[Stage Direction]
Part I of report of Department of Trade and Commerce for fiscal year ending March 31, 1909.-Mr. Paterson.


Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	Whiat amount of money has been paid out to the Canadian Economic Lubricant Company each year since 1906 ?
2.	Who is the manager of this company?
3.	Is the oil supplied under contract after public advertisement for tenders?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	By Department of Public Works :
In	1903-1	$795	551907-	8	
11	251908-	9	
It	82Total	$821 622.	Has been answered by Department of Marine and Fisheries.3.	No.


MARCONI STATIONS.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What is the amount paid to March 31, 1907, for Marconi stations under the heads of construction, maintenance and other expenses?
2.	What was paid under same heads during fiscal year 1907-8?
3.	How many stations are there and what number of messages were sent for and received by the government during 1907-8?


Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Construction, $132,641.65, maintenance, $67,556.83. Total, $200,198.48.
2.	Maintenance, $56,232.56.
3.	15 stations: total messages, 4,886, total words, 57,583.


ROOMS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mr. GEO. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	Outside of the Chamber of the House of Commons, the reading room and library, how many rooms are available in the parliament buildings for members of the House of Commons, including members of the administration and the staff of the House of Commons?
2.	What is the total floor space of the said rooms ?
3.	By whom are the said rooms occupied, to whom have they been allotted, and what is the floor space of the rooms in question in each case?
4.	Under whose direction has such allotment or arrangement been made, and when was it last made or revised?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: I would ask that this question might be allowed to stand. But while upon my feet, with the permission of the House, and with the permission of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), I would like to call attention to an answer to a similar question which he complained was not sufficient. I would say to my hon. friend that I have now the information which he desires ; and in doing so, I would point out to him that the question of which notice was given, asked how many cubic feet of space there were.


Mr. FOSTER.: If my hon. friend will read the question which immediately preceded his answer he will find that it was floor space. The mistake was made in the
first insertion. I suppose my writing was so good that the clerk could not read it well.


William Pugsley: It was put cubic space in both cases, and that is what misled the officials of my department. I thought the question had been answered. But if my hon. friend says it was owing to his handwriting, which I thought was very good, I will cheerfully accept his statement. But the answer was in accordance with the question of which notice had been given. I have now the answer to the second part of the question :
b.	43 new rooms added in new building containing 18,320 sup. feet.
13 new rooms in old building containing 4,722 sup. feet.
c.	7 rooms eliminated containing 1,617 sup. feet.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-ALLEGED OVER-CLASSIFICATION.
Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	What action has been taken by the government, tlie Transcontinental Railway Commission, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, since April 28, 1908, to determine the questions then at issue between the company and the commission as to alleged over-classification, or to ascertain whether there had been over-classification upon the eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway, and the extent of such over-classification, if any, and with what result?
2.	Have all differences between the company and the commission been adjusted? If so, how?
3.	Who acted for the government or commission, and who for the company, in investigating and determining the matters aforesaid or an endeavouring to do so?
4.	Under what provision of the contract, or statute relating to it was action taken?


Right Hon.   S@: 1 and 3. Early in the month of May last the question of alleged over classification was submitted to the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway, and the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, arbitrators. They completed their work in the month of July and failed to agree. Whereupon the said engineers determined to choose a third arbitrator, and after several names had been submitted, no decision was reached until November, when Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, general consulting engineer to the government was chosen. Mr. Schreiber on the 21st of November consented to act, and the matter will be taken up as soon as conditions will permit.
2.	No.
4.	Under clause seven of the agreement of the 29th of July, 1903, between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Pacific, chapter 71, 3 Edward VII.


RURAL MAIL DELIVERY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARMSTRONG -by Mr. Taylor - asked :
1.	How many mail boxes for the rural districts has the government purchased and how many of said boxes have been delivered to the government?
2.	Where were the rural mail boxes manufactured, and was the contract for them let by tender or private arrangement?
3.	If let by tender, how many tenders were received, and what are the names of the tenderers and the price quoted in each?
4.	Were any boxes for rural mail purposes manufactured in Canada? If so, how many, and what is the name of the manufacturer?
5.	Did the government pay any duty on the boxes purchased in the United States? If so, how much duty was paid on each box, and when was the duty paid?
6.	What is the price charged patrons for
mail boxes in rural districts, and does said price cover cost paid by government to manufacturer and include duty, freight and delivery ?	|
7.	Have many boxes been paid for by patrons to January 1, 1909?
8.	How many mail delivery routes are in
operation which supply mail to individual box holders under the regulation covering rural mail delivery issued in September, 1908, and what is the extra cost to the department of operating each route over the amount paid for carrying the mails previous to September, 1908?	[DOT]
9.	How many rural mail boxes have been placed on routes, and tbe name of each route, with the number of miles covered on each, and the number of boxes placed in position and receiving mail on each route?
10.	What was the estimated increased cost to the government of the adoption of the Postmaster General's proposal, of September last, in which he agreed to furnish free mail delivery to people living on established mail and stage route?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 
Edmonton .   ... P. E.@: 
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Statement of Rural Delivery Hail Service-Concluded.
Postal Division.
Manitoba	
Edmonton	
Moose jaw	
M		
Toronto	
P. E. Island	
New Brunswick....
Manitoba	
Edmonton	
London


Saskatoon ....: New Brunswick....
Edmonton	
Saskatoon	
Moosejaw	
Toronto	
Victoria	
Toronto	
London	
Victoria	
London	
New Brunswick____
Manitoba	
Vancouver	
Manitoba	
Toronto	
Creeford	
Eekville	
Eastview	
Ellisboro	
Erin


Ellis River ....: Florenceville...
Franklin	
Highland Park Hagersville.... Kelvington... .
Knoxford	
Laeombe	
Loganton	
Macoun


Milton West ..: North Saanich. Newmarket ...
Peebles	
Rocky Point...
Simcoe	
St. John	
Selkirk


Terra Nova ...: Underhill....
Woburn	
e Between.	No.of R. D.boxes erected.	Rait paid for service of each box!	per annum.	Cost of regular mail service per	annum.	Additional cost for R. delivery per annum.	Length of 'route one way, miles.$	cts.	$	cts.	*	cts.	Douglas Station...	16	0	75	234	00	12	00	+40.+Red Deer	..	8	0	75	780	00	6	00	34Pasqua	11	0	75	160	00	8	25	9r,Wolseley	3	0	75	312	00	2	25	9Guelph	44	1	00	380	00	44	00	20Miscouche	
.	11	0	75	145	00	8	25	Hi


Summerfield .   ..@: 24	0	75	172	00	18	00	13"Murchison	3	0	50	156	00	1	50	+334Rosen roll	14	0	75	674	00	10	50	+43Springvale	
Wadena	8 5	1 0	00 75	170 605	00 00	8 3	00 75	4 29Upper Knoxford..	24	0	75	96	00	18	00	4Rimbey	9	0	75	750	00	G	75	36Saskatoon	8	0	75	840	00	6	00	35Slager	1	0	50	550	00	0	50	56Mount Nebo	55	1	00	298	50	55	00	101Sydney Ry. Stn...	2	1	00	120	00	2	00	3_Sutton West.. ..	75	1	00	1,000	00	75	00	22Woodstock	12	1	00	556	00	12	00	11+Victoria	2	0	75	330	00	1	50	25"Waterford	29	1	00	265	oo	29	00


St.   M@: 9	1	00	779	00	9	00	30Winnipeg	5	1	00	1,300	00	5	00	25}\ ancouver.. . .	31	1	00	312	00	31	00	134West Hall	1	0	75	210	00	0	75	8Scarboro J unction.	49	L	00	395	00	49	00	+18.)
Total number of routes in operation, 44. Total additional cost per annum, $(>63.50.


UXBRIDGE POST OFFICE.
Mr. S. SHARPE (North Ontario) asked.: :
1.	Were any options for post office sites secured from property owners in the town of U xbridge ?
2.	If so, from whom, on what dates and what are the other particulars?
3.	Have all the options been allowed to lapse? If so, why?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to obtain new options?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to have inserted in the estimates for the present year an appropriation for a new post office in the town of Uxbridge? If not, why not?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) L. L. Hutchinson, dated 22nd September, 1908, for 60 days, on a corner lot 60 by 90 feet, at $1,200; (b) Michael O'Neil, dated 6th October, 1908, for 60 days, on a corner lot about 32 by 181 feet, at $2,700; (c) Thos. Boyd, on a corner lot 42 by 100 feet, at $1,200; A. Jackel, on next lot, 24 by 100 feet, at $850; total on a corner lot, 66 by 100 feet, at $2,050; both dated 22nd September, 1908, for 60 days.
3.	Yes; unable to complete arrangements for transfer within time limit of the option.
4.	It is expected the option on the site selected can be renewed.
5.	The estimates, when submitted, will show the intention of the government.


GARRISON COMMON-TORONTO.
Mr. MACDONELL asked:: 1.	When did the government agree to convey or transfer the property known as the Garrison Common Toronto, to the city of Toronto, or to the National Industrial Exhibition Association, Toronto?
2.	What is the cause of the delay in making the said transfer?
3.	Through what departments of the government has the matter to -pass and in what department is the matter now delayed?
4.	Have not repeated requests been received by the government from the city for the transfer?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	An order in council was passed on the 16th May, 1904, authorizing the sale of the Garrison Common property to the city of Toronto, under certain conditions. This

was ratified by legislation passed during the last session of parliament.
2.	The delay has been caused by the negotiations between the government and the city of Toronto as to the meaning of certain conditions of the order in council referred to and several other points connected with the sale. Negotiations are proceeding with the prospect of a satisfactory termination at an early date.
3.	Through the Departments of Interior and Militia and Defence, which departments are acting in accord in the matter.
4.	The city authorities have, on several occasions recently, requested the conveyance to be made.


TORONTO -NEW BARRACKS.
Mr. MACDONELL asked:: - 1. Whan was the site for the erection of the now barracks on the Humber river, Toronto, purchased, or agreed to be purchased by the government ?
2.	What is the cause of the delay in commencing and proceeding with the erection?
3.	When does the government intend to commence the said work and will the estimates to he brought down this session contain any appropriation therefor? If so, how much?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	Under the terms of the order in council of May 16, 1904, authorizing the sale of the Garrison Common to the city of Toronto, it was stipulated that the city should convey to the Crown, in part payment of the purchase price, a property known as the Baby Farm, as a site for the new barracks.
The city of Toronto has not as yet conveyed this property to the Crown pending the completion of the negotiations for the transfer to the city of the Garrison Common property.
2.	The delay is in part caused by the fact that the exchange has not been made.
3.	I am unable to answer.


PRINTING OF SESSIONAL STATUTES.
Mr. MACDONELL asked:: 1.	On what day did the last parliament prorogue ?	#
2.	On what day were the statutes of the last session of parliament printed for distribution to the public?
3.	What is the reason for the great delay that usually intervenes between the end of each session, and the public distribution of the Acts passed thereat?
4.	Is the government aware that the public, and moire particularly the legal profession is greatly inconvenienced thereby?
5.	Has the government received any complaints because of such delays?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: 


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of State):: 1.	July 20, 1908.
_ 2. Both volumes of the statutes were delivered to the members of the government on December 14, 1908, and to the public on January 14, 1909. Separate copies of the Public Acts were issued on August 20, 1908, and of the Private Acts on September 20, 1908.
3.	The statutes are yearly increasing in volume. Last year there were about twelve hundred pages or two hundred and sixty-eight pages more than the previous year.
4.	No.	.
5.	No.


NORTHWEST REBELLION, 1885-ROYAL NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE.
Mr. MACDONELL asked :: 1.	Has the government under its consideration the matter of making grants of veteran's land to the members of the Northwest Mounted Police force who took part in the Riel or Northwest rebellion of 1885?
2.	Did the members of the regular or permanent forces, who participated in the rebellion, receive veteran's grants? If so, what were the corps or forces, and what, approximately, was the number of such grants?
3.	What would be the approximate number of grants now required to be made to members of the police force, if those who served in the rebellion were accorded the right to receive voter an gr ants ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister):: 1.	When the subjects of rewards for services during the Rebellion of 1885 was under consideration of the government of the day, a distinction was made between the Mounted Police, whose ordinary duties of maintaining law and order were within the limits of the disturbed districts, and the militia, who were called upon to leave their homes and occupations, at great personal inconvenience, resulting in many cases in serious embarrassment to themselves and families.
This distinction was marked by excluding the police from participation in the issue of scrip.
In 1893 the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories passed a resolution praying that the Dominion government would grant scrip to the Mounted Police, and on several occasions members have asked questions in the House. The reply has always been adverse to reconsideration.
2.	We have no information, but probably about 700. The Minister of Militia will answer the second part of this question.


Right Hon.   S@: The answer to the second question is :
2.	(a) Yes.

(b) ' A ' Battery Regt. of Canadian Artillery	113
' B ' Battery Regt. of Canadian Artillery	   114
' A ' Troop Cavalry School
Corps	 43
' C * Company Infantry School Corps	   91
Total	366



THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Oil what date did the Hon. R. W. Scott resign the office of Secretary of State for Canada?
2-.What duties or functions was Mr. Scott performing in the Secretary of State department since the date of his resignation, and up to what date did Mr. Scott perform such duties?
3.	When was the Hon. Charles Murphy appointed Secretary of State and sworn of the Privy Council? When did he actually assume the duties of the office?
4.	Who was in charge of the Department of the Secretary of State during the general elections 1908?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER
(Prime Minister) :
1.	Mr. Scott offered his resignation on the 16th September, 1908, but at my request he continued to administer the affairs of the Department of the Secretary of State until his successor took charge.
2.	(a) The duties appertaining to the office of the Secretary of State ; (b) The 24th October, 1908.
3.	(a) Mr.Murphy was sworn of the Privy Council on the 5th October, 1908, and appointed Secretary of State on the 10th of the same month ; (b) October 24, 1908.
4.	The reply to this question is contained in the answer to numbers 1 and 2, above.

Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	By whom was the expenditure made at Tatamagouche Bay wharf in Colchester county, during the months of October and November, 1907?
2.	For what purpose was the money expended?
3.	What depth of water is there at this wharf at low and high tide?


William Pugsley: 1 and 2. The sum of $533.01 was expended, in October, 1907, by the Department of Public Works in constructing an approach to the site of the proposed wharf, petitioned for by the inhabitants to serve as a landing for sea manure and to aid them in the industry of gathering oysters, which are abundant in this bay.
3.	The wharf will carry a depth of 5 feet at high water and will be dry at low water.



TRURO ARMOURY.

Mr. STANFIELD asked :: Has a caretaker been appointed for the Truro armoury at Truro, Nova Scotia? If not, when does the government intend to appoint said official?


Right Hon.   S@: It is expected the armoury at Truro, N.S., will be ready to be taken over from the Department of Public Works at an early date, when the question of the appointment of a caretaker will be considered.



LEVIS GRAVING DOCK.

Mr. PAQUET asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that the present graving dock at St Joseph do Levis is said to be insufficient for ail the requirements of navigation?
2.	Is the government aware that it is asserted the large ships of the Canadian Pacific company cannot be repaired in this graving dock?
3.	Does the government not think that the legislation respecting graving docks may retard the progress of the City of Quebec?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to build at Levis or Quebec a new graving dock or a large floating dry dock, of dimensions sufficiently large to receive not only our largest ships now afloat, but also the largest ships which may soon come to Quebec?


William Pugsley: 1 and 2. Yes.
3.	No. On the contrary, it was expected that the amending legislation passed at the last session to encourage the construction of dry docks would be sufficient to enable a company to procure the necessary capital to construct a large graving dock upon the St. Lawrence.
4.	Sufficiently answered by the) reply to No. 3.



MINISTER OF LABOUR.

Mr. PAQUET asked :: Is it the intention of the government "to add, during this session to the present portfolios that of Minister of Labour, as a separate and distinct branch of the admisistra-tion?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is the intention of the government during the present session to introduce legislation to that end.



MR. W. T. R. PRESTON.

Mr. J. D. REID asked:: 1.	Has the Kehoe foreign board of trade of Japan forwarded a memorial to the government protesting against the actions of W. T. R. Preston?
2.	Is the government aware that the Japan ' Weekly Chronicle ' in its articles declares,

Mr. Preston is really outrageous in his statements and insinuations against foreign merchants/ and further states, ' it would be well perhaps if his government recalls him before he does any further harm to his reputation,' and it further states. 'Mr. Preston i9 again busily at work endeavouring to foment a feeling of animosity amongst Japanese against the resident foreigner ' ?
3.	Has the government taken any action? If so, what?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister):: 1. The department has received a communication from the Kobe Board of Trade, but not from the Kehoe Board of Trade.


Mr. J. D. REID.: It was Kobe in my
question.


Wilfrid Laurier: 2. No.
3.	No.
PURCHASE OF STEAMERS ' FALCON AND ' RESTLESS/


Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	Has the Department of Marine and Fisheries, now in its service the steamers ' Falcon ' and ' Fearless ' ?
2.	If iso, when were the boats purchased, from whom and at what price?
3.	What is the capacity of each, and how have they been employed since their pur-cbase?
4.	On whose expert request were they bought, and will the minister lay these requests on the table of the House?


Hon. R. LEMIEUX (for the Minister of Marine):: 1.	It has the ' Falcon the ' Fearless ' is probably intended for the ' Restless.'
2.	' Falcon,' then called ' Ruth,' from At-lin Transportation Company, Ltd. Price, $9,000 ; 2nd May, 1904.
' Restless,' 31st August, 1908, from the Westminster Towing and Fish Company, Ltd., of New Westminster; price, $18,000.
3.	* Falcon '-registered tonnage 32.70 ; gross tonnage 51-88.
' Restless '-registered tonnage 52 -50 ; gross tonnage 76-08.
' Falcon '-during the salmon fishing season, employed in enforcement of Fishery Laws and Regulations, in the northern inspectoral district of British Columbia, and in the winter season, in assisting the ' Kestrel ' in patrolling Canadian waters against foreign fishing vessels.
' Restless '-in similar service in the southern district of British Columbia, and in the winter similarly assisting the ' Kestrel.'
4.	' Falcon '-purchased at request of Inspector of Fisheries, after examination by Steamboat Inspector.
' Restless '-was bought on the recommendation of the Inspector of Fisheries, after examination by Steamboat Inspector, to replace the ' Georgia,' which vessel was utilized to replace, lost river steamer ' Swan.' Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: 



PAYMENTS TO CANADIAN ECONOMIC LUBRICANT COMPANY.

Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	What amount of money has been paid out to the Canadian Economic Lubricant company?
2.	Who is the manager of this company ?
3.	Is the oil supplied under contract after public advertisement for tenders?


Hon. R. LEMIEUX (for the Minister of Marine):: 1.	1905-6	$3,933	231906-	7	
2,471	861907-	8	
3,642	331908-	9	
4,034	892.	Mr. James Domville, Montreal.3.	The cylinder oil which constitutes the bulk of these orders is supplied under contract after tenders were invited from oil manufacturers by letter. Small quantities of other lubricating oil were supplied at different times.



PAYMENTS TO NEW YORK LUBRICANT COMPANY.

Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	What amount of money has been paid out to the New York Lubricant company?
2.	Who is the manager of this company?
3.	Is the oil supplied under contract after public advertisement for tenders?


Hon. R. LEMIEUX (for the Minister of Marine):: 1.	Uluminat-	Lubricat-
	ing oil.	ing oil.
1905-6. .	$ 562 50	$ 4,127 081906-7. .	
4,896 10	3,705 001907-8. .	
6,403 75	4,553 591908-9. .	
3,767 05	4,945 28$15,629 40	$17,330 95Total	amount $32,960.35.	2.	Mr. Philip Harrison.3.	The lubricating oil is supplied under contract; circular letters were sent out inviting tenders to manufacturers.
The above illuminating oil is a special kind not manufactured in Canada, and was made to order according to the specification of the Washington Lighthouse Board and is for dioptric lights. It is used only in lighthouses in the United States and Canada.



OPENING OF GOVERNMENT TENDERS.

John Dowsley Reid: ments which I have taken from a United States paper. Here is one :
Notice 'to Contractors.-Sealed proposals indorsed ' Proposals for Switchboard and Feeder Cables, Motors and Interior Wiring for Four Staff Residences,' at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, New York, will be reoeived by L. P. Haviland, Chairman of the Building Committee, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, New York, up to ten o'olock a.m. on the 18th day of January, 1908. when the bids will be opened and read publicly. Proposal shall be aocompanied by certified cheque in the sum of $200, and the contractor to whom the award is made will be required to furnish surety company's bond in the sum of $1,500. The right is reserved to reject any and all bids.
Here is another :
Sealed bids or proposals will be received by the Acqueduct Commissioners on Tuesday, January 12, 1909, at which place and hour the bids will be publicly opened and read.
After the tenders have been opened, any member of this House can obtain them on a motion for papers, and therefore I cannot see why the officials who open them should not open them in public or read out the names of the tenders and their prices. This does not oblige the government to accept the lowest tender, if good and sufficient reasons can be given for not doing so. As the tenders are for public works in which the whole public are interested, I think it is the duty of any government to give the public all. the information it can to show that it is doing what is right and proper and in the interest of the people. I have no desire to make this a party matter. I am making this suggestion entirely in the interest of the public. For years it has been the policy of the government-I do not say this government or its predecessors-to ask for tenders in two different ways. For large amounts they have advertised for tenders in the newspapers, and for smaller amounts they have simply written letters to half a dozen of their friends throughout the country, asking for prices for what they require. I claim that that is unfair to the people. I contend that everything over a certain amount, say $2,000, should be made a matter of public tender, by advertisement in the newspapers ; and if the tenders are opened in public, I am satisfied that an enormous amount of money will be saved to the people. Moreover, that will give the people of this country confidence in the ministers administering their departments. I simply appeal again to the government this year to accept this resolution. Also because we have a new House. We have now 80 or 90 members who were not here last year, and I ask them to consider this matter, not in a party spirit, but in the public interest. My proposition that the tender should be opened in the presence of the Mr. J. D. REID.
persons tendering, should they desire to be present, is a fair one. It acts well on the other side of the line and there is no reason why it should not act well on this side. At all events there can be no harm in giving it a trial for a year or so and see the results. For those reasons I beg leave to move the resolution which, Mr. Speaker, l have put, in your hands.


William Pugsley: I am sure that no member on this side of the House can yield anything to my hon. friend in his desire that, in the opening of tenders, every possible precaution should be taken to safeguard the public interest. As my hon. friend has said, the practice in the past has been to put tenders under lock and key, as soon as received, so that there could be no reasonable possibility of their being tampered with. The practice also has been to have the tenders opened by officials of the department and the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer unless there were some good reasons-such as his failure to give satisfaction in previous contracts or his financial inability-for submitting the matter to the Governor in Council for consideration as to whether or not the lowest tender was the best offer. As there has been some consideration given the question of the reception of tenders, both on the part of members of the opposition and members supporting the government, as well as by the government themselves, it was thought well to frame a new regulation which would lay down a rule applicable to all the departments. _ In doing this the government had to take into consideration the circumstances, more especially in regard to the Intercolonial Railway, whose head working office is at Moncton where tenders for supplies of various kinds are necessarily received. Had it not been for the fact that in the past it has always been considered desirable that tenders for supplies for the Intercolonial Railway should be received at Moncton, the rule would have been adopted that in every case tenders should be opened in the presence of the minister and his deputy or, in case of the unavoidable absence of the minister, then by the principal official of his department; but in the case of tenders received at Moncton it would not be possible for the minister to be present.


John Dowsley Reid: They could be opened by the officials.


William Pugsley: Yes, they could be opened by three officials if there be any magic in having three instead of two. Had the regulation said three, by hon. friend would have said four.


John Dowsley Reid: Two could open them at Aloncton even according to your regulation.


William Pugsley: Let me read the regulations and ask hon. members if they do not think it is sufficient to safeguard the public interest;-
Where tenders are called for by any department of the government, they shall be addressed to the officer of the department specified in the notice calling for tenders. The notice should say specially that the tenders shall he under seal and indorsed : ' tender for such and such work and supplies.' When received the tenders shall be stamped by the official to whom addressed, with the date and hour of receipt, and placed under lock and key until the day appointed for opening them. _ They shall be opened in the presence of the minister of the department calling for tenders and one of the principal officers of the department designated by the minister or, in the absence of the minister, in cases where it is not convenient for him to be present they shall he opened by two officials of the department designated by -the minister. When opened they shall he initialled by both officers opening them. In all cases where the minister oan reasonably be present, he must take part in the opening of the tenders and there must be one of the principal officers of the department present. And in. every case the tenders, when opened, must be initialled both by tbe minister and bis deputy. In cases where the minister cannot he present then it will he necessary for him to provide some official to take his place and he shall designate the official.


Mr. LANCASTER.: What virtue is there in the minister being present ?


William Pugsley: The minister has the responsibility of his department and it is his duty to see what the tenders are when they are opened. I would hesitate to cast off the responsibility which the duties of my office place upon me, and throw that entirely upon one of my officials. It does seem to me that in providing that the minister shall be present and that the deputy minister- who occupies a position of great responsibility and almost complete independence -should take part in the opening of the tenders, we have a reasonable safeguard.


Mr. CROCKET.: Does the minister think that my hon. friend's resolution would do away with the reception of tenders at Moncton for Intercolonial Railway supplies?


William Pugsley: No; it does not, and that is the reason why the regulation provides that, where it is not convenient for this course to be adopted, the minister may designate two officials, and that provision is intended to apply to tenders received at Moncton. It seems to me that the only material provision in the motion which is not in the regulation is that all tenders shall be opened in the presence of the persons tendering. In other words that before the tenders are opened, notice shall be given all contractors so that they shall be present.
Mr. 3. D. REID. I say that they may be present if they so desire.


William Pugsley: Then they must be notified of the time and place for opening the tenders.


John Dowsley Reid: You can put that in the advertisement.


William Pugsley: The advertisement states that tenders will be received up to a certain day and hour.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: And opened on a certain day and at a certain hour.


William Pugsley: No, the notice does not say that.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: It could say it and ought to.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The motion provides that.


William Pugsley: Of coursd I understand that in order to carry out the idea of my hon. friend it would be necessary to give to the tenderers some notice so that they could be present when the tenders were opened. Apart from the inconvenience of that course, it is not desirable in the public interest that the public or the contractors should be present at the opening of tenders. My hon. friend has said that this course is adopted in the United States.^ His argument would have been stronger if he had been able to show that in any British country, in Great Britain or in any province of Canada, such a course had been adopted. My hon. friend knows that the course which has been pursued during the last ten years is the course which has been pursued during the whole 41 years of confederation.


George Taylor: No.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend must be aware that the public have never been asked to be present at the opening of tenders in connection with any of the departments of- this government since confederation.


John Dowsley Reid: From the investigations that have taken place it would seem to be necessary.


William Pugsley: I will discuss that in a few moments with my hon. friend. My hon friend has not been able to show that in Canada or in any province of Canada which has been under the control of either Liberals or Conservatives, it has ever been found desirable to adopt the course which he suggests, and it is a fair argument to raise before we entirely change the policy established in respect to both Dominion and provincial contracts, that my hon. friend has not been able to show either in the very full investigations which have taken place before the Public Accounts Committee or in



*
any other place that any minister of the Crown or any official of the Crown who has taken part with him in the opening of tenders _ has been untrue to the trust reposed in him by tampering with the tenders.


Mr. SPEOULE.: What about the timber limits ?


William Pugsley: It has not been shown either in respect to tenders for timber limits or for lands of any kind or in respect to contracts for public works, that a minister or an official selected by him to be present at the opening of tenders has ever acted except in the public interest in the awarding of contracts. Take my own department. I shall take no credit for what I am about to say, but the rule is, and so far as I am able to learn it has always been strictly adhered to, that the tenders are received by the proper official, kept under seal, opened at the proper time and the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer.


George Taylor: By whom ?


William Pugsley: By the minister and the deputy minister. Of course the minister does the actual awarding of the contracts and then the matter goes to council in the ordinary way. 1 do not pretend to say that in that respect we are any better than our predecessors, but I have never heard that under Conservative or Liberal rule anything has been done under the present system of receiving tenders by which the public has suffered and it would be a reflection it seems to me, and a very severe reflection upon the members of the government if the House were to hesitate to express its approval of the regulation which has been adopted. Before passing this regulation, very careful consideration was given to the matter, more especially by the Prime Minister and by the heads of the departments receiving the greater number of tenders and we were of the opinion that it would not be in the public interest to have the contractors present. It very often happens that there are two tenders for nearly equal amounts, and the nejft tender might be for an amount considerably greater than the amount of the two lowest tenders. If the tenders were opened in the presence of these contractors, they would see what the lowest tenders were and they would see that the next highest tender was perhaps a good many thousand dollars higher. They might easily put their heads together, have the lowest tenders withdraw, forfeiting their deposits, and thereby the minister would be compelled either to award the contract to the next lowest tenderer or to call for new tenders. Since I have been a minister I have seen some surprising differences in the amounts of tenders submitted for various public works. There was one case not long ago in which tenders were called for the erection of a public Mr. PUGSLEY.
building in a western city in which one of the tenders was very nearly 100 per cent higher than the lowest.


Mr. HUGHES.: Issued by the same man?


William Pugsley: No, not issued by the same man but by independent tenderers, who apparently had nothing whatever to do with each other, and if I had the tenders here I could cite numerous instances in which there has been a difference of many thousands of dollars between one or two of the lowest tenderers and some of those who might be called the higher tenderers. I have not sufficient faitli in human nature not to believe that when such a convenient opportunity was presented the contractors would in many instances combine together, have the lowest tenders withdrawn and thus compel the department to accept a very much higher tender or else invite new tenders, which would not be in the public interest. I think it much better to allow the officers of the department to deal with the tenders as it is ordinarily done, awarding the contract to the lowest tenderer, issuing an acceptance of the tender and taking the necessary steps for the entering into the contract so as to have the lowest tenderer bound before the public and the other contractors are made acquainted with the different tenders which have been received.
It does not seem to me that my hon. friend has shown to the House any good reason for making such a radical departure from the practice [DOT]which has been so long pursued without any objection, without any loss to the public, without any wrongdoing, so far as the public records show, or so far as my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) has been able to inform the House. I think the onus is upon my hon. friend of showing reasons which he has not adduced to the House before he asks us to enter upon such a radical departure. Therefore I feel it my duty to oppose the motion which my hon. friend has submitted.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Mr. Speaker. The principle which we are called upon to consecrate, appears to me to be a very important one, and I was surprised to hear the defence which has just fallen from the lips of my hon, friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) in regard to the regulation adopted by the government. That regulation, so far as I can see, does not meet the exigencies of the case at all. There is one thing absolutely certain, and that is a very general impression throughout the country, that there is something unfair in the manner in which tenders for contracts with the government are dealt with. There is not a man in any province of the Dominion, outside perhaps a limited circle of active politicians, who, if he were asked if public works in Canada were tendered for in a regular manner and

awarded to the lowest tenderer, circumstances being equal, would not burst out laughing in your face. That is the general impression. That general impression, I would add, prevents a great number of the very best class of contractors from tendering. There are men who are eminently capable of executing our public works at a reasonable price, and would be content with a fair and just profit, who abstain from tendering because they share that general impression that it is absolutely useless to tender unless you have some pull with those who dispose of the contracts. There is no doubt about that whatever. There is not a member of this House who has not been able to satisfy himself of the existence of that widespread impression. Is it not necessary that we should dispel that impression? Does not this proposed resolution have for its purpose to dispel that impression, and to provide for the tendering and awarding of contracts under the safest possible circumstances, without in any way interfering with the exercise of the judgment of the responsible minister? I say it does. What does the regulation provide for? It says that when tenders are received they will be put under lock and key. But that is not a safeguard of much importance. The very worst frauds perpetrated in regard to tenders have been effected when the tenders were put under lock and key. This resolution provides for something totally different. Tenders have to be sealed and put away; the moment they are sealed and put away they cannot be touched until the authority who has to decide who will get the contract, is in a position to pronounce. It seems to me there is a great deal of difference between the two provisions.
My hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), twice, three times, more than four times, repeated the assertion that since confederation, neither in the federal or the provincial sphere, had anybody every heard of any contract or any tender being improperly handled. Now that was the statement of my hon. friend; and coming from a gentleman of his vast experience, four times repeated, I must say it surprised me not a little. While I do not attempt to give instances, I appeal to the experience of those who have been in politics for some time, no matter which party ruled, whether they have not heard of irregularities in the awarding of contracts and the handling of tenders. There is no doubt that there has been in this country, federally, provincially and municipally, a. crying abuse in this respect. That abuse exists to-day. In order to dispel the general impression I refer to, and to convince the public at large that that system is going to be done away with, so far as we can do it, seems to me this resolution is necessary, and would cure _ a very grave situation indeed. Then again,
7i
Mr. Speaker, is it not inportant, does it not carry out the idea that we hear expressed every day on the street, that the tenderers themselves, more than that, the public, but particularly the tenderers, should be able to be present when the tenders are opened? They have not a voice in the decision, that is done privately on the responsibility of the minister. But what could contribute to make the opening of tenders, the recording of these tenders, more. effective, more authentic, so that no doubt could exist, than the right of the public, convened under the advertisement which invited tenderers, to be present, and for the tenderers themselves, whose interests after all deserve some consideration, who have gone to some trouble in making calculations and financial arrangements, to be present when these tenders are opened, in order that all may know what those tenders are? My hon. friend has supposed an extreme case, where there may be some low tenderers and some higher, and the lower ones might be eliminated, and, if you please, their deposit forfeited, in order that the highest tenderer should remain. I would be prepared to say that for my part I would take the risk, and we are all prepared to take the risk, of such an improbable possibility. As regards Great Britain, the mover of this resolution has shown that the custom is carried out. It is very generally carried out in the United States. But every one knows that in England the greatest publicity surrounds the opening of tenders for all public works. In England, as I have stated time and again, in this House, all supplies wanted by the government are invited by tender the greatest publicity is given to the tenders received, and I am perfectly convinced that if we refer to the regulations which govern the awarding of tenders followed by the government in England, we will see that there is just the same publicity that we advocate here.


William Pugsley: I think not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe so. At any rate. I am prepared to establish that there is a very different publicity in England surrounding the giving of contracts than what we find -here. But we are not dealing with England, we are dealing with our own country, and with conditions that we know to exist here; we are dealing with an impression firmly established in the entire nation that irregularities exist in regard to tenders and contracts. You cannot meet a contractor on the street, you cannot meet a man who takes any interest in public matters, who, if you put to him the question, will not answer :	Why, everybody knows
that this is a matter of favour. That is the impression. How can we efface it? Bv providing such a rule as this, and I have shown why I think it is important that such a rule should be adopted. We are

endeavouring to reform our public service, we are endeavouring to improve the administration generally. This is a crucial matter, and I have great pleasure in supporting the proposed resolution.


Mr. H. GUTHRIE (South Wellington).: If I might offer a word or two on the resolution, I would say that, judging from the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Monk), his complaint, if he has one, against the regulation which has just been made by order in council in respect to the opening of tenders, is that greater publicity is not given in the first place, and in the second place, that there is some suspicion throughout the country of wrong-doing in regard to the system of dealing with tenders. I point out in the nrst place that whether sufficient publicity is given or not by way of advertisement, the motion of my hon. friend dqes not deal with that question. His motion deals only with the question of opening tenders. The only distinction, as far as I can see, between the regulation passed by order in council and the motion of my hon. friend is that the latter requires the presence of one more person when the tenders are opened than is called for in the regulation, and he gives to the tenderer the opportunity of being present when the tenders are opened. I deny that there is any very general misunderstanding or any very great suspicion throughout the country in regard to the manner in which the government deals with tenders, but I say that if any suspicion does exist it exists solely and only on account of the charges which were made in this House during the last two or three sessions, by lion, members opposite and in each case disapproved. Time and time again charges were made that tenders, in regard to timber in particular, were not fairly dealt with.


An hon. MEMBER.: Insinuations.


Hugh Guthrie: Insinuations were made from day to day, investigation took place and in some of the investigations which did take place hon. members opposite, seeing the position in which they had landed themselves, had not even the courtesy or grace to continue the investigations to the conclusion to give officials against whom they had made insinuations an opportunity of clearing themselves. No charge has been established, though many charges were made, and if hon. gentlemen have induced the public to believe that there is wrongdoing in regard to the tendering system of Canada they should go the whole length and establish some of the wrong-doing. I am satisfied for my part that the regulation which has been passed in regard to tenders meets the case fairly and very fully. It provides for the presence of the minister and of one other chief official of the department when tenders are opened. My hon. friend's motion provides for another man. If two are not sufficient, would three be Mr. MONK.
any better? Why not four; why not five? Surely we must trust somebody in the conduct of public business, and if two high officials, or the minister and another high official of any department are entrusted with the duty of opening tenders, this House and, I think, this country will have confidence in their doing right on each occasion. There has never, in so far as I know, been a charge made that any tender has been tampered with. Tenders, when received, have been kept secretly and sacredly and the order in council provides that they shall be addressed to the proper officer of the department and that they shall be marked tenders for such and such work or for such and such supplies and that:
Whan received they shall be stamped by -the c-fficial to whom addressed with the day and hour of their receipt, and placed under lock and key until such time as it shall be found convenient for opening them.
I do not see any greater safeguard you can have unless there is so great a suspicion in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite that they will not trust two high officials of the department. For my part I think that the end will be served by the provision as contained in the order in council, and without discussing the question which has been so well answered by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, as to whether or not the parties tendering should be present when tenders are opened, I beg to move as an amendment to the motion:
That all the words after 'that ' be eliminated from the proposed motion and that the follow-mg be substituted therefor: The method of inviting, opening and considering tenders, as embodied in the order in council of January 18, 1909, is in the opinion of this House, a proper safeguard of the public interests.


Hon. JOHN G. HAGGART (South Lanark).: Mr. Speaker, the question of opening tenders is a moot one in this House and has been again and again brought up for discussion. The objection to the plan of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-hy) as embodied in the order in council, I intend to deal with, and I also propose to say something with regard to some of the remarks of the hon. mover of the amendment to the resolution. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) seems to think that we ought to make a statement of some wrongs or frauds that have been perpetrated and prove them before we can introduce a resolution. Is it not sufficient to show that it is possible that a wrong may be done under the present system and if a remedy can be applied, is it not our duty to apply it? The minister proposes in the regulations that these tenders shall be opened by the minister and one of the officials of the department. It may be his private secretary. To my mind it is a most objectionable system for the minister to open tenders at all.

Under the constitution he has a right to superintend his department and if the regulations provide that a couple of officials shall open tenders, he can be there if he likes to see that the work is properly performed without an order in council or anything of the kind. What has been the system hitherto with regard to the opening of tenders? I presided over the Department of Railways and Canals for a number of years. The tenders were received, sealed and put into the safe. A certain time was provided at which they should be opened. They were opened by two of the officials named in the department for that purpose; that is to-day, the deputy head and the secretary of the department. If there was anything wrong in reference to the tenders, as to the time of their having been received, as to the amounts not totalling up, as to there being mistakes made or anything else, it was the duty of these two officials to report in writing to the minister and the minister was to be guided by the facts in reference to whether one tender or another should be accepted. In reference to the tenders down at Moncton, as my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) has stated, the system adopted by the British government is similar to that which we had in Moncton. There was a book provided in which the name of everything required from a box of tacks to a paint brush or an anchor was mentioned. This was sent broadcast from one end of the British empire to the other, and tenders were invited for the supply of these particular articles. These tenders were received and were awarded in every case to the lowest tenderer. If there -was a difference as to the quality of the article which it was proposed to supply it was left to an outside technical department to determine -whether one article was better than the other. A number of parties were asked to tender for a particular kind of work or a particular article. There was a list prepared. There was no difficulty at all about getting on the list; anybody could get on the list. Any responsible party who had the selling of these particular goods in the maritime provinces or in the province of Quebec could be put on the list. He tendered for a particular article. If one party was the lowest and the contract was awarded to that party by the officials at Moncton the officials had to give the reason for their action to the department here, the awarding of the contract had to be approved by the head of the department and a contract never was given until a sample of the article was sent to the technical branchy of McGill College in Montreal for examination. In this way, for instance, we would determine the quality of oil, or of steel. Then, on the report of the technical branch of McGill College the contract was awarded. In no case, when I was at the head of the department, was a contract awarded in any other way, and in no case were tenders received privately for
any work or orders given privately for any material. Everything was done by contract. The minister (Mr. Pugsley) objects to the public being parties to this


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend let me ask him a question ? I have been very much interested in the course which he says was pursued in the Railway Department, and unless the hon. gentleman informs me to the contrary I presume the same course is being pursued up to the present time, but will my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) tell me, if, during his day, the contractors were ever notified to be present at the opening of the tenders.


John Graham Haggart: I shall deal with that. I do not know what the system is at the present day, but I know what it was in my day and I can state that except for a few trivial works on the St. Lawrence canals where it was impossible to give the work by contract, everything even to a paint brush was purchased by open competition while I was minister.


John Dowsley Reid: It was done on the canals then too.


John Graham Haggart: That is the only course that should be pursued, and it is the course which the law requires this government to pursue but they evade what is embodied in the law. The Minister of Public Works says there has been no reason shown for a change in the system. Does he completely ignore the statements which have been made in this parliament during the last two or three sessions with reference to the granting of timber limits and the awarding of contracts ? Why the very fact that it is possible that such charges could be made is sufficient to call upon the government to ensure that nothing of the kind shall occur in the future. Did any one ever hear of any person objecting to publicity in the opening of tenders in Great Britain? Everything is above board there, except of course in certain cases where the specifications for a new type of torpedo boat or a new implement of warfare may be kept secret, but in regard to general matters such as the building of war ships and the building of everything else required by the British government, fancy a minister of the Crown there interfering in the awarding of contracts or thinking it was necessary for him to be present for the purpose of guaranteeing fair play. Why, Sir, in Great Britain there' is not a suspicion of fraud or a suspicion of anything but the fairest of play in the awarding of contracts. The Minister of Public Works deprecates adopting the American system and he says we should look to other places for example. Well, the American system was adopted because a suspicion had got abroad that there had not been fair play in the awarding of contracts and so the tenders were opened when the

tenderers were present. But, says the Minister of Public Works, the government may suffer ; two or three of those who are awarded contracts may combine, forfeit the securities deposited and get a higher price. Well, every contractor gives two securities and if the government find that a contractor deliberately refuses to perform his contract the remedy is in their own hands.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman misunderstood what I said. I did not say they might combine together after they had entered into the contract, I said they might do so before the contract was actually signed.


John Graham Haggart: How could they combine after they had entered into the contract ?


William Pugsley: That, is exactly what my hon. friend said.


John Graham Haggart: I couid mean nothing else than that they might combine before entering into the contract. Will that satisfy my hon. friend ?


William Pugsley: Did not the hon. gentleman say that in addition to the deposit there would be a guarantee in the security that would have to be given when they entered into the contract ?


John Graham Haggart: What I referred to was the deposit made by the party who was tendering for the contract. He could be made to forfeit that and not only that but he has to give the names of two securities who are satisfactory to the government for the due performance of his contract. But, independent of all this, suppose Jie does not forfeit his deposit or suppose the government does not proceed against the securities, cannot the minister say to that man who defaults :	You had a chance, you
contracted to do that work within a certain time, you refuse to fulfil it, I will have nothing to do with you and I will never give you a contract again. Therefore, there is a responsibility on the contractor greater even than his deposit and greater than the two securities which he gives. Any idea of combination before entering into the contract is something the minister need not consider at all because there is no probability of it. In order to secure honest dealing, at least what the contractors consider honest dealing with the department, it is but fair to them that they should have an opportunity to be present when Jlie contract is opened and there can be no possible objection to that on any grounds. The minister says there is no necessity for it. Is he unaware that from one end of the country to the other this government is under suspicion. So far as I am concerned I state from my place in this House that while I was a member of the Conservative government I never knew of any wrong-doing being perpetrated in reference to the awarding ' Mr. J. G. HAGGART.
of contracts. I state from my place that such a thing cannot be charged against any government of which I was a member. But, from one end of the country to the other that is not the opinion to-day.


William Pugsley: It seems to be.


John Graham Haggart: Your majority does not prove it, because there may be other things than the dealings of this government with contractors which affected the result. There is nevertheless a feeling throughout Canada that contracts have been awarded by this government to political hacks through favouritism or worse. What we ask is that there should be applied the remedy which is provided in most civilized countries. We ask that as is done by the American government there shall be the additional security of honesty in awarding contracts that the parties who tender shall be present. To that there can be no honest objection.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, what amused me was the position taken by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). He says there has been no charge made of wrong-doing in handling tenders or awarding contracts, and therefore there is no reason for a change. But the hon. Minister of Public Works proposes a change himself. Therefore if the logic of the hon. member for South Wellington applied to the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid), it applied with equal force to the hon. Minister of Public Works. Why did the minister propose a change ? Why did the Governor in Council make a change? For better safety, presumably. Why for better safety ? Because there is either a suspicion or knowledge that tenders have not been properly opened, and contracts have not been properly awarded in the past. Therefore it does not look very well for the hon. member for South Wellington to play the part of a handy man and address such an argument to the House, because it is not in consonance with the argument of the minister himself. What did the minister say in reference to this matter yesterday ?
I wAs going to suggest to my hon. friend that perhaps he will allow this motion to stand over, and, with your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of 'the hon. member, I will read to the House a regulation which has been passed by His Excellency the Governor General in Council, and (which I think my hon. friend will see, upon consideration, completely meets the ease.
The hon. minister is prepared to meet the case himself. What case ? The case the hon. member for Grenville desires to provide for. There is either a suspicion or knowledge of wrong-doing, and who proposes the change ? The government themselves, who are behind the scenes, and know whether there is or is not wrong-doing. This makes the case ten times strong-

er against them, because, if there was no wrong-doing or suspicion of wrong-doing, and if it was incapable of being established that there was wrong-doing, they would fight it out like men, and stand by what has been the practice and refuse to make a change. But is it a fact, as the hon. member for South Wellington says, that there have been no charges ? No charges ? Were not charges made over and over again in this House last session in connection with the awarding of timber limits ? No charges ? Circumstantial evidence, which in a murder case would be strong enough to hang a man ten times over, will not be accepted by the government. I venture to say that there is not amongst the hon. gentleman's own friends one in a hundred but honestly believes to-day that there was wrong-doing in connection with the awarding of those timber limits. Then we come to ordinary public contracts. Take the tenders for dredging. Why is it that all the dredging plant is to-day practically in the hands of reformers ? Why is it that the plant which was owned by Conservatives when the present government came to power, lay idle year after year until it was sold or transferred to reformers ? Because the owners of this plant had no opportunity of an honest deal to get a contract for dredging and were obliged to dispose of their plant.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend know that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was just about to say that I have been told it by the very men who had the plant. But after they sold it or went into an arrangement with a reformer, they had no difficulty in getting contracts. Will the Minister of Public Works pretend to tell the House that there was no collusion in that case in which it is alleged that a tender for dredging was changed from 50 cents to 55 cents a yard in order that there might be a rake-off of $35,000 ?


William Pugsley: What case was that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The McAvity case.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend desires an answer, I will say that so far as I have been able to ascertain, so far as the records of the department show, and to the best of my knowledge and belief there was no alteration of the tender. There were two tenders put in, in answer to public advertisement, and the lowest tender *was accepted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How does the hon. minister reconcile that statement with the statement of the contractor, who says he was willing to tender at 50 cents a yard, but by getting a friend to interfere on his behalf he got 55 cents a yard ?


William Pugsley: I will answer that. I will say to my hon. friend that there appeared one morning in St. John what purported to be a certain solemn declaration which had been read by Mr. Hazen, the leader of the Conservative party, at a great political meeting in St. John, and that declaration did not purport to be signed by the party who professed to have made it. I know myself that it contained statements which were absolutely false, absolutely without foundation, and immediately an application was made to Mr. Hazen, who was the Attorney General of New Brunswick, to have the original of that declaration filed. Mr. Hazen replied that he had returned it to Mr. Mayes, and, although repeated requests have been made from time to time to have it produced so that it may be seen what was in the original, they have refused to produce it, and it has been concealed ever since the election.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That seems to me to be all beside the case. This man went to a certain individual who was known to be friendly to the government, and he got the contract at the larger figure. Who advised him to do so ? The minister himself who was awarding the contract. Is that creditable either to the minister or to the government ?


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend say that the Minister, of Public Works gave the advice ? Will the hon. member be good enough to repeat what he said ? I did not quite hear him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to make a correction in that respect.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is rather amusing to hear the laugh come from the source it does. There is a good deal behind it that would be worth bringing out.


Mr. TALBOT.: Make the correction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have as much right at any time to make a correction, as much right as any other member of this House. I was only mixing up two ministers ; but is it not a fact that the recommendation came from the very source that had the power to give the contract ?


William Pugsley: What does that mean ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: According to the information disclosed in the public press, it did come from that source.


William Pugsley: If I understand what my hon. friend means, I will say that he is entirely and absolutely in error.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In connection with that very case, there is the undeniable fact that the man who was willing to put in a tender at 50 cents a yard, got it increased to 55 cents a yard, and got it increased by virtue of the advice of the very individuals who had an opportunity to handle the tenders.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend make the assertion that a tender was put in at 50 cents a yard and was subsequently changed to 55 cents ? In cases of this kind it is desirable that we should be accurate and that those who make statements should know what they are talking about. There have been falsehoods without number circulated with regard to the matter to which my hon. friend refers. They were scattered broadcast throughout Canada at the time of the election, and had not the shadow of a foundation of truth. So far as the records show, so far as I know, and so far as any statement has yet been made, no tender was altered from 50 cents to 55 cents a yard ; but there were two tenders put in, in answer to public advertisement, and one of those tenders was for 55 cents a yard.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the minister say that the same man who tendered for 50 cents did not afterward get 55 cents?


William Pugsley: I will repeat what 1 have said. I have said that the man who tendered at 50 cents did not get 55 cents. The hon. gentleman is referring to entirely different tenders. In answer to a call by public advertisement, there were only two tenders submitted to the department-one for 55 cents and the other for either one dollar or one dollar and twenty five cents per cubic yard.


Mr. LENNOX.: Was not that the same work that the same man tendered at 50 cents before?


William Pugsley: On a previous occasion?


Haughton Lennox: Yes.


William Pugsley: I think it was.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have what I regard as good ground because I saw the statement in the^ public press, and it was not denied by the minister. But w7ho gave the advice to Mr. McAvity to put in a higher tender? It was Mr. Pugsley himself.


William Pugsley: Again the hon. gentleman is absolutely and entirely mistaken. I gave no such advice, and I venture to say that my hon. friend did not see in the newspapers that I gave any such advice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say emphatically, if my memory is correct, and I believe it is, that I did.


William Pugsley: Your memory is mistaken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My recollection is that the newspapers said that Mr. Pugsley advised Mr. Mayes as his solicitor.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend makes a statement that it was I -who gave the advice to Mr. Mayes to raise his tender from 50 Mr. SPROULE.
cents to 55 cents. That statement is absolutely without foundation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He did not say that. He said he saw it in the papers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister is indulging i:n a great deal of unnecessary special pleading and improper interference with my right to speak.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has the floor, but it is customary to allow7 a minister to make a personal explanation.


William Pugsley: I rise to correct the statement made by my hon. friend. He said, if I heard him correctly, that he had seen it stated in a newspaper that I had advised Mr. Mayes to raise his tender from 50 cents to 55 cents.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No.


William Pugsley: What did the hon. gentleman say?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I intended to convey, and what I think I did say, was that the minister advised him to put in a tender at 55 cents per cubic yard for work which he had tendered to do the year before at 50 cents per cubic yard.


William Pugsley: Let me say that I never gave any such advice and I defy the hon. gentleman ito produce ; any newspaper in which he saw that statement made.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did not the Minister of Public Works see the solemn declaration of Mr. Mayes, and w'ill he say that Mr. Mayes does not there allege that the minister referred him to Mr. McAvity, and that Mr. McAvity advised him to increase the tender.


William Pugsley: That is a very different matter. Settle one thing at a time. What does my hon. friend from Grey say to my correction?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not hear what the minister said the last time. I do not agree in the contention that there is no need of a change unless a case of wrong-doing is proven. I think it is quite sufficient to have a well-grounded suspicion of wrong-doing to justify the government or parliament in providing some remedy. But in this case there is more than suspicion because in case after case, submitted to this House last session, the facts were established over and over again. I am now referring to the dredging contracts. It is well known, at least in Ontario, that Conservatives who own dredging plants cannot get a government contract unless they pass their plant over to reformers or join in with reformers. But once they take in some prominent Reformer or friend of the government, they can get contracts and make

lots of money. How is it that the dredging business is so remunerative to-day, compared with ten or twelve years ago, if there be no wrong-doing? No one who knows anything, can fail to reach the conclusion that the reason the business is so remunerative to-day is because of wrong-doing and not because of the carrying out of a proper system of tender and contract. That is the impression all over the west, and it is well grounded, and it is high time we should have a change. Surely there can be no objection to those who tender being present when the tenders are opened. I can see strong reasons for some change that will inspire and restore public confidence and give the public some assurance that when a man tenders for timber limits or dredging or public works or anything else, he will be fairly and honestly dealt with.


Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma).: When I heard the motion proposed by my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid) I was not surprised to find that it did not receive much sympathy from the government and I could appreciate the uneasiness of the members of the government over this attempt on the part of the opposition to take away from them what is practically their life's blood, by means of which they have been able to secure a . majority of seats in this House. This resolution is in principle one of the most important ever submitted to Parliament. It aims at the very crux of the corruption which is eating out the heart of the country and has done so much to lower public morality. Well may the cabinet ministers from the first minister down to the Minister of Public Works, look grave and concerned over this matter. It was certainly in very poor taste for the Minister of Public Works to defy public opinion as he has done, and to deny that there is in this motion a principle of public morality iwhifch it is the bounden duty of every minister, as well as every member of parliament and every honest, loyal Canadian citizen, to maintain and uphoid to the best of his ability.
I do not propose to repeat what has been said, but there are two questions to be dealt with in connection with the opening of tenders. There are two evils, with which the government is very familiar, which the right hon. the leader of the government knows right well are rampant, and which have led to the worst corruption and government mismanagement. What are they? One is the lack of protection against absolute secrecy from the time the tender leaves the hands of the party tendering until opened in the presence of some responsible minister or officer. I need not refer at length to the debate of last session upon the notorious timber deals, where tenders were opened by an officer now sitting in this House, opened in secret and in a manner which did not give confidence to the people who were tendering or to the people of this country and which did not work out for the conservation of the national assets of this country.
The next principle involved is that of the publicity and consequently the security of the dealings with the tender. I was surprised at the speciousness with which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) attempted to evade that question. I can see no objection to tenders being opened in public. Surely the public moneys ought to be conserved, and surely when the public moneys have to be expended it is to the public interest that the lowest tenderer should get the work provided he is competent and that his and all other tenders are honestly and fairly dealt with. There is an aspect of this debate which is ludicrous in its incongruity and inconsistency. In the last election we saw an hon. gentleman from New Brunswick parading around the country promising works here, there and everywhere to anybody and everybody in order to obtain the support of that province for the government of which he was a minister. Is there any significance in the attitude taken by the Minister of Public Works now ? Does he see in this measure some means by which he will be less able to deliver the goods which he promised at that time? The speech of the hon. minister conveys the impression to my mind, and I am sure to the minds of the people generally, that what he desires is, not the security of the tender not the secrecy of the tender until it shall be opened in public, but a laxity of procedure and secrecy from the time the tender leaves the hands of the tenderer until it is proclaimed absolutely in the hands of a politician, a member of this House. I understand that the hon. gentleman did in a burst of righteous zeal, when his mind was in that state of exaltation from which we sometimes get the evanescence in this House, state that he had dispensed with the patronage system in his department. His speech in opposition to this motion possibly evidences the man-[DOT] ner in which he proposes to dispense with the patronage system in the Public Works Department, and I suppose that is about all the sincerity one can attach to the words of the Minister of Public Works, especially when he is on the stump.
The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) objected very seriously to any suspicion being cast with reference to political interference with tenders. May I recount to the First Minister an incident which occurred during the last election with which he may be familiar as it has been brought to his attention ? The works of the Algoma Steel Company were closed down for lack of orders. Tenders were invited by

the National Transcontinental Railway Commission for some 40,000 tons of steel rails and the Algoma Steel Company, the Dominion Steel Company and the United States Steel Company were rival tenderers for this order. The tenders were in, supposedly sealed and secret, and they were to be opened on the first of September. The government candidate in West Algoma came to Ottawa, brazenly announcing that he was coming here to secure for the Algoma Steel Company as large an amount of that contract as they should receive. He was a new candidate and so was not as cautious as some of the others. The tenders were opened and the Algoma Company, most unjustly as we thought, got only one-third of the order. But that gentleman paraded all through the county boasting if he had not come to Ottawa and exercised his influence in respect to these secret tenders not a pound of these rails would have been awarded to the Algoma Company. The Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Graham) visited Sault Ste. Marie and when he appeared on the public platform I addressed an open letter to him asking him to give to the people of that county an affirmation or denial of these statements. The hon. gentleman said that he had not time to attend to it at that time. Are there other similar instances ? Yes, Sir. I have in my possession now a letter from a gentleman now occupying a seat on that side of the House asking in reference to vested interests in Northwest timber lands, whether the man who had the vested interests, namely, a license, was a Liberal or a Conservative, because that might make a great deal of difference, and if he was an active Conservative worker he might be able to get the land away from him. Hon. gentlemen opposite say there are no charges or suspicion of charges of political influence in the awarding of tenders. The administration of every department as revealed in the last two sessions reeks with it, and if the Minister of Public Works were to travel for a thousand years from end to end of this country he would not be able to satisfy the people of Canada that there is honesty, probity, secrecy and propriety in the opening of and dealing with tenders. It is just as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) says, the mercantile world bursts out laughing at you if you allege that this government deals honestly with tenders for public works. I come now to the question of the interest of members on the government side of this House in tenders. Two sessions ago I asked a question of the Prime Minister with reference to a member of his party who I believe as a member of parliament obtained contracts, which if he had obtained in his own name would have constituted a breach of the law, but to avoid that he incorporated himself, his wife, his cousins and his aunts into a cor-Mr. BOYCE.
poration called by his own name with the word ' limited ' after it. The right hon. gentleman when asked the question simply said that he was not aware whether the hon. gentleman referred to had any connection with the corporation to which I referred. That is another affair. You have the matter of the dredging contracts, to which my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has referred, and there you have a state of things most revolting. You have practically a state of things where certain dredging firms, in which members of parliament are largely interested, members, and ex-members and defeated candidates of the Liberal party, have formed a nice little ring by which they might know when tenders are to be asked for dredging ; and that one man writes out a tender for two, one man signs for another, the same tenders go in the envelope of another firm, and so on. Where is secrecy, and where is competition there ? The Minister of Public Works has had that brought to his attention, and he sneers at it.
Now just a word in regard to the principle involved in this motion. If the Minister of Public Works desires in any way to pose as being sincere, I see no reason whatever why he should not accept the principle of the motion. I see no reason why the right hon. the Prime Minister, who has secured the confidence of the country for another parliament, should not see in this motion a means of effecting the reform which I understand he has promised in this very matter of departmental administration. My right hon. friend said at Niagara Falls, when confronted with this state of things, that he himself was no saint. I sincerely hope that my right hon. friend, knowing the condition of affairs, as he must know it, will see in the acceptance of this motion by himself something which will redound to his credit, and something which he can claim as a fulfilment of the promise he made on the hustings. If such a resolution were carried and put into effect, what great sums of money would be saved to this country. But I fancy there is no danger of this resolution going into force, for the reason that this resolution is aimed at the very life of this government. What would become of the party heeler? What would become of the hanger-on? What would become of the man who is waiting for a tip, who provides the money for election campaigns, the man whose interest must be protected at all costs? What would become of him if all the tenders had to be kept sealed? Why, Sir, the principle of secrecy is as abhorrent to the members of this government, apparently, as it was to the Department of the Interior at the time of this nefarious timber limit deal that was exposed last session. Mr. Speaker, I unhesitatingly support this motion because I think that the principle of it is one which

will work excellent results for the stability of Canadian institutions.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey).: Being one of the new members from the province of Ontario, I would not have ventured to address you to-day were it not that some reference has been made to dredging contracts. I come from a riding which is the home of a dredging and construction company, and perhaps you will pardon me if I say a few words with respect to this motion. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has said that if there was a feeling of insecurity in this country witli reference to the opening of tenders, it was a feeling which had been engendered by the action of the Conservative party, especially during the last session. Now, if that is so, there must be some reason for the change in the manner of opening tenders. If a change has been made in the manner of opening tenders by the Minister of Public Works, it must be because he, from an inward consciousness, believes it is necessary to do so, or because he believes that the Conservative party was justified in making the accusations they did. I desire to say from my seat in this House that I believe the Conservative party were justified in making the accusations they did last session. It has come to pass in this country that people believe that it is necessary to be a member of the Reform party, to be of the same political faith as this government, before you can secure a dredging contract from this government. In my own constituency, the North riding of Grey, as you all know, we have representing us in the local house the Hon. A. G. MacKay, leader of the Liberal opposition in the province of Ontario. It may be a coincidence, but it is so, that that gentleman is also president of the Owen Sound Dredging and Construction Company; it may be a coincidence that, although the assets of that company are worth anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000, he and the relatives of a late Liberal member in this House, own all the stock of that company except three shares of $300, and that these 3 shares consisting of $100 each are distributed nominally among three other persons for the sole purpose of constituting the necessary five in order to be incorporated as a dredging and construction company. That is the company about which there was so much examination in the Public Accounts Committee. We find that that company had obtained contracts from this government practically without any competition whatever; they obtained contracts from this government, as you know, by one consulting with the other, and the tenders, as you know, went into the envelope of one tenderer, and in that manner they were able to get these contracts. Then the Minister of Public Works, in order to alleviate somewhat the pressure of public opinion against
this government, changed that system to a system of letting contracts by t&nder. I understand that when contracts were subsequently let by tender, the figures were higher than they were during the time that contracts were let without tender.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend allow me to correct him?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: I wish to correct my hon. friend.


George Eulas Foster: Order. He ought not to be interrupted.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is customary for an hon. member having the floor to allow a minister of the Crown to put a question, or to give an explanation.


William Pugsley: I do this in all kindness. The hon. gentleman stated that contracts for dredging were let without tender. The hon. gentleman is in error. The evidence i3 that they were all let after public advertisement and receipt of tenders, and let to the lowest bidder.


Haughton Lennox: Renewed without tender.


William Pugsley: No, they were not renewed without tender.


William Sora Middlebro: I accept the statement of the Minister of Public Works. But if I understand the matter it is this, that there was a time when the Minister of Public Works adopted the system of letting contracts without tender; that there came a time subsequently when he adopted the principle of letting contracts by tender; that when he let these contracts without tender the work was done for a certain price, but that after he let the contracts by tender the price went up.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has been misinformed.


William Sora Middlebro: That is the statement made in my riding, and it was made by members of the Liberal party for the purpose of proving that the system which was in force previously, of this administration letting dredging contracts without tender, worked better than the system now in force of letting contracts by tender. But that only goes to prove our argument and contention that the affairs of this country have got into such a state because of the patronage system adopted by this government that there is not a Conservative probably in the whole Dominion of Canada who owns any interest in dredging or construction companies or in any _ company which has to do with public affairs. They have practically abolished the principle of competition to such an extent that even when contracts are let by public tender there is nobody to tender but the friends of

the administration and there is really no competition. I say to the Minister of Public Works that it is just such a condition that has produced amongst the people of Canada a feeling of distrust and a belief that no man will tender for public works unless he has some political pull with hon. gentlemen occupying the treasury benches. So, I say that it behooves hon. gentlemen opposite to take advantage of every opportunity that is offered to them for the purpose of restoring the confidence of the people which they, by their actions, have displaced during the last twelve years. If there be some little objection made to the principle of allowing tSnderers to be present when tenders are opened, the objections are comparatively insignificant as compared with the benefit to be derived from allowing them to be present. That is the position I take. I do not know that I can say more than that, but I desired to give expression of my emphatic approval of the original motion made by my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid) and to say that it will receive my hearty support and that I have always been in favour of the principle of letting contracts by public tender in a bona fide, upright and conscientious manner.


Mr. A. B. CROSBY (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the indulgence of the House while I say a few words in regard to the question before us this evening. I would not have undertaken to say anything had it not been that the question of tender and contract came up in the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House. Therefore, I feel that I am compelled to say a word on this matter. I was somewhat amused to hear the arguments that were put before us as to why we should not have this motion passed. One of these arguments was that set up by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) in which he said that if we give you three members you will ask for four. I say let us have four if we need them and if four are not enough let us have five ; and if five are not enough let us have six, I say that we will ask for the whole House of Commons if it be necessary in order to have this work done in an honest and business-like way. If we cannot have it properly done in the Department of Public Works, or in any other department, we will then move to have these tenders opened on the table of the House and before every member in order that it may be honestly and properly done. Therefore, I say that it was to my mind a very unreasonable and unfair argument for the Minister of Public Works to make in opposition to the motion of my hon. friend. The question is : Are three better than two ? Is there anything wrong with the third man in these departments or is there any reason why he should not call them in ? What is the matter with Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
him ? What is the reason ? Is he too busy? I am informed that the departments are well equipped with officials ; in fact, all the evidence that we have in the country is to that effect. Have you no confidence in the third man ? If you have confidence in him, what is the reason for saying he should not be there ? Is there any reason why the tenderer should not be there ? . As the Minister of Public Works said we will have to give him notice. Tell him that the tenders will be opened on a certain particular day and if he is not there it will be his fault and not yours. That is the position I take. In the constituency that I have the honour to represent we have had a great deal of difficulty over tenders. It has not been between Conservatives and Liberals but between Liberals and Liberals, because we have Liberals and Liberals in our constituency. What has been the condition ? The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) knows very well that in that particular constituency we have a gentleman who supplies ham and bacon to the Militia Department there. What is the result ? A good Liberal sent in a tender for those supplies at the same time as the successful tender was sent in, and he proved to the satisfaction of the public at least, whether he proved to the satisfaction of the department or not, that his tender was lower than that of the man who now has the contract. Moreover, the gentleman who put in that tender is now supplying the gentleman who received the contract to supply the department, and if anybody desires the name of this gentleman I will give it to him. I have risen because in the constituency which I have the honour to represent as the junior member this matter has been brought up and dealt with at very great length. Therefore, diffident as I feel about getting up upon this, almost my first day in the House, I could not forego the opportunity of placing myself on record upon the question. To my mind no argument has been presented to convince this House that the resolution of my hon. friend for Grenville (Mr. Reid) should not be adopted. On the contrary, every argument which has been advanced from the other side of the House indicates very strongly to me at least that I should support this motion. We should not treat this as a party question, are we not here representing the people ? Have we not been sent here by the people ? Should we keep any information away from them ? Should we not give them all the information we can ? Should we let them be part and parcel of the government of the country or should we, having got their votes to place us in this parliament, say to them that we do not want to let them know anything more, until perhaps four or five years from now when we may go back to them and again seek their support, in the meantime

forgetting all about them ? Would anybody say to the people in his constituency that he would oppose such a resolution as this ? Would any member Irom any constituency in the Dominion of Canada stand face to face before his electors and say that he would refuse to support any measure that would give information to the people with regard to tenders and contracts ? Would he say :	We are going to award
these contracts as secretly as we possibly can ? He would not dare to say that but he would say : If there is anything wrong, if you think there is any better way in which these contracts can be awarded we will be glad to adopt it and to give to the people all the information that they may require in order to satisfy them as to the manner in which this business is done. We are here for the purpose of dealing with these matters. I do not consider it a party question. It should not be a party question. It is a question that involves the security of the people of Canada.
I was somewhat surprised at the conversational argument which took place between the Minister of Public Works and one hon. gentleman on this side of the House. What was the argument ? To my mind it was an effort to try and persuade those who were listening that something had not happened that had happened, simply by saying:	I
did not say that particular thing at that particular time or date, and I am not going to tell you what I did say or at what particular time I said it; you must guess it. The question was asked why it was that some gentleman in St. John was enabled to secure $35,000 or $36,000 out of the contract for which amount he had performed no service. We in our part of the country have not been informed as to how this was brought about. I do not know how he got this money, whether the contractor put his contract in for fifty cents and was told to increase it to fifty-five, and to give five cents to some one else, the fact remains that some one got $35,000 or $36,000 to which he had no right and for which he has never given a day's work to this country. That is how it appears to me. In the city of Halifax we have had a great deal of the patronage evil, so much so that it is almost a wonder to see my colleague and myself here.
My colleague and I have been returned to this House because the good Liberals of the city of Halifax are beginning to realize that public men in offices of public trust must deal properly with the money of the people of Canada. The people of Halifax believed that iii order to bring about that desired end they could no longer return to parliament the two former members, and they were two very good men in private life; no better men ever came to this House in their capacity as private citizens. But the people of Halifax came to the conclusion that supporting as they did the government of the day in all its transactions, they were useless as members of parliament, and they told them: You must stay at home. Of course, Sir, it may happen that my. constituents will at some future date lose confidence in me, but if they do it will not be because during my career in this House I have not stood up under all circumstances for an economic and honest expenditure of the money of the people. It is not necessary that I should cite as examples contracts that have been awarded in my own city, but let me ask, what better security for square dealing can a minister of the Crown have than that when he calls in his first man and his second man to be present with him, there should also be present the men who have tendered. In what more honest way can the rights of the public be guarded." The Minister of Public Works has told us that the tenderers might conspire to secure a higher price, but cannot the same thing occur to-day .under the present system. Will we be in any worse position in that regard, if the resolution is adopted than we are now. I say no. I say that the collusion between tenderers which the Minister of Public Works seems so much afraid of is far easier of accomplishment to-day than it could possibly be under the system which the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) proposes. I shall support the principle of the resolution before the House, and I shall support it because it is a resolution that the people of my constituency sent me here to support. I take it for granted that there is not a man in this House who can go before any intelligent audience in the Dominion of Canada and defend any other principle than that which is embodied in the resolution which I shall be most happy to vote for.


Mr. ALEXANDER B. WARBURTON (Queens, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the statement made by the hon. member (Mr. Crosby) that no intelligent man can go before an intelligent audience in this country and defend the principle of the regulation which has been suggested by the Minister of Public Works, I feel that I could go before such an audience and successfully uphold what the hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) proposes. I represent constituents who are just as intelligent, I think more so, than those represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Crosby), and I would not he at all alarmed to go before my people and defend the regulations passed by the Governor in Council and to-day submitted for our consideration. I therefore have much satisfaction in supporting the amendment of my hon. friend from Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), which I believe meets all the requirements of the case. I am a new member and therefore not acquainted with the procedure of this parlia-

ment, but was under the impression that a discussion such as this was more likely to take place during the last session of a parliament than at the first session of a new parliament. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have heard practically the same kind -of talk as we have heard to-day, on thirty-five public platforms during the last campaign. We had charges brought against the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and the hon. member for Assiniboia ( Mr. Turriff), but we found in every case that those who made the charges were utterly incapable of proving them. The hon. gentleman from Assiniboia, next to the hon. member for Brandon, was, during the last campaign probably the most abused man in this Dominion. He can have no idea of the manner in which his name was bandied about the country, and if he had had a thousand ears they would all have been burning. But, in every instance where charges were made against that hon. gentleman and against others with reference to the procedure in connection with the opening of tenders, the accusers invariably stopped before they got to the end. We were told that when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff) was in office the tenders for timber limits were opened in the secrecy of a dark room. But those who made the charges never told all that happened; they never told the people that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) waited in the Public Accounts committee room day after day to get a chance to prove the falsity of these charges. They did not tell the people that the Conservatives tried to close up the proceedings in the Public Accounts Committee before the hon. gentleman could have had an opportunity to vindicate his own reputation. When the campaign opened I was not so well informed as to the proceedings in this parliament as I hope to be in the future, but I had with me the report of the Public Accounts Committee and the evidence taken before it, and I was able to show to the people that the hon. member (Mr. Turriff) gave his evidence fairly and squarely before the committee, and that his secretary gave her evidence clearly and well, and that that evidence proved beyond a shadow of doubt that it was false to state that the tenders had been opened in any fraudulent manner whatever. It occurs to me as rather peculiar also that the hon. gentlemen who to-day have addressed the House from the Conservative benches have also neglected any reference to that phase of the question But, Sir, I may say that the people of Prince Edward Island took no stock in the charges which were made, and that Conservatives and Liberals alike came to the conclusion that this was but a repetition of the same old story which they had heard repeated so often by our Conservative friends and that there was no Mr. WARBURTON.
foundation for the charges, and so my colleague and I redeemed our constituency for the Liberal party, and placed it with the other constituencies which have returned members here to work for the good government of Canada. In not a single instance, Sir, did the Conservatives succeed in proving the correctness of any of their charges against any member or supporter of the government or against the government as a whole. These charges of general wrongdoing are very easy to make, but they are not so easy to prove. There was ample opportunity last session, if I read correctly the reports of the Public Accounts Committee, to prove this or any other charge that might be made, and to prove it up to the hilt; and what I am surprised at is that if these charges were so notorious and glaring, they were not then proved up to the hilt.
I listened with much pleasure and satisfaction to the certificate of good character given by the Minister of Railways of the former Conservative governments to the various governments of which he was a member. His statement of the good character of those governments and of every member of them was somewhat of a surprise to me, because it rather clashed with the ideas I had formed of the political history of this country for a good many years. The earliest knowledge I acquired of the political history of Canada after confederation was that during the rule of the Conservative party we were always hearing of something notorious and corrupt, and that redounded to the disgrace of Canada, beginning with the Pacific scandal of 1873, and ending with such performances as that in connection with the Curran bridge.
A good deal of the discussion this afternoon seems to have taken the form of an attack on the Minister of Public Works. It is not necessary for me to say anything in defence of that hon. gentleman, for I know of no man better able to defend himself. But the fact seems to have been overlooked that the matter referred to was brought before the minister's own province of New Brunswick in the shape of an affidavit, and that the gentlemen who made use of that affidavit were compelled to withdraw it, and withdrew it in shame.


Haughton Lennox: To change the date only.


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: I am aware that it is alleged that there was an error in the date; but in making affidavits which attack the character of a public man, no lawyer has any excuse for making errors even in dates. If any hon. member of this House had been concerned in making that affidavit, and stated that that was an honest mistake, I would be compelled, under the rules of the House, to accept this statement; but when the men in St. John, who made these statements deliberately, and read them before a public meeting,

say that that was an honest mistake, I for one refuse to believe them. However, that matter has been judged by the people of this country. The changes were rung on these charges on every platform throughout the length and breadth of the land, and _ the people of New Brunswick, the province from which the Minister of Public Works comes, gave a decided verdict in his favour, sending him back to this House with a representation of eleven out of thirteen which it seems to me is a remarkably good certificate of character
We have head references to dredging contracts. In the part of the country from which I come I have herd no complaints on that score; the dredging contracts have been carried on satisfactorily, and at no very great expense. I did hear that the Minister of Public Works was badgered in this House last session for extending contracts for dredging purposes which had already been let, and that there was such an outcry that he gave way and called for new tenders, with the result that the new prices were considerably higher than those for which he could have renewed the old contracts, and the Dominion of Canada consequently lost a large sum of money, I think over $100,000 a year.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby), spoke of the good work done in Halifax by the good Liberals and Conservatives of that city. Well, Halifax is a very fine place, but it has had a peculiar record in Dominion politics. Some years ago it was represented by my good friend the late Hon. A. G. Jones; but there seems to be a lack of stability about it, for it frequently changes from one party to the other. It seems to be something like the monster which is always crying for more, more, and looking for something new. It has always been looking to the government to do something more for it, whether building elevators or something else, though it is a very wealthy city. I suppose in doing this it is consulting its own interests. I expect that four years hence it will change its representation back again to the Liberal party, and eight years hence it will perhaps change again. In the county I represent we have also good Liberals and Conservatives. They took the record of the present government into favourable consideration, with the result that they enabled my colleague and myself to bring that county back to what is and should be its natural home, and unless things change very materially, we propose to keep it there.
The hon. members of the opposition seem to be suspicious of everything. I suppose oppositions are born suspicious-it comes natural to them. Our hon. friends opposite are very often suspicious. A few months ago they were even suspicious that the country was going to turn out the present government and put them in office. But the
results of the_ general election have shown most conclusively and satisfactorily that that suspicion was absolutely unfounded. I do not propose to take up any more time of the House in discussing this matter. I think it has been fairly well thrashed out, and being a new member I shall not trespass any more, Mr. Speaker, on your attention.


Mr. ERNEST ROY (Dorchester).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the present debate having hitherto been carried on in the English language, it would not appear amiss that I should add a few words in French.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) stated a moment ago that the principle at stake being one in which everybody must concur, no intelligent man in Canada could reasonably vote against it.
I am well aware that in a large number of Canadian constituencies, this argument was used for the purpose of injuring the Liberal government in public opinion and more particularly of discrediting the administration of the departments of government as regards the awarding of contracts. It must be conceded that, in the majority of constituencies, the people pronounced very clearly upon the issue thus placed be-,them the Conservative candidates. What w'as the principal question submitted to the people during the last general election? Our opponents accused the government of being corrupt and of spreading corruption by awarding contracts, not for the general advantage of Canada, but in the interest of the friends of the Liberal party and to the detriment of the national treasury. Such were the charges made by our opponents. Were those charges substantiated? They were repeated in the constituency where I had the honour of running and the Liberal candidate was returned. When asked: Have you any means of proving the truth of such charges, have they been investigated and with what result? they were constrained to admit that no proof had been adduced, and the people understood the situation. They felt that groundless charges should not be considered. It was sought to create the impression that all public contracts were granted by favour. It was said and repeated that the government could not be acting in the public interest, but that they considered only the return of the Liberal party and the private advantage of their friends.
The resolution now submitted by the member for Grenville is but a continuation of the same policy. It seems to me that the majority in this House should therefore reject it. Our opponents were either right or wrong. The people by their recent, verdict have declared them wrong.
The people having thus given judgment, should we go any further? If, as the hon. member who preceded me remarked, the

investigation had established that contracts were being granted contrary to the interests of Canada, not one member, I am sure, would have opposed the new method now suggested for putting a stop to all further abuses in that respect.	, ,
I have no desire to prolong this aebate, but I consider it my duty to explain why I shall presently vote against the resolution submitted by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Eeid).	T,
It is a question of principle, says lie. It is true. It is a question of principle, more especially as regards ministerial responsibility. It is the minister's duty to award contracts and to do so in the public interest. In such cases the lowest tender is not always the best, and each case should be considered on its merits. Does it not frequently happen that a tenderer is not in a position to properly carry out the contract? The tender may frequently be made by a man who, with the support of a few friends, is entering into an enterprise the nature of which he knows nothing, a man of small experience and perhaps over confident. In such cases should not the minister use his own judgment? Ministerial responsibility comes in here and it is the fundamental principle over our system of government. The responsible minister decides in what manner contracts shall be awarded.
What is the subject of the resolution now submitted to the House? Does it not tend gradually to deprive the ministers of that responsibility? Is it not natural that the head of a department should consider not only the amount of a tender, but also the qualifications of the tenderer? This appears to me to be the true principle that should guide us, the maintenance of ministerial responsibility. If the minister were bound by hard and fast rules, what would become of the principle? The head of a department would become a mere machine, moving in obedience to rigid and inflexible rules. He would be nothing, his initiative would be gone and the system of responsible government would give place to one of independent commissions. That, I believe, would not be going forward, but backward.
I will say no more. In former parliaments, my county of Dorchester was represented by a Conservative, and this fact confirms me in my intention of opposing the resolution. Since 1896, that riding had constantly favoured the Conservative policy, but this time it has returned a supporter of the government, although every argument which has been adduced here to-day was used during the campaign.


Mr. P. E. BLONDIN (Champlain).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I am a new comer in this House and I think it incumbent upon me to say something on the question now submitted. I do not consider it, as have done some of the members who have spoken before me, an attack directed Mr. BOY.
against the government. It is, to my mind, the enunciation of the principle that we should constantly seek more perfect methods in the awarding of public contracts, and I cannot understand why we should oppose such a resolution.
Has it been shown by any of the previous speakers that the resolution is not of a nature to further safeguard public interest in the granting of contracts? It matters little whether the government view this proposal as a reflection upon themselves. That is not the standpoint from which I consider the question. Conditions are never so perfect as to preclude improvement. The object of this proposal is to give further security and thereby fuller satisfaction to the public in connection with the granting of contracts. It has not been contended as yet that, under our present system, public interest is as fully safeguarded as it would be under the system advocated by the member for Grenville, and no argument has been made so far on that point of a nature to induce to vote against the motion, which accordingly I shall support.


Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: Mr. Speaker, what has taken place this afternoon shows that there is some unrest in the country with reference to the awarding of contracts. I think it would be a great misfortune if the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) should carry. That amendment, as I understand it, states that the regulation which has been laid before the House by the Minister of Public Works forms a sufficient and a complete safeguard of the public interest in regard to the opening of tenders. The fact that there is a great lack of confidence throughout the country in regard to this question should itself warrant very strong measures in regard to the care of tenders for the future, even if it were possible that the measures proposed by the government were under ordinary circumstances sufficient. I do not, however, think that they are sufficient; they fall very short of what they should be.
It has been stated that the precautions which it is proposed to take are just as great as those which are taken in Great Britain. I have some knowledge of the precautions that were taken in some of the departments in Great Britain some years ago and have no reason to suppose that they have been relaxed. In Great Britain they take a great deal more care of the tenders themselves. In the departments of which I have knowledge the tenders are sealed on receipt, by the department itself. The regulations now proposed contain no such provision. After the tender has been sealed in Great Britain it is placed under lock and key, and in some departments it is further safeguarded by the use of duplicate locks with keys in possession of different officers.

I know that in at least one department the tenders were opened in the presence of at last three of the senior officers of the department, and further that in one department it was the custom not to allow the junior clerks to serve too long a term in a position in which the tenders actually passed through their hands, so that every precaution is taken to prevent any possibility of tampering with the tenders. I do not think it will be alleged that these precautions have been taken there because of charges of maladministration in regard to the tenders; they have been taken in order to provide against any possibility of any suspicion being cast, and in order to give confidence to persons putting in tenders for public works or buildings or for the supply of articles to the public authorities in Great Britain.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend seems to have a good knowledge of the practice in at least some of the departments in Great Britain. Does he know that the contractors or the public have been invited to be present at the opening of tenders?


Richard Stuart Lake: Of course I am speaking from recollection, and I was not present when the tenders were opened, but in the particular department of which I have knowledge I do not think the public were invited to be present and I do not think they were present, but I am not quite certain upon that point. Anyway the logical sequence of what I have said is that it is advisable in this country, at least in the present state of public feeling, that we should have every possible safeguard, and I think the government would be making no mistake if they added to the safeguard which they have proposed, and I feel it would be a great pity if the House should adopt the amendment proposed. The proposals of the government are open to criticism. Personally I do not like the idea of having the minister as one of the officers to open the tenders. No doubt in most cases the matter will ultimately have to go to the minister, but the opening of tenders should be left to the senior permanent, non-partisan officials; the presence of the minister is introducing the political side into the detailed workings of the department. I hope the government will not allow the amendment to pass, but will give further consideration to the matter and that the Hoijse will not put itself on record as endorsing a regulation which does not go far enough and does not sufficiently guard the interests of the country.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford).: Mr. Speaker, it is more on account of the spirit of the motion of my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) and of the speeches by which it has been supported than of the motion itself, that I personally refuse to accept it, because I cannot see 8
that it makes any great difference whether one, two or three persons are present when a tender is opened. The motion and the speeches in support of it have been inclined to cast a reflection on the ministers of this government which personally I do not believe is deserved. It has struck me as peculiar in listening to the speeches this afternoon that there should be such an amount of suspicion in the parts of the country from which our Conservative friends come, because this is the first time in my life that I have heard of any suspicion that the tenders were not properly opened or that contracts were not properly awarded by this government. I very well remember a tender for a public building during the time of my friend the late Hon. James Sutherland, when Mr. Sutherland as Minister of Pubic Works went so far as to put up the money for the deposit for one of the tenderers, a friend of his and of mine, at the same time telling him most distinctly that although he was a very strong personal friend of his, and although he thought a great deal of him his tender would have to be the lowest or he would have no chance of getting a contract. It was only ^ this afternoon that I heard that our ministers are so dishonest that the contracts are not properly awarded. I am sure that the suggestion cannot be well founded, that it is entirely a matter of imagination. I have in my private and semi-public life often heard people accused of graft or of having some hidden reason for doing certain things, although I knew personally and absolutely that there was no ground for the charge except the mean suspicion of the mind of the person who originated it.
I can see nothing in the argument that the minister himself should not be one of those present at the opening of tenders, because under the constitution, so far as I have read it, the matter has to go to the minister eventually and he might just as well open the tender as have his secretary or some other subordinate official do so. After the receiving of tenders, the mere sealing and locking up of the document is of little importance, although I have no doubt they are sealed when they are put away. After all it is a matter of trust. If the minister and one of his subordinates wanted to be dishonest, the presence of the minister at the opening of the tenders would not greatly increase their opportunities of doing so. No matter what safeguard we adopt the tenders will have to be sent to some one. Perhaps they might be sent in some conspicuous manner, by a balloon or something of that kind so that every one could see them, but as it is essentially a matter of trust, I do not see what advantage would be gained by that.
What difference does it make whether there are one or two or three of the minister's assistants present at the opening of tenders? If the minister were dishonest he



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
\
[Stage Direction]
could keep any wrong-doing as secret with two or three subordinates as with one. But what reason have we to suppose the minister will be dishonest, that he will not do w'hat is absolutely fair? Is it not the privilege of every member on either side of the House to ask the minister what the tenders have been and all particulars?
William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If that is the case, would not the minister be a green fellow and a very innocent fellow who would vary a tender? A man in any part of the country, in my constituency or any other, who tendered for any contract would certainly find out the amounts of the other tenders and if he could not find it out himself, would he not ask some member of this House to find out for him. Now you might say that after the tender is let there is no recourse. But at the same time, is it not asking too much of our credulity to believe that any minister would be so innocent as to confirm a tender that was not the lowest unless he had some very good reason to believe that it was in the public interest to confirm it, especially in view of the fact that he might have to tell this House at any moment what the tender was, and all the particulars concerning it? Looking at all the circumstances surrounding this motion', it seems to me that it has been moved for the sole purpose of casting a reflection on the minister of this government, and for that reason I shall vote for the amendment.


George Eulas Foster: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the remarks of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Nesbitt), and I have only to say that if his theory is carried out to its logical fulfilment, we would do away with all safeguards, and make everything a matter of trust in all the departments of the government, as well as in all corporations, leaving everything as a mere matter of confidence in a person's integrity. I think that would not be a very successful way of conducting departmental business. I do not think my hon. friend the Postmaster General would let it go that way in his large department. My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island seemed to feel as if it were altogether out of place to say anything more in criticism of departmental uprightness and the like of that, because the matter had been brought up in the general elections and the government had been returned to power. Well, that is a rough and ready, hut not the most thorough, vindication of the acts of the government on the ground that they carried a majority of the constituencies.
But I wish to make a little more clear what I am afraid the Minister of Public Works left a little hazy with reference to the McAvity affair. It is important that we should have a proper conception of the facts, so far as we can get them. Now what Mr. NESBITT.
are the facts? If we go by affidavits, and if we place alongside the facts of the affidavit of Mr. Mayes the affidavit of Mr. McAvity, and what he met in Mr. Mayes' affidavit, and what he did not meet that is what he denies and what he practically admits.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question?


George Eulas Foster: No, I must make my statement now. I have known my hon. friend a long time pretty well, and I know he would like to break in and make a speech of about fifteen minutes every ten minutes of the time which is allowed me, and I do not propose to let him do it. By and by, if I see there is a good opening for my hon. friend, I will let him in. Now there was a man by the name of Mayes, who lived in the city of St. John. Mayes was a contractor, and owned dredging plant and apparatus, or hired dredging plant and apparatus-that was his business. There was a man in the city of St. John by the name of McAvity, who was not a dredger and did not own a dredging plant, and had not up to that time, or since so far as I know, had anything to do as a part owner, or whole owner, or in any other capacity in reference to dredging. But Mr. McAvity was high in the councils of the Liberal party; he was the high chief muck-a-muck in the city of St. John; he was the great head of the patronage distribution in the city of St. John. There was a man in the city of St. John by the name of Wm. Pugsley, at that time Attorney General of the province. Now Mr. Mayes, the dredger and contractor, put in a tender for dredging at the rate, I think, of 50 cents per cubic yard. That tender was not accepted. It is immaterial whether there were other tenders or not. Mr. Mayes went to Mr. Pugsley, who was at that time the Attorney General of the province, and recounted his difficulties. Mr. Pugsley, according to Mr. Mayes' affidavit, told Mr. Mayes to go and talk it over with Mr. McAvity. Well, we can each take what each one wishes as to what was the significance of talking it over with McAvity. Mayes took the advice, according to the affidavit, and talked it over with McAvity. McAvity, who was not a contractor, is not a dredge owner, said to Mayes, I am going to Ottawa, meet me at Ottawa on a certain date. Mayes went to Ottawa, found McAvity there, met him on that same day. McAvity says to Mayes, What are you willing to do this for?-according to the affidavit-and Mayes says, I tendered for it at 50 cents per cubic yard, I can do it for that, and I am willing to take it now for that. McAvity says to Maves: Why not make it 55 cents, and give the other five cents to me? Mayes says to McAvity, What 'will you do? Will you join me in capital in buying a dredge, or hiring a dredge, and help me out in that way? If

you will, we will go in together and share the profits. McAvity said to Mayes, I am not in that business, but if you get the contract you can easily raise the money at the banks. They went to the minister of the department, the minister being the hon. Charles Hyman. Mr. Mayes sat down outside, and McAvity went inside to the holy of holies, or the holiest of the holy, whichever you prefer. After having been in there for a certain time, McAvity came back and said .to Mayes, I want you to go in and see the minister, and explain to him how it would be better to get a contract for 400,000 cubic yards-they had been talking about the expense-and tell him that if you went to the expense of getting large machinery you ought to have a heavy contract in order to make your profits. Mayes agreed, the affidavit- went on, and explained the whole matter thoroughly to Mr. Hyman, and came back. Then Mayes and McAvity talked about the matter, and Mayes said to McAvity: Well, we will think about it, and see about the agreement, and the like of that. McAvity, according to the affidavit, drew out an agreement ready for signature, and said, I have an agreement here, why not sign it now and get the thing arranged? Then the two talked with reference to the part McAvity was to take, and it ended in this, according to the affidavit, that McAvity promised nothing more than that he would use his influence to get a large contract of 400,000, or so, yards, but he would not take part in^ hiring the dredge or in going into the business on the partnership plan. Then, according to the affidavit, Mayes said to McAvity : Well, what is your part in this? Oh, well, said McAvity, write whatever you please, write something and I will sign it. And here is the regular agreement, written by Mr. Mayes and signed by Mr. George McAvity:
And whereas the said George McAvity is to receive moneys out of the performance of the said contract, he agrees and promises to use his influence and endeavours with the Minister of Public Works or office of the government at Ottawa, to increase the number of yards to he dredged at the aforesaid site of contract.
(Sgd.) GEORGE A. McAVlTY.
I am not reading the whole affidavit; that, I think, is about the essence of the affidavit. The hon. Minister of Public Works places a great deal of weight upon the fact that there was a mistake in the affidavit, that it was incorrect.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question ? Does my hon. friend vouch for that being an affidavit that has been sworn to ?


George Eulas Foster: I suppose I shall have to read it.


William Pugsley: That is not the question.
8}
Mr. FOSTER, (reading)
I,	Gershon S. Mayes, of the parish of Lancaster, in the oi-ty and county of St. John, in the province of New Brunswick, contractor, do solemnly declare that on the first day of September, 1905, on the advice of Hon. William Pugsley, who was then Attorney General of the province of New Brunswick and is now Minister of Public Works of Canada, I had a conversation with George McAvity of the city of St. John, in said province, merchant, relative to tenders for dredging which was then to be done in the harbour of St. John by the Publdo Works Department of Canada of which Hon. C. S. Hyman was then minister.
Then continues a recital of the whole matter and finally :
And I make -this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
Declared before me at the city of St. John, in the city and county of St. John, this 12th day of October, A.D. 1908.



W. H. HARRISON.

[Stage Direction]
A commissioner for taking affidavits to he read in the Supreme Court.
That is all I have to read ; let it be interpreted as it may. But the Minister of Public Works says:	Do you not see there
is an absolute error. On October 15, 1907, said the original document, I received a telephone message from Dr. Pugsley asking me to call in and see him next day. The Minister of Public Works says that is an error. The very evening that the statement is made Mr. Mayes comes out and says :
St. John, October 13, 1908. Hon. Wm. Pugsley,
Minister of Public Works,
St. John, N.B.
I notice by this evening's papers that you comment on my affidavit stating that you obtained $2,000 from .me oil -October 16, 1907. The date should be October- 16, 1905, and the error is entirely a typographical one which I regret and have taken the proper steps to have corrected.
I remain yours, &c.,

[Stage Direction]
It was unfortunate that a mistake should have been made, but we are all mortal and we all make mistakes ; that is, nearly all of us make mistakes and it does not cast a reflection upon Mr. Mayes or derogate one single iota from the real gist of the statement that he made a typographical error, which, as soon as it came to his notice, he immediately made good and gave the right date. Now, Sir, what is the statement ? It is that Mr. McAvity received from Mr. Mayes $35,933 of the public money of Canada. Mayes had tendered to do the work at fifty cents. He came to Ottawa prepared to tender at fifty cents. The man that Mr. William Pugsley had told him to go and
[Stage Direction]
talk it over with met him at Ottawa and said to this man Mayes, according to the affidavit :	Why not make it fifty-five
cents ? The work is not worth more than fifty cents, you can do it for fifty cents, but where do I come in if you only get fifty cents for it ? Make it fifty-five cents, do exactly the same work and no more and let me have the five cents. The addition was made and he got it. Now, Sir, what happens ? Mr. McAvity makes an affidavit. I have it here. Mr. McAvity takes good care, neither in his affidavit nor anywhere else to dispute in any way the fact that he had received five cents additional and that he had put it into his own pocket, but in his affidavit he tries to justify it by saying that he had a good many conferences and a good deal of trouble and bother about it and therefore he felt justified in taking that amount of money. These are the plain facts of the case. It is not true that Mr. William Pugsley was exactly in the same official position in 1905 that he occupied in 1907, but Mr. Gershon Mayes asseverates in the statement he makes that Mr. William Pugsley, the Minister of Public Works, when he came into office, knew that an arrangement of this kind was being carried on between Mayes and McAvity and that he endeavoured in various ways to facilitate McAvity's interest. Now, Mr. William Pugsley, the Minister of Public Works, may deny that and he has a perfect right to the denial, but this vital statement made by Mayes, and the great main truth is that a middleman comes in and takes $35,993 of the people's money for which he made no return of service to the public, it is sworn that he did, it is not denied and it is in- fact admitted. The Minister of Public Works, the guardian of the department, the Minister of Justice, and the Prime Minister himself all know it, and yet when they were asked by a member of parliament representing the people whose money had thus been wrongly taken as to whether they have done anything or intend to do anything what was the minister's answer yesterday ? No action has been taken by the government. Here is the minister's answer:
The government is not aware that it has a claim against the parties referred to for the amount mentioned or any amount. The records of the Department of Public Works show that tenders for the dredging referred to were called for by public advertisement and that the contract was awarded in a regular and proper manner to -the lowest tenderer.
Two, 3 and 4 answered by -the reply to No.
1.
The questions asked in Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are these :
2.	Has the repayment of -this money been demanded?
3.	Does the government propose to take action for the recovery of this money?
Mr. FOSTER.: 4.	Has the government consulted with or taken the opinion of the Department of Justice as to its rights?
These were the questions asked and the minister's reply is that the government is not aware and that the government does not propose to ask anybody to make it aware. What I put up to the Minister of Public Works and the First Minister is that here is $35,900 of the people's money gone astray. If the affidavit is true, if it be true that McAvity has not gainsaid it by affidavit and he has not and would not, if it is true that he has practically acknowledged that he has got it and there is no doubt in the minds of the people generally that he has, what does this government propose to do about it ? It may declare that it has no responsibility, and make no move, but as long as there' is a shred of conscience or an ounce of consistent thinking and of principle in the people of Canada the position will be taken, the position will be forced, and the position will make way for itself that these are not the proper guardians of the people's money.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that a question which simply deals with the best mode of treating public tenders cannot be discussed without dragging in what seem to me to be irrelevant matters, and without making statements which are calculated to draw the House away from the real issue which is involved in the motion and in the amendment before the House. What the amendment proposes to do is to provide for everything which I think has been suggested this afternoon as being really necessary to safeguard the public interest. It has been urged, and properly urged, that it is desirable that when the tenders are received that they shall be under seal; that they shall be addressed to the proper officer of the department, and that when received they shall be placed under lock and key until the time shall come to open them. All that has been provided for by the regulation which has been passed by the Governor in Council and of which the House has been informed. We cannot of course guard in every way against the dishonesty on the part of an official, because if an official should desire to be dishonest he might by some mysterious means have the envelopes opened and after examining the tenders have one substituted for another, but it has never been suggested that this has been done or is likely to be done. The regulation provides that those tenders shall be kept under lock and key; that they shall be kept secret until the time comes for their being opened by the minister and the deputy, or by two of the principal officials of the department in case the minister may happen to be absent. It does seem to me that my hon. friends opposite have not

shown that the public interest can be any better safeguarded by having present when the tenders are opened, three officials of the department instead of the minister and the deputy minister as is provided for in the regulation. The only other question which seems to be involved as a matter of principle in the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) is as to whether or not it is desirable that the contractors who have put in tenders shall all be invited to be present at the opening of the tenders. My hon. friend (Mr. Lake) who dealt with the subject very fairly, stated he had a knowledge of the course which is pursued by the British Government in such matters and he says that so far as he knows it has never been customary in England to have the contractors present at the opening of tenders. I have shown to this House that never since confederation has it been suggested that it was desirable that the contractors should be invited to be present, and never has that course been considered advisable by any provincial government in Canada. I ventured to suggest reasons why such a course should not be followed, and notwithstanding all that has been said by hon. members opposite I affirm that in my opinion no good purpose would be served, but on the contrary that it would give an opportunity to contractors to collude together to withdraw their tenders if they saw fit, and to force the department either to accept a higher tender to the disadvantage of the country, or to reject all the tenders and invite new ones. My hon. friend from North Lanark (Mr. Haggart) told the House that there never had been any wrong-doing or any suggestion of wrongdoing in connection with the Intercolonial Railway when he was a minister. I do not question the accuracy of the statement which the hon. gentleman makes, but I do say that the very .course which was pursued by him is the course which is being P^sued to-day. In the case of all supplies which are required for the Intercolonial railway every opportunity is given to obtain them at the lowest market price; the tenders are opened by responsible officers of the department and if any question arises which requires expert advice that expert advice is obtained. Now, let me ask my hon. friend and I think he will answer with that spirit of fairness which he is always disposed to manifest, let me ask him why he wants that course departed from so far as the Intercolonial is concerned? The hon. gentleman said it is because there is a feeling in the public mind that there is something wrong in the way that tenders are now opened, but let me tell the hon. gentleman that if there is any such suspicion in the public mind it has been created by the disposition on the part of gentlemen opposite to make insinuations
without any evidence to support them, and to make charges of graft and wrong-doing without having the slightest tittle of evidence to support such reckless statements. During the last campaign these insinuations were pressed from every platform in .Canada, and the result of the election shows that the majority of the people believe that this government and the various members of it are endeavouring honestly and conscientiously and to the best of their ability to discharge the important duties they have been called upon to discharge. Now, let me say to my hon. friends opposite, and I say it with all sincerity, that although a great deal has been insinuated against my department, it is open to any member of this House to make a motion for the bringing down of the orders in council awarding contracts for Public Works in this country, and they shall be readily brought down. Since I have been a minister, contracts have been awarded involving the expenditure of a good many millions of dollars, and if a motion is made I am quite willing they shall. all be submitted to the closest scrutiny of this House or of any member of a committee of this House. I have pursued the course followed by my predecessors in office since this government came into power, and public tenders are called for by public advertisement for all works which involve an expenditure of over $5,000, except of course in cases of emergency where there has not been time to call for public tenders, and in these cases the special circumstances must be submitted to His Excellency in Council and must be passed upon. Now, Liberals and Conservatives alike have put in tenders for these works, and when hon. gentlemen opposite say that Conservatives will not tender for Public Works at the present time they are stating that which they have no knowledge of and which the facts will prove to be untrue. Conservative contractors do tender equally with Liberal contractors and if the Conservative contractor happens to put in the lowest tender and if he is a responsible contractor certified to by the officers of my department as capable of carrying out the work, he is given the contract in every instance. If hon. gentlemen desire to have the records brought down they will be able to see that the statement which I now make is true, I believe the same applies all through the departments of government. Hon. gentlemen opposite have given as one reason why the tenderers should be notified to be present when the tenders are opened, that there was no more danger of collusion and no more danger of the withdrawing of tenders than there is at present. But there is this difference. Under the present system the tenderers do not know until the contract is awarded what is the bid of the other tenderers, whereas if they were present they would know. Under

the present system they do not know, unless the other tenderers choose to tell them, and so they cannot say what would be the result of withdrawing their tender and refusing to enter into the contract. But if they knew' that one or two tenders were for small amounts, and others were for larger amounts, it would be the easiest thing in the world for them to collude together.


John Graham Haggart: Does it not strike the minister that they might ask one another and find out after the tenders were in?


William Pugsley: That is true, but contractors are not in the habit of asking each other after the tenders are in. They do not know what to do, and it is in the public interest that they should not know what to do, until the lowest tenderer is notified and is invited to enter into the contract. That makes the bargain, and when the contract is once entered into there is the security to the Crown for the performance of the contract.
Now, having dealt thus with the resolution which is before the House, let me refer briefly to some matters which have been brought up by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and by some other gentlemen. I had supposed, Sir, that, with the recollection of what took place in the provinca of New Brunswick in the recent election, my hon. friend from North Toronto would have been the last man to want to refer to the matters which were discussed during that election, and upon which the people, to the best of their ability, passed their judgment and rendered their verdict. The hon. gentleman has referred to what he is pleased to call an affidavit made by Mr. Gershon S. Mayes. Let me ask my hon. friend if he can vouch for the paper from which he has read having been an affidavit and having been actually sworn to or declared to?


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Mayes vouched for it himself.


William Pugsley: It was to my hon. friend from North Toronto that I addressed the question.


George Eulas Foster: I have read what I have read, and my hon. friend may take whatever he chooses out of it. After he makes his speech he will get his answer.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend declines to answer my question. Let me say that I and others are deeply interested in knowing whether this alieged affidavit was actually sworn to, and, in case it was, we are anxious to know in whose possession it is to-day, so that it may be available for use in the courts of justice. Let me say to you, Sir, that in the citv of St. John during the recent election it was whispered to me that upon a certain night, when a great Conservative meeting was to be held in St.


William Pugsley: John, a meeting which was to be graced with the presence of Sir James Whitney, the premier of Ontario, and I think the Hon. Mr. Roblin, the premier of Manitoba, as well as other distinguished gentlemen, a bombshell was to be exploded which would drive me as Minister of Public Works out of public life. Well, I was curious to know what was this bombshell that was to drive me out of public life, because I may say to my hon. friend from North Toronto that though a good many things have been said against me by himself and by gentlemen who have been associated with him, it has always been a sort of protection to me in the public mind that I had many early and pleasant associations with my hon. friend. We happened to have gone from the same county, almost from the same settlement, in one of the country districts of New Brunswick, to the university when we were boys. We went in the same year and entered the same class, and it -was always my pride that I was able to follow my hon. friend, even at some little distance, along the lines of good conduct.


George Eulas Foster: You were safe there.


William Pugsley: Yes, and when these charges were made against me from time to time, particularly in the last election, my friends and the people generally would say: ' Oh, well, you can't be so bad as they say you are, because we never thought you would be as good as Mr. Foster, and think of the horrible things they say about him.' Well, Mr. Speaker, you will pardon the digression, but on this occasion I was curious to know what was to be said about me, and I had a friend go to this great meeting and see what was this terrible bombshell that was to be exploded. I found that it was in what purported to be an affidavit or declaration, which was read by the Hon. Mr. Hazen, the premier of New Brunswick, and the leader of the Liberal-Conservative party of that province; and among other things it stated that in the month of October, 1907, after I had become Minister of Public Works, and was charged with the duty of administering the affairs of that department and deciding as to contracts which might or might mot be let by the department, Mr. Gershon S. Mayes, a contractor, had an interview with me or had been interviewed by me, and that I had intimated to him that it would be very desirable for him to have a friend at Ottawa to watch his interests, and that he gave to me at that time, when I was Minister of Public Works, the sum of $2,000. That alleged affidavit, as I have said, was read by Mr. Hazen at this great Conservative meeting, it appeared in the papers the next morning, it was telegraphed that night throughout Canada and I believe appeared in every Conservative paper from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what my friends in the

various sections of this country thought; I dc not know what my honoured leader thought; but I know what I thought. I realized that if my leader thought there was a shadow of foundation of truth in that statement, I should not have been able to remain a member of this cabinet for a single day. The charge was made against me by the premier of New Brunswick that in October, 1907, after I had become the Minister of Public Works, charged with protecting the interests of the people of this country, I had been so recreant to my duty that I had received a large sum of money from a contractor who was seeking for business with the department over which I have the honour to preside. Sir, a more infamous charge was never made against a public man. On the following morning I called up the secretary of the Liberal-Conservative Association, Mr. Harrison, before whom the affidavit purported to have been signed; for, as it appeared in the morning paper it did not purport to have been signed by Mr. Mayes. I asked Mr. Harrison about this alleged affidavit and said: ' Surely there must be some mistake about it, because I had no transactions of any kind or description with Mr. Mayes after I ceased to practise my profession in St. John and entered the Dominion parliament.' He said he did not know that there was any mistake about it, but he would look the matter up. Later on I ascertained that the date when I had received moneys from Mr. Mayes, instead of being 1907, should have been 1905, two years before, at a time when I was not a member of parliament, not Minister of Public Works, but was acting as solicitor and counsel for Mr. Mayes in important matters.
It is said that Mr. Mayes corrected the statement he had made, but let me say this, that neither Mr. Hazen, the leader of the Conservative party in New Brunswick, nor, as far as I was able to observe, any leading member of the Conservative party or any leading Conservative newspaper, which had been the means of circulating this vile slander regarding myself and spreading is from the Atlantic to the Pacific -not one of these parties ever took any effective step to correct the mistake they had made, to express regret for it and set me right before the people of Canada, and it remained for me, as best I could, to vindicate myself and make the truth known. But, Mr. Speaker, you know that a lie travels very fast and it takes the truth a long time to overtake it; and throughout this Dominion, there are no doubt many people who, even to the day of the election, believed that I was guilty of the crime charged against me by the leader of the Conservative party in New Brunswick.
Regarding the answer I made to the question of my hon. friend, I do not see
how any other answer could have been given. Assuming the statement he made to-day to be true, what does it prove? All that it proves is that, upon the advice of Mr. McAvity, Mr. Mayes put in a tender at a larger figure than he thought, before he left St. John, he could have tendered to do the work for. The tenders which had been called for previously had been called for a good many weeks before that time and were subject to conditions which Mr. Mayes was not able to comply with. One of the conditions was that parties tendering should have a dredge in Canada at the time of filing the tender with which they could perform the work. What Mr. Mayes wanted Mr. McAvity to do, so I understood, was to endeavour to get that disability removed because there was no suitable dredge in the maritime provinces capable of doing the work, and thus enable him to bring in a dredge from the United States. True, Mr. Mayes came to me as his solicitor, who had been his legal adviser in important matters for a number of years, and asked me could I suggest any business man in the city of St. John with whom he might associate in his dredging operations. I mentioned Mr. McAvity as one of the leading business men in the city of St John.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: Will those hon. gentlemen who are good enough to applaud my remarks tell me why I should not name Mr. McAvity? Mr. McAvity was then, as he is now, a prominent business man in the city of St. John. More than that, I had known Mr. McAvity as a man whose integrity had never been questioned and with whom it was an advantage for any one to be associated in the carrying on of any undertaking involving financial strength, the exercise of judgment, and qualities of that character. I recommended Mr. Mayes to see Mr. McAvity. I supposed that Mr. McAvity was joining in the undertaking by putting up a part of the capital; but as to what the arrangements were, I never had any knowledge until certain statements were made by Mr. Mayes during the recent election contest in the city of St. John. What do the records show? They show that when the tenders were previously called, there were two or three-two if I remember rightly. One was by Haney & Miller from Toronto at one dollar and thirty-five per cubic yard. The other, that of Mr. Mayes, was for fifty cents per cubic yard.


George Eulas Foster: 55 cents.


William Pugsley: No, 50 cents; but one of the conditions was that the tenderer must have a dredge in Canada, at the time of filing the tender, prepared to, undertake the work. Mr. Mayes could not comply with that condition. Several weeks

after new tenders were called for; and upon representations made to the then [DOT] Minister of Public Works, and in the exercise of his judgment as minister, being convinced, I presume, that there were no dredges in the maritime provinces capable of doing the work, he omitted that condition and tenders were called for without that stipulation.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who was then Minister of Public Works?


William Pugsley: Mr. Hyman was then the Minister of Public Works and the records of my department show that there were only two tenders sent in-one from Haney and Miller of Toronto, who tendered again, and their tender, if I remember rightly, was at $1.25 per yard; and the other was from G. S. Mayes at 55 cents, being a difference of 70 cents between the two. Let me ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether-even supposing that my hon. friend from North Toronto has any ground for entertaining so poor an opinion of the late Minister of Public Works as to suppose he would inform Mr. McAvity of what was in the other tender-let me ask you whether it is at all likely that such a wide difference would have been left between the two tenders as the very big one of 70 cents per cubic yard?


George Eulas Foster: Did I insinuate anything of that kind?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman said that it is the duty of the government to proceed against Messrs. McAvity and Mayes for the recovery of the sum of $35,000; and that statement, if based at all, must be based on the allegation that the late Minister of Public Works was in collusion with these gentlemen to defraud the treasury. Let me tell my hon. friend-and I tell him as one who has some little knowledge of law and what any respectable barrister will tell him-unless the late Minister of Public Works was in collusion with these gentlemen to defraud the treasury, the government has no claim against either one of them, because the tender of Mr. Mayes was the lowest and was accepted, being the lowest, by the then Minister of Public Works. No claim could therefore be made by the Crown to-day against Mr. McAvity or Mr. Mayes.
Let me say something further with regard to this matter, and I shall be glad at any time to have it fully discussed. The affair did not end there. This affidavit, or alleged affidavit, which was read at this public meeting, was not all there was to this matter, because, although Mr. Mayes has said in it that he was willing to do the work at 50 cents per cubic yard, it is to my knowledge, as Minister of Public Works, that Mr. Mayes was persistent in his demand that I should increase the contract price to 90 cents per cubic yard. Let Mr. PUGSLEY.
me to say to my hon. friend that the statement I made in the city of St. John during that campaign, after the matter had been referred to-which statement is borne out by the records of the department-was that from time to time after the contract was entered into and after I became minister, Mr. Mayes was persistent in the demand that I should increase the contract price to 90 cents, that being the price he was charging for doing other work. The hon. gentleman says that Mr. Mayes was willing to do the work for 50 cents, yet we find him afterwards contending that it was worth 90 cents; and the principal reason why this attempt was made by Mr. Mayes to destroy me politically was my refusal to yield to the solicitations of himself and Mr. McAvity. I held them to their bargain. They claimed that they were losing money, but I forced them to carry out their contract-and I believe that, under my management of the department, so far as this contract is concerned, the government got good service and value.
At six o'clock the House adjourned.

Thursday, January 28, 1909.