March 3, 1902 (9th Parliament, 2nd Session)


Mr. F. D.@

MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for :
Copy of all correspondence upon the subject of an indemnity to Joseph Larose, of St. Laurent, P.Q., wounded in connection with the Cote St. Luc rifle ranges ; and copy of the judgments of the Exchequer and Supreme Courts upon the petition of right of said Joseph Larose.

He said : In moving for this correspondence with regard to the claim made by Mr. Joseph Larose, of St. Laurent, I merely wish to call the attention of the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Mr. Borden) to the circumstances regarding it. The Minister of Militia and Defence and the members of this House will probably remember that three or four years ago Joseph Larose was very severly wounded by a bullet, which, as I think is admitted on all hands was established at the time he urged his claim against the government, came from the government rifle ranges at Cote St. Luc. An investigation was held by the department, and after taking evidence, the government came to the conclusion that Joseph Larose was entitled to an indemnity. This was a short time after the injury had been inflicted. The amount of $1,000 was placed in the estimates. But in the meantime the condition of Mr. Larose having become no better but worse, he consulted counsel in Montreal, retaining the services of one of our lawyers there, and after consulting others, his lawyer came to the conclusion that this sum of $1,000 was not sufficient to indemnify Mr. Larose for the injury he had received, the injury in the meantime having become of a permanent nature, as it is to-day. Ha therefore proceeded to obtain a fiat from the government in order to make a claim before the Exchequer Court. He proceeded by petition of right, and his petition was dismissed- I have not seen the judgment-but I think upon some technical ground. Speaking from memory, it was upon the ground that he had been wounded when he was not upon public works, but was off the area where those public works were being executed, and this barred his claim. That is what I was told ; I have not seen the judgment This motion calls for a copy of the judgment of the Exchequer Court, and the judgment of the Supreme Court as well. He appealed his case to the Supreme Court and the appeal was dismissed. To-day the claimant is exactly in the same condition as he was after the wound had been inflicted. He is no better and no worse ; he is disabled for life, and is unable to execute any agricultural work whatever upon his farm. He is not a man of large means, he is obliged to employ a paid servant to do the work which otherwise he would be able to do himself. Under these circumstances, I think it is proper that the equity of his claim should be once more brought to the attention of the government, and I would ask the Minister of Militia and Defence to investigate anew his claim, after communicating with the lawyer who represented him in these two courts, and if possible, to grant him, if not the indemnity which was voted previously by this House, at any rate some indemnity to which I think he is absolutely entitled.' Possiblv, in view of the incapacity in which he finds himself to-day to do any agricultural work, 1 Mr. MONK.
the government might find some employment for him. But under the circumstances, he having been unfortunate in his attempt to recover before the courts, having been defeated, so far as I understand, upon a mere technical point, I think his claim should commend itself to the minister of the department.

Full View