have been prepared to deal with the matter in that way. Mr. Tuck had broken down; he was unable to carry on his contract. He was asking favors from the Government asking to be permitted to assign his contract after he had forfeited all right to do so, and the Government would have been enabled to deduct any amount necessary, in justice and equity, for the settlement of the unpaid claims for labor and materials employed in the construction of of which my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) | been in the hands of the Minister of was a distinguished member, came into Public Works at that date, he would power, Mr. Mackenzie's first act was to cut down the dimensions of the canal and reduce the depth of water on the mitresill to such an extent as to almost render useless the expenditure contemplated on the work, and it was only after urgent representations, and a good deal of dissatisfaction expressed by the people of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, that the Minister was induced to alter his plan, and go some way towards meeting the views of his predecessor in regard to the enlargement. He did not go so far as the canal. My hon. friend says: Mr. Perley's first report contemplated" Does it not happen every day that to make a canal 54 feet wide but he contractors assign their contracts?" went within six or eight feet of it, and that That is so; but here was a case where a was considered satisfactory at the time. contractor had forfeited his contract and These facts can easily be verified by the all claims under it, and the work was Minister of Public Works, who now taken out of his hands. The Governholds that office, and by the Chief Engi- ment,in the exercise of their legal rights, neer. With regard to the second point went into possession of the contract for taken by my hon. friend. He says that breach of its conditions, turning Mr. no government ever laid down as a rule Tuck out, and afterwards they permitted that they could distribute the ten per him to name the party to whom he wished cent. retained from contractors for the to have his contract assigned. That payment of laborers or other claimants assignment was made under terms adagainst contractors. I say that the vantageous, I suppose, to Mr. Tuck, and Government of which my hon. friend was advantageons to Mr. Kennedy also. The a member, whether they had a legal Government had the power, and the duty right to do so or not, decided to distri- devolved on them of seeing that in a bute the balance of $488 in their hands transfer which, under all the circumwhen work failed amongst the laborers. stances, could not be made without their I hold in my hand a report of the Chief concurrence, the interest of every person Engineer of the Public Works Depart- who was likely to be defrauded in conment, dated May 13th, 1878, in which nection with the works was protected. says: "The Minister directs that My hon. friend said I insinuated that after verification of the accounts said to through some fraud or other of the be due, the balance, amounting to Public Works Department this was $488.77, due by the Department to Mr. allowed to be done. I did not insinuate Tuck, be apportioned amongst the anything of the kind, and I am sure my laborers mentioned in the list, pro hon. friend would not intentionally misruta to the amounts severally due them." represent me. What I did say, and I Now, I say that here is the principle, repeat it, was that through a dewhich my hon. friend says was never sire to favor those who had a laid down by any minister or govern- beneficiary interest in the contract bement, clearly and emphatically enun- hind Mr. Tuck, and who were known to ciated by the late Minister of Public have been political friends of the hon. Works, who was the leader of the Gov- gentleman in St. John, N.B. through a ernment of which my hon. friend was a desire to favor these gentlemen, the ten member. And if he could lay down that per cent was paid up to these persons in principle in regard to $488, could he not St. John, the contract was allowed to be have laid it down in regard to the full ten assigned in their interest, the contract per cent. on $77,000, if it had been, as it was carried on afterwards by Mr. Kenought to have been, retained in the neday, in their interest, as it had been hands of the Government when the con- by Mr. Tuck, and the whole arrangement tractor broke down? If that money had was in the hands of the Government, and he --- if they desired to do what was right to these poor people, they had ample power to do so. It is for this reason that I wish it to be seen by the country, and especially that portion interested in this question, where there is a great deal of deep seated feeling amongst these defrauded men that a gross wrong and injustice has some way or other been perpetrated upon them I wish it to be understood in that part of the country where the first mistake (to use no harder term), which resulted in the whole of this subsequent injustice, was made by the action of the Ministry and Govern ment in not holding that ten per cent., or a greater portion than they did, and in not seeing that, when Mr. Tuck failed in completing his contract, and had lost all right to assign it, unless through their favor, those equitable conditions were not attached to the assignment as they should have been. I say, therefore, that my hon. friend is not at all in a position to find fault with the remarks I have made on this occasion, because I certainly have not made as lengthy or strong remarks as the circumstances justify. Surely we are not to be told that because a minister is not in this House, or may not now be in power, we have no right to criticise his policy or actions while he was a member of the Government. Hon. Mr. SCOTT — I did not say so. Hon. Mr. MILLER--Then what does my hon. friend mean to say by condemning me for referring to the matter when the late Minister of Public Works was not here to defend himself? Has he not my hon. friend here to defend him - an able defender of his actions and policy on all occasions-of which I do not complain, but, on the contrary, am very glad. I say again that I hope the Government will see that whatever money may now be in their hands in connection with this public work is not paid over until a full investigation is had on the part of the Government as to the terms on which that contract was assigned by Mr. Tuck to Mr. Kennedy; as to the profits which have resulted from that contract, and the claims of the laborers to compensation out of these proceeds. I also wish those interested to know what their rights are in this matter, that they may be in a position, if they think proper, to go into a court of justice and do what may be necessary to vindicate them. Hon. Mr. SCOTT-I am not going to enter into a controversy on the subject. The hon. gentleman is quite right when he says the Chief Engineer was sent down before the change of government. I do not dispute that, but I stated then, and I state now, that the mere calling for a survey or examination of work does not commit a government to putting a sum in the Estimates to cover the amount of that work. An amount was placed in the Estimates, and an Order in Council was passed by the Government of which I was a member. What I maintained was that the Government which preceded that Administration was not in any way committed to the construction of the work; it merely sent an engineer, who made a report, and that was all that was done. Hon. Mr. READ This debate has taken an irregular course, and the principle has been laid down by the ex-Secretary of State that the Government are obliged to accept transfers of contracts. Now, I think that they are not, and that the Government has the privilege of either accepting or rejecting a transfer. It is very fortunate for this country and the public exchequer that in a certain conGovernment went out of office, the tract, given a few days before the late transfer of that contract vitiated it. Two years ago when I saw that $1,000,000 was to be appropriated for that useless piece of work, the Georgian Bay Branch, I took it upon myself to introduce a resolution condemning that expenditure. Fortunately for the country, there was a clause in that contract that once the contractors had assigned it, and asked to have the assignment accepted, the Government could cancel it, and so the country was relieved of the work. Hon Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL — I do not propose to enter into any discussion of the subject whatever. It is very well in the hands of the hon. Senator from Richmond (Mr. Miller) and my hon. friend opposite. With reference to the motion made by the hon. Senator from Richmond, the Government willingly consent to the papers coming down, and I shall take care that the views which the hon. Senator has presented to the House are represented to the Minister of Railways and Canals, and have no doubt he will endeavor to do what may seem just, so far as may rest in his power, in reference to the individuals whose case is certainly a very hard one, as portrayed by the hon. member from Richmond. The motion was agreed to. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL. THE DEBATE CONTINUED. had been deposited by the members of the new Syndicate as security. The next is from the Manager of the Molson's Bank at London, Ontario, showing that the sum of $100,000 was held for the same purpose. The next is from the manager of the Federal Bank, notifying the Government that $100,000 had been deposited with them. The next is from the Bank of Ottawa, notifying the Government that $120,000 had been deposited there. Then another from the Bank of British North America, stating that half a million dollars had been deposited with them; and another from the Quebec Bank, showing that $100,000 had been deposited with them in all $1,420,000 Hon. Mr. SCOTT resumed his speech in six banks in the event of the conon the motion that the Canadian Pacific tract being assigned to the second comRailway Bill be read a second time. He pany. Now, I think, considering the said: Before proceeding to that portion fact that this offer would have saved of my remarks that I propose addressing to the country some $15,000,000, to the House this evening, I desire to or, taking the last estimate, $12,.clear up a point to which attention was 000,000 that is taking the value drawn on Friday last, that is in reference placed on the land last year, and the year to the sincerity of the gentlemen who before if the proposition was at all made this second offer. An hon. gentle- open to be entertained, the Governman on the opposite side hinted across ment cannot shield themselves behind so the House that it was not a bona fide flimsy an argument. These six banks tender, and that the money was not seri- are not likely to lend themselves to fraud. ously put up. Now, the papers, copies of Three of them hold $720,000, and they which I hold, were not brought down to are within a few hundred yards of the this House, but they show the actual office of the Minister of Railways, and it bona fides of the tender, and that the would have been an extremely easy matmoney was deposited in the banks of this ter to have tested the truth or correctcountry for the purpose of securing the ness of the statements contained in those Government in the $1,000,000 required letters; but, of course, the truth of them to be deposited, in the event of their was never for a moment doubted. entering into the proposed contract. I would not insinuate that the Governhold in my hand copies of letters which ment would make the statement that the were addressed to the Minister of Rail- managers of those banks had committed ways, and were by him produced, in the a fraud in sending in these certificates ; shape of letters and documents, and laid so far, therefore, as the security is conon the table in another place while this cerned, I think that point is settled, and, matter was under discussion there. I therefore, we may fairly conclude that would just read to the House some of those the Government were not open to have letters showing the spirit of them, and this road built by any other party but showing how unfair it is, at all events, to the Syndicate that the calling of Parinsinuate that this offer of the new com-liament, and the adoption of this contract pany was not a bona fide one that were regarded as a foregone conclusion, they had not placed in the hands of and it was not for this Legislature to conthe Government sufficient security to sider whether it was a wise proposal, or warrant them in dealing with the proposi- whether a better one could have been obtion. The first is a letter from the tained. Now, I do not think that that manager of the Canadian Bank of Com- is exactly the part which business men merce, dated Toronto, 19th January, should play in a transaction of this 1881, and addressed to Sir Charles kind. If a man enters into a proviTupper, informing him that $500,000 sional agreement which is still subject I to be. It is put down in the neighbor- to certain conditions which he may tainty and very grave doubt as to what evade if he desires, he may, on con- that line would cost. The hon. leader sideration of the matter, if he thinks of the Government, in introducing this it to his interest, cancel the agreement. Bill to the House, quoted from estimates In the present case, I am not aware that made in years gone by, placing the exthe Syndicate would have even an equi-penditure on one occasion at $120,000,000, table claim on this country, if their pro- on another at $116,000,000, and from posal had not been ratified by Parlia- that coming down to $90,000,000. It is ment, but it was surely one of those quite true that up to 1878 we could not cases where Parliament, acting under the form a very correct estimate of what the inspiration of the Government, would line was going to cost; but, as year by have been quite willing to have given year passed over, we have gathered a compensation, if a better or more reason-great deal of reliable knowledge. We able proposition had been made, for any have constructed, and have running, the labor or trouble that the Syndicate Pembina Branch. We know what that might have been put to in consequence has cost; we are constructing a very of their offer. I assume that their com- large portion of the road between Thunder pensation would have been a compara- Bay and Red River; the contracts are tively small amount; they crossed and all out, and the entire line has to be recrossed the Atlantic, I suppose, two or completed by July, 1882, so that we three times, and went to some small ex-know pretty well what the total cost is pense, but it would not have been among the hundreds of thousands of dollars. What is the justification that is offered for the Government depriving themselves of the control of this railway? One justification taken is, that we, at all events, know the limit that we have to pay; that we have in the future no uncertain sum to pay; that in the past the public credit of Canada and the public mind of Canada were so disturbed at the huge liabilities we were likely to incur in the construction of this gigantic work, and the feeling of doubt and uncertainty as to what amount Canada might ultimate y have to pay in the construction of hon. friend knows there have been changes the Pacific Railway rendered it advisable to have it constructed by a company. Acting on that feeling, there has been in the minds of a great many people in Canada rather a desire that a Company should undertake it, and that we should fix the sum that the company should have; and that, having done so, Hon. Mr. SCOTT -- The hon. gentlewe could rest satisfied that we, at all man says, No, no. I think, in discussing events, would not be liable for any larger a matter of this sort, the House would or further sum. Now, that idea of the do much better to take the report of the ⚫ transaction might have been very Engineer, confirmed by the Minister himlegitimate and very reasonable if self, and which has remained for eight made ten years ago, when the Allan months uncontradicted. Since this matcontract was under discussion; or ter has been before Parliament the Govmight have been a reasonable pro- ernment have felt themselves very awkition after that; it would, at wardly placed; they feel that in order to events, have been excusable if justify this contract they should diminish many years later, even down the value of the work they had to do, or 1877, or even as late as 1878, and exaggerate the work which the Syn as there was very great uncer-dicate undertakes to do. Hon. Mr. SCOTTI, of course, have got to fall back on the estimates made long after that work was given out the estimates made by Mr. Fleming himself. Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL since. My Hon. Mr. SCOTT — If there has been a change at all it has been by degrading the road no! Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL — Oh, mate - Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL It is at all likely, if the GovernHD sorry to interrupt my hon. friend, but ment of Canada had carried out I must inform him that, on the contrary, that work, we should, in the end, have these changes on the Onderdonk contract found it of a worse character than took place before the inception of the the Syndicate will build. At all Pacific Railway arrangement that we are events, that is what Mr. Smith says, new discussing. quoted as a witness by the Minister. Now, I say that one of the grounds in the minds of very many people, that a past years that led to the conclusion in company should build the road, was that it would be better and wiser that we should know the extreme limit of what we should pay. But after having spent West and in building portions of the a large amount in surveying the Norththe cost is likely to be, depending, of work, we are in a position to know what course, on the character of the work. That will give a latitude, I suppose, of $4,000,000 to $8,000,000. Having said that, we can form a very accurate esti I I am Hon. Mr. SCOTT I have in my hands, at all events, the last official estibrought down to the month of April last -- and my hon. friend is aware that in that estimate the sum is put down at $10,000,000. After all, it really makes very little difference in this discussion whether it is to be $8,000, 000, or $10,000,000; neither he nor can tell whether it is to be one sum or the other. I know, as a matter of fact, that estimates are not always, or very frequently, borne out by experience. This work is a very expensive one, and a great deal depends on the future; so mate of what the work will cost. that, in forecasting what is to be the inclined to think the estimate given by ultimate expense of the work, neither the Mr. Fleming, and acted upon by the statement which the hon. gentleman makes Minister last year, is the true basis. now, nor the statement which I have Now, if that is so, if we know what we taken, can be anything more than apare going to expend, and that we need proximate. We have the authority of the Minister himself, repeated in two successive years, as to the cost of the prairie section; we have the authority of the Chief Engineer, Mr. Fleming, and of Mr. Marcus Smith, who states that he also has been over the prairie section under the direction of the Department, and who confirms the opinion that Mr. Fleming and the Minister express is, that the prairie section will be built for about $13,000 a mile. I hold in my - that hand the letter in which the Minister quotes Mr. Marcus Smith's opinion; I am quite aware that that was with the view of constructing a cheap railway I suppose the Syndicate are not going to build a better work than the GovernI ment had in view, although suppose it is presumed to be fit to carry traffic. expend no more, the excuse that many gentlemen had for justifying this handing over of the line to the Syndicate has entirely passed away. The reason for handing it over to the Syndicate is gone absolutely. Another reason which has been advanced is that governments cannot successfully administer railways that the work would be very much better in the hands of a public or private company - and that anything like a source of favoritism or corruption would then be removed at once. I do not mean to say that this Government is shielding itself under this excuse, but that is a reason that other people urge. I do not think that it should be accepted as a good reason for parting with this property. If we adopt that principle, we should part with our canals also. We hold them as Government property, and we have 800 or 900 miles of railway, also, which is not very profitable; yet we do not propose to part with it, but hold it for the benefit of that portion of the country The prairie which it traverses. Here I may say that the gentleman who is charged with the administration of that railway takes to Hon. Mr. SCOTT - I must be perhimself the credit — probably with great mitted tɔ question it. I do not think it justness - for having reduced the ex Hon. Sir ALEX. CAMPBELL The work for which that estimate was made will be of a better character. Hon. Mr. MILLER. section? Better, of course. |