter, and for these reasons should go out of the government.

Then the right hon. gentleman goes on to state that he had no doubt as to the honesty of his colleague, who was not only a colleague but a personal friend, and that the person who had the interview with him would have to take such steps as he might think fit. To quote the exact language of the right hon. gentleman:

My informant was free to take such stops as he pleased, to place the $&pers and documents in the hands of the opposition, and do anything be pleased with them. If my colleague were then proved to be dishonest, he would have to take the consequences, but if not, it was my duty to stand loyally by him. This is the gist of any conversation that took place between us.

The newspaper article to which the right hon. gentleman here alluded comprised nearly a full page of the Toronto 'Evening Telegram,' and purported to set forth the bank account of the Minister of the Interior and to show there that there had been deposited to his credit two sums of money, one on the 3rd of October, 1907, amounting to $50,000; the other on the 11th September, 1909, amounting to $19,350. The newspaper article to which the Prime Minister alluded, so far as I have been able to examine it, did not indicate any source from which these sums were supposed to have been derived, but this article did urge in a very insistent way that the source of these sums should be disclosed, and that an investigation should be held for that purpose. It now appears from a statement made by the Minister of the Interior in this House yesterday that he was the person to whom allusion had Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

been made in the Toronto 'Telegram', and he based his remarks to some extent upon an article which had later appeared in the Toronto 'World', and the right hon. the Prime Minister, in reply to an inquiry from an hon. member on this side of the House, stated that the gentleman who had the interview with him which was alluded to by the Prime Minister on 28th April last, was Mr. McGillicuddy. The hon. the Minister of the Interior in his statement in reference tc this matter yesterday did not allude to the article which was brought to the attention of the House by the right hon. gentleman but did allude to a despatch which appeared in the Toronto ' World ' of the 28th ult., and which the Minister of the Interior set out in his remarks. There was no reference yesterday by either the Prime Minister or the Minister of the Interior to the article in the 'Evening Telegram' to which the right hon. gentleman had called attention on the previous Friday, nor was there any allusion to the charges or allegations set forth in the various interviews between the Prime Minister and Mr. McGillicuddy. Now, the Prime Minister has thought this newspaper article in the Toronto 'Telegram' worthy of being brought to the attention of the House, and the Minister of the Interior, referring not to that article but to another article which appeared in the Toronto 'World", has challenged a certain suggestion, or suspicion, as it has been called, which appeared in that newspaper; and the Prime Minister basing his action upon the state-ment_ in the House of the Minister of the Interior has asked for an inquiry which is absolutely restricted in its terms to the question as to whether the surmise or suspicion contained in the Toronto 'World' is a true or an untrue statement of the source of these moneys. Well, I think it must be apparent to the right hon. gentleman that if this matter is worthy of investigation, that is not the wav to investigate - it.

There is only one question properly before this House and this country in connection with the matter, and that is: Whether or not the source

from which these moneys came was a clean and untainted source. You cannot possibly arrive at a conclusion with regard to that by the inquiry which the right hon. gentleman proposes. Let us assume that there are one hundred sources; and one can easily imagine one hundred sources from which that money may have been derived, and in respect of which the acceptance of that money would be regarded as improper or prejudicial to the public interest. What is the position which the right hon. gentleman takes ? Instead of inquiring and investigating as to what the source of the money w'as, he takes one sur-

mise or suspicion in one newspaper, which probably knows no more about it than any other newspaper in the country, and he declares to this House: We can disprove

that, and, therefore, we will investigate that charge. Well, Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to me that that is worthy either of the occasion or of the government or of the Minister of the Interior himself or of this parliament. If there is to be any investigation upon this question, let it be an investigation which will satisfy parliament, and the country that the Minister of the Interior is absolutely free from any charge or suspicion of unworthy motives or unworthy conduct in this matter. That can only be done by disclosing the source from which these sums of money came. It can be settled in five minutes before a committee of this House. If it came from the private resources of the Minister of the Interior, all he has to do is to go before that committee and show that. That will settle the matter for all time. But to go before a committee of this House and say, here _rs one source as to which an unworthy suspicion is cast, and it did not come from that source, while you leave open to conjecture fifty or a hundred other sources from which the money might have come, surely would not satisfy the conscience of this House, the conscience of the Minister of the Interior or the reasonable desire of the people of this country to have this mystery cleared up in so far as mystery is attached to it, In that connection I would like to say just one word as to some past investigations.

I do not know whether the Prime Minister would regard it as a serious thing, an unjustifiable thing, that a conclusive inquirv of the kind I have suggested should be made. I may be told that it is not a right or proper thing to have the deposits of large sums of money to the credit of a minister of the Crown investigated. But I did not hear any very great complaint or any great murmuring from the right hon. gentleman ot from any of his colleagues when the bank accounts of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and other hon. gentlemen then members of this House were investigated by a Royal Commission which he himself appointed, the books of their bankers brought into court and exposed to the investigation of counsel, and the men themselves called before that commission to be cross-examined not only as to the source from which the moneys had come, but as to the disposition which they had made of those moneys, and that simply for the reason that a crossexamining counsel had some hint given to him that it might be a desirable thing to investigate those bank accounts; and as a matter of fact the investigation was made in more than one instance for reasons altogether out of the legitimate scope of

the inquiry. What is the position the Prime Minister takes now? He proposes to select one possible source which he believes can be disproved, and to prevent any further inquiry or investigation into the source or origin of these moneys. Does my right hon. friend seriously think that he will be clearing up this matter or solving this mystery by taking any such course as that?

I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, and I say this with all respect, that such an inquiry as the Prime Minister proposes would be a pure farce, and I would not advise any hon. gentleman on this side of the House to have any part in it. It is merely a piece of stage play, made not for the purpose of a real investigation, but for the purpose of disproving a suspicion or conjecture which the Tight hon. gentleman believes can be easily disproved, and without giving any opportunity whatever to investigate the real source and origin of these sums. Under these circumstances I think I am entirely justified in moving:

That all the words after the word 'that' in the proposed motion be omitted, and the following substituted therefor: A special committee of five members be appointed to inquire into and investigate the charges and allegations set forth and referred to in the statement of the Prime Minister made in this House on Friday, the 28th day of April last, and the charges and allegations 6et forth and deferred to in the statements of the Hon. Mr. Oliver, Minister of the Interior, and of the Prime Minister, made in this House on Tuesday, the 2nd day of May instant, and that the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and examine witnesses on oath and affirmation and report from time to time.

I propose this motion in this way because I understand in view of the statement of the Prime Minister and the article which he brought to the attention of the House, that it will open up this whole matter for investigation by that committee. That was the intent and desire of the Prime Minister when he made his remarks in this House on the 28th of April last, if he had any real desire or intention of having this matter investigated. A motion of this nature, which is'confined to statements made in this House, set forth in speeches of ministers of the Crown in this House, in [DOT] respect of a matter as to which charges have been made against a minister of the Crown, surely cannot be objected to by any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House. It is quite true, it may bring in allegations and statements set forth in the Toronto ' Evening Telegram,' but that is due-to the fact that the Prime Minister himself, having observed these statements, has seen fit to bring them to the attention of : the House; and having been brought by i him to the attention of the House, they are t surely to be taken account of in any inves-

tigation which the right hon. gentleman proposes to make in respect of a matter which he himself was the first to introduce. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I feel it my duty to press this amendment in order that the scope of the proposed inquiry may not be restricted, but may be just as wide as the Prime Minister "himself made it when he first spoke in this House oh this matter.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to the fairness of members of this House, that the amendment submitted by my hon. friend would not in any way meet the justice of the case and be fair to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior. It is true that on Friday last I spoke on the matter, but in.what respect? I quoted from an article published in the Toronto 'Evening Telegram ' of the day before to the effect that a gentleman, with whom I had been formerly acquainted, had stated to me that he could bring charges against one of my colleagues, and the article seemed to take me to task because I had taken no steps to investigate that statement. Well, I drew the attention of the House to the matter simply to inform it that I had told the gentleman who called on me, that if he had any charges to make against my colleague, he should make them. I also called attention to the alternative given in the letter which had been addressed to me, namely, that Mr. Oliver-the gentleman in question-should go out of the cabinet and that would set the matter at rest, or otherwise it would be made public. I replied that I did not consider it my duty to take any notice of charges made in that way and that the gentleman who made them should go on and make them public. So far there was nothing but a general statement. In addressing the House I simply gave it the correspondence which had been placed in my hands. In that correspondence as published no charges were made against anybody by name, no charge was made against anybody in particular, no facts were given. But the following day another newspaper, the Toronto ' World,' made, not a charge, but an insinuation, against my hon. friend and colleague, the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Oliver. That insinuation was to the effect that in the month of May, 1907, he had made a recommendation to council to substitute, for certain lands situated in Manitoba, which had been given as subsidies to a certain railway, certain other lands in the province of Saskatchewan, inferring, though not asserting, that the latter were of greater value than those originally given. This was a specific fact, it was something tangible, but there was no direct charge. Nobody took the responsibility of coming Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)

forward and making a charge. There was however, an insinuation based on certain facts set forth in that newspaper. My hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Oliver), might very well have waited. He might very well have said: * Certain insinuations have been made against me and I am ready to meet an accusation if any be made.' He, however, did not wait for a charge but he said: There is an insinuation made in that newspaper against me and I challenge investigation.

Now, my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden), says that the investigation asked for by my hon. friend and colleague, is restricted. But how much more could it be extended? What is there to investigate except this insinuation-not a direct charge at all-that certain lands were improperly substituted for others for the benefit of a certain railway company. It will not do for this House, or the other House, to investigate rumours floating in the air, things which are not tangible, which cannot be taken account of. The moment a specific fact was brought up, and an insinuation based upon it, tt y hon. friend' and colleague said: I deny

the insinuation and am prepared to show it is not true. What more could he do? If there is anybody in this House, or out of it, who will bring against my hon. friend and colleague, any specific accusation of any kind whatever, it will be the duty of my hon. friend, and colleague to meet that, but here we have nothing of the kind. The article in the ' Telegram ' is made up of vague insinuations. In the article of the Toronto ' World,' however, which was published the following day and which referred to this first article in the ' Telegram,' there was the specific fact I have just stated. My hon. friend then comes forward and says he is prepared to show there is no foundation for it.

But my hon. friend, the leader of the oposition (Mr. Borden), says there is something suspicious, there is the possibility that there was $50,000 given for other purposes. But when we have the statement that the $50,000 was given as a consideration for a certain order in council, is it not right and proper that this allegation should be investigated, and that thi3 is the very thing which should be looked into? I submit to the fairness of my hon. friend and everybody else, that my hon. friend and colleprgue (Mri Oliver), has taken the only course he could. He did not wait for a charge, but the moment there was an insinuation which could be reached, he asked for the opportunity to show that it had no foundation.

My hon. friend (Mr. Borden), has said that we had no consideration for the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster).

I did not want to bring the name of that hon. gentleman into this matter. A commission was appointed in his case, that commission did its duty according to its lights, and that has nothing to do with this matter. If any one has any charges to make against my colleague, outside of this House or in it, of course it will be the duty of my hon. friend and colleague to meet them. [DOT]

My hon. friend (Mr. Borden), said a moment ago that the money might have come from a thousand different sources. Certainly it might. But are you going to fish to find out those sources? Is that what my hon. friends would call justice?

Yes.

Sir WILFRID LAURlfiR. If any one has any charge to make regarding the source from which this money has been paid, it is for him to come forward and make a charge. But my hon. friend (Mr. Borden), wants my hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Oliver), to prove a negative, to show that he did not get the money from this source or another.

Mr. BORDEN.

I did not say that.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Of course not, but that is what my hon. friend's motion means.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I am s_ure my right hon. friend has no desire to misquote me. What I said was that the whole question could be cleared up by proving the source from which the money did come.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

There is a specific charge that this money came from a certain source.

No.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

What is the use of saying ' no '? You have the statement in the Toronto ' World.' If the money came from any other source, it would be for the parties claiming that it did. to come forward and make a charge. But my hon. friend's motion asks us "to do a thing which is unheard, of in parliamentary justice or in any court of law, namely, to force a man to prove his own innocence. My hon. friend wants the Minister of the Interior to go into the box and prove that he is innocent. Well, the rule of law is that the guilt of a man must be proved and not his innocence. That is the basic principle of British justice, and that is the principle on which I rely when I ask that this amendment be not accepted.

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).

Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that the Prime Minister in his desire to play up quickly and efficiently to the Minister of the Interior has not sufficiently looked at the article in the ' World ' or if he has, I think his statement to-day has gone a little beyond what that article would carry it. If I understood the right hon. gentleman correctly, he has made an argument upon what he says was a direct allegation made in the ' World ' that the moneys in question came from a certain source. That article reads:

Ottawa, April 27 (Special).-The sensational charges made by a Toronto newspaper against one of the ministers of the federal government at Ottawa was.no surprise here. The facts of the case have been pretty well known for some time, and it is expected that the matter will come up in parliament at an early date.

It is understood that Hon. Frank Oliver is the minister against whom the charge is made. The story at Ottawa is that Mr. Oliver had an order in council passed on May 8, 1907, giving the Canadian Northern railway the power to select in Saskatchewan the whole of the land granted by the government to the Manitoba and Southeastern, which is the Canadian Northern in Manitoba, in 1890, in all 600,000 acres. In 1907, there were no lands left in Manitoba, it was alleged, and the com- * pany was given the right to select its lands in Saskatchewan.

That statement stands by itself, and is complete as far as that transaction is /concerned. Then follows another statement:

In the same year, $50,COO was deposited from the Manhattan Bank of New York to the Imperial Bank at Edmonton in the name of Mr. Oliver. The exact date was October 3, 1907. About one year later, just before the general election cf 1908, the sum of $19,000 was deposited from the Manhattan Bank in the name of Mr. Oliver at the Imperial Bank at Edmonton. It is known that he chequed out this money for campaign purposes.

That is the other statement. Where does the Prime Minister get his authority for stating that the Toronto ' World ' specifically stated that the money which went into the bank at Edmonton to the credit of the minister was paid to him or into that bank for him by the Canadian Northern railway?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER Hear, hear.