Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):

And for the work?

Mr. DURANLEAU:

The same order in council.

Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):

When does the department contemplate giving the second coat of paint to the bridge?

Mr. DURANLEAU:

We expect to give it during this season.

Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):

Is there another order in council for that?

Mr. DURANLEAU:

I am not sure. I may state that the tender of almost all the tenderers had a price for the second coat, but Leduc & Company were the lowest of the reliable firms, those who complied with the conditions, even for the second coat.

Mr. MERCIER (iSt. Henri):

What wages were paid by that firm to the painters?

Mr. DURANLEAU:

There was a special schedule from the Labour department which was followed by the contractors.

Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):

That is very general. What I want to know is how much was paid per hour to those men for painting the bridge?

Mr. DURANLEAU:

I did not ask any

report from the contractors as to the wages paid, but the report was that they complied with the schedule of wages set by the Labour department.

Mr. CASGRAIN:

Who made that report?

Mr. DURANLEAU:

It was a verbal report made by the harbour commissioners- by the engineer. If there was any complaint made against that firm as to the wages paid I should be very pleased to inquire, but I never heard any complaint about that.

Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):

We have no grievance. What was the salary paid to those men?

Mr. DURANLEAU:

I can supply a list

to my hon. friend if he wants it.

Mr. POULIOT:

Will the minister tell us

the amount of each tender besides that of Leduc, with the name of the firm?

Mr. DURANLEAU:

I told my hon. friend that I have not those records with me. If my hon. friend wants to get that I shall be pleased to supply it.

Mr. POULIOT:

I thank the minister.

Usually when he speaks that way one can rely on him to give the information. I hope

Supply-Public Works

I shall get it soon. Is it not a fact that the Leduc tender was not the lowest, and that it was accepted after the company reduced its tender below the lowest?

Mr. DURANLEAU:

My hon. friend is

mistaken as to that. I think there was another firm that tendered-not a firm, an individual who tendered at a lower price than $49,500 but that individual did not comply with the requirements, no deposit was made as security, and the report of the harbour commissioners was that his financial standing did not warrant their awarding the contract to him, and especially for another reason; as I told this committee, the work was really very dangerous and the tender was a great deal lower than the estimate. If that man had done the work at the price of his tender he would have lost about $15,000 to $20,000. His financial standing was not satisfactory and he did not deposit any security. It was stipulated that the tender was to be accompanied by a cheque for at least ten or fifteen per cent of the amount of the tender. The amount of Leduc's tender was $49,500. I know there was another firm that tendered at $49,900 and I think another firm for $55,000 or $58,000 and a couple of other firms had higher tenders. I say that subject to correction.

Mr. POULIOT:

Is it not true that the

lowest tenderer did not send a cheque, as is the rule, after he learned that he had no chance whatever to compete with Leduc & Company? The reason he did not send a cheque to the harbour commission was that ne was notified that it was impossible for him to secure a contract when the Leduc company had made a bid.

Mr. CASGRAIN:

Who informed him?