1. How much coal is supplied each year for the Militia Department in connection with the Halifax garrison?

2. What price is paid for hard and soft coal, respectively ?

3. Is it true that the government pays $4.3' per ton of 2,000 pounds, while the imperial government paid the same price per ton of 2.240 pounds

4. Is it true that the imperial government

obtained delivery not only in the city but at outposts and forts for the price of $4.35 per ton of 2,240 pounds, and that the present government, in addition to the increased price above-mentioned, pays the cost of delivery to the outposts and forts at a cost of about $1 per ton? .

5. What part, if any, of the 12,000 tons is supplied after public advertisement and tender ?

6. How long have Messrs. George E. Boak & Son, or George E. Boak, had this contract ?

7. Is it true that the contract is given to them direct by the department without tender ?

8. What are all the facts in connection with the supplying of this coal and the increase in price to the country, if any ?

.

1. The quantity estimated as; required for 1907-8 was 1,532 tons hard coal and 3,061 tons soft coal. The accounts for the year are not yet closed.

2. $4.35 per ton of 2,000 pounds for soft coal ; $6.20 and $6.25 per ton of 2,000 pounds for hard coal.

3. Yes, the contract with the Imperial government was made in May, 1904 ; that with the Canadian government in January, 1906.

4. The contract made by the Imperial government with the Dominion Coal Company made no provision for an extra charge for * delivery outside city limits. It was originally for one year endin'g May 31, 1905, but was extended from time to time till December 31, 1905. The last extension was for delivery within the city limits only.

The contract made by the Canadian government in December, 1905, after tenders had been obtained, provided that for delivery outside city limits and to outposts, an extra charge of 75 cents per ton would be paid. This extra charge was stipulated for by all tenderers.

' 5. Twelve thousand tons are not required. In December, 1905, tenders for soft coal were obtained from George E. Boak and Company, and the Dominion Coal Company, for the year ending December 31, 1906.

In June, 1907, tenders were obtained by letter from the Dominion Coal Company, A. T. Weldon, and George E. Boak and Son, for the supply for the year ending June 30, 1908. The contract was given to the lowest tenderers, George E. Boak and Son.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

For hard coal competitive tenders were obtained by newspaper advertisement, in June, 1906, from George E. Boak and Company and James Hall, for 1906-7 ; and in June, 1907, by letter from Boak and Son, Dominion Coal Company and A. T. Weldon. The contract was awarded in each case to the lowest tenderer, George E. Boak and Company, and George E. Boak and Son.

6. Since January 1, 1906.

7. No.

Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) :

During May, 1908, two letters

were received from the County Crown Attorney at Brantford and one from counsel for members of various trades unions and a reply was sent to each letter.

These letters discussed the provisions of section 501 of the Criminal Code and the true interpretation of the said section and whether any amendment of the said section was desirable.

Mr. FOSTER.

I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works if it is true, as has been alleged, that the employees of the Public Works Department in Hamilton have not received their April pay, and what is the reason ?

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I am not aware of it but will make inquiry.

Mr. FOiSTER. Probably let us know in the afternoon session.

Mr. G. W. FOWLER (Kings, N.B.).

Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to a certain misrepresentation which appears in what purports to be a letter issued by the Railway Department to its employees. I am quoting from the ' Daily Telegraph ' of St. John, New Brunswick, Saturday, June 6:

Intercolonial Railway employees here have been notified by a circular, a copy of which is posted in the freight shed, that salaries or wages will not likely be paid until further supplies have been voted by parliament.

The circular which bears the name of the late superintendent G. M. Jarvis and is dated from Truro on June 3, informs all concerned

that a letter dated June 2, had been received from the general manager which reads as follows:

I am instructed to advise you that the interim partial appropriation voted by parliament for works and. staff under the control of the Department of Railways and Canals, will shortly be exhausted, if not already so, and that no further appropriation has been obtained from parliament at the present date, and to instruct you to notify the several members of your staff of the position, leaving it to their option to decide whether they will continue work on the understanding that no salary or wages will be paid them until further supplies have been voted.

Similar notices are posted at Moncton and elsewhere along the line. A Moncton despatch says: In view of the circular, employees are wondering whether or not they are to receive any pay this month. The office employees, including men in the shippings, train men, &c., have yet to be paid.

What I complain of Is that those instructions, issued from the Department of Railways and Canals

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

What date ?

It must have been previous to June 2, because on June 2 the General Manager sent his circular to the different road superintendents. Therefore the instructions must have gone from him before June 1 in order to have enabled him to issue these instructions on June 2. The idea no doubt was to make the people working on the Intercolonial Railway believe that the opposition were preventing them from getting their pay. As a matter of fact, however, the Minister of Railways has never asked this parliament for Supply to pay the employees of the Intercolonial Railway or on the canals. Last Friday night, after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) had moved that the committee rise and report progress, and after midnight when we had been sitting from 11 in the morning, the Minister of Railways- evidently by preconcerted arrangement- rose and said he would like to get some Supply. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) objected that it was very late and that some of the members of the committee in connection with railways and canals, on the opposition side, were not present. The minister demurred to this on the ground that he could not be here on Monday. Well, we know why the minister could not be here on Monday. The minister is not detained by anything in connection with his department from being here; the minister is up in Brockville attending to the provincial elections. The minister has a right, if he sees fit, to take part in the provincial elections, I have no fault to find with that at all. But the minist<>r should not neglect the work of his department in order to take part in provincial elections. We are now going into Supply; if the Minister of Railways were here 318

there would be no difficulty in getting Supply for the employees of his department. But as I say, he has never asked for Supply except in the manner I have mentioned, on Friday night. I say that this instruction that has been issued from the Department of Railways and Canals is absolutely and entirely misleading, and is a misrepresentation of the true situation here. We have been charged with obstruction; and my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B., (Mi', Carvel]) stated the other day that a great many resolutions had been moved by the opposition, who had taken up a great deal of time unnecessarily. Now as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the greater portion of the time of this House, as will be found by an examination of ' Hansard,' has been taken up by lion, gentlemen opposite.

Oh.

Mr. FOWLER.

My hon. friend says oh. I have carefully examined the ' Hansard ' from the first of this session in November down to the end of January, and during that time hon. gentlemen opposite have taken up a considerably larger portion of the time.

Mr. CARVELL.

Do you include in that the time you devoted in asking questions over Supply?

Mr. FOWLER.

The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has asked a question, I do not know what-he means by that. I have taken very little time in asking questions over Supply; in fact I do not think, if there is any person that can be accused of obstruction on either side of the House, that any one can properly accuse me of having unnecessarily taken up the time of this House. I have taken up very little time, less time than my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell); but the short time I have taken up has been far more effective, so far as the general business of the country was concerned,, than the much longer time taken up by the member for Carleton, because no man can use more words and say less than that hon. gentleman. Now I have examined the discussion of the various resolutions that were debated, the resolutions which the hon. member for Carleton said were silly and absurd. If they were silly and absurd, it is a singular thing that the ministerial members should find it necessary to talk so much about them. Of course my hon. friend, when he made that remark, did not mean it, he only made it for the purpose of getting a laugh from his friends. I find that on the various resolutions that were introduced in this House and discussed from the time we began to sit in November down to January, the ministerial members occupied thirty-eight columns of ' Hansard ' more than the opposition members did -discussing these various resolutions which

the hon. member for Carleton said were silly and ridiculous.