Mr. BLAIN.

Tenders addressed to the undersigned will be received until noon on Monday, the 6th May, 1895, for the dredging required in the harbour during the present year. Each tender to be accompanied by an accepted cheque for $200, payable to the order of A. B. Lee, Esq., which will be forfeited if the party whose tender is accepted should refuse or fail to carry out hi* agreement to perform the work specified.

The lowest or any tender not necessarily accepted.

Specifications can be seen at the Harbour Master's office.

Mr. SPROULE.

What is the date of that?

Mr. BLAIN.

April 29, 1895.

Mr. EMMERSON.

The tenders, I understand, were returnable on the 6th of May.

Mr. BLAIN.

The date of the advertisement may not be the first date on which it appeared in the newspaper; therefore you cannot make a comparison on that point. I do not wish to say that is not the date ; I am not complaining on that point. What I am pointing out is that this is an advertisement for straight tenders sent out by the harbour master of the city of Toronto without any conditions surrounding it that would lead any one to believe that he was trying to provide a special advertisement for a special contractor. My hon. friend knows that if Conmee & Bowman are the only parties who have a dredge ready at Port Arthur to go to work within a few days after their tender is accepted, he might as well say to them, you can have this contract at any price they choose to fix. My hon. friend must bear in mind, that this matter has not developed in the province of Ontario in one day ; it has a history ; it has been going on for many years, and the electors ot Ontario are aroused on this point. There was another acting Minister of Public Works since this government came into office. The present Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) was acting Minister of Public Works in 1900, when he sent out the following rather peculiar letter :

Ottawa, March 13, 1900.

My dear Sir,-During Mr. Tarte's absence I have been requested to take charge of his department for him, and it would be of great service in enabling me to take up his work if you would kindly write me at your earliest convenience with reference to the following subjects ;

1. For what works in your constituency has there been a parliamentary vote ?

2. Have these works been begun ? If so, in what state of progress are they ?

3. If not begun, what is your advice as to whether or not they should be begun ?

4. Are you asking for provisions being made in supplementary estimates for :

(a) New works.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

What date is that ?

Mr. BLAIN.

Ottawa, March 13, 1900.

Mr. SPROULE.

Just before the elections?

Mr. BLAIN.

The elections were held in November, 1900. That may have some significance. I wish to draw the acting minister's attention to this matter for I am quite sure he must have forgotten it. This is a note of warning to Reform candidates and members of parliament-something of an invitation to them to say to the government what work they want done. They are practically told : If there be no parliamentary vote, make an application ; here is a letter inviting you to do so. I suppose that letter was answered, the estimates of- 1901-2 and so on show tnat the members of parliament and candidates belonging to the Liberal party in Ontario and elsewhere took due notice of this letter sent out by the Acting Minister of Public Works in the year 1900. This matter was brought into the very heart of the city of Toronto. The mayor of that city was in Ottawa last year, and he is thus reported in the Toronto ' Globe ' on January 2, 1905. I may say that the mayor was a candidate for re-election just at that time and was speaking before his electors in Toronto and giving reasons why he should be re-elected. Somebody asked him to discuss the Toronto and Hamilton Railway question, which he did. That, he said, gave him abundant opportunity to prove his business capacity and aggressiveness. Here is what His Worship said as reported in the Toronto ' Globe ' of that date :

Taking his cue from this company that, in order to get right of way into the oity, had put up a lobby in Ottawa, the mayor had put up one of his own, and the best in the history of the Ottawa parliament.

That is how the lesson is spreading in Ontario. The mayor of Toronto came to Ottawa, there was a proposition before the Railway Committee affecting that city, he had learned from this letter of the acting minister (Sir William Mulock) and other onicial documents that what was necessary was not a good case but to be a specialist in lobbying, and when be returned to his electors he appealed to them for reelection on the ground that he had been to Ottawa and had put up the greatest lobby ever known. In the last election we had a special telegram sent by the First Minister ' all right.'

It was all wrong.

Mr. BLAIN.

It was all wrong in the opinion of the electors, because they defeated that gentleman and sent the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as their representative. But I refer to this matter to show you that the people of Ontario are beginning to realize that special work has to be done in this parliament in order that they may get what is required for their municipalities or constituencies. Just one other item. I wish to refer for a moment to the expenditure in the constituency of Mr. McEwen, who represented South Huron in the last parliament.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I think my hon. friend is out of order. The question we are on is the question of dredging at Port Arthur.

Mr. BLAIN.

I understood this was a motion to adjourn the House.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER, It is a motion to adjourn on the question brought up by the hon. member for East Simcoe, namely, the dredging at Port Arthur and Fort William. -

Mr. BLAIN.

I am making a comparison with the expenditure in bygone days to see whether this government is growing better or worse.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

I do not think the hon. gentleman is speaking to the question under discussion.

Mr. BLAIN.

I suppose I must how to the decision of the chair, and will do so with pleasure. I notice, however, that the discussion has gone very wide of the mark.

Mr. jSPROULE1. Aire you ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on moving the adjournment of the House we must confine ourselves exactly to the discussion which gave rise to the motion ?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

My experience is that motions to adjourn are made for the purpose of bringing up some special subject, and the consensus of opinion is tnat, in order to save time, which is always valuable, hon. members should confine themselves as much as possible to the subject under discussion.