Mr. REID (Grenville).

He was not dead for a long time afterwards, but he was not prosecuted. Instead of prosecuting him, the minister promoted him to a higher position.

Mr. BRODEUR.

That is not correct. The man was dismissed.

Mr. REID (Grenville).

He was dismissed because we brought the matter up in this House, and raised so much trouble about it.

Mt. BRODEUR.

The non. gentleman stated that Roy was promoted.

Mr. REID (Grenville).

Wasn't he transferred to Quebec ait the time?

Mr. BRODEUR.

Not at all; he was dismissed.

. Mr. REID (Grenville). When a man robs the country, is dismissal all the action that the minister will take?

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I think you will agree with me that the hon. gentleman is wandering a long way off from the question before the House. The motion is to go into Committee of _ Ways and Means, and the amendment is to condemn the government for expenditure in the Gasper-

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I would ask you to rule whether or not what the hon. gentleman is doing can be regarded in any sense as an illustration of arguments in support of the amendment before the House. It is nothing but a waste of public time.

Mr. REID (Grenville).

I am illustrating by showing how other departments compare with the Department of Public Works, and I claim that the Minister of Public Works is not doing his duty as a member of the Privy Council, not only with regard to 'his own department but with regard to the other departments for which he is also responsible, for the protection. of the public treasury. To show that he is not doing his duty, but is allowing robbery to go on in this government, let me illustrate with another case. I take the case brought out the other day, in which the Trade and Commerce Department had men in British Columbia, who robbed this country of a million dollars, with the knowledge of the Prime Minister, or ait least with the matter brought to his attention long before there was any prosecution attempted. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Customs, the Minister of Inland Revenue and the Minister of the Interior all had knowledge if this thing, and it was brought up in ;ouncil with the Minister of Public Works here. Was he doing his duty as a minis-;er to allow such a robbery of the people if this country to take place without taking any steps to prosecute? Did he do tiis duty as a minister, so far as the Interior Department was concerned, when a man in the northwest who robbed the

Mr. REID (Grenvill?)

people of money, that was Wagner, was taken on again, and his salary increased from $50 to $100 a month? That is the way they were prosecuted. There is no possibility of the Minister of Public Works prosecuting any man in his department. We know how Merwin and John E. Moore robbed this country, and; then got off scott free. No man can get a contract from his department unless he is a Liberal heeler and a follower of the minister. And he knows there is no possible chance of his toeing prosecuted. There has not [been one case of prosecujtiont See how the tender was let in the Gaspereaux case. The minister says that it was let at public competition. He knows that in that case there was a dredging man who wanted to get some of that work. He came to the department for information on the subject and the department referred him to the engineer in charge. But the engineer in charge knew nothing about it.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Who was that man?

Mr. REID (Grenville).

Mr. Mayes. Here is the letter:

St. John, N.B., December 18, 1908. Eugene D. Lafleur, Esq.,

Chief Engineer, Department of Public Works, Ottawa.

Dear Sir,-Your favour of 14th inst. received last evening. I called with my son on Mr. Scammell this morning, who you stated would give all information regarding the dredging of York Point and Ballast wharf, St. John. Mr. Scammell informed me that he had not one bit of information to give, that others had inquired and he had given the same answer. I asked him if he was aware that York Point work was being dredged by Mr. Moore's dredge 'Saugus,' for some weeks, and was being dredged this very day and that outside talk said that it was about finished; also that the same dredge had worked some few days on the Ballast wharf work, at the same time the newspapers contained advertisements asking for tenders which close to-day.

There was a man who wanted to put in a tender. If the minister wanted why did not the minister let Mr. Mayes have a form of tender? If he had, Mr. Moore would not have got 90 cents a yard.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

The hon. gentleman asks why the forms of tender were not sent to Mr. Mayes. I say, the evidence shows that these forms were sent to Mr. Mayes.

Mr. REID (Grenville).

Yes, but why did not the minister give him the information necessary to work out the tender? The minister, through his official may have sent the form but he absolutely refused to- give information to Mr. Mayes which would enable him to judge what was a fair price to put in his tender.

323J

Mr. PUGSLEY.

He was not refused, but was given what information was in the department. -

Mr. REID (Grenville).

Here is what he says further in his letter:

Mr. Scammell said that he was quite aware-of it but did not understand it. Of course it is perfectly useless for one to tender as it is quite evident that the work was and is intended for Messrs. Moore & Co. It would seem to the ordinary mind that the government might save the expense of advertising.

I regret that you and your officials could noc give the information asked for.

Yours truly,

1 (Sgd.) G. S. MAYES.

Mr. Mayes had dredges and wanted work for them, and was willing to take that work -at a fair price. But, here at Ottawa, and on calling on the engineer in charge, he was refused the information on which to base a tender. Mr. Mo-o-re put in a tender. Now, the minister must admit that in regular course when a tender is put in a deposit accompanies it. But this is the way Mr. Moore tendered:

St. John, N.B., December 17, 1908. Napoleon Tessier, Esq.,

Secretary, Department of Public Works, Ottawa, Out.

Dear Sir,-We herewith inclose our tender for dredging at York Point Slip, St. John, N.B., duly executed by us. We are not inclosing any deposit cheque, as we have this work about completed, and we already have a number of deposits on all the other work which has been awarded to us.

We shall be glad to be advised promptly if our tender is accepted.

Yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) Maritime Dredging and Construction Company.

Moore,

Manager.

That work was completed and nothing needed to be done but to draw their cheque for the work. Yet they write to know if their tender is- to be accepted. Did any perso-n ever know anything more ridiculous than that? That tender was given verbally by the Minister of Public Works to Mt. John E. Moore, the man who bought the St. John ' Telegraph ' to work in his interest in. that city. There is the story of York Point. But there are several other cases I might mention, all of a similar kind. The Minister of Public Works, for instance, gives a contract either for'a sum of less than $5,000 or on the ground of its great urgency; and we find that in the end it means a contract which, given at the figure of the engineer's recommendation would mean a total of $168,000. And, at the prices that the minister gave these men when they started out, by which the country would have been bound if it had not been stopped by the exposure by the oppo-

Mr. PUGSLEY.

When did they expose it?

Mr. REID (Grenville).

Last year, and the minister had to withdraw it and make that company go on with other work.