1. Did the hon. the Minister of Public Works, or his agent, instruct Mr. Arthur E. B. Hill, C.E., of New Westminster, B.C., in January' 1900, to make an inspection of the Serpentine river, in the district of New Westminster, B.C., from the coast meridian road to the sea, and report as to work required to prevent the overflow of the stream?
2. Did Mr. Hill state in writing that he 'should be pleased to make such survey on the same terms as those on which he served the provincial government, namely, $10 per day and maintenance from date of commencing work to date of completion of plans and report'?
3. Did the hon. the Minister of Public Works, or his agent, demur at the time to those terms?
4. Did Mr. Hill commence the work on the 26th January, 1900, and on the 27th April, 1900, deliver his report, together with design, plans, specification and estimate of cost of work required, to the hon. the Minister of Public Works?
5. Did Mr. Hill send in his bill for $872.66?
6. Has the same or any part of it been paid to him? If not, why not?
7. Is it not a fact that Mr. Hill's letters asking for payment have been left unanswered?
8. Did the hon. the Minister of Public Works, in reply to a letter from Mr. Hill's solicitor, asking for settlement of account, write as follows:-'Mr. Roy, in whom I have great confidence, tells me that Mr. Hill's claim is an exorbitant one. Mr. Keefer has been authorized to offer you $450 ' ?
9. Did Mr. Hill's solicitor write to the hon. the Minister of Public Works asking him to refer the ease to the Exchequer Court of Canada, under the 23rd section of the 'Exchequer Court Act'?
10. Is it not a fact that this letter still remains unanswered and unacknowledged?
11. Did the hon. the Secretary of State receive a petition of right to the King's most Excellent Majesty from Mr. Hill on the 5th March, 1901, praying that his claim he adjudicated upon?
12. Has any fiat been issued thereon?
13* Is it a fact that the reason why no flat has issued is because the hon. Minister of Public Works refuses to make a report to the hon. Minister of Justice on the said petition of right? If so, for what reason?
14. Was Mr. Hill's work done in a satisfactory manner from a scientific standpoint?
15. What cogent reasons can the hon. Minister of Public Works give for not paying the account in full?
16. Is not Mr. Hill a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers of Great Britain?
17. Is it not a fact that Mr. Hill refused to endorse the scheme under which the dredging was being carried on by Mr. Roy, the resident government engineer?
18. Do Mr. Hill's report and plans show that the money spent by the government has been laid out to good advantage, and that the scheme has been crowned with success?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tartej :
1. Yes. A letter of instructions sent to Mr. Hill by Mr. Worsfold, acting resident engineer, to make inspection and report as to the work required to prevent the overflowing, on the 26th of January, 1900.
4. No. Mr. Hill was instructed on the 26th of January, 1900, to make an inspection of the Serpentine river, from the coast meridian road to the sea, and report. He commenced operations on the 29th of January, and completed his work and handed his report on February 9th. Mr. Hill was further instructed, on the 26tli of February, 1900, to prepare plans and estimates in connection with the works he recommended, with the aid of the survey he had already made at the mouth of the river, in compliance with a suggestion made at the end of his report of the 9th or February.
5. Mr. Hill was paid at the rate of 810 per day and living expenses, from the 29th of January to the 9tli of February, the date on which he made his report, in compliance with the instructions he received from Mi'. Worsfold, on the 26th of January, and as per his own statement he furnished Mr. Worsfold.
Mr. Hill sent in a further account for $862.46, on the 27th of April, being a charge of 24 per cent of the estimated cost of the works he recommended to De performed in his report of the 27th of April. On the 31st of August, Mr. Hill sent in an amended account, at the rate of $10 per day, and an allowance for maintenance for 17 days, at the rate of $40 per month, amounting in all to $872.66.
6. Mr. Hill's account for $872.66 has not been paid, because it is considered unreasonable.
7. The hon. the minister may not have answered all the letters, but he did answer to those which required an answer.
8. Yes. Mr. Keefer was instructed by Mr. Roy, on the 17th of August, 1900, to offer
Mr. Hill $400 in settlement of bis claim for $872.66. The figure $450 referred to in the minister's letter should read $400.
10. Mr. Hill's solicitor's letter acknowledged by the hon. the minister on the 3rd of December, 1900, and a further letter from the hon. the minister, dateu December 12th.
13. The hon. the minister is of the opinion that the claim is an imposition.
14. Mr. Hill's technical work seems to have been done in a satisfactory manner, but his recommendations have not been concurred in by the department.
15. Because it is considered unreasonable.
16. I do not know.
17. No dredging has been carried on by Mr. Roy.
18. The works recommended by Mr. Hill have not been executed.
Subtopic: CLAIM OF MR. ARTHUR E. B. HILL.