There was no knowledge in the department that he had been a contractor in any way for the department. But I can say for myself that I never directly or indirectly had any intimation that there was any person connected with politics in any way, or that there was anything irregular in granting this to any person in that constituency in connection with provincial politics. If anything of that kind was done, it was without my knowledge, and without any official of the department knowing anything about it. If the services rendered were not worth the money, that is a different thing.

Mr. REID (Grenville).

Certainly I am not reflecting on the minister while he was in charge.

What is the Christian name of this Mr. Collins ?

Mr. REID (Grenville).

I do not remember, I was not told.

There is one Collins employed at Christian island, and his name is Allan.

Mr. BENNETT.

That is on Georgian bay.

Mr. TAYLOR.

I understood from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,; from information that he got from his officer a few moments ago, that Mr. Collins did have a Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.

contract with the government and was paid $100. Now what Collins was that he referred to ?

The information my officers give me is to the effect that we have now at that island as lighthouse keeper a man named Allan Collins. He is the only one of that name.

Mr. TAYLOR.

That is not the information the minister gave a few) moments ago. He told us that this Collins we are discussing did have a contract for putting out buoys, and that he was paid $100. Now I want to ask the Minister of Public Works if this Mr. Collins to whom reference has been made did have a contract with the government for placing buoys, and did he get $100 for it, and was that contract let by Mr. Hurley ?

It would not be let by Mr. Hurley. My recollection is that the person mentioned, whose name I forget now, to whom Mr. Hurley was said to have spoken, was a man who had a contract with the department. It seems the man referred to had a contract with the department for placing buoys. I remember that from the discussion. But I want to assure the committee that there is no knowledge on my part about it, and no representation was made to any person in the department that there was anything excessive in the contract, or that it had any connection with provincial politics. It went through the department in the usual way. I should be surprised to learn, from my personal knowledge of Mr. Hurley, that he would make any representation that was not strictly true. AVben the matter was brought up in the House I wrote him a letter at once, and got his reply, accompanied with an affidavit which I showed to the hon. member for AVest Hastings. The matter was then allowed to drop, and I understood that the explanation was considered perfectly satisfactory, and that there was no foundation for the charge. There is no connection whatever between the contract this man had at the time and the incident that was reported to the House.

Mr. REID (Grenville).

I may say to the . hon. Minister of Public AVorks that the hon. member for1 AVest Hastings did not intend to reflect on him as a minister, but it was in regard to Mr. Hurley that he was raising the question, and in regard to Mr. Hurley making an affidavit of this kind, and that afterwards Collins told his partner that he had got $100. I may be wrong when I say that he made an affidavit, but Collins told his partner that he had been promised this, and that be had got the $100. If such is the case, Mr. Hurley is certainly wrong in making the affidavit he did, and I simply asked the question to see if it were true that he did get the* $100. If the hon. minister

states that he did not get the $100, the hon. member for West Hastings can bring the question up at a later date, when he is in the House.

I do not find any record of the payment of $100. I will make the necessary inquiries as to whether any such thing took place.

Mr. REID (Grenville).

Do the officers not know whether there has been $100 paid ?

1 think the evidence by which the committee is asked to be satisfied that $100 was paid can be characterized as secondary evidence. The hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) says that the hon member for West Hastings said that the partner of John Collins said that John Collins said that Mr. Hurley said he would give him $100.

Mr. REID (Grenville).

The hon. member for West Hastings said he saw it in the Auditor General's Report himself.

Here is the book. That would be better evidence.

Mr. COCHRANE.

I want to state that I have no intention to reflect upon Mr. Hurley at all, who, the hon. Postmaster General said, is a very worthy man. I do not dispute that, but we cannot give every worthy man in Ontario $1,500 a year simply because he is a worthy man. I have tried to get some information in reference to Mr. Hurley's duties. I tried to get it from the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries and failed, and then the hon. Postmaster General came to his rescue, and he told us that he was a very worthy man.

So he is.

Mr. COCHRANE.

I have no doubt about that. I will not contradict the hon. Postmaster General at all. Although he may be a worthy man, there are hundreds of worthy men in Ontario, but, as I said, we cannot afford to give every worthy man in Ontario $1,500 or $1,600 a year. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has come in, and he knows perhaps what Mr. Hurley's duties are. I was saying to the committee before the hon. gentleman came in that I thought it was not like a business transaction on the part of a business government to pay officers $1,500 or $2,000 a year for one job or another when the local legis lature has the right to issue the licenses and keep the money. I refer to Mr. Hurley, because I know him better than anybody else I want to satisfy my mind so that I can give information to the electors in the constituency which I have the honour to represent when they ask me what these inspectors are doing. What earthly use is there in having these officers to supervise the fisheries, when the local legislature is making all the money out of it ? They are the parties who are interested. They have their own officers attending to that duty, and we are appointing officials to go over the same ground exactly. I suppose it is the duty of our officials to see that the officials of the legislature are doing their duty, but they are getting the money. I cannot see any use of the Dominion government paying out this money, hot that it is an enormous sum, but that is how money is frittered away.

Mr. DYMENT.

I understand that