Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

That is a new feature of this question. If the answer which I gave here has not been published, the Debates Committee should look into that. My hon. friend is a member of that committee and can attend to that. It is a matter as to which there should be some inquiry, in order to find out who is the guilty party or whether it is simply an accident.

Mr. BERGERON.

This is the first time I have heard about it.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

This is the first time also that I have heard about it.

Mr. E. B. OSLER.

It seems to me that there is more in this question than the mere matter of letting a contract. If it is a fact that individual members of the government or heads of departments let important

contracts wruiout the knowledge of the Prime Minister or the government, it reveals a most serious state of affairs, and explains many of the accusations which have been made against this government. Surely the question of an international fence, probably 800 miles in length, is one of rather more importance than the question of the amount of a contract let by this government. Surely that is a contract that should not be let without the knowledge of the Prime Minister. It is a question that has probably been the subject of negotiations with the states to the south of US'; it certainly should be if it has not been. If a work of that kind can be let without the knowledge of the Prime Minister, then the door is open to all manner of very doubtful transactions in connection with any department of the government. The wire fencing along the boundary between Switzerland and Italy is regarded as so important that sentries are placed to walk up and down on either side of it. And there are hanging bells to give notice to these sentries if there is any attempt to break through this fence. Of course, I do not pretend that anything of that kind will be required with us. But it shows that it is a question of such importance that it should all be carried out with the thorough understanding of the state officers, so that there may be no question of the boundaries. And, if such a transaction is carried out by any department without the knowledge of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister is forced to give the answer that he gave the other day, I say there is something radically wrong, something much more serious than the letting of a contract without tender.

Mr. DAVID HENDERSON.

I certainly agree with everything that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has said. And I will go further. I think it is very unfortunate-and the matter has occurred more frequently of late with relation to public works-that the department officials should be allowed such great latitude in deciding the expenditures to be made upon various public works of this country. Instead of taking the instructions of the minister to erect a public building for a certain sum, the officials of the department seem to be left practically uncontrolled to say what the cost of any public work shall be.

I have had occasion, time after time, to draw attention to this matter. And the course I have suggested at different times has been approved, especially by the late Hon. Mr. Sutherland, when Minister of Public Works. That gentleman stated that he approved of my plan that the officials of the government should be limited to a certain sum of money for the erection of a public building, after parliament has decided that that building shall be erected. But here we have a case where not only the Prime Minister is not aware of the con-177

struction of this fence, but the Minister of the Interior seems to have no knowledge of it and does not seem to have been consulted-only the officials of the department kno*tv anything about it. Was parliament ever consulted, and did it vote money for the construction of this fence? If parliament voted the money, I would like to know when that vote passed. I have no recollection of any vote of this House for the erection of suc-h a fence. Of course, if there has been a vote, I presume, that would be a direction to the department to carry out the work. But, if my recollection is accurate-and I think it is-no appropriation has been made for this purpose. I believe, from all that has been learned from this brief discussion, that some official in the department has undertaken to concur in the desire of some contractor to get a big contract without even waiting for the appropriation by parliament to sanction it, and without the minister at the head of the department having approved of it. Whether it was in the Department of the Interior or the Department of Public Works, I do not know. I should think it would be for the Department of Public Works to erect this fence. We have nothing before us to show that the Department of Public Works was ever consulted in the matter or that it sanctioned this expenditure in any way. So far as the facts are before us, it would seem to be one of those cases where departmental officials have assumed to do something they had no authority to do, to expend public money, while we, the members of this House, to a certain extent, along with the government are held responsible. How are we to limit the expenditure of this country if an official of the government is to have power to direct expenditures beyond that of the head of the department, or even that of the Prime .Minister, and without consulting parliament ? I think the time has come when the Prime Minister should put his foot down on such a practice, and that he should administer a severe rebuke to any colleague of his qr any official under the government who would undertake to do such a thing. Now, this is not a small matter. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) said it would cost $100,000 at least. I have no hesitation in saying that if a proper fence were constructed there it would cost not less than a quarter of a million dollars. Eight hundred miles of fencing, would mean 256,000 rods. To construct a fairly good, substantial fence and provide posts such as ought to be provided in a case of that kind would cost not less than $1 per rod. I speak of this with some knowledge of what wire fencing is worth. Here we have an expenditure of $250,000. Now, has it come to this, that an official of the government has power to enter into a contract with a firm friendly to the government to expend a quarter of a million dol-

lars without the consent of the head of the department, without consent of the Prune Minister, and without the concurrence of the parliament whose right alone it to decide whether this work shall be constructed, and, if so, to vote the money for it ? No official should expend or even propose to expend a single dollar toward the erection of such a fence until the money has been voted by parliament. There are certain things the government has a right to do, X admit ; but an undertaking like this is one of the things that, as I say, are beyond the right and power of the government unless it has received the sanction of parliament. I am glad this matter has been brought up, because I think it will be a salutary lesson to the officials of the differ-erent departments ; it will be a warning to them in the future to be more careful how they handle the people's money not having the' consent of the people's representatives.

Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER.

The statement of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) is one which, I hope, the Prime Minister will take into consideration in giving the information which he proposes to give to-morrow. It surely cannot be that a contract for from $100,000 to $250,000 would be let, whether by open or by private tender, or any steps taken for letting it, until a definite estimate had been brought down and a vote passed by parliament. X cannot but think that my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) must toe mistaken in that respect, because to let such a contract under such circumstances would be to do a thing that even this government would hesitate before attempting. But we ought not to feel surprised if a thing of this kind has taken place in the Department of the Interior-particular 1 y in the Department of the Interior. This government commenced by doing away largely with cabinet responsibility, and by throwing upon each individual minister the work of his own department not revised by the ' cabinet as a whole.

When you put a strong willed minister in charge of the department and give him liis own free will, these things inevitably hap pen. It happened eaily in the career of this government. The Minister of Railways and Canals did work on a large scale in the province of Prince Edward Island and other provinces without ever having consulted his colleagues in the cabinet at all ; and I believe some very bad quarters of hours were lived by various ministers regarding what took place in that respect. That was a gross instance of what I mention, and it had some effect probably in the cabinet,-how much I do not know. Then you take this same Department of the Interior ; a strong self-willed man is put in charge. He immediately selects his own favourites, his former henchmen, those who had done him service politically, and he put them in positions am!

Mr. HENDERSON.

advanced them to positions in the department, irrespective of merit, length of service, or anything of the kind. Favourites installed in that way have strong influence on the ininister. They know what they have done for him and what the minister owes them, and they do not hesitate, when the right time comes, to push their advantage. Look at the humiliating confession made in parliament by the ex-Minister of the Interior himself. It was on the occasion of the Saskatchewan land business. A certain block of land was sold at a song, given away for some money and a little more scrip, but the. conditions were laid down, solemnly agreed upon, and brought to this parliament. One of the conditions was that they should perform their , obligations and make their payments before getting their patents. It came out however in this House-it was brought out by some bon. gentleman on this side- that the patents were issued before the conditions were fulfilled, and that this was done without the cognizance of the minister, and the minister bad to make a confession in the House that be did not know it was done or he would not have allowed it. That official is still iu the department. He actually gave to these gentlemen patents- for their lands when they bad not fulfilled their conditions, and the only excuse given by the minister was that it had not come to his attention until too late. This transaction is on the same basis. They have had their fling and their run in that department. They knew that the Prime Minister was easy, and they proposed to have it when there was no minister particularly in charge. In this way this tuft gone on.. There are some things in connection with that department which merit the immediate attention of the new Minister of the Interior, and I hope he will give them his honest attention. There have been too many rumours regarding that department, too many suspicions of jobs carried out in it; and what I hope now is that an honest administration of that department will take place. But what ought to take place certainly is that parliament should not he trifled with and that no Prime -Minister or minister should be given false information by which to mislead the House. It may be all a mistake that can be cleared up as a misunderstanding ; but it looks now as if it were gross carelessness, or something worse, that when a contract of that kind bad been given, the First Minister should have bad a wrong answer put into his band. The same thing took place earlier in the session, and 1 called the right bon. gentleman's attention to it. With Mr. Pedley, one of the officers of the department, sitting right before him, the right bon. gentleman was made to give to this House information which was absolutely incorrect and to provide promotion in that 'department on this false information ; and the only reason the Prime Minister bad for giving it, was the information with which he bad been furnished. Now his own secre-

tary was right in front of him when that wrong information was given, and on that wrong information, and on it alone, the promotion was arranged. This shows there is need for either a resurrection or an insurrection or a revision. There needs to be something done in that department, and we look for the new minister to give a very serious, careful and watchful eye on the administration of that department over which he has been so unexpectedly called to preside.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

My hon. friend has laid his suspicion on a wrong basis. 1 am in a position to affirm that there has been no contract given. I will give all the information poDsible ultimately, Mr. Keyes,

[DOT] when he wrote that letter, was misinformed or made a mistake.

Mr. HENDERSON.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to correct a statement which I have made. I had overlooked the fact-which I discovered on examining the estimates-that there was an appropriation last year to the extent of $100,000. That will not do more than half complete the undertaking. The estimate is renewed 1 find this year. Whether it has been considered in committee or not is not a matter of moment, because the vote of last year, is now in existence and can be utilized if the work is undertaken before the 1st of July. I make this statement because I wish to remove a wrong impression which I may have created ; but at the same time that does not justify the department proceeding with this work without the consent of the head of this government or the department in question.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Of course 1 have not had time to look at the papers, but 1 think also that tenders were advertised for, but the ex-Minister of the Interior would not issue the contract.

,L. BORDEN. With regard to that, we certainly should have an explanation why the secretary of the department should have misled people who were proposing to tender and in the second place why he did not inform them that those advertisements had really been issued.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Perhaps I am wrong but my impression is that there were advertisements.

Mr. SPROULE.

It would be very desirable to have a fence in the west as well as in the east-two fences built far apart, as probably one will never be satisfactory.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

We will keep to one just now at all events.

Mr. INGRAM.

Not having been able to find the answer given by the First Minister to this question, I went carefully over ' Hansard ' and could not find it. I think it very curious that the answer given on that occa-1774

sion should not have appeared in ' Hansard.' I desire to place on ' Hansard ' the reply as given in the Toronto ' Globe ' on May 2nd :

Sir Wilfrid Laurier informed the hon. gentleman that the question of erecting wire fences along the southern boundaries of the Northwest Territories is under consideration, but no tenders have yet been asked for nor contracts let.

That was the answer given on that occasion. The right hon. gentleman was asked to-day, and he was not able to give the answer, but he has since been informed by the department that contracts have not been let. What I want to know is : if that be true how does it come that Mr. Keyes, who represented the department on the 8th of April, states in his letter that the contracts have been let and signs his name to that effect. That is the statement he made in the letter read by the hon. member for Kent, and that letter was certainly an official one.

On the 20th of March this wire company wrote to the department and wanted certain information in connection with this contract. No reply was given until the 8th of April. Nineteen days afterwards, the secretary of the department, Mr. Keyes, writes to these gentlemen and tells them that the contract is let. Yet to-day we have the First Minister stating that the contract is not let. I think if ever there was a case of investigation, this is one. I notice in this correspondence, Mr. Speaker, that your name appears as the representative' of that constituency, and probably it would be well if the Speaker would give some explanation with respect to the contract, or with respect to the correspondence that has taken place between the department and the fence wire company. There is something very extraordinary about it, and I presume that to-morrow when the papers are brought down, when the advertisement is exposed to the members of this House, and the tenders that have been called for, a copy of that document will be laid before the House so that hon. gentlemen on both sides will be in a position to judge of tire merits of this case.

Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT.

While fully agreeing in the criticism that ha.s been made on this affair, I desire to draw attention to another phase of the question, namely, that where fenciug is to be done between neighbours the ordinary common law of the land is that the neighbours who are interested are jointly responsible for the construction of the fence. This being an international fence, has any approach been made by this government towards the United States government asking them to pay their fair share of this fencing ? It appears to me that is a proposition that ought to be entertained by the American government. They are interested in having the proper boundary line marked the same as we are. Has this government made any representations to the

United States1 government asking them to pay part of the cost of this fence ? They certainly should pay part of the cost of that fence. The fence will not only require to be built but to be maintained ; from time to time it will no doubt be broken down, 800 miles of fence will not stand for ever, and it appears to me that this government should ask the United States in all fairness, as our neighbours, friendly, and as jointly interested in the territory, that they should pay a fair share of the fence that is to be erected. I commend this point to the attention of the government, and I trust that if it is due to us that the United States pay a part of the cost, they will see that the United States do pay a part both of the cost of construction and the cost of maintenance, inasmuch as the fence is really an international boundary.

Mr. W. H. BENNETT.

The other day, in discussing the question of dredging I made a statement-and I have no reason to take it back in consequence of anything that has been said since-that in certain departments of the government, so far as the riding I represent is concerned, the public is of opinion that common honesty is not expected, and common honesty would be at a premium. That seems to be the difficulty in this matter. Now the secretary of the department, Mr. Keyes, is to be dragged in as a scapegoat, and after the statement has been made in the House, and after this gentleman gives a written and explicit official letter that a contract has been made, then we are told to-day that no contract has been made. I do not know Mr. Keyes, but X can only say that it is a great draught on any man's imagination to believe that a gentleman occupying the responsible position of sectretary of the department goes and makes large contracts of a quarter of a million dollars without the assent of the minister, and without conference with him. But Mr. Keyes cannot back out of it so easy, and the department cannot back out of it so easy, because there is correspondence to-day on the ' Hansard ' to which I must now revert. I regret that Mr. Speaker is in the chair, because of necessity his name is brought into the discussion. The letter that the member for Kent (Mr. Clements) read a while ago, I will now read again: .

We at once wrote that department, under date March 20th, hut did not receive a reply until under date April 8th, a letter signed by Mr. P. Gl. Keyes, stating that the government had already let the contract for the wire fence. In the meantime we had got a friend to write Mr. R. P. Sutherland for information regarding this matter, but he professed ignorance and only just a day or two ago a letter was received from him stating that he found the contract had been let to McGregor, Banwell, a firm in this town.

Now is this Mr. Keyes conducting a department in such a. manner that he is Mr. COCKSHUTT.

deliberately misrepresenting to Mr. Speaker, when he goes for information, because you, Mr. Speaker, must hard gone to the department for information, and I cannot believe and I do not believe, if Mr. Speaker did write that letter to this firm, that he had concocted it out of his own mind, that the Speaker had drawn on his imagination to that extent. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you went to the department, I believe that you found there the secretary of the department, or whoever was in charge of this matter, and that the gentleman in charge informed you exactly what Mr. Keyes had written before, namely, that the contract had been made. But here is the striking feature in connection with this whole deal-because it is a deal-it never would have leaked out had it not been for this firm. It is only in ridings represented by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that many matters are likely to come to the front, because when a riding is not represented oil this side of the House the chances are that matters go without comment in those ridings. Why, to give this Department of the Interior all the brunt of that crooked work is unfair when you take it in connection with other departments, and more particularly when the past Minister of the Interior has been either slandered or not slandered by the government press as a wrong-doer in that department. i say there are other departments- and I am not saying the Department of the Interior is wrong-I say there are other departments where similar tactics are carried on in order to curry favour with their friends. What do I find in my own town in reference to a government dock ? I asked the question the other day who were the lessees of the dock in the town of Midland, and here is the answer :

The storehouses at Midland are occupied jointly by Playfair, Preston & Company and the wharfinger. The rent is $100 per year, fixed in accordance with value thereof, as estimated by resident engineer.

The resident engineer occupies part of premises that anybody would pay about $200 a year rent for, and the resident engineer reports that it is has been leased to a party for $100. Here is a letter written to the department by a firm in the town who wished to get possession of these premises and was willing to pay $450 a year for them. They cannot have them, but these party hacks and hangers-on of this government get it for $100. Here is the Department of Marine and Fisheries going up to Depot Harbour advertising a contract for buoying out the channel, and giving it to party friends without ever calling for tenders at all. Not to mention such trifles as handing over a steamboat worth from $7,000 to $8,000 for $2,500. Take the Department of the Postmaster General, who I am sorry to see, is not in his place, and what do I find ? A mail contract, no tenders asked for, and a party

hanger-on is given a considerable advance, nearly three per cent advance on the old figures that were given before. I go into the same department and what do I find again ? I asked the following question :

1. Who is the postmaster at Waverley, Ontario ?

2. Does he personally conduct the office ?

3. Does he reside at the post office premises ? If not, how far therefrom ?

Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) '

1. Mr. John Anderson.

2 and 3. The department has no information as to whether the postmaster personally conducts the office or resides at the post office premises or elsewhere.

Is that not a beautifully conducted department ? They appoint a man as postmaster and they do not know where he lives. He might live in Timbuctoo for all the depart-men knows. And what are the facts of the case ? A party hanger-on is appointed postmaster of the town, and he does not live within three miles of the village. There are three stores in the village, and the postmaster appointed is to-day studying in his own mind to which of the stores he is going to put the post office in.

That will depend on the amount of remuneration they are prepared to pay the Postmaster for having it there. ' The government might better sell the privilege of conducting the post office. They could get $100 a year from any one of these three storekeepers, but the reason that some of these storekeepers cannot have the post office is that they are Tories. It was taken out of the store of one of them, a man who had been postmaster for years without complaint, without any demur having been made at all, this farmer who lives three miles away and night and day is on the beat for hon. gentlemen opposite, is appointed postmaster, and to-day be is dickering with these three storekeepers as to what each is prepared to pay for the privilege of having the post office in his store. It is a matter of public comment there, and they are tossing up to see who is going to have the post office in his store. This is a fair sample of how matters are conducted in that riding, and if the condition of affairs in ether ridings -were inquired into it would be found to be exactly the same. Why is it so ? It is because certain things are tolerated in this House and in the country that the ordinary grafter thinks he ought to have some of it too. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Pr6-fontaine) does what ? He gives $3,000 or $4,000 worth of timber on an island to a party hanger-on, a member of this House steers the deal through the department and the brother of the member gets $50 for bis services although his name never appears in this connection at all. That is the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant). The case was before the House on a former

occasion. This same thing is going on all through the Dominion in the interest of the grafters and hangers on of the party whose attention has now been transferred from Toronto to Ottawa in connection wdth schemes of this kind. I am going to believe the minister's statement. I am noi going to believe Mr. Keyes' statement-

I care not whether Mr. Keyes is offended or not-when Mr. Keyes says that his statement was an error in saying that the contract had been signed. Some one told his honour the Speaker that the contract had been signed and it is the duty of the House to give an opportunity to his honour the Speaker to inform the House if he can, whether or not a contract had been signed. Until I hear more I am not prepared to accept Mr. Keyes' statement now that he blundered, that he made a mistake when he wrote these gentlemen that there was no contract and that when you, Mr. Speaker, went to the department and saw' Mr. Keyes, he committed another blunder and was guilty of another falsehood by informing you that there was a contract signed.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

And informed the Prime Minister later.

Mr. BENNETT.

And- informed the Prime Minister later. It is crime upon crime. It is a very fortunate thing that we have some active business men in this country like the Page Wire Fence Company, prepared to intervene when a scheme like this is being put through, because it might not have been brought before the House but for the timely intervention of those gentlemen and the information which they have given to my hon. friend from West Kent (M#. Clements). If some of our hon. friends are willing to lay all kinds of crimes and misdemeanours at the door of hte Department of the Interior, I will say to them' that that department has not a monopoly of them. We have these dredging matters to w-hich I am going to refer again and I may say that only a day or twro since I got some information about another dredging plant. Who own these dredging plants throughout Ontario to-day ? Are they practical contractors ? Not one of them. Hangers-on, political judges and I am going to say to the House that in order to mislead and to delude the public a fraud is resorted to in making returns to the department at Toronto as to wbo tbe stockholders of these companies are. This is to cover up their tracks, and yet the hon. acting Minister of Public Works {Mr. Hyman) tbe other day got up here and asked the House and myself to accept his statement that he did not know that Mr. McKay, of Owen Sound, was interested in a dredge and that Mr. Me 14ay had never sent him notice of it. We all know that Mr. McKay is considerable of a traveller both on land and sea. We know that Mr. McKay's primary business in coming to Ottawa must be to see whether or

Mr. PATERSON.

Upon what date was that question asked ?