Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :

The only change in salaries, besides those that are provided for in the different schedules and which are made from month to month as the employees become entitled to them by length of service, was an increases granted in May, 1908, to the telegraphers, and which was made to date from April 1; this for nine months from April to December, inclusive, aggregated $22,500.

1. Was Mayes' first tender for dredging at St. John 50 cents a cubic yard, and was it refused because he could not comply with the condition as to Canadian dredges, or why?

2. Was the condition removed at the instance of Mayes, or parties acting for him?

3. Was the contract without this condition, awarded to Mayes at 55 cents a cubic yard?

4. Were tenders called for again, by advertisement, between the time of Mayes' first and second tender?

5. Having regard to statements made and documents read by Mr. Hazen at a publio meeting at St. John during the last general eloction, the discussion of the Mayes-McAvity incident by the press during and since the month of October last, as well as the alleged connection of the Minister of Public Works with that transaction, and the allegations recently made upon the floor of this House, all to the effect that the condition above mentioned being removed, Mayes was about to repeat his tender at 50 cents a cubic yard, but was induced by George McAvity, not to do so, but, instead, to tender at 55 cents a cubic yard, the extra five cents per yard to go to McAvity as a rake-ofl or reward to him for exerting his influence with the government to increase the number of yards to be dredged and to secure the contract for Mayes, and the allegation that McAvity actually received the extra five cents a yard, amounting to the sum of $35,933, and having regard to the exceptional importance and gravity of the matters charged, will the government take measures to have this matter of the Mayes tenders and contract and the alleged transactions and dealings in connection therewith, fully inquired into and ascertained ? If so, when and how ?

6. Is the government of opinion that they can and should recover this $35,933, if the facts are substantially as alleged?

7. Has the government consulted the legal department as to his right to recover this money, and will they do so? If not, why not?

Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).

Mr. Speaker, I would like_ to call your attention, as well as the attention of my hon. friend, to this allegation in the 5th part of the question: ' as well as the alleged connection of the Minister of Public Works with that transaction.' I am not aware that there has been any allegation, that has been persisted in, in any quarter, in regard to any ' alleged connection of the

1X75

Minister of Public Works ' with the Mayes-McAvity transaction. I would say that the question was improper on that ground. I may say that I would not object to the question, though it is irregular, if under your honour's interpretation of the rules of the House I would be permitted to answer it fully.

Mr. SPEAKER.

Would you prefer the question to stand until it can be looked into, to see whether it is properly put ?

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Just as your honour de cides.

Mr. LENNOX.

It has stood now for a long time, and I am prepared to take the Speaker's decision on the matter.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

So am I.

Mr. SPEAKER.

Then, let these words be struck out: ' as well as the alleged connection of the Minister of Public Works with that transaction.'

1. (a) No, it was $8.90 per cubic yard for material described in the specification as class 1 and 49 cents per cubic yard for material of class II, being all other material than was embraced in class I.

(b) Yes.

2. The information in the department is that the condition was not removed at the instance of Mayes, or parties acting for him, but that it was removed because the next tender, that of M. J. Haney and Roger Miller of Toronto, who were prepared to comply with the condition, named a price of $3.50 per cubic yard for material described as class I and $1.25 per cubic yard for material described as class II, and as mosj, of the material to be excavated was of class II, it was considered that the tender of Messrs. Haney and Miller was too high, and more than the department would be justified in paying for the work. It was made evident by the first call for tenders that there were very few Canadian registered dredges available to do the work, and it was considered most probable that by striking out the restriction and calling again for tenders more competition would be secured.

3. At $8.60 per cubic yard for material of class I, being 30 cents per cubic yard less than his previous tender, and 55 cents per cubic yard for material of class II, being six cents per cubic yard more than his previous tender, it was so awarded to him as being the lowest tenderer, the other tenderer being again Haney & Miller of Toronto, whose tender was $3.25 per cubic yard for material of class I and $1.00 per cubic yard for material of class II.

4. Yes.

5. The government, through the Department of Public Works, has already fully inquired into the awarding of said con-

Mr. PUGSLEY.

tract, with the result that it appears to have been awarded to the lowest tenderer in the usual and proper manner, after public advertisement calling for tenders, Mr. Mayes' tender, being $8.60 per cubic yard for material for class I as against $3.25 per cubic yard by Haney & Miller, and 55 cents per cubic yard for material of class II. consisting of silt, sand, &c., as against $1.00 per cubic yard by Haney & Miller.

It does not appear to the government that there would be any public advantage in making further inquiry into the matter, and the government has no present intention of making further inquiry.

6. No.

7. For the reason that if there was no collusion between the then Minister of Public Works, or other officials of the department, and Mayes and McAvity in connection with the tenders, which has not been alleged, and the contract was awarded in good faith to Mayes, as being the lowest tenderer, any person of ordinary business knowledge and without having a legal training, would know no right of action would exist to recover back any portion of the amount paid under the contract so awarded.