and justify it to their shareholders "when they met them. I could go on and give examples of that kind of thing for hours upon hours. Examples of this are in our estimates through and through, they are in our public accounts and have been for years. I think this thing ought to he mended, that the 'government itself, for very shame's sake, ought to provide some business-like method of constructing its public works and ought to at least have a consultation of the heads of the departments that are nominally and in practice to be served by the construction of these works. As an example we may take a little item for dredging for which some $42,000 or $45,000 have been paid. This is for a little place down in New Brunswick, a portion of a small lake. I believe they got five feet of navigation, perhaps more. I know ' the place well, and no business man will go there and tell you that you should have spent one red cent upon dredging in that locality, it is absolutely thrown away, given to a friend of the government-and to a friend of the government who puts his money in large quantities into the support of the government and the support of organs which support the government. I am willing to make this challenge to the Prime Minister, to pick out any three business men, add to them an expert, send them down there and let them report to him; and I am willing to stake my reputation that their report will be that no trustees or the people's money who have a proper regard for their duties would have allowed a single dollar of that kind of expenditure. Will the government take the challenge? But I turn off from that very fertile subject, I hope we shall hear more about it before this session is over, and I come to anotner point.
If there is one thing that these hon. gentlemen pride themselves on more than another it is their business management of the affairs of this country. I have heard them boast that their management is a business management, and I have heard their supporters boast, sometimes, thinking it to be true, that their course of administration in a business point of view was a marvel of business ability and of business methods. I want to adduce just a few examples of what these gentlemen have undertaken and of what they have done and what they have failed to do-just one out of maybe a hundred pertinent examples that might very well be called to mind.
First let me take their management of the Yukon Territory and ask whether it has been a very brilliant phase of their administration? These gentlemen came into the possession of an awakened and partly explored Yukon. They entered upon its administration and declared in this House Mr. FOSTER.
over and over again, that they were going to make the Yukon pay for the Yukon, dollar for dollar, and would make it even a source of revenue. Let us go to the record and see what happened. In 1901 this government had a revenue of $1,993,982 from the Yukon and made an expenditure of $1,254,156, leaving a surplus for that year of $739,826. From 1894 to 1900 there had accumulated a surplus in the Yukon management of $940,769. That is, at the end of 1901 this government had a surplus of $1,680,595 in their hands as a result of the previous management and previous conduct of the Yukon. What happened afterwards? Come down to this present year, take the whole of the operations from 1894 to 1909 and you find that the total net deficit amounts to $2,236,367. Taking all that came in and all that went out they have expended in the Yukon $2,236,367 more than they received since 1902. But in 1901, they had a surplus of $1,680,000. From 1901 to 1909 they got rid of that surplus and they landed in a deficit such as I have named so that they get away with $4,916,962 in their management of the Yukon in eight years. Is that brilliant management? You had about 30,000 or 38,000 people there in 1901. How many have you to-day? Eight thousand-I think I would be nearer if I said 5,000. You had an income in gold of $22,700,000. What have you now? Two and a half millions or two and three-quarter millions, something like that. Yet the very last year of your administration there, whilst you got a revenue of $572,650, you took care to spend $837,015 and made a deficit that last year of $264,365. Is that brilliant business management? It costs to-day, according to the figures I have read, nearly $170 per head of the people of the Yukon to administer it for a single year.
Let us take another instance. There was the Stickeen-Teslin railway arrangement. This government entered into a straight and fast contract just on tne eve of the assembling of parliament. Parliament looked intp that contract, parliament did not approve of it and held it up. Force was strong enough to put it through this House, but force was not strong enough to put it through the Senate. As a result it did not go through parliament, and after the government got their majority in the Senate they did not attempt to put it through. What happened? They had to pay $282,323 to Mackenzie & Mann for breach of contract or for damages. That money went out from the hands of these trustees and what good ever came to the country from it? Wouldn't it have been better if they had brought the proposition down and threshed it out in the House before they made the hard and fast contract which bound them in the end to pay these dam-
ages? Was that brilliant management on the part of a board of trustees? Then there was the Drummond Counties railway. Their own minister came to this House with the sanction of his colleagues, and told this House: 'I can buy the Drummond Counties railway for $2,100,000 or a little more.' This House questioned the justice of the payment; the other House not only questioned it, but examined into it, and held it up for a year. The next year their own minister, with their sanction, bought the same property under better conditions for $800,000 less than he wished us to pay for it the year before. Was that brilliant trusteeship? If the shareholders had not got in on that transaction we would have been out from $800,000 to $1,000,000 more than we are.
Then there comes the Quebec bridge. This is fresh in the minds of all. The Quebec bridge, from the very moment of its inception, was known to be on a great line of traffic, a most important link between the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence, between the great west and the farther east. What happened? To the company which never put in more than $200,000 of stock, which only paid up a fraction of that, until and aLer it was forced to years later by the government, they made advances and loans of nearly $7,000,000. They omitted the slightest precautions of having proper supervising en-gineership. The bridge fell down one fine day, and some 75 people were drowned. The government woke up. They woke up in two ways. In the first place," they paid to this company, which gambled on the prospect of making a lot of money out of the transaction, by controlling a line that was necessary, and terminals which were to be added to it. They paid them back in full all the stock they had subscribed for. They paid them five per cent for the time they subscribed for the stock until they got their money.. They then added ten per cent of a bonus, so that they would not have any wounded feelings, pocketing the $7,000,000 of loss. They then brushed up and looked into the matter in a businesslike way, and since then they have spent $100,000 on examination and engineering, owing to the loss occasioned bv their failure to supervise and provide proper engineering ability at an earlier stage. They now have found out that what their company had passed as sufficient foundations for the Quebec bridge are not sufficient, and a $2,000,000 contract is invoked for better piers, new abutments and better foundations. There is $9,000,000 gone before you commence your superstructure. What that will cost I do not know; but putting it at $5,000,000, that makes up an expenditure of $14,000,000, of which over $7,000,000 is an absolute
loss-why? Because the work was begun and carried out in a fashion that no trustees for any estate or corporation would have descended to for a single moment.
Then there was the Newmarket canal, which is a euphemism for the Aylesworth ditch. There are the trustees-they face me now. The trustees are taking a million and a quarter of the moneys of the estate for which they are trustees and are putting it into the Aylesworth ditch. No water, little population, no traffic-an absolute waste, and the worst kind of a waste, because it lies in plain, open sight. If they wanted to make a spectacle like that, why didn't they do it away from the settled portions of the country, where it would not have been seen every day by people who travel? In the bottom of his heart the Minister of Railways is ashamed of it. The Prime Minister, who is the head trustee, has never deigned to show what is to be carried on that canal when a million and a quarter of money is to be put into it. They have been challenged over and over again, and yet none of them has the backbone to stand up now, before more than $300,000 has been spent, and say: ' we made a mistake, we have sunk $300,000, but, by George, we will not sink the other $900,000.' Whilst in the west, I took an automobile trip down the Red river to see a very notable, noted, or notorious work, called the St. Andrew's lock. There you have a very fine work. The total cost of it, I believe, is to be over $600,000.