1915-04-12

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. MORPHY, acting chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, presented the fourth report of said committee, as follows:
Tour committee have had under consideration the purchase of binocular glasses for the" Canadian expeditionary force, and beg to report to the House the evidence and documents in connection therewith.
From the evidence it appears a number of binocular glasses were of poor quality, low range and inferior effciency, but passed inspection and were paid for at an excessive price; and this was due to misrepresentation and inadequate inspection. Tour committee therefore recommend to the House that the said evidence and all documents connected therewith be referred to the Department of Justice, with instructions to enforce restitution and to take such further proceedings as the law will permit.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 123, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial years ending respectively the 31st March, 1915, and the 31st March, 1916.
Mr. MARCIL:: Since the winding up of the Union Life Insurance Company, I have received several communications asking me to inquire from the minister whether he was satisfied that the Insurance Department had been properly reorganized since the superannuation of Mr. Fitzgerald, and whether it was properly manned and equipped for the performance of the duties it is called upon to discharge. The minister is familiar with the large interests the Canadian people have in life and other

insurance companies, and the fact that this company had to be wound up has directed attention to this peculiar feature of our financial life. I am sure that an assurance from the Government that the interests of the public are being properly safeguarded would be very much appreciated.


Hon. W. T. WHITE:: My hon. friend's question rather surprises me. If the Government had not confidence in the Insurance Department, we should certainly take such steps as would give us confidence. My hon. friend no doubt knows that the troubles of the Union Life go back some seven or eight or more years, the company having got into difficulties in 1909. Just at present I am not prepared to say that the Insurance Department was culpable or negligent in any way. On the contrary, a careful consideration of the whole question goes to show that the troubles of the Union Life were due to negligence or wors'e on the part of its directors and officers, and to the fact that under our insurance laws very wide discretion is given to directors in the investment of moneys of insurance companies. I have it in mind to introduce a Bill, of which I have already given notice, which I think will result in obviating a recurrence of certain of the troubles into which the Union Life Insurance Company got owing to the circumstances I have mentioned. In answer to my hon. friend's question, I may say that we have no reason at all to doubt that the Insurance Department is competent, or that it is giving proper attention to the duties that devolve upon it by statute.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.

Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey) moved:: That Report A of the fourth report of the Special Committee to which was referred the report of the Board of Inquiry respecting boots supplied the Department of Militia and Defence be concurred in.
The said report is as follows:
The Special Committee, to which was referred the report of the Board of Inquiry consisting of Lt.-Colonel W. H. Hallick, E. A. Stephens, Esq., and Theo. Galipeau, Esq., respecting hoots supplied to the Department of Militia and Defence and all matters pertaining

to such boots, beg leave to report as follows:
(1) The order of reference and the authority of this committee is contained in the following resolution:
House of Commons,
Tuesday, February 16, 1915.
Resolved, that the report of the Board of Inquiry consisting of Lt.-Colonel W. H. Hallick, E. A. Stephens, Esq., and Theo. Galipeau, Esq., respecting boots supplied to the Department of Militia and Defence, a copy of which report was laid upon the table of the House on the 15th instant, and all matters pertaining to the boots so supplied to the said department, be referred to a special committee of seven members with instructions to investigate the matters aforesaid and to report thereon to this House.
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses on oath or affirmation and to report from time to time. That the following members shall constitute the said committee, namely: Sir James Aikins and Messrs. Le-mieux, Macdonald, McCurdy, Middlebro, Nesbitt and Rainville.
Attest.
Thos. B. Flint,
Clerk of the House. Monday, February 22, 1915.
Order.-That the name of Mr. Murphy ue substituted for that of Mr. Lemieux on the said committee.
Attest.
Thos. B. Flint,
Clerk, House of Commons.
Your committee so appointed have held fifty-one sessions and heard the evidence on oath of eighty-seven witnesses.
Board of Inquiry.
Your committee find that the report of the Board of Inquiry particularly referred to it by the foregoing resolution is not complete, satisfactory or to be relied on, as the investigation made by that board and upon which its report is based was of a meagre and superficial character. The only persons called upon to give evidence, which was not given under oath, were four officers of the Department of Militia, three of whom were examined by your committee as were also all the members constituting that board. The board wrongly assumed that the boots to be supplied to the department were to be made according to a certain specification found in the department and judged them to be proper or defective as they complied with or departed from such specification, whereas the fact is that the boots were contracted to be made not according to specification but according to samples furnished or approved by the department.
Compliance with Contracts.
Your committee find that the boots contracted for after the beginning of the war and supplied to the Department of Militia and Defence under such contracts substantially complied with the samples provided or approved by the department according to which the boots were to be made.
Result of Inspection of Condemned Boots.
With a view of arriving at an accurate conclusion, as to the service which the boots in
use by the solders training in Canada had given them, and as to the present condition of the boots, your committee ordered that all available used and discarded boots which had been condemned by various Regimental Boards of Inquiry throughout Canada be forwarded to the committee at Ottawa, your committee unanimously appointed two independent expert persons, one a large customs shoemaker and cobbler, and the other an experienced shoe manufacturer who had no contract with the Government, for the purpose of making a personal inspection, classification, and report of every pair of such condemned shoes so forwarded to the committee, and their full report is printed as appendix hereto. This report shows:
Number of said condemned or discarded boots forwarded and examined by such inspectors, of which there were 384
singles and 1,365 pairs	1,713
Of these there were rendered useless by
the soldiers burning them	 112
1,601
Among them there were repairable boots
to the number of, say	1,448
Leaving unrepairable	 153
Of these unrepairable ones the condition was due to the following causes:
Cut by toe nail	48
Cut by knife or spur;	22
-	70
While 68 had not originally been equal to sample chiefly by reason of being too light in the backs.
At the conclusion of the above inspection and of our proceedings, the sealed sample number " 12 " which was the standard sample of the department was cut open by those two expert inspectors appointed by this committee, and one of them, Inspector Hoare, in the presence of the other inspectors swore that it was a good boot, the uppers of good calf, the outer sole of No. 1 tan up to gauge, with a leather counter and shank and all fully up to the said departmental specifications, and that in making their inspection and report they had made their findings on the basis of this sample boot as the standard.
According to statistics furnished to us by the department the total number of boots condemned in Canada by the various regimental boards to date is 7,807, of which the above boots examined by our inspectors formed part, and assuming that upon examination we classify the total number upon the same basis and in the same proportion as above, the result would be about as follows:
Repairable boots	 6,599
Boots injured by burning	 510
Boots mutilated by knife, spurs and toe
nails..	319
Leaving balance useless due to other
causes	 379
7,807
Your committee, therefore, having in view the fact that the above represent the condemned boots, out of the great number, 86,000, issued to and worn by those now in training in

Canada ; and having in view also the fact that in the earlier months of training no regimental cobblers or dubbin had been provided by the department, find that our inspectors' report corroborates the view that the boots supplied by the manufacturers were up to sample.
Sample Militia Boot.
The pattern and sample boot of the department, referred to in the evidence as Exhibit 5, 12, 55 and 57, which are substantially identical and constructed on the same specifications is made of chrome tanned, winter calf in vamp and top, unlined, of " E " and " F " widths, with solid leather counter, leather shanks, out-soile English or Canadian oak, ten gauge thickness, slip sole of the same material six gauge thickness insole of similar material, the heel solid leather lifts compressed, Goodyear welt, the bottom filling " Fillo " composed of ground cork treated with cement, durable and waterproof.
We find from the evidence that in material and construction the boot is a good one.
The military boot adopted by the Department of Militia and Defence about 15 years ago was similar to the present boot, Exhibit 5, 12, 55 and 57, according to which the latter boots ordered and supplied since the outbreak of the war were in compliance. Many of the boots contracted for, however, were made with wider lasts but otherwise substantially like the said sample. Owing to a claimed shortage of winter calf contractors were permitted to use side leather in the later deliveries of the first orders. There is a dispute among experts which is the better for a military boot. The evidence shows that some improvements were made from time to time in the original sample boot but its general character was maintained. The boot so adopted by the department was used by Canadian soldiers in the South African campaign where, according to the evidence of Sir William D. Otter, it proved satisfactory.
Both before and after the South African war the question of adopting the British army boot had been taken up by the department, who declined to adopt it and adhered to the Canadian boot. In 1905, with the experience of the South African campaign, specifications were drawn and approved, and a sealed sample boot
conforming thereto and similar to the	
present sample was again adopted by the department.
In February, 1910, the committee on ankle boots, having discussed several complaints regarding their quality, brought to the notice of the Secretary of the Militia Council by District Officers Commanding, recommended " a few pairs of * boots, ankle, steel billed ' as used in the British service, and a supply of samples or the leather used in the manufacture of Britisn army boots, be obtained from the War Office, and that 100 pairs of boots be made, as nearly as possible up to the style, weight and class of leather, etc., in the British samples."
On March 1, 1910, Brigadier General Macdonald, the Quartermaster General, again favoured the Canadian boot and said: "I do not approve of the proceedings of the board.
I am of opinion that if the boots are delivered up to the pattern as previously approved no complaint should arise as to these articles. The original supply of these boots gave every satisfaction."
From March, 1910, till February of the following year, modifications on the boot and a

revision of the specifications were considered by the officers of the department and C. E. Slater acting with them, samples were submitted with steel bills which were not approved. On the 4th February, 1911, the revised Specifications prepared by the said C. E. Slater, together with samples made according to these specifications were again sealed as the pattern for the Canadian boots, and these remained the approved pattern of the Canadian boot down to the outbreak of the war in Aug-gust, 1914, notwithstanding the fact that in April, 1914, some suggestion was again made of adopting the British army boot, which pattern was then submitted to the department for its information, and on the 24th April the Director General of Clothing and Equipment in his report said : " The British army boot appears much too heavy for wear in Canada,'r and Colonel Brown, the inspector, on the 30th of April, 1914, concurred in this opinion.
See pages 29 and 45 to 55 of appendix and evidence.
As previously pointed out, it was a boot similar to the Canadian military boot, Exhibit 5, 12, 55 and 57, which was used with satisfaction in South Africa by the Canadians, and General Sir William Otter, in his evidence before the committee said:
Q. How long were you in South Africa?- A. Fourteen months.
Q. In active service all the time?-A. All the time.
Q. What boots did your regiment have during that time?-A. It was a boot issued by the department before we left.
Q. How did that boot answer the purpose in South Africa?-A. Well, it answered very well. I have no fault to find with it.
Q. How did it compare with the English boot?:-A. Personally I liked it better for the simple reason that it was a bit lighter. Our men were not accustomed to wearing heavy boots like the English boot, but they had to wear it at times because we got the English boot eventually as our own wore out. My experience, however, is that our own men were better satisfied with the boot they brought out, with the Canadian boot, because it was lighter.
As will be seen later on in this report, all the soldiers who were at Salisbury Plain on active service who appeared before the committee and gave evidence were favourable to the Canadian boot which they wore and compared with the English army boot expressed a preference for the Canadian.
The Canadian sample boot and those made according to it do not appear to have been suited to withstand the severe and exceptional weather conditions and other unusual circumstances to which they were exposed and the rough usage. Only a boot specially constructed for that purpose like a larrigan or bushman's boot might be sufficient. It must not be forgotten as the evidence demonstrates that even with such disadvantageous conditions created by the weather the Canadian boots were not at first given a fair chance owing to the impossibility of getting two pairs for each soldier within the limited time. The one pair was constantly on his feet and almost as constantly >vet. There was no opportunity for drying and the leather then became soft and the soles easily worn away and the stitching of the soles in many cases loosened and caused a separation of the outer sole from the other part

of the boot. Further, at first owing to the haste of mobilization a regimental shoemaker and kit and materials were not at hand to make needed repairs which would have preprevented further rapid destruction of the impaired boots.
But because	some of the	boots	were	notsufficient to withstand such conditions and usage, boards of inquiry in different parts or Canada and at Salisbury condemned them. But these extreme tests are not fair tests for an average or	suitable boot	to be	used	generally by the	soldier. The	better	test	iswhat military boot of reasonable cost is best suited to the general circumstances and conditions in which a soldier of a country on active service will be placed.	Your	committee
were not asked to recommend a suitable military boot for Canadian soldiers nor were their inquiries directed to that end, but their investigations do show efforts made not only in Canada but in other countries to produce a satisfactory military boot. Those efforts have not yet been fully availing. The conceptions of each country as to the class of suitable military boot, conceptions influenced largely by the customs, conditions and climate of that country, vary and produce a boot considered to be best adapted to such usage, conditions and climate. So the British military boot is of one class, the American of a very different style, the French of another. The evidence given and the samples furnished' to your committee show that the French and American military boots approximate more closely to the Canadian than do the heavy English military boot. Not only do the physical geography and climatic conditions of a country and the usages of its people enter into the determination of the class of boot required by its soldiery out the utility of the boot and the comfort of the soldier wearing it. The evidence before us shows that a heavy, hobnailed and inflexible boot will impede marching, weary the soldier and bruise or blister the feet, particularly of one not accustomed to such a class of boot, that a leather impervious to water by stuffing or greasing is also impervious to ventilation, evaporation of foot moisture and is to many feet injurious.
To indicate some of the many considerations necessarily involved in the selection of a proper military boot, extracts are given from a recognized authority, Edward Lyman Munson, Major Medical Corps, President of the American Army Shoe Board, in a book on " The Soldier's Foot and the Military Shoe," says:
" A good military foot covering should be well joined, strong, substantial and solid, yet at the same time sufficiently flexible to permit of the natural functioning of the joints. It must be supple, so as to avoid the undue loss of necessary energy in overcoming resistance of the leather with each step-likewise to reduce the liability to blister and other injury. To attempt to use a stiff, unyielding shoe will result in the early falling out of a large proportion of its wearers. No better example of this can be found than the tremendous disability which occurred among the Germans as a result of the use of a shoe of this character. The shoe must be comfortable. This is an'absolute essential in military footwear, for uncomfortable shoes will inevitably diminish the ability of troops to march. The main wear of course falls on the soles. They cannot be increased in durability except by the use of double soles, which latter are unnecessarily b heavy, stiff and hard on the feet. The foot ' covering should be as light in weight as is compatible with serviceability."
" The material of which the shoe is made, and the special treatment of the former, must be such as will facilitate evaporation of moisture from within, yet not to a degree by which the absorption of moisture from without is unduly favoured. Leather stuffed or saturated with oil was not used. The material or leather of the shoe upper must not be hard; otherwise it will cause blisters, callouses and corns. The ' brogans ' formerly used in our service and the footwear of various foreign armies, have this defect. The sole should be sufficiently thick to prevent the foot from being injured by inequality in the ground. But if too thick, planter flexion of the foot is ilost and dorsi-flexion is much reduced."
In the House Documents of the 62nd Congress of the United States (1912), in the report of the Quartermaster General the following recommendations appear:
" That no shoe other than the official marching shoe in the form in which they may be adopted be used by officers or enlisted men when in the service uniform. That an order be issued to insure the proper fitting of shoes throughout the service, said order to cover the method of measurement, fitting and breaking in of shoes. That hereafter only vegetable tanned leather without oil stuffing be used in the manufacture of marching shoes, mineral tanned leather not being considered the equal of vegetable tannage for military service. That the specifications hereafter distinctly prescribe the minimum length of time in which shoes shall remain on the last."
Your committee conclude from the evidence given before it that for active service the sample boot would be improved by a second through sole instead of a slip-sole (this change was made before the second orders for the Canadian boots were given, and they were made accordingly) ; that it would be improved by putting more screws or nails in or quilting the outer sole so as to protect it from wear, _ and by making it wider at the toe (the large percentage of the boots supplied to the department since the beginning of the war were made on a last wider at the toe) ; and by protecting the heel by nails or other iron material.
Although your committee do not attach significance to the evidence of the manufacturer, Alfred Minister, yet as his statement that he refused to undertake to manufacture shoes such as he saw in the department and on specifications furnished because he did not want to make any money out of a man's life has been referred to by many people, and as he considered the prices of $3.85, $3.65 and $3.62J for which others were furnishing boots on the same specifications were very low and as his higher offer for boots on the same specifications was not accepted, the following extracts from his evidence are given :
Q. In other words, you meant that you could and would make boots for the department at $4.85 after the war was on?-A. Yes I would.
Q. And it was on the specifications you had in your possession then that you made that offer?-A. So far as the material was concerned and workmanship.

every opportunity has been given * with a view of placing the facts before the House.
Appended hereto are copies of the evidence taken before the committee comprising the exhibits submitted by the various witnesses.
Appended hereto, also, is a copy of the proceedings of the committee, dated Friday, April 9, 1915.
Appended hereto, also, is the list of the witnesses who gave evidence before the committee.
All of which Is respectfully submitted.
April 9, 1915.
Mr. MIDDLEBORO said:	Mr. Speaker,
in moving the adoption of the report of this committee, I desire to say that it has held 51 sittings, possibly of an average of two hours each, and has examined over 87 witnesses. I also desire to testify to the patience and endurance of my colleagues on the committee, on both sides of the House, during the many weary hours we have spent in endeavouring to elucidate all the facts in connection with the supplying of hoots to the Department of Militia and Defence. By reading the authority of the committee, which was by way of a resolution passed on the 16th of February, it will be found to be in the following words:
That the report of the Board of Inquiry consisting of Lieutenant Colonel W. H. Hallick, E. A. Stephens, Esq., and Theo. Galipeau, Esq., respecting boots supplied to the Department of Militia and Defence, a copy of which report was laid upon the table of the House on the 15th instant, and all matters pertaining to the boots so supplied to the said department, be referred to a special committee of seven members with instructions to investigate the matters aforesaid and to report thereon to this House.
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses on oath or affirmation and to report from time to time.
That the following members shall constitute the said committee, namely, Sir James Alkins, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Middlebro, Mr. Rainville, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Demieux and Mr. Nesbitt.
Owing to the illness of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), the name of the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) was substituted on the committee. It will be observed from this that the first matter that was referred to the committee was the report of what I might call the Hallick Board, and, I presume, it was our duty in some way to report on that report. The committee were unanimous in coming to the conclusion that we could not rely upon the decision of that board. We came to that conclusion because the witnesses who appeared before that board were not sworn and because the members themselves had neither sufficient nor adequate knowledge of the matters that were referred to them. That the House may be satisfied upon that

point I will read from the evidence of the members of the board themselves which will show what experience they had and whether they were competent to judge of the quality or class of boots which they examined. Mr. Galipeau upon being examined said:
Q. Have you been a manufacturer?-A. No. I have been in the jobbing business.
Q. That is the wholesale trade?-A. The wholesale trade.
Q. In what capacity in the jobbing business have you been?-A. Well, in general goods, all kinds of shoes.
Q. What were your duties?-A. I was a traveller.
Q. Then I understand that your occupation during most of that period has been that of a traveller for a jobbing house?-A Yes, selling goods.
Q. That has been mainly your experience? -A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have never been a manufacturer of boots?-A. No, I have never been a manufacturer.
Q. Or with the tanning of leather?-A. Yes, I had in the heavy leather, not in the leather being used in these shoes.
Q. In respect of the leather that was used in the construction of the shoes, you have had no large experience?-A. No experience as to that	t
Mr. Stephens' evidence can be summarized in this answer:
During all those years you acquired, as you have told us, a general knowledge of boot and shoe making, but never actually engaged in the work yourself? A. I never did.
Q. The same remark, I suppose, applies to tanning leather? A. I never was a tanner, and never engaged in it.
The replies of Col. Hallick, president of the board, were as follows:
Q. Have you had any experience in the manufacture of boots?-A. None whatever.
Q. Or as a dealer in boots?-A. None whatever.
Q. Then your experience in boots comes from that which you gained as an officer in the Ordnance Department, and from the wearing of the boots.-A. And as a soldier.
Q. But you are not a boot expert?-A. No,
I do not pretend to be that.
Q. Who was the expert in that inquiry upon whom you depended?-A Well, upon my two assisting members, Mr. Stephens and Mr. Galipeau. They were appointed as members to assist me in the investigation.
So, I think it will be seen that we were right in putting aside altogether the report of Lt.-Col. Hallick and his board. In doing so we are not casting any reflection whatever upon the gentlemen who constituted that board. We believe that they performed their duties faithfully and that they arrived at their conclusions honestly, but they had not had sufficient experience, and in addition to that, they did not have sufficient boots before them to enable them

to come to a fair and accurate conclusion as to the quality of the total number of boots which had been supplied to the department. The members of the committee who put in a minority report said m their report that:
The witnesses before the Board were not sworn and were confined to department officials, all of whom with one exception have, however, been before your committee and given their evidence under oath. This Court of Inquiry in addition to hearing the witnesses, devoted themselves to an examination of the boots referred to in their re

t and their * findings express merely the opinions of the different members of the Court.
Notwithstanding that, the minority proceed in the minority report now submitted to give some of the conclusions that were arrived at by the board. If we are not going to accept the report in toto we have no right to accept any part of it. The part which they accept in the minority report and which they wish to place before the public is this:
The opinion of the Board may be summarized in so far as the character of the boot prescribed and supplied by the department, is concerned, as follows:
That the boot was of unsuitable shape and make and that the leather contained no water-resisting medium ;
That the heels and soles are unprotected and sole-filling is often poor quality;
That the boot was unsuitable for the soldiers and for the particular work for which they were provided; because,
(a)	The shape is such that the average foot has not room for the free movement of the toes and is thus not suitable for marching;
(b)	The leather is dry, containing no grease, and consequently quickly absorbs the water;
(c)	Soles and heels not being re-inforced with metal, soon wear down, especially when wet.
But this is expert opinion, and they are not experts. If they were justified in citing that portion of the report they should have cited also the portion of the same report in which the same board held that:
The boots manufactured for the Canadian overseas division were generally speaking well made and of good quality (surprisingly so considering the very insufficient time given the contractors), but they were not suitable for the particular work for which they were provided. This, the Board considers, can be attributed to want of time, as the (comparatively speaking) enormous demand had to be met within a few weeks. Further, that owing to the same extreme urgency, it appears that there was not enough time in which to consider new specifications for a boot differing with that which though suitable for a dry climate has been found to be unsuitable in the abnormal conditions in England. Consequently the Board recommends the adoption of a heavier, sounder type of boot, similar to that used by the British Army.
I think the fairer way is to disregard the report entirely because we have had all the members of the board before this committee and placed them on oath in addition to all the witnesses whom the board heard, with one single exception, and, instead of coming to our conclusion upon a very small proportion of the boots supplied as they did, we have called for statistics from the department of all the boots rejected throughout Canada and have arrived at our conclusion upon that basis.
The next question that naturally arises is: Where did this standard Canadian military boot come from, what is the history of the standard boot which was in the department at the time of the declaration of war, and who is really responsible for that boot?
In ithe minority report, at page 599 of the Votes and Proceedings, I find this statement:
The boot supplied to the soldiers who went to South Africa was a different boot from the sealed sample boot of 1914, and from the boots supplied to the overseas forces.
Well, let us see if it was a different boot. I will concede that it was a different boot in the respect that it was a batter boot, and that the boot of 1914 was a great improvement on the boot of 1899, Which went to South Africa. That there may be no dispute on this question, I shall read from the evidence of the witnesses who appeared before our committee upon this point. At page 928 of the evidence, General Otter testified:
Q. How long were you in South Africa?-A 14 months.
Q. In active service?-A. All the time.
Q. What boots did your regiment have during that time?-A. It was a boot issued by the department before we left.
Q. Similar to Exhibit 12, that boot I showed you?-A. That description of boot, yes.
I may say that Exhibit 12 is the boot from which the manufacturers manufactured the boots in question, with the exception of those manufacturers who forwarded their own sample boot to the department, had it approved by the department and made the boots accordingly. General Otter's evidence continued:
Q. How did that boot answer the purpose in South Africa?-A. Well, it answered very well. I have no fault to find with it.
Q. How did it compare with the English boot? [DOT]-A. Personally I liked it better for the simple reason that it was a bit lighter. Our men were not accustomed to wearing heavy boots like the English boot, but they had to wear it at times because we got the English boot eventually as our own wore out. My experience, however, is that our own men were better satisfied with the boot they brought out, with the Canadian boot, because it was lighter.

have heard some members of the committee describe it as the dancing pump. Well, if they allowed a dancing pump to be the active service army boot of the department for the fifteen years they were in power, they are certainly a great deal to blame; but it was not the dancing pump, it was the only boot provided by the department for the last fifteen years for any service, active or inactive, that the permanent force had. There cannot be any contention that the boot was anything but an active service army boot, and to set up that contention now is merely a weak afterthought Having proved this sample boot, we come now to the question whether or not the sample .boot was the boot delivered to the manufacturers, and I do not think it is necessary to argue this point in view of the evidence I have already submitted. What took place was this; there had been some firms manufacturing boots for the department for a number of years prior to the outbreak of the war. Those firms naturally would have the departmental pattern and last on hand, and therefore could manufacture boots more expeditiously than any other firms could, and they were told to go ahead and manufacture according to Exhibit 12, which was the sample of the department. We required, however, such a great quantity of boots that we could not confine ourselves to those firms, and so other firms came forward and said: We have not the departmental pattern and last, but we have a boot here which is just as good and which we think is better than the departmental standard military boot. Their sample was submitted to and approved by the department, and the firms went ahead and manufactured boots according to that boot approved by the department. The evidence is that, so far as they are concerned, the boots that they manufactured were fully up to the sample. Exhibit No. 5, of which the House will hear a great deal, was the sample approved and sealed in 1905 and called the Slater sample, and it is the sample which the witnesses say is the boot continued down to the present day. The director of clothing and equipment swore that Exhibit No. 5 was supposed to be identical with exhibit No. 12. Colonel Brown, Chief Inspector of Boots, swore that Exhibits 12, 53, 55, 57 and 67, which were boots similar to the departmental standard manufactured by the firms who had departmental lasts, were selected by him out of stock boots and were as close as possible to Exhibit 5. I want, however, to give the 
last and most conclusive evidence that we have. After our inquiry was practically through, we employed two competent, practical boot experts to inspect all the ibootB that had been condemned, and on the last day of our inquiry we asked those two experts to cut up Exhibit 12, the boot from which some o.f the contracts were made, and the evidence shows conclusively that the boot Exhibit 12, was made according to specifications prepared by Slater in May, 1905, and that the boots were manufactured according to the approved samples. There was no opposition on this point, and hon. gentlemen opposite have practically admitted that-


Mr. MURPHY:: No.


William Sora Middlebro: -that the boots were manufactured according to the sealed sample or according to the manufacturers' own samples submitted to and approved by the department; that therefore in all respects the manufacturers carried out their contracts and that the boots manufactured were equal and in many cases superior to the samples from which they were made. These two inspectors to whom I have referred were accepted unanimously by the committee. After they had cut up Exhibit 12, one of them, Mr. Hoar, in the presence of the other, Mr. Cote, gave the following evidence, as appears on the last pages of the evidence:
Q. What do you find with respect to the sealed sample No. 12. Take first the soles, after cutting it open?-A. The soles are 11 gauge.
And the specifications required only 10 gauge, so that the boots were better than the specifications in that respect.
Q. What sort of an inner sole do you find?
*-A. The insole is a good one.
Q. The insole is oak tanned?-A. Yes.
Q. What is the vamp?-A. Storm winter calf.
Q. What are the uppers?-A. The backs are of the same material.
Q. What are the counters?-A. The counters, pak tanned.
Q. And the heels you have already told us are of solid leather.-A. Solid leather, yes.
Q. What is the filling?-A. The filling is cork.
Q. Is that what they call Besto filling?-A. Yes.
By Mr. McCurdy:
Q. Cork and cement?-A. Cork and cement.
By Mr. Pringle:
Q. Having cut the boot open, what do you say as to the quality of the leather?-A. I say that It is a good boot.
By Sir James Aikins:
Q. What is the size of the outer leather?_
A. 11 gauge.

Q. And the slipsole?-A. It is 7 gauge.
Q. The inner sole?-A. 7 gauge.
By Mr. Macdonald:
Q. Of course this information another manufacturer could not get without cutting the hoot?-A. No, not unless be opened the hoot.
By Mr. Murphy:
Q. What kind of a shank is it?-A. Leather shank.
Q. Solid leather?-A. Solid leather shank. There it is. (Exhibiting shank).
By Mr. Nesbitt:
Q. How near that type of boot did you calculate when you were judging whether a boot was up to the sample or whether it was not? -A. We had this boot. Exhibit 12, under consideration.
Q. You did not cut it open?-A. No. The boots we did cut open were up to sample, except in a few cases, as the report states.
Q. Did you judge them on the basis of what you found them to be?-A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Macdonald :	.
Q. According to specification?-A. Exactly.
So that we have a minute description of the sample, and we have sworn and positive evidence that the sample was made according to specification; and the speci-cation is the specification prepared by-Charles A. Slater and approved by the department in 1905, and continued down to date.
Now, let us get some of the fundamental principles of a serviceable military boot. I take these from the report of the American Army Shoe Board. And I may say that we wired Professor Munson, the president of that board, and endeavoured to secure his services before this committee, but unfortunately he was absent in the Philippines, and thus we were unable to secure the benefit of his counsel.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is he?


William Sora Middlebro: He is president of the American Army Shoe Board who gave the conclusions of the board in 1912, and who was for some four years engaged in the investigations on the basis of which he arrived at his conclusions. Professor Munson says:
The material of which the shoe is made, and the special treatment of the former, must be such as will facilitate evaporation of moisture from within, yet not to a degree by which the absorption of moisture from without is unduly favoured. Leather stuffed or saturated with oil was not used. The material or leather of the shoe upper must not be hard; otherwise it will cause blisters, callouses and corns. The " brogans " formerly used in our service and the footwear of various foreign armies, have this defect. The sole should be sufliciently thick to prevent the foot from being injured by inequality in the ground. But if too thick, planter flexion of the foot is lost and dorsi-flexion is much reduced.
That is to say there is only one standard military boot for the United States army.
It has been suggested throughout our investigation that the United States have a summer issue and a winter issue, and that perhaps the boot produced before this eommittee is the boot which the United States army had in summer. This report of the quartermaster general shows that the boot shown to the committee was the only issue they have for an active service boot, and it is lighter than the Canadian military boot. Professor Munson goes on:
That hereafter only vegetable tanned leather without oil stuffing be used in the manufacture of marching shoes, mineral tanned leather not being considered the equal of vegetable tannage for military purposes.
Our specifications provide for the same chrome tanned leather as recommended by the quartermaster general of the United States.
Then, as to the life of an ordinary military boot. There -seems to be -some misapprehension in this country -as to how long an ordinary boot is expected to wear. After his exhaustive inquiries this is what Professor Munson says:
During the ordinary campaign, under usual conditions of moisture and roughness of roads as found in this country, a pair of shoes may be expected to last about two months and be sufficient, with light repairs, for a journey of 500 to 600 miles over ordinary terrain. But local conditions may very materially modify and reduce this estimate. Rocks and sharp gravel rub away soles rapidly, particularly if wet; while continued wetting for a fortnight or so may cause the stitching to rot and the shoe to fall apart and become unserviceable.
I would -ask the House to -bear this in mind when they consider the conditions under which the Canadian boot has been worn in the present campaign. Take Salisbury Plain as an instance. If we are to judge of the use of the Canadian boot there by the fundamental principles laid down by Professor Munson as to the life of the ordinary boot, we must alldw for the fact -that according to testimony before the eommittee, they had fifty-five continued days of rain. Such conditions, of course, meant a very short life for any army boot.
Now we come down to the actual contract for the boots. War was declared on the 4th of August. On the 8th of August a request was sent out by Quartermaster General Macdonald, asking them to provide at once 65,000 pairs of ankle boots. Such an order was, of course, unprecedented in the history of Canadian militarism. The only thing the department could do was to recognize that a certain number of firms had been making boots in the past for the Government, that

they had the Government lasts, and so would be able to turn out the boots more rapidly. So these firms were called upon to furnish the major portion of the first order. The department sent out invitations for tenders to a number of firms including these and asked how many pairs they could make, and stipulating that the boots must be delivered within six weeks. This invitation was sent to the following firms: Ames, Holden, McCready Company; Slater Shoe Company, both of Montreal; and Louis Gauthier & Company, Limited, of Quebec; Tetrault Shoe Manufacturing Company, Limited, George A. Slater Ltd., both of Montreal; the Amherst Boot & Shoe Company, Limited, Amherst, Nova Scotia; Hartt Boot & Shoe Company, Fredericton, New Brunswick; and McPherson & Company, Hamilton.
The first three mentioned firms had previously supplied the department with the Militia boot, and the contract for this requisition of 65,000 was distributed as follows: Ames, Holden & McCready, 20,000; Te-treault Shoe Company, 20,000; Louis Gauthier, 10,000; Slater Shoe Company, 1,000; Amherst Boot & Shoe Company, 2,000; John McPherson &. Company, 6,000; and Hartt Boot & Shoe Company, 6,000. These were all at $3.85, except the Hartt Shoe Company, who had tendered at $3.66. These contracts were all dated the 10th or 11th of August, with one exception. Deliveries were to be made within six weeks. As a matter of fact, deliveries began within 11 days, and 55,000 pairs were delivered within the six weeks and the balance a very short time after.
Further, urgent orders were given in September and October to the following firms: Ames, Holden & McCready; Ballantyne & Martin; Cook & Fitzgerald; Western Shoe Company; Relindo Shoe Company; Wright Shoe Company; Aylmer Shoe Company; Murray Shoe Company; Humphrey Boot & Shoe Company; Perth Boot & Shoe Company; George Ritchie & Company; George A. Slater; Williams Shoe Company; E. T. Wright & Company. The first three firms manufactured from the sample furnished by the department. I am not quite sure, but there may have been one or two other firms that manufactured from the standard department sample. In all the other cases the contractors manufactured from a sample presented by them and approved by the department and manufactured in accordance with the approved sample. In all, nearly 180,000 pairs were supplied to the department. The first order was for 65,000.

At that time it was based upon the assumption that we would send 22,000 men to Salisbury Plain. It was afterwards decided to send 33,000 men, and they were sent. And we know that, since that time, we have organized a second, third and fourth Contingents, until, as I see by the announcement of the Prime Minister last Saturday evening, we have in training here, in France, England and elsewhere, 101,500 men. Every one of these men has had to be supplied with boots. This was a herculean task, and one that had never been contemplated up to that time by the Militia Department. Then, I would point out the conditions under which these boots were worn in Canada. It so happened that they were delivered at a time of the year which necessitated their being worn in the worst part of the year. They were issued in the fall,'where they had to undergo the rain and slush of that season, followed by the rigours of the Canadian winter and then the snow and slush of the spring. They could not be put to a more severe test as regards weather conditions. I venture to say that if the boots had been first issued in the present month and had been worn for the next six months, we should not have had any investigation such as we have had within the last few weeks in this House.
The evidence is to the effect that in the early history of the war there were no regimental cobblers. To begin with, only one pair each was issued to the men, and thus the wearers were not given a chance to dry them. They were marched out day after day, route marching through rain, slush and wet. The men were brought into camp, but had no opportunity 'to change their boots or to dry them; and the evidence is that there were no regimental cobblers in the fore part of the war and no dubbing or grease was provided to render the boots waterproof. These conditions all contributed to a more rapid deterioration of the boots than would otherwise have occurred.
Since the war broke out the department have made a very material alteration and improvement in the standard army boot. In the month of October they came to the conclusion that instead of a slip sole, as it is called, they would provide a through double sole and they stipulated in October that thereafter all boots manufactured for the department should have the through double sole. Under that provision some 40,000 boots have been manufactured with the through double sole. In addition to that they concluded that the soles should

be further reinforced by nails and that has been done. That is technically called quilting the soles. By these two changes a very substantial and beneficial improvement has been made in the character of the Canadian boot.
The committee were anxious to get a bird's-eye view, as it were, of what had taken place in Canada with respect to these boots. You may get an individual complaint here or there, you may get a complaint from a certain board of inquiry in a regiment where they have been using the boots under exceptional conditions, which might lead you at first to suppose that the boots were wrong. In Halifax, for instance, we find that in the earlier part of the training they were using these boots digging trenches in wet clay for seven weeks, and because the stitching gave way they came to the conclusion that all the boots were bad. That is not a fair test. Digging trenches in wet clay for seven weeks, we would expect that a boot would give way, especially when there was no regimental cobbler and no opportunity to dry the boots and no dubbing to grease them and only one pair of boots for each soldier. These are not fair illustrations of the general service that boots have to give. The proper way is to take a bird's-eye view of all worn boots in Canada, bring them together and see how they compare with the total number issued in the whole Dominion of Canada. The committee have done that. We asked the departmental officers to tell us, first of all, the number of boots that had been used by men in Canada who had not gone to England; then the number of boots discarded and not in use throughout Canada; and then we tried to find out how many of these boots could be repaired and, of those that could not be repaired, to find out the reasons for their unrepairable condition. We selected two practical men for this purpose. Of these men I shall have something to say hereafter. But first let me point out the manner in which condemned boots are placed before the Government. There is one way in which a soldier can get a new pair of boots, that is by getting his old ones condemned. At the beginning of the war there was only one way of getting a new pair, and that was through the medium of what are called regimental boards. The regimental boards were not only for regiments but sometimes for companies of a regiment, and in this way some 70 regimental boards have sat throughout Canada since the war began and have condemned boots. But it must
be understood that in condemning boots these boards are simply adopting a process for getting new boots when boots were worn out by reasonable wear and tear, defects, or abuse on the part of the soldier himself. Let me read you upon that point from the evidence. Lieut. Col. Macdonald, the director of clothing and equipment in the department, who has been there a great number of years, in the inquiry swore:
By the Chairman:
Q. X suppose the real object of those hoards of inquiry is to enable the minister to come to a ccnc usion, because he cannot do it himself personally-to come to a conclusion as to the state of toots reported on?-A. Yes.
Q. And those gentlemen get together, and get information from witneses who are not sworn. And when the report of the Board of Inquiry comes I suppose you scarcely ever accept it without sending out your inspectors to see whether it is so or not?-A. Xn practically every*
QS You do not accept the recommendation at
all?

A No.	.	...
Q. As a matter of fact you regard them with suspicion?-A. I am afraid we do.
Q. Perhaps I should not say you regard them with suspicion, but you do not accept them as conclusive at all?-A. No.
Q. And for that reason you immediately send out inspectors?-A. We send out inspectors.
Q. You send for the boots and put the inspectors at work on them?-A. Yes.
Q. To see whether their condition justifies these reports?-A Yes. Many of these officers who sit on the boards are men like myself who are not able to tell whether the boots sent up to them are the boots called for.
Q. And the fact that you put the inspectors to work cm these boots shows that the report is not conclusive and was not intended to be so, but simply a gathering of what information you can get?-A. Yes.	,
Q. Did you have these boards of, inquiry regularly 5-A. Frequently.
Q. And the object of the inquiry was to see whether the men were justified in getting further boots?-A. Yes, justified.
Q. Or whether the boots being worn out was due to their own fault?-A Yes.
Q. They have been more often rejected than act'd upon?-A. Yes.
Q. Before the war they were more often rejected than accepted?

A. I would say so.
Q. Tney were mere often rejected than accepted even before the war?-A. Yes.
By Hon. Mr. Murphy:
Q. What has been done since the war?-A. Since the war we have kept them there and had th m re-examined.
Q. Kept them where?-A. At the different depots.
Q. Where the inquiry took place?-A. Yes, they are at all these various points; and if the inspector of leather finds that the fault was that of the maker of the boots, and sometimes they do so find, those boots were returned to the makers and they were replaced, or repaired and returned to us.
By Sir James Aikins:
Q. Those would be worn boots?-A Yes, but if the fault lay, as it often happens, with the

w ar r of the boots, that the sole is gone, that the inspector of leather who examines it very closely finds that the man has put it on a hot radiator and burnt it, the boot is returned, and the man has to pay for it.
I simply quote that to show that a condemned boot simply means a boot which the regimental board think they are justified in taking in and re-
12 noon, placing. I shall cite a few instances of these condemned boots at the various regimental district headquarters. At Toronto there had been issued until the 19th of March, 1914, 14,000 pairs of boots, of which 8,357 were issued before the new year and the balance after the new year. Of these only 413 pairs in all have been condemned, and of the 413 pairs 117 were repairable, leaving only 296 unrepairable out of 14,000, or about 2 per cent of the whole issue. No one can reasonably say that 14,000 boots were bad boots, if, out of that number, in the time they have been in use, from December until now, or until the 19th of March even, only 413 pairs have been condemned, and there are only 296 unrepairable altogether, or 2 per cent even of the whole issue.
At Kingston 2,400 pairs have been issued, and the whole of these are now in use, except 5 pairs which have been cut up for inspection purposes, and which, of course, could not be returned; so that 2,395 pairs are still in use out of the 2,400, although we got a report from Kingston that those boots were like moccasins and the soldiers could not wear them. Whether they were like moccasins or not I do not know, but the fact is that they are all in use, the whole 2,400, except 5 pairs; and the evidence is that they are giving good satisfaction to-day.
As regards Quebec, Colonel Landry said that of the 5,500 pairs issued to his men only 55 pairs had been condemned, and that all the 55 pairs had been repaired and reissued; so that the whole 5,500 pairs are in use to-day.
At St .Johns, Quebec, Lt.-Col. Sabourin said that there only 40 gave any dissatisfaction, and that 20 of these were due to misfits. I think he said that over 1,000 pairs had been issued, and that they had been used in all kinds of weather.
Let me give a resume of all the boots that have come back. Excluding all the boots that have been sent to England and all those that are not yet issued, there are in Canada to-day 86,000 pairs of boots worn by the men in Canada. Of that 86,000 pairs, only 7,807 have been condemned; that is, out of the total 86,000 pairs the proportion

of boots that have for any reason been put out of work during that time is 9 per cent. What has become of the 9 per cent? Nearly
4	per cent, or 3,248, have already been reissued, leaving only 4,559 that are not reissued; that is only 5 per cent of the 86,000 have not been reissued. But that is not the whole story. That does not mean that the
5	per cent, or the 4,559, which have not yet been reissued are not repairable or serviceable; because the evidence, as I will show, indicates that the greater paTt of them are repairable.
In order to get a bird's eye view, we said: Bring to this committee all the condemned boots that are at the various regimental headquarters in Canada, and. we will put two independent experts upon them. They sent us 1,713 inspections, of which 384 were singles and the balance pairs. The committee unanimously appointed two independent inspectors to go over those boots; one was J. A. Hoar, a customs shoemaker and cobbler, of Halifax, who had made boots for the military of the British Army and for the Navy, and who had had 30 years' experience as a cobbler and contractor. No one will say that his evidence was given in a biased manner. The other inspector was Mr. Magloire Cote, of the firm of J. A. & M. C6te, of St. Hyacinthe, who had been a manufacturer of shoes for 40 years and had no contract with the Government and had worked in every position . in a shoe factory from the bench up to the position he occupies to-day. He also gave evidence in a very fair and satisfactory manner. These two men went away by themselves and made an examination of those 1,7113 inspections. They reported on every single one, and collaborated in their report, the result, which was this: there were 1,713 inspections, of which 384 were singles. Out of these they found that 112 were burnt by the soldier himself and rendered useless on that account, and that 1,484 were repairable and should have been repaired. That left only 153 out of the 1,713, and they found that the unrepairable condition of 70 of these 153 was due to their being cut by toe nails, knife or spur. That left only 83 unrepairable. They also found that 68 had not originally been up to sample chiefly by reason of being too light in the backs. To summarize these figures, the total number issued to the men now in Canada is 86,000, and of these there have been condemned 4,557, which are now not in use. That leaves still in use 81,441 doing duty after six months' use. I am not saying by any means that the whole of

these have been used for the whole six months, because the department only started to issue to these men on the first of October, and they have been issuing from time to time since. But the whole of that 86,000 are now in use except 4,557; and of these 4,557, there are still repairable 3,351. If we accept the same basis of classification that was given to us by the two inspectors who were brought here to inspect the 1,713, which were part of the 7,807 condemned by the different boards, then the result as to the total number of condemned boots is that out of the 86,000 pairs there are only out of use to-day 1,208 which cannot be repaired, and which have been in use for varying periods from the 1st of October up to to-day. These 1,208 are accounted for as follows: 510 are not in use through being burned, and 319 by being mutilated by knife, spurs or nails, leaving only 379 out of the whole 86,000 that are not in use by reason of fair and reasonable wear and from other causes. Now there is no politics in figures like that. These two men were appointed unanimously, and I think the committee must acknowledge that they gave their evidence fairly. That is the result of the test given by these two practical men who were appointed to examine the boots that were condemned.
In the minority report I notice the following statement:
That out of the said number of boots 265 pairs were not worth repairing.
While that is true, they forget to say that out of the 265, 112 were burnt and 70 were mutilated by knife, spur or nails that is, out of the 265, 182 were mutilated as I have said; that leaves only 83 which could be properly put in as the number of boots that were not worth repairing. So it was not fair to say that 265 pairs were not worth repairing without making this explanation. The minority report also says:
If the proportion of boots in this particular lot, not equal to sample, is a fair percentage of the number of boots furnished that did not come up to samples, out of the one hundred and eighty thousand pairs supplied, the number of boots so furnished that were inferior to sample would be seven thousand, two hundred and ninety-eight boots;
Any one can see how unfair that is because there were 68 inferior boots in the 1,713 condemned boots, which are a part of the 7,807 condemned and therefore the worst part, and probably the only defective boots in the 86,000, and it is argued in the minority report that the same proportion existed in the original boots.
That is his argument. In other words, it is just the same as if he argued this:	I
sell to a man ten pairs of boots and after six months he comes back with two; of the two one is defective, one is fifty per cent of two and, therefore, fifty per cent of the whole ten are defective. I do not know which hon. member is responsible for it, but that is the argument and that is put in the minority report for the purpose of trying to show over 7,000 defective boots in the 86,000.
These figures show conclusively that the boot in Canada has stood the test well, especially under the trying circumstances of our winter, fall and spring. There is another consideration that must not be overlooked. The evidence proves conclusively that in the great majority of cases the number of boots supplied by the manufacturers of Canada to the Government was less than one per cent of their whole output. There was no case where the amount of a contract held by a manufacturer was more than five per cent of his output. Is it to be supposed, apart altogether from patriotic reasons, that any manufacturer would be so foolish as to supply the department with an inferior quality of boots when what he was selling the department represented such a small proportion of his annual output? I should think that, in his own interests, he would say: the boots I will supply to the department will be the greatest possible "ad" for me if they are good, and they will be the worst kind of a curse to my business if they are bad. The quantity supplied to the Government was such a small proportion of his annual output that it is only fair to conclude that in his own self interest he would give the department as good a boot as he could turn out. My hon. friends will not say, and do not say, that the boots manufactured were not up to sample, and they entirely exonerate the manufacturers. On the contrary, they will have to say upon the evidence that the boots manufactured were equal to the sample, and in many cases superior to it. That is the case with respect to the boots worn in Canada.
Now, a word or two as to the boots sent across the ocean. The conditions of Salisbury Plain were no fair test whatever for any army boot. All the witnesses who came before the committee, witnesses who had been on active service at Salisbury Plain, said that the conditions were most abnormal and exceptional. I propose to read

from the statements of witnesses who appeared before the committee and who had served at Salisbury to give us an idea of the conditions of weather there which these boots encountered.
Private Ross said:
(a)	Private Ross, of the Queen's Own Rifles, who appeared before us, swore that he enlisted at Toronto, August 25th last, going to Valcartier. He sailed from Quebec on September 25th; that after reaching Salisbury Plains it rained for 35 consecutive days, and the camp grounds were wet and muddy during the whole time he remained there, namely, up to the 18th of February, 1915.
Mr. Bennett said:
(b)	W. M. Bennett, of Wallcerville, who was at Salisbury Plains once or twice a week between the 1st of November and the 16 th of December, swore that the sun did not shine once while he was there; that it was constantly raining, and that it was nothing but a quagmire of mud around the tents; that during the whole time he was there it was not possible for a soldier to step out on the ground around his tent without getting his feet covered with mud, and that the roads were in an even worse condition, there being from 1 to 14 or 15 inches of a thick batter mud all over them.
I find on reading that over that I have not done justice to the conditions as described by Private Bennett, and I would like to read from the evidence itself:
Q. What time were you at Salisbury Plain?- A. I was there once or twice a week, each week between about the 1st November and 16th December.
Q. What were the conditions when you were there?-A. As regards what?
Q. As regards the weather..

A. Well, it could not possibly be worse.
Q. lit what respect?-A. I never saw the sun shine once, it was usually raining. The mud was deeper and thicker than any place I ever saw in my life.
By Mr. Chairman:
Q. Give us an idea of the mud conditions, what were they like?-A. Well, X can probably tell you that by saying, I think it was the greatest crime that Canadian troops were allowed to stay there.
Q. That does not answer my question..

A. I will describe it exactly then. At Bustard camp, where were located the 1st and 2nd Battalions, and possibly one or two others, the streets between the tents, the ground all around the tents, was nothing but a quagmire of mud. A man would step out of his tent and go down to about the top of his shoes in mud. It was that way every time I saw it. The roads were in even worse condition. There was anything from an inch to fourteen or fifteen inches of thick batter mud all over the roads. That is the description.
By Mr. Nesbitt:
Q. At Salisbury?-A. Well, not at Salisbury city. The Plain is 70 miles square. That is wherever the camps were.
Q. I saw some pictures in the Illustrated London News, showing water up to the step

of the motors. Did you see anything like that where you were?-A. I have seen the water higher than that, where the motor could not go through.
Then Wm. T. Nussey, sergeant of he Princess Pats, who was located at Salisbury Plains until the 13th of January, swore that he had talked with those living at Ainsbury, Fulford Market, Lavington, and Salisbury, and they informed him it was the worst weather they had ever experienced in sixty years. These are the conditions, and the evidence shows that the English boot would not stand such conditions.


Mr. LEMIETJX:: My hon. friend speaks
of Salisbury Plains; will he give the evidence of Gen. Alderson?


William Sora Middlebro: Gen. Alderson did
not give evidence, but I will deal with his message in a few minutes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I referred to his letter.


William Sora Middlebro: The conditions at
Salisbury did not afford a test chance for any boots, but I am going to give you the test which the Canadian boot did stand under these exceptional and abnormal conditions :
Sergeant W. T. Nussey, above named, stated that he and his men were delivered 100 pairs at Valcartier and that up to the time he left Salisbury Plains in January, 1915, he had heard no complaints from his men respecting the boots; had worn his Canadian issue from Valcartier up to the time he appeared before the board, and was still wearing them, and left them with the Committee as an exhibit. They were in fair condition, the uppers intact, and he had worn them continually without repair until the 6th of March, when he had them half soled and the heels repaired; and when giving his evidence described them as,-as good a pair of boots as he ever had on his feet; had worn both the British and Canadian Army boot and preferred the Canadian boot, and that he had seen 12 years' service in the Imperial Army.
Private Ross, above named, swore:	He had
been issued his boots at Valcartier on the 30th of August, sailed for Salisbury on the 25th of September, was invalided home on the 18th of February, wore his boots during all this four months' time with the exception of two weeks during which time he wore a pair of British boots and had his own resoled, and the heels fixed with nails; that he discarded his British boots as he preferred the Canadian, and had been wearing his Canadian boots down to the 10th of March, seven months in all, that they were still in good shape with the exception of a few stitches in the back, and that he had never heard any of his companions complain about the Canadian boot, and that the English boot, which he wore for two weeks did not stand the water any better than the Canadian boot.
Corporal Edwards, mentioned above when he appeared before the board was wearing the

Canadian military boot which had been issued to him; he testified that he got them on the 5th day of October, after which he had gone to Salisbury Plains; that he had worn them ever since with the exception of a week which would be nearly six months he had worn them in all, and about two months ago he had had them half-soled; that they were still in good condition and be thought would last another three months; that before he had used the boots he had given them a good dubbin and had taken care of them ever since; that he had been wearing Canadian military boots for the last five years, and that he had not heard any complaints from the men at Salisbury Plains with respect to the boots.
Two pairs of British Army boots were produced before the board by Major General Hughes, and which he testified had been sent to him by Colonel Currie, commanding the 48th Highlanders, together with a letter from Colonel Currie stating that the boots had been in use foi* two weeks only ; and, from an examination of these boots, we find that they have not stood the test as well as the Canadian boots worn by Nussey, Ross and Edwards.
The letter from our friend Col. J. A. Currie, of the 48th Highlanders, was addressed to Major General Hughes, and it reads:
North Larkhill, Salisbury Plain,
February 10, 1915.
Maj. Genl. S. Hughes,
Minister of Militia,
Ottawa.
Dear Gen. Hughes:
I understand there has been a great deal of talk in the paper about the issue of Canadian boots being very bad.
I do not agree with this as the great majority of Canadian boots issued to my men were good boots and of course bad boots are likely to crop up in the best lots.
A great stress has been laid on the fact that the English boot is superior. I am sending you by parcel post two pairs of Imperial 'boots issued two weeks ago to the men of my regiment.
Had the Canadian boots been nailed with small round headed nails such as are used in northern Ontario the boots would have worn much longer. I think there are still about 500 pairs of boots issued to my men at Long Branch still being worn and they are very comfortable on the feet and in dry weather will be much better than the English boot. My orderly room clerk has just been in and tells me he is wearing a pair of the boots issued to him at Long Branch and that he wears them in preference to the English boot, so the row raised over the boots has certainly lost Canada a good deal of business in boots and shoes we could have got and I do not think the cry raised was at all justified.	.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) J. A. Currie, Lt.-Col.
And I am glad to say that the men from my county are now in the trenches in France serving under Lt.-Col. Currie.
I may say that I am not contending that amongst the 180.000 boots furnished every boot was absolutely good and up to sample. It would be ridiculous to make any such
contention, for there never has been and never will be 180,000 boots made without something being wrong with some of them, a few stitches slipped, a few nails missed or sihoTt, or something of that kind. Nobody would contend that every boot was perfect, but the finding of the committee is that the boots were manufactured substantially up to sample ' and in many cases superior thereto.
The boots for Col. Currie's men must have been issued to them at Long Branch in the months of September or October, and this letter is written in February;, so that these boots had then been subjected to five months' wear at Salisbury Plain, under those abnormal and exceptional conditions, and Colonel Currie says that 500 of them- I understand there are about 1,000 men in his regiment-were still in use, which is certainly a very good test.
Only yesterday I received a letter which was of course not submitted to the committee, but I give it for what it is worth and without comment:
I quote from a letter received from my brother Corporal Wm. M. Waters who it at present serving with the first expeditionary force in France, and in the trenches:
" X can't see why all the papers are talking about our boots. The pair I got in Valcartier lasted till we left for France, and I'd rather have them now than the ones I have. They were lighter than these, but were a lot better."
I quote further from the proceedings before the committee the statement by a young soldier writing from Salisbury Plain:
Ninety per cent of the men here cannot wear the English make, and I am now wearing the Canadian boots. I am going to leave the English make behind and wear the ones from home, as they are more comfortable, though they might not possibly stand as much wear and tear.
In view of such evidence as this, I ask hon. gentlemen opposite what becomes of the great flaring headlines we have seen in the newspapers with respect to the fraudulent manufacture of these Canadian boots. I doubt if there ever was a class of citizens who have been so maligned as the Canadian boot manufacturers have been during the last two or three months. The result of this inquiry has been, and I am glad it has been so thorough, that we got before this committee all the permanent officials of the department, the boot inspectors, the Quartermaster General, the chief inspector of boots, the inspector of contracts, the assistant inspector of contracts, and we had also before us to give evidence all the manufacturers against whom any accusat:on in


The Chairman:: I am putting a question to
him.
Mr. Macdonald: He was in the course of explaining when you interrupted.
By the Chairman:
Q. You put in a tender after the war was on, didn't you?-A. I would not consider that a tender.
Q. You offered to make the same boots after the war was on?-A. I said we could make so many boots, and they had our price.
Q. And that price was what?-A. $4.85.
Q. In other words, you meant that you could and would make boots for the department at $4.85 after the war was on?-A. Yes, I would-
Q. And it was on the specifications you had in your possession then that you made that offer?-A. So far as the material was concerned and workmanship.
Q. So far as the specifications were concerned?-A. Only that part of the specifications.
Q. So far as material and workmanship were concerned?-A. Yes.
Q. What else is there?-A. There is the shape.
Q. It was only a question of shape, then?- A. Principally, so far as the boot we were going to make.
By Sir James Aikins:
Q. I understand you objected to the form of the last that was adopted in respect to the new boots. I understand your main objection was to the shape of the boot?-A. That was the principal objection, and some other little things in the workmanship.
Q. What were the other little things?-A. I did not think they were reinforced properly.
Q. What do you mean by reinforced properly, do you mean the soles were not reinforced?- A. Yes.
Q. Reinforced with additional nails?-A. Additional nails, and a different kind of nails.
Q. Anything else?-A. I do not know of anything else.
This is the man who was willing to manufacture the same boots with a few additional nails in the heels if he could have obtained $4.85 for what the department were paying $3.65. This is what his partner, Major Myles, said when we brought him before the committee:
By Sir James Aikins:	-
Q. Have you ever been on active service?- A. I have not; I was sailed on the occasion of 1885 in the Northwest Rebellion.
Look at Exhibit 12-
Exhibit 12 is admittedly the boot from which all the army boots were made, except those that were submitted by the manufacturers to and approved by the department.
Q. Look at Exhibit 12 ; for the ordinary purposes to which you have been accustomed in Canada, do you think that would be a suitable boot; that is assuming that the size would fit a soldier?-A. For ordinary wear I think it would be.
Q. It is a good boot?-A. So far as I can see, till it is tested; I do not want to give an expression of opinion.
Q. On your own military experience.-A. We never had any boots issued to us by the department in our camps. The soldier had to wear his own boots. So far as I am concerned, the boot question never came up in my experience.
Q. So far as military boots are concerned, of the use of that as a military boot for campaign purposes you know nothing?-A. Nothing.
By Mr. Chairman:
Q. Do you remember your partner saying that before the war broke out at all your firm had in their possession the departmental specifications for a boot?-A. I saw the specification that came to us.
Q. You had them in your possession?-A. We had them in our possession.
Q. You had them in possession before the war broke out, and you put in a tender to build a boot for $4-85?-A. Yes.
Q. And if you had got the contract you would have made a boot before the war broke out for $4.85 on that specification?-A. Our signature is there.
Q. And you stand by your signature?-A. I stand by our signature.
Q. And after the war broke out you got an invitation to tender, and you sent back saying, you have our price?-A. Yes, "you have our price."
Q. And that was for the boot on the specification you had?-A, Yes.
Q. And if they had written back and said " all right, we will give you a contract for 10,000 pairs of boots " would you have stood by your signature and made the boots. Is that right?-A. Yes.
This is the man who was too conscientious to make boots for the Government



for $3.65, but would have made them for $4.85.
I think I can very well summarize the conclusions of this committee as follows, and in coming to these conclusions I am doing so on the evidence that has been adduced:
1.	The standard military boot of the department when war was declared was the result of over fifteen years of careful consideration by that department, and after inspection of both the British and the United States military boot.
2.	The present Canadian military boot is of the same class, but a much better boot than that issued to and worn by our men in the South African campaign, where it gave good satisfaction and was preferred to the British army boot, both of which were worn by our men there.
3.	The boots supplied to the Militia Department. since the war broke out were made according to the samples of said standard boot in the department, or according to samples submitted by the manufacturers to and approved by the department, and that they were in all cases equal and in many cases superior to said standard sample army boot of the department.
4.	The United States Army Board after four years' deliberation adopted a standard army service boot which is similar in many respects to ours, but lighter.
5.	The standard British army boot i3 not a suitable boot for adoption in Canada.
6.	Out of 86,000 boots issued to and worn by the men now in Canada, all are now in use except 4,559, and of these about 3,351 are repairable and can be re-issued, leaving only 1,208 useless, and out of these again about 510 are useless owing to burning and 319 cut by knife, spurs or nails, leaving only 379 useless owing to ordinary wear and tear out of the 86,000,- and this seems to prove that the boots have given good service in Canada through the worst part of the year, that is, the fall, winter and spring.
7.	The exceptional and abnormal wet weather to which the boots were subjected at Salisbury Plain was not a fair test of the boots; no boots could resist the water under such conditions, and notwithstanding that the Canadian boots stood the test well, and the communications from General Alder-son and Sir George Perley that the boots would not stand the rough wear and tear of Salisbury Plain must be read in the light of the abnormal and exceptional weather conditions that were encountered there, be-

cause no boot would stand such a test and remain impervious to water under such conditions.
8.	Since the war broke out the department has very materially improved the standard boot by the requirement of a through double sole, and by re-inforcing or quilting the sole with nails.
9.	A committee of experts and a special boot expert have been employed by the department with a view of ascertaining if any further improvement in the present
' standard army boot can be made, and that matter is still under consideration.
Mr. MARCH,:	The hon. member for
Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), before leaving the chamber, asked me to ask the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) not to overlook the question he put in regard to the statement made by General Alderson.


William Sora Middlebro: I did not overlook
it, but I will say just a few words more. As I said, in the communications from General Alderson and Sir George Perley, the wording of their report, if I remember it rightly, is that the boots w ould not stand the rough wear and the wet weather to which they were subjected at Salisbury Plain, and that if they were unserviceable, it was on that account. What I say is, that in view of the evidence we have disclosed here, and in view of the evidence which we have gathered from outside quarters, such as that to which my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) referred, that is, the illustrations of Salisbury Plain in the Illustrated London News and other papers, and taking the only evidence we have before this committee-and I suppose it is upon that evidence we are bound to form our conclusions-of men who have been at Salisbury Plain, L have no doubt that conditions were most exceptional and abnormal; that like conditions have probably never been encountered before in the last twenty or thirty years there; that all the communications from the other side must be read in the light of those exceptional circumstances; that no boot would stand the conditions which were encountered there, and that therefore the boots supplied would not completely stand the conditions encountered there, nor the British boot either.


Charles Marcil: I understand the hon. member had a letter. If he has no objection, would he read it?


William Sora Middlebro: It is printed in the proceedings.
At one o'clock, the House took recess.

The House resumed at three o'clock.


Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker. In appointing a special committee of this House to investigate all matters relating to the boots that were supplied to the Canadian soldiers who enlisted for the present war, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) recognized the force of an aroused public opinion upon a subject which comes closely home to the Canadian people. His action at the time it was taken undoubtedly averted what was then a threatening storm; but, Sir, I venture to say that notwithstanding what was alleged by my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) in his speech of this morning, when the facts adduced before the committee become generally known the storm will break, and the first to feel its effects will be the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues. By reason of the evidence submitted to us I am unable to concur in the report presented by my hon. friend from North Grey, and I propose to place before this House, as briefly as possible, the grounds upon which it should, in my judgment, decline to adopt that report.
Let me say a word as to the necessity of providing soldiers on active service with a suitable boot. That is an elementary principle to be observed in the equipping of any army. In this connection I cannot do better than give the House an extract from an article in the Liverpool Weekly Mercury of February 27, 1915:
Good boots are of equal importance for the rank and file as 'brains are for the officers of an army. This is why such efforts have been made in various quarters to produce the best possible supply of army boots. The Duke of Wellington considered good boots as an item of the first importance in the soldiers outfit and when asked what he thought came next in importance replied : " A spare pair." " But what after that?" repeated his interviewer, "A spare pair of soles," said the Duke. Troops are useless if not mobile, it matters not how they can shoot if they are unable to reach the place where their shooting will take effect. It is therefore a sign of practical wisdom in those who instituted the marching and shooting competitions to combine them so as to make them inter-dependent. Marching power must be cultivated as well as marksmanship and the soldier may be inefficient from inferior boots just as easily as from an out of date rifle.
The opinions I have just quoted were confirmed by General Lessard and by every officer who appeared before the committee. In fact, Sir, the only persons who appear to have failed to grasp such an elementary principle are the members of this Government; and the consequences of their failure to do so were placed before the committee 151 i
in a manner to which I intend to direct the attention of the House a little later on.
Before dealing with the contracts that were awarded after the war began, or with the boots that were supplied under those contracts, let me draw attention to certain facts which have an important bearing on the inquiry that the committee was directed to make. To do this it will be necessary to go back a few years; but for the moment I will not go further back than the year 1905. On the 9th of May, 1905, an ankle boot made by the Slater Shoe Company, of Montreal, was adopted by the Department of Militia and Defence as their sealed pattern to be used in future contracts. This sealed pattern was not designed as an active service boot, nor was it the boot that was used by the Canadian soldiers in South Africa, the hon. member for North Grey to the contrary notwithstanding. It was a boot suitable for soldiers in time of peace, and did not materially differ from the ordinary walking .boot used by civilians in Canada. After 1905 some slight modifications were made ' in the boot, and the boot so modified was sealed by the officials of the Militia Department as their sealed pattern on January 15, 1911. The Slater Shoe Company of Montreal continued to supply boots according to this sealed pattern until after the change of Government in 1911. Then, in the year 1913, the L. Gauthier Company, of Quebec, became the principal contractors with the Department of Militia and Defence, and in that year they supplied 8,000 pairs of boots to the department. Some of these boots were in the ordnance stores when war broke out in August last, and when arrangements were made to purchase the first lot of 65,000 pairs of boots, no specifications were furnished the contractors, but several of these Gauthier boots were selected as being in every respect similar to the sealed pattern, and were sent to the contractors as samples of the boots they were to manufacture. During the inquiry it was shown that the Gauthier samples sent out to the manufacturers were inferior to the Slater sealed pattern, and the latter, I wish the House to observe, is the boot which was adopted during the regime of the late Government.
On the point of the Gauthier samples that were sent out to the manufacturers in August last being inferior to the sealed pattern that was in the department, Mr. N. Tetreault was examined and gave evidence to this effect, that in the upper the leather in the Gauthier sample was lighter than the leather in the Slater sealed pat-

tern, the stock being one and six-tenths in the sample and two and four-tenths in the sealed pattern, while in the vamps there was the same proportionate difference between the two as to weight and thickness. As to the slugs in the heels, in the sample, zinc slugs were used and in the sealed pattern steel slugs were used, and there was an additional half-row of these steel slugs in the pattern. Mr. Tetreault's evidence on this point will be found on pages 1101 and 1102 of the printed proceedings of the committee. That evidence clearly establishes the fact that, even if the contractors had made boots in all respects similar or equal to the samples furnished them, their boots would have been inferior to the sealed pattern, which, as I have said, was not intended for an active service boot. It wa% under these conditions that the first order for 65,000 pairs of boots was given in August last. Then, in September, the second order for 32,867 pairs was given. Of these boots some were made from the inferior samples sent out by the department, and others from samples furnished by the contractors themselves. In cases in which the contractors furnished the samples, we had evidence from several of them to the effect that the samples they furnished were equal to or better than the inferior Gauthier, sample. On October 8, 9 and 10 further orders were given for 30,000 pairs under conditions similar to those that governed the September order. On October 24, the Department of Militia and Defence made a change in the sample boot by doing away with the slip sole, that is, the sole between the inner and the outer sole and extending from the toe to the ball of the foot.
In the place of this slip sole the department provided for a double sole running through to the back of the heel, and by reason of this change the price was increased from $3.85 to $4 a pair. Between October 29 and November 4, the department ordered 40,532 pairs of these double-soled boots, which were made in the same manner as the boots ordered in September, namely, some according to the departmental sample, and others according to samples furnished by the contractors themselves. In the month of November, under instructions from the acting Minister of Militia to purchase boots locally in Winnipeg the senior ordnance officer in that city bought 3,798 pairs of boots from middlemen. These middlemen had the boots manufactured in different factories in Ontario and Quebec, at prices ranging from $3.40 to $3.60 per pair, while

they charged the Government an average price of $4 per pair. Afterwards, several other orders were placed in different parts of Canada, and in all the department purchased, as the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) has already told the House, 180,664 pairs of boots.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Does the $4 which the hon. member quotes as the price at Winnipeg include freight to that point?


Charles Murphy: I do not propose to go
into those details; I am just giving jthe details as we got them before the committee.


Arthur Meighen: It is very important.


Charles Murphy: I was about to say that having stated the manner in which purchases were made, it is important to see what arrangements were provided by the Government for the inspection of these boots. Up to the end of the year 1911, the inspector of boots in the 'Department of Militia and Defence was a practical boot and shoemaker. That gentleman was dismissed without cause in December, 1911, and in his place was appointed another gentleman who had had no experience as a boot maker or as a tanner, and whose business immediately prior to entering the department had, according to himself, been that of a broker. He had been in the department prior to the change of Government.


Major General HUGHES:: What was the name of the man dismissed?


Charles Murphy: Edward Wallace.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Who was appointedr'in his place?


Charles Murphy: Colonel Brown.


Major General HUGHES:: Does the hon. gentleman say that when Wallace was dismissed Col. Brown was appointed? Col. Brown has been there for years and years and years.


Charles Murphy: If the hon. gentleman
wants to make a speech-


Major General HUGHES:: I am asking a question.


Charles Murphy: I am stating facts and
I object to being interrupted. This is the House of Commons, and I appeal for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Major General HUGHES:: If the hon.
gentleman objects to a question-


Charles Murphy: I do not object to any
proper question, but I object to having my

speech broken up. I had stated that Col. Brown was in the department prior to the change of Government before my hon. friend asked his question.


Robert Laird Borden: In what position?


Charles Murphy: Inspector of harness
and saddlery.


Major General HUGHES:: And boots.


Charles Murphy: No, not of boots. He
never made a boot in his life, nor was he a tanner either.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not suppose he ever made a saddle or harness either.


Charles Murphy: Still, he is there yet. In August last, when the first contracts were given, five other boot inspectors were employed, and of these only three had had experience as boot and shoe makers. It was admitted by all the witnesses who had had any practical experience that the only way in which boots could be properly inspected was to follow them through the various processes of manufacture in the factory. The inspection in the factories was carried out only in a limited number of cases, and most of the inspecting done was by making a superficial examination of the finished boot. It is important also to mention that all the inspectors used the same stamp, so that it was absolutely impossible to identify the inspector of any particular lot of boots. In the case of the first order given in August last, 13,926 pairs of boots were delivered at Valcartier without any inspection whatever, and I am convinced that there was no inspection of the boots purchased at Winnipeg or Vancouver. On the whole, therefore, the department was not equipped to do the inspection, and as a matter of fact that work was not properly done.
Let me now refer the House to some evidence that was given with reference to the sample boot, and the boots made from the sample and afterwards issued to the soldiers. First, as to the sample boot. Speaking generally, that boot was condemned as an active service boot by every witness who appeared before us. Prior to the appointment of this special committee of the House, the Department of Militia arid Defence had appointed a departmental committee in the month of December last to investigate the complaints with regard to these boots, which even then had reached considerable proportions. That committee was composed of Lt.-Col, Hallick, E. A. Stephens, and Theo. Gallipeau. When speaking this morning, my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) took exception to the competency of the members of that departmental board, and found fault with us for quoting in our minority report some of the opinibns expressed by members of that board with reference to the matters in regard to which they conducted their inquiry. In this connection I have only to point out to my hon. friend that we quoted merely the opinions of those members, but we were careful to add that the witnesses who appeared before that committee appeared afterwards before the special Committee of this House, and confirmed under oath the opinions that had been expressed before the departmental board. On page 597 of the Votes and Proceedings of Friday last, the 9th of April, there is a summary of the opinions of the departmental board with regard to the character of the boot prescribed and supplied by the department. That summary is as follows:
That the boot was of unsuitable shape and make and that the leather contained no water-resisting medium;
That the heels and soles are unprotected and sole-filling is often poor quality;
That the hoot was unsuitable for the soldiers and for the particular work for which they were provided; because,-
(a)	The shape is such that the average foot has not room for the free movement of the toes and is thus not suitable for marching;
(b)	The leather is dry, containing no grease, and consequently quickly absorbs the water;
(c)	Soles and heels not being re-inforced with metal, soon wear down, especially when wet.
And the comment made in reference to that by my colleagues and myself [DOT] who composed tne minority on the committee was that we were of opinion that these findings of the departmental board, expressed by them it is true merely as opinions, had been amply proved by the evidence submitted to us.
Then, Sir, this sample boot was condemned as an active service boot by every manufacturer who appeared before us. Mr. Tet-reault, for instance, said that it was ridiculous to put such a boot on a soldier; and Mr. Matthews, the gentleman who evolved the ingenious theory that the boots supplied to the soldiers were not supplied for the purpose of being used on active service, but merely to break in the feet of the soldiers so as to accustom them to a heavier boot when they got on active service, condemned this sample boot as unfit for active service. Similar evidence was given by Mr. COMMONS
Adams, of the Murray Company, and by Mr. William Silver, one of the gentlemen recently appointed as a boot inspector in the department, who stated that everybody acknowledged that the boot was too light for the service to which it was put.
Now, a few words as to the judgment passed upon the boots, made from this sample boot and issued to the soldiers. The first condemnation of the boots to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is that contained in the cablegram from General Alderson, dated the 19th November, 1914, and sent to the Government at Ottawa. That cablegram will be found at page 245 of the printed proceedings and is in these terms:
The boots now being issued to the contingent are not suitable for rough wear in wet weather. Please cable instructions for purchase of boots here if we can obtain them.
Instead of answering the request made by General Alderson, some brilliant genius at Ottawa conceived the idea of sending over 48,000 pairs of overshoes, and this cablegram was sent to General Alderson:
Reference your cable re boots. Forty-eight thousand pairs overshoes already shipped. Will this meet your requirements?
To which General Alderson replied on the 25th November:
It has been found that overshoes do not compensate for faulty construction of boots. Some pairs are useless after ten days' wear. Special report is being made.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is from the commander of the Canadian forces?


Charles Murphy: These cablegrams are from the general commanding the Canadian forces. These cablegrams are followed on November 24, 1914, by a cable from a colleague of my right hon. friend (Sir George Per ley), who is at present acting as High Commissioner, in London. On the 24th November, 1914, Sir George Perley cabled to the Prime Minister at Ottawa in these terms, and this cablegram will be found at page 247 of the printed proceedings:
" Confidential. Much difficulty obtaining orders Canadian boots. Authorities consider them too light altogether; say only heavy marching boots adapted to campaigning; find general complaint on this account regarding boots given our Canadian contingent; stated they will not stand mud and water and heavy work. Consider overshoes impracticable, as they are heavy to walk in and will only last short time on hard roads. In my opinion next contingent should be provided with boots made on regulation army pattern.
" (Sgd.) PERLEY."
There, Mr. Speaker, we have the proof of the condemnation of the boots supplied the

first Canadian contingent by the general in command of that expeditionary force, and by Sir George Perley, acting High Commissioner in London. But that is only a very small fraction of the condemnation of these boots. There were more than seventy regimental boards of inquiry held in England and in Canada in regard to the quality of the boots issued to the soldiers. In every case these boards condemned the boots that were brought before them, and all of the reports of the boards were sent to headquarters in Ottawa. It is not my intention to cumber the record of the House with copious extracts from these reports; but I do intend to direct your attention and that of the House to the evidence that was given by individual soldiers who appeared before these regimental boards and who later on appeared before the special committee of the House and gave evidence under oath.
First of all, let me quote the evidence given by Private McGarvie which will be found at page 557 of the printed proceedings:
By Mr. Pringle:
Q. What regiment are you connected with?- A. 6th Field Ambulance.
Q. You examined some boots for a Board of Inquiry which sat in Montreal on 22nd December, 1914?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where had you your experience in respect to leather?-A. Maybole, Ayrshire, Scotland.
Q. What was your experience?-A. I have had experience since I was a boy of fourteen years of age.
Q. What doing?-A In the shoemaking business.
Q. Were you apprenticed there?-A. I served eight years in the shoemaking business for a start; that is, clicking; I was a shoe clicker.
Q. I do not understand?-A, An upper cutter.
Q. How long were you at that business?- A. I had to serve eight years before I was a journeyman.
Q. What kind of leather were you accustomed to; what tannage?-A. Split, kip, box calf, greasy kid, anything at all. '
Then, at page 558 the same witness gives this further evidence:
By Mr. Macdonald:
Q Did you ever work at the boot trade in Canada, McGarvie?-A. No, sir, I am only acting as regimental shoemaker for that Company now.
Q. How long have you been in this country? -A. For three years.
Q. You were mobilized with the corps last fall?-A. I have been five months with the corps now, sir.	[DOT]
Q. And your rank is that of private, is it?- A. Private, sir.
Q. When were you made regimental shoemaker?-A. About a month ago.
Q. You have been repairing bad boots since that?-A. Not exactly repairing them, I have been stripping them to see what really could be done with some of the boots lying down there,

and I found in the heels alone, when trying to peel off the heel top, it ought to come off direct, but in place of that it came off in small pieces, it was just like a sponge in the center. It just tore off like you would tear a piece of pasteboard.
Q. What other defect did you find dealing with the boots there?-A. I would say the uppers are too light.
Q. Too light?-A. Yes, for military wear the uppers are too light.
By Hon. Mr. Murphy:
Q. Is that the whole boot you are referring to?-A. Yes, I say the whole boot is too light.
At page 560 the same witness is further examined:
By the Chairman:
Q. The uppers are right, are they not?- A. The uppers look all right, they may suit a civilian, but they are not suited to a military man, and the usage he puts them to. They are all right for Sunday.
Q. Did you serve in any military force before you came to Canada?-A Yes, I was seven years in the Royal Scots Fusiliers.
There you have the evidence of a man who speaks from his experience, both as an Imperial soldier and as a practical boot and shoe maker.
Next, let me refer you to the evidence given by Quartermaster Sergeant Wain-wright, which will be found at page 410 of the printed proceedings.
By Mr. Pringle:
Q. What is your official position?-A Quartermaster Sergeant.
Q. I see that at a Board of Officers assembled at the headquarters of the 31st Battalion, Victoria Park, Calgary, on the 8th December, 1914, you made certain statements, You said:-
" That he finds the boots generally as received by him into stores are unfit to stand the hardships of a campaign, owing to the uppers being made of split leather, differing from the British Army contracts, which call for * kip ' uppers. Of the boots received, those of McPherson, Hartt, and Murray, these three names being separate companies, appear to be the better makes of those received, but even these will not last the length of time they should under present climatic conditions. Those marked ' McCready ' appear to be very light and flimsy."
What have you to say with regard to that?- A. Well, sir, the boots were not fit for soldiers.
Q. Was it on account of the climate that you consider the boots were too light?-A. No, I say the boot was too light and flimsy for the hardships they had to undergo.
Q. How many pairs of boots did you examine? -A. I think something like sixty-three pairs.
Q. Who was the manufacturer?-A. Well, the biggest percentage was made by Gauthier and McCready
The same witness was further examine I, and I quote from his evidence, page 41*2:
Q. Out of 1,093 boots you do not think there were a dozen as good as the sample, that is in your opinion?-A. That is my opinion. I would not think I had a dozen pairs of boots as good as that boot there.
Further evidence was given by this witness, in answer to questions put by Mr. Macdonald, at page 414:
By Mr. Macdonald:
Q. What is your military experience?-A. I served twelve years in the Imperial army, sir.
Q. Before coming to this country?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Consequently you know what a proper military boot is?-A. I do, sir. I have served all over the world, practically speaking.
Q. Your emphatic condemnation of these boots is made on your experience as an English soldier?-A. Yes, sir.
There again you have these boots, supplied by the Government of Canada to the Canadian soldiers, condemned by a man who has seen service for many years in the Imperial army.
The next evidence from which I wish to quote is that of Major F. W. Doane, and at page 329 of his evidence this appears:
By Mr. Pringle:
Q. You are connected with the 63rd Regiment, I think?-A. Yes, sir, Major and Quartermaster.
Q. I notice that on 29th September, 1914, you had an examination of boots issued to the men of "A" Company?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you tell us what condition those boots were in?-A. Speaking generally, the boots were badly worn.
Q. Was there any defect in the workmanship of the boot?-A. The stitching was bad.
Q. Was that bad stitching in the soles or in the uppers?-A. In the soles.
Mr. Pringle: I happen to have looked at some of those Halifax boots, and as you say, they are certainly very badly worn-the soles are practically .worn off some of them.
Further on, at page 331, I quote from Major Doane's evidence again:
By Mr. Macdonald1:
Q. This inquiry was held on the 29th September, and the boots were issued on the 10 th August. Tell us what was the condition of the boots at that time?-A. After about a fortnight the boots were worn through so that the men's feet were on the ground. They had to tie shingles and bits of board and pieces of bag across the bottoms of their boots to keep their feet off the ground.	*
By Hon. Mr. Murphy:
Q. Do you mean to say they went around in that way, with pieces of shingle and board tied to their boots?-A. Yes, sir, they had to.
By Mr. Pringle:
Q. Had you not any cobblers attached to your regiment?-A. We had one, but we had not any material, and these boots could not be repaired.
Q. They had gone too far?-A. Yes.


Mr. RAINVILLE:: Read the next pa-;e, please.


Charles Murphy: I will leave that for my hon. friend to read; I cannot burden the record with all the evidence.


Sjr ROBERT BORDEN:: Nor with any
evidence that is not favourable to you.


Charles Murphy: by the boot manufacturers, and they also presented a specification to govern the manufacture of that boot. As told to our committee, they were very courteously received by the subcommittee of the Privy Council which examined their boot, read over the specification and then asked them to retire while the subcommittee conferred about the matter. Later on they were brought back to the Privy Council Chamber and were informed by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who at that time was Acting Minister of Militia and Defence, that the subcommittee had decided to adopt the boot submitted by this boot committee as well as the specification that they had prepared, and that 110,000 pairs of these new boots would be ordered. Up to that point it appeared as if business would be done; but the House will probably be surprised to learn that afterwards nothing was done.
The next step of which we had knowledge in the committee was that on February 18, 1915, two days after the special committee of this House began its work, an Order in Council was passed appointing Mr. S. R. Wickett, a tanner of Toronto, as chief adviser on boots. It is true that Mr. Wickett stated before the committee that he had received instructions from the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence to begin work in January, but he took no part in the proceedings before the subcommittee of the Privy Council, and there is no official record of his appointment until the Order in Council of February 18,	1915,
which was based on a report to Council of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence to the effect that Mr. Wickett had extensive experience in the manufacture of footwear, and that he was therefore the best available expert to advise the Government on the subject.
However, when Mr. Wickett was examined under oath he told us very frankly that he had never made a boot in his life; that h' was a tanner. Now, Mr. Wickett, who is a most respectable gentleman, was one of the last witnesses examined before our committee, and he informed the committee on the last day he was there in the capacity of a witness, that he had not yet made a report as to the type of boot that he would recommend, and he was not quite certain when he would make such a report. That brings us down to the present month of April. What are the conditions at the present time? According to Colonel J. F. Macdonald, the director of clothing and Equipment, there 
are at headquarters in Ottawa requisitions for about 20,000 pairs of boots; and that gentleman swore that there were less than 1,000 pairs of boots in stock to meet these requisitions. So, it may fairly be stated that the Government's record for inaction at the present time stands thus: Tney cancelled no contracts that they had awarded; on the contrary, they allowed the contractors to go on and supply boots that were generally condemned as unfit for active service; and some of these boots were delivered as late as last month: they have continued to send troops to England since November 24 last, with the same boots as were condemned by General Alderson and Sir George Perley; they have made no attempt to outfit any of the troops with boots suitable for active service; and finally, according to the director of clothing and equipment, there are requisitions in for nearly 20,000 pairs of boots which they are not able to fill.
That being the state of affairs at the present time/ what was the nature of the defence put up by the majority of the special committee in their report? First of all, in excuse for the failure of the boots, we are told that the boots were issued at a bad time of the year-that there was snow and slush. But these gentlemen failed to tell the House and the country that the first issue of boots had been condemned by the General Commanding the Overseas Expeditionary Forces and that they had been rejected and replaced by the British army boot. Then they failed to tell the House and the country, so far as the boots worn in Canada were concerned, that the soldiers in nearly all places, if not in all, where severe weather prevailed, were furnished with overshoes, and in some cases with rubbers. But they say, by way of excuse to the House for the haste in which some of the boots were produced: There was the retreat from Mons. Well, of all the fantastic reasons to excuse the failure of the Government, this is the most fantastic. I waited to hear the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) repeat in his speech that excuse which appears in the report of the majority; but I noticed that he did not repeat it, and I think that upon reflection he will not do so. It has been said that the comic is never very far from the tragic; and the dragging in of the retreat from Mons as an excuse for the bad boots furnished the Canadian soldiers illustrates
4 p.m. the truth of that saying. My hon. friend says that the boot issued to the Canadian soldiers in this war

is the same as. was issued to the troops in the South African war. I have already made the statement that that was not the case, and I intend to prove that that was not the case. Let me refer you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, to the evidence given by Assistant-director of Stores McCann, which will be found at page 1033. After Mr. Pringle, the Government counsel, had put in a report dated 9th of May, 1905, showing that on that date a sample boot made by the Slater Shoe Company had been sealed as the pattern boot, the following evidence was given:
Q. We have got a pattern sealed on 9th May, 190a.-A. Yes.
Q. Is that the sealed pattern that has been carried down to the present date?-A. Practically.
Q. Practically the same?-A. There are some slight differences I expect; I do not like to give a definite answer.
Q. Probably Colonel Brown could speak as to the pattern. There have been some slight changes, but you say it is practically the same as the sealed sample?
By Mr. Macdonald:
Q. Prom 1905?-A. Yes.
Q. Then it does not date back to the South African war?-A. No.
Again, turning to page 1034, where the same witness gives this further evidence:
Q. Do you remember who were the contractors for the boots used in the South African war?-A. So far as my recollection goes, the Vankleek Hill Shoe Co. and A. W. Keddin.
Q. When did the Slater Shoe Co. begin to supply boots?-A. I think they began to supply a different pattern of boot probably about 1905. They were long boots, a winter boot, a knee boot for the cavalrymen, what is called Wellington boot, with a little low leg. I cannot recall the Slater Shoe Co. having made ankle boots until probably 1902-03.
Q. That would he the time that Canada assumed control of her own defence on land, and the quantity of boots required would be greater..-A. Possibly, sir.
Q. The 1905 sealed pattern was altogether a *different pattern boot from the one used in the South African War?-A. So far as I can recollect, it was, except this, if I remember rightly. A number of the men who went to South Africa bought their own boots. Slater boots, with their own money. Of course, there were not a great many men who went to South Africa. The men of the Strathcona Horse wore, those long hoots.
Q. They were outfitted by Lord Strathcona?
[DOT]-A. Yes. I think they were. I think they got their boots from the Slater Shoe Co.
Then, Sir, let me direct attention to the further evidence given by the same witness, at page 1057:
By the Chairman:
Q. Are you able to answer our question as to when the first Slater shoes, ankle boots, were made for the Militia Department?-A. Some time in the latter part of 1900. I think it was September, 1900.
Q. That will be after the troops had gone to South Africa"?-A. Yes, sir.
By Hon. Mr. Murphy:
Q. Was that when the boots were bought and paid for?-A. They were ordered in September, 1^00.
By the Chairman:
Q. There is no doubt then that none of the Slater boots, ankle, were supplied to the soldiers who went to South Africa?-A. If they were they were not paid for. They were not, I am quite sure.
By Hon. Mr. Murphy:
Q. Then how did other officials come to tell us they were the Slater hoots?-A. Probably a misunderstanding. A lot of these people bought Slater's boots and wore them in preference to ours.
Q. But even the men in South Africa referred to the sealed samples as a similar boot. They have told us that over and over again?-A. They must have been mistaken, sir.
Now, as against this positive evidence of the assistant-director of contracts who had better knowledge of the subject than any other man who appeared as a witness,
' because of his long service in the department and his familiarity with these matters, my hon. friend ' from North Grey cited General Otter.


William Sora Middlebro: Will the hon. gentleman excuse me. I know he wishes to be fair. I would Tefer him to page 1039, where the same witness says:
By the Chairman :
Q. Those who went to South Africa, and who did not buy their own boots, wore this class of boot?-A. It was this class that went to South Africa.
He also said that the present boot was better than that pattern.


Charles Murphy: I am quite well aware of that, but if my hon. friend will just cast his recollection back a few weeks he will remember that at the time Mr. McCann gave the evidence he has just cited, he was in some doubt as to the date upon which Slater first began supplying boots of this character to the department, and, his answers being unsatisfactory to the .committee, he was directed to go back to the department and get official information so as to inform us-accurately as to the facts.


William Sora Middlebro: But Mr. Slater himself subsequently swore that he supplied these boots for South Africa.


Charles Murphy: I am coming to that. Mr. McCann came back after getting the exact facts and gave evidence, which I have quoted, and which will be found at page 1057. Files were produced, and we had the documents there verifying it. My hon. friend said this morning that , Charles E. Slater said he began supplying boots


William Sora Middlebro: We are not saying that the present boot was the same, but that it was a better boot; but we say it was the same class of boot, and other witnesses have sworn it was the same quality.


Major General HUGHES:: Is it not plain that the boots supplied by the Government then were not the Slater boot, but that the soldiers, finding the Government boot inferior, bought the Slater hoot?


Charles Murphy: No, nothing of the kind was plain; the very reverse is the fact.


Major General HUGHES:: We will verify it.


Charles Murphy: The very reverse is the fact. As against this positive evidence given by Mr. McCann, my hon. friend from North Grey cited some casual observations made by General Otter, who, as my hon. friends will remember, strolled into the committee room one morning, stayed there a few minutes, and answered a few questions in a casual way. What did he say? Let me refer you, Sir, and the House, to his evidence as it appears at page 927:
By Mr. Pringle:	.
Q. In what capacity have you served with the permanent force?-A. I have commanded a regiment in Canada, I commanded a regiment in South Africa, and I have commanded a district in Canada.
Q. What boots were the permanent force supplied with?-A. Well, it was a boot issued by the Government, a regular boot, I don't know whose it was or who it was made by.
I will read that again:
I don't know whose it was or who it was made by.
Q. Covering the period of the last ten or twelve years?-A. Ves, for the last fifteen years.
Q. You cannot speak of the maker of the boot, you do not know who made it?-A, No.
And evidence from that witness is what my hon. friend quotes to offset the positive evidence of McCann!


William Sora Middlebro: A boot was shown to him in the committee and he was asked:

" Is that the class of boot you wore in South Africa?" and he said " Yes."


Charles Murphy: What he did say I am just going to read. It is at page 928:
Q. How long were you in South Africa?-A. 14 months.
Q. In active service?

A. All. the time.
Q. What boots did your regiment have during that time?-A. It was a boot issued by the department before we left.
Q. Similar to Exhibit 12, that boot I showed you?-A. That description of boot, yes.
That is w'hat General Otter said, just as any man would who had previously declared that he did not know who made the boot or what kind of boot iit was. The defence on that score, I submit even to my hon. friend from North Grey, falls completely to the ground.


William Sora Middlebro: My hon. friend has forgotten to quote the next question, which was that it was practically the same boot; that is what he says.


Charles Murphy: Yes, without ever looking at it.


William Sora Middlebro: I will read the whole thing.


Charles Murphy: I did not interrupt my hon. friend, and any of his friends can quote all this evidence.


William Sora Middlebro: Will the hOn. member allow me to ask this question? Does he find this at page 928 of the evidence?
Q. Similar to Exhibit 12?-A. In that time, you know, the boot was changed more or less. I mean to say, every now and then they would change it; they would get improvements in it. It might be a little lower one time, and more heel in it another time, but it was practically the same boot.


Charles Murphy: If my hon. friend thinks that the citation improves his position I have only to refer him again to what the General said at page 927:
I don't know whose it was or who it was made by.
Q. You cannot speak of the maker of, the boot, you do not know who made it?-A. No.
And I refer him again to page 928, to the General's answer:	^
Similar to Exhibit 12, that boot I showed you?-A. That description of boot, yes.


William Sora Middlebro: Practically the same boot, and that is the boot from which the boots were made in this case.


Charles Murphy: condemned and the reports of these boards were duly forwarded to headquarters, at Ottawa;
That in the month of September last, Mr. Alfred Minister of Minister, Myles Shoe Company, Toronto, who had been asked to supply boots similar to the inferior sample, stated that he declined to do so because they would be unfit for men to wear on active service and he would not make the shoes, according to sample, knowing they were going to be served out to the men who were going to the war and he did not want to make any money out of a man's life;
That in the month of September the " last " specified by the department was condemned by a contractor who declared, " he was not going to risk making shoes with that last which would not fit anybody; (See Tetreault's evidence).
That one manufacturer declared when asked his opinion of the sample supplied by the department, " It is ridiculous to put that on a soldier"; (See Tetreault's evidence).
That another manufacturer stated, that shoes made from the inferior sample were never meant for foreign service and that in his opinion the Government fully realized that the boot would not stand any hard wear when they issued it. (See Matthew's evidence.)
That another manufacturer stated that the inferior sample was not suitable for the soldiers and did not consider the boots made from it were suitable for active service. (See Adams evidence.)
That Mr. William Silver, one of the inspectors employed by the department stated that the boot was not intended for active service, and that, " we all acknowledge the boots were too light for the use they were put to; "
That on October 8th, 9th and 10th, further orders were given under similar conditions to those given in September, and 30,000 pairs of boots were ordered on said dates;
That on October 24th the department directed a change to be made in the sample boot by doing away with the slip sole that had been in use and providing in its place a double sole running through to the back of the heel, but made no further changes in the specifications or in the direction of providing a proper boot for active service, and on various dates between October 29th and November 4th, proceeded to order 40,532 pairs of boots under similar conditions as to sample boots, as they had used in September, with the exception of providing for a double sole and increasing the price ot the boot to $4 per pair, and that some of said double-soled boots have been since returned before your committee, in a badly worn condition after three weeks' use.
That in the months of November and December, 1914, and January, February, March and April, 1915, grave complaints arose from the men on active service throughout the country, as to the failure of the boots supplied to them, which caused illness among the men, prevented them from performing their proper training, and occasioned much discomfort and difficulty to them;
That as a consequence over seventy Regimental Boards were summoned in the months above named, under the regulations by the commanding officers of the various corps located at different places between Calgary and Lethbridge in the West and Halifax in the East, and these boards examined 11,054 pairs of boots, which were stated in many cases to be samples of larger numbers of other boots complained of by their men, thus indicating the

extent of the difficulty created by inferior boots. Of these 11,054 pairs of boots, 7,807 pairs were condemned and discarded by the various boards. (The Minister of Militia and Defence stated that he was aware of these findings and reports of these boards.)
That in Toronto 225 pairs of boots were burned, as being of no further use, and a smaller number were burned in Kingston, for the same reason;
That we have had before us the commanding officers of different battalions composing the overseas expeditionary forces and other officers of these battalions and non-commissioned officers and men now on service in Canada, who have joined in condemnation of the boots supplied by the department and declared it was not suitable for active service;
That on November 19th, General Alderson cabled to the Militia Department at Ottawa, " that the boots now being issued to the contingents were not suitable for rough wear in wet weather," and asked for instructions to purchase boots there, and to this a reply was sent that 48,000 pairs of overshoes were shipped to him. On December 5th, General Alderson again cabled, " it has been found that overshoes do not compensate for faulty construction of boots; some pairs are useless after ten days wear. Special report is being made."
That Boards of Inquiry were held in England by officers of several Canadian corps on the 11th day of November, the 19th day of November, the 5th day of December and on the 21st day of December, respectively, and reports thereon as to the character of the boots supplied to the men of the overseas forces by the Canadian Government, were made by the various colonels in command, who state among other things, that the condition of the boots had caused great inconvenience to the men since enlisting at Vaicartier; that they had been found to be decidedly unserviceable and that in many cases boots have become so dilapidated that they had to be discarded altogether;
That on November 24th, Sir George Berley, Acting High Commissioner for Canada, cabled to Sir Robert Borden " authorities consider Canadian boots too light altogether; say only heavy boots adapted to compaigning; find general complaint on this account regarding boots given our Canadian contingent; stated they will not stand mud and water and heavy work. Consider overshoes impracticable, as they are heavy to walk in and will last only short time on hard roads. In my opinion next contingent should be provided with boots made on regulation army pattern."
In this connection it may be observed that the troops whe have gone to England since November 24th, have gone with the same kind of boots complained of by General Alderson and Sir George Perley, and no attempt was made to outfit them with different boots, and that notwithstanding all the Regimental Boards held in Canada and England and the general complaint from all quarters, as to the. boots, the parties to whom contracts had been given in October were permitted to go on supplying boots of the character complained of, and in some cases the delivery of these boots were not completed until the month of March and long after the committee had- entered upon its labours, and no contracts were cancelled.;
That in the month of November last the Militia Department directed the senior ordnance officer to purchase boots locally in Win-

nipeg and 3,798 pairs of boots were purchased there, not directly from manufacturers of boots but through middlemen;
That owing to the fact that the boots supplied for the first overseas contingent at Val-cartier and in England, were not available for our examination, the evidence, with the ex. ception of a few isolated witnesses submitted to us as to these boots, rests upon the reports of the Regimental Boards in England and of General Alderson and other officers there, ana the statement of Sir George Perley;
That on December 7, 1914, a Court of Inquiry into boots, was constituted by the Department of Militia and Defence which, on January 7, 1915, made a report to the questions submitted for their consideration, which report has been referred to us by the Order of the House constituting your committee. The witnesses before the board were not sworn and were confined to department officials, all of whom with one exception have, however, been before your committee and given their evidence under oath. This Court of Inquiry in addition to hearing the witnesses, devoted themselves to an examination of the boots referred to in their report and their findings express merely the opinions of the different members of the court who afterwards gave evidence before your committee, confirmatory of their answers to the submitted questions. The opinion of the board may be summarized in so far as the character of the boot prescribed and supplied by the department, is concerned, as follows:
That the boot was of unsuitable shape and make and that the leather contained no water-resisting medium;
That the heels and soles are unprotected and sole-filling is often poor quality;
That the boot was unsuitable for the soldiers and for the particular work for which they were provided ; because,-
(a)	The shape is such that the average foot has not room for the free movement of the toes and is thus not suitable for marching;
(b)	The leather is dry, containing no grease, and consequently quickly absorbs the water;
(c)	Soles and heels not being re-inforced with metal, soon wear down, especially when wet.
We are of the opinion that these answers as quoted, have been amply proven to be correct by the evidence submitted to us.
This report was made on January 7, 1915.
That a committee of boot manufacturers from Montreal, composed of George A. Slater, N. Tetreault, and W. S. Louson, of the Ames, Holden, McCready Company, acting apparently on their own initiative, approached the Government early in January, realizing the necessity of a better boot for the Canadian soldiers, and made representations as to the necessity of action to a Committee of the Privy Council, over which Hon. Mr. Hazen presided. It appears that a committee was appointed, composed of Mr. George Slater, Mr. Donovan, Col. Brown and E. A. Stephens, who prepared a boot which they recommended as suitable for soldiers on active service and prepared and submitted on January 21, to the department, a draft specification for a suitable boot. On this committee's work and report no action appears to have been taken, although it was sworn that Hon. Mr. Hazen stated to the committee that the boot they had prepared was approved by the Privy Council Committee and that 110,000 pairs would be ordered by the Government.
That on February 18, 1915, by Order in Council, Mr. S. R. Wickett was appointed as Chief Advisor on Boots, to the Department of Militia and Defence, on the report of the minister dated February 11, 1915. Mr. Wickett states the minister actually assigned him his duties on January 13, but he took no part in the deliberations of Hon. Mr. Hazen's Committee ;
That Mr. iS. R. Wickett, the Chief Advisor on Boots, is of opinion that boots of the type hitherto supplied to Canadian soldiers since the war began, are too light for active service, and expects to recommend a suitable boot much heavier throughout and with many radical changes;
That at the present time requisitions for nearly 20,000 boots are waiting to be filled in the department and there are very few boots in stock, and that practically the whole of the 180,664 pairs of boots of the type complained of have been issued to Canadian soldiers since August last, notwithstanding all the defects, the complaints, the illness and discomforts or the soldiers, and the adverse reports which have existed and been made since they were first supplied;
That the evidence before us, especially that of Mr. Tetreault on page 780, et seq., shows that the Government could have without much trouble or delay provided a proper boot suitable for soldiers on active service. It was well understood that the boot supplied to the department before the war was not an active service boot and the failure to provide a proper boot for the Canadian soldiers going on active service, constitutes grave and serious negligence on their part. It has been sworn to that they could get all the new lasts they would have required, in a week's time, and it has been sworn that the matter of drafting specifications for a boot to replace what Mr. Wickett calls a "Summer Boot" could be accomplished in tho same period, but no official act on the part of the Government to provide a proper service boot was undertaken until February 18, two days after your committee was appointed;
That if the haste in forwarding the First Overseas Expedition, interfered with the providing of a proper active service boot for the men at Valcartier, there was ample time to provide for and supply such a suitable boot for the men of the Second and Third Overseas Force who have since crossed the ocean or who are still in training in Canada.
That with reference to the character of the boots manufactured under the contracts by the various contractors, we are of opinion that none of the said boots were boots suitable for active service;
That representatives of the following contractors appeared before us:
Ames, Holden & McCready Co., Ltd., Montreal.
Amherst Shoe Company, Amherst, N.S.
McPherson Shoe Company, Hamilton, Ont.
The Murray Shoe Company, London, Ont.
The Relindo Shoe Company, Toronto, Ont.
The George A. Slater Company, Montreal, Que.
The L. Gauthier Company, Quebec, Que.
The Tetreault Shoe Company, Montreal, Que.
The Valentine & Martin Co., Waterloo, Ont.
The Western Shoe Co., Berlin, Ont.
The representatives of all these Companies stated that they had manufactured and delivered

boots in accordance with the sample. The following companies were invited by telegram to offer representations to the committee, with regard to the quality of boots supplied by them, but no representative appeared on their behalf to give evidence before the committee:
The Aylmer Shoe Co., Aylmer, Ont.
The Cook-Fitzgerald Co., London, Ont.
The J. & T. Bell Co., Ltd., Montreal, Que.
J. M. Humphreys & Co., St. John, N.B.
The Regal Shoe Co., Toronto, Ont.
The E. T. Wright Co., St. Thomas, Ont.
The Hartt Boot and Shoe Co., Fredericton, N.B.
The Williams Shoe Co., Ltd., Brampton, Ont.
John Ritchie & Co., Quebec, Que.
W. B. Hamilton Shoe Co., Toronto, Ont.
The Perth Shoe Co., Perth, Ont.
The J. Leckie Co., Vancouver, B.C.
Thirteen hundred and sixty-five pairs of boots, and three hundred and forty-eight odd boots out of the number condemned by the various boards throughout the country were submitted to the inspection of Messrs. John A. Hoar, of Halifax, and Magloire COtS, of St. Hyacinthe, who made report thereon, as follows:
That out of said number of boots, two hundred and sixty-five pairs were not worth repairing; fourteen hundred and forty-eight boots were not originally equal to the sample. If the proportion of boots in this particular lot, not equal to the sample, is a fair percentage of the number of boots furnished that did not come up to the samples, out of the one hundred and eighty thousand pairs supplied, the number of boots so furnished that were inferior to sample would be seven thousand, two hundred and ninety-eight boots;
That the boot supplied to the soldiers who went to South Africa was a different boot from the se'aled sample boot of 1914, and from the boots supplied to the Overseas Forces. It was in 1905 that boots of a similar pattern to the 1914 boot were first adopted by the department for use in times of peace by the permanent forces in Canada.
(See evidence of Assistant Director of Contracts McCann, No. 22, of evidence.)
All of which is respectfully submitted.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: 
Charles Murphy: Or some similar boot.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Yes. We come here
to one of the most difficult, the most debatable, and most debated npon, questions that governments of all nations have had to deal with in the past. Military authorities in every country have, after various and multiplied experiments, adopted a certain type of boot for their army, but the pattern varies according to the country. The English boot is different from the French and is still more at variance with the American. The American army boot is the lightest by a great deal. As far as weight is concerned, the English boot is the heaviest, then comes the French, the Canadian, and lastly the American. The latter was adopted by the United States army after four years of experiments, and after they had examined the patterns used bj all the great nations of the world.
Consequently, is it possible, or is it fair to cast blame on the Canadian Government, before as well as after 1911, or on the officers of the militia staff, for having pronounced in favour of a boot somewhat lighter than the British boot and somewhat heavier than the American? No; I say it is not. It is a matter of opinion which will always be open to- discussion. It may never be settled absolutely satisfactorily, but if the problem is ever solved it will probably be due to the fact that the means will have been found for giving three pairs of boots to each soldier, one pair of rubber boots for circumstances such as were found 152	.


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
at Salisbury Plain, one pair of heavy boots for trench work in France, and one pair of light boots (like the Canadian) for marching to Berlin, the quickest possible.
Just now, here in Canada, opinions of experts are divided into three categories: One favours the heavy boot of the standard screw type with hob nails and steel plat-;, like the English one, another lauds the use of the light boot of the Canadian type (Goodyear welt), while others recommend a combination of the two. It is reasonable to think that the British army boot, because of its weight, shrould be more suitable for the new process of underground war and trenches than the light one, but for the same reason, that is because of its weight, ilt seems the more unfit for marching. This is a serious defect when one realizes that in war the facility and promptness with which an army can move and displace itself is one of the essentials of victory. Volumes could be written in favour of the light boot.and also in favour of the heavy one as well. This shows that in such questions it is not possible to adopt absolute rules.
A full discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the British boot would not be in my line, but I may be permitted to say this much that many experts in Canada are strongly in favor of the light boot. Mr. Matthews, Lieutenant Whitby, Pte. Ross, General Hughes, General MacDonald, Colonel Macdonald, Colonel Brown, Colonel Currie, Major Ranger and many others are in favour of the light boot.
It is true that the minority give great weight to the opinions of General Alderson and Sir George Perley. But this is, after all, indirect evidence which cannot destroy the evidence from soldiers having just come back from Salisbury and testifying, under oath, before the committee, opinions contrary to those given by these two gentlemen. Besides, just as much credit could be given to the opinions expressed by Lieut.-Col. Currie and Major Ranger, who have been at Valcartier, at Salisbury Plains, and are to-day on the firing line in France.
Paul Emile Ranger, of Montreal, an officer whom most of the members for Quebec know, gives, in a long and detailed diary recently published by La Presse of Montreal, a vivid account, day by day, from the 11th February to the 6th March, of the life of our soldiers in the trenches and their conduct in action, recording the gallant deeds which have inscribed on the roll of honor the names of such men as Hardy, Valin, Lacroix, Martin, Deloiup

[Stage Direction]
champs, etc. And one would notice, while reading this account, the unassuming way in which the most heroic deeds are recited, showing the deep conviction, the true soldiery spirit of our men, now in war, and whose gallantry showed them to be the worthy comrades of the trained soldiers of France and England. While speaking of their life in the trenches Major Ranger has a word to say about the accoutrements. Ho mentions that his men have been supplied with English military boots and recalls, as his personal experience, that after one hour and a half walking in the trenches at night, he felt as if his shoes weighed fifty pounds. In his diary of the 4th of March he gives the opinion of his men on the same subject as follows:
Their greatest annoyance comes from their boots. They miss their Canadian boots for the English boots are no good. These last boots take credit for heavy and thick soles, but most of the time the sole is too thick for the uppers and after a few days' wearing gives way entirely.
Besides, they are not waterproof. As a general rule our men prefer the Canadian boots, more soft and better constructed, and X share their opinion.
I can give another testimony which should have as much weight as that of Sir George Perley or General Alderson, and it is the testimony of Private H. E. Parker, as contained	in the following letter
addressed to the Hon. Minister of Militia and Defence:
309 South Marks Street,
Fort William, Ont.,
April 1, 1915.
The Hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-Having reference to the inquiry regarding quality of boots supplied to the soldiers of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, I have the honour to inform you that I have at present in my possession and still wearing, the pair of regulation boots issued to me at Valcartier during the latter part of August, 1914. These boots have been in continual use since issue to date.
I had been issued with a pair of Imperial service boots, but such were stolen from me before I had an opportunity of using them.
The boots issued to me in Valcartier have been worn through all the mud and rain that obtained during the period of our training at Salisbury Plain, and are still in a fairly serviceable condition.
I further have the honour to inform you, that I heard very few complaints regarding the Canadian service boot. On the contrary, the men invariably preferred this boot to the heavy Imperial service one.

Should you require my boots as an exhibit, they are at your disposal.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
Late 8th Brg. C.E.F. Pte.
P.S.-I have just returned from service with the Canadian Expeditionary force in consequence of disability through paralysis of right arm and hand.-H. P.
All these things being considered, can we find ourselves at all justified in blaming the Canadian Government or the officers of the militia for having kept the Canadian boots as they were? Let us realize that the time for deliberating and making experiments in this respect had gone; it was too late. We had neither four years nor one, nor even one month, to restudy the matter.
The Canadian people, like all the other colonies, were rising, united, to promptly assist the Mother Country. No one in Canada, then, would fail to see an emergency. Can one imagine the indignation that would have been felt in this House and in this country, if, instead of putting himself immediately in a position to issue boots and other equipment to our soldiers,, General Hughes had taken the attitude of making experiments of all kinds? Action was necessary, and the present Minister of Militia, it cannot be denied, answered with immediate action to the best knowledge and ability that could be had and shown in such an emergency, to rapidly equip the Canadian contingents. When war broke out, the Department of Militia had at their disposal a pattern of boot that had been in use since 1900, or at least since 1904, and as to which no serious complaints had been heard. I think we can safely say that this boot was the result of the experience of the South African war, and it was established that it has given satisfaction ever since. General Macdonald, on pages 211, 221, 213 and 216, said that some boots made according to the sealed sample had been worn by our soldiers in South Africa. Lieut.-Col. MacDonald, on page 236, and General Lessard, page 468, said that boot was thought to be advisable under the circumstances. By doing what they do, those who were responsible for efficiency acted prudently and listened to the voice of sound reason. That is the conclusion I have reached on that point. We have purely and simply applied the rule which in matters of liability is acknowledged as a principle of law all over the world, and according to which he who acts like a prudent, diligent, paterfamilias, who administers and manages his business and
[Stage Direction]
property with the ordinary prudence of a reasonable man, must be held to have done what could be possibly expected of him. That is the principle of law laid down in the Civil Code of Quebec, and I presume it is a principle of law which is common to every civilized country in the world.
The boots issued to the soldiers were made according to samples approved by the Government officers, and were in use by the permanent force in Canada. Out of 180,000 pairs made by the manufacturers,
178,000	pairs have already been issued. Several of the manufacturers who obtained boot contracts, gave their evidence before the committee and all agreed that the material was excellent and the workmanship was good. The inspectors placed by the Government to watch over the making of the boots in the factories themselves assure us of their having done all in their power to rigourously inspect the boots in the then pressing circumstances under which the inspection was taking place, and it is established that, with the exception of a few instances of little importance, the hoots were of good quality and in most cases superior to the sample. This is proven by the witnesses, as well as by the two experts, Mr. Hoar and Mr. Cote, who were unanimously chosen by the committee to make a report on the boots. The inspection no doubt did not cover the whole of the 180,000 pairs, because there were about 14,000 pairs which were sent direct to Valcartier and which, because of the pressing demand and lack of accommodation, had to be delivered to the soldiers without inspection. But there was no time to waste and the Tecruits at Valcartier could not be allowed to go without boots, which unanswerable reason made it necessary to issue a certain quantity without inspection. I quote from the evidence of Lieutenant Colonel Hallick, when questioned on this point, at page 59:
By Mr. Rainville:
Q. When you were pressing for the delivery of the boots, did you attend to the requesting of delivery yourself?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you wire any firms or to the Government to press delivery?-A. I only wired to my chief here at headquarters and told him I was short of boots.
Q. Where they shipped to Valcartier camp? -A. They were sent direct from the manufacturers to me on my demand.
This shows that if the boots were delivered at Valcartier without inspection it was for a very good reason, and there is nothing in it to merit blame for the Government or for the officers of the militia. We must not believe that this absence of inspection,
152}
which the manufacturers could not anticipate in order to make a cheap boot, had an influence on the making of the boots in question. The manufacturers could not expect that any of their boots would escape inspection, and surely they would not have run the risk of making bad boots and having them rejected, in the hope that there might be no inspection. It must be admitted that the absence of inspection did certainly involve the issue of certain boots, which, under normal conditions and under inspection, would have been detected as inferior, and rejected.
The report on the rejected boots is a most direct answer to the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite. Out of the 86,000 boots issued to the different regiments all over the country only about 7,000 pairs were condemned. The committee wired to the different military centres to ship back to Ottawa the boots that were condemned, but some of them, such as Calgary, did not send these boots to the committee and the reason for that we do not know. However, a great many regiments sent their boots to Ottawa, and they were examined by the two experts appointed by the committee.
The hon. member for Eus&all (Mr. Murphy) has quoted many of the findings of the different boards of inquiry, and he is under the impression that he has proved that the reports of all these boards were genuine and should be taken as proof. I contend that the reports of these boards were not confirmed by the evidence given before the committee of this House. They were not confirmed in the case of Major McKenzie of St. John, N.B., who spoke about the leather being rubbish and who admitted that he had made a mistake, as will be found in the evidence at pages 392 and 393. These reports were not confirmed in the case of Quartermaster Taunton of Winnipeg, who at page 405 of the evidence admits his error about scrap and glue. They were not confirmed in the case of Major Andrews of Winnipeg, who admits his error as regards paper, and whose evidence will be found on page 424; nor in the case of Lieutenant A. E. Whitby of Toronto, who. admits that the soldiers were drying their boots around the furnace, and who would not recommend the British army boot because, he said, it was too heavy.
My hon. friend said something about the Ottawa boots. Of these there were 309 pairs issued, nine pairs of which, were brought before the committee. Three of these nine pairs were good boots and one was burned, so that four out of those nine pairs could
[Stage Direction]
not be complained of, and only five pairs had the soles worn out.
Certain hon. gentlemen opposite, with minds strongly bent on criticising, hold the Government liable as for a crime for the least omission of any kind. The present Administration and Militia Department will not pretend to possess supernatural infallibility. We maintain that from the evidence adduced, it is clean- that the representatives of the Government, such as superior officers and inspectors, and the manufacturers and fanners, have shown the best of good faith, sincere honesty and great care for the welfare of our soldiers It is possible "that a' few errors of judgment may have occurred on their part; but in all justice must we not give to the Administration, at the head of a country which for more than a hundred years has lived in peace and only in anticipation of a lasting peace, credit for the superhuman efforts made by it in a time of great emergency to face the immediate eventualities of a war which took by surprise all the European countries, except perhaps Germany, which caused it, and which I -hope will get the worst of it?
In this inquiry the attention of the public is centred on the boot question, with no reference made and no regard paid to the innumerable difficulties with which the Administration has had to cope in undertaking to equip with boots, necessary clothes, arms, ammunition, food, and so on, an army of infantry, cavalry and artillery of over 100,000 men. We are within the facts as revealed by the evidence when we assert that the great majority of the boots which were returned to Ottawa as defective had been worn by the soldiers for from six to eight weeks, and we are told by the experts that such is about the limit of time within which a boot may be reasonably expected to wear under the exceptional circumstances which, the inquiry revealed, existed at the time at Val-eartier and in other parts of the country. To prove that, I could quote Lieut.-Col. Hallick at page 59, Mr. Stephens at page 43, and Mr. Silver at pages 305 to 306. A great many of these boots were repairable, but they were not repaired, either through carelessness or through there being no cobblers with the regiments. That, however, is not a good ground on which to hold the Department of Militia or the Government liable for negligence or carelessness or any fault, because it must be observed that the boots which were reported as defective or bad were recently examined by two abso-
'Vr. Rainville.l
lutely disinterested and qualified experts, and the result of their careful examination is more ' effective than any argument that can be adduced in answer to all that has been said or written against the Canadian military boot.
Hon. gentlemen opposite attach a great deal of importance to complaints lodged by the local boards of inquiry composed of the officers of various regiments throughout the country. It was objected that a great part of the evidence was not given under oath, and that it had to a great extent no legal value. I do not intend entering here into a discussion -of that question, which has been dealt with fully by my colleagues; I rely only on the reports and on the evidence adduced upon their contents by the officers of these local boards of inquiry who appeared before us to give evidence on the worst cases mentioned in their reports. Without attacking the honour of our soldiers or officers, I wish to express my opinion that these reports do not conclusively establish that the boots so reported defective were all or in the majority of cases defective. I base that opinion on the fact that such inquiries were somewhat hurriedly held and quickly disposed of, and on the lack of experience of those who held them. I may be permitted to add, without offending my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), who often objected in committee when we were trying to find out the reason for the condemnation of the boots, that boards of inquiry were held, in the majority of cases, not with a view to searching into the causes of deterioration of the boots complained of, but in OTder to obtain, through what appeared to be the only available machinery, a second issue of boots. The holding of such boards where boots are to be condemned, is the only means that the regiments have at their disposal to get from the department what they claim from their officers. Let me quote the evidence of Major McKenzie on page 391, as follows:
Our idea was to get these boots condemned so that we could take over our men on parade with decent hoots.
Colonel Jones' evidence on page 345 is as follows:	,
Q. Is it not generally conceded in many regiments that the men want to get new boots as often as they can?-A. Oh. yes.
The reports of these boards are more often rejected than accepted by the department, according to Quartermaster

General Macdonald, and I am under the impression that Major General Fiset said that he had not much confidence in these boards, and that in the Militia Department they were putting them aside because experience showed that they were of little value. A salient fact is that no mention can be found in these reports of any boots that were repairable that may have been burned or cut or destroyed by the wearer. The evidence, however, shows that a certain number of boots deteriorated in that way, and that the great majority of the others were repairable. Let me refer again to the summary of the report of the two experts who examined the condemned boots. Out of 1,713 inspections, only 265 boots were found not worth repairing, and out of these 265, were 112 injured by burning.
What is the reason for that omission? It is to be found in the fact that no deteriorated boot will be renewed which has become defective through fault or negligence of the wearer and he has to get, according to regulations, a new pair at his own expense. A new issue at the public expense will only take place when it is shown that the boots were worn through "fair wear and tear or when they are defective or of bad quality.
Far be from me the idea of trying to blame the officers of the regiments for that zeal towards their soldiers. Nobody would think of blaming them. We are in this war not to try to economize on a few pairs of boots to be supplied to the soldiers, when the loyal soldiers are willing to give their very lives for the welfare and security of the country. We would equally refuse to blame the Department of Militia for accepting boots in the first rush contracts without inspection, when we find the goods furnished by the manufacturers were made according to a sample constructed under the specifications that had been approved since the South African war and discussed many times since.
As for the Gauthier Co., of Quebec, of which so much has been said in the newspapers and in the committee, to the great disappointment perhaps of the critics the experts have classified them the equal of any other company which made military boots in Canada. It is true that a certain Charles E. Slater secured a fat commission from that company, but the company alone were,the sufferers as the Government paid the same price to them as to others and there is no fault to find with the quality of leather used by Gauthier, and the construction was shown to be equal to others.
The following is a summary of the report of an inspection made on two boxes of Gauthier boots:
Number of pairs of boots inspected..	.. 187
All the boots were substantially up to sample with the following exceptions:
Number of soles not up to No. 10 gauge, they
being 9J 9, 9, and 8 respectively	 4
Number of flanky uppers	 2
Number poorly lasted	 2
Number of pairs not mated	 5
Ten boots, or one boot in every twenty-five pairs were cut open and examined thoroughly, the remainder were examined superficially.
This report is signed by M. C. Wade, clerk of inspectors, who made the examination. As to the propriety of the transaction it is a matter between Mr. Slater and his conscience, when we know that he made that commission contract with a widow whose husband's death had -left her without an adviser and who could easily be convinced, by a man who had had practically the furnishing of all boots under the late Administration, that she could trust Charley Slater in trying to get her contracts from the Government.
In conclusion:	We have devoted twomonths' time to this inquiry; we had fifty-one sittings and heard eighty-seven witnesses, saw and examined some hundreds of pairs of boots. Some 86 exhibits of all kinds were produced. From the hearing of such' a long evidence it will not appear improper for a member of that commission to draw the conclusion which seems to him to be the only one which can possibly be reached.
I would be prepared to say that the Canadian boot, bettered as much as can be through the experience obtained during this war, was very good. Since December the double sole was added, hobnails and horseshoe plates could be added as well to improve the wearing quality of the sole. As a whole the boots have given satisfaction and are the most suitable shoe for our voluntary soldiers. The soldiers themselves are the ones that we .should please and satisfy in general.
Major Ranger and Colonel Currie, at the front, speaking for themselves and for their men, prefer the Canadian boot to the heavy English boot. Witnesses who came back from Salisbury Plain having worn the English boot are of the same opinion, and this is the only direct evidence we had on the question of a heavy boot or a medium boot such as the Canadian.
As far as our Canadian manufacturers are concerned, it is just that out of this inquiry there should come the true con-
[Stage Direction]
elusion about it, and that the repute and trustworthiness of this Canadian trade when every one is at work in favour of "made in Canada," should still appear in its true light, not lessened but increased and acknowledged, and that for the benefit of our country it should be allowed to continue the pursuit of its destiny towards progress and more prosperity.
Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: 
William Sora Middlebro: The 86,000 does not include any of the boots that went to Valcartier or that went to England. The

86.000	are simply composed of the boots that have remained in Canada.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I appreciate that, but we take into consideration the boots that were supplied to go to Valcartier as well as those that remained in Canada, and we say if they were not up to sample in proportion there were 7,000 odd of the 180,000 boots supplied that were not up to sample. I am quite free to say that I do not consider that was a very large number. I can appreciate that, no matter who was making the boots or no matter how they were made, there would be a certain percentage of them that would not be up to standard. At the same time that does not do away with the fact that the first 65,000 pairs of boots that were manufactured and that went to Valcartier were not properly inspected, as we say in our report. That is, there were
1.3.000	odd, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 14,000, that were not inspected at all, and those that were inspected in the factories were inspected, some of them at least, by men who were just picked up in a haphazard way, who probably did not know anything about inspecting boots. The only real inspector we found who was certainly up to his work was a Mr. Silver, who had had great experience, and who inspected the boots, I think, at Tetreault s. These are the boots that went to Valcartier. But at the same time there was a lack of inspection, as we say in our report, and practically that is borne out entirely or almost entirely by the evidence. My hon. friend from North Grey says that of the boots that Mr. Hoar and Mr. Cote examined here, a certain number were not worth repairing, 265; and he subdivides them, saying that some were hurt by cutting and some by spurs and some by nails. I did not hear my hon. friend expain that the nails he here complains of were the unfortunate men's toe nails. They could not very well take their toe nails off when they put their boots on; and, therefore, I do not see how that could be considered the fault of the men, unless you grew some peculiar type of man that had no toe nails. A great many of the boots we saw had a hole there where the nail of the big toe was supposed to have worn its way through. I do not think that should happen, and that is one of the faults that we find, that the last was too thin at the toe; and it was not only too thin at the toe, but also too narrow; it did not give a reasonable amount of room for the toe to work in without cutting the leather. Surely, if anything could be a fault, that was. According to this report there were a certain
number of boots burnt, and 1,448 of the 1,713 boots that were condemned can be repaired. But, because a boot has not got to the stage where it cannot be repaired, it does not follow that it is a good boot. There must be something wrong

I am not going to say what-with a boot that lasts only two or three weeks, and personally I do not believe that such a boot is a good boot. Perhaps it might have been up to the sample at that.
My hon. friend dwelt at considerable length on the boot that was used in South Africa. Mr. McCann swore that the boot used in South Africa was made by a man called Radden, and if I remember his evidence correctly, he said that a good many of the men who went to South Africa purchased their own boots. But personally, I do not see what the boot used in South Africa has to do with the present case. The South African campaign was entirely different. I was never in that country, but from what I have read I understand that it is very dry, and consequently the boot that would be good for South Africa would not necessarily be good for Canada or England or Prance or Belgium. I quite agree that General Otter said that it was similar to the boot that was shown to him. but I do not belive that he paid very much attention anyway to the boots in South Africa. He did say that they had to buy the English boot over there, or if he did not say it somebody else did. Major General Hughes said that he had in his possession a pair of boots that went through the South African campaign and were in first-class shape now. He offered to show them to the committee. I remember that he said that they were not supplied by the Government, but purchased out of his own good hard money.


Major General HUGHES:: I did not say they were bought in England; they were bought in Capetown. Many of the Canadians bought boots from Slater in Canada before they started for South Africa to replace the other ones.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was not going to say that the minister purchased his in England, but that he purchased them out of his own good hard money.


Major General HUGHES:: They were
made in England, but bought in Capetown.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That puts us both right. My hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Mid-dlebro) said that if the officials o'f the de-

partment had 'been changed, we should have complained about that too. So far as I am concerned I want everybody to understand that it would not have made any difference to me whether the officials had been appointed under the Conservative or under the Liberal regime. It was the duty of those in power at the time, no matter who appointed them, to see that the 'boots given to the soldiers were properly made and satisfactory. My hon. friend from North Grey says that no dubbing was supplied at the start off, and that the different regiments had no cobblers at the beginning of the war. I quite agree, but that was not the fault of the unfortunate soldier, nor the fault of the manufacturer. Whose fault was it? It certainly was not my fault, because I was not consulted. I should like to ask my hon. friend whose fault it was. It must come down to this. It was the fault of the Government, or the fault of the department. I quite admit that a great deal may be said by way of excuse for the first lot of boots that went to Valcartier, and for other things that were lacking. But from a businessman's standpoint I say that there was no possible excuse for giving a repeat order for the same kind of boots that the evidence goes to show there were complaints about after the first two ' weeks at Valcartier. Some of the manufacturers themselves, if I remember correctly, freely admitted that there were complaints after the first two weeks.


Arthur Meighen: Where does that appear in the record?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think in Mr. Matthews' evidence you will find a letter from the Ames-Holden people to the department stating that they had heard numerous complaints, and wanting to knoiw whether the department had heard of them. There is a long letter in the evidence to that effect. There is no doubt at all that there were complaints.


Major General HUGHES:: I shall be very glad if my hon. friend can show me where complaint was made concerning the boots at Valcartier. I -was there nearly all the time myself and never heard a complaint either directly or indirectly.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is in the evidence a long letter from the Ames-Holden people to the department drawing attention to the fact that they had heard about complaints, and wanting to know whether the department had heard about them or not. In any event there were plenty of complaints, if 
I mistake not, from the various regimental boards held throughout the country, and these complaints were made before the second orders were given.
Some of my hon. friends tried to prove before the committee that it would take a long time to change the model and the last. On the contrary, it was clearly proved by Tetreault and other large manufacturers who appeared before the committee that it would take only a very short time. All of us who have had any experience in getting out patterns know that it does net take a man more than a day to make a model of a last, and that it does not take him more than two days at the outside, perhaps not more than a day, to make the pattern. I am quite sure that some of the large manufacturers would have any number of lasts in their factories that would have been quite satisfactory for the department to use in making these boots.
If I am not mistaken the hon. member for North Grey, in quoting the report of Mr. Hallick as to the number of boots that had been examined before the regimental boards, gave 7,807 as t'he number that were examined.


William Sora Middlebro: I said that 7,000 odd had been condemned. There were seme
11,000	that came before the board.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Oh, that is all right, then. In my judgment there are just two questions in regard to these boots. On the evidence we cannot complain that the manufacturers did not make their boots up to sample or within a reasonable limitation of it. My hon. friend from North Grey quoted the evidence of the men who came back from Salisbury Plain and in this connection the peculiar fact must be noted that the boots on both of these men were lined boots. There is another incident in regard to which the papers were not quite fair. They reported that the uppers of the boots manufactured by one of these concerns were glued together. As a matter of fact the lining was cemented and a very peculiar thing is that the two pairs of boots that came back from Salisbury Plain to be examined were found to be lined boots. Personally, I think that would have been an improvement, but that is only my own opinion.
There are only two questions that really affeot us in this inquiry and one of them is this: Were these proper boots for active service? The other question is:	If they
were not, why were they not replaced long ago, or why were the orders for them con-

tinued? Let me examine the question whether they were fit for active service.
I think my hon. friends who were on the committee with me will not differ from me when I say that the great mass df the evidence that was brought before the committee by all parties tended to prove that this was not a proper boot for active service. All the manufacturers without exception swore that they did not think that it was a proper boot for active service. All the departmental officials, practically speaking, except the Quartermaster General, swore that it was not a proper boot for active service. Even the Major General said that there were certain improvements that he would have advised over the boots that were issued but on the whole' he thought it was a good boot. All the rest of the officials of the Militia Department who came before us, excepting the Quartermaster General stated that they did not think the boot was satisfactory for the service for which it was intended. All the manufacturers distinctly swore that they had told the department that it was not a proper boot and that they offered suggestions as to what would make a proper boot. I do not see why my hon. friends dwell on the English boot. We did not say anything about the English boot, we did not say that it was a proper boot, we did not recommend it at all; in fact, we were very careful not to recommend any boot. We simply made our findings on the boot that was before the committee as being the boot that was supplied. We did not feel it to be our duty to recommend a proper boot, but I must say personally that the boot that I think would be the most satisfactory was the boot that was designed by the Shoe Manufacturers' Association. That boot was exhibited before the committee by Mr. Tetreault, and it looked to me like the very best boot that could be used. That is only my personal opinion, and I may be a thousand miles astray. There is no question but that everybody who came before the committee swore that he did not think that the boot that was being supplied was a satisfactory boot. The hon. member for North Grey and the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Rainville), who are two very fine gentlemen, and with whom I agreed very excellently on the committee, are not quite fair when they say that the regimental boards that were called simply condemned these boots in order to get new boots. It is not quite fair to play hot and cold. We heard eulogies of these men the other day in the
House; they were men of the highest character, men that you could trust anywhere, and with anything, in the world, and yet my hon. friends, when their ox is being gored a little bit, say that you cannot trust these regimental boards, that they have made these reports for the purpose of getting new boots, and they also add that there is small blame to them for doing so. I know many of these men, and they are highly intelligent men. These officers came before us, and they certainly looked as if they knew what they were talking about. They told us what they thought without any hesitation. They distinctly declared that it was not true that they had allowed these boots to be condemned for the purpose of getting new boots. But they did say that these boots were not fif for their men to wear, and that was why they had condemned them.
I have taken more or less interest in this boot question, outside of the committee as well as inside of it, and I have followed this evidence very carefully. I have stopped innumerable soldiers since this inquiry commenced and asked them about their boots. I have never stopped one who did not condemn the boots. There must be something wrong somewhere.
I have made up my mind that there must be something wrong.
I remember meeting some soldiers at home. They had come back from Guelph. It was a lntle sloppy, the sun was shining, part of the sidewalk was bare and part of it was wet with sloppy snow. I met a number of these men belonging to the third contingent. I thought they belonged to the second contingent and had come from London but I found that they had come from Guelph. I stopped them and examined their boots. There was evidence given before the committee that the leather simply-absorbed the water. That is what had occurred in this case and the leather in these men's boots looked more like buckskin than leather-some of the witnesses say more like blotting paper, but I think that is an exaggeration. Certainly the boots were soaking in the water and they would not keep the water out. They said that they had greased them. One pair was broken out at the toes and the soles were all nearly cracked across. The hon. gentlemen say there is evidence to prove that in many instances where the soles v'ere cracked across it was due to over-heating. That may be true, but you cannot get over the fact that all the men I have questioned, and I have questioned many, have con-


Charles Murphy: Double-soled boots


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, double soles. \ believe the double sole was approved, but some one said that afterwards there was a reinforcing put on the sole. I do not remember that there was any quilting or any reinforcing done in the order for the 40,000 pairs that had the sole extended back to the heel. There was certainly no quilting done, that is, nails put all over the sole, in the boots that were given to us the other morning from ithe Ottawa battery, nor was there any reinforcement-in the heel. There was an order for the extension of the sole back to the heel, and there was an increase in the price on that account which was perfectly fair and right, and we have no complaint to make on that score. The manufacturers, as was stated, lived substantially up to their contracts. Some of the contractors did not come before us to give evidence; but others came, and swore that their boots were not only as good as the samples, but to a large extent better, and they produced the leather of which the boots were made. The tanners who tanned the leather were also called, and they swore that the leather was perfectly good; but at the same time, the boots on the feet of the soldiers whom I met from time to time did not look to me to be substantial boots. I do noi, know why, but there is the fact staring you in the face that all the soldiers, officers and men, who gave evidence, complained that the boots were not proper boots. What is the Government going to do in regard to the matter? The Government had a little more than a month from the time of the first issue of boots to the time when the second order was given, which was ample, in my judgment, for it to have rectified anything that might have been wrong in the boots.


Mr. F. B. McCURDY (Shelburne-Queens):: The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has referred the members of this House to the evidence produced before the committee which is on record. With even greater confidence I also refer the members of the House to the sworn evidence which is on record, because I be-

lieve it will convince any one with an unbiased mind that the majority report of the committee is founded on fact and cannot be controverted in any essential detail.
All who are interested in public affairs should be anxious in every way possible to discourage dishonest public dealings. In this, it appears to me, there are two attitudes to be avoided; first, that of condoning shady transactions; and, second, of almost equal importance, (that of condemning honest transactions.	-
At the present time, and in the present circumstances, in considering the question of the supply of boots to the Canadian Militia Department, we should exercise an impartial, sane and deliberate judgment based entirely upon facts.
We must remember that criticism of army footwear is as old as war itself. Each campaign by a belligerent country is fought under conditions differing from those of its predecessors, so that after the termination of each campaign each belligerent country naturally reviews the experience of that campaign and ascertains in what ways its boots and other war equipment can be improved. The result is that there is constant change and difference of opinion.
The speakers who have preceded me this afternoon have pointed out that the question of army footwear has occupied the attention of the best minds in the United States, and that an experienced army board there required four years in which to make up its mind as to the best form	of	boot to be	recommended.
It is only within the last week that, in reading trade journals published in the United States, I find that there is an opinion in the trade there that these findings, although made as late as 1912, have already become obsolete, and that there should be now a change in their army boot.
The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) quoted the evidence of a Canadian manufacturer to the effect that the Canadian Militia Department could easily have made a change from the present specification and ordered different boots within a week. I think I need only point out to him-for he is a man well endowed with discretion-that if the expert American Army Board required four years in which to gather sufficient information to form the basis for an opinion, any suggestion of an interested manufacturer in Canada that a new sample could be supplied and a new specification adopted in a week, is not one that should carry weight with him.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If the hon. gentleman will change that and, instead of saying that they required that time, will say that they took it, I will agree with him.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend has had a good deal of experience with and ample opportunity to observe our good neighbours to the south, and I think he will be the last to accuse them of any lack of celerity in their movements, or question their sound business judgment.
The interests involved in the present inquiry are two.
The first is the soldier's comfort, and in that is bound -up the question of national protection. No interest which can be put forward is entitled to as much consideration as this.
But only secondary to that is the interest of an important Canadian industry, one which employs directly 23,000 operatives, and which has, in addition, a large number of shareholders. There are at least 23,000 operatives engaged directly in the Canadian boot manufacturing industry, tanning and leather trades. Using the usual basis of computation of five to a family, we find that over 100,000 of the Canadian population are dependent on this great industry. That is an interest which can be considered only secondary to that of the comfort of the soldiers themselves.
There has been, I regret to say, very noticeable in the discussion and consideration of the supply of boots to the Canadian army, a tendency to condemn without investigation. The press and pulpit have leaped at conclusions with insufficient evidence. I fully appreciate that, because my own views had, before I had any official knowledge or investigation, been influenced both by the press and by the pulpit; for I have read one and have listened to the other.
It seems to me that the obligation of members at the present time is to divest themselves entirely of all the original prejudice which may have been created by these or other influences. Evidence should be gathered from the whole field. It is not safe, it is not advisable, to select isolated bits of evidence, casual statements by witnesses who appeared before the committee. The evidence should be taken as a whole. If any one will take the trouble to read through these twenty-six volumes they will be able to form a pretty accurate judgment. I am afraid even though recom-

mended to members of this House, that course will not be generally followed.
But, more than that, I think that any person who wishes to arrive at a judgment with regard to any matter such as this, is better equipped to do so if he were present and heard personally the evidence given by the different witnesses.
I know that it is superfluous to appeal to hon. members of the House for a careful consideration of the facts and of the evidence. I trust and I believe that every person who has the opportunity of serving his country by occupying a seat in this House will not fail to place the best interest of the country and its national prosperity above party and will render a decision on the facts as on record and not on any preconceived idea or any question that has to do with party advantage or interest.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
- The House resumed at eight o'clock.
. Mr. McCURDY (resuming): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) agrees with the report of the committee to the effect that the contracts have been substantially fulfilled by the manufacturers. These reports, I trust, will dispose of the statements which have been going around in the press and which have interfered not a little with the shoe manufacturing industry in Canada. It has been semi-officially stated that substantial contracts from belligerent countries have been cancelled owing to statements made in the press as to the failure of Canadian contractors to carry out their contracts with the department.
The investigation which has been conducted by your committee has been most thorough in all its details. A number of members of this House have occasionally attended that committee, and I am sure their observations will bear out this statement, that nothing in the way of evidence has been ruled out on a technicality, but that, on the contrary, all the rules of evidence, and the practice of previous committees, have been strained to allow anything that in any way could throw light on the matter of boot contracts to 'be admitted.
Naturally I regret the failure of the committee to arrive at a unanimous report. "Unanimity was, I think, particularly desirable at the present time, affecting a question with which is involved that of national defence. The cordial and harmonious relations of members of the committee throughout the investigation seemed to promise, to the uninitiated at any rate, a unanimous report. But other counsels prevailed and we have not a unanimous report, but a report of the majority and a report of the minority, the latter, I feel, not warranted by a fair consideration of the evidence.
It is, however, gratifying that all agree on the essential part, and this gives the lie to the lurid press and pulpit utterances of paper soles and all other fraudulent suggestions-all agree that the boots supplied have been manufactured honestly and in accordance with the contracts.
Furthermore, it has been shown by the investigation that the profits of manufacturers have in all cases been very moderate. The largest manufacturers whom we have had before us and, therefore, presumably the manufacturers best qualified to manufacture at a low cost, testified (see 978 and 980) that the net factory cost, including factory overhead of the boots manufactured at the largest factory, that of the Ames-Holden Company, amounted to $3.39 per pair. They also stated that the overhead expenses of that factory amounted to 19.,02 per cent of the selling price, which would be approximately 63 cents per pair. That overhead expense includes audit, advertising, allowances, cartage, donations, insurance, law costs, light, heat and power branches, office sundries, wages (branches), travelling expenses, rent of branches, taxes, stationery, discount, bank interest, repairs, and bad debts, but does not include interest on capital. This will bring the total cost over $3.85, so they appear to have been manufactured and supplied to the Government without any actual profit to the manufacturer. It is also fair to state that one manufacturer alone said befoie the committee that, even after paying what he called his selling expenses, >a profit remained to the manufacturer of 25 cents per pair. But on the occasion when he next appeared before the committee he gave evidence to the effect that his profits were less than 13 cents a. pair, and he furthermore, I am informed, made statements not in his evidence to the effect that there was an actual loss on the contract. I think T? is a fair statement to make that in no case were any profits of any substantial size made on these contracts.

As to the evidence which has been offered to the committee, my hon. friend from North Oxford has told the House of his personal efforts to investigate. I think all members of the committee have taken pains to go outside the committee room, wherever occasion offered, to observe the condition of the boots on soldiers' feet in actual service, and informal conversations with soldiers and all other means available were employed by the different members of the committee in order to widen the information available.
Reference has been made by every speaker who has preceded me to the regimental boards of inquiry. When the evidence obtained by these regimental boards at the different headquarters first came to my attention, I was of the opinion that the evidence of these boards should be admitted; but it was otherwise decided by the committee. Five members of the committee were leading barristers, and we also had the benefit of counsel, and so six learned barristers decided, probably correctly, that they were not admissible as evidence, for the same reason as the findings of the departmental board of inquiry, sometimes known as the Hallick Board, was not admitted. The principal reason why this was not admitted was that the witnesses had not been sworn; and as the evidence had not been given under oath it was thought by a majority of the committee that the testimony taken before these regimental boards and the Hallick Board should not be received as evidence. Furthermore, with regard to the departmental board, there was always a temptation from being interested, which would be difficult for any departmental officer to fully avoid.
Regimental boards, are held at each of the different divisional headquarters and regimental headquarters of the troops. When new boots were required for any reason by the soldiers, as was explained in evidence, the only way in which these boots could be obtained was through a regimental board. If the regimental board appointed under the authority of the colonel of the .regiment condemned the boots for any other reason than ordinary wear and tear, soldiers could not obtain new boots unless they paid for them themseives.
The function of the regimental boards, therefore, can perhaps be properly stated to be the condemnation of boots. I am

sure that all can understand the temptation to which the officers were subjected to approve of the applications made Dy their soldiers for new footwear. If the board found the boots to be no longer useful on account of fair wear and tear, they recommended that the boots be replaced at the public expense. If the boots were rendered unwearable for other reasons they had to be replaced at the soldier's expense. It is only natural that an officer should try to meet the wishes of his men as far as possible, and if possible, confirm the applications that their soldiers had made.
We made inquiry of the regular departmental officers at Ottawa, and examined among others the director of clothing and equipment, who has particular charge of all the outfits for the men. We wished to ascertain whether he accepted the findings of these regimental boards as final. His evidence is to be found on page 232:
Q. You do not accept the recommendations at all?

A. No.
Q. As a matter of fact you regard them with suspicion?-A. I am afraid we do.
Q. They have been more often rejected than acted upon? A. Yes.
Q. In other words it is the natural desire of the men to get new boots as often as they can?

A. Just so.
Furthermore, it should be remembered that those who gave evidence before these boards, and the members of the boards themselves, were not experts in equipment and their examination of the boots was often casual. The hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) made a good deal of the findings of these boards this afternoon. As I have already stated, their findings were not admitted in the evidence for the reason that those who appeared before the boards as witnesses were not sworn.
But there was also another reason.
When the majority of the members of the committee decided that we could not accept the evidence taken before these regimental boards we scanned the evidence very carefully and summoned before the committee twenty-six witnesses, I think it was, whose evidence in regard to the service given by the boots was the most unfavourable taken by all these regimental boards. These witnesses came before us and gave evidence under oath; but even here we were at a disadvantage for it was only natural that these men should, for the sake of being consistent, seek to uphold in their evidence before the committee the statements they had already made before the regimental board.

As a matter of fact, as subsequent events proved, these regimental boards discharged with a vengeance the functions for which they were created. I have already quoted the evidence of the director of clothing and equipment who said that he always regards the findings of these boards with suspicion, and more often rejects than accepts them. The result of our examination of the -witnesses who had appeared before these regimental boards was exactly what was to be expected. It proved the statements made before the regimental boards to be palpably absurd.
The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) referred this afternoon to the case of nine pairs of boots which came before the committee from the 7th Artillery Brigade of Ottawa. This regimental board happened to be called towards the end of the Special Committee's sittings, and when its finding came to our attention we asked that the boots be sent to the committee, and that Lieutenant Patterson and Captain McParland appear (to give evidence. It developed in the course of the evidence that of these nine pairs which had been condemned by that regimental board out of a total issue of 267 pairs, two pairs- and this is the evidence of my own senses, for I saw the boots myself; and I am confirmed by the opinion of the committee's experts-were actually wearable at the time1 they appeared before the committee, and our boot expert naturally asked the question: " Why are these boots condemned? That boot as it stands to-day is perfectly wearable." Three other pairs out of the nine were perfectly repairable, and only required the services of a regimental cobbler to be made right again.
Probably the one reason which more than any other contributed to the dissatisfaction with the boots of the troops at the different quarters was that they could only be served with one pair of boots to wear, rain or shine, day or night.
I am not going to quote at any great length from the evidence given by witnesses who appeared before the committee, but we had another officer, Lieutenant Underwood, who came from the Winnipeg division. This man gave evidence before a departmental board held at the agricultural college barracks in the city of Winnipeg
on the 11th January, 1915, and this is his story there as we have it from a perusal of the report of their regimental board:
I have taken at haphazard a number of pairs of boots of the first issue, which were returned to Q.M. stores, and on cutting them open found them composed of "paper, wood, cork and leather scrap, ground and mixed with glue." The uppers of inferior quality, and in my opinion, unfit for active service.
That officer was brought before the committee, and he admitted that it was news to him that in the manufacture of boots ground cork and camenit are recognized as the best filling for Goodyear welt boots, and are required by the specifications of the department. Yet that is his evidence.
The hon. member for Russell this afternoon quoted the evidence of two soldiers only who preferred the British boot to the Canadian boot. We had before us five or six Canadians who enlisted and who saw service at Salisbury Plain. The only members of the Canadian force available to us were asked to appear before the committee and give evidence, and they were unanimous in declaring that they preferred the Canadian boot to the British boot. The opinion of these six men, to my mind, far overruled the opinion of the two privates, McGarvie and Ewing, who were quoted by the hon. member for Russell this afternoon. So far as opinions go with reference to the quality of the boots, the committee, I think very wisely, put their reliance on a committee of experts. After careful deliberation and a good dealof consideration extending over ten days, the committee unanimously decided to select Mr. John A. Hoar, of Halifax, a large custom boot maker, of 30 years experience who had made boots for Imperial officers and soldiers, for naval officers and for the general custom trade, and Mr. Magloire *Cote of St. Hyacinthe, who also has large experience from his youth up in boot making, to assist them in an expert way. These two men, I understand, are one on either side of politics. They were unanimously appointed by the committee and, as I say, I think, the committee wisely decided to commit to them thfe investigation of the condition of the boots which had come to the committee for examination. Their figures have been given to the House a number of times this afternoon, but perhaps they will bear repeating. Immediately on the assembling of the committee, telegrams were sent to all the regimental headquarters
\

throughout the country asking them to send all rejected boots to Ottawa so that the committee could pass upon them definitely. As a result of these directions 1,713 pairs of boots were sentt to the committee as being boots condemned after fair wear and tear by regimental boards. I have previously referred to the findings of these boards as being such as perhaps should not be regarded as conclusive. This opinion has been very much fortified by the developments which have occurred and by the examination of these boots by our experts. They reported that 1,448 oult of the 1,713 condemned hoots were repairable. They reported further that 112 pairs of these boots had been burned. Every one knows that the burning of boots is not destruction by fair wear and tear. The regimental boards said not a word, any of them, about burning, but burnt they were. Therefore, you have conclusive evidence that the findings of these regimental boards are not such as should be depended upon. There were 22 cut by knife and spur and 48 cut by nails. Out of a total lot we will put those cut by nails in the class of boots unrepairable and destroyed by wear and tear and then we have left only .131 out of the 1,713 sent here for inspection, which shows that the regimental boards were wrong in their decisions in 92 cases out of every 100, and right in only 8 cases out of 100. Surely these results justify the decision of the. committee not to accept the findings of the regimental boards as evidence and I am rather surprised that in this discussion my hon. friends opposite should have referred time and time again to the findings of these boards which have been already discarded.
The experience of quite a number of soldiers at Salisbury Plain was given in person to the committee, and I submit that the same rules of evidence should apply to the Salisbury boards as was applied to the regimental boards in Canada. In view of what we found in regard to the credibility of evidence given oefore the Canadian regimental boards, and the developments which have occurred since we examined the witnesses,, considerable reserve should be maintained in regard to these Salisbury boards. Those who gave evidence before the Salisbury boards were almost all, without exception, not sworn. Furthermore, all the soldiers who had experience at Salisbury Plain, without any exception whatever, on coming before our committee testified in the most emphatic manner that they would not wear the

English boots but that they preferred the Canadian boots. The hon. member for Bnuville (Mr. Lemiaux) this afternoon, was very insistent on having the letters received from General Alderson, who was in charge of the Canadian force at Salis-busy, read to the House. Whatever Gen-Alderson's opinion may be, it was necessarily based largely, as were the findings of the regimental boards in Canada, on evidence submitted to him and he would not necessarily express his own opinion nor could he state of his own personal knowledge; but he would give a report based on evidence which was sent up to him by those in authority under him.
We all know that every country has its own particular customs, and every good citizen of a country loves the customs of his country and is prepared to stand by them. We, as good Canadians, prefer Canadian things, and the people of Great Britain, as good Britishers, prefer British things, and it should be borne in mind in considering the expression of General Aider-son as well as the evidence of Mr. McGar-vie and Mr. Ewing, who preferred the British boot, that they have been accustomed to the British boots from their youth up, and that they would naturally favour them.
I shall now deal for a few minutes with the unfair features, as I regard them, of the minority report.
I have already stated that in my innocence, on going into this committee first, I really hoped for a unanimous finding. I went into the committee to consider this question at first under the impression, on account of the utterances in pulpit and press, that a great wrong had been done. I felt very strongly that all evidence possible that could throw light on the subject should be admitted, and I state now that after full consideration of the evidence I am prepared to stand by the report submitted by the committee as being a fair report, and a report warranted by the facts in their widest sense. If the minority report contains unfair features, and many un fair features, it is perhaps because of the fact that certain members have gone into that committee from, the very start to if possible report something unfavourable to and tending to reflect on the Government. I went into that committee with no such intention; I went there with no other intention but to give my verdict exactly according to the evidence. As a sample of what I c insider unfair findings, I shall read from page 599 of the Votes and Pro-

ceedings, paragraphs 43 and 44 of the minority report:
Thirteen hundred and sixty-five pairs of boots, and three hundred and forty-eight odd boots out of the number condemned by the various boards throughout the country were submitted to the inspection of Messrs John A. Hoar, of Halifax, and Magloire C6tS of St. Hyacinthe, who made report thereon, as follows:
That out of said number of boots, two hundred and sixty-five pairs were not worth repairing ; fourteen hundred and forty-eight were repairable, and that sixty-eight boots were not originally equal to the sample. If the proportion of boots in this particular lot, not equal to sample, is a fair percentage of the number of boots furnished that did not come up to sample, out of the one hundred and eighty thousand pairs supplied, the number of boots so furnished that were inferior to sample would be seven thousand two hundred and ninety-eight boots.
If that second paragraph of the minority report which I have read means anything, it means that Mr. John A. Hoar and Mr. Cote found:
If the proportion of boots in this particular lot, not equal to sample, is a fair percentage of the number of boots furnished that did not fome up to sample, out of the one hundred and eighty thousand pairs supplied, the number of boots so furnished that were inferior to sample would be seven thousand two hundred and ninety-eight boots.
As a matter of fact, Messrs. Hoar and Cote found nothing of the kind, and the wording of that paragraph must create a most erroneous impression upon the mind of any reader. To my mind, and I think to the mind of any impartial man who reads it, it is intended to convey an entirely wrong impression as to the finding of these two gentlemen who were appointed a.s experts by the committee. The first sentence alone of the paragraph, not the second or last, is that of Messrs. Hoar and Cote. And ithe representation is the more unfair because these boots are the "dregs" of the whole issues, and thus inevitably yield a larger proportion of bad boots than those not condemned.
Reference has been made to the evidence of Mr. Alfred Minister of Toronto, and is regarded as of so much importance by the minority of the committee that it occupies a whole paragraph in their report. It is stated in this minority report that Mr. Minister would not make shoes according to the sample, knowing that they were to be used by men going on active service, and the impression is conveyed that " he did not want to make any money out of a man's life." Citations from the evidence of Mr. Minister have been made by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), 153
and any person who reads that evidence in its entirety will recognize at once that it is most contradictory, and that it destroys the point which the minority report seeks to make out of it. In my opinion, too great weight ought not to be attached to the evidence of this man. His evidence, in the first place, was intended to tmake it appear that because of his high sense of public duty he was willing to forego profits which he might have made, because he did not want to take advantage of the situation. But he was obliged to admit before the committee, first that he would make the selfsame boots if he got his price of $4.65, and, second, that he took no further steps whatever to notify the Government or those responsible of Ithe ideas he expresses at this date of defects; that he sent no word to the Minister of Militia or to his member of Parliament as to his views on the subject. .
Another paragraph in the minority report which cannot fail to attract the attention of any one who has followed the evidence carefully, is piaragraph 21, which is to be found at page 596 of the Votes and Proceedings and which says:
That on October 24th the department directed a change to he made In the sample boot by doing away with the slip sole that had been in use and providing in its place a double sole running through to the back of the heel, but made no further changes in the specifications-
It is correct so far, but listen to this:
-or iin the direction of providing a proper boot for active service.
If anything has been shown by the investigation as regards boots, it is that the trouble is on account of the soles wearing out. A large number of boots have been displayed before the committee; and in almost all the cases, the difficulty where it did arise came on that account, and the minority report says that "the Government did nothing in the direction of providing a proper boot for active service, excepting the providing , of a double sole." The evidence of Mr. Matthews, of Ames-Holden-McCready Company, at page 584, is as follows:
Q. I see that this sole also has nails?-A. Yes, hob nails.
Q. Would there be any difficulty in putting these steel slugs and these nai!4 in the sole after manufacture?-A. After manufacture?
Q. Yes?-A. There would be no difficulty in putting in hob nails. Since the investigation was started, the Canadian Government has sent to our factory in -the neighbourhood of 8,000 shoes to be reinforced, or quilted as we call it, in the fore-part and in the heels with nails.



The Government has sent to one factory alone 8,000 pairs to be reinforced or quilted in the sole, which is the most vulnerable part of the boot. I need only draw the attention of the members of the committee to the matter, and they will recognize that there has been a cloud of witnesses who have produced boots that have been quilted in the soles, and that one firm alone has put those improvements in the soles of 8,000 pairs of boots.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Were not those boots sent bach from the Montreal stores?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The evidence does not
show where they came from. Why, in the face of this well-known fact should the minority report say that " nothing has been done by the Government in the way of providing a proper boot'for active service "? Hon. members on the other side of the House may palliate the omission of the minority report to 'commend the vigilance of the department, but no hon. member can excuse the minority for such a palpable misstatement as the one to which I have referred.
The most amazing statement, however, and one which occurs no less than fifteen times in the minority report is that the boots which have been served out to the soldiers "are not active service boots." That is the burden of the song from beginning to end of the minority report. I was much disappointed at the failure of the committee to agree on a report, and it looks to me as though the hon. gentlemen who have submitted the minority report had early made up their minds to bring in an adverse report, which is not founded on the facts disclosed. The minority, after searching the whole record through, find that in their opinion the boot is not an active service boot, and they fasten on this point and reiterate from one end of the report to the other that the boot is not an active, service boot.
It has been pointed out to the House already-and I will repeat it, as it is a matter of importance-that whatever the recognized departmental pattern boot may be, it was adopted in the days when the Minister of War of our hon. friends opposite presided over the Department ot Militia and Defence. Whether the boot came into the department in 1899, 1900, 1905 or 1908, matters not; it was there, an accepted pattern by the department at the time when this Government came into power, and when hon. gentlemen opposite -and it is only they who join in this

minority report-condemn the active service boot, they condemn their own administration of the Department of Militia.
I would have expected my hon. friends opposite to have been more kind to the gallant gentleman who lately presided over that department.
This country has voted large sums of money year after year for the upkeep of. the Department of Militia. In 1897, $1,688,213 was spent; in 1898, $2,500,635; in 1899, $3,624,693; in 1900, $3,106,241; and so on down to the year 1907, $6,795,678; in 1908, $6,408,806; in 1909, $6,921,314, and in 1910, $6,909,211. This money was voted by the representatives of the people, assuming that it was to be spent for the purpose of keeping the permanent force in a state of readiness to defend this country, and engage in serious fighting if necessary.
Did it ever occur to the Canadian people that this money, instead of being spent in equipping the permanent force for active service, was to be spent in holding annual camps where honourary colonels might appear in full uniform once a year without any serious thoughts of fighting in their minds?
We all remember the experiences of our youthful navy, how one-half of it on returning from a junketing trip, ran on the rocks. Do I understand from this minority report that it was deliberately planned by hon. gentlemen opposite and by the late Minister of War that we were to have a toy army as well as a toy navy?
The argument of the hon. member for North Oxford is that this boot is an active service boot suitable for South Africa, but not suitable for France. If that suggestion is followed to its logical conclusion, then Canada should immediately equip itself with a variety of kinds of army boot. She should have one suitable for South Africa; she should have one suitable for France, the country where our men now are: one suitable for work in Belgium, for that is where they will be shortly; we should have one suitable for work, in Germany, for that is where our forces will be soon; and so on ad infinitum; she should have boots suitable for use in every country on which she may at any time wage a war.
It is quite clear from the evidence that a boot very similar to exhibit 12 was worn by soldiers in South Africa. It seems clear that Slater boots were not provided by the department, but soldiers who wanted them had to buy their own boots.
But I should like to show to the House a sample of the real South African army boot, provided by the Administration

under the superintendence of the late Minister of Militia and Defence. There [exhibiting a boot] is a fair specimen of the real boot our soldiers wore in South Africa provided by the department. It is a fair sample-exhibit no. 77.
An hon.-MEMBER: What is that in the sole?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Cardboard-sometimes referred to as paper-in the sole from end to end-a fair sample of the boot that the Minister of War of my friends opposite provided for our soldiers for South Africa. If they did not like it, they could go to soldiers out with a booth of this kind? with their own money. I invite an examination and comparison of these two boots. If hon. gentlemen opposite condemn this Government for sending soldiers abroad with a boot of that kind, exhibit No. 12 [exhibiting another boot], what will they say about a minister of war sending his soldiers out with a boot of this kind [exhibiting the first boot].


Mr. MACDONALD:: That is absolutely untrue, and the hon. member knows that. That boot was rejected.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The hon. gentleman says the statement is untrue. That comes as news to me.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman had better read the evidence.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I have read the evidence.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You will find that that is a sample of the boot that was rejected by the inspector in 1899. It was made by Robert Taylor & Co., in Halifax. You will find the correspondence produced by Mr. McCann which will show that these boots were rejected and returned. And they were not intended for South Africa in the first place.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I refer to the evidence of Mr. McCann with regard to these boots. This boot is called exhibit 77. I am not at all surprised that my hon. friend from Pictou is very much annoyed
9 p.m. when attention is called to this boot and its history in the department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am annoyed at
my hon. friend misrepresenting the facts.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I quote from the evidence of Mr. McCann, page 1038:
We opened up that one boot and it was .quite unnecessary to destroy any more boots.
153i
We had that as one sample. We just took it at random, opened it, and the moment it was opened we concluded that it was not just what our minister wanted to send away.
Then, at page 1,039:
Q. Then those that came in subsequently were from the same contractor and were the same kind of boots?-A. Practically the same kind.
Q. And they were for the permanent force in South Africa?-A. And for South Africa.
It is quite true, some of these boots were returned to the contractor. But this is a fair sample of the boot used at that time in the department; and I would advise my hon. friend, before he makes other positive statements with regard to that boot, to go to Halifax and personally investigate and inquire from his friends as to the subsequent history of the boot.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Investigate among
your friends, Robert Taylor & Co.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I trust that both
Robert Taylor & Co. and Hon. A. W. Redden are friends of mine. I am a friend of theirs. It was the hon. gentleman himself who pointed out to the committee-however, I will refer to that later on. The point is that this is a fair sample of the boot sent to South Africa.


Robert Laird Borden: It says it was this class of boot.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It was this class of
boot, and no quibbling will dispose of that. Furthermore, the present Government are paying $3.85 a pair for boots for our soldiers, and we are told that the Government is not prepared to pay for a good boot; but all that the former Government were prepared to pay for boots for our soldiers going to South Africa was $2.13 a pair. As to the evidence of Mr. McCann, let me follow it a little further, quoting from page 1039:
By the Chairman:
Q. Then those that tame in subsequently were from the same contractor, and were the same kind of boot?-A. Practically the same kind.
Q. And they were for the permanent force and for South Africa.-A. And for South Africa.
Q. And possibly some of them went to South Africa?-A. It is quite possible.
Q. It is quite probable, is it not?-A. I would not like to go that far.
Mr. Macdonald:	The lot of boots of which
this is a sample were all rejected and sent back to the contractor, and therefore this is not evidence.
Hon. Mr. Murphy:	And he said that many
of the men who went to South Africa bought their own boots.

By the Chairman:
Q. Those who did not wore this class of boot? -A. So far as I know, some of them might have gone to South Africa.
By Hon. Mr. Murphy:
Q. Do you know that as a fact?-A. I do not know as a fact; once they were accepted they were returned to the Ordnance Stores.
By the Chairman:
Q. Those who went to South Africa did not buy their own boots, nor this class of boots?- A. It was this kind that went to South Africa.
That settles the question. Where is my hon. friend's charge of misrepresentation now?
I deplore the fact that such an important question, one with which is involved Canadian national and Imperial defence, should be made a party question.
There are, as you know, in the prosecution of a fight, certain rules of civilized warfare; some things are permissible and some are not permissible. Among the acts not permitted in modern warfare is the poisoning of wells. I had sent to me a few days ago-I do not know whether on account of my official position as member of the committee; at any rate it came to me through the mails-a publication called " No. 24." I see that it is published by the Central Information Bureau of the Canadian Liberal Party, Ottawa, 1915. This publication, which bears the official impress of the Liberal party said:
The manufacturers made the shoes that were ordered. If the wrong sort were ordered, the fault lay with the Government, and that is where the fault did lie. They waited three weeks.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the evidence produced by that committee shows that war was declared on the 4th of August. The first business day following the 4th of August was the 5th of August. On the 8th of August, three days later, the Government sent out requisitions to a large number of manufacturers, and on the 10th of August, which was exactly five days after it was possible for them to act, contracts for the manufacture of boots were in the contractors' hands-and still we have from this official bureau that the Government " waited three weeks." I have already declared that we have heard from the pulpit and from the press wild statements with regard to the supply of boots and their quality. I think this little leaflet can properly excuse about one-half of the press of this country from any liability in this matter; this is the quarter from which official information springs for the Liberal party. No fountain can rise higher than its source, and if this is the official infor-
	.
matron-misinformation, distorted information, given out by the central bureau at Ottawa,-it seems to me that the fault lies there with the Liberal party, and not primarily with the press who are supporting it.
The minority report also devotes a paragraph to the middleman:
That in the month of November last the Militia Department directed the Senior Ordnance Officer to purchase boots locally in Winnipeg and 3,798 pairs of boots were purchased there, not directly from manufacturers of boots but through middlemen;
These boots were required for use at Winnipeg, they were purchased at Winnipeg from large wholesale dealers in Winnipeg because there are no manufacturers there, and it does not appear from the evidence produced before the committee that the public interest has suffered in any way whatever. The boots were delivered at Winnipeg at $4 per pair, express paid, delivered free of expense to the Government and the public interest has not suffered. Furthermore, these 3,798 pairs of boots are less than 2-10 per cent of the whole supply of boots ordered since the war broke out.
It is rather significant that the minority report calls attention to the fact that these purchases were made through middlemen and stopped there. Do hon. gentlemen opposite condemn the existence of middlemen, this noxious weed of Liberal growth, or do they hesitate to attack this class whose activities flourished throughout the country in the days of hon. gentlemen opposite? Do they intend to uproot them? It is significant that they call attention to the fact that these middlemen exist and make no recommendation with regard to them.
Our casual research in the department brought us face to face with this institution, fostered-and I say it in all sincerity-by the late Administration. When our search in the department uncovered this institution, it was, in fact, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) himself who first recognized it. The contract for army boots in 1889 was made with Mr. A. W. Redden, a leading citizen of Halifax, a member of the Legislative Council and a man of the highest standing. He is a stalwart Liberal, of course, else he would not have been called when he was to the " upper chamber " in- Nova Scotia. But Mr. Redden is a retail dealer. The Winnipeg dealers who supplied the boots questioned by the minority are all wholesalers.
The significance of the Redden contract . did not dawn on the majority of the com-

mittee, it remained for the hon. member for Pictou to point it out. The hon. member said (page 1200) :
Mr. Macdonald:	I may state for the benefit
of the committee that Mr. Robert Taylor was one of the people who made that boot with the paper sole that was produced here.
We were content to let the matter rest with Mr. Redden, but the hon. member for Pictou was the means of pointing out that there was a middleman in the transaction.
While it does not appear from our investigation that the public interest has suffered, there is one other circumstance in connection with the supply of army boots which, I think, should not be overlooked. It also is a legacy from bygone days. There was a gentleman well known around the department who formerly was president of the Slater Shoe Company, who dealt largely with the department in the olden days when Sir Frederick Borden presided over that department. In those days it was not fashionable to call for tenders. Mr. Slater was awarded the contract year after year without any call for tenders. The order was simply given out to Mr. Slater. This gentleman ceased his connection with the Slater Shoe Company on January 1, 1913. Within two months he had appealed to the Minister of Militia and Defence for consideration on the false representation that he had become a partner in Louis Gauthier & Co., a manufacturing concern in Quebec. The minister, with his customary good nature, allowed this gentleman an opportunity to tender.


Major General HUGHES:: I might say
right here, that no man who is a manufacturer of boots who has ever had his name presented to the Militia Department since I have been there, be he Grit or Tory, reputable or otherwise, but has had his name put on the list and has had the director of contracts search him out to see whether he was fit for the job or not.
Mr. MoCURDY:	The minister's statement brings to my mind other information we found in the committee. We found that the minister had gone to a great deal of pains to ascertain whether this firm should be allowed to tender. Exhaustive reports were at his direction obtained from the mercantile agencies, who reported that this firm of Louis Gauthier & Co., in which Slater claimed to be a partner, was a reputable and reliable firm, well able to carry out a contract if given an opportunity to tender. At any rate, they were subsequently the
lowest tenderers, at $3,724, and as such were awarded the contract for the supply of boots.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend has said that the Slater Company got the contract without tendering. What was the price?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I think it was $4.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I understand the highest price was $3.72.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Here is the evidence on . page 903. Charles E. Slater was being examined as regards the Gauthier contract:
Q. Then you ought to have no objection to tell us.-A. Instead of it causing the Government or the Department any more expense, I isaved them money by my connection with Gauthier, and bringing Gauthier into the proposition. In 1913 and 1912 we were paying $4 ,a pair for the boots. That was the year, 1912, when Slater Shoe Co. supplied the boots.
So that on the first Gauthier contract the country was saved 27) cents per pair. It has not been proven by the investigation that the public interest has suffered at all in the matter, but at the same time our investigations disclosed the fact that an abnormal and unfair commission arrangement existed; and although the public interest has not suffered in any way by reason of it, I think the Government, now that its attention had been brought to the matter, can very properly place its stamp of disapproval upon any such arrangement in connection with its business in the future.
It must be very gratifying to all citizens who are anxious for a full and free investigation into the public transactions that the evidence of the committee should, be as it is.
It should also be gratifying to all interested in the fortunes of the soldiers who are so valiantly battling at the front in defence of our common cause, and gratifying as well as to every Canadian interested in the vindication of our great industrial structure, upon whose prosperity depends in turn the prosperity of a large army of employees and skilled mechanics.
In closing, I desire to express the hope that the agencies which have been instrumental in creating uneasiness in the minds of those who have sons or brothers or friends at the front-and that includes all Canadians-and which have been so ready to cast aspersions upon the fair name of one of Canada's great basic industries, may, now that the baseless nature of their charges has been demonstrated, be equally active in removing the false impression which they assisted in creating.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As a member of the committee to which was referred the question as to the character of the boots supplied by the Government to the overseas contingent, I feel it my duty to make a few remarks; and I should like to review very shortly the conditions which existed in regard to this whole matter of the supplying of boots by the Canadian Government not only to the volunteers for overseas service, but to the permanent force as well. We have had some very curious statements and reasoning by some of the hon. gentlemen who, in defence of the rather curious document that has been presented as the majority report, have gone very far afield indeed from the evidence which was presented before the committee. They have discussed almost everything else in the world except the question as to the character of the boots that were given to the soldiers. I might recall the fact that previous to 1899 the number of men permanently engaged in the Militia Force of Canada was comparatively small, amounting to not more than 700 or 800 at the most; and these were scattered at various places over the country at what were known as schools of instruction, where young men who wanted to qualify as Canadian officers proceeded for the purpose of taking a course and receiving their certificates. Previous to 1899, in no one year from Confederation down, was the Militia Department of Canada called on to supply more than 700 or 800 pairs of boots at one time. It will readily be seen, therefore, that the question of the character of boots supplied during that period was not a matter of very serious consequence. It did not engage the attention of the country to a very great degree, for a large number of these men were employed simply as sentries in the quietest kind of way, and had no real part in actual training. When the militia of the country were called out to the camps in summer time the Government of the country at no time, since Confederation down to the present, has ever provided them with boots. Each man provided himself with his own. I thought it well to make these remarks because I am quite sure that a great number of people who have not followed the procedure of the committee, or read the evidence, were under the impression that the Government had in the past been supplying the boots for the militia of this country.
With these premises, let us see where Canada was in 1899 when she decided to participate in the South African war. The
[ Mr. McCurdy.]
result was that the organization of the department, so far as the supplying of boots for any purposes was concerned, was naturally of no consequential character, and from the evidence before us there can be no manner of doubt that the Canadian force that went to South Africa were equipped with boots in this way. In the first place Lord Strathcona sent the Strathcoma Horse and equipped them with everything that attached to a soldier's accoutrements, the department supplying no part of their equipment whatever. It appears that the Van-kleek Hill Boot and Shoe Company supplied the major portion of the boots that were purchased by the Militia Department in 1899 for the mem who went to South Africa.


Major General HUGHES:: Did I understand the hon. member to say that the Strathcona Horse were the first that were sent to South Africa?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not say who was sent first. I said that the Strathcona Horse were equipped by Lord Strathcona himself. I am speaking of the evidence that is before us, and I do not want my hon. friend the General when his turn comes to speak to bring to the House any data that may be in his department but which was not submitted to the committee. If my hon. friend has any evidence in regard to this or anything else that was before the committee, he should have submitted it to the committee to whom was committed the task of dealing with this question.


Major General HUGHES:: I am very much obliged for the lecture. But where was the suggestion that I was suppressing anything?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend has shown a disposition to be rather exceptional in his criticism of matters concerning the Strathcona Horse, so I ventured to give him that little suggestion, which I hope he will accept. He is too old a parliamentarian not to accept a suggestion of that kind. The Vankleek Hill Boot and Shoe Company was the one which supplied the boots which went to South Africa. But a great many men who volunteered at that time purchased their own boots. That was given in evidence by some gentlemen Who appeared before us and has been confirmed from various other sources.
I was very much surprised to see the hon. member for Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy), who, all through this inquiry and down to the very last moment of the drafting of this

majority report, was of the opinion that these boots were not suitable for active service, drag into this issue the question of a boot that was produced before the committee and alleged to be a sample of the kind of boot that was sent to South Africa.
I asked Mr. McCann, who is assistant director general of contracts:
Q. Have you got a pattern of that 1,900 South African boot? You have not got a sample boot?-A. X do not think there is one in existence.
And he goes on to say in other parts of his evidence that he had searched in the department and could not find any boot of that kind. Then, as suggested by my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), his examination proceeds in this way:
By Mr. McCurdy:
Q. Why were the boots rejected if not because they were not according to sample?-A.
I could not tell if it was according to sample or not.	[DOT]
Q. I understand you to say the boots were rejected?-A. Some of them were rejected because they were found like that (pointing to boot). That was not considered a suitable boot to go either to the Permanent Force or to South Africa.
He identifies this particular boot which the hon. member for Shelburne has produced here. The correspondence produced by Mr. McCann will be found at page 1060. It will be found that Mr. A. W. Redden, of the city of Halifax, who was a boot and shoe dealer, and, as it was disclosed afterwards, connected with Robert Taylor & Co., who were boot and shoe manufacturers in the city of Halifax, tendered for the supply of boots for the Permanent Force in that year, and that this boot was one of the samples which had been sent forward in connection with the supply of boots to the Permanent Force, as explained by Mt. McCann at page 1030 of the evidence. The question was asked:
By Mr. Macdonald:
Q. Were there any specifications for that boot at that time?-A. No.
Q. There had been none in the department? -A. No, that was made to sample, and for anything I know to the contrary, the sample may have been made exactly like that.
Q. You say there were 3,000 pairs of boots. What became of those boots?-A. I could not tell you that. You would have to find that out from the ordnance people.
Q. They went to the Ordnance Department, did they?-A. Some of them did and some went to the contractors.
Q. Did you show that to Sir Frederick Borden, the then minister?-A. No, I did not. It was shown to him by the then Deputy Minister.
Q. And what was done in regard to it?-A. The boots were rejected and returned to the contractor, that lot.
Q. What about the 3,000 pairs?-A. I could not tell you off-hand.
Q. They were not returned?-A. Some of those were, returned too.
Then this witness goes on and produces the correspondence which is found at page 1060 and in which you will find that Captain Benoit, director of contracts at that time; wrote to Mr. Redden:
Ottawa, 23rd December, 1899.
A. W. Redden,
Halifax, N.S.
Boots received from you just opened out for inspection. Leather in some, both soles and upper very bad; far inferior to standard and useless for service. Those for South Africa ,niust be of best quality and workmanship. They will be subjected to rigid inspection. Wire explanation fully.
(Sgd.) A. Benoit, Captain.
He had previously written him on the 12th December, 1899, to the following effect:
I now beg leave to inform you that, as the boots will not be required for a second contingent to South Africa, we will have to issue them to our permanent force, who have been wearing a different kind made of brown leather.
On February 13, Captain Benoit, writing to Mr. Redden, says:
Ottawa, February 13, 1900.
Gentlemen,-I beg leave to enclose to you, herewith, a copy of our departmental inspector's report upon 456 pairs of ankle boots we received from you about 15th December last.
You will see from the nature of this report that it was quite impossible that we could accept these boots, 449 pairs, consequently were returned to you on the 2nd instant, via Canada Atlantic and Intercolonial R.R.
The amount of the charges paid for freight to Ottawa from Halifax on the 9 cases of boots -$9.40-will be deducted from any claim you may have against this department for boots accepted from you.
The remaining seven pairs have been kept here for the present for reference.
Among the seven pairs which were kept in the department for reference was found this boot which has been produced here. There was in the filling of this particular boot, according to Mr. McCann, what is known as leatherette. That is what Mr. McCann in his evidence states was in this boot and that was apostrophised by the gentleman who is acting as counsel in this matter as paper and hon. gentlemen have been talking about paper ever since.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The counter was composed of leatherette, but the soles, as the sample will show, were made of ordinary pasteboard from one end to the other.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I speak of the filling. At page 1029 it will be found that Mr. McCann speaks of leatherette as being the

quality of the material used. My hon. friend introduces this matter for the purpose of endeavouring to lead the House and the country to believe that particular boot was one out of a number of boots which had been shown to the committee and that the balance of them had formed part of the boots which had been sent to South Africa.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: A similar boot.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A similar boot? Let my hon. friend produce that similar boot. A similar boot has been the refuge of my hon. friend and his friends all through this inquiry. It was not a similar boot. When was this boot supplied?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: This boot was supplied.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend had not been so interested in other matters he! would have known that Capt. Benoit stated that the boots were being ordered for the Permanent Force and that this was one of the seven pairs of boots that had been kept out of the 456 that had been received, that the balance were rejected and returned and that none of them got to South Africa. These are the boots (exhibiting a pair of boots) which my hon. friend's friends have supplied the soldiers who have gone to fight the Germans. It will take my hon. friend and his friends a long time to explain ithe shortcomings of this boot without going back into ancient history. If my hon. friend knows anything about Canadian history and about what was done in South Africa he will know that there never was any complaint about the boots which were sent to South Africa during the time when Sir Frederick Borden was Minister of Militia. My hon. friends went hunting in the recesses of the Militia Department and found a boot that was a rejected sample out of 456 boots that were absolutely rejected, which boot happened to remain in the 'department, and the finding of that boot is regarded by these hon. gentlemen as a good and sufficient answer for boots like those which have been supplied to the soldiers to-day. After all his arguments and after all his labouring about that boot, the very best that my hon. friend and his friends could do, when they put their hands to paper is the following to be found at page 585 of the Votes and Proceedings:
The evidence does not justify the committee in coming to the conclusion that with some such improvements as have been suggested the sample boot would not be a good, all round, serviceable Canadian military boot.

Is not that a beautiful commendation- that the evidence does not go so far that it would enable us to come to the conclusion that, with some improvements that have been suggested, the sample boot would not be made a good boot! That is the very best they can say about that boot. The improvements have not been made and the deliverance of the majority of the committee on this whole question is that with some improvements they might possibly make a good boot out of it. I commend to my hon. friend the task of wrestling with the question as to whether he could not do better even than that and not be forced to confess that he was driven to the position of taking up that old boot which was found in the recesses of the Militia Department and discussing it as if it had some relevancy to this question at all.
What happened after 1899? In 1901 the department took up the question of the defence of Canada and from that time on the Militia Department were concerned about the supplying of boots for outfitting the men who were looking after the defence of Canada herself. It became necessary to purchase, instead of 700 pairs of boots a year from 7,000 to 8,000. As a consequence, in 1901, a specification was drawn up. In 1905 the first time, as far as the evidence before us goes, Goodyear welt boots were bought by the Department of Militia and Defence.
Mark you, the boots which went to South Africa were standard screw boots and they were a nailed pattern, and for the first time in 1905 the Goodyear welt was introduced into the department. There is all the difference in the world between these boots, and the battle wages between the two schools of men in the boot world, as to whether the Goodyear welt or the standard screw boot is the better for soldiers. We had in three years 7,000 or 8,000 men in barracks in Canada-at Halifax, London,' Esquimalt, and elsewhere. They were in small groups and their duties were not arduous; in Halifax they manned the citadel and the forts and they were engaged in schools of instruction, and the Militia Department knew very well that in providing two pairs of boots a year for each soldier they were not providing boots which were fit for active service conditions.
As I have said, there is a great deal of difference between the two kinds of boots. A number of soldiers came before the Committee, some from the permanent force and si>me from the expeditionary force, and they explained that they liked to have a

nice dressy boot for ordinary occasions, and one chap who had lived in England said there was no use going up to London with a boot that was not dressy, because he never could get a girl, and that the Canadian boot was good for that, but it was not much good for campaigning. In these years, the Militia Department supplied this boot to the man diving in barracks, when there was no thought of active service conditions. There is no question about that; every member of committee knows it. -Therefore the paramount question which the committee had to consider was. is the boot which was supplied to the men of the overseas force an adequate and a proper boot for active service conditions. These men were not enlisting to do sentry duty or to go on parade in barracks, but to engage in the most serious warfare the world has ever known. The moment the declaration of war was made, it must have become plain to the Department of Militia that above everything else the boys who were going to the front should be equipped in the best possible manner. A man engaged in this arduous duty might have a hole in his. trousers, or the cloth of his coat might toe thin, or there might toe defects in his overcoat; and he could worry along, tout the poor beggar who even in Canada had to train six hours a day, marching through the various evolutions, must have a boot which is comfortable and which will not cause him discomfort and pain. And when you transport him across the ocean and put him up against the task he has to perform in the trenches the absolute necessity for excellence in the character of his footwear becomes imperative. The question for the committee then to consider was, whether or not the boot was a fit boot for active service conditions, and that is the question which the Canadian people want to have answered. If -any hon. gentleman opposite could bring evidence to show that it was an adequate and proper active service boot, then the whole discussion ended. If my hon. friend (Mr. McCurdy) was able to point to one piece of evidence that it was a proper boot for -active service, we need not have this discussion to-night; -but neither he nor any one else has been able to do so. This whole report of the majority of the committee is an absolute apology for -the -boot which somehow or other got under the feet of our soldiers. In legal parlance, hon. gentlemen on the other side have confessed the allegations and they are trying to avoid the consequence by all sorts of suggestions
and learned discussions about the English boot and the American boot, which, of course have no relevancy whatever to the question as to whether or not we supplied our men with the right boot for the purpose it was to he used for. Up to this very moment, no one has come forward to say that this was a proper boot in all respects-. When the Minister of Militia first appeared before the committee he impressed me that he would contend that it was a proper boot for active service, but when I read his evidence carefully, I found he told us very plainly that there was something wrong with the toe, and something wrong with the -heel, and something wrong elsewhere-


Major General HUGHES:: Does the hon. gentleman mean to insinuate that I did not state that to the committee? .


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: State what?


Major General HUGHES:: State thait in the opinion of some it should be better at the toe?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am just saying that you said so. I said that even the Major General did not come to the point of saying that this was an absolutely good hoot for active -service, and that he pointed out certain defects in it.


Major General HUGHES:: Not defects.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Inferiorities.


Major General HUGHES:: That it might be improved.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Major General will not speak about this boot in the same sense that some people speak about painting the lily, because he said that this lily boot of his could be painted up, and that if it were fixed in the toe and in the heel and in the instep and in the uppers it would be a first-class boot, but that otherwise it was defective. Practically every man who has had to do with manufacturing these boots has condemned them.
We have heard a great deal about the excellence of Mr. Hoar, from Halifax, as an expert. Hon. gentlemen on- the other side have lauded him and spoken of him as a man who knew what ]he was talking about. He comes from the constituency of the Prime Minister, and he was called by hon. gentlemen on the other side and put forward as a man on whose judgment they were going to rely. Let us see what he says about this boot. He was shown the sample boot, Exhibit 12, which was produced by the department, and he was asked:

Would you consider the sample hoot, Exhibit 12, a fair boot for ordinary conditions, that is the sample by which the Ames-Holden Company were working.
Mark you, this was the sample boot from which Ames-Holden and Company made all their boots, and Mr. Hoar, before he answered the question, was rather cautious, and he said:
Under what conditions? For city wear or what?
Then he was asked:
Would you consider it so under ordinary conditions of military wear?
And his answer was:
Not for campaign work.
Then I quote further from the evidence:
Q. Would you think it was fit for ordinary military work outside of campaign work?-A. Yes, I would.
Q. But for campaign work, you think a different boot should be used?-A. Yes.
Q. What kind of a boot should be used?-A. A heavier boot.
Then Sir James Aikins asked him:
Q. Would you consider this boot fit for country wear?
Country wear, mark you, and the answer of this expert was:
No, sir.
He would not consider the hoot which our boys were to wear in the trenches fit for country wear.


Charles Murphy: In Canada?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Certainly, in Canada, and he was asked why, and he answered: The sole is not heavy enough." Then he was asked:
What experience have you had in boots for country wear?-A. Country wear?
And he goes on to tell what experience he has had.
Q. Then you would liken country wear to military use. There would be no distinction between country wear and military use?-A. Yes, they would be all right for city wear, but .if the military go into the country they want a heavier boot than this.
It is Mr. Pringle who is asking all these questions.
Q. It is not heavy enough for military purposes?-A. Not for campaigning.


Major General HUGHES:: Had the witness ever been on a campaign?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This man stated that he had made military boots in Halifax for military officers and for the men in the garrison all his life.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: For thirty years.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Hoar was the special selection of the bon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy), and was brought up here on purpose to say that the sample boot was a good boot.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Not for that purpose. I heard that he was brought here to condemn boots.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend was arguing a little while ago in regard to percentages until he got the hon. members present to a point where they could not follow him on the evidence of Mr. Hoar. For my part I want to deal with the whole evidence properly as regards the kernel of the whole matter, which is whether the boot was fit for campaign use or not. Mr. Hoar's evidence is that it is not.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: He said that it was a good boot.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is a great question my hon. friends are always asking witnesses. The witnesses come in and look at the sample boot. It is a pretty boot, just the same kind of boot as every hon. member here wears, but would any of us go far into the woods in the summer time or go marching around the country for five or six hours a day with the boots we wear in the city? Yet that is the sample boot shown. My hon. friends ask the witness: " Is it a good boot?" Answer-" Yes." " Does it look like the other boot?" Answer-" Yes, it looks like the other boot." That is the way in which the thing is done. But I want to go back to the kernel of the whole question, and I make the assertion that there was not a single manufacturer who was asked his opinion about the sample boot who did not condemn it, and that up to this moment no man, including the majority of the committee, has dared to put his signature to a certificate stating that this boot is a good active service boot.
Let us now take the evidence of Mr. J. A. Adams, of the Murray Shoe Company. I will not go into his evidence in detail, but I will call attention shortly to what he says on page 752.
Q. You have -seen boots of the style of Exhibit 12, that has been so much talked of here?-A. Yes.
Q. You did not consider they were suitable for active service, and you submitted a boot

that you thought would be suitable; is that it? -A. Yes, that is it.
This gentleman of the Murray Shoe Company did not think the departmental boot was a suitable one, and he said: " I have a boot that I think is better than this and I will make it, but I do not want to make the other one."
Take Mr. Matthews, of the Ames-Holden-MeCready Company, of Montreal, who was interviewed by the Shoe and Leather Journal last autumn. In his interview he said that this boot, which was being made for the department and which was being given to the soldiers, was not a boot that was fit for active service at all, and that in his opinion this particular boot was a kind of a light boot that they were using in order to get the men accustomed to marching so that they could wear a heavier boot later on. He reiterated that this boot was not one which was suitable for active service.
Take, not Mr. Charles Slater, but Mr. George A. Slater, one of the bubbling, cheerful kind of chaps, who told the department he would not take $20 a pair to make boots like the sample for men who were going out to fight.
Take again Mr. C. A. Sutherland, manager of the Amherst Shoe Company, who supplied some of the boots. What did he do? He supplied these boots to the department in accordance with the sample; but when 125 boys from the county of Cumberland enlisted and were going to the front, he said:	"I have a better boot
for active service "-and he goes to his directors, and his directors with him.make a present of 125. pairs of boots that they have themselves made different from the boots they supplied to the Militia Department, and they say:	That is the boot
that is going to equip the Cumberland county boys." When he comes before the committee and we ask him whether he thinks the exhibit is a boot suitable for active service or whether the boot that his firm has given the soldiers from Cumberland is the best, he says: " Our own boot is the best beyond all question."
Take the evidence of Mr. Alfred Minister, who came into prominence in connection with this matter. He is a member of the firm of Minister, Myles & Co., Toronto, which in 1913 was placed upon the list of firms which could supply boots to the department. My hon. friend the minister knows Mr. Minister.


Major General HUGHES:: I never heard of the gentleman in my lifetime until I
heard his name in connection with this boot inquiry.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do you know Mr. Myles?


Major General HUGHES:: I know him
well, but I never knew Bobby Myles was in the shoe business.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not know Bobby Myles, but I know a Major Myles who came before the committee.


Major General HUGHES:: The same man.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He looked like a
military gentleman.


Major General HUGHES:: I knew him very well, but I never knew he was in the shoe business.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was not through Bobby that you put Mr. Minister on the patronage list?


Major General HUGHES:: I never heard of him before.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The firm was placed on the list by my hon. friend.


Major General HUGHES:: I do not know that my hon. friend has any data for his statement.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He stated it was so.


Major General HUGHES:: Who stated it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It appears in the evidence that the firm was placed on the patronage list on my hon. friend's recommendation since he came into office.


Major General HUGHES:: It is all the same; I do not deny it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Minister, Myles & Company were friends of the Minister of Militia's party, and they were given the right to supply boots in consequence. The result is that as far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned, it does not lie in theiT mouths to abuse Mr. Minister when he comes along and alleges that he has conscientious views in regard to the matter. On account of the fact that five or six gentlemen were endeavouring to examine Mr. Minister all at once, it was only natural that you would not have a connected story from him when he gave his statement first; but what appeared beyond all doubt was this, that having tendered in 1913 and not getting the contract, he was asked in August, 1914, to tender, and he referred the department to the old figure, and that finally after several telegrams had been exchanged, he came to Ottawa in

September, and when he went to the Militia Department and saw the sample of boot which he was asked to follow, he took the position which he swore he then took that he would not make such boots at any price at all.
I have some further evidence in regard to this matter. Mr. Minister has written to the Toronto World in detail since then giving the substance of his conversation with Lieutenant Colonel Brown, inspector of saddlery and boots, and he says:
I asked Col. Brown whether he thought that a suitable boot could be made for the price, $3.85, X think it was. He replied he did not think it could. I then picked up a boot and said to Col. Brown that I would not make such boots as these at any price, as I would hate to think that any man had suffered, or maybe lost his life, through wearing a pair of boots made by me; that these men were risking their lives for us, and should have the best shoes that could be made. I was disgusted and angry clear through at the indifference shown as to whether the men were properly shod, as I consider this one of the most important things in a soldier's outfit.
That is what Mr. Minister says, who comes from my hon. friend's camp; because it is no Liberal that is in the business at all. This gentleman struck me. having seen him only on the occasion on which he gave his evidence, as being a man who was impressed most seriously with the responsibility which would fall upon one who was engaged in supplying equipment for men going out to fight. Having had some experience in observing witnesses and estimating the value of evidence, I think there could not be the slightest fault found with him on account of his demeanour. Then we have the gentleman whom my hon. friend himself appoints as chief advisor to the department, on the subject of boots. My hon. friend from North Oxford reminds me-


Major General HUGHES:: Did the hon. gentleman say that I appointed Colonel Brown to the department? '


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. minister must not be listening to his friends and then rising to interrupt me because of what they say. If he listens to me and wishes to ask a question, I will be glad to answer it. I was not speaking of the appointment of Colonel Brown, tout was speaking of Mr. Wickett, whom the hon. gentleman did appoint. But my hon. friend from North Oxford reminds me of what Mr. Tetreault said. Mr. Tetreault is a contractor from Montreal, one of the men who had a big contract with the Government. He swore that he had told Colonel Brown at the time when these boots were being made

that it was ridiculous to put boots like these on a soldier. And he is a political friend of the minister.


Major General HUGHES:: Is he a judge?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He is a maker of boots and is the man to whom my hon. friend committed the task of making 10.000 pairs of boots which our boys are now wearing. Then, take 'Mr. Wickett, my hon. friend made representations to Council by memorandum that he wanted somebody to look into this boot question, 'because it was worrying him. So Mr. Wickett was appointed chief advisor on 'boots. If there were any lingering doubt in anybody's mind as to whether this boot was good for active service or not, surely, Mr. Wiokett's testimony on the point ought to be good enough. And I do not see-speaking with all deference to those associated with me in the committee; our relations were of the most pleasant character-I do not see how tlhey can disregard the evidence of Mr. Wickett and permit themselves to make the equivocal finding they do make in regard to this boot. For they do not give a certificate to it; but they talk of the improvements possible. Mr. Wickett produces a boot which he had designed himself. He was asked this question:
Q. Be good enough to take that boot which is nearest your ideal, and take No. 12, and point out the difference between the two oX them beginning at the upper first.-A. The
upper in this No. 12-
That is the Government 'boot.
-is perhaps no more than 5-ounce stock and in thi^ (Exhibit 86) it is 6-ounce stock. This No. 86 is stuffed with hard grease, it is more pliable stock, and hence more water-resisting, and while this calf (No. 12) is a very good piece of leather, if it had been stuffed with hard grease it would have been much more suitable for wear in winter or wet weather.
Q. What is the difference between them in the sole?-A. The gauge, I should not think the outer one is more than 9 gauge, that is 9 gauge, that is 9 gauge in Exhibit 12, and then I should think the other is about 7 and the insole is hardly as heavy as this or the Standard Screw. I would much prefer to have No. 86-
That is his own boot.
-which is 10 gauge with a 7 middle sole and an 8 insole.
Q. So that there is no short slip sole in your 86?-A. No, it goes straight through.
Q. And the 86 is the Standard Screw, the other is a Goodyear Welt?-A. It is not only a single, but a double Standard Screw.
By Mr. Chairman:
Q. And the 12 is what?-A. Goodyear Welt, with a few loose nails put in the shank, and of course the shank is narrow and it is not suitable for a man using a spade, to drive the spade in the ground.

That is the Government hoot; that is the boot that hon. gentlemen argue about. And according to the chief advisor
10 p.m. of the Government with regard to 'boots it is not fit for use by a soldier to drive at spade into the ground. Of what use would that 'boot 'be to our boys in the trenches?
Q. You provide more room in the boot?-A. For the toes, and for the ball of the foot too, oh, yes, that is in No. 86.
Q. Do you regard 86 as the boot which approaches nearest to your ideal?-A Yes.
Q. You regard it as the boot that will be fit for active service when you have finished your work on it?-A. Yes.	'
Q. Whereas you do not so regard No. 12?
[DOT]-A. Not for active service, not for winter weather such as they have had. Of course for ordinary wear that boot was all right, for our home service.
Q. For the permanent force?-A. Yes.
There you have a description of the boot as given by my hon. friend's own expert, upon whose authority he is basing his case in this matter. This boot which they gave to the soldiers is, as we say in our report, good enough for the permanent force but not for active service.


Major General HUGHES:: Yes, but not
in winter weather.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not fit for active
service.


Major General HUGHES:: In winter
weather.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I could take my hon. friend over other portions of Mr. Wickett's evidence in which he speaks of the department's boot as a " summer boot." That is the kind of boot the hon. minister gave our soldiers for active service a "summer boot."
Then, take the evidence of Mr. Silver, who is one of my hon. friend's own inspectors. He was a man of long experience, and about the only good inspector my hon. friend had. One particular thing in regard to this boot matter was the ridiculous nature of this inspection. Mr. Silver was the only man who knew anything about the business of inspecting. Pointing to the Canadian sample boot, he said:
Q. Yes. This is not a heavy marching boot. (Pointing to Canadian sample boot.)-A. No, that is only fit for barracks and general parade, [DOT]and it has been useful for that purpose for a number of years.
Q. But what about a boot of that type (pointing to Canadian sealed pattern).?-A It is not intended for active service.
Then, take the evidence of Mr. Valien-tine, from Waterloo, who was in the same position as Mr. Adams. He came along
and said:	I do not want to manufacture
the departmental boot; it is not a good boot for active service; I will submit a sample of my own. As regards the manufacturers what occurs? The manufacturers were all dissatisfied with those boots. They appointed a delegation to come here to Ottawa to represent to the Government that this was not a good service boot. And they did so, and they had an inquiry, as explained by my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy). I could go along this line and make full quotations; but let me briefly state that no manufacturer is on record as stating that this governmental boot was a good active service boot.
Further, what about these regimental board meetings all over the country? We mentioned in our report that there were seventy. Over seventy boards had met way back about the 1st of March. And they have been meeting all over the country since. One met in Ottawa on 1st of April. How were these Boards constituted? The colonel of a regiment designated three officers under his command to give their judgment upon the boots that were submitted to them and to make a report. That report was sent to the district ofi&cer commanding the division or district where the examination had been made, and was forwarded to Ottawa.
It has been suggested by some hon. gentlemen that these men, who at any moment might be transported from our Canadian soil into the fore front of the battle and who in a month from now might be losing their lives in France or Belgium, have been holding these regimental Boards for the purpose of getting new boots for their men, that they really did not mean anything and that the Boards had no significance. The hon. member for Ohambly and Vercheres (Mr. Rain-vi'lle) argued that and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy), with some elaboration, attempted to leave the impression that these officers, who weie working hard at the various regimental depots getting their men into shape, in holding these Boards were endeavouring to create a situation under which tney could get new boots whether their men were entitled to them or not. That is a discreditable statement to make against the officers of this expeditionary force.
That is the situation; you cannot wink that out of sight. Write all the reports you want on that question, juggle with words as you will, but from 75 to 100 Boards of officers in this country, between Calgary in the West and Halifax in the East, have been

considering this boot question since the middle of September last and every one of them has condemned the boots.
Who else has condemned them? General Lessard said they were not good for active service. The minister's own brother said that twenty-five per cent of the boots served to them at Kingston were not much better than moccasins in wet weather. Colonel Allan, of Toronto, who seemed to me and to all the other hon. gentlemen in the committee to be a man with all the, qualifications of an officer, said he would not care to lead any men into active service equipped with boots like that. And so on down the line. Here is Major McKenzie, from St. John, one of the leaders of the Bar in the province of Now Brunswick, to whom it was suggested, as I remember, by some hon. gentleman, when he was giving his evidence, that although he had held this Board under the direction of Colonel McAvity whose orders he had to obey, the Board was held for the sake of getting new boots for his men. Then we have the findings of the following officers:	Major McKenzie, St.
John; Colonel Seeley, Fredericton; Captain Taunton, Winnipeg; Captain Meredith, Ottawa; Colonel Haitink, Ottawa; Colonel Leonard, London; Major Inkstetter, Ottawa; Captain Howell, Montreal, and Major Andrews, Winnipeg. Out in Winnipeg they condemned 700 boots all at once; they said the whole outfit of boots they had were not fit to wear. I shall not trouble the House by reading in detail the report of the Board or the examination they made, but that was their declaration. I could go further through this list, but it is not necessary.
Then we come to what they did on the other side. Here is the unequivocal report of Colonel Howell of the first battalion at Salisbury; Colonel Labatt of the 41st battalion; Captain Warrington of the 14th, Major Fell of the first company of engineers and Major Lepsett of the second infantry brigade. All these men give their different statements in connection with the reports which they returned to headquarters and which were sent back here, to the effect that these boots are not a proper active service boot. When you add to that testimony the representations of General Alderson, unequivocal and positive, about which there can be no doubt, carrying out the findings made by the boards under him, together with the representations made by Sir George Perley to the Prime Minister, I think it is perfectly absurd for hon. gentlemen seriously to argue to this

or any other body in this country that this boot issued by the Militia Department was a proper active service boot. That being so I think we can fairly conclude that the first statement contained in the report of the minority to this House is an absolutely correct one:
That the boot supplied to the Canadian Permanent Force previous to the war, being similar to the boot sealed by the officials of 'the Militia Department on January 15, 1911, was a boot suitable only for men in barracks and in times of peace, and not for men on active service;
I submit that with the cloud of witnesses, professional and military, whom I have quoted to you, we have absolute proof of that statement in our report. Then we go on and make a specific statement to the effect that the sealed pattern boot in the department was too light for active service. What was done was this:	When the
contracts came to be called for what do you suppose they did in the Militia Department? Did they say to Ames, Holden & McCready, did they say to Gauthier, and these other people: "Here are specifications for a boot that you must follow exactly and closely, the circumstances demanding the utmost care " ? Not at all. They gave no specifications to anybody, they simply went to the piace in the department where Gauthier's boots were, which he delivered under the contract for the permanent force, they took out a boot and they put the seal of tne department on it and said to Ames-Holden & Company, go out and make 10,000 pairs like that. When that boot came before the committee we asked Mr. Tetreault, who, as the member for North Oxford points out, had the instruments there for measuring, to tell us the weight of the leather and to make all other comparisons that could be made between the two boots, and Mr. Tetreault reported and swore to the committee the difference between these two boots, being as stated in the second paragraph of our report. He swore to that positively and unequivocally. He swore too that it was on a sample entirely inferior to the sealed pattern of 1911 that Ames-Holden & McCready made their boots. There is no question about that. No hon. gentleman could in any way shake the truth of that statement; it is a finding as absolutely uncontrovertible in any way as any finding of the fact by a judge could be made upon evidence where there was nothing to the contrary. Do you think that was good business? Do you think that that

was proper care displayed in regard to providing footwear for soldiers? No specifications, a poorer boot than the one sealed by the department, poorer leather, lighter weight leather, lighter slugs and an inferior boot as shown in the report.
How were the boots turned into Valcar-tier? There was an inspector in the factories of Ames-Holden and Gauthier, but there was no inspection for 13,000 delivered at Aalcartier; and some of the inspectors who were at the factories in Montreal did not stay there all the time. The inspection of boots returned to headquarters at Ottawa was of no value, because all they could see was what was . on the outside. The place for inspection was in the factory, where they could see the leather that went into the boots, see how it was cut, see whether they put in the thin parts or only those parts of the hide that ought to go in. The inspection in that respect, as hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who have preceded me have pointed out, was deficient in every respect, deficient in regard to the extent of it, and deficient in regard to the competency of the inspector. Why, one of the inspectors was a young man who got a letter from a member of Parliament asking Mr. Burns in the Department to see whether he could give this young fellow any work. He had no special qualifications for an inspector, and was employed for a time sorting boots; and in a week or so he was transformed into an inspector, upon whose judgment rests the determination whether - or not the boots are good enough to go to the front. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the proper way to deal with a matter of this kind.
Further, what were the boots out of which these sample boots were taken? These sample boots were taken from the boots supplied by Gauthier, under a contract they had made the previous spring through Slater. Gauthier was getting $3.72 a pair for these boots, but it was sworn to before the Committee that they were made at $3.02. The result was that the country was getting a boot which cost only $3.02 to make, instead of a boot that cost $3.50 or $3.60, allowing for a reasonable profit for the manufacturer; the balance went to Mr. Slater. It was out of these deficient boots, made under those conditions, that these samples, inferior to thie sealed sample, were selected and handed out to the contractor on which to contract. Is it any wonder that there were complaints when the boots began to
eome in? Is it any wonder that there was trouble in all parts of the country in regard to them? Is it any wonder that at the end of September every corps that was employed in Halifax on active service had a regimental board examining into these Gauthier's boots which had been part of the permanent contract for the year? It was sworn to by reputable men that soldiers were walking around with shingles and bags on their feet because their boots had absolutely worn out and they could not get any more. The Minister had that evidence before him; if not before him personally, it was in his department. On the first of October, without making any change whatever in the specifications except providing for a double sole, he still allowed these boots to be made by some manufacturers, according to the inferior samples, according to a sample which they had purchased, and which had not been carefully examined by any one before being sent out as a sample. Then we had a period in which, as we all know from one end of Canada to the other every man wiho was on active service, whether as a private, non-commissioned officer, or officer, raised the issue in regard to these boots being inefficient. And what did my hon. friend do? He did nothing until he appointed Lt.-Col. Halliek's Board of Inquiry, a purely departmental proposition. Lt.-Col. Hallick came back and told him on the 7th of January: Your boot is absolutely unsuitable for active service. Everybody had said that the boot was unsatisfactory and unsuitable for active service. That was the situation on the 7th of January. In the meantime representations were made from Salisbury Plain as to the boots being unsatisfactory, and the absurd suggestion was made of sending overshoes for the men to wear over their boots. But General Alderson was not going to fool with the question. He at once went off and bought English boots. My hon. friend the General says that if he had been here he would have stopped him from doing it. But General Alderson solved the problem:	he went off and bought
English boots.


Major General HUGHES:: Has the hon. gentleman any report as to the wearing of English boots by the soldiers?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is an adept at the art of steering the discussion into other channels. I venture to predict that when he speaks he will tell us about the English boot, the French boot, the

German boot, the Italian boot, the American boot, every boot in the world except this bad Canadian boot.


Major General HUGHES:: Is the Canadian soldier wearing the English boot- today? No, he is not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The only report I have in regard to the English boot is the statement of General Alderson that he had put English boots on the Canadian soldiers, in place of my hon. friend's bad boots.


Major General HUGHES:: Did they keep them on?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not know. As I have said to my hon. friend, I am speaking entirely from the evidence that is before us, and I am not going outside of it. I do not (know what reports my hon. friend may have.
Mr. ME.IGHEN: What about the quotation from the Toronto World?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend regard that as being a very serious departure?


Arthur Meighen: Nothing that the hon. gentleman has said is very serious.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is very clever, my hon. friend is excelling himself. I am reminded by my hon. friend from Kussell (Mr. Murphy) that I directed Col. Brown's attention to the statement that was in the Toronto papers, so my reference to it was entirely relevant, so far as keeping to the evidence is concerned. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia will discuss in the most delightful way, with all that eloquence and in that jaunty way which so thoroughly characterizes him, the merits and defects of every other boot in the world, but you will not get him down to the kind of boot he supplied the Canadian boys who went out to fight. He will not come up to the breastworks and discuss that question. For once in his life he will run away. The situation, then, was this: General Alderson was protesting, Sir George Perley was cabling, and the regimental boards were sending in their complaints; but my hon. friend the minister kept right along handing out to every battalion that was mobilized in Canada these boots that were manufactured according to the defective sample of the department. When we asked the minister in the committee why he was doing this, he said: W'e are not going to let this Canadian money that we have put into these boots be thrown away;

let these fellows take the boots. I venture to suggest that the Canadian people would stand behind him in giving our soldiers the best possible boot at the earliest possible moment, without regard to the question of money. But the minister thought it better to use the bad boots.


Major General HUGHES:: My hon. friend is wrong in stating that I thought it better to use the bad boots. I thought it was better that they should use these good boots.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Good boots, with the exception of the heels and the toes and the vamps-three very important exceptions. My hon. friend was going to give these boots to the soldiers in spite of all the defects which he admits the existence of. He insisted upon putting these boots on the Canadian soldier with all their defects.


Major General HUGHES:: These are not defects. Possibly there might be improvements.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not know how my hon. friend reasons.


Major General HUGHES:: Anything above the average standard I would consider an improvement, not a defect.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend thinks they are so good, but yet he wants to improve them. We had one very loquacious witness before the committee, who said that he called a certain kind of boot the Excelsior. I do not know whether the minister regards this boot as of the Excelsior type. I do not think he put it on that high pedestal. The fact remains that he still went on giving out these boots, although every one was complaining. The question is whether or not the minister should not have acted sooner. He had ample notice in September, but he never did anything until he appointed Lt.Col. Halliek's board. Why did he not send for Mr. Wickett?
Mr. Wickett swore that if he had been there last summer he could have prescribed a boot which oould have been used long before this. My hon. friend did nothing until the 10th February, when he sent a memorandum to Council. The accumulated evidence is absolutely indisputable that tne boot in the department that Mr. Wickett calls a summer boot, a boot for the use of the permanent force in Canada, was not a boot for active service, that it was totally unfit for active service and that being so, the Government were to blame in that they supplied a boot which was inferior even to

the boot, according to the evidence of Mr. Tetreault, which they might have supplied. Since September last they have never made a move to get a proper boot. At this moment there are requisitions for 20,000 pairs of boots from all over Canada, and they have not a boot in store to give them. In addition to imposing a boot upon the men which is not a proper boot, they have fooled with this question until at this moment, if there was a sudden demand for our men to leave our shores on account of some contingency on the other side, my hon. friend has no boots to give them and has no definite specification or design or field pattern yet in the department upon which to have them constructed. Of these facts there can be no question whatever.
A great deal has been said in regard to the question of the responsibility of the manufacturers. My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) takes a very generous view in regard to the manufacturers. The situation is that a certain number of manufacturers came before us and made out a prima facie case in support of the view that they had made the boots according to sample. But mark you, the investigation upon that point did not go to the length to which it ought to have gone if we were to determine the matter beyond any question or if we were to be enabled to arrive at a proper judgment upon it. We had no experts who had made any close examination with the exception of Messrs. Hoar and Cote, whose examination was confined purely to the boots that were rejected. It must be remembered that quite a number of manufacturers who were notified to come did not come at all. Consequently we have no evidence showing, in regard to the products of the different manufacturers what number of boots were defective as compared with the sample or jtheir own samples. That is the situation in regard to the matter.
We know that these boots were unquestionably of no value whatever on active service, and that they were condemned by these regimental boards. The Government are responsible for these boots primarily irrespective of whether the manufacturers make good the defects in construction or not. My hon. friend the Major General assumes responsibility for these matters when he says that he looked into this question and it is well that we should note what he says upon that point. My hon. friend heard at St. John, at Quebec, at Kingston, and also while he was out 154
West, that these boots were not satisfactory but in speaking about the question as to who was responsible for the issue of these boots he made the following statement at page 1022 of the evidence.
By Mr. Nesbitt:
Q. Do you think the men should have been served with a lighter boot, and with that boot rather than a heavier boot?-A. Those were boots that were in stock. There was a hurry; the British and French were retreating from Mons to the Marne. Those were the boots that had given satisfaction; our regular soldiers had reported favourably on them for years and years; it was on this basis that my predecessor, Sir Frederick Borden, had booted the soldiers. I had consulted officers, and after seeing the unanimity in regard to the boot, with the exception that I thought the boot should be wider at the toe, I suggested that we should use that, but the soldiers said they had no trouble with corns on their feet on account of their being narrow, the only thing was if they had a larger size and nice soft leather they should continue the boot on the recommendation of the officers of the department and no change was made, and so far as the wear of the boots is concerned, excepting the heavy marching around the frozen grounds of Canada, and putting their feet up on stoves to dry them, as soldiers do, and walking around knee deep in mud at Salisbury Plain, X never had any difficulty.
That is a summary of the minister's position, that is the evidence that I have submitted and it cannot be questioned. It shows that the position of the minister is absolutely indefensible. My hon. friend knows that it is not an active service boot. My hon. friend knows that it was not an active service boot. My hon. friend knows that these boots ought to have been changed long ago. From the 1st October last my hon. friend and the Government have been guilty of gross negligence in permitting this boot to be used by a single soldier whether in Canada or abroad.
I would like to note the situation in regard of my hon. friends in a very few words. It will be noticed that my hon. friends divide thei rreport into certain branches, according to the subject matter, dealing first with the Hallick board of inquiry. My hon. friends say that the board was of no consequence. It was constituted, I assume, under military regulations. It was ineffective in so far as any results were concerned and in so far as the failure to swear the witnesses that appeared before them was concerned. Personally the weight I attached to it was the opinion of Col. Hallick and his associates on the point as to whether this boot was a boot suitable for active service; so far and no farther, and I think that is the view of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.



'hat is the only importance we attach to hat report; but these gentlemen having worn what their opinion was as to the fficiency of the boot, that sworn testimony ad to be taken into consideration. As egards the sample boot my hon. friends pposite do not discuss the 'difference be-ween the field pattern and the sample, hey do not mention the fact that the de-artment failed to give a specification to re contractors when they awarded the antract. My hon. friends discussed the alue of this boot as a military boot from nly one standpoint. They produced and uote evidence as to the conditions of alisbury Plain and they show that they ere very wet. They argue that because mditions at Salisbury Plain were very id and that no boots euld stand them, lerefore they say the reports in regard i the Canadian boots are not so bad be-luse no boot could stand the conditions tere. Relying entirely on the Salisbury lain test they say that you could not ,y a word against the Canadian boot, aey absolutely fail to take into consider-ion the uniform character of the re->rts in Canada in regard to these boots >m all quarters and the evidence of Mr. oar and Mr. Wickett and of those manu-cturers whom I have already quoted.
Then my hon. friends take the position regard to the very crux of the whole testion, not that this boot, which was a mple boot in the department, was a od boot for active service or for all purses, but that with some improvements e sample might be made a very good ot. That is the very best my hon. friends n say-that with some improvements the mple boot might be made a very good ot. That is not the kind of boot that e Canadian people want their soldiers wear, a boot that with some improve-nts which are going to be made in the n and misty future but which have never en undertaken up to this moment might a good boot. That, I say, is not the id of boot that the Canadian people want give their boys to wear when they away to fight. They want to give them 3 best boot they can get and they want to provide for it.
dy hon. friends say that the failure to spect these boots was due to the rush, aat was to prevent the Department of titia and Defence from going into every itre of the country where boots were ng manufactured and employing attendee upon the factory in order to see that s boots were properly made?
Mr. Macdonald.]
There was gross neglect in not supplying inspectors in every portion of the country, for had we had such inspection we could know where these manufacturers all are in regard to this matter.
We are told by honourable gentlemen opposite about the exceptional weather conditions on Salisbury Plain, and that in fairly dry weather the boots gave fair satisfaction. But last week we had before us two sturdy young Canadians, officers in the field battery which mobilized in Ottawa* on the 1st of March, and these two fine young men told us with an earnestness that was most convincing that right here on Cartier Square in the city of Ottawa, in this beautiful springtime, nine of these boots they produced as sample, boots with a double sole, had gone to pieces in three weeks, under ordinary usage. There was a fair weather test of these boots which ought to settle that question if ever there was a question about it.
I submit, Sir, that every one of the allegations in the report made by the minority of the committee is supported by the evidence. Those of the committee who sit on this side of the House went through every line of that thousand pages of evidence with the greatest possible care, and I pledge my word as a professional man, with whatever legal knowledge I have, that hon. gentlemen opposite wall search the evidence from one end to the other without being able to say that the findings we have placed there consecutively are not borne out by the evidence. And that being so, if the result of this inquiry shows conclusively that the men who compose the Overseas Expeditionary Force not only those who have gone abroad but those who are preparing to go have been fitted out with a boot which is not an active service boot in any respect whatever, and which fails to give that comfort and ease which every soldier has a right to look to, then the blame should be placed on the proper shoulders, and the proper shoulders for that blame to lie on are the shoulders of the men who are responsible for seeing that a proper boot was given to our Canadian soldiers. I assert, Mr. Speaker, that the report of the minority of that committee cannot be controverted; that it is absolutely supported by the evidence given, and that the longer the question is studied the more will it be endorsed by the people of Canada.


Sir JAMES AIKINS (Brandon):: The
hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy)

pening his address stated that he was pinion that one of the most important gs a soldier should have is a good , and that in that opinion the Duke Wellington had concurred. I shall not tion such authority.
[DOT] [DOT] MURPHY:	I am glad the hon.
leman agrees in that view, but I did put the names quite in the order he mentioned.
' JAMES AIKINS:	The hon. member
hctou (Mr. Macdonald) made the same rvation, and it caused me to wonder long these hon. gentlemen, and those whom they are politically associated, entertained that opinion, because for Y years we have been equipping our *ia force with proper clothing, and er arms and equipment, but, on the ority of the hon. member for Pictou, question of service boots for the sol-was never considered when the Gov-lent which he supported was in power, lave had a permanent force varying in gth for many years, and notwithstand-hat these gentlemen opposite think the : the most important part of the sol' equipment, never have they consid-the propriety of selecting a military They tell us that the specifications 00, 1905 and 1911 were never intended n active service boot; then what did .iberal Government intend the boot for? it for a dancing pump, as suggested by ion. member for Pictou, or a larrigan out hunting in, or a brogan in which imp the mountains? If the specifica-for boots prepared by the Liberal rnment were not intended for a sol-1 boot, for use under all circumstances, was the purpose? It would do more t to the sanity of the late Liberal Gov-ent, it would be a greater compliment le common sense of hon. gentlemen it opposite if they admitted at once that specifications had been prepared and sample boot was made and adopted :e purpose of a Canadian military boot, they waiting to design a miltary boot the war crisis was upon them? Were waiting for an emergency, as usual? The ience of many countries has taught it takes not months but many years >duee a suitable military boot, and yet gentlemen opposite now claim that they were in power they never under-o deal with the question. Is that con-ile? They are responsible for the ication and sealed pattern boot upon Hi
which those supplied to the troops were made.
When the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) broke upon the committee one morning with fulminating impetuosity such as you have seen him display just now, he made the statement that the function of the committee was inquisitorial as well as judicial. He regards and properly regards, the duty of an Opposition is to watch and to criticise the action of the. Administration; but the policy of an Opposition should not be solely a destructive policy. It should be constructive as well, and under present circumstances it is the duty of an Opposition to assist an Administration to arrive at the best conclusion as to what boots should be provided; if they think the one in use is faulty. That the Opposition in this House has not done. We who are supporting this Administration feel it as much our duty also to watch the Administration, to see that it is efficient, to see that no fraudulent schemes involve it, and to see that it stands before the people of Canada as deserving of their support.
This is no time for people to make money out of the miseries and wretchedness of war. Any man, who for the purposes of improper gain stands on one side of the public ^ chest and, unwatched will put his hand in for some money to put into his pocket when there are tens of thousands of ' our good loyal citizens, rich and poor, young and old, constantly trying, out of their savings and their sacrifices to put something into that public treasury or to assist in carrying on the war, is a man who is not only an unworthy citizen, but absolutely disloyal and merits not only the condemnation but the swift punishment to which he is properly entitled. This is no time for palliation; the old principle should prevail:
On those who fall, severity; but towards those, goodness, if they continue in that goodness ; otherwise let them be cut off.
It was in that spirit that the members of the committee from this side of the House joined the members of the committee from the other side of the House in making a thorough investigation. Those inquisitorial functions have, I believe, been properly performed; but the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) also stated that the functions of the committee were judicial. Whether the members of this side of the House in preparing the majority report acted judicially or not will be deter-

mined by a reading of that report. Whether the members from the Opposition were judicial in their report must also be determined by the report itself. It is not judicial to be partisan or prejudiced, it is not judicial to make findings of facts inconsistent with the evidence. If prejudice and partisanship and improper findings are judicial, then the minority report is highly judicial.
This statement is made in the minority report, that it was in 1905 that boots of a similar pattern to the 1914 boot were first adopted by the department for use in time of peace by the permanent force of Canada. This is contradicted in the evidence of Mr. McCann, at page 1029, as follows:
Q. When was there a definite written specification? Was there one prior to 1900?-A. I think there was but it was a very crude affair.
Q. Could you find that specification for us?- A. It is down in the department, I think.
Q. I may be wrong, but I understood in looking over the files, that 1900 was the first time a specification was really prepared in the department?-A. really practical specification.
Then sample boot marked exhibit 77 was produced, and the question was asked:
This is the sample boot that gave difficulty in 1899?
Mark the date.
A. Well, it led to this specification.
That is an entirely different specification.
By Mr. Macdonald.
Q. Have you got a pattern of that 1900 South African boot? Have you not got a sample toot?-A. I do not think there is one in existence.
Q. In 1900 there was a specification laid down for the South African war, but you have not got the 1900 boot.-A. I don't think so.
Q. Was there not one in the department?- A. There was at the time.
So that in 1900 there was a sample boot produced entirely different from the boot made in 1899. The evidence of General Macdonald at page 211 is as follows:
Q. You had a sample boot in your department from which you had boots manufactured?
__A. Yes. After I became Quartermaster
General I found that sample boot in the department.
Q. Then in 1904 when you became Quartermaster General, you found in the department a sample boot?-A. Yes.
Q. Which had been used for how many years? -A. Well, perhaps for three years.
Q. Then your recollection is that from 1904 down to the present time the boot that was issued by department gave general satisfaction? -A. General satisfaction.
Q. You say it looks like the boot?-A. It looks like the boot, yes.
Q. What experience did the department have with this boot?-A. Well, the boot, of course, up to the commencement of the war vras worn

only by the permanent force. Or, do you mean what sort of wear?
Q. Yes. What satisfaction did the boot give to the permanent force?-A. Well, the permanent force have their training at Petawawa, perhaps for two or three months every summer, and their boots are subjected to the ordinary wear and team of drilling, marching out and so on. That is as far as I can speak.
Then Lt. Col. Macdonald, when he was being examined, said:
Q. You served in the South African war, did you?-A. Yes.
Q. And the boot that was used at that time was what they called a Slater boot?-A. Yes.- well we in the Strathcona Horse used a boot that gave good wear.
By Mr. Macdonald:	t
Q. They were purchased by Lord Strathcona? -A. Yes, but it was a Slater boot, and I believe that the departmental boot was also a Slater boot, as far as I can recall now.
Q. And they were similar to that model boot? -A. As far as I know.
Q. And they gave good service?-A. There were no complaints about them.
Q. How long have you been connected with the Militia Department?-A. Since 1903.
Q. And this is the boot that has been used ever since that time?-A. Yes.
Q. Have you made no change?-A. No.
You will see from this evidence that there was a specification for a military boot prior to 1905, and that the sample of it was in the department. So that the statement made in this minority report is inaccurate, that it was in 1905 that the boots of similar pattern to the pattern of 1914 were first adopted. My hon. friends took that position because they want to get away from' the fact that that boot, Exhibit 5, their pattern boot, or a boot similar to it, was used in the South African war, and that it gave general satisfaction there as an active service boot, and thus justified the present Canadian army boot, Mr. H. W. Brown, director of contracts, says in respect of this, at page 110.
Q. I want to go back again now, for a moment, to clean up this specification question? As I understand it the pattern you have was adopted in 1903 and 1904 and it remained substantially the same until 1910 or 1911?- A. Yes.
Q. This is the sealed pattern. . . . which is marked Exhibit 5? Now this is the sealed sample that was adopted in 1911. Is that the sample of boot that has been followed from that time to the present time?-A. Yes, with this exception. This feature here (indicating) was cut out. That is the slashing or ratting on the sole, which was cut out almost immediately after.
Q. That is Exhibit 5?-A. Yes, Mr. Slater sent us that specification.
Q. Which of the Slaters?-A. Charles E. Slater of the Slater Shoe Co.
The man who made the big commission, it is said, out of the Gauthier boot.

They were the departmental contractors and sent us up a specification to supply this. His people made it. That specification provided for the supply of dressing.
To make their point and reflect on this Government it then became necessary to displace the fact that they are responsible for the sample boot on which the boots for the present war were manufactured. How do they seek to do this? It is veTy ingenious. I had better read exactly what they say in the minority report:
That the boots given to the contractors in August last by the Department of Militia and Defence, as sample boots, in accordance with which they were to manufacture the boots under their contracts, were inferior to the sealed department boot in the following respects.
If they can prove that they were inferior, then to that extent they relieve themselves of the responsibility for the class of boot made for our soldiers. Let us see in what way they say they were inferior. Remember, that the statement was made that all the samples given to the manufacturers, or used by the manufacturers and approved by the Government, in the making of the soldiers boots and therefore all the boots manufactured were inferior to that (Exhibit 5) sealed pattern adopted by the late Government. They say that a comparison was made by Mr. Tetreault between Exhibit 5, the sealed pattern, and Exhibit 12, the sample boot given to one manufacturer. I quote from Mr. Tetreault's evidence.	,
Q. Would you look at these two boots (Exhibit 12 and Exhibit 5) and tell us the difference between them? The one is the sealed sample and' the other is the sealed pattern?-A. This one, Exhibit 5 is much firmer and heavier leather than the other, Exhibit 12 ; that is, the upper leather.
Q. What is the difference between the weight of the two?-A. No. 5 is two and four-tenths.
Q. That is the sealed pattern-A. Yes, in the upper; and the other Exhibit 12, is one point six.
This upper leather or quarter is the part of the boot that goes around the ankle. I would suggest that any hon. member who is wearing ankle boots should look at his boots and see whether this upper, or quarter or back, as it is called, is as heavy as the other portions of the leather in the boot, and also to consider if he would like to have heavy leather around the ankle which might prevent the free movement of the ankle. Does the fact that it is finer leather render it inferior to the other? Let us see what is stated by Colonel Brown at page 182. Lighter leather is approved:
Q. Did I understand rightly from the evidence that for the smaller size of hoots light
stock was used? that is, lighter leather?-A. Only in the quarters, that is according to the specification.
Q. In these smaller size hoots, lighter leather .was used?-A. Principally in the smaller sizes,
I think especially in the smaller sizes.
Now, Exhibit 12, it happened, was about the smallest boot produced-it was a six and a half. If we look at the specification, dealing with " facing," we find that special provision is made that the quarter or upper may he thinner:
None except where stock is light in weight (usually in the small sizes) and necessitates a facing to hold eyelets properly.
In other words, you could get the quarter so light that it would not hold an eyelet, and a facing is put on to protect the boot and hold the eyelet. Therefore, the statement they make that the sample boot, Exhibit 12, was inferior to the sealed sample, Exhibit 5, by reason of the upper being a little lighter is contradicted by the specification. It is not inferior. Then, Mr. Tetreault speaks of the*vamps:
Q. What about the vamps?-A. Just about the same proportion. It might he a little less difference than in the upper. This vamp I consider has less difference in the weight than there is in the upper.
That is the umcon-tradicted evidence, and the only evidence. Yet, what is the finding in the report of the minority concerning it, based on this evidence?
In vamps there was the same proportinate difference between the two as to weight and thickness.
A statement at variance with the evidence and false. And we are asked to endorse that untruth and to accept that finding.
The minority report says that " in the sample zino slugs were used and in the pattern steel slugs were used." That is clearly contradicted by Mr. Stephens, one who sat on that Court of Inquiry presided over by Colonel Hallick:
Q. Would you look at this hoot (Exhibit 5) which is apparently a sealed sample and tell me if that was one of the hoots you saw?- A. It was a similar boot we saw; I cannot say if it was the actual boot.
Q. Is that boot constructed with steel slugs?
*-A. No, sir.
Q. What slugs are they?-A. Well, I am not an expert on slugs hut they are not steel, I know.
The matter of slugs is comparatively immaterial. The sole is one of the most material parts of the boot. Mr. Tetreault had said referring to the sole:
Q. What about the sole?-A. This sole. Exhibit 12, is about 9I measured it a while ago. This sole (referring to Exhibit 5) is *

full 10. This (referring to Exhibit 12) is not a full 10; it is near enough.
Mr. Hoar, the inspector (page 1221), who cut open the boot (Exhibit 12), proved conclusively that the outer sole of exhibit 12 was 11 gauge, and the slip was 7 gauge, whereas only 6 gauge was required by the specification.
Again, Tetreault says:
A- In Exhibit 12 it is a larger thread than m Exhibit 5. If each one had a larger thread it would be better.
So we find the sample Exhibit 12, given tt least to one manufacturer, has a better sole han sample No. 5, better sewing, a vamp that is just as good as in No. 5, 'an upper that is according to specifications; and yet in their report which they have sent out to the world, they say that exhibit 12 was inferior to exhibit No. 5. Statements not supported by the evidence.
But there is something else to which I wo!uld call your attention which is equally amazing and that is, as I have pointed out, that they say that these inferior samples were the samples upon which the contractors manufactured boots supplied to the Government, because sample exhibit 12 was followed. Bear in mind this, that there were exhibits No. 55 and No. 57, samples given to manufacturers which were not compared at all with sample No. 5, and were not inferior to it. I quote from the evidence of Mr. C. S. Sutherland, of the Amherst Boot and Shoe Company:
Q. How did you manufacture, by sample?- A. By sample and specification.
Q. By both?-A. Yes.
And their statement was that none of these were manufactured according to specifications.	"
Q. Who prepared your sample?-A. It is a Gauthier boot, I have the sample here.
Q. Oh yes, you have the ortginal sample (sample boot produced by witness) this is the same sample that was given your company to manufacture from?-A. Yes.
Mr. Pringle:	We will mark this as Exhibit

Which was never compared with exhibit 5. The Amherst Boot and Shoe Company manufactured according to sample 55, and yet a statement goes out in the minority report that this sample on which this manufacturer made his boot was inferior to sample No. 5.
The same as to Tetreault, one of the largest manufacturers, who did not manufacture according to sample 12, but according to exhibit 57.
Q. How were the boots to be made?-A. Made the same as the sealed pattern here.

Q. Is that the sealed pattern?-A. That one that was left with me; yes, I had tw them.
Now we have another sealed pattern w. will be exhibit No. 57.
This was exhibit No. 57.
Q. Then your contract was to manufact a boot similar to Exhibit 57?-A. Yes.
Q. In that sample, as I understand it, vamps and uppers are of winter calf?-A ' winter calf.
Q. And the sole is of what?-A. Oak.
Q. Were the boots manufactured by you accordance with the sample?-A. Exactly,
Tetrault is another manufacturer y manufactured according to another sam and not according to exhibit No. 12. 1 minority report says that his boots w manufactured on an inferior samj which is not substantiated. None of 1 manufacturers manufactured according sample 12 except one, the Ames Hold Company, and yet the statement of t minority goes out to the world that all t boots that were manufactured, some 18 000 pairs, according to what they allege an inferior sample, exhibit 12; where the fact is that the Ames-Holden compar who had exhibit 12, manufactured or something like 30,500, and according to specification made by that firm fully up the specification of the department. I a the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsle and all others if they append their si nature to that minority report and decla to the people that it should be support' and carried in this Parliament when sui untrue, misleading statements are mai in connection with it.
The minority report seeks to hold tl Government responsible in negligence, firs because the sample on which the boots we manufactured was inferior to the seah pattern adopted by the Administratio this was not true as shown, ah because there was not a proper inspe tion. The inspectors were men who we; well qualified. Prenter, who examined tt boots of the Ames, Holden Company alor with Robert Wilson, was in the departmei for six years. He was especially instructe to inspect by Colonel Brown, who cut ope the boots and explained the whole mam facture and construction of the boots 1 him on several occasions. Robert Wilso had six or seven years experience as a boc manufacturer, and understood the mafcin of the boots. Mr. A. E. Baldwin had eigh years' experience working in leather fat tories, and he inspected at Tetreault's wit Silver, and he says all the boots were equa to*the samples, and steel slugs were used ii

the Tetreault factory. Silver, about whose experience there is no dispute, was inspector with Baldwin. Jacques was a shoemaker with a large business, and he had been such for over 38 years. He examined at Gauthier's and said that the Gauthier boot was made with steel slugs and that Exhibit 12 was a good military boot.
It is complained that there was no inspection of boots at Valcartier. Well, why? Because the evidence says the exigencies were such that they could not possibly inspect them. No sooner did the boots arrive in the cars than they were put into the warehouse and from the other side of the warehouse *delivered to men clamouring for boots, some of whom were said to be almost barefooted, others with practically no boots. Was there any failure by reason of that? I am not a special friend of the manufacturers. They are a strongly protected class and able to look out for themselves. Yet shall we say that because the manufacturers are a protected class, and have made money, that they are not as loyal, not as patriotic as other citizens of our country? Can we suppose for one moment that they would commit a fraud upon the country by depriving the soldiers of the opportunity of having a good boot? The evidence is exactly the contrary. Such were the firms as the John McPherson Company, of which Mr. Duffield is manager, the Ames, Holden 'Company, the Tetreault Company, and many others who showed that they made a better boot for the Government "than the sealed sample. They could not afford to do other than what was right. Assuming that they thought some of their boots might escape inspection, could they imagine that those boots which were sent to Valcartier where the soldiers were would escape that inspection? Would they run the risk of that? The thing, on its face, is absurd. The evidence showed that the inspection was good, more thorough than the ordinary inspection, because the inspectors whom I have mentioned were placed in the factories to see the boot as it was being manufactured, that the leather was good, that the construction was good, and that the boot turned out was according to the sample.
But there is another thing which was very important, and that is the third charge of negligence that is *made against the Government that the boot supplied to the Canadian Permanent Force previous to the war, and to the troops since, being a boot similar
to the boot sealed by the officials in th Militia Department in January, 1911, wa suitable only for men in barracks and ii times of peace, and not for active service Does the minority Teport or do the mei who made that report say in what respec they were not suitable for active service They base their statement that the boot were not suitable for active service upoi the evidence said to have been given b; certain witnesses, Mr. Tetreault amons others, but only partially quoted. Le us see what Mr. Tetreault says (page 780)
A. I got 1,800 lasts of the celebrated 1.35. never used them. I told Colonel Brown that was not going to risk making shoes with tha last which would not fit anybody. It was th "E" last.
You will notice that Mr. Tetreault say that it was the " E " last that was un suitable. He goes on:
We got the model and made shoes, and foun the "F" last more suitable, as the "E" last di not have the measurement.
Then, on page 781:
Q. You have mentioned something about "F lasts. I notice that in the specifications whic are printed on page 16 of Appendix 1, there is reference made to widths "E" and "F". Doe that refer to the last?-A. That is the last "E" and "F". The "E'' last we got made wa never used.
Q. Then "F" would be ail right?-A. Yes, i was a pointed toe last though, a little to pointed for active service.
So Mr. Tetreault found it unsuitable, be cause the "E" last wast too narrow; bn the Government specifications provided fo an " F " last. He said that the boot wa unsuitable only because the toe was to narrow. I turn to the evidence given b Mr. Adams, to whom the last speaker ha referred:
Exhibit 57-A seal sample boot-Gauthier mail -Tan winter calf and oak sole.
Q. In the second order of boots that yo made, did you make them after your ow sample?-A. No, they were made after tti same sample with the exception that instea of a single sole and slit they were made doub] sole.
Q. That is the department in October decide to have a double sole on all of them?-A.
believe so.
Q. And in consequence you were instructe to put a double sole on yours; in other r< spects, however, the boot was made in accorc ance with your own sample and not in accort ance with the sample?-A. Exactly the sam
Q. I know that, but why did you subm them?-A. Because I considered the double so was a necessity for the soldiers.
Q. That is you did not think the boot tl department had was suitable for the soldiers -A. Exactly.
Q. You have seen boots of the style of Exh bit 12, that has been so much talked aboi here?-A. Yes.

Q. You did not consider they were suitable for active service, and you submitted the boot that you thought would be suitable; is that it? -A. That is it.
Q. In what respect?-A. Well No. 12 is a slipsole, and I do not think it is a good quality of boot?
This was changed by the department, and Mr. Adams manufactured a boot containing a double sole, and which he declared to be good for active service.
Then, the minority report makes a statement about Mr. Silver:
That Mr, William Silver, one of the inspectors employed by the department stated that the boot was not intended for active service, and that, " we all acknowledge the boots were too light for the use they were put to; "
But they did not state something else that Mr. Silver said, which is found on page 303:
Q. Do you mean the boots they are wearing on Salisbury Plain? A. No, at Valcar-tier. Had they put on those heavy British boots, or boots as heavy, as those, they would have been cripples instead of soldiers.
Q. Well, they do not seem to have had many of these cripples you speak of among the English soldiers? A. Well, they are used to that kind of boot. Those men have always been wearing those heavy boots. Englishmen have always had heavy boots; otir Canadian men don't have them.
Q. Your theory is that if we have them heavy marching boots, such as the British service demands, they would find them.-A. Too hard.
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT] These boots (pointing to the Canadian boots) have answered their purpose. We have got the men broken in. When they go over to the Old Country and get into active service they are ready for the heavier boot. But to have put that heavy boot on them when they went down to Valcartier camp, as I told you, there would have been more cripples than sol. diers. . . These boots have been in service since 1904, I am told, and they have been very satisfactory for the purpose which they weru used for.
Q. Would you consider the Canadian boot too heavy or too light for civilians?-A. I would consider that a very heavy boot for a civilian, yes.	.
It is not necessary to go any further in that line. You will find that the statements made in the minority report are picked out from detached pieces of the evidence, which, when you read them in connection with other , parts, give a very different meaning. The minority also support their contention that it is not a suitable military boot, not only on the partly stated evidence of the witnesses I have mentioned but also on the report of. the board presided, over by Lieutenant-Colonel Hallick, which report was specially referred to the committee. I should like to point out what was said by the hon. member for 
Pictou in respect of that report by the Hallick board (page 36);
When I saw in the newspapers the evidence sworn to at the committee yesterday, that the witnesses examined at that investigation had never been sworn, one could only conclude that the whole thing was a farce. I do not know why we should be appointed a special committee of Parliament to investigate the report of an inquiry where the parties who were carrying it through did not think it serious enough to swear the witnesses they called. The mere ipse dixit and statements of people who appeared before this investigating board without pledging their oath, is, from a public standpoint, of no value whatever.
And further on he says:
We have to make our report to the House in regard to that report/ because it was specially referred to us by the House. What Sir James Aikins says in regard to it is quite correct, the whole of the investigation and the report seemed to go on the assumption that boots were delivered in accordance with some specification, when it is quite clear that there
were no specifications	Ir. sc far as their
.report was a finding or a determination in regard to the question, my own personal opinion is that it was of no value.
' I should like to know why he made the statement that their report was of no value.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend want me to answer that question?


James Albert Manning Aikins: I can imagine the answer myself. Undoubtedly because he thought the very worst of that board's findings was more favourable to the Government than he imagined the best evidence given before the committee would be. Now that the evidence discloses a more favourable condition, he is greatly disappointed, and so in turn relies on the report. See what he says in respect to that report:
The opinion of the board may be summarized in so far as the character of the boot pret-scribed and supplied by the department, is concerned,-
Then he proceeds to give what he says is a summary, but he takes only part of it and omits the material balance, viz.:
The boots manufactured for the Canadian overseas division were generally speaking well made and of good quality-
Why does he omit that?
Surprisingly so, considering the very insufficient time given the contractors.
Why omit that in the summary? Because it does not suit his purpose. Yet he purports to send out to the Canadian people that misleading summary in his minority report. The Hallick report, from which he purports to give a summary, goes on to say that

Owing to the same extreme urgency, it appears that there was not enough time in which to consider how specifications for a hoot differing with that which though suitable for a dry climate has been found to be unsuitable in the abnormal conditions in England. Consequently the board recommends the adoption of a heavier, stronger type of boot, similar to that used by the British Army.
What he gives as a summary is an unfair statement of the Hallick report. I have stated that the minority report did not mention in what respect the boot was unsuitable. I perhaps in that made a mistake. It does mention the point on which the boot was unsuitable by adopting the findings of the board, which says:
The hoot was unsuitable for the soldiers and for the particular work for which they were provided because,-
(a) The shape is such that the average foot has not room for the free movement of the toes and is thus not suitable for marching.
The difficulty is in the shape, and yet when the inquiry was made of all these soldiers and persons who testified, only two persons^ I think, said that there was any objection by reason of the particular shape of the boot. Yet the minority find that the boot is unsuitable because it is too narrow at the toe. Another point of unsuitability is stated:
Soles and heels not being reinforced with metal, soon wear down especially when wet.
Who disputes that fact? All that metal in the heels and soles does to the boot is to '*ontinue its wearing qualities. That does not add to the comfort of the boot, nor the flexibility of the sole nor the value of the leather that is put into it, only the length of its wearing. So they say that it is not suitable for active service because the toes are too narrow and they have not enough iron on the heels and soles. Therefore they condemn the Government -because they have not issued a suitable boot, even though the boot was the same as the one adopted by the late Government. I say that they might well have joined in the report of the majority because the majority report points out these things as improvements. Let me read it to you from page 585 of the Votes -and Proceedings:
Tour committee conclude from the evidence given before it that for active service the sample boot would be improved by a second through sole instead of a slip-sole, (this change was made before the second orders for the Canadian boots were given and they were made accordingly) ; that it would be improved by putting more screws or nails in or quilting the outer sole so as to protect it from wear, and by making it wider at the toe (the large percentage of the boots supplied to the department since
the beginning of the war were on a last wider at the toe) ; and by protecting the heel by nails or other iron material.
Is there any reason why the gentlemen who are asking us to adopt this minority report should not have joined in the majority report? Both concur in the desirability of a wider toe and more protection by nails or screws in the heel.
The minority report further says that the boot is unsuitable because:
The leather is dry, containing no grease, consequently quickly absorbs the water.
Let me point out what has been said in respect to that. Mr. H. W. Brown, director of contracts, page 112, gives the following evidence:
Q. Now, then, dealing with the question of the leather containing no water-resisting medium or other dressing, was there ever any pretence that that clause in the specification in regard to leather dressing or dubbing should be carried out by the contractors?-A. No.
Q. Special water-proof dubbing, water-proof? A. That was put In by Slater, I think he had some idea that by putting it in the specification he would be able to induce the department to buy it from his firm. We never bought it from him.
So that all that dubbing refers to is what may be done on the boot after it is constructed. Mr. S. M. Collis, at page 965, says:
Q. Were you the originator of winter calf?
(That is the leather in the Government sample boots.)
-A. I was the first one who ever made it.
Q. You could show the difference between what is called winter calf and other calf?-A. Certainly.
Q. The winter calf and willow calf, as X understand, are exactly the same only one does not carry quite so much grease?-A. Willow calf is a skin that has been glazed or polished. That (pointing to exhibit) has not been polished ; it has been finished up as winter calf. The willow calf is a skin that has been glazed and then boarded out. That has been boarded (pointing to exhibit). Of course you cannot give it so much grease because then you could not glaze It, it would not take the polish.
Then, Mr. Aubrey Davis, at page 611, sa-ys:
Q. Where do you carry on business?-A. In Newmarket, 'Ontario.
Q. What is the name of your firm?-A. The Davis Leather Co.
Q. Who is in that firm with you?-A. My father and two brothers.
Q. That is, the Hon. E. J. Davis?-A. Yes, and two brothers besides myself.
Q. What class of leather do you manufacture?

A. Calf leather entirely.
Q. Did you supply Messrs. Ames-Holden and Co. with calf leather?-A. We did.
vVhat quality of calf leather did you s"upply them?-A. With No. 1 tan storm for the army hoots in the month of August.
~4ou

Q. If they had no opportunity of drying you think there would be no leather that could stand that?-A. No, absolutely.
Q. In order to keep the leather it has got to have proper treatment?-A. It has got to have proper treatment.
Q. If it becomes wet it has to be dried and possibly treated with some oil or other substance of that class?-A. Certainly.
Then he goes on:
little out in the shape, and had not qt iron enough on the heel and sole.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
James Albert Manning Aikins: It is not support toy the general evidence. The minority port begins by making ai threatening no: about the hoots, about Government negie and winds up with only two points of r suitability. It reminds me of the story tc of a man who had a pond on bis place, a: who asked a commission merchant if would buy from him a million frogs' lej He got an order for a hundred. He tramp around the edges of the pond and throug it, and found only three frogs, and ] reported to the commission merchar with the statement: "I thought from tl noise the three made that there mu have been a million frogs in the swamp And so with these hon. gentlemen opposit one would think from the noise they mac that they had discovered something vei serious was wrong with the boots, but i the end they are limited to the complaii that the toe was too narrow and that the] was not enough steel on the sole and hee I submit that under these circumstance the amendment should not prevail.


Mr. F. S. SCOTT (South Waterloo):: move that the debate be adjourned.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Why not finish to-nighl


Robert Laird Borden: Is no one els going to speak on your side?


William Pugsley: I do not think so.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I woul like to say ai few words before the ques tion is put.
This matter was brought to the attentioi of the House in the early days of the ses sron by the right hon. the leader of the Op position; and, shortly after he mentionei it,. I informed the House that we purposes bringing down the report of the inquir which had 'been made on the subject, an! that three gentlemen might be named or the other side of the House as members o: a committee, which would be constitute! of seven members for the purpose of going fully into the matters which had "beet alluded to. The committee then appointee have made a very exhaustive inquiry anc the results of that inquiry have been brough

before the House in the form of two reports which have been discussed at great length, and into the details of which I do not intend to go at any great length at this late hour.	.
I want to point out in the first place that the gentlemen who have presented the minority report seem to have altogether overlooked, either intentionally or otherwise, the magnitude of the undertaking which was 'before this Government, when war broke out on the 4th of August last. The three hon. members who have seen fit to present the minority report to the House pose as critics, and they point out what might have been done, and what, in their judgment, ought to have been done; but it is well that the House and the country should remember what it meant in a country like this, with no great military organization, to undertake within a period of six weeks after the war broke out, the organization, equipment and despatch of a force of more than 32,000 men. When I remind hon. gentlemen that every one of these soldiers going to the front had to be equipped with sixty-six different articles for his own personal use, when I point out that the organization of a complete army division with all arms of the service, embraces an undertaking such as had never been dreamed of on a like scale in this country before; when one realizes in all its aspects the magnitude of the task which was undertaken by the Department of Militia and Defence, I venture to say that every one of us, looking back on these six weeks during which the first expeditionary force was prepared and sent forward, can only express the utmost surprise that the work was done as well as it turned out to have been done, and that so little cause of complaint has arisen.
Even in Great Britain, with a great military organization upon which the best thought of the nation has been directed ever since the South African war, they have had their difficulties in the equipment of their men since the opening of the war. I have under my hand reports from the Times and other great journals in the United Kingdom showing that even there, with all their marvellous organization, and with all the preparation that has been made for the past twenty years, difficulties have occurred on as great a scale, or perhaps a greater scale proportionately, than have occurred in Canada.
Even on this very question of the boots supplied to the troops, we have heard something in the United Kingdom. I have here
a report of a debate in the House of Con mons relating to the boots supplied to on battalion raised in England; and while i is perfectly true that the contract in thi particular case was not a War Office cor tract, yet it was a contract of such a publi nature that it was alluded to in Parliamen The debate took place on the 4th of Marcl 1915, and Mr. Barlow, a responsible men ber of the British Parliament, made thi statement:
May I just quote one instance which cam under my own personal observation? Bool were supplied to a battalion of which I ha\ cognizance. They appeared to be excellen they were passed by the local expert, and fc them a high price was demanded.
In appearance .they were admirable boot They were made of leather and looked charn ing. The only defect was that when they wei put on the men's feet they would not hold tog( ther. The soles had a curious way of departin from the uppers-a practice which is not coi sidered right in the best boot circles. After good deal of struggle the contractor was force to take the boots back. I cannot give the subsequent history, but a month or two later further supply of boots was required for tl battalion, and they were ordered according 1 sample. The new contractor said he could n( supply the whole 2,000 pairs according to sarr pie, but 1,500 were coming along just as good i the sample, and the regiment would, he we sure, be quite satisfied. The 1,500 pairs wei supplied in due course, and they turned out 1 be a portion of the boots which had bee rejected in the same warehouse for the san battalion. They were identical in every respec except that the price in the interval had rise by Is. 9d.


William Pugsley: You would not justif that.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not just fy it for ons moment, and I am not just fying it; but I am pointing out that eve in Great Britain they have had their difl eulties; and, so far as I am aware, no sue wholesale defects have occurred -in Canad'
I deeply regret that hon. gentlemen oi po-site seem to sympathize with effor which have been made to discredit thoi who are engaged in the manufacture < boots in Canada; and I have not the sligh est doubt that statements which have bee made in the press and elsewhere, befoi this matter could be thoroughly invest gated, have led to the detriment of busine; conditions in Canada and have deprive this country of contracts which it othe wise would have obtained, and in that wa have taken the bread out of the moutl of -Canadian workmen and their familial That is a very unworthy attempt for an man in Canada to undertake, whether 1 is or is not a member of this House.

I desire to allude to a matter which has been dealt with pretty fully by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, but which I would like to put in a very few words. There is no doubt at all that a certain type of boot had been selected and approved by the late Government at the time of the South African war. 'That will not be denied, because the boots which our men took to the South African war and wore there we e boots selected and approved by the late Administration. Is there any man who will deny that? There is not one. Then I say further that after the South African war the late Administration undertook to prepare and did prepare a better type of boot, as they imagined, in 1905. Is there any man who will deny that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They prepared it for the permanent force in Canada, not for active service.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. There is not one line or tittle of evidence from first to last that supports the statement my hon. friend has just now made, and I will come to that in a moment. I know that he procured some men on the witness -stand to say that the boots were not suitable for active service.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Everyone said it.


Robert Laird Borden: But see what that means. It means this, as was very well pointed out by my honorable friend the member for Brandon (Sir James Aikins). Here were millions of dollars being expended every year for military purposes in Canada. They were expended in the training and drilling of the men, in purchasing big guns, 18 pounders and 13 pounders, in providing rifles, bayonets and ammunition, in purchasing great coats and uniforms and clothing of other kinds as well as boots, caps, and equipment of every kind. These honourable gentlemen, the minority of the committee, have told us in the very first part of their report that one of the. greatest essentials in the equipment of the soldier is the provision of a proper boot in order that his feet may be kept whole and that he can march with ease and comfort. Now they will have us believe that the boots deliberately selected and approved by the late Government, first in 1905 and afterwards considered and again approved in 1910, were not intended for use in war at all; that is to say, the honourable member for Piotou (Mr. Macdonald) desires us to believe-and it is understood that he had aspirations for the position now held

by the Minister of Militia, and, I suppose he must be considered as speaking for the late Administration-that if war broke out, it was -the intention of the late Administration not to put the men into the field at once to fight, but to call a board and ascertain what would be a suitable boot for war conditions and then spend six months or a year in providing them. The first act of mobilization by the late Administration would have been to call a board to provide that which they -say is absolutely necessary for the soldier-a boot for active service conditions. That is the ridiculous position in which the honourable member for Pictou has undertaken to place the late Administration; and I think neither his leader nor the gentleman who held the position of Minister of Militia in the late Administration will be very much obliged to him. Could there be anything much more like comic opera? In the United States the best experts who could be procured in that great country took four years for the purpose of determining what would be the best type of army boot, and the first thing these honourable gentlemen opposite were to do when war broke out, if we are to believe the argument of the honourable member for Pictou, was to call a board- which might take four years to determine the proper type of boot to be recommended. Their next active step in the war would be to let contracts for the purpose of having those boots supplied. According to the argument of the Opposition, the boots which the late Government adopted after much inquiry and consideration were peace boots; they were for soldiers, but they were purely peace boots. Were the soldiers' greatcoats peace coats? Were their guns peace guns? Was their ammunition peace ammunition? Was every part of the equipment of the * soldiers, according to the view of my honourable friend from Pictou, peace equipment? In that case, not only the boots, but the guns and the rifles and the ammunition and everything else would have to be discarded if war broke out, and an entirely new equipment procured for the soldiers.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh, oh.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not wonder that the hon. member for Pictou laughs at his own arguriient, because I do not think anything more ridiculous was ever put forward.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am laughing at your argument.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is easily diverted. His own speech should provide him with an unending source of amusement. I believe he feels much concerned that he has put forward so absurd a proposition. His idea is absolutely and wholly ridiculous. I will follow my hon. friend's argument a little further. If the boots are not intended for active service, what is the soldier intended for? Was the soldier not intended for actice service? If the soldier was intended for active service, one would think that all his boots and other equipment were intended for active service; but, according to the argument of my hon. friend from Piotou, although the soldier was certainly intended for active service, yet an important part of his equipment, and what my hon. friend says is the most essential part of his equipment, was not intended for active service at all. I feel that such an argument deserves no more attention. My hon. friend from Pictou will be as much ashamed of it as any one else when he realizes where it really leads him into in regard to the position of the late Administration.
With regard to the type of boots selected by the late Government, I am not prepared at the moment to say that it was the best type of boot for active service that could possibly be selected; but it was the type which we found when we came into office; and after we came into office the expert officials of the Department of Militia and Defence, selected, not by us but by the late Administration, took the matter up again, and they said that it was a perfectly suitable type of boot, that they would adhere to it, and that they preferred it to the British type of boot. If my hon. friend desires to suggest that the officials of the Department of Militia and Defence, who have come to that conclusion and so reported to the minister, are not competent and able to discharge their duties, let him, or some other hon. gentleman opposite who is willing to take that responsibility, from his place in this House make that charge against those men. Up to the present time not one of them has seen fit to do so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister took
the responsibility himself of this particular boot being furnished. I quoted his statement before the committee to that effect.


Robert Laird Borden: I know what he said perfectly well, and I have read it. He said he thought this boot, on the whole, was better adapted for men in this country than would be the British boot which has
been advocated by my hon. friends on the other side. And there is a good deal to be said in favour of that. What is the use of putting on the soldiers' feet boots which are strong and durable, it may be, but in which, after he has used them for four or five days, he cannot march. Every one knows that on this continent both civilians and soldiers wear a lighter type of boot than that used in the British Islands. And we know that the American Government, after four years of examination by the best experts they could procure, decided upon a type of boot just a little lighter than that adopted by the late Administration. After all, if you depend upon a man to march, in order to be effective, would it be better to place upon his feet boots in which he cannot march after three or four days' wear, or to place upon his feet boots in which he can march with thevmost perfect ease, and replace these boots when they are worn out? Does common sense teach us to take the one course or to take the other? The hon. member for Pictou and others who have concurred with him, apparently, are of opinion that if you place upon the soldiei's feet a hard, unyielding boot, of a type such as he is not accustomed to, you will make him more effective even though he is absolutely unable to do his full duty in marching when so equipped.
I understand that the boots, with very trifling exceptions which have been supplied to the Canadian soldiers have been supplied according to the sample, and I am very glad indeed that the report which has been made in this House with regard to the quality of boots secured by the Government in the great stress and urgency of the early part of this war are such as reflect no discredit upon the Canadian manufacturers who supplied them.
My hon. friends on the other side of the House went to a great deal of trouble to show that the boots supplied, were not such as were used in South Africa. And they put the matter before the House and the country in a very insidious way. They say:
That the boot supplied to the soldiers who went to South Africa was a different boot (from the sealed sample boot of 1914, and from the boots supplied to the Overseas Forces. It was in 1905 that boots of a similar pattern to the 1914 boot were first adopted by the department for use In times of peace by the permanent forces in Canada.
" In times of peace " is absolutely interpolated. There is not a tittle of evidence to support their contention in that regard. I admit that the boot which was supplied in August last was a different boot from that


Robert Laird Borden: I am not prepared to accept that view of the situation. If my hon. friend will turn to page 588, he will find reference to the evidence of three credible witnesses, Mr. W. M. Bennett of Walkerville, ex-Sergeant Nussey, of the Princess Patricias, and Corporal Edwards; also ithe evidence of the Minister of Militia on the same page, and on the following page the evidence of Private Ross. An of these witnesses, except the Minister, speak of having used these boots under the awful conditions, the worst that have been known for forty years, on Salisbury Plain, and the boots, notwithstanding these conditions, had done good service.
I would think that hon. gentlemen who desired to be fair, to place before the people of this country an unprejudiced and unbiased statement as to the boots in question, would naturally and necessarily have made some allusion to that.
A great deal has been said by several hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House with regard to delay in ordering new boots and with regard to a report of a Sub'-Com-mittee of the Council. )So far as that is concerned the matter is capable of the most perfect explanation and it is this: After a Sub-Committee of Council had taken the matter into consideration, and after it had been proposed to issue orders for boots of a type and character then recommended by certain manufacturers, who, of course, were highly desirous that orders should go out as quickly as possible, we had further suggestions and further advice as to the type oi boot that ought to be adopted. It had taken the Government of the United States four years, with the assistance of the best experts on this continent, to come to a conclusion. We had the decision of the late Administration, supported by all tire technical officers of the Department with regard to the boot then in use, and we did not propose precipitately to make a change without the most careful consideration of the character and type of the new boot. The Minister of Militia, in consulting me, said he thought it would be better to wait until

Committee of this House had reported, iuse suggestions might be made by the mittee whose report is now before the .se, which would enable us better to e to a conclusion as to the type of boot 3h should be ordered.
these three members of the com-ee, who were more concerned in r matters than the best type of , which could be selected for the adian soldier, had devoted a little more ation to that question and had endeav-d to assist the Government and the >le of this country in choosing a type of , which might be superior to that which late Government had selected in the instance, it would perhaps have been er for all concerned. But their minds i entirely on other subjects, and chiefly, ot altogether, on the question of how e petty political capital might be made nst the Government of the country, not i the question of what would he the best of boot to be supplied. The Minister of tia, in my judgment, took a perfectly ect course in waiting until he had the ratage of the advice of this committee, ry advantage could be derived from it; in the report of the majority of the mittee who were concerned in this ques-and not with the pettier questions :h absorbed entirely the minds of the ority. There are some suggestions which ihall take into consideration and which itless will be helpful in the end.
. respect of this matter, and indeed of y matter that is concerned With the *aration of equipment for our troops, I desirous that there should be the ist and most ample investigation; and ink our record through the session has onstrated not only our willingness hut desire that every matter brought up in House, which might afford the slightest icion of improper dealings, should be [DOT]ed to the bottom. We were not only ng, but we insisted that it should be >ed to the bottom, and we shall continue o so until the end.
far as this matter is concerned, I am glad indeed to know that the action oi Government has been sustained not by the majority of the committee, but, ;r than that, by the evidence given re the committee. We had to under-this tremendous task of equipping a t army at almost a moment's notice, inside of six weeks we sent out nearly 0 men, fully equipped, with all the olex organization that is necessary
for an army at the front under modern conditions. Among other things a great number of boots had to be supplied. What we did was to take the type of hoot which had been adopted by the late Government in 1905, and had been Teadopted by them in 1910, which had been approved by the technical men, then and now the advisers of the Minister of Militia; we went to the manufacturers of this country and asked them to. supply those boots much more rapidly than they would be expected to do under ordinary conditions. With these boots we equipped the soldiers who have gone to the front, It would be a strange thing indeed, under those circumstances, and with the weather conditions which supervened both at Valcartier camp and at Salisbury Plain,, if the boots did not give way now and then, and if some complaints were not made. But I am glad to say that the result as a whole has demonstrated not only the fairness and the honesty of the manufacturers of Canada, but also the efficiency of the Department of Militia and Defence, and the ability of the people of this country to deal with so great an emergency in a prompt, and efficient way.


Major General HUGHES (Minister of Militia):: I was hoping that some worthy gentleman on the other side would have prolonged this debate so that we might have adjourned it until the morrow, as I wanted to speak at considerable 'length; but at this hour of the evening I shall endeavour to condense my remarks to a minimum.
The first I heard of anything wrong in connection with the boots issued to the soldiers of Canada was on my return from the old land towards the latter end of November. Soon after I took occasion to visit one of the centres whence adverse reports had come, St. Johns, Que. I found there about 30 pairs of boot that had been reported by Colonel Gaudeite as being inferior. We examined some that were cut across the soles which to my mind had been burned. Two or three others were worn and. one or two had the outer sole torn off, whether by accident or design I could not say. However, the report had been published in the newspapers that the boots were bad. Any one familiar with the spirit or temper of the Canadian people or any people who have not been accustomed to war under such conditions as have prevailed in Canada ever since the outbreak of war will readily realize the nervous tension affecting the people. Fot instance, a toy balloon crossing over the border near Brockviille set.

the whole community agog, it was an American invasion. A kite flying over Ottawa stampeded the whole city on one or two occasions; and some persons having been heard speaking the German language near Toronto caused a great agitation in that city on an occasion mot very long since. In many ways we have evidence that a certain number of people of the country are more or less readily stampeded, if I may use the term, by these irrelevant matters in connection with the war.
The temper of the people is sensitive at a time like this, and one can readily understand how they would feel at the first whisper that the boots supplied to the soldiers were poor. We had faith in: the great majority of the manufacturers. We believed that they were absolutely honest and square in their dealings. I may say that a great number of them pledged their word that the quality of leather and the workmanship was not only fully up to the standard but above the standard, and that they were turning out a better boot than the contract called for. Almost every manufacturer gave us that pledge. When I heard of complaints, I immediately ordered the boards to report on these boots, and later on appointed a board from my own department to investigate and report. Their report is now before the House. At first it was believed-'and the newspapers took up the agitation-that there was truth in these charges, but as I passed from regiment to regiment and personally investigated, I found that instead of the filling being of jam mixed with cork, as some of the stories had it, the filling was of the highest standard that could be put in boots. It was wax, mixed with cork, which is what the specifications call for. Furthermore, as I went through the country I found very few places where more than a dozen pairs were defective at all, and then it began to dawn on me that there must be something more behind all this, than the good of the soldier or the bad quality of his boots. Every facility the department could afford has been offered to the committee in their investigation; in fact, I had the honour of requesting the first minister to appoint the committee to inquire into the whole question.
I might point out, in connection with my views on the boot question, that some years ago I visited the city of Washington and investigated the American plans of boot making, and what they considered the proper boot for a soldier. It is generally known that the American boot is somewhat lighter

than the so-called Canadian dancing pump. It also has a very broad toe, much too broad to my mind. I purchased a pair once that were supposed to be perfect, but I found that the toe played around inside too much and that the boot was much more uncomfortable than a boot that fitted more snugly. As I told the committee, one of our sample boots exhibited before them would have been better if it had been a trifle broader. I also pointed out that the toes and heels should be nailed, for wearing.
The Canadian boot has stood the wear and tear beyond all expectations. When the troops went to England they were met with adverse weather conditions at Salisbury Plains. The rain poured down day after day, and the men had to wall; around in mud up to the ankles. No boots ever manufactured, whether in England or in Canada, could stand such weather as that. No boots have stood such weather. It is only natural that the Canadian boot, the only ones that were being worn there, should be the only ones to be criticised-at that time the English boot was not being worn by our soldiers. Finally, when the agitation from here reached England, the boys naturally thought: Oh, these boots must really 'be bad. At all events the boots were exchanged fbr English boots, but fortunately for themselves the boys still preserved their Valcartier boots. We have evidence after evidence to show that the British boot has gone clean to pieces. The heavy sole is not proving satisfactory to the English soldier, and to-night in the trenches in France and Belgium the Canadian soldiers are wearing their old Canadian boots, 90 per cent of them having discarded the English boot. The Evening Telegram of Toronto, a paper which cannot be charged with being too friendly to your humble servant, in its issue of February 19, 1915, contains an article from Gorden Dent, one of three brothers at the front. He says:
I guess you have heard about the Canadian boots being no good. Well, they are all right, on my first pair the soles are only worn out and they can be made as good as new. What destroyed them was some of the fellows put them over the stove to dry, which rotted them. The first issue of English boots I happened to get (worse luck) they were fitted to a 2 x 4 plank and there is no support whatever to the arch of .the foot, and the leather is rotten. A complaint was made and they stopped issuing them, and now they have got another kind which are some improvement, but let me halfsole my Canadian boots and hob-nail them and I will out-walk any person who has the English boots.

I have also an extract from a letter from Douglas Jennings to C. A. B. Jennings. It is dated Levington Manor, Wilts, March 9, 1915, and reads as follows:
They have equipped us with those English hoots, steel heels and those great large hoh nails in the bottoms. I am afraid they are going to ruin my feet, for they are very heavy and hard to break in. On pay day I am going to buy myself a pair of boots that I can get some comfort out of, for if I have to do the marches in full marching order that we get I will be a cripple in a very short time.
Here is an extract from a letter written by a soldier on Salisbury Plain to his parents residing in Ottawa:
February 1, 1915.
I notice that the Canadian boots were condemned. Ninety per cent of the men hare cannot wear the English make and want to wear the Canadian boots. I am going to leave the English make behind, and wear the ones from home, as they are more comfortable, although they might not be able to stand as much wear and tear.
A week ago, a soldier who had been invalided from the front, having been wounded by a shrapnel shell, passed through Ottawa on his way to Edmonton. On the way from Montreal to here he showed the folks the boots he had worn at Valcartier and at Salisbury Plain and in the trenches, and which I presume he is wearing in Edmonton to-night. I can also quote an extract from a very distinguished officer at the front. He says: " Our Canadian boots are better than the English. The latter have gone to pieces much worse than the Canadian boots." This bears out Major Currie's statement that the Canadian hoots that stood the wider at Valcartier, but which were discarded by arrangements with the British authorities, have had to be taken up again by the soldiers, 90 per cent of whom are wearing them in the trenches at the present moment.
I shall not take up any more of the time of the House except to point out this. Some of our wagons were discarded. One of the reasons given was that they could not turn in the narrow English roads. I knew that was nonsense, because the Canadian wagon can turn in 31 feet 9 inches, whereas the English wagon takes 35 feet. It was also said that our trucks were not satisfactory at the front, that we had three kinds of trucks. Instead of their having been discarded, however, it turns out now that we are supplying seven kinds of trucks. Our bicycles, which were discarded, have also turned out better than the English, and are now being adopted. Our boots were discarded, and they are 155
now turning out better than the English boots.
In regard to the boots furnished to the Canadian contingent at the time of the South African war the facts are these. The inferior boot which was shown here to-night was the one supplied to the troops but the defects were found in them before they started and a number were returned. A large number of a slightly different make were subsequently purchased and handed out to the troops but the troops would not wear them. The troops, out of their own pockets, largely purchased the Slater shoe and wore them through the South African campaign. It is not correct to say that the Slater shoe was issued to soldiers in South Africa because as a matter of fact it was not. The Slater shoe was bought individually by the soldiers and worn by them through the war. Later on the Slater shoe was adopted by the department and Charles Slater, I think the gentleman's name is, was the 'gentleman who was intrumental in having that shoe adopted. It remained the standard shoe for the department but was remodelled in 1910. In -that year I had the honour of being consulted about the shoe and I gave my views which are very much in favour of a light shoe.
I have always worn -a light shoe and I have always felt that it was much better for . marching purposes. I have never felt any difficulty in wearing a light shoe and I could outmarch men wearing heavy boots. The great trouble with the heavy boot is that unless it is kept well oiled and in a flexible condition it wrinkles and the result is that the soldier wearing it is incapacitated. I prefer a light upper made of flexible leather. If I had my way I would have mercurial tanned leather. As an instance of a light boot I might point t-o wha-t is well known by any one who has studied Highland customs, that the Highland soldier in the olden days, when he was a distinct and superior individual to an even greater degree than he is to-day, wore what one might almost call slippers or shoes very much the same as our running shoes. In my own experience of mountain climbing I have found that the best results come from wearing a sporting or lacrosse shoe. I have no use for the heavy boot. The German and British soldiers wear the heavy boot. The German soldier wears a boot that is much larger than would ordinarily be necessary because he wraps his feet in flannel cloth while the British soldier wears a woollen sock. The French soldier wears a much lighter shoe than the British



or German soldier, the Italian soldier wears a light shoe, the Canadian soldier wears a light shoe and the American soldier wears the lightest shoe of all, some lined and some unlined. The American shoe is lighter than the so-called dancing pump of the^Cana-dian soldier.
I do not wish to detain the House other than to point out that I understood from the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that the suspicion of fraud on the part of the manufacturers was the motive for appointing this committee of investigation. As time wore on we found that there was no attempt to show that there had been any fraud on the part of the manufacturers,. and I presume that there was no opportunity of doing so, because there was no evidence of fraud.
The question naturally suggests itself to me: Are these hon. gentlemen doing this for the benefit of the soldiers? Not at all. The soldiers were perfectly content with these boots, and in the Dominion of Canada there are tens of thousands of soldiers wearing them. They were wearing 'them last fall, they have been wearing them all winter, and they are wearing them this spring, and there is no fault to find with the boots. The other day one dear lady came to me in the city of Ottawa, and she said: "It is an awful thing; I saw a poor soldier walking around with his foot actually out of his boot." I said: "That is absolutely impossible." She said: "I saw it myself. There is cloth on his feet." I said: "You must be mistaken; the soldiers are furnished with overshoes in the winter time," and she replied: "Oh, I did not know that." Any one in a snowy country wears overshoes in the winter. We had these overshoes for the men all winter, and they were offered to the men at Salisbury Plain, but they were discarded there because it was thought desirable to supplement the boots with which they were equipped.
This agitation certainly could not have been intended to promote Canadian industry. A gentleman told me that at the time this agitation commenced there were negotiations in progress for a $3,000,000 order for boots for the Russian Government, to be given to Canadian manufacturers, but as soon as this agitation began the order was cancelled and it was transferred to United States firms. This agitation, undertaken for political purposes, was utilized for commercial purposes by rival manufacturers in other countries.


William Pugsley: Has the minister evidence in writing of the statement he has

made, and, if so, will he be good enough to submit it to the House?


Major General HUGHES:: Submit what to the House?


William Pugsley: The Minister stated thjjt as a result of this matter having been brought up-this matter of the quality of these boots which were furnished and for which he claims this side of the House is responsible-


Major General HUGHES:: Yes.


William Pugsley: -an order for $3,000,000, worth of boots and shoes, which otherwise would have gone to Canadian manufacturers, was transferred to the United States. That is a very important statement to make, and if the minister has any written evidence of it, would he^ submit it to the House? I would ask the minister if he would do so.


Major General HUGHES:: Do what?


William Pugsley: If he would submit the evidence to the House.


Major General HUGHES:: I have submitted the evidence. The honorable gentleman has asked me for the evidence. I have given him my statement. Not a dollar's worth of Canadian boots have been sent to Russia, France-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh, yes.


Major General HUGHES:: Not to my knowledge.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My honorable friend is mistaken there. We had evidence before the committee that a Montreal firm had a contract for supplying boots to those countries.


Major General HUGHES:: Well, I was
not aware of that. I have reason to believe that there would have been millions of dollars' worth sent to this country had this agitation not been carried on.


William Pugsley: Let me ask the minister if it is the case that the remark which was attributed to him in the newspapers that the manufacturer who supplied these poor boots ought to be shot could have had some influence upon the Russian Government.


Major General HUGHES:: The remark that was attributed to me was that shooting was too good for the manufacturer who made bad boots and furnished them to the soiuiers, but that was after the honourable gentlemen opposite had been instrumental in developing this agitation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, it was not.


Major General HUGHES:: I made my statement in the middle of January.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That was before the House met.


Major General HUGHES:: But the agitation was going on before I came back from England.


William Pugsley: It was broadcast among the soldiers, of course.


Major General HUGHES:: Not at all; the soldiers were content. This agitation was not carried on for the benefit of the people.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The soldiers started it themselves.


Major General HUGHES:: The agitation was not started by the soldiers themselves. It was started in the press of the country and it was not carried on for the upbuilding of the Empire. I have studied the matter from every viewpoint, and no aspect presents itself that can be regarded as having any interest for the people of Canada. This agitation has only been carried on for the benefit of rival manufacturers in other lands and for the benefit of the political party that is now occupying the Opposition and will long continue to occupy that position in this Parliament.
, Mr. PUGSLEY :	Is the minister not
aware that one newspaper that started the agitation in a most active way was that very leading Canadian newspaper in Montreal, the Montreal Star, which cannot be acc'used of favouring the Liberal party?


Major General HUGHES:: No matter
how it was started, it was very quickly taken up by our friends opposite. I was pointing out that the soldiers on the other side of Ithe Atlantic, as well as this side, as soon as they saw that the agitation was merely political or commercial, settled down and refused to take any part in it. The soldiers on the other side to a man and the solaiers in the firing line in France, are wearing the soft leather boot in preference to the English hard leather boot. The English hard leather boot has not stood the wear for any two months on an average. In fact, they are issuing hard leather boots to the British soldier and they get an issue every two months or six weeks.
The Canadian boots are better than the English boots; the latter have gone to pieces much worse than have the Canadian
155J
boots. * Thousands of the Canadian boots supplied at Valcartier are to-day being worn by the soldiers at the front, which is a marvel for service and to my mind is more than creditable to our Canadian boot manufacturers. I shall not detain the House further at this late hour, as the matter can be discussed in case of need on other occasions.
Amendment (Mr. Murphy) lost on division.
Motion (Mr. Middlebro) agreed to on division.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, April 13, 1915.