1916-05-13

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN A. CURRIE (North Simcoe) moved:
That the recommendation contained in the second report of the Joint Committee on Printing, presented to the House on May 11, be concurred in.
Mr. SCHAFFNER:: If I am in order in speaking at this stage, I wish to enter, on behalf of the Debates Committee, a very strong protest against concurrence in this report.


Mr. CURRIE:: There are two reports. The report against which the hon. gentleman wishes to speak is the third report, concurrence in which I shall move in a moment. The report to which this motion refers is only a formal one. When I speak on the other I will make an explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Allister Currie: '
That the recommendation contained in the third report of the Joint Committee on Printing, presented to the House on May 11, be con. curred in.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Would my hon. friend have any objection to having that motion stand until Monday?


John Allister Currie: I shall not be here on Monday. Mr. Speaker, the Committee of both Houses on Printing has had under consideration means by which a reduction may be made in the cost of the printing of Parliament. It will be as well for me to read this third report of the committee dealing with this question, which is incorporated in the Votes and Proceedings, so that it may appear on Hansard. The report of the committee of which I am the mouthpiece is as follows:
The committee has had before it for consideration the question of the prevention of waste in public printing and distribution.
The committee has made careful investigation and inquiry, and after referring the matter to a sub-committee for further investigation, beg leave to report as follows:
The committee desire, in the first place, to call attention to the great increase in the cost of parliamentary and departmental printing in recent years. For instance, the expenditure in 1895 was $330,627. In 1915 this had increased to $1,807,390.
Within the past few days the committee has had before it the King's Printer and other offi-

cials of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery. After hearing the testimony of these gentlemen, the committee is of the opinion that great economies can be effected by the adoption of certain changes, both in the manner of printing and distributing. A complete review of the situation from the King's Printer's standpoint is contained in a memorandum which he prepared in March last year, copy of which ia attached hereto, and which it is recommended be printed with this report.
* Dealing first with the distribution lists, because upon these the extent of the printing to be done depends, the committee recommend:
That all distribution be made from the office of the King's Printer, as provided by the Act constituting the Department of Public Printing and Stationery (chapter SO, R.S.C.).
That all departmental mailing lists be sent to the Distribution Branch of the Government Printing Bureau, and that these lists be revised annually by the Distribution Office. This should be done by sending out reply cards tq all individuals on the lists-for any class of Government publication. In the event of no response within a specified time, the name or names to be dropped.
The same practice to be pursued with regard to bound volumes of the sessional papers, over 640 sets of which are now sent out to different institutions. It is estimated that fully half of this quantity is thrown away, and that if the lists be reduced by fifty per cent there will be a saving of at least 9,600 bound volumes.
Distribution lists and the printing of the Debates of both Houses in every case to be referred to the Printing Committee.
Recommendations made to either House by any committee for the printing of evidence taken before it to be referred to the Printing Committee for action.
Reports of special commissions to be referred to the Printing Committee to determine whether they shall be printed, and if so, in what quantities.
The committee is of the opinion that the practice of charging the general public for departmental blue-books and special publications should be strictly , adhered to. The indiscriminate distribution of maps, annual blue-books and special monthly reports has led to many abuses in the past. Instances have been cited by many departments where scores of applications have been received from schools in different parts of the oountry for publications which could not, in the slightest degree, interest the school children applying for them. These books have been asked for probably on the mere mention by some newspaper that they would be sent free. Some deputy ministers are of the opinion that the motive underlying the requests for these reports is the hope that the report will Contain pictures.
In order to expedite the mailing of Governmental publications, it is earnestly recommended that a branoh post office be established in connection with the Distribution Branch of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, and mail be sent therefrom direct to the railway stations.
With regard to the parliamentary printing which is done under the supervision of the King's Printer, 'the committee is pleased to learn that during the past two or three years changes have been made in the typographical arrangements of several blue-books, whereby considerable economy has been effected. On
[Mr. Currie. 1
these books it is estimated that an annual saving of $15,000 has been made. The King's Printer, however, has no editorial authority, and can only bring about these changes through the good-will of the officials of the several departments.
Attention is called by the committee to the enormous increase in the number of illustrations In annual and special reports. Many of those illustrations are of no value. It is suggested that only such plates be incorporated in parliamentary blue-books as are necessary to a proper understanding of the text.
There is great room for economy in the printing of annual departmental reports, by eliminating entirely technical treaties, complimentary references, lists of staffs of officials, formal introductions and formal signatures, duplication of statistical information, etc. In the latter connection one has only to examine the statistical reports of the Departments of Customs and Trade and Commerce to see the proof of this statement. The committee recommended that where at all possible duplications should be avoided.
The committee recommends that the scope of the monthly Agricultural Gazette be extended, by incorporating with it Seasonable Hints and small bulletins now issued by the Department of Agriculture in leaflet form in order to give them permanent value, and that the Gazette be distributed free to all Canadian farmers who apply for it. This could be accomplished 'without much additional cost by dropping the Bulletin of Foreign Agricultural Intelligence, much of the information contained in which is of little practical value to the Canadian farmer. The best features of the bulletin could be incorporated in the Agricultural Gazette, which should be published in cheaper form. The Bulletin of Agricultural Intelligence has been in existence for over five years and costs annually about JE.400.
The committee would call attention to the large quantities of maps, which are prepared by some sixteen branches of the public service, and which in a large measure are circulated free. The report of the Royal Commission appointed in 1914 to " inquire into the state of the records outlie public departments" called attention to this great division of labour, and suggested " that the whole of the map-making for the Dominion Government might be carried on more effectively and economically under the direction of a central authority." We would recommend that this work be supervised by the Department of Public Printing, with absolute authority to prevent useless duplication or overlapping.
The committee would further recommend that all " copy '' for the printer be typewritten. Instances innumerable have beeA noted of the great waste of public funds through bad eali-graphy and consequent corrections of proof. Last year at the Government Bureau the cost of author's corrections was $48,376. This was a decrease of $5,666 over the previous year, but the committee is satisfied that this charge can be largely reduced by the exercise of greater care in the preparation of " copy."
As already pointed out, the King's Printer and the bureau staff have no authority to make any changes in the text of any parliamentary or departmental document. Recognizing that thousands of pages of reports of no value are printed annually, the committee is of the opinion that to revise copy to avoid redundancy

and over-lapping, a board of editors of parliamentary and departmental publications should be established by the Government to work in conjunction with the King's Printer. To this board all reports and publications should be referred, and authority should be vested tn such a board to decide what should or what should not be printed. The committee is of opinion that such a board, properly constituted, with wide editorial powers, could save the country thousands of dollars annually.
Dealing first with the matter of distribution, which is the primary source of waste, the report says:
That all distribution be made from the office of the King's Printer, as provided by the Act constituting the Department of Public Printing and Stationery (Chapter 80, R.S.C.).
That all departmental mailing lists be sent to the Distribution Branch of the Government Printing Bureau, and that these lists be revised annually by the Distribution Office. This should be done by sending out reply cards to all individuals on the lists-for any class of Government publication. In the event of no response within a specified time, the name or names to be dropped.
The procedure as laid down by this Act is that each department shall have a mailing list which shall be sent to the King's Printer, and, as the various reports are printed, they shall be distributed according to that mailing list from the King's Printer's office. But the procedure, in fact, is that each department or committee has a large number of copies of documents printed for itself; in fact, nearly the whole issue is sent to it. Then at the department is established a mailing branch, which, half the time, is not employed, and these books and papers are distributed by this branch. The idea of your Committee on Printing is, that each department should send its list to the King's Printer, and that in the Printing Bureau there should be one general distribution office, as provided for by the Act. This method of distribution would avoid duplication of dis^ tribution staff to a very large extent. It often happens that the same name will be on the list of different departments, causing duplication in the issue,of some of the documents. This duplication and waste is shown in the report in the following paragraph :	.
The committee desire, in the first place, to call attention to the great increase in the cost of parliamentary and departmental printing in recent years. For instance, the expenditure in 1895 was $330,627. In 1915 this had increased to $1,807,390.
Each department charges its printing against the vote over which this committee is supposed to exercise some supervision. The amount that each department therefore
spends does not appear as an item in the estimates of each department. One source of waste is the lack of supervision of the various departmental lists. For instance, a man's name is put on the list for a certain publication-let us say for the Votes and Proceedings of this House, which make a large shelf of books. These books are sent to that man's address year after year. We find on inquiring that there are names on the list of men who have been dead for five or ten years, or who have moved away, and the books are still going to their address at great cost and waste to the public. It is proposed that a reply card should be sent out to each name on the list once a year. If the person still wishes to receive the public documents he sends back the card with intimation of his wish. In that way a check can be kept on the documents sent out. It may be that a certain document is required for only one year; but once a name is on the list we continue firing books at that mark, and the bulk of the books so wasted is so great that the printing bills of this country have been increased by about a million and a half dollars a year. It is necessary that this abuse should be stopped. If the person to whom the supply card is sent neglects to intimate his wish for a continuance of his name on the list, we are only wasting time in sending him these books. The department, in this way, will have some basis to' calculate the number of books to be published. It is now mere guess-work, and thousands of tons of books are published every year merely to be destroyed-to be thrown aside as junk. It is not necessary for me to urge upon Parliament the duty of considering means of saving money. We-are carrying on an advertising campaign in favour of Production and Thrift. If we take our own advice in regard to this matter of printing we can save from half a million to three-quarters of a million dollars a year.
The same practice to be 'pursued with regard to bound volumes of the sessional papers, over 640 sets of which are now sent out to-different institutions. It is estimated- thaf fully half of this quantity is thrown away, and that if the lists be reduced by fifty per cent there will be a saving of at least 9,600-bound volumes.
These bound volumes of sessional papers we are sending out still to mechanics' institutes in Ontario, organizations many of them that have ceased to exist, having been replaced by public libraries. The printing department should know whether the institutions and individuals to whom-

they are sending these papers are alive or not, and whether they desire to receive these documents.
The next paragraph refers to the Debates of this House, and this is the point regarding which my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) says he wishes to protest.
Distribution lists and the printing of the
Debates of both Houses in every case to be referred to the Printing Committee.
The Printing Committee has no desire to interfere with the form of the debates or anything in that connection. But the Debates Committee have been sending out copies of the debates to a great many people. The Debates can be purchased by any person who wants them for so much per annum, but the Debates Committee have been in the habit of putting a number of people on the free list from all over the country.
If a member asks it, Hansard is sent to half-a-dozen men in his Tiding. These Hansards that go out every day are published at great expense. Once they start going to a man they never stop, whether the persons to whom they are sent be alive or dead. If any one wants a public document of this House, and does not want to pay for it, the procedure is to go to the Printing Committee. Our suggestion is that the regulations in this respeot be carried out by the Debates Committee, and that they should not be overridden by any committee of the House. It is not our desire to interfere in any way with the rights of the Debates Committee; but, if the Debates Committee want an increase in the number of official reports published to the extent of ten, twenty, or fifty per day, they should ask the Printing Committee for that privilege, because the Printing Committee has to pay for them out of the miscellaneous appropriation and is blamed for the great increase in the cost of printing. (Reading):
The committee is of the opinion -that the practice of charging the general public for departmental blue-books and special publications should be strictly adhered to. The indiscriminate distribution of maps, annual blue-books and special monthly reports has led to many abuses in the past. Instances have been cited by many departments where scores of applications have been received from schools in different .parts of the country for publications which could not, in the slightest degree, interest the school children applying for them. These books have been asked for probably on the mere mention by some newspaper that they would be sent free. Some deputy ministers are of the opinion that the motive underlying the requests for these reports is the hope that the report will contain pictures.

Blue-books can be purchased by the ordinary voter at nominal prices. If a member wants blue-books or a series of parlia-' mentary books sent annually to a friend, he can make the request through the clerk of the Printing Committee. In that respect the Printing Committee has been very generous; there is no desire on the part of the committee to disregard the wishes of members. If a member informs the clerk of the Printing Committee that he desires certain maps, books or things of that kind to be sent to certain persons, the committee is quite willing to comply with his wishes, because we are the servants of the members of this House. But we do not want the outside public to make demands that books and valuable publications of this kind be furnished to them free of charge, because a price is set upon them according to the law of the land.
The next recommendation is:
In order to expedite the mailing of Governmental publications, it is earnestly recommended that a branch post office be established in connection with the Distribution Branch of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, and mail be sent therefrom direct to the railway station.
Under the procedure at present, these books are taken from the Printing Bureau to the various departments; they are prepared for forwarding, franked and sent to the post office. The establishing of a branch post office at the Printing Bureau would effect a reduction of the general postal work and of a great deal of the haulage which is necessary under the present procedure. It would involve much less cost to the department to send a letter to the Printing Bureau asking that certain publications, be sent out than it does to have a wagon or truck go to the Bureau, bring the publications to the department and have them sent back again with a truck to the post office. The idea is to have the distribution and mailing work all done at the Printing Bureau, where the proper facilities could be afforded.
The next paragraph of the report says:
With regard to the parliamentary printing which is done under the supervision of the King's Printer, the committee is pleased to learn that during the past two or three years changes have been made in the typographical arrangements of several blue-books, whereby considerable economy has been effected. On these books it is estimated that an annual saving of $15,000 has been made. The King's Printer, however, has no editorial authority, and can only bring about these changes through the good-will of the officials of the several departments.

For the last year or so the King's Printer and the officials of his department and other departments have been earnestly attempting to effect a reduction in the size of the blue-books. The idea is to reduce the size of some of the tabulated statements by putting them in smaller type or condensation. By this method some publications have been reduced in size from three volumes to one volume. In cases where a tabulated statement is printed on two pages, with one heading in French and one in English, the heading is put on one statement in both languages, thus effecting a saving of space. The idea of this clause is to inform hon. gentlemen that work is now being carried on along the lines recommended by the committee, and that, with their approval, the committee desires your approval and intends to continue it. (Reading):
Attention is called by the committee to the enormous increase in the number of illustrations in annual and special reports. Many of these illustrations are of 'no value. It is suggested that only such plates be incorporated in parliamentary blue-books as are necessary to a proper understanding of the text.
I quite approve of illustrations in departmental books which relate to the text, but in many cases illustrations are inserted in connection with geological work and so on -Indians carrying canoes, and that sort of thing-which involve a good deal of expense. It is the view of the committee that economy could be effected by a change in that regard. (Reading):
There is great room for economy in the printing of annual departmental reports, by eliminating entirely technical treaties, con-plimentary references, lists of staffs of officials, formal introductions and formal signatures, duplication of statistical information, etc. In tha latter connection one has only to examine the statistical reports of the Departments of Customs and Trade of Commerce to see the proof of this statement. The committee recommended that where at all possible duplications should be avoided.
In many of these publications there are technical references which can be understood by no one who is not a technical student or a professor at a university. In the second place, many complimentary references are made to officials of departments. Sometimes half a page or a page which costs the country $2,000 or $3,000, is taken up with a statement that so and so has joined a certain branch and is now in charge of certain work. There should be some editorial supervision of these trivial matters. It is to be noted that the statistics of the Department of Trade and Commerce and those of the Department of Customs are almost identical, figure for figure, and are published in large books. We think that better results would be obtained by issuing one book instead of two, which would contain far more information than is contained in the two at the present time. The United States has a publication of that kind, the Statistical Abstract, in which you can get everything you want. We do not deprecate the publication of these reports; they are very necessary, but the question is whether we can avoid duplication. The committee has cut out the Monthly Abstract, which was issued by the Department of Customs. For my part, I think that some simplified form of that abstract should be issued monthly; but by some collaboration or editorial supervision much more valuable information could be given and the interests of the service more adequately preserved.
We do not wish to interfere with the work of any department, but we are anxious to do everything possible to increase the usefulness of the publications and, with the co-operation of the departments, to reduce their cost. (Reading):
The committee recommends that the scope of the monthly Agricultural Gazette be extended, by incorporating with it Seasonable Hints and small bulletins now issued by the Department of Agriculture in leaflet form in order to give them .permanent value, and that the Gazette be distributed free to all Canadian farmers who apply for it. This could be accomplished without much additional cost, by dropping the Bulletin of Foreign Agricultural Intelligence, much of the information contained in which is of little practical value to the Canadian farmer. The best features of the bulletin could be incorporated in the Agricultural Gazette, which should be published in cheaper form. The Bulletin of Agricultural Intelligence has been in existence for over five years and costs annually about $9,400.
The Bulletin is sent out to practically all farmers, and contains 50 or 60 pages. The Agricultural Gazette, a most excellent publication also, has a very large circulation; but not nearly as large as that of the Bulletin. The paper used in the Gazette is of the highest and most expensive quality; it is first-class book paper, costing possibly three times as much as the paper on which Hansard is printed. Paper of that class is increasing in cost, and probably next year it will cost twice as much as it does this year. The suggestion here made is that the Gazette and the Bulletin be incorporated in one monthly volume, on cheaper paper, and that it be sent to all the farmers on the free list, so that we will have a most valuable publication issued monthly free in such

a form that farmers will keep it for reference, and not destroy it as they do many of the Bulletins,, etc., now sent to them. Many valuable treatises are now thrown away by the farmers, which would be preserved if they were issued in some such form as is suggested. That is only a suggestion, but that one change would save possibly $15,000 to $25,000 a year.
Another paragraph of the report reads:
The committee would call attention to the large quantities of maps, which are .prepared by some sixteen branches of the public service, and which in a large measure are circulated free. The report of the Royal Commission appointed in 1914 to "inquire into the state of the records of the public departments" called attention to this great division of labour, and suggested " that the whole of the map-making for the Dominion Government might be carried on more effectively and economically under the direction of a central authority." We would recommend that this work be supervised by the Department of Public Printing, with absolute authority to prevent useless duplication or overlapping.
It will be observed that there are sixteen branches of the public service in Ottawa each having a staff of men preparing maps, and these maps are, in many cases, of such a nature that the information given on two or three of them could be given on one map, which would be a great saving. We suggest that that work should be mobilized under the control of the Department of Public Printing. We do not want to interfere with the issue of these maps, but we feel that it should not he left to some officials in one department to say that a map shall be published simply because he wants to give out certain information. That should be submitted to an editorial department having power to decide whether any map should be published. The report continues:
Tjhe committee would further recommend that all " copy " for the printer be type-written. Instances innumerable have been noted of the great waste of public funds through bad caligraphy and consequent corrections of proof. Last year at the Government Bureau the cost of "author's" corrections was $48,376.
" Author's corrections" are changes made after the copy is set up in type. These corrections are attributable to carelessness in the preparation of the copy. The copy is thrown at the printers without being edited. It is set up in type and those who sent it to the Bureau then tear the proof to pieces, so that in many cases the proof has to be revised three or four times. The report says:
This was a decrease of $5,666 over the previous year, but the committee is satisfied that

this charge can be largely reduced by the exercise of greater care in the preparation of " copy."
The report goes on:
As already pointed out, the King's Printer and the Bureau staff have no authority to make any changes in the text of any parliamentary or departmental document. Recognizing that thousands of pages of reports of no value are printed annually, the committee is of the opinion that to revise copy and to avoid redundancy and overlapping, a board of editors of Parliamentary and Departmental publications should be established by the Government to work in conjunction with the King's Printer. To this board all reports and publications should be referred, and authority should be vested in such a board to decide what should or what should not be printed. The committee is of opinion that such a board properly constituted, with wide editorial powers, could save the country thousands of dollars annually.
That board would not cost the country one cent additional. It would consist of an officer from each of the leading departments that print reports, and, working^ in the public interest,rtt would do everything possible to reduce the duplication of volumes and cost of public printing and would see that the copy sent to the Bureau was edited and put in proper shape for the printers. I think that every department having a large amount of printing to be done would be willing to delegate an able member of its staff to serve on such a hoard. This board would meet at the Printing Bureau once or twice a week for a few hours to pass editorially on all publications.'
The committee have appended to their report the memorandum of the King's Printer, from which it will be observed that this question of reducing the great cost of Government printing has been the subject of inquiry in the United States as well as in Canada. The matter has been before our committee again and again during the time I have been a member of it, and it has been debated in the Senate. I feel satisfied that, if Parliament should see its way clear to accept these recommendations, the committee would be able to report at the next session a saving of fully half a million dollars. The adoption of this report would not interfere with the present functions of any department or person. The idea is simply to co-ordinate the work of the different departments and of the King's Printer, in order that the best results may accrue.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: As we have not had an opportunity of perusing this report,
I would ask that it be allowed to stand until Tuesday.
Motion withdrawn.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

[Stage Direction]
Mr. VEfrVILLE:
1., Is John Lyons an employee of the Exchequer Court, in the Department of Justice?
2.	If not, was he dismissed?
3.	If dismissed, what was the reason for the dismissal?
Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	John Lyons is not an employee of the Exchequer Court. He was temporarily engaged at $2 per day by the Registrar of the Supreme Court to assist the messengers when additional assistance was required during the sessions, his engagement being from day to day as his services were desired by the Registrar.
2.	His services have been dispensed with.
3.	Because the Registrar considered it desirable in the administration of his office, and this man had already received employment beyond the period of six months allowed by the Civil Service Act for temporary employees.


MARTIN'S RIVER MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Who is the postmaster at Martin's River, Lunenburg county, N.S., and when was the appointment made?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Mrs. Stella Langille is postmistress at Martin's River, N.S. She was appointed on 15th April, 1912.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Who is the contractor for the mail service between Martin's Point post office and Martin's River railway station, Lunenburg county, N.S.?
2.	(a) Were tenders asked for the said service? If so, (b) what were the names of persons who tendered, and the amount of their respective tenders?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: 1/James Shupe.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) Burton Langille, $270
per annum; John B. Mosher, $290 per annum; Charles Sartee, $340 per annum; James Shupe, $350 per annum; G. F. Shupe, $350 per annum. The contract was awarded to Burton Langille, the lowest tenderer, but he was unable to provide the necessary security. James. Shupe having offered to perform the service at the rate of Langille's * tender, the contract was given to him.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1. Who is the postmaster at Martin's Point, Lunenburg county, N.S.?
2. Did James Baggatt, the late postmaster, resign or was he dismissed?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	William Dorey.
2.	He resigned.


L'ASSOMPTION MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Who is the contractor for carrying the mails in the parish of L'Assomptlon, for rural distribution?
2.	What were the names of all the tenderers, the amount and date of each tender, and on what date was the contract awarded?
3.	What is the amount of the present contract?
4.	Were any negotiations carried on after the tenders were opened? If so, with whom?
5.	Were any recommendations received by the Government? If so, from whom?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The rural mail route in the parish of l'Assomption has not yet been established. The department is now considering the tenders in connection therewith.


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE-CLOTHING CONTRACT.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Who has the contract for supplying the clothing to the gentlemen cadets of the Royal Military College at Kingston?
2.	Is it the intention of the Militia Department to ask for new tenders on this work?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	At present no one; Messrs. CrawfoTd and Walsh's contract expired on the 30th April last.
2.	Under consideration.


PURCHASE OR HORSES BY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
Mr. MORRIS:: 1.	How many horses have been purchased by the Department of Agriculture within the last year?
2.	Where were they purchased, from whom, and at what price per horse?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Seventy-six since the 1st of April, 1915, up to the 30th of April, 1916.
2.	The following horses were purchased by the Live Stock Branch:
Stallions.
Bowden, Alta., Black Jas	 1
Hayfleld, Man., Black, Wm	 1
St. Ferdinand, P.Q., Carey, Ed	 1
Magrath, Alta., Card, Geo. C	 1
Moosejaw, Sask., Cooper, I. W		1
Spring Coulee, Alta., Elredge Bros. ..	1
Vegreville, Alta., Forbes, W.B	 1
Cochrane, Alta., Goddard, G. E	 4
Tregarva, Sask., Grant, Wm	 2
Swift Current, Sask., Guest, E	 3
Port Guichon, B.C., Guichon Estate..	1
Condie, Sask., Hogge, Thos		1
High River, Alta., Hendrie, Mrs. Mary 1
Pekisko, Alta., Lane, Geo. & Co	 5
Hudson, Heights, P.Q., Macaulay, T. B. 1

Stallions.
Melba, Alta., McElroy, Geo. M	 1
Drinkwater, Sask., McWilliams, S. H. 1 Raymond, Alta., Meeks, Wm. & Sons. ^2 Truro, N.S., N. S. Agricultural College. 1
Coaticook, P.Q., Poulin, Robt	 2
Magrath, Alta., Ririe, J. B.^	 1
Alameda, Sask., Scott, R. H	 1
Cloverdale, B.C., Shannon Bros		1
Edmonton, Alta., Sporle, Walter, Jr...	1
Allan's Corners, P.Q., Steel, A. G. ..	1
Wawanesa, Man., Stevenson, David ..	2
Stallions.
Saskatoon, Sask., Sutherland, W. C. 2
Kingsville, Ont., Wigle, L.P	 1
Tregarva, Sask., Wylie, Mrs. Mary ..	1
Average price per stallion, approximately, $535.50.
The following horses were purchased by the Experimental Farms Branch:
Morden, Man. Manitou, Man
Fredericton, N.B
Keremeos, B.C	
Hawkesbury, Ont..
Point Fortune, P.Q. Hawkesbury, Ont.. Point Fortune, P.Q, Hawkesbury, Ont .
Dalkeith, Ont ....
Ottawa, Ont	
Kingsville, Ont....
Vankleek Hill, Ont Brysonville. P.Q ..
Alleyn, R	
Falls, Richard... Carswell, Thomas
Jewett, H. C	
Hutt, J. T. G....
Gibson, F. B	
Rutherford, S. H. Hanna, Samuel..
Kirby, D. B	
Higginson, W. A
Kirby, J. M	
Fraser, David____
McCallum, M. J.. Brennan, P. J.. .
Scratch, E. C ___
Lefaivre, R	
Greig, D. J	
Montreal, P.Q Truro, N.S...
Climie, Geo., Archibald, F
3 teams.
1 horse.
1 team.
1 team.
1 bay mare.
1 bay mare.
1 bay mare 1 bay gelding.
1 gray mare.
1 bay gelding.
1 black gelding.
1 bay gelding.
1	black gelding.
2	teams.
1 horse.
1 bay gelding.
1 pedigreed mare and foal, and 1 pedigreed mare in foal.
1 team.
1 team.
33 horses.


GRAIN CONGESTION IN THE WEST.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. CRUISE:: I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) to a matter that I consider of great importance. I have just received the following letter from my constituency:
Just a word to let you know how we are fixed in regard to wheat markets. A poor settler came to my place this evening after driving 17 miles to market only to find no room in the elevators to take his wheat in. He came five miles back with his load to my place. He wras unable to purchase a few necessaries of life to take home to his family.
I would respectfully ask the minister to look into the matter and see if anything can be done.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 
Mr. REID:: I will take this matter up with the Railway Commissioners on Monday.


William Pugsley: I will send a copy of the letter to both ministers.	[DOT]


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: Mr. Speaker, while this matter may not be within the range of my responsibilities, I may say that I have been taking up the matter of the grain congestion on that line during the last ten days with the Chairman of the Railway Commission, and I was assured yesterday that 130 ears per day had moved out of that district until the congestion was relieved. The difficulty has been that the grain on that line goes out towards Saskatoon instead of in the other direction. I may also say that the United Farmers' Association of Alberta have presented the matter to me, and I have been taking it up with the Board of Railway Commissioners. I have their assurance that the matter has now been adjusted, and all the cars necessary have been put upon the line since that letter was written.


PUBLICATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. NESBITT:: I would like to draw the attention of the Government to a book that has been published by the Department of Mines. I will send it over to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), and he will find that it well illustrates what the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) said a few moments ago in regard to% the over-production of printing. When the Department of Mines Estimates were going through, we found a good deal of fault with some of the items, and the opinion was expressed that a good deal of the money was wasted. This book is not merely indecent but filthy, and it ought immediately to bfe burned.


RESIGNATION OF MR. LAVALLEE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you have received the resignation of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lavallee)?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for Bellechasse has sent me his resignation. It was received to-day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In due form?


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I think it is in due form.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Signed by himself?


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I know it is signed by the hon. member for Bellechasse, because I know his signature. I did not take notice as to whether it was in proper form, because it only came to me at half-past one. I will look the matter up and bring it before the House to-night.	s


SPIRIT RIVER FOREST RESERVE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. OLIVER:: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of the Interior if he is able to give a reply with regard to the two matters I brought to the attention of the House last Saturday during his absence. One relates to the proposed Spirit River Forest Reserve. The question was:
Is it intended to include land in townships 79-81 ranges 7-11 in the Forest Reserve?
This proposed forest reserve was the subject of a protest from the Spirit River Board of Trade. That is one question.


Mr. ROCHE:: I looked up Hansard, saw the question, and got a departmental answer to the same, which I sent to the hon. member privately. I do not recollect its exact terms, but I understand it was to the effect that the proposed Forest Reserve would be satisfactory to the Spirit River Board of Trade, as it would not include the particular lands they had protested against being included.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid that their
protest applied to very much more than the lands which the map the minister has been good enough to send over to me indicates as being withdrawn. However, I wished to have the minister's statement on record. The other matter I referred to was the homestead rights of soldiers who had entered for homesteads after enlisting. I drew attention to the fact that the announcement made public by the Militia Department gave a different interpretation from that given by the minister in the House, and I asked that this might be rectified in order that there might be one official decision upon

the matter. As this comes within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, I would respectfully ask the minister to make a statement.


William Roche: The orders sent out by
the Interior Department were to the effect that, while absent on service all volunteers who had taken up homesteads prior to enlisting would have their entries protected and the time counted as residence. Those who have taken up homesteads since enlisting are having their entries protected from cancellation, but the period they are absent on service is not allowed to count as residence. A letter to this effect was sent from the Interior Department to the Militia Department, but the Militia Department misinterpreted it, with the result that erroneous information was published in their Militia orders. When our attention was called to this we immediately asked the Militia authorities to correct the mistake, and we also sent to our agents in the West information to the effect above mentioned.


Frank Oliver: I have seen in various newspapers the Militia Department announcement that is now stated to be in error, but' I have not seen any announcement correcting that error. I think it would be advisable for the minister to suggest to the Militia Department that the correction be made as public as the original announcement.


William Roche: That has already been done.


GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS SMALL CLAIMS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Order for consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 91, to amend the Government Railways Small Claims Act:
John Dowsley Reid: I beg to move:
That this House doth disagree to the amendments made by the Senate to said Bill, and for the following reason:	that parties having
legal claims against the Crown in connection with the Prince Edward Island Railway now have their remedy in the courts, and it is not in the public interests that the said Bill be made retroactive. '


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Dowsley Reid: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Thomas White for Committee of Supply:
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton):: Last Monday I brought to the notice of the Prime Minister that I had a certain motion to make with regard to small arms ammunition, and he informed me that the Minister of Finance had an important motion to move on that day; so, of course, I had to defer mine. I have had no opportunity since of bringing it up until to-day, and as to-dlay is Saturday, not one of the prohibited days, I should like to go on with my motion now, if I am in order.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: The rule is that on
Thursdays and Fridays the Speaker leaves the Chair without motion being put; so I think the hon. member is in order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This question has
been receiving some attention from the House for quite a while. After several questions in regard to it had been put by the hon. member for Pictou and the hon. member for Carleton, a return was at last brought down to this House on the 6th of April, giving certain information as to small arms ammunition. The number of the return is 276. I think it is desirable that this matter should be brought to the attention of the House and that proper investigation be made. First of all I wish to quote what might be regarded as the principle laid down by the Prime Minister on the 15th of April, 1915, in respect to inquiries of this1 kind. Dealing with the question of irregularities in connection with public expenditures, he said (Hansard 1915, page 2612):
So far as these matters, or any other such matters, are concerned, what we propose to do in every instance is this-to investigate every suspicious case, and to exact restitution and punishment so far as the laws of this country will permit. And let me say now, for the benefit of Parliament, and particularly for the information of persons throughout this count 'y who mav be concerned in selling supplies or materials to the Government that if any man in Canada, be he Conservative or Liberal, proposes to commit any fraud or imposition upon the Government and people of this country, or to be concerned in any attempt for that purpose, especially in connection with the war vote, he should remember that there are courts of justice in this country, and that the doors' of the penitentiary are yawning for every man who commits such an offence.
Keeping fully within that statement laid down by the Prime Minister, I propose to prove to you, Sir, and to this House, that there are at least good grounds for suspicion that this was an irregular transaction that should be properly investigated. This transaction is precisely set forth in

a letter from the Auditor General to Sir Thomas White, dated 3rd of April, 1916. I think the subject that I am discussing will be better understood if I read that letter to the House:
Ottawa, April 3, 1916.
Sir,-I beg to call your attention to a sale of ammunition made by the Department of Militia and Defence. Some time prior to the 31st of December last this department sold through Col. J. Wesley Allison, without the authority of the Governor in Council, over 3,000,000 rounds of ammunition at $20 per thousand. The department has been buying ammunition since the declaration of the war at $33 per thousand and has also been manufacturing ammunition at the Dominion Arsenal at a cost of $34.60 per thousand. Consequently there has been a loss to the Government on this transaction of over $45,000. It is alleged that this ammunition has been sold to Vickers Limited for testing purposes. I can hardly credit this statement owing to the magnitude of the sale; but if it were so, why was it sold at such a low rate and why was it necessary to obtain the services of Col. Allison? I have reason to believe that the ammunition was resold at an advance of about 25 per cent and that its destination was not Vickers Limited. I may be mistaken in this, but Col. Allison's connection with the transaction does not tend to allay suspicion.
I wrote to the Department of Militia and Defence asking to be furnished with an Order in Council and also the particulars of the sale, but have had no reply. I have therefore to request that you will obtain the approval of the Governor in Council for the sale and that you will also let me know why the rate was fixed at $20 per thousand.
I am, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) J. Fraser,
Auditor General.
To that letter the Minister of Finance replied on the following day:
Ottawa, April 4, 1916. John Fraser, Esq., I.S.O.,
Auditor General,
Ottawa.
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 3rd instant referring to a sale of ammunition made by the Department of Militia and Defence. I am not aware of the facts connected with the transaction, but shall at once bring your communication to the attention of the Prime Minister.
Tours truly,
(Sgd.) W. T. White.
On the same day the Minister of Finance wrote this letter to the Prime Minister :
Ottawa, April 4, 1916.
Dear Sir Robert:
For your information I enclose herewith copy of a communication which I have reoeived from the Auditor General respecting a sale of ammunition by the Department of Militia and Defence, together with a copy of my reply
thereto. No doubt you will ascertain the facts from the Militia Department and bring the matter to the attention of the Counoil later.
Tours faithfully,
(Sgd.) W. T. White. The Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden, P.C.,
Ottawa.
That is a part of this history of the case so far as its discovery by the Auditor General is concerned, the steps that he took in regard to it and how the matter was brought to the notice of the Prime Minister. No doubt, according to the suggestion of the Minister of Finance, the matter has been before the Council, hut there is no record in this return as to whether it was before the Council or not, and if it were before the Council, there is no report in this return as to what was done. I am not sure that there should be in this return anything that would transpire before the Council; I presume that it would have to be dealt with in some other way, because I understand that what is done in the Council does not ordinarily find its way back to the department concerned.
This large amount of ammunition was sold, as I take it, in .an irregular way. On the first of May of this year the Prime Minister told us, as reported on page 3377 of Hansard, that as far as possible everything that was being done in connection with war matters was done by Order in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: I said that all purchases were made.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the word
"purchases" was used: but I think the language of the Prime Minister was sufficiently broad to give us to understand that an Order in Council was passed whenever that would be necessary in connection with any war transaction. This is such an extraordinary matter that I presume the Prime Minister would not have it in mind when he was making that ad-3 p.m. dress, and the sale of ammunition, when we are buying ammunition everywhere, would not regularly be in his mind and he would make no statement that would cover this case exactly. I think, however, the broad meaning of the statement made by the Prime Minister on the first of May was that, when money or money's worth was passing out of the hands of the Government, or when any money or money's worth was coming into the hands of the Government in connection with the war, proper recommendation was made and proper sanction was given to the



transaction by the formality of an Order in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the page from which the hon. member quoted?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Page 3377. The whole of the Prime Minister's speech is not, of course, on that page, but I think what I especially referred to will be found there. The point that I particularly make is that, at all events, ever since the war broke out-and this transaction took place since the war broke out-nothing should have been done in connection with the sale of any arms or ammunition or anything else that would he specially required in connection with the war except with the full knowledge of the Governor in Council and with the full knowledge of the Government, and even if in any department the practice did exist that war material could be disposed of or done away with in a less formal manner, such regulations, when the war broke out, should be suspended and the greatest possible care exercised in the disposing of any property of that nature.
When I go a little further into the documents that have been brought down, it will be seen that there is only one precedent previous to the last year or so for the sale of ammunition in the Dominion of Canada, and that 6ale was carried out and sanctioned by an Order in Council, and up to this date, so far as the history of the department is concerned, there is no precedent for the sale of ammunition or anything appertaining to the defence of this country without an Order in Council. I submit therefore that this sale, taking place as it did, without an Order in Council, is irregular, improper, and that even at this late date, an Order in Council should be made ratifying it, if it can be ratified, and if not, that the proper steps should be taken to chastise and properly deal with the parties responsible for disposing of our property in this way.
It will appear further from the papers , which I purpose reading that nobody seemed to know where this ammunition went. It is a most extraordinary thing that ammunition would be sold by the Department of Militia and Defence in this country, without any knowledge of where it was going or to whom the department was selling.
I submit that it would be a most extraordinary thing if this department should permit the selling of guns by other people outside the department, much more if they should do it themselves. And if they were

permitting the sale of ammunition, it is sjust as bad. We have been hearing that we are in danger of invasion by overzealous Germans of the United States; that plots and intrigues are entered into between parties on the other side of the line and people in Germany to do damage to this country, and that they were going to invade Canada. There will be evidence given that this material went to the United States without any knowledge as to its destination and without any proper convoy to make sure where it was going. I submit, therefore, that it was quite possible, even probable, that the ammunition sold by ourselves was going into the hands of these rebels, if there be such, who planned to invade Canada, and who would shoot us down with our own ammunition. It was a very grave and serious matter that ammunition of this kind, or of any kind, should be passed out, possibly to our enemies, or even allowed to go beyond the control of our officials, without any definite knowledge of its destination or by whom it was to be handled. This will seem particularly reprehensible when I point out to you that in this return appears an official statement that no such ammunition should be sold at all. I refer to one document dated 13th November, 1914, a letter addressed to the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, as follows:
Under existing circumstances, low stock of ammunition, do you not think it would be wiser to hold this ammunition until such time as the stock in depots is brought up to normal condition?
See folio 122 hereof.
(Sgd.) D. A. Macdonald,
Major-General.
Then there is a communication to the Quartermaster General, signed by the deputy minister:
We should not dispose of one single round.
That is the decision reached by the deputy minister upon this subject.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was the date?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It was the 13th October, 1914, when the war was well under way. I have looked through this file very carefully, a very bulky file, and with a great deal in it that does not bear upon this subject, but I can find no official reversal of that decision of the deputy minister. There is nothing to show that any proper authority was given for the sale of ammunition, and it was therefore, so far as I can find out, sold in contravention of this decision and report made by the deputy

minister, who, no doubt, is responsible in connection with this matter, and who thought, I suppose, that he was taking such steps as were necessary to hold in stock whatever ammunition we had.
I shall be obliged to give to the House, so that there may be no mistake, an exact report of what appears on the file, and I shall do so as briefly as possible. On page 16 of this file I find this letter. It is marked "confidential." Let me say, Sir, that there should be no confidential letters passing between private individuals and the Department of Militia during time of war, unless that private individual be sufficiently important to give him license to do business of this kind. Of course, this letter is signed by J. Wesley Allison, and he may come within that designation:
September S, 1915.
General D. A. Macdonald,
Quartermaster-General,
Ottawa, Ont.
My dear General,-Referring to my arrangements with you some time ago for the purchase of 236,000.303 Mark VI cartridges for Sir Trevor Dawson, I have just received a cable requesting me to have those shipped to C. A. Searles, Vickers House, Broadway, Westminster, London, at the earliest possible moment.
I have cabled asking authority to pay you from their account here for the above cartridges. Therefore kindly send me your bill and I will see that It is paid.
Faithfully yours,
J. Wesley Allison.
There is a note on this letter:
Spoke to Col. Helmer, who says Mark VI ringed.	.
A \J-U-XO.
Give I.O. 4821.
I take the " S. H." to be the initials of the Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes). Then follows, on the 23rd of September, another memorandum:
With reference to Col. Wesley Allison's letter dated September 8, requesting that 236,000 cartridges, S.A. Mark VI, be shipped to Vickers House, London, Eng., will you please note that shipment left Montreal yesterday on ss. Corinthian.
The cash debit voucher to recover value of this ammunition will be passed to you as soon as received.
Should not Colonel Allison's letter go on H.Q. file.
(Sgd.) J. M. M.
Ottawa, 23-9-15.
On the 24th of September there is another letter sent by an official of the department to Colonel Allison:
Dear Colonel Allison:
General Macdonald, Q.M.G., has transferred your letter of the 8th instant to me, with the
245*
information that the shipmen of 236,000 cartridges S. A. Mark VI left Montreal yesterday on ss. Corinthian. This ammunition was consigned to C. A. Searles, Vickers House, Broadway, Westminster, London.
Your letter to General Macdonald was marked u Confidential " and as we do not like to have this letter on our file as showing tho authority for shipping the ammunition, would you please drop me a line that the word " Confidential " may be overlooked and oblige.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) Lt.-Col. Military Secretary.
On, the 28th of September there is a letter addressed to Lieutenant Colonel Charles F. Winter, Military Secretary, as follows;
Dear Colonel Winter:
In answer to your esteemed favour of the' 24th instant, would say that you may overlook the word " Confidential " in my letter of the 8th instant, to General Macdonald, Q.M.G., in reference to the 236,000 cartridges, S.A., Mark VI, shipped to Vickers House, London.
Faithfully yours,
J. Wesley Allison.
There is this further letter, marked " confidential ":
Confidential.
Hotel Manhatten, Madison Ave.,
New York, Oct. 6, 1915. General D. A. Macdonald,
Quartermaster-General,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear General Macdonald:
I have just received instructions from London requesting me to order from you an additional 750,310 -303 Mark VI cartridges to be shipped to the same address as referred t0 in my letter of September 8. They have asked if you would permit them to deposit the amount of the purchase price to the credit of the Canadian Militia Department in London, at the Bank of Montreal there.
Thanking you for a reply, and with kind personal regards, I am,
Yours very truly,
J. Wesley Allison.
Minister says issue.
(Sgd.) D. A Macdonald.
8th October, 1915.
This is marked on the letter: "Minister says issue. (Sgd) D. A. Macdonald, 8th October, 1915."
There is another letter dated Morrisburg, Ontario, October 8, 1915, as follows:
General D. A. Macdonald,
Quartermaster-General,
Ottawa, Ont.
Telegram fourteenth received. Ship seven hundred fifty thousand three hundred ten stop three hundred and three mark six to same ad-edrss as others, Vickers House. Mail account to me here.
J. Wesley Allison.
/

Then there is the following communication dated October 14, 1915, and addressed to Col. J. Wesley Allison, Manhattan Hotel, New York city:
Ammunition twenty dollars per thousand boxes extra average one dollar forty-seven cents each.
(Sgd.) General Macdonald.
I suppose that means that, the boxes average $1.47 each. Then follows some way bills and other statements which are of no particular value to the House. On November 23, 1915, the following letter was [DOT] addressed to Col. J. Wesley Allison, Morris-burg, Ont.:
With reference to my letter of the 1st instant, numbered as above, please find copies in duplicate of vouchers No. B. 105 and B. 176 for Mark VI ammunition shipped to Vickers, London.
Will you kindly instruct your principals to place the amount of $20,926.94 to the credit of the Receiver General of Canada in the Bank of Montreal in London.
(Sgd.) J. F. M.,
Lt.-Col., P.O.O.
Then, there is a letter from headquarters:
C. 1718, A.P.M.G. Copies of the attaohed C.D. V, Vs, Nos. B. 105 and B. 176, totalling $20,926.94, have been passed to Col. J. Wesley Allison, Morrisburg, the Canadian representative of Vickers, Ltd., of London, Eng., with request that he instruct his principals to place the amount to the credit of the Receiver General of Canada in the Bank of Montreal in London.
Copy letter attached.
(Sgd.) J. F. Macdonald, Lt.-Col., P.O.O.
Ottawa, 23rd Nov., 1915.
A note at the foot says: " Noted, Lt. for A. and P.M.G.'	f
There is another letter dated November 11, 1915, as follows:
An application for an additional million rounds of Mark VI ammunition has been received from Col. Allison on behalf of the Vickers Co. Ammunition to this amount Is available at Quebec. It is part of this which is under suspicion. iShould this issue be made at same price as the last two issues, please?
J. P. Macdonald,
Lt.-Col., P.O.O.
This is marked " O.K., signed S.H." I take these initials to be those of the minister. This note appears underneath:
Spoke Q.'M.G. that Col. Allison wanted two millions. Told to increase to that amount.
(Sgd.) J. F. M.
It will be stated, perhaps, that all this ammunition was defective. It will be noted, however, that nothing was said about defective ammunition until the writing of this

letter of November 11, 1915. Previous to that at least two shipments of considerable quantities of ammunition were made, and if that ammunition was defective I think it is fair reasoning to say that some observation to that effect would have been made before that date.
The following communication, which I take to be a telegram, was sent on December 18, 1915, to General D. A. Macdonald, Quartermaster-General, Militia Department, Ottawa:
Can you ship our friends London two million more '303 Mark VI? General Hughes here and approves, but requested me to write you.
(Sgd.) J. Wesley Allison.
The Minister of Militia and Defence was evidently in New York at this time with his friend Allison, and had consented to this issue, but wanted to have it done through the officers of the department. There is another telegram sent from Morrisburg on December 20, 1915:
General D. A. Macdonald,
Q.M.G., Militia Department,
Ottawa.
Piease wire answer Morrisburg my telegram regarding two million more.
Evidently Mr. Allison had come home to Morrisburg after sending the telegram and before receiving a reply, and he asks for a reply to his telegram of the day before. On the 20th of the same month, two days after the minister had evidently consented to the sale, we find a somewhat ordinary question asked by him. He asks:	"to
whom is this to be sold, and where is it going?" I think it will strike the ordinary business man as peculiar that two days after the minister had consented to the sale he should make inquiry is to who was buying and to whom the articles were to be Sent. I will read the departmental report:
Col. Allison has applied for 2,000,000 rounds of S.A. ammunition, Mark VI, for his principals, the Vickers Maxim Co. of London. There is available in ordnance charge this amount of ammunition. It is part of that under suspicion. The amount of this ammunition already shipped to this company is 2,986,000. Shall issue be made and at the price formerly charged, $20 per thousand ?
(Sgd.) J. M. Macdonald,
Colonel, P.O.O.
Minister sal's " O.K."
(Sgd.) D. A. Mac.,
Dec. 20, 1915.
Over the minister's "O.K." is this statement :
Ascertain where and by whom this is to be used if sold by- O. C..

I assume that O. C. means Order in Council.
I wish to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister and of the House this extraordinary inquiry on the part'of the minister two days after having consented to the sale of this two milliofis. He asks: " Ascertain where and by whom this is to be used if sold by Order in Council." Evidently the sale was made before there was any Order in Council. Still further down on the same page is this note:
Please note minister's instructions. If this ammunition is to he sold it must be done by Order in Council and the minister's inquiry should be fully answered.
EugSne Fiset, Deputy Minister.
There is here a draft of an Order in Council dated January 5, 1916. It remains, of course, for those who are familiar with the inner circles and whose responsibility it is to know whether this Order in Council was passed or not, to tell the House and the country whether it ever received the proper sanction. This is not exactly a draft; it is perhaps a recommendation, or it appears to have passed the stage of a recommendation. I will read it:
January 5, 1916.
To His Royal Highness the Governor General in Council.
The undersigned has the honour to submit for the consideration and approval of Tour Royal Highness in Council an application from Vickers, Limited, for the purchase of 4,985,900 rounds of S. A. ammunition, mark VI. This is part of the stock of mark VI ammunition which, " under suspicion," was not allowed to be u3ed with rifles in Canada. The price ot the ammunition to be $20 per thousand rounds. This ammunition, while rejected for rifle use, is, however, reported to be suitable for the testing of Vickers machine guns now being manufactured in very large numbers in England.
The matter is respectfully submitted.
Sam Hughes,
Major General,
Minister of Militia and Defence.
There is no record beyond that as to what became of this Order in Council, whether it was passed or not; but, so far as this House is concerned, from any information that any member can get, I have a right to believe that all the information is on this file, and there is nothing here to show that this Order was ever passed. There is also a letter from the Auditor General which I have read to the House wherein he asked the proper department to give him a copy of this Order in Council. That request of the Auditor General was never complied with. I think, Sir, it is a fair
deduction that the Order in Council was never passed; otherwise the minister or his officials would have been only too pleased to hand it over to the Auditor General when required. A request was also made to the Minister of Finance, who, with the Auditor General and other officials, is the guardian of the treasury and is supposed to see that everything is done decently, regularly and in order, to make a demand for this Order in Council, and I do not think it would have been infra dig for him to pass it over to the Auditor General if he could get it. He did not get it, and he did not send it, and I have every reason to think that the hon. Minister of Finance would have gladly have filled up the gap and have rectified this irregularity if he had been in a position to do so. He did not get the Order in Council, and I am credibly informed that the Order in Council, if made, has never reached the proper officer in the Auditor General's Department. The Minister of Finance passed the whole thing over to the Prime Minister himself, and I have every reason to believe that his business instinct would lead him to make inquiry for the Order in Council and to see that it was furnished if it could be found. It has not been forthcoming so far. All that we know is that this ammunition was sold, and that there was evidently some irregularity, because the minister himself comes forward and says that he should have had an Order in Council for the selling of it, and that he did not get it. Why he did not get it is a matter of inquiry, and it is quite possible that it was determined by the proper authorities that such an Order in Council could not be made, and that the goods should never have been sold.
That, Sir, is, in a general way, the case. Besides, the file shows that the cost of production of these goods to this country was $34.60 per thousand rounds. They were then sold at $20 per thousand rounds, so that there was a loss to the country on every thousand rounds of the difference between $20 and $34.60. It has been reported, and I think' if it is properly inquired into it can be shown, that these goods were not sold to Vickers-Maxim at all, but were sold to the Admiralty. Now. it strikes the ordinary individual, and 1 think the members of this House, as somewhat unique, that although we have a Department of Militia and Defence to which we are giving millions of dollars annually for the proper discharge of duties of this kind, we have not the machinery

by which we can sell these few rounds of ammunition direct to the British Admiralty without the intervention of Colonel Allison. We have often heard the prayer and offered it ourselves, confessing thiat the brittle thread of our existence is in the hands of the great power above. But it seems to me that the brittle thread of the existence of the Government-and the Lord knows it is brittle enough-is in the hands of Allison, and that they cannot do anything, they cannot move a finger, they are unable to do the smallest little thing, without the providenoe of this man being invoked. It has been hinted, and I see in the newspapers to-day that this matter has already been referred to the court established by the Government nearly a year ago, that is the court presided over by Sir Charles Davidson, who is assisted by eminent counsel, Mr. Thompson. I do not think it should be left to that commission, because I think there should be a vigorous inquiry into this matter. Whatever may be the nature of the inquiry in that court to which. I have referred, it is moving very slowly indeed, and I do not think the Prime Minister will think it too much for me to say that, in my judgment at all events, this court should have been heard from in some shape or another before now. It is nearly a year since matters were submitted to them, and I think it would be only fair to expect that a report should have reached us in the earlier stages of this session, so that the people of this country, and Parliament, would know what this court was doing. So far we have not heard a word from them of their proceedings. The relief we may hope to receive from that court reminds me of the old story of the Indian whose wife had -been very sick for many months. The priest came to see him and to console him, and said to him: Never mind, Noel, the Lord will relieve you. Oh, yes, says the Indian, the Lord is no doubt very good, but he is very slow some times. I must say that, so far as this court is concerned it may be very good, but, like the Indian's Lord, it is very slow sometimes, and I would expect, if this matter is to be sent to a court at all, that it would be sent to a court from which we might have some hope of a decision some time before the present generations pass away.
These, Sir, are the facts upon which I base this motion. I move:
That it appears from official papers laid on the table of this House, that the Minister of

Militia, since the beginning of war, illegally and without any power or authority, sold a quantity of small ammunition exceeding 3,000,000 rounds to J. Wesley Allison, who represented himself as acting for Vickers, Maxim, Ltd., at a price of $20 per thousand rounds. That the quantity first intended to be sold was 5,000,000 rounds, and that over 3,000,000 rounds was actually delivered.
Be it and it is now resolved, that the depleting of the stock of ammunition held by the Government exclusively for the purposes of the war, and the disposal of the same to any one but the Imperial authorities, was a serious danger to the country and an offence which was further aggravated by the circumstance that there is strong reason for believing that the said ammunition was subsequently sold to the British authorities at an advanced price.
That the commission issued on the 3rd April to Sir William Meredith and Mr. Justice Duff to investigate certain contracts of the Shell Committee be also empowered to investigate the sale of small ammunition to the said J Wesley Allison, as well as the disposition which he made of it and that for the purposes of the said investigation, the said powers and authority now vested in the said commission be continued and extended as far as may be necessary.
In the light of the facts which I have presented to you, Mr. Speaker, I make this motion.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) has brought on this matter to-day without extending to the Government a courtesy that in my experience has seldom been withheld. It is the practice when a motion of want of confidence is to be made, that the hon. gentleman who proposes to make it will send at some reasonable time in advance a copy of the motion which he proposes to move. I did not know that this matter was coming up to-day, nor have I had from my hon. friend the courtesy of receiving a copy of the resolution he has moved, the terms of which I did not know at all until he read the motion to the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not want to be regarded as discourteous. I wrote the Prime Minister a letter in which I made reference specifically to this as being , a matter that had been referred to in a letter from the hon. Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) to himself, bearing date the 4th April. I saw the Prime Minister since and discussed this matter with him, and he did not complain that that was not sufficient notice. I did not think it was necessary to bother him with a copy of the motion when he already had the full substance of it. I did not know, even if I gave him another notice, that I could be sure of going on to-day, but if the min-

ister has not sufficient notice he need not go on with it now.


Robert Laird Borden: We will go on with it now, but it would have been better if my hon. friend had sent, some hours in advance, the usual notice containing an intimation of the terms of the motion, in order that the Government might have known what they had to meet in the proposal which was to be submitted to the House. The conversation which took place between my hon. friend and myself was simply this, that I explained to him that the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) desired to go forward with certain proposals as to which there had been an arrangement between himself and hon. gentlemen on the other side. I informed him at that time that an inquiry into this matter had already been authorized and that the inquiry would take place before Sir Charles Davidson. My hon. friend, in reply did not say that he was going on with the motion but he said that he desired to say something on the subject. The words impressed themselves upon my mind; I remember them precisely. I did not know until my hon. friend rose this afternoon that he really did propose to make this motion seeing that an inquiry had already been ordered.
However, I am glad to know that if he finds Sir Charles Davidson slow in reporting about matters into which he has made inquiry, he does not find him slow in proceeding with an inquiry once he has been authorized to do so. It was necessary to pass an additional Order in Council because when the Minister of Justice, with whom I had spoken on the subject about ten days ago, desired Sir Charles Davidson to proceed with this inquiry, he was told by Sir Charles Davidson that the terms of the Order in Council passed nearly a year ago, were not wide enough to embrace this matter. Therefore, the Minister of Justice brought a report to council on Monday last which was approved by His Royal Highness on Tuesday, and as soon as the Order in Council had been communicated to Sir Charles Davidson, he made arrangements to subpoena the witnesses and to proceed with the inquiry, with the result that the investigation commenced before my hon. friend made his motion. I understand that the matter was under investigation by Sir Charles Davidson this morning. Therefore, it would appear that the motion of my hon. friend is designed either to find fault with the commissioner who is making the investigation and to suggest another tribunal, or it is designed as a condemnation of the Government and of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes).


Mr. MACDONALD:: Where is the inquiry being carried on?
>
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:	He is holding
it in the city of Ottawa.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is a pretty large place.


Robert Laird Borden: I really do not know the precise place. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence informe me that it is in this very building.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Ie it a private or a public inquiry?


Robert Laird Borden: It is a public inquiry.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: It is a public inquiry unknown to the public.


Robert Laird Borden: In what way is it unknown to the public?


Wilfrid Laurier: Because the Prime Minister says he does not know where it is sitting and he is part of the public.


Robert Laird Borden: Does any right hon. friend expect me to take note of the particular place at which any commission holds ite sittings?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, but I
would have supposed that my right hon. friend would have known.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I found out very quickly from the Minister of Militia and Defence. It seems to me that my right hon. friend is hypercritical when he suggests that a minister of the Crown must know all these details about the proceedings of a commission that is carrying on its work. The commission is sitting for the purpose of holding a public investigation. I understand that the representatives of the press were present this morning; they knew about it, there iff nothing secret about it and if it is desired, Sir Charles Davidson will no doubt send to my right hon. friend, or to any of his followers whom he may designate, notice of the time and the place at which the commission will sit for the purpose of this, or any other investigation. I am glad that my hon. friend the member for North Cape Breton (Mr. COMMONS
McKenzie) has arrived at the conclusion that the Royal Commission composed of Sir William Meredith and Mr. Justice Duff is an efficient commission. Great objection was taken to the appointment of that commission for the purpose of investigating the matters they now have in hand, but my hon. friend from North Cape Breton is evidently satisfied with the commission so far, for he suggests that a further inquiry be referred to them.
As to the inquiry now before the Royal Commission, I might point out that it relates to an expenditure by the Government of the United Kingdom, whereas the inquiry with which Sir Charles Davidson is charged relates to matters with which the Government of Canada is concerned. For that reason, therefore, it was more proper to refer this matter to Sir Charles Davidson than to a commission which was appointed for the purpose of investigating expenditures made, not by this Government, but by the Government of the United Kingdom. There was this further reason for referring this matter to Sir Charles Davidson. Certain persons who are not usually in Ottawa, and who might be able to give necessary evidence in this inquiry, are in Ottawa at the present .time. It could hardly be expected that Sir William Meredith and Mr. Justice Duff would interrupt the proceedings they are now carrying on, for the purpose of taking up this inquiry. On the other hand, Sir Charles Davidson was in a position to take it up at once, and secure the evidence of witnesses who are now available in the city of Ottawa. It was therefore more convenient, and more in the public interest, as we thought, to refer this matter to Sir Charles Davidson rather than to Sir William Meredith and Mr. Justice Duff. The Government have absolute confidence both in the one commission and in the other; we have absolutely no choice between them. The only thing the Government would desire from either commission would be an impartial and thorough inquiry, and it would secure that inquiry whether the matter was referred to Sir William Meredith and Mr. Justice Duff or to Sir Charles Davidson.
Coming to the points which my hon. friend has made, he has alluded to the Auditor General's letter, and to the fact that no Order in Council seems to have been passed. This subject first came to my attention in the first or second week of February last, when some further information which had been asked for was received

from the Department of Militia and Defence. In consequence of the report then received still further information was asked for, and this did not come to hand until the first week of March, and did not come to my attention and was not read by me until after the Minister of Militia and Defence had left for England. I therefore did not read the information which has been brought down and laid on the table of the House, and which is contained in a memorandum from the Quartermaster General, until after the Minister of Militia and Defence had left for England. The question was discussed in the public press, and it was alluded to by my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition on the occasion when the Minister of Militia and Defence made a statement to the House with regard to the allegations of the hon. member for Richmond. It seemed to me then that as discussion had taken place and criticism had been made in the public press, and as my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition had made certain statements-I will not say insinuations-with regard to the matter, the subject was deserving of inquiry. We were aware then that witnesses whose testimony might be important and even necessary, would probably be very soon available in Ottawa, and for that reason	no further	proceedingswere	taken	upon the	report to
Council, arid the matter stood until, the inquiry, as to which I spoke to the Minister of Justice about ten days ago, could be made. That inquiry is now proceeding. Therefore, so far as this matter calls for an inquiry, I have only to say that an inquiry is already in progress before a gentleman of the highest integrity, ability and experience, and in whose capacity to make an impartial and thorough inquiry I am sure the country will have absolute confidence, and in whom the Government has the like confidence.
My hon. friend not only makes a demand for an inquiry, but proceeds to censure the Minister of Militia and Defence, and incidentally the Government, for the course which has been adopted. Let us look for a moment at the circumstances to which the hon. gentleman has called attention. In the first place he says that no one seemed to know to whom the ammunition was sold, or where it was going. The hon. gentleman is not well advised in making that statement, because the documents upon their face show that the ammunition was

sold to Vickers; Limited, and the shipping documents which have,been brought down and laid upon the Table show that the ammunition was shipped in care of Vickers, Limited, London, England; therefore, so far as the person to whom it was sold and the place to which it was shipped are concerned, there is no, warrant for the statement which my hon. friend has made.
He then goes on to suggest that the price at which this ammunition was sold was altogether too low. He suggests, rather than states, that it was perfectly good ammunition suitable for use by the troops at the front, and that ammunition of that type is now costing $34 or thereabouts per 1,000 rounds. He says in effect that the Minister of Militia and Defence sold for $20 per 1,000 rounds ammunition which had to be purchased at the price of $34 per 1,000 rounds. Either my hon. friend has not examined the papers or he was not desirous of making a fair and reasonable statement to the House. I shall take occasion to quote from the documents to show precisely what the facts are. As a matter of fact, only four months before this war broke out this same ammunition was offered for $12 per 1,000 rounds to the Ross Rifle Company, for testing purposes, and was refused by them. Further, the price for the same ammunition fixed by the responsible officers of the Department of Militia and Defence before this war broke out was $10 per 1,000 roundB, which is one-half of the first cost, as I am informed. This is the very same ammunition for which this country is to-day receiving $20 per 1,000 rounds.
It is worth while perhaps for me to refer to the report of the Quartermaster-General with Tegard to this matter. The regulations for the Army Ordnance Service, part 2, paragraphs 552-3, define the steps to be taken in regard to ammunition which has been declared unserviceable, and reads as follows :
Small arm ammunition, having been sentenced " Unserviceable " by the Inspecting Ordnance Officer or other proper authority, and the sentence having been approved, will be dealt with as follows: the bullets will be extracted, the cartridges will then be fired off and loose cordite will be burned. Where it is for any reason impossible to destroy ammunition in the above manner, it will be drowned in deep water.
A few years ago the Minister of Militia caused a very careful investigation to be made with regard to the ammunition in stock in this country. The report of the British experts who made that investigation has been brought down and laid upon the table of the House. It is proper that I should read a portion of that report:
As to small arms ammunition, we do not recommend the continuance of ringing on new ammunition. We regard the ringing as a satisfactory method of Checking the blow-backs to which Dominion Arsenal '303 cartridges have in the past been peculiarly liable. Cases recently manufactured-with cap chamber better formed and freer from scores, etc.-do not require ringing, and we do not consider that in [DOT]303 cases of future manufacture, any necessity should arise for this treatment, which should be regarded only as a means of overcoming defective manufacture.
The report is a very long one and indicates that ammunition manufactured during certain years, more particularly when my hon. friends opposite were responsible for the management of the Dominion Arsenal, was not of a quality which would justify its use in active service. The report continues:
Some 40,000 to 50,000 cartridges have been rejected on examination after ringing.
I do not precisely understand the operation of ringing, and it will be explained by my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes). It was a device for making defective ammunition serviceable by overcoming certain defects which had occurred in its manufacture. The report continues:
We would suggest that these be visually examined for elim.nation of scored cases, etc., and used for machine gun practice only.
Further on the report proceeds:
Ammunition subsequent to February, 1908, to be ringed, visually examined for ringing and for external scores, and for elimination of the old e.g. (07) cases, and subject to firing proof before reissue. For each lot of 200,000 rounds, 1,000 rounds should ibe taken for proof; if a burst occurs, a second proof of 1,000 should be taken of the lot in question and also of the lot immediately preceding and the one immediately following. We do not think that ammunition manufactured in and prior to February, If08, is likely to be rendered serviceable even after ringing on recount of the uncertain annealing and its liability to bursts, and we are of opinion that the ammunition should be broken up and the cases might be used for blank and a certain saving thereby effected.
I want my hon. friend and the House generally to understand that of the 3,000,000 rounds which have been sold 2,000,000 are of the character which I have described. Those 2,000,000 rounds were ordered by the Barlow reportr-the report of British officers brought to this country for the purpose of making a thorough examination of our ammunition-not to be ringed, not

to be used for any purpose, but to be broken, up, and it was recommended that the cases should be used for blanks and a certain saving thereby effected. Therefore, so far as these 2,000,000 rounds were concerned, they were absolutely condemned by the Barlow report, and the 4 p.m. Minister of Militia and Defence, when the matter came before him, wrote the word " destroy," because it was obvious that that ammunition was not fit to be used in active service, nor even for practice.
Now, a precis of what took place will be found in the report of the quartermaster general, which 'has been brought down to the House, and which, after setting forth the regulations of the Army Ordnance Service, goes on to say:
The Barlow report condemned as unserviceable all '303 ammunition manufactured prior to February, 1908, and recommended same to be destroyed.
I have just read a quotation from that report. Then the following memoranda are noted:
Memo, from Director of Artillery proposing selling all Mark VI ammunition of five years of age and older at half price, dated 24th October, 1911.
Submission along this line to Militia Council by Master General of Ordnance, approved by Militia Council, dated 15th November, 1911.
Notification by Director of Artillery to Principal Ordnance Officer of decision of Council to sell and asking for insertion in Militia Order, dated 18th November, 1911.
A militia order to that effect was made thereupon in the same month.
Telegram, 4th of May, 1914, from manager, Ross Rifle Company asking what quantity of ammunition department would sell.
That was followed by a recommendation of the Master General of Ordnance to sell it, and there was thereupon a reply from the deputy minister to the Ross Rifle Co., offering to sell 10,000,000 rounds at $12 per thousand rounds. That offer was dated the 18th of May, 1914.
The next document to which the Quartermaster General calls attention is a memorandum dated the 29th July, 1914, from the Quartermaster General to the Master General of Ordnance, suggesting that this ammunition be destroyed by drowning. The destruction of ammunition by drowning simply mean that it is thrown into deep water where no harm can result from it. The suggestion was that this ammunition should be disposed of in that way rather than by the method proposed in the Barlow report. It will be remembered that the

commission made a recommendation as to taking out and utilizing the cordite, and thereby effecting some saving. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence says that the proposal to break up the ammunition and save the cordite was in virtue of a departmental regulation and not a suggestion of the Barlow Commission.
The next document, which is dated July 30, 1914, just before the war broke out, is a reply from the Ross Rifle Company refusing the offer of sale at price quoted.
There are some of these documents which I think it might be of interest for me to read to the House. I am afraid they are not arranged here in chronological order, but I will read them just as they are, and hon. gentlemen, I think, will sufficiently understand the situation.
The first document that I have here is dated January 8, 1914, and is a report from General Morrison, who is now at the front:
According to tbe findings of the Barlow report on the Dominion Arsenal and its output all "303 ammunition made prior to February, 1908, is condemned as unserviceable, and it is recommended that this ammunition should be destroyed.
During the past summer some of this ammunition was used by the Royal Canadian Regiment at Halifax with very bad results, though no serious accidents happened.
I would suggest that orders be issued that no more of the ammunition made prior to February, 1908, should be issued to or used by troops, pending the decision of the minister as to what disposition is to be made of it.
Regarding all Mark VI ammunition made subsequent to January 31st, 1908, the report recommends that it should all be tested before being passed as serviceable. No action has yet been taken by the Honourable the minister, in council regarding this recommendation, possibly because until the arrival of Captain Gordon Ogilvie from Woolwich to take over the appointment of inspector of small arm ammunition there was no officer available to carry out the tests. Further action on this will be reported on at an early date.
Hon. gentlemen should bear in mind that all this ammunition which has been sold is what is known as Mark VI, which is only intended for Mark II Ross rifle. The authorized Ro-ss rifle at the present time is the Mark III Ross rifle.' Therefore, not one single round of this ammunition, even if it had not been condemned, could have been used in active service at the front because our troops are armed, not with the Mark II Ross rifle,-but with the Mark III Ross rifle. I consulted with the Master General of Ordnance himself, and he told me that not one single round of any ammunition of Mark VI should be issued for service at the front, as if would be unsuitable; and the ammunition which must be

issued for troops at the front is Mark VII ammunition. The only ammunition sold was Mark VI, and it included two million rounds which had been condemned as absolutely unserviceable. The next document I wish to read is dated 24th October, 1911. It is signed by Major General Elliott, a British Officer of long experience, who entered the Canadian service some years ago and whose work has been thoroughly satisfactory, indicating that his capacity and experience are all that could be desired:
With reference to your return of .303-inch ball ammunition; it is suggested as ammunition over 5 years old is liable to deteriorate that all S.A.A. of dates up to and including 1906 beginning with the oldest should be sold at half price. This will make more certain of a turnover which is absolutely necessary, and will it is thought be appreciated by all ranks interested in rifle shooting and also by Rifle Associations and Cadet Corps.
It is at any rate better to make use of old though serviceable ammunition rather than to keep it so long that it becomes useless and has to be destroyed. An instance of this as you know has lately occurred.
Hon. members will bear in mind that this was nearly four years ago, and his suggestion was that they should begin to dispose of the ammunition of 1905 manufacture which, at the present time, would correspond, roughly speaking, with that manufactured in 1909. A memorandum upon that was made by Major-General Hallick, prinicpal Ordnance Officer, in the following words:
It is necessary before giving instruc. tions, to ascertain from S.O.O.'s the date of manufacture of all ammunition on charge which in the consolidated return is shown as " prior to 1903 This is in hand.
It is assumed you will obtain council's authority for the proposed reduction in price for sales?
Then I come to a report of the Master General of the Ordnance which was confirmed by the Militia Council. The date of the submission of this report was 10th November, 1911. The report is in the following words:
The Master-General of the Ordnance makes the following submission for approval of the Minister in Militia Council.
Small Arm ammunition over five years old should be sold at half price.
This will obviate the possibility of this ammunition having to be destroyed owing to age and consequent deterioration, will ensure a proper turn over which is not 1 h . case at present, and will probably be app eciated by Rifle Associations and Cadet Corps.
That was presented to the Militia Council, and on 15th November, 1911, it was approved by the Militia Council, as will appear from this minute:
The Master-General of the Ordnance:
Your submission in this case was considered at the meeting of the Militia Council held this day, and approved.
E. F. Jarvis, Secretary,
The Militia Council.
Other departmental minutes and memoranda with regard to the subject were made, and finally the following report was made by the Quartermaster-General and was embodied, as I understand it, in Militia Orders:
Price of '303" ball cartridges of old manufacture.
In future, issues on payment by the Canadian Ordnance Corps of *303" ball cartridges of over 5 years manufacture will be made at half price, viz., $10 (ten dollars) per thousand rounds.


H.Q. 62-2-31.)
[Stage Direction]
(Sgd.) D. A. (Macdonald.
(Sgd.) H. K. B.,

[Stage Direction]
These are the initials of General Benson, then Master General of Ordnance. Then comes a letter from General Benson, (at that time Colonel) Master General of the Ordnance, in the following terms:
Q.M.G. :
Re telegram from Mr. Craig, Ross Company, reoommended that ten million rounds be sold composed of 1908-1909 manufacture leaving suflicieht at Quebec to be ringed for use during 1914.
2.	The cost of delivery at point to be named by Mr. Craig to be borne by purchasers.
3.	Could you give me the approximate date on which this order could be delivered at Quebec?
4.	Ammunition of dates prior to 1908 has been condemned and must be destroyed or broken up.
The telegram from Mr. Craig to which General Benson alluded was dated 4th May, 1914, and was in the following terms:
Quebec, Que., May 4, 1913.
Colonel Sam Hughes,
Minister of Militia,
Ottawa, Ont.
Referring to General Macdonald's letter twenty-fifth February, what largest quantity can you sell me up to forty millions at price mentioned?
Thomas Craig.
The response to that telegram was a letter from the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, dated 18th May, 1914, which is as follows:
Ottawa, May 18, 1914.
The Manager,
Ross Rifle Company,
Quebec.
Sir,-With reference to your telegram to the hon. the minister, dated the 4th instant, I have
[Stage Direction]
the honour to inform you that ten million rounds of '303" hall ammunition of 1908 and 1909 manufacture are available for sale to your company at $12 (twelve dollars) per thousand rounds, plus 75 cents (seventy-five cents) per box for such packages as contain it, delivery to be taken by your representatives at Toronto, Montreal and Halifax in about equal proportions.
The price offered is conditional on your accepting the whole ten millions, as any smaller lot would be charged for at an increased price per thousand rounds.
Please inform me if you accept this offer in order that instructions may be sent to the Ordnance Officers concerned.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) Eug. Fiset,
Colonel,
Deputy Minister.
On the 'margin is noted the following by the minister:
If this is proper price, O.II. Sam. Hughes.
The Ross Rifle Company, as appears by the correspondence, refused to purchase at the price of $12 and the proposed eale wa6 not carried out. I may observe also that the ammunition which it wa6 proposed to sell to the Ross Rifle Company was 1908 and 1909 ammunition, whereas the two million rounds ,to which I have alluded was three years older, having been manufactured in 1905 and 1906.
The result, therefore, is that the Department has sold at $20 per thousand rounds ammunition declared absolutely unservic-able by the Barlow report and ordered to be destroyed; ammunition which was three years older than the ammunition which was offered to the Ross Rifle Company in May 1914 at $12 per thousand rounds. I think that if these facts are borne in mind by the hon. gentlemen, they will dispose of any question as to adequacy of price.
The report which I was about to read is a report from Col. J. F. Macdonald for the Quartermaster-General.	It is dated
July 29, 1914, and is as follows:
Destruction of ammunition of date of manufacture prior to February 1908. With reference to folios 110 to 114, the S.O.O.-
S.O.O. means the Senior Ordnance Officer.
With reference to folios 110 to 114, the S.O.O. -5th division, was instructed to hand over to the superintendent of the Dominion Arsenal the stock of ammunition referred to on folio 41. He now reports that the superintendent has neither time, facilities nor accommodation for taking over this ammunition, but that he, the superintendent, stated that it may be possible to take it over about the 1st of October for salvage, provided, in the meantime, he sees that it will lead to economy.
It therefore seems doubtful whether the Dominion Arsenal will be able to take over

the ammunition, and as the storage accommodation taken up by it is very urgently required for serviceable ammunition, and the boxes in which it Is packed are required for packing ammunition now being manufactured, would it not be preferable to have all this condemned ammunition destroyed by drowning or otherwise?
Please see my minute, folio 114, in this connection, to which you do not seem to have replied.
J. F. Macdonald,
Lit-Colonel, for Major General, Quartermaster-General.
There is a minute made upon that report by Gen. Hughes, personally, on the 6th day of October, 1914-I am not sure whether that is the correct date or not- which is just one word: "Destroy" of which the director of artillery made a note.
I might read, although it does not come in order of date, the letter of the Ross Rifle Company refusing the offer to sell at $12.00. It is under date of July 30, 1914, and is as follows:
Col. Eugene Fiset,
Deputy Minister,
Department of Militia and Defence, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-Your letter of July 6th H.Q. " C " 1402 was duly received but acknowledgment was delayed owing to the writer's absence.
In view of the fact that we received a quotation from Ottawa, under date of February 26, of $10 per 1,000 for 500,000 rounds of .303 ammunition, it will be impossible for us to avail ourselves of your quotation of May 18th, viz. $12.75 per 1,000, which is $2.75 per 1,000 in excess of the former offer.
We beg to remain, Sir,
Your obedient servants,
Ross Rifle Company.
Thomas Craig,
Secretary.
It is perfectly true, as the hon. member for North Victoria and Cape Breton has said, that there was a note, concurred in, I think, by the chief of the General Staff and the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, that none of this defective ammunition should be sold. I have that under my hand, and I should like to refer to its exact terms. It was on the 13th of October, 1914; I might as well read it:
Under the existing circumstances, low stock of ammunitidn, do you not think it would be wiser to hold this ammunition until such time as the stock in depots is brought up to normal condition?
See folio 122 hereof.
D. A. Macdonald,
Major-General,
Quartermaster-General.
The following note appears under that: " We should not dispose of one single round. (Signed) E. F„ D. M. 15th October, 1914."	" E. F." means the Deputy

Minister of Militia and Defence. A further memorandum by Colonel Gwatkin, now General Gwatkin, was as follows:
With reference to folio 122, the situation has changed since the word "Destroy" was written; and the order, unless repeated, should not be carried out.
Then further on:	"Noted. Necessary
action taken." . All these memoranda are based on the report of the Quartermaster General, which declared that would be wiser to hold this ammunition until such time as the stock in depots had been brought up to normal condition. Let us see what the condition was at the time the war broke out-because a statement with regard to that is brought down and included in the return. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence desires to know whether this should be made public. 1 say no. I made this public in the face of the advice of the Chief of the General Staff, the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence and the Master General of Ordnance. I felt that I was compelled to do so by reason of the insinuations and virtual charges made in this House, moTe particularly by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. Notwithstanding the advice of these officials, I was determined that this information should be brought down and the facts made known, although the publication of those facts may be a detriment ito the public interest. If hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are determined to spend their time in seeking to pry into matters of this character with regard to which they are not fully informed, and to make charges and insinuations with regard .to them, it is necessary, in order that public opinion in this country should be quieted, that we should make matters public that otherwise would not be made public. Therefore I felt it my duty to bring this information down and to place the actual conditions before the people.
On the first day of August there was in stock of Mark VI ammunition 36,418,160 rounds and of Mark VII ammunition 3,534,571 rounds, a total of 39,952,731 rounds. Hon. gentlemen will observe that we had on the first day of August, 1914, a very large supply of ammunition suitable for the -Mark II Ross rifle, and a very small amount of ammunition sujitable for the Mark III Ross rifle, which is the rifle used on active service, as it has superseded Mark II. We sent forward, to be used, as we understood, for practice purposes, a
very considerable amount of Mark VI ammunition when the first Canadian contingent went forward. So that on the 31st December, 1914, the supply stood in this way:
Rounds.
Mark VI	 14,936,304
Mark VII	 4,161,556
A total of	 19,097,860
As compared with 39,952,731 rounds on the 1st day of August. In other words, we had decreased by about twenty-one and a half million rounds the supply of Mark VI, and we had increased by about 600,000 rounds the supply of Mark VII. The decrease was due to shipment of large quantities to Great Britain. On the 31st day of March, 1916, the supply stands as follows:
Rounds.
Mark VI	 9,449,772
Mark VII	 12,569,080
Or a total of		22,018,852
We have decreased by about five million rounds the Mark VI ammunition, which is not suitable for use in active service at the front with the Mark III Ross rifle, the standard rifle of the Canadian forces; and we have increased by nearly eight and a half million rounds the supply of the Mark VII ammunition, which is the ammunition designed for use with the rifle with which our troops are armed for active service. So then I venture to think that, taking things i as they were in the autumn of 1914 and as they are to-day, the condition alluded to by the quartermaster general has been brought about, as the supply of ammunition has been brought up to very much more than normal for the Mark III Ross rifle.
Under the circumstances, the course which was taken by the Minister of Militia and Defence was this: We have still in stock in Canada 10,000,000 rounds of Mark VI ammunition. I have conferred with authority as high as any recognized in this country respecting the supply of that type of ammunition which should be kept on ' hand; and the amount named to me was 5,000,000 rounds. This, as I have said, is suited for the old type of Ross rifle, and is not so suitable for the new type. Instead of 5,000,000 rounds of this kind of ammunition, we have to-day nearly 10,000,000 rounds; and in addition to that we have twelve and a half million rounds of Mark VII ammunition, which is suitable for use with the improved
[Stage Direction]
Ross rifle for active service. Under the circumstances, hon. gentlemen on the other side, on the strength of newspaper rumours, have seen fit to make charges or insinuations in this matter, and we have thought it desirable that all the documents should be brought down, even though, in the ordinary course, they would not be brought down as they give certain information with which we would prefer that the enemy should not be made acquainted.
And we have done more than that; we have passed an Order in Council directing that there shall be a full inquiry into all the circumstances of this case, and that inquiry is now proceeding. Under the circumstances, considering that an inquiry has already been directed and is now proceeding, my hon. friend's motion is inopportune for two reasons:	In the first place,
the inquiry which he asks for is now being carried on and, in the second place, it is a most unusual course thaj; any gentleman in this House while a matter is under inquiry by a responsible tribunal, should see fit, without waiting for the report of that commission, to propose a motion condemning the Government and especially condemning one of its members. It would have been in better taste, and the time of the House would not have been wasted, if my hon. friend had awaited the conclusion of that inquiry and reserved the motion he now proposes until we had before us the information which will be afforded by that inquiry when made. I need hardly add that, under the circumstances, we cannot accept the motion of my hon. friend, because an effective inquiry is now being proceeded with. When that inquiry has been made and the report upon it is in the possession of hon. gentlemen of this House, it will be quite time enough for any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House to come forward with a vote of censure.
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) opened his remarks by complaining that he had not received the usual courtesy which is extended from one side to the other whenever a subject is to be taken up which is not already on the Orders of the Day. The little discussion which took place between him and the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) showed that there was no cause for complaint on his part. It has been shown that my right hon. friend did receive ample

notification, because last Monday-this is Saturday-and last Monday the member for Cape Breton informed my right hon. friend by letter that on that very day, last Monday, he would ask for an inquiry into this matter, specifying that he would ask that this matter be referred to the commission composed of Sir William Meredith and Mr. Justice Duff. Surely, after the many occasions on which, during the present session, this matter has already been brought to the attention of the House, my right hon. friend should have known what was meant; and so it seems to me that his complaint was not well founded.
I call my right hon. friend's attention to this, that time and again during the present session he has stated that if any member had charges to make against anybody, against the Government or any of its members, the moment an hon. member would take the responsibility of making the charges, most ample investigation would be offered and given. If, Sir, there is a case which requires investigation, and the most ample investigation at that, it is the very matter which we now have in hand. Records which have already been brought down show that, some time during last year, the Minister of Militia took upon himself to dispose of a certain quantity of small ammunition. He had no warrant, he had no authority for doing so, the thing was absolutely illegal. What he sold was not the property of Gen. Sir Sam Hughes; it was the property of the 'Government, and the Government alone could dispose of it. What was his authority, what reason was given? My right hon. friend has given no reason at all for the conduct of his colleague in the matter. Whether the minister acted upon his own motion, without even consulting his colleagues verbally, does not appear. The first thing we know of this is that a communication was sent by the Auditor General to the Minister of Finance on the 3rd of April, 1916, calling the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact, some time prior to the 31st of December last, this department sold through Colonel J. Wesley Allison, without the authority of the Governor in Council, over 3,000,000 rounds of ammunition at $20 per thousand rounds, and he concluded in this way:
I have therefore to request that you will obtain the approval of the Governor in Council for the sale, and that you will also let me know why the rate was fixed at $20 per thousand rounds.
It is very strange that amongst the papers brought down, the authority of the Governor General in Council for the sale of

that ammunition is not given. The only thing I find in the record is a recommendation of the Minister of Militia, dated 5th of January, 1916, to His Royal Highness the Governor General in Council, which is in the following words:
January 5, 1916.
To His Royal Highness the
Governor General in Council,
The undersigned has the honour to submit for the consideration and approval of Your Royal Highness in Council an application from Vickers Limited for the purchase of 4,985,900 rounds of S. A. ammunition, mark VI. This is part of the stock of mark VI ammunition, which, under suspicion, was not allowed to be used with rifles in Canada. The price of the ammunition to be $20 per thousand rounds. This ammunition, while rejected for rifle use.
Mark the -words-
-for rifle use is, however, reported to be suitable for testing of Vickers machine guns which are manufactured in very large numbers in England.
The matter is respectfully submitted.
Sam Hughes,
Major General,
Minister of Militia and Defence.
That is the recommendation to council dated 5th January last. The report in answer to the motion passed by the House was brought in about three weeks ago. No Order in Council is found in the papers and as far as we know to this day there is no Order in Council. A few days ago my hon. friend from Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) asked why this Order in Council had not been, brought down. If I remember the answer of the right hon. the Prime Minister correctly, it was then stated that the Order in Council had not been passed because the matter had been brought to the attention of the Council in the absence of the Minister of Militia. Mystery piles upon mystery in this matter. The recommendation was made and sent to Council apparently on the 5th January. January passed away, February passed away, March passed away. For three months the Minister of Militia was here attending to his duties; he sailed for England in the last days of March or the first days of April, I do not know which; he was away for some three weeks, he has been back now for three weeks and to this day the Government has not legalized such an illegal matter as the sale of the property of the Government by the Minister of Militia. What age are we *living in? Is this Parliamentary Government, or is it not Parliamentary Government? Do I understand that the members of the Government will allow one of their colleagues to dispose of the property of the
country illegally and without a tittle of authority? That is the position in which we are at the present time.
My right hon. friend says that there are certain matters which ought not to be brought to the attention of the country because they affect the war. He gave us the information as to the amount of ammunition which was held by the country at one time, and the amount which is held to-day, and he says he did this in defiance of the advice of his officers to allay the suspicions of the Opposition. When and where have we asked for any information as to the amount of the stock of ammunition which is held by the Government? We have never inquired into that, we do not want to know. That is the business of the Government and in regard to that it ought to be trusted. But, we do want to know under what circumstances a part of the stock which should have been held for the country was disposed of to that philanthropist, Mr. J. W. Allison. The answer given by the Prime Minister to-day is not only insufficient but-and I do not want to characterize it too strongly-it is in absolute defiance of the law of Parliament. We should know where we stand to-day. Do the Government approve of their colleagues disposing of the property of the Government as he has done or do they not? What is the reason that to-day we have not the sanction of the Government for this matter? We should know whether or not the Government approve of the action of their colleague and if they do approve of it then they should legalize it because the thing is illegal. If they do not approve of it they should tell us why they do not approve of it and they should act accordingly. The whole defence which is set up by the Prime Minister to-day with regard to this sale is simply this, that there was a certain stock of ammunition which was deficient and which had been condemned by the authorities. But, I do not understand that the ammunition which was condemned by the authorities -is the ammunition which was disposed of under this recommendation of the Minister of Militia to Council, is the ammunition which he has sold to that philanthropist and patriot, Mr. J. W. Allison, because he does not say in that recommendation to his colleagues that he wants to dispose of all the ammunition which was found defective. No, he says it is " suspicious." He speaks of .such part of the stock of Mark VI ammunition as was under sus-

picion and he says that it was not allowed to be used with rifles in Canada; that it is suspicious and should not be used in the field. Yet, it has some virtue in it because he goes on to say that:
The price of the ammunition to be $20 per thousand rounds. This ammunition, while rejected for rifle use-
Mark the words-
-is however reported to be useful for the testing of Vickers machine guns now being manufactured in very large numbers in England.
If this ammunition was useful to Vickers for the testing of their machine guns, why was it sold to Vickers and not to the Imperial authorities? The Imperial authorities wanted this ammunition just as much as Vickers-Maxim wanted it and the charge which we make against the Government in this matter is that this stock was disposed of to a private individual, and that this Government had no right to authorize the disposal of this ammunition to anybody but the Imperial authorities. If they had power to do so, an Order in Council stating that the Government had that power ought to have been passed. There is on record in this return which has been brought down, the rule laid down by the Quartermaster General, General Macdonald, approved by the Deputy Minister oi Militia and Defence, that no ammunition should be disposed of to anybody. In the face of this it was disposed of. Leaving aside altogether the fact that it was disposed of to such a person as Mr. John Wesley Allison, do hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, in times of war, believe that we should dispose of the stock of ammunition that we have, deficient or not deficient, useful or not useful, to anybody but the Imperial authorities if we do not require to use it ourselves? I submit that in this time of war, it is nothing short of a crime against the country that we should deplete our stock of ammunition by selling it to anybody. But who is that body? It is Mr. J. W. Allison who represents himself to be acting as a philanthropist while acting for the Vickers-Maxim Company.
It is said that the ammunition was sold to the Vickers-Maxim Company for testing purposes. I call the minister's attention to the letter of the Auditor General in which he says that he had reason to believe that the ammunition was disposed of finally through somebody to the Imperial authorities; that is to say that the ammunition, instead of being sold directly by the Gov-
[Sir Wilfrid I.aurier. j
ernment here to the Imperial authorities, was sold to private individuals, or through the agency of Mr. J. Wesley Allison. The Auditor General in his letter, makes use of this language:
The department has been buying ammunition since the declaration of war at $33 per thousand rounds and has also been manufacturing ammunition at the Dominion Arsenal at a cost of $34.60 per thousand rounds; consequently, there has been a loss to the Government in this transaction of over $45,000.
It is alleged that this ammunition has been sold to Vickers, Limited, for testing purposes. I can hardly credit that statement, owing to the magnitude of the sale; but if it were sold, why was it sold at such a low rate, and why was it necessary to obtain the services of Colonel Allison? Mark this: the Auditor General can hardly believe that this ammunition was sold to Vickers, Limited, for testing purposes. Well, for my part, I am rather disposed to agree, until better informed, with the suspicion of the Auditor General. Vickers, Ltd., were intending to buy 5,000,000 rounds of ammunition at $20 per 1,000 rounds. Some 3,000,000 rounds had been delivered, for which they would have to pay $60,000, and there is evidence on record that some $20,000 was paid. Now, $60,000 seems to be a very large sum to pay for ammunition simply for testing purposes. That struck the Auditor General, and it would strike anybody else in the same way. The Auditor General goes on:
I have reason to believe that the ammunition was resold at an advance of about 25 per cent, and that its destination was not Vickers, Limited. I may be mistaken in this, but Colonel Allison's connection with the transaction does not tend to allay suspicion. I wrote the Department .of Militia and Defence, asking to be furnished with an Order in Council, etc, etc.
I repeat what the Auditor General says here, that there is reason to believe that the ammunition was sold at an advance of about 25 per cent. He does not say to whom, but I think I am warranted in saying that there is strong reason for believing that the ammunition was sold to the Imperial authorities, and I say this upon the statement made by the Minister of Militia and Defence himself. On page 7 of this file is found the following statement by the Minister of Militia and Defence:
Re the sale of defective ammunition. The Canadian Treasury has received $20 for every thousand rounds thereof. There are no records available to show what became of it, further than that it was regularly ordered and shipped to Vickers, one of the most reputable firms in the world. The assurance was given that not

one cent was paid in commission by the firm to any one, and no profit was made on it. It
is understood-
These words are very vague.

It is understood that to cover the cost of transport, handling-, exchange, insurance, etc.j a sum was added by one cf V'ckers' officers to the price, but on learning that these expenses were borne by the British Government they were immediately removed.
These expenses were borne by the British Government. What is the meaning of that? If the ammunition was consumed by Vickers themselves, there was no necessity for adding to the price. If they were selling it to somebody else, then of course it was necessary to add to the price the cost of transport, handling, exchange, insurance, etc. Mark the closing words of this paragraph, and I leave it to the sense of any man to say whether they do not furnish irrefutable evidence that the purchaser from Vickers, Limited, was the Imperial authorities. Why were the expenses to be bt)rne by the British Government unless the ammunition was sold to -the British Government? And this is from the report of the Minister of Militia and Defence himself. The Minister of Militia and Defence also states:
The Canadian Treasury has received $20 for every thousand rounds thereof. There are no records available to show what became of it.
And he ends the paragraph thus:
On learning that these expenses were borne by the British Government they were immediately removed.
It seems to me that he knows more than he pretends to know; that he knows this ammunition, after it was sold by him to Vickers, Limited, was sold by them-or at all events through the agency of Colonel Allison-to the Imperial authorities. That is something which I say is absolutely inexcusable. Will anybody in this country excuse the Minister of Militia or the Government for having depleted our stock of ammunition by selling this quantity to Vickers, Limited, and allowing them to sell it at a profit to the Imperial authorities. That is the charge which is made to-day; that is the charge which is borne out by the record, and it is that for which we ask an investigation. I repeat what I said a moment ago: the Prime Minister, not upon one occasion only, but on occasions almost without number during the present session has stated that if a charge were made against one of his colleagues or against the Government, nothing would be allowed to stand 246
in the way of an investigation. The Minister of Militia himself has repeated more than once that he desires the most ample investi-tion. The defence made to-day by the Prime Minister is that the matter has been referred to the Davidson Commission. I have to complain of one thing, and it is this:	We should have had this OrdeT in
Council brought before us to-day, and long before to-day; it should have been laid upon the Table as- soon as it was passed. The House has a right to be informed whenever a matter of this kind is referred to a commission to be investigated, so that the men who had called the attention of the Government to the matter might have an opportunity of following the inquiry. The charge which I make to-day is that the Government is not giving to this charge the most ample investigation.
There are two investigating commissions sitting in Ottawa to-day. Will any one pretend that the Davidson Commission will give the same degree of satisfaction to the public as the Commission presided over by Sir William Meredith and Mr. Justice Duff? Will any one pretend that it is possible to expect that this matter will be probed to the bottom-investigated out and out- before the Davidson Commission as it would be before the Commission presided over by Sir William Meredith and Mr. Justice Duff? How are the two commissions composed? One is composed of a single judge, and the other is composed of two judges. The Davidson Commission, composed of a single judge, has no counsel to prosecute this charge before the commissioner. There is only one young man, eminent in his profession, I admit, to assist the commissioner. But I have this to say against Mr. Thompson's investigating this matter. If I am correctly informed, Mr. Thompson, who assists the commissioner, is an officer in the Militia, under the Minister of Militia and Defence. Will niy right hon. friend or any other hon. gentleman tell me that it is proper that the Minister of Militia should be investigated by a commissioner who is assisted by one of the officers of the Minister of Militia? If we are to have an investigation the ordinary rules should be . followed. On the other hand, there is before the Commission presided over by Sir William Meredith and Mr. Justice Duff, a counsel appointed to represent the Opposition. Have they not the same Tight to investigate one charge as to investigate another? If the Government thought they owed it to the country, under the



existing circumstances in which we are placed, that the fuse charges should be so probed that the country could have absolute faith and confidence in the Tesult, and that the Opposition should be allowed to select a counsel so that both sides of the case would be represented and the fullest probing of the matter ensured, is there not as much reason why this matter should also be investigated in the same manner by the same commission? The only reason given by my right hon. friend why the matter was placed in the hands of the Davidson Commission was because certain witnesses were at present available in Ottawa. Those witnesses can always be procured whenever they are needed, and if the investigation cannot take place immediately because other matter are being investigated at present, it can be delayed for a few weeks, so that his reason is not a valid one why the course I have suggested should not be taken. My right hon. friend is not living up to-day to the pledge which he has boastingly given on more than one occasion that upon any charges there will be a full investigation. The investigation before the Davidson Commission is not a full investigation; it is not satisfactory, and we must press to have the matter referred to the Meredith-Duff Commission.
Sir SAM HUGHES (Minister of Militia and Defencef: Mr. Speaker, Let me say at the outset that I am delighted to see the right hon. leader of the Opposition in such good form. From what I have heard recently, I expected that he would come here in an ambulance and be attended by two or three nurses. I understand he has recently been passing through a very trying time; that he has been passing through political tribulations.


William Pugsley: He is feeling pretty good.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: There is one thing, however, that I do miss. In his enthusiastic utterances', he did not label himself as one of the old Liberal school of politicians. His voice had little of the ring that I used to hear in it in 1896, when his hair was Longer than it is to-day and hardly so gray, when he used to tell the people of Ontario: Hands off Manitoba, and when he would go down to Quebec and say to the people there: Trust me, a Frenchman and a Roman Catholic and shun Tupper, who is an Englishman and a Protestant. His voice had somewhat of the pathos of the olden times but hardly the

ring in it. I understood that the House was not sitting on Saturdays, and I thought the right hon. gentleman was going to take the opportunity of doing some recruiting.


William Pugsley: This is a sort of red
herring.


Samuel Hughes: I beg your pardon.


William Pugsley: This a sort of red hering which the hon. gentleman is using just-now.


Samuel Hughes: Recruiting is going on excelltently, but in the place where the right hon. leader of the Opposition might exercise some influence, I am sorry to say that it needs a little stimulant, and I trust Tie will direct his attention to that matter and make use of that pathos that he has exhibited here to-day.
5 p.m. He has complained that Captain Thompson, a lawyer, is engaged before Sir Charles Davidson. The fact that Captain Thompson wears the uniform of a British ofiicer is a good reason why he should be regarded as entirely worthy to appear before Sir Charles Davidson, and it is one of the surest guarantees that he is an jionest man. I have not, however, the slightest doubt that from the great array of legal talent behind the right hon. leader of the Opposition he can select suitable counsel, in case Captain Thompson cannot find time to attend to the duties of the court, to take his place. I do not find as many of my right hon. friends in uniform as I would like to find.
I will briefly analyse this matter. The charge was made before I arrived here that the price of this ammunition was too low. I may say that it is exactly the cost of the ammunition and it is just twice the price that was offered a year or so ago for the same ammunition. The statement was made that it was not known where the ammunition was going. The correspondence brought down clearly shows that it' was ordered by the firm of Vickers-Maxim, one of the most reputable firms in the world, and was shipped to them, and that the money was paid by them to the Bank of Montreal in England. The statement was made that the ammunition was resold. That statement is absolutely untrue. The ammunition was sold to Vickers-Maxim and the address given of one of their officers. The statement was made that no Order in Council was passed.


J916
[Stage Direction]
3903*
There was no necessity for an Order in Council in regard to the matter. According to the law, the quartermaster general could have thrown the ammunition into the river St. Lawrence. That is with reference to that made 'before 1909, and subsequent to 1909 the officer commanding the district of Quebec had the absolute authority to destroy ammunition on an order from General Macdonald, that is, on an order from a " superior authority." General Macdonald, on receiving the intimation to sell the ammunition, did not consider that to be " superior authority," and he therefore came and got me to initial the document. The reason I asked for an Order in Council in regard to the 2,000,000 rounds was because the quantity was so large that I thought the responsibility, if anything transpired, should be divided. The cost price of the ammunition, when it was supposed to be in good condition, was $20 per thousand. I have not heard of any price of $34.60, and I do not know what that refers to. Mark VI ammunition is not being manufactured to-day in any part of the British Empire, and, therefore, there is no need to refer at all to that particular ' size. The statement was made that the ammunition was illegally sold. As it was sold under the regulations of the department, the sale was a perfectly legal one. The statement was made that there was a shortage of ammunition. After- the war broke out there was a shortage of good ammunition because we sent it all to the front, but I sent an order to the quartermaster general to replenish the store of good ammunition according to the requirements of the country at that time, until we would have a sufficient store of Mark VI ammunition. I also directed that the best of the Mark VI ammunition should be returned, but in order to get it out of the way the Militia Council decided that we had better destroy the 12,000,000 rounds ordered to be destroyed by the Barlow Commission a year before, in order to prevent any portion of it getting mixed up with other ammunition, and that the Mark VI ammunition manufactured up to the time of the Barlow Commission, which ammunition was declared to be defective, should be retained in case of an emergency in this country before we could get Mark VII ammunition manufactured in sufficient quantities.
Long before I became Minister of Militia it was known that the ammunition being manufactured in the Dominion Arsenal was
defective; every rifleman in Canada knew that, and report after report brought forth only the statement: Oh, you do not understand the matter, and so forth. I remember on one occasion, after I became minister, going through the factory and putting my hand on one of the machines. I caught five or six cases as they came out, and out of five cases three were defective, as could be seen with the naked eye. The machines needed trueing up. But to any suggestion made about possible improvements, we were told that we didn't understand it and that the best possible was being done. We could buy the English ammunition which would not give any blow-backs, but in the case of our own ammunition, about six rounds out of ten would show a blow-back-that is the powder would be blown back through the cap-hole, or at the point where the case was defective, permitting the discharge from the breech instead of from the muzzle. Therefore, soon after becoming minister, I consulted the Prime Minister and we obtained authority to issue a commission to inquire into the manufacture of ammunition in the Dominion arsenal. We communicated with the British War Office, and they sent to us two of the greatest experts on these subjects, Colonel Sir H. Barlow, and Major Ogilvie. These gentlemen came here and made a very minute inspection of the Dominion arsenal. A summary of that report has been presented to the House by the Prime Minister. Twelve million rounds of ammunition made prior to 1908 were rejected on account of cracked cases and other defects, and were ordered to be destroyed. The suggestion was made that the bullet should be taken out of them, and so on. The balance of the ammunition was declared to be "under suspicion." In other words, the whole of the ammunition was declared to be defective-twelve million rounds made prior to 1908 ordered to be destroyed, and the balance manufactured up to 1913 declared to be " under suspicion and defective." That " under suspicion and defective " ammunition, I venture to say, could not be used in the Mark II Boss or Lee-Enfield rifle, with safety. But I will not go into that aspect of the case unless it is deemed necessary. We did what we could to prevent these blow-backs and render the ammunition more or less efficient, by putting it to a process which we call " ringing." One of the officers in the arsenal thought that by putting each cartridge in a slot and pressing the metal at
[Stage Direction]
the base of the cartridge still tighter around the cap, the difficulty would be overcome. It was found that in some cases it did improve the cartridge, while in other cases it not only did not improve it but made it worse.
Robert Laird Borden: It still permitted blow-backs?


Samuel Hughes: Yes, the explosive blowing-hack in the face of the soldier. We are paying pensions now to some such cases, while others were injured and laid up for a long time. So, it was found that this " ringing" did not remove the trouble. Accordingly, the ammunition declared by the Barlow report to be defective ammunition made subsequent to 1908, was set aside as fit for machine gun use only. But when it came to the big camp at Valcartier in 1914, the British Government, wishing to get every round of good ammunition that was possible, and desiring that all our ammunition made subsequent to 1913 should be shipped to the front, we did ship it. We gave our boys a chance to practice by using the Mark III Ross rifle, which is much more powerful than the Mark II, and we used for rifle practice this Mark VI ammunition, the ranges being short. We inspected it carefully and used the best we could find. Even then, as the camp drew to a close, the men found that the ammunition was not right, that it was defective owing to blow-backs, explosions, detonations, and so on, and they were getting nervous over the use of it. Therefore, we held it up.
Just before the troops sailed from Quebec, on my return from Gaspe Basin, we held a council and talked over the supply of ammunition. We were deficient in ammunition at that time-it is no harm to admit it now, when our supply is ample. We decided to get rid of that manufactured before 1908 and1 keep the balance of the Mark VI ammunition in hand in case of an emergency. If the worst came to the worst we would use it. The Quartermaster General, as explained in his report, has steadily built up a proper store of Mark VTI ammunition. I gave this order before I sailed for England. The deputy minister, the Master General of the Ordnance, the Quartermaster General and the Chief of the General Staff, each disseminated it to his officers, the object being to hold the ammunition in case of an emergency, and that is the reason of these orders appearing on the papers. In England I heard stories that a number of the

soldiers had suffered at Valcartier, having blow-backs in the use of the ammunition. Once a man has a blow-back it renders him nervous in firing any rifle. A good deal of that kind of thing had occurred at Valcartier, and a number of the fellows were more or less nervous over this ammunition. Accordingly, on my return, it was decided that none of this Mark VI ammunition should be used. And the store of Mark VII was gradually coming up to the full height, and I am happy to say that it has long since passed the high water-mark of what is necessary for the defence of the country. The Mark VI ammunition was lying in store, the order of the board being that it was to be used only for machine gun testing. We have no machine guns to test, ours being tested before we receive them. This order became known to the ammunition men throughout the country, and there were requests for the ammunition. One was received, but was not fulfilled, as we did not know where the ammunition was going-something was said of its going to Mexico. In another case, I was willing that it should be allowed to go. It was sold, not in large quantities, but in small quantities here and there.
There is a misunderstanding as to Mark VII ammunition, which I might as well clear up at this time. The Mark VII is much more elaborately made than the Mark VI. It has a more pointed tip, the point being filled with aluminum inside, backed up with lead to preserve the balance of the bullet in its course. It is one thirty-third inch longer than the Mark VI. When we use Mark VII ammunition in the Mark II rifle, which is the old Ross rifle, the sharper point of the bullet sometimes prevents the ready entrance of the cartridge into the barrel. Therefore, the word was passed without any undue ceremony that in using Mark VII ammunition in the Mark II rifle it was well not to use the rifle as a magazine rifle'but as a singleloader; and with green troops this is much better.
As regards the sale of this ammunition, I was spoken to about it by a representative of the Vickers firm who was then in Canada-one of the firm. The question came up of the making of ammunition in Canada, and when I told him that I understood that the British Government had ample facilities for making ammunition, the question came up whether we could spare what was understood to be defective ammunition, for testing machine guns or something of that kind. The whole con-

versation did not occupy hall a minute. My answer to him was to communicate with General Macdonald, Quartermaster-General, who had the matter in charge. There was another conversation some time later, not with this distinguished gentleman, but with one who, at one time, was a good friend of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, Colonel J. Wesley Allison.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I should say .the reason that the gentleman does not bask in the smiles of the right hon. leader of the Opposition today is because he chances to be a friend of the late Hon. Mr. Blair, with whom the right hon. leader of the Opposition had some slight differences. '


Wilfrid Laurier: That may be, but I do not know that I have seen Mr. Allison more than two or three times in all my life.


Samuel Hughes: Well, I myself saw the right lion, member talking to him at least twice in the olden days. If the right hon. member has the faculty of having no heart and of going back on his friends, I want him to understand that the Minister of Militia is not in that class.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the hon. gentleman wishes to insinuate that Mr. J. Wesley Allison was amongst my friends at any time, I give it a most emphatic denial.


Samuel Hughes: I do not insinuate it; I assert it, and can prove it to the right hon. member's satisfaction if he wants the proof.


Wilfrid Laurier: What can you prove?


Samuel Hughes: I can prove that the right hon. leader of the Opposition considered Colonel J. Wesley Allison as one of his friends.


Wilfrid Laurier: Never did.


Samuel Hughes: But if it suits the right hon. member's policy

'


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Samuel Hughes: If it is the policy of the Tight hon. member to play executioner in respect to the gentlemen who sit around him-half of them sit here to-day dreading the block-let me assure him that that is not the policy that this individual pursues towards his friends. Until I find
that they have proved traitor to me I do not go back on them, as was the case with regard to a number of gentlemen who sat behind the right hon. leader of the Opposition in the days gone by in the House of Commons of Canada. I am glad to see fire in the right hon. member's eye at this moment; I will light him up a little more if he wishes it.
This ammunition was first ordered, I say, by the members of the Vickers firm. Finally it was ordered by Col. J. Wesley Allison, who has the honour of being the Vickers representative, and who had, and still has, the honour of having been selected; by the special representative of the British; Government as agent in the United States-of America in respect of very large matters-' of international concern. He is 'a gentleman who to-day stands high in the estimation of the people of the country, not from fear-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: Not from fear, not from trembling, not from having a solid phalanx behind his back -and, to keep it there, playing one role in one part of Canada and the old English school philosopher in the other. He holds the good opinion of this House and this country to-day, and he holds it by merit. This gentleman ordered the ammunition. He saw the Quartermaster General, and the Quartermaster General consulted me. The Quartermaster General knows his business-I never yet found him wrong on a legal point-so I put my initial on his memorandum and the ammunition was shipped to Vickers in London. The money was paid to the Bank of Montreal, and a straighter transaction never was conducted in this Dominion of Canada. I did not know how much of this ammunition they would want, for they were getting thousands of these machine guns. However, our first desire was- that the soldiers going to the front should not be obliged to use one round of defective ammunition; that they should get the very best that could be obtained. By securing the release of a few million rounds of good ammunition from Britain that would otherwise have been used for the machine guns- and it was pointed out in a report read by the Prime Minister that this ammunition was capable of being used for that purpose -by securing this release, I say, through letting the Vickers people have this defective ammunition, I claim that we were doing the country a service. By the way,

the right hon. gentleman forgot to talk about the retreat from Mons to the Marne. Surely he could have shown that this sale of ammunition compelled the British to retreat to the Marne-that is another of his fads that he generally makes use of. By releasing this ammunition we did the British Empire a good service, and benefited the Canadian treasury by bringing back $20 for every thousand rounds of ammunition.
The right hon. member dilates upon the argument about keeping that ammunition in store. I want to tell him that so long as I am Minister of Militia-and I intend to be Minister of Militia until I go out-I assume my full responsibility and intend to exercise it. So long as I am Minister of Militia, not one round of that defective ammunition will be given to any of our soldiers by me or by my authority to fire at the enemy. When our men go into action we want them to go with the very best materials, the very best equipment, the very best ammunition that can be got. I purpose at a very early date ascertaining where this defective ammunition is and settling the matter once for all by getting rid of it, in a legitimate way. If we do that, then the defective ammunition will be entirely out of the way; it will no longer take up storage room, and good ammunition will be served to the boys so that they shall be able to perform their duties. Not one round of this ammunition is held by me for defensive purposes. For that we have no warrant or authority.
The hon. member quotes from the Auditor 'General. And the Auditor General oocupies a peculiar position; it is hardly proper for any member of Parliament to stand up here and criticise him. But when the Auditor General undertakes to say what he has said in the document which has been read; when he makes reflection upon a gentleman who has more honour in his little finger than the Auditor General has in his whole carcass, I want to tell him that I will find some means of reaching the Auditor General. I will permit no man occupying the position of public servant in this country, so far as I am concerned, whether in office or out of office, so to misconduct himself as to pen the letter which he has penned-I never saw it until to-day-to the Minister of Finance. Had such a letter been sent to me-indeed, I did get one of a somewhat similar character, and it was dealt with in double quick time-had such a letter as that come from the Auditor General to the Minister

of Militia, it would have been returned in mighty short metre with an intimation that the writer had better study his duties and learn to pen his letters in proper form.
The right hon. member asks why this ammunition was not sold direct to the British Government instead of to the Vickers' Company. I do not see what the British Government knew about it. We sold them all the good ammunition we could spare early in the war. This ammunition was asked for; we realised that the use of it would be a good way to test the machine guns, and it went. The story was that this ammunition was being Tesold by Vickers for the machine gun purposes of the British Admiralty and that Vickers were making $5 per thousand rounds on it. Well, if Vickers paid the freight, insurance and exchange charges on that ammunition, which were pretty heavy at that time, then they would not be any money in pocket by turning it over to the Admiralty at $25, when they paid $20 for it. I do not know anything about it, only this: When I was in England, having heard the yarn, I asked one of the Vickers' officers-I think it was Mr. Searles-about the matter. He said he did not know the details of it, but that he had heard these stories. He said they had added this sum to the cost, but as soon as they found that the Admiralty would themselves meet the cost, they wiped out the one pound sterling that had: been added and the price stood at the $20 that the Government charged them for the ammunition and for sending it over.
Let me summarize. All ammunition made before 1913 and in store was condemned as defective by the commission. All of the defective ammunition made prior to 1909 was condemned to destruction in one form or another. The balance was recommended for machine gun practice only. However, in order to have as little of this destroyed as possible, we decided to use that recommended to be used in machine gun practice or. in Mark III rifles. We tried it out quietly, after ringing it as I have described; and decided to use it, not in Mark II or Lee-Enfield, but in Mark III Roes rifles. Ringing it, however, was found not to benefit the defective ammunition to any great extent, and in some cases it injured it. There were several proposals for the sale of defective ammunition. One was made by the deputy minister at $10 or $12.50, supposedly for Mexico. Another was to sell to Vickers, through their New York agent, Allison, for machine gun testing. This was for 2,000,000 rounds at

$20-that is an error in my notes, apparently, as it should be 3,000,000 rounds at $20.
The Quartermaster-General, following the usual practice in Canada regarding condemned military material, authorized the sale, and obtained the endorsation of the minister in addition. I again point out that when cases of this kind arise in a district, the district officer commanding, if he feels that he wants any superior author

ity to dispose of condemned material, looks to the Quartermaster-General for that superior authority. As a rule it is considered, and has been so acted upon, that the Quartermaster-General's authority is sufficient, In destroying one and a half million rounds at Winnipeg the Quartermaster-general was regarded as the superior authority; but General Macdonald did not wish to regard himself as the superior authority in time of war, so he came to me and asked me to place my initials on the order, which I gladly did. The goods were then regularly shipped to an officer in the Vickers' works in England, Mr. Searles. There was no commission paid, offered or asked by anyone in the transaction. That was brought out this morning before the Davidson Commission. We got $20, and that was all that was paid for the ammunition, so that there could not be any commission. The quartermaster general had the money placed directly to the credit of the Receiver General of Canada. ;Thus it passed through no one's hands.
This defective ammunition released a similar quantity of good English ammunition for the front. It has 'been asserted that Vickers' officer in England added, for transport, freight, insurance, exchange, handling and risk, one pound sterling additional, and then -sold the lot to the British Admiralty for $25 per thousand. The Militia Department has no Tecord of this, the sale 'being direct to Vickers' officer, Mr. Searles, in England. All we know is the insinuation in the Auditor General's Report and remarks heard in various places throughout this country. The sale was made direct to Vickers' officer. Mr. Searles, in England. But I am informed, on good authority, that on finding all expenses were paid by the Admiralty, Mr. Searles withdrew the charge of $5. This, however, is a matter entirely between Mr. Searles and the Admiralty; it is a matter with which this department has nothing whatever to do. This ammunition, or any of the defective ammunition, was
ordered to toe held in store by the minister in 1914, and ordered further not to be used in Mark II rifle in any circumstances. The part that I ordered to be destroyed in 1914 was the part made prior to 1909, which was ordered not to be used on any consideration.
The net result is that, by the sale of the
2.000.	000 rounds of defective ammunition referred to, Canada has received $40,000 which would never have been received;
2.000.	000 of good English ammunition has been released for the front; an ample store of good new Mark VII ammunition is held in store for use in Canada. It is now universally recognized that Mark VII, new and good ammunition, can be used in Mark II rifles, while the condemned Mark VI should not be used, and has been forbidden. Under no circumstances would the ammunition sold be allowed to be used in Mark II Titles, the one retained for arming the troops in Canada. The balance of the defective ammunition could not be used in either Mark II Ross rifle or Lee-Enfield rifle. It cannot be safely used even in Mark III rifle, even for practice. The practice in England is to treat such matters as the QuartermiasterMGeneral has treated this sale of condemned material.
I may say that, while in England, I made inquiries about this and found that such a transaction would never reach the Quartermaster-General, much less the minister, and certainly never the Cabinet. The practice is that the officer commanding in the district calls his board and the board makes a report. The officer commanding then orders the ammunition disposed of as condemned, and places any money received to the credit of the Government in the official way. Thus in every sense we have been well within our rights in the Militia Department in dealing with this matter as we have done.
I have to say, in conclusion, that no Canadian soldier will, so long as I am Minister of Militia, be requested or permitted, if we know it, to carry one round of this condemned mark VI ammunition in his pouch for service in action. When our boys go into action we want them to feel as confident as it is possible for men to feel. Napoleon asserted that the sentimental as against the material is as three to one in fighting; and if you have men poorly armed, poorly equipped, using bad ammunition, that sentimental diminishes to nothing, and you lose three-fourths of your fighting power. I want my boys to go in

feeling they have the best rifle in the world, the best ammunition in the world, and that they can handle themselves in a manner to equal the best.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, the somewhat wonderful statement of the Minister of Militia reminds me of a quotation from the Bible which I think I can quote correctly: " The wicked flee when no man pursueth." I would like to know who ever asked the Minister of Militia to send our boys to the front with defective ammunition. I would like to know what a discussion about giving J. Wesley Allison a rake-off of $5,000 has to do with sending our boys to the front with poor ammunition. I want to answer the minister in a logical, fair manner, but it is pretty bard to do so, after listening to the arguments he has used. This is not a question of whether or not there was bad ammunition in Canada. If the Government bad1 poor ammunition or defective ammunition on their hands, this country has money enough to take charge of that and to throw it into the river, if necessary, and get good ammunition in its place. The question which we are bringing up here to-day, which was first brought up by the Auditor General-and I think, notwithstanding the dire threats made by the Minister of Militia, that once in a while it is a good thing for Canada that there is an Auditor General. The question brought up by him is the fact that defective ammunition was owned by the Dominion of Canada; that the Minister of Militia, through his counsellor, friend and guide, J. Wesley Allison, sold this, not to Vickers, but through Vickers, to the British Admiralty, at a rake-off of $5 a thousand rounds.


Samuel Hughes: That is a deliberate mis-statement, and he knows it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Samuel Hughes: The records do not show it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Samuel Hughes: 
Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I am asked by some hon. members to decide whether or not the hon. member's statement is parliamentary ot not.


Wilfrid Laurier: "And he
knows it."


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: According to the authorities, I have to decide that it is certainly out of order and offensive.


Samuel Hughes: I bow to your ruling, but it does not change the position.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: All you have to do is to read a few things like that going hack just two or three months in our political history-


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say that, if the hon. gentleman suggests that it was referred to Sir Charles Davidson at the instance of the Minister of Militia, he states that which is not true.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad to give some of my hon. friends on the other side a chance to clap and feel good, I realize that my hon. friends do not get very many opportunities these days to cheer, and I suppose we should not begrudge them this little pleasure once in a while. Perhaps my right hon. friend the Prime Minister would tell me whether the Minister of Militia objected to the appointment of Sir Charles Davidson?


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Militia was not consulted about it. It was determined at a meeting of my colleagues at which he did not happen to be present.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We must have a great deal less respect for the Prime Minister and his colleagues than we had before that, because I want to tell the Prime Minister that it does him and his colleagues very little credit that in a matter of .this importance they should select the commissioner who has on previous occasions been chosen by the Minister of Militia in order to investigate things which have turned out so rotten that the name of Canada is a disgrace ' and a by-word among the civilized nations of the world.
iSir SAM HUGHES: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that I have chosen Sir Charles Davidson?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I mean what I say.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. gentleman does not care to repeat what he said I am not particular; I pay no attention to what he 6ays anyway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not going to repeat; hut what I said I stand by. I tell the Premier that if he thinks he can satisfy the people of Canada by referring matters of this importance to Sir Charles Davidson, in the light of what this commission had done during the last year, he is living in a fool's paradise. The people of this country will not stand for any more hiding and covering up of the'dishonest and nefarious
(Mr. Carvell.]
transactions of my right hon. friend's friends and supporters. There is no use trying to hide the thing or smooth it over. We have had enough illustrations in the last few months of the attitude of the Premier, and we might as well just come out and call a spade a spade, as Sir William Meredith said at the commission the other day. Day after day and week after week since this Parliament assembled in January last, we have sought for an opportunity to get the light of day on many transactions of the friends of this Government, and* we have been balked at every turn except in one case where the Government were driven to it by a power whose name I am not at liberty to mention in this House. They have refused us investigations, and have made one flimsy excuse after another, and when driven from one citadel to another-


Robert Laird Borden: What does the hon. member mean when he says we were driven to a course of action by a power he is not at liberty to mention?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I mean exactly what I say.


Robert Laird Borden: If I understand the inference, I want to say that that statement is absolutely devoid of the slightest semblance of truth.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad I am getting my right hon. friend interested; that was my object in speaking this afternoon.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad you are pleased.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They have refused investigations of things which any reasonable intelligent man knows are so dishonest that they would stink in the nostrils of every man in Canada. They have refused to extend the scope of investigations because they dare not, on account of what would happen to their friends. They have * handed this matter over to a commission appointed more .than a year ago, when perhaps my right hon. friend was sincerely penitent for some things that had been revealed in the Public Accounts Committee, and at that time he said that the doors of the penitentiary were yawning for those who sold lame and decrepit horses to the British Government, and for those who boodled in bandages, boots and binoculars, and everything else they could get their hands on that was required for the army during the nation's stress. I want to tell my right hon. friend that these doors are still yawning, and unless there is greater

i 3911
activity on the part of my right hon. friend and his Government than there has been in the past, the doors will still remain yawning for his friends who have been guilty of looting the public treasury. If my right hon. friend can take any comfort out of the course he has pursued during the last year and the results of the investigation of his special commissioner, Sir Charles Davidson, he is welcome to it. I am not here to attack Sir Charles Davidson personally, and what I have to say about him as a commissioner I want to say right here in the public light of Parliament. A gentleman who has occupied the high position that this man has, a gentleman who for nearly a year has been investigating such things as the Government would allow him to investigate, a gentleman who, so far as we can judge, concluded his labours three months ago, with the exception of one small transaction, a gentleman who has not the honesty-I think I may use the word-to bring down to Parliament after we had been in session for three or four months, a report on' matters so important as he has been charged to investigate-such a man is not the one to whom the people of Canada want to have referred important matters with which the Minister of Militia is concerned. I say that to my right ihon. friend with a full sense of the responsibility for what I am saying. A gentleman who has investigated the nefarious horse deals in Nova Scotia and driven one member of Parliament of that province out of public life, a gentleman who has investigated other nefarious horse deals in the province of Ontario and driven out of public life a member of the Ontario Legislature, a gentleman who has investigated the bandage and drug transactions here in the city of Ottawa, which, I was told early in the session, had driven another member of Parliament out of public life, a gentleman who has investigated all these things and will not make his report on them to Parliament either is not fit .for the position he occupies or he is holding back the report at the instigation of the men who appointed him. I do not care which horn of the dilemma my .hon. friends choose. I have tried to state my position in language as plain as I could use, and I think I have the ability of using fairly plain language when the occasion requires. I want to tell my hon. friends that if they think they can cover up their tracks and whitewash and cleanse the character of the Minister of Militia and Defence by hand-'
ing these nefarious and dirty transactions over to the Davidson Commission, they are making the greatest mistake they ever made.


Samuel Hughes: As the hon. gentleman has mentioned character, let mb point out that I have never been caught impersonating people in New York or buying blackguards to steal papers from New York offices.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Militia is welcome to all the pleasure he gets out of this. He will get his answer, probably before many days are gone by.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If there were no dirty papers, they could not be stolen.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I tell him right here
that he cannot draw the attention of the people of Canada away from the doings of his friend Allison, and his portion of the divvy of half a million dollars, by throwing dust in the people's eyes about anybody trying to steal papers. Don't let the Minister of Militia deceive himself on that point. Don't let him feel that he can help his cause or protect a man who has practically pilfered a quarter of a million dollars from the people of Canada, by throwing out any nasty insinuations about what I or any other member of Parliament may have done in New York or elsewhere. Neither he nor his friend Allison, nor the Ottawa Free Press, the champion and organ of his friend Allison, can get the people of Canada to forget the real question by any such smallbore tactics as that.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It will take me only a few moments to conclude the remarks that I want to address to the House. Before I refer to the subject matter under discussion I wish very shortly to refer to a most uncalled for and insulting remark made by the Minister of Militia just before the House rose at six o'clock with reference to my taking papers from some source unknown, and from which I had no right to take them. In making that remark he followed up a course of conduct which he, his counsel, and a friendly newspaper have been carrying on for the last three or four days. I want to assure my hon. friend that shortly after the Meredith-Duff Commission was created I took every reasonable means in my power of obtaining information as to the conduct of himself and of his friend,

counsellor, and guide, Colonel Allison. In doing so I found it necessary to go to the city of New York and other places in the United States. I had not been very long on the ' investigation when I became well satisfied that my hon. friend the minister was attempting to put up a very nice job on me for the purpose of drawing public attention away from his own conduct, and that of hiis friend and his Mend's friends. I therefore employed, as my solicitor and counsel in the city of New York, William Travers Jerome. I consulted two other men of such prominence that when their names are made public, even my hon. friend the minister will have no doubt of the wisdom of my course, and I consulted no man, discussed no plan and made no move without first consulting one of the three gentlemen to whom I have referred, my solicitor having been named. I want to tell the minister that when the reports of the detectives which have been furnished to me toy Mr. Jerome are made public, as they will toe, if and when necessary, he will not make any nasty insinuations about my trying to obtain papers to which I have no right. I want to say further that during the last four months I have been in only two legal offices in the city of New York, one being that of William Travers Jerome, and the other that of Kiddle and Margison, of 115 Broadway, on the 14th floor. My friends are at liberty to investigate those two firms as much as they like. So far as any firms of German name are concerned, I know nothing about them; I have never seen them, and I have had no correspondence nor communication with them. Whenever my hon. friend the minister wants to pursue this case any further before the tribunal having jurisdiction over it, I am ready to meet him and give him all the information whidb he desires, and I hope that before I am through with him I shall give him a little more than he would like to have made public.


Samuel Hughes: My hon. friend has stated that I put up a plant on him. The plant was put up toy the hon. member himself and his friends, as I am prepared to show. The first news which I had when I reached New York city was the intimation of the plant which this gentleman has put up with a certain gentleman to whom I have referred.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not going to discuss this question with the minister further except to say to him that I had not

been in the city of New York for more than a year until at least a week after the mihister returned from England. I have nothing further to say as to this, but I do not want the Minister of Militia to attempt to cover his dirty tracks by attempting to throw dirt at me.


Samuel Hughes: The Minister of
Militia is prepared to face this hon. gentleman in this House or before any other tribunal in the world. Let me assure the hon. member that when the matter is all cleared up, the Minister of Militia will have no cause to blush for any of his actions and if the hon. gentleman does not blush, it will be because he has a rhinoceros hide on him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want briefly to refer
to the question before the House. The right hon. leader of the House has attempted to show that this transaction was all right, because, he says, they got more than the ammunition was worth. If my right hon. friend can take any satisfaction or glorification out of selling through the agency of Col. John Wesley Allison condemned ammunition to the British Admiralty for twice as much as it is worth, he is quite at liberty to do so, and if his friends in this House can take any comfort out of that, so far as I am concerned, they are welcome to it. That is the question. The question is not whether the ammunition was worth $20 a thousand or $10 a thousand or $12.50 a thousand. There is no use in my friend's or my friend's friends trying to get away from the real question. While I do not make the statement, I do say that I am informed on the best possible authority- and if anything like a fair investigation is given, it can easily be proved-that the reason sent up to the Council when this matter was first brought before it, was that this was condemned ammunition and not to be used for testing purposes, ana when it was pointed out that they would never be able to pass an Order in Council to sell condemned ammunition to the British Admiralty, the reason was changed and put in the form that the ammunition was being sold for testing purposes.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN. I do not quite understand the point my hon. friend is making. Does he say that there was a recommendation to Council to sell this ammunition to the British Admiralty?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am informed that when this matter first came before the Council, it was put on the plea or argument that this

was condemned ammunition sold to the British Admiralty or the British Government and that accounted for the reduction in the price.


Robert Laird Borden: For the third
time, I affirm that the statement made by my hon. friend to the House just now is without the shadow of any foundation whatever.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The next question is:
How are you going to investigate? If this thing is bad enough to require an investi-tion of any kind, then it requires and demands a genuine investigation. If it does not require and demand a genuine investigation, then my right hon. friend is not fair to the Minister of Militia and Defence.
My right hon. friend is pillorying Sir Sam Hughes before the people of this country as being charged with doing that which he ought not to do. I repeat again-either this is of sufficient importance to be investigated, or else it should be left alone; it is too serious a matter to trifle with, too serious to play the petty game of politics with.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: One hon. gentleman
says:	We are investigating it. You are
investigating it by the Davidson Commission. I am not going to spend much more time on the Davidson Commission. It is the greatest farce my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has created in his-four years of farcical government. At the head of it is a man who, as I said this afternoon-I do not know whether it is because he has not the ability, or because he has not the conscience, or because he is acting under dictation-has laboured for a year, has squandered about $20,000 of the public money of Canada, and has brought forth nothing in the way of a report, and nothing to justify his existence. My right hon. friend hands this important matter over for investigation to a commission presided over by such a man as I have described, and before whom business is conducted by a lawyer who is the subordinate of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence.


Samuel Hughes: I desire that the
hon. gentleman should not refer to me as his friend. There is a parliamentary term for use when one member of this House refers to another, and that is "the hon.
member," not " hon. friend "-I object to that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a pretty narrow escape. This thing must be getting pretty close home when the Minister of Militia has to seek that sort of defence. But the hon. minister has his friends, one of them being J. Wesley Allison. Refer to the hon. member as you win-and 1 do not think it will be very long until ne will not be referred to in this House as the hon. member for Haliburton or any other place-but refer to him as you will, this farce must not go on any further.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the Government are
going to investigate-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I assure my hon. friends opposite that the greatest compliment I get from them is the evidence that I am hurting them, and I think that on this occasion I am accomplishing all that I started to accomplish. For I am trying to-night to show some members of the Government of this country up in their true light. That is my real object. I do not believe that every member of the Government, and I am sure that not half their followers, are in sympathy with what is going on. If I talk plainly, I do so intentionally, and I am showing them exactly the position in which they are placed. I tell them, they are handing over the investigation of what appears to be a very, very dishonourable transaction by the Minister of Militia and Defence to a man who, while perhaps he has not been chosen by the minister, certainly, from his past intercourse, and from our knowledge of what ha9 taken place during the last four months, is not at all contrary to the wishes of the Minister of Militia; a man who has proved himself incompetent for the position up to the present time; a man who, we know, will not and cannot, under the conditions under which he is acting, give this matter the investigation that is demanded; a commission in which there is no person representing the public, in which there is no person trying to get to the bottom of the affairs; a commission in which the only lawyer is the lawyer for the defence, and the only jury is the man who would find the minister innocent, no matter what evidence he had against him. If my right hon. friend wants to hand the investigation of this important matter over to a tribunal

of that kind, that is his business, and he can take the consequences of it. But I want to tell him, it is not good enough for the honest people of Canada, Liberal and Conservative alike. It is not good enough for the ordinary men and women of Canada, who want to see this carried on fairly and disinterestedly, and there are hun' dreds of thousands of these people in both political parties. Shunting off investigation into these charges has been done time and again by the right hon. Prime Minister during the present session. That may please him and some of his followers, but I know that many of those followers are not pleased. He may think that he is in some way playing the game of Minister of Militia; but he is not playing the game of the people, and he will find it out when the proper time comes.
That is practically all I have to say about it. I place the matter before the country in as plain language as I know how. I can only once more express the hope that, before this goes on, at least they will do my hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) the courtesy to let him know when the commission will sit. Think of the farce of this Government starting out to investigate a serious charge against one of its members by means of a Royal Commission that sits in secret, and that has not even the courtesy to notify the man who starts the investigation where and when the commission is to sit. They held a star chamber investigation this morning, and the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) did not even know that the commission was to sit-did not know that the matter was going on. No wonder some of my friends on the other side look serious when this matter is brought up. Now, Sir, I do hope that this House will adopt the motion of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. I hope my right hon. friend will see the position in which he is placing himself and his party arid that this thing will be taken out of the hands of the farcical commission in whose hands it was placed, and will be handed over to some tribunal-and the best I know is a committee of this House- where the people of this country will have at least a chance to be represented and which will try to get somewhere near the bottom of what looks like a very shady transaction.


Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) made his motion this afternoon, with the
Oklr. Carvell.j
full knowledge that the matter which he was moving to have investigated was being investigated, I think that one might very well be tempted to draw the conclusion- which, since the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has spoken, I am sure there can remain not one shadow of doubt about-that, realizing that, once there was an investigation there would be nothing- left to talk about, he thought it wise to do his talking first.
The hon. member for North Cape Breton spoke, and he was supported by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. After replies had been made by the right hon. leader of the House, and by the Minister of Militia, they had it more manifestly borne in upon them than ever that there was no case; and so my hon. friend the member for Carleton rose with the brief duly endorsed: "No case; blackguard the plaintiff's attorney." But there did not happen to be any plaintiff's attorney; somebody had to be blackguarded, so the hon. gentleman -blackguards:	the distingished gentleman to whom in bis capacity of commissioner this matter has been referred. I say that I have difficulty in qualifying the action of an hon. gentleman who stands up in this House to pour out reckless vituperation upon a man who has lived a long career of usefulness- to his country and of honour to himself. The hon. gentleman said that it was not the Prime Minister who had recommended the reference to Sir Charles Davidson; he said that it was not the Minister of Justice who had recommended that reference. He suggested that it was the Minister of Militia. He has already had his answer as to that matter of fact, but let me say to him that when he seeks to relieve me of responsibility for having in the first instance suggested the name of Sir Charles Davidson to act as commissioner and -for having recommended and joined in the recommendation that this matter should be referred to him, he seeks to withdraw from me not a responsibility that I shrink from, but the credit of an action of which I am proud.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You are easily satisfied.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Sir, when Sir Charles Davidson was originally named to hold this investigation-named, I repeat, at my own suggestion in the first place-upon the recommendation of Council-and I may say that there -was no consultation by me with the hon. Minister of Militia on the subject-no man raised his voice on the

subject except to commend the choice. Down in my own city, which is also the city of Sir Charles Davidson, the newspapers of both parties declared that no better selection could have been made. Even the newspaper for whose sayings and doings the hon. member for South Renfrew is responsible, announced in the most unmistakable and inequivocal terms that a selection had been made that would command the confidence of the whole of the people of the country. It is true that at that time, finding it necessary to say something, I suppose, to offset the credit to which this Government was entitled for that appointment, that paper did suggest that perhaps that bold, bad man, the Minister of Justice, might try in some way to have this investigation held in secret. The record of the commission is there to show whether there was any secrecy about it; whether the suggestion that I would have had any desire to do so was well founded. If I had any desire to exercise any influence with Sir Charles Davidson, I venture to say that it would have been an utterly useless undertaking on my part. Sir Charles Davidson was given an open commission. He was given a commission to investigate every matter connected with the expenditure of money by this Government for the purchase of arms or ammunition, of materials of any kind or description whatsoever for the purposes of this war. He was sent out with that open commission to investigate every charge, every insinuation that any one would be found to have the courage to come before that commission and make. That is all the instruction that he had, and that instruction has been, in spite of what the hon. gentleman says, carried out to the letter in a manner which has commanded the approbation of the public without distinction of party.
The hon. gentleman talked about investigations being burked. Well, it is a matter of public notoriety that that commission, everywhere it went, made its sittings public, and that it called on any one who had any charges to bring forth, any imputations to make, or any doubt to express as to whether something had not been wrongly done, to come forward and lay the. facts before that commission.
Something has been said about delay in the report. The report is not yet made; it is a considerable time since that commission was appointed. But is not an explanation, in large measure at least, to be found in the very thoroughness of that inquiry
and in its very wide scope? When the commission was named, comparatively few matters had been brought forward in respect of which the commission was called upon to decide. But as time went on, befqre those few matters were disposed of, other charges and insinuations were made, other matters were brought to the attention of the commission, with the result that during this period, during which we are told we have had no results, that commission has travelled from one ocean to the other, and has held investigations at every point in Canada where any man had one word to say, or any imputation whatsoever to make against any of the innumerable transactions which have been carried on by the Department of Militia during the course of this war. Is it to be wondered at that, having regard to the immense field of different charges and investigations that had to be covered, resulting in thousands of pages of testimony, we should not as yet have had a complete report? The hon. gentleman himself, who talks about this resultless commission, tells us that down in the Maritime Provinces it has sent one man out of public life; that right in this neighbourhood it has sent another man out of public life; that it has sent a man out of public life in the province of Ontario. I may tell him that it has sent a man in Regina behind the bars of the penitentiary, and has placed another man under surveillance waiting the decision of the American authorities in respect of extradition proceedings. The commission is spoken of as having been very useless, as having not yet reported. Surely these results are a testimony to the severity and the thoroughness with which the facts have been probed and inquired into by the commission. That very thoroughness of inquiry has taken time, and I may tell my hon. friend that very same thoroughness will be given to the preparation of the report and to the pronouncement of views that may be expressed in that report.
Mr. CARVEIL1L: Does the minister not know that two members of this House were driven out of this House and read out of the Conservative party by the Prime Minister as the result of the work of the Public Accounts Committee, before the House prorogued?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I am mistaken I am mistaken in taking the statement of the hon. member.
Mr. 'GARVE'LL: That commission was a post mortem, not an investigation.


Mr.   DOHIBBTY@: And now the hon.
gentleman imputes the fact that this particular matter has been referred to Sir Charles Davidson to some influence on the part of the Minister of Militia; and he finds the evidence of it in the fact that when a cablegram was received by the Minister of Militia in which it was intimated that matters had been brought forward involving imputations upon himself, he cabled at once asking reference to the only existing commission at the time.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: lit is the misfortune of Sir Charles Davidson that, having the confidence of everybody excepting the hon. member who has attacked him, he finds himself enjoying, among that everybody, the confidence of the Minister of Militia too.
Mr. PUGSI.EY: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the one suggestion that has been made why there is impropriety in naming Sir 'Charles Davidson. But the bon. gentleman did not quite know upon whose testimony, confirmatory of the views we all of us entertained of Sir 'Charles Davidson, testimony given at what was supposed to be the termination of that investigation, although it has been prolonged since because other matters have arisen-the selection of Sir Charles Davidson was made. The hon. member has paid a high tribute of eulogy to the Auditor General, and the Auditor General is the person who, with regard to this matter, stands in the position, not of the accused, but of the accuser; and if the hon. membeT wants to know what the view of the accuser jn this matter is, of Sir Charles Davidson as a competent, reliable, impartial, care- -ful man to conduct an investigation of that kind, I shall just read to him the opinion of the Auditor General.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: rou are reading his official view now.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall Tead his sworn [DOT] testimony. What was tbe letter that the hon. gentleman read but the official view of the Auditor General ? He read -to us- and I do not want to minimize in any way the certificate which he gave to the Auditor General-.his letter as something entitled to credit in every respect. I am going to read the sworn testimony of the Auditor General. This was at a sitting of the commission a month or two ago, and

it appears by the context that it was when it was believed that the matters for investigation had' been all investigated-although, as I have said, other matters have arisen [DOT] since. Here are the questions and answers:
We are abdut nearing the completion of the taking of testimony.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In whose court was this evidence given?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was before the commission.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would be very
awkward to say anything of a man impairing his character in his own court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I appeal to the certificate given to the hon. member for Carle-ton, N.B., as the answer to what I may describe as the not very creditable insinuation of the hon. member for South Victoria. Iif the Auditor General


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is not an insinuation, Sir; it is a statement.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then it becomes more discreditable. I did not suppose that the hon. gentleman would take the responsibility of stating that the Auditor General of this country, to whom his colleagues has paid so high a tribute, would, merely because he was in the presence of a man, tell an untruth upon oath with regard to questions of fact that were put to him with regard to the manner of conducting the investigation.	*


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister will permit me; there is no need of getting hot over this thing at all. I say to the minister that I do not expect any insinuations or slurs, even from a Minister of Justice. And I say I am almost as old a barrister as he is, and that I have been in a great many courts; but I never heard a counsel taking the responsibility of asking an opinion as to the competency of the court before the court itself.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman
thinks that there is no occasion for getting hot, why does he get hot?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Because I do not think it is worth while.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I want to say at once, that I admit the superiority in age of the distinguished gentleman; and, if he desires, I will not question the greater length of his experience as a barrister.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My experience as a
barrister is all right, sir.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it were a question of length of temper, perhaps


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Or length of speeches, perhaps-
' Mr. DOHERTY:	I might suggest that
the hon. member's is perhaps a little shorter than my own. Let us see what the Auditor General did say, before the hon. member condemns him. He was talking about facts, and iit is from the facts that I deduce the establishment of the competency of the investigator and the nature of the investigation:
Sir Charles Davidson: We are about nearing the completion of the taking of testimony, Mr. Auditor General, as you are aware.... Is there anything else now that you can think of which it would be proper for this Commission to investigate?
Mr. Fraser: No, I cannot recollect anything now that I want examination made into further than what has been made.
Sir Charles Davidson: Either here or elsewhere ?
Mr. Fraser: No.
Sir Charles Davidson: We have had the pleasure of your company, Mr. Auditor General, throughout the eastern provinces and in the West.
Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir Charles, I enjoyed your company very much-
This is where the undue politeness that the hon. member attributes to the Auditor General comes out.
-and also the experience I have had.
Sir Charles Davidson: Save at Regina and Winnipeg and Calgary, where it was impossible for you to continue with us, in consequence of your public duties, you were present at all the sittings of the Commission.
M. Fraser: Yes.
S.r Charles Davidson: Was there anything affecting the cases which arose, in which the evidence was not sufficiently thorough, Mr. Auditor General?
Mr. Fraser: Not that I am aware of. I read the reports of your meetings in the West, at which I was not present, and everything seemed to have been gone into very thoroughly.
Sir Charles Davidson: And when you were a witness of our proceedings, what have you to say?
Mr. Fraser: I was perfectly satisfied with the examinations that were made.
Sir Charles Davidson : All suggestions which you made and which you desired carried' out were carried out?
Mr. Fraser: You very frequently asked me during the course of the inquiry if I had any further questions to ask, or any further suggestions to make, and whenever I had any questions to ask or suggestions to make I gave them to Mr. Thompson-
This subordinate of the Minister of Militia.
-and they were always promptly attended to, and very satisfactorily attended to.
247	'	1
Sir Charles Davidson: In fact, I think you could fairly say, Mr. Auditor General, that you were treated as a coadjutor in the furtherance of the inquiry.
Mr. Fraser: I was never conscious of any other treatment from the commission than that which I would desire.
Further down:
Mr. Fraser: So far as the knowledge I have of the inquiry made by your commission, it has been a very full and thorough one. If I am any judge at all of these matters, I must say that the inquiry was very satisfactory. I cannot imagine or think of anything else that could have been done. I think the matters submitted to you were very fully covered. It is true that persons who were not present at the meetings of this commission may think now that certain things should have been done whioh were not done, but it is impossible for them to judge, unless they have been present, as I was.
Hon. gentlemen 'might, perhaps, take notice of that.
Sir Charles Davidson: And if there is anything of importance to inquire into, the commission is still open for their investigation at the slightest suggestion from you.
Mr. Fraser: Yes, I presume that any ground that has not been covered can yet be attended to.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did they close the meeting with prayer and the doxology?
- Mr. McKENZIE: Is the Auditor General a solicitor in court? Is he a barrister?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am really afraid he is not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would not think he would be competent to give any judgment on tjie conduct of a court.


William Pugsley: It has been quite a mystery to me why Sir Charles Davidson refused to permit parties to appear by counsel to cross-examine the various witnesses.


Charles Joseph Doherty: On what occasion?


William Pugsley: Sir ChaTles Davidson
positively refused to allow parties to be represented by counsel.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Where?


William Pugsley: At Victoria the matter came up specially. A gentleman appeared there and asked to be* allowed to crossexamine witnesses. Sir Charles Davidson stated that he had no power to allow counsel to address anybody except Mr. Thompson.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot deal with a particular case without knowing the circumstances of the particular case.


William Pugsley: Does not the minister think that that is an extraordinary position to take?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It all depends entirely on the circumstances of the case and, prima facie, inasmuch as it is the decision of Sir Charles Davidson, I should say that the presumptions are that he is right. Under the Inquiries Act he has power to name counsel to assist him in obtaining the truth, and, as I understand it, unless somebody was charged with an offence-and I am speaking of the statute from memory now-there is no provision in the statute giving the right of representation by counsel. In so far as I know the circumstances of the incident, the application that was made-I speak under correction because I do not pretend to have official information, although the hon. gentleman seems to know the facts


William Pugsley: Yes, I do know.
Mr. DOHERTY

the application that
was made was that the Liberal party should be represented by counsel. The Conservative party was not represented by counsel-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, by two of them,- both the commissioner and the counsel.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, I leave that for what it is worth. The hon. gentleman today has studiously worked and his last observation caps his work and assures him of success in making for himself such a reputation, that when he shall rise and make accusations against people, the public will assume that these people deserve praise instead of blame. When the hon. gentleman undertook to make the Teckless attack that he did make this afternoon, he simply placed himself in the position that . when the report of it goes to the public, that knows Sir Charles Davidson and that knows the hon. gentleman, it will draw its own conclusion, and that conclusion will he greatly to the advantage of the gentleman whom the hon. member next chooses as the object of his vituperation. The hon. gentleman says that the Conservative party were represented by counsel. He is in that respect no more unjust to Sir Charles Davidson than he is to Mr. John Thompson- Captain John Thompson-the subordinate of the Minister of Militia. There is the testimony of the Auditor General, the man who has gone into matters that were brought before that commission, and he tells you that there was no matter that he suggested to Mr. John Thompson, the so-called attorney of the Conservative party,

that was not taken up and most thoroughly gone into. Application, I understand, was made for the appearance of counsel on behalf of the Liberal party, not for any individual taking any responsibility, or making any charge whatsoever. That would have opened the door to counsel for the Conservative party and to counsel for the labour party, which ,is a very important party in British Columbia, and which represents an element of very great importance in this country. This commission, which in its nature was a commission of inquiry, would have found itself faced by a large number of counsel, none of them representing anybody who made any accusations, and each one of them trying from different party points of view, to derive some advantage from a proceeding that had no object in the world but to ascertain the truth and which was being carried on by two gentlemen perfectly competent and, the hon. member for Carleton to the contrary notwithstanding, absolutely desirous of reaching that truth.


William Pugsley: I hope the minister understood from me that Mr. Taylor, who sought to appear before the commissioner in Victoria to cross-examine witness, did not ask for any remuneration from the Government. The Minister understands that?
Mr. DOHERTY; I understand that.


William Pugsley: Does not the minister think that having counsel to cross-examine witnesses is always a most important factor in arriving at the whole truth?


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he is aware that the so-called Insurance Commission, part of whose direct task was to drive Sir George Foster out of public life, did not permit Sir George FosteT to cross-examine witnesses by counsel, if my recollection is correct? That was a case in which he was directly attacked, and if some correspondence is ever made public as to the purpose of the late Administration in ordering that investigation, my hon-. friend, I think, will not find it to the credit of those who had the particular motive of which I have some evidence.


William Pugsley: Did my right hon. friend approve of that course upon the part of the commissioners to whom he refers?


Robert Laird Borden: I might have denounced that course and approved this, because there was a man placed in the position of a defendant and not allowed to ap-

pear in court and1 defend himself by counsel before the very commission in whose court t'he attack was 'being made. It would not be possible under the amendment we have made to the Inquiries Act for such a result to be brought about. But it was possible formerly, and full advantage was taken of that possibility.
-Mr. PUGSLEY: I agree with my right hon. friend that if the commission acted in the case to which he refers in the manner described, it was a great impropriety on their part, and I would not justify or defend any commission that would refuse to allow counsel to represent a man who was under accusation. I think it was exceedingly improper if they did so. I desire to repeat the remark I made to the Minister of Justice. I have seen many investigations, and when you have a commissioner with only one counsel to aid him and no counsel to cross-examine, there is the greatest possible danger of having 'the facts misrepresented and the truth concealed, and of an erroneous conclusion being arrived at.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There was only one counsel, and that counsel was counsel for the people of Canada.


William Pugsley: Oh, no; he cannot act for both sides.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That man was selected by the commissioner himself, and the purpose of that counsel throughout was to get at the truth. In effect he was prosecuting <jounsel, and if anybody has suffered it would be the people against whom evidence might have been brought out and who might have had an interest in cross-examining. But this is aside from the question. Surely, even if there was one erroneous decision made by the commissioner upon a question of that kind, my hon. friend will not suggest that that justifies the unbridled abuse from the hon. member for Carleton, and that is what we are concerned with now.


William Pugsley: I could point out some other errors made by the commissioner.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We shall be in a better position to discuss these things when we have the report.


William Pugsley: Let us avoid the danger; let us have counsel there now.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We will come to the
question of counsel later on. For the mo-
3471	'
ment, when I am dealing with men of unbridled tongues who, with wonderful courage and bravery attacking an adversary that is not here, allow themselves to make diatribes such as my hon. friend from Carleton has made this afternoon, it would at least-


William Pugsley: He has a good defender-in the minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: -it would at least be fair that when one undertakes to stand up and put the defence-so far as he needs it- he might be allowed to make it without interruptions from the hon. member.


William Pugsley: May I-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: If the Minister of Justice has no objection to being interrupted the hon. gentleman can ask his question.


William Pugsley: I dee ire always to be courteous. I thought the minister had given me permission to interrupt.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection in reality.


William Pugsley: I thought the minister hadn't.


Charles Joseph Doherty: All I want to say further on this subject is that any one who appeared before that 'commission accused of anything was allowed counsel if he desired it, and the duty of Mr. John Thompson Was to act as a Crown counsel would act in any case before a court; seeing to it, from that point of view, that no evidence that would indicate wrong-doing failed of being brought out. And now, in addition to the imputations made upon Sir Charles Davidson, we have it said that Mr. John Thompson was not worthy of confidence.


William Pugsley: Will the minister allow me to say that no matter how competent a counsel may be, and no matter how honourable, you cannot rely on getting justice unless you have also a counsel to cross-examine. That is what I meant to say. I was not reflecting on Mr. Thompson.	'


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not mind being interrupted when my hon. friend has anything new to say, but he has already interrupted several times to tell us that.


William Pugsley: I understood the minister to say that I reflected on Mr. Thompson.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The complaint of the hon. gentleman is analogous to the com

plaint that might be made because, in a prosecution the Crown alone was represented and the defence did not get a chance.
It was the people of Canada 9 p.m. who were endeavouring to ascertain the truth; they were represented by Mr. Thompson, and his function was to find out by every means he could conceive of, whether anybody had done anything wrong. That was the purpose of his examination. There might have been room for cross-examination to exculpate perhaps, bht from the point of view of bringing out the truth as against the parties charged, certainty there was ample representation of the .people of 'Canada before that Commission. And we have the certificate of the faithful and vigilant watch dog, as he was described this afternoon by the hon. .member for Oarleton, that that work was thoroughly done. The Auditor General was also there representing the people. He was not a barrister, but he was there as a representative of the people of Canada to instruct Mr. John Thompson, and he was perfectly satisfied that everything that could, be done was done.
'But what amazed me most was the reason-and I was. surprised to see it come from the leader of the Opposition himself; he expressed it in more courteous words than the hon. member for Carle-ton chose to repeat it in-why Mir. John Thompson is to forfeit the confidence of the people of Canada in his professional capacity, and that reason is because he is an officer in the Militia. The right hon. leader of the Opposition asked, "Will my right hon. friend tell me that it is proper that the Minister of Militia should be investigated toy a Commissioner who is assisted by one of the officers of -the Militia." And my hon. friend from Carle-ton, abbreviating that, spoke of Mr. Thompson as the subordinate of the Minister of Militia. When Mr. Thompson's name was last mentioned in this House in connection with this investigation, we had from the hon. member for Pictou an assurance of his entire confidence in Mr. John Thompson. And what has happened since? Mr. John Thompson gave months and months of his time, .perfectly gratuitously, to the service of the people of Canada to help in unearthing whatever wrong-doing there might have been, and he has now added to that sacrifice by

donning His Majesty's uniform, and is now in active .preparation for almost immediate departure for the front. We are told that because he has done that, in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition he is not to be trusted in his professional capacity to carry on this investigation, and he is described as an officer of the Minister of Militia, and the hon. member for Carleton caps that by calling him the subordinate of the Minister of Militia. Since when are those, our sons and our brothers who have gone forth to risk, and, if need :be, to sacrifice MJieir lives in the defence of this country and of the Empire and of civilization, to be sneered at as the subordinates of the Minister of Militia? How will the people of Canada accept even from the right hon. gentleman the suggestion that When a man dons the uniform of an officer in His Majesty's service and goes forth, as I have said, to take his place with the men who are defending us and the liberties of this Empire, he forfeits his honour, his conscience, and his reliability, and that by that fact alone he becomes incompetent to act with regard, to investigations respecting the Militia Department, because, forsooth, he is the subordinate of the Minister of Militia? Surely hon. gentlemen are hard put to find a ground for insinuation against the honour, the integrity, the readiness and the. capacity to fearlessly and impartially perform his duty, of a man who, though he be young and in the eyes of the right hon. gentleman-that seems also to be a reproach to be made to 'him-has earned for himself an ehviable reputation for integrity and for ability in his profession, and a man who bears an inherited name that was in the lifetime of his father honoured, and that shall be honoured in this country as long as this country remains and keeps in mind the .memory of those men to whom she owes her greatest debt.
The hon. member for North Cape Breton may ask me now: " Why do yon gelt hot?" I would be ashamed of myself if I failed to get hot in the face of such an absolutely and unqualifiedly unworthy imputation-most assuredly unworthy of the right hon. gentleman, whether or not it be worthy of the hon. member for Carleton.
I have heard a great deal about motives in referring this matter to the Davidson Commission. Gentlemen have suggested, and we have heard .in addition to those imputations on the gentleman who is

acting as counsel for the people of Canada before that commission, other imputations. It has been suggested that there is some desire or intention to carry on the proceedings of that commission in secret. I have said that the proceedings of that commission from start to finish have been open to the public. They have been sitting in this building and have been sitting last week and have resumed their sittings this morning. The fact that they were so going to resume their sittings, and the subject they were going into were given out, as I am informed, to the press in the usual manner. My understanding was-I do not state that the thing was carried out because evidently the two hon. gentlemen who were sitting here did not have an intimation conveyed to them-that besides asking the Department of Militia to send everything that they had, besides suggesting that the Auditor General should be communicated with, I did say that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) had asked a number of questions a day or two ago, and that I understood that the hon. member for South Cape Breton had contemplated making a motion, which at that time it was not intended to go on with. I suggested that they should be communicated with.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) might not care to be associated with this matter, as he is not here. My constituency is North Cape Breton and Victoria.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, I suppose it is easier to keep cool in North Cape Breton than in South Cape Breton. My information is that endeavours were made to reach the hon. member for Pictou, and that they were not successful, and that with regard to the hon. member for North Cape Breton, what I had said apparently had not been understood, so that the accident did happen that the sitting opened this morning without these gentlemen having been communicated with. The Auditor General, however, was communicated with, and we must remember that upon thi-s record, so- far as it goes, the basis and source of any imputation that may be involved in the documents that are produced is the letter of the Auditor General. The Auditor General, as I have said, was communicated with, and interested himself in the gathering of information. Now, I am informed that the meeting this morning was really intended as a preliminary opening Qf the inquiry. It was held, as I understand it, in the usual place. Newspaper reporters, who had been informed of the fact yesterday or the day before, were present. The commission adjourned. It is to sit on Tuesday at ten o'clock in the morning in the same place. The witnesses that were heard this morning will all be there and all available for examination.


William Pugsley: Will counsel be allowed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am coming to that.
Since hon. gentlemen opposite are so anxious with regard to counsel in this particular matter, I am not disposed to make objections to counsel-being given. I am prepared to admit that this matter is on a different footing from matters of the nature of those that have -been investigated in the past, and abovie all, in view of the imputations which hon. gentlemen have seen proper to make upon the gentleman who occupies the position of adviser to the commission- whether he continues in that position or not is for him to decide after the conduct which we have witnessed this afternoon-if any hon. gentleman is prepared to assume the responsibility of such imputation or charge as may be contained in these papers and desires to be represented by counsel, I myself am quite ready to represent to the commissioner-I cannot undertake to control his action in the matter-that so far as I am concerned and this Government is concerned-and I am -satisfied I speak for the Minister of Militia as well as for every other member of the Government-there is not the slightest objection in the world to counsel appearing before the commission upon this particular matter.
In all the imputations which hon. gentlemen are so ready to make, I sometimes wonder whether we do not find verified in this House, on one side of it at least more perhaps than anywhere else, the truth of the saying that people are prone to judge others by themselves. In view, however, of the imputations that have been made, and to make it perfectly clear that, notwithstanding those imputations, there is in this Government absolutely no desire in the world other than that anything that can be given, by any possible construction, the face or appearance of a charge against this Government or any member of it, should have the most ample and thorough and competent investigation possible. I am free to say that, so far as this particular matter is concerned, and under the circumstances I have mentioned, if any hon. gentleman desires to assume the responsibility of those charges, there will be no objection to his having

counel to conduct such prosecution as he may be advised before the commission.


William Pugsley: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. minister, but with his permission I desire to ask him a question. This commission of Sir Charles Davidson is appointed under the very same Act under which the Meredith-Duff Commission is appointed. In the Meredith-Duff Commission the Government agreed that the leader of, the Opposition should name counsel, and counsel was appointed. Now these are very important charges made by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr McKenzie). Will the Government adopt the same course in this matter before Sir Charles Davidson as has been adopted in the Meredith-Duff Commission -arrange for the appointment of counsel and give that counsel the same status as counsel before the Meredith-Duff commission? If so, that would be an approach to reasonable fair play.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What I have said, perhaps, goes further than we said we would do with regard to the Duff-Meredith Commission. What was said with regard to the Duff-Meredith ' Commission was that the Government would appoint counsel to assist the Commissioners, and that the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) should be at liberty to select one of these counsel. We have actually now counsel to assist the commission. I am going further; I am saying that if hon. gentlemen opposite take the responsibility of this charge .and want counsel to prosecute, for whatever purpose may run in their minds, we will be willing that they should have counsel before the commission.


William Pugsley: The minister seems to be not quite fair. All I ask him is this. We have here two cases. The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) made certain charges with regard to the purchase of fuses, and for that the Government appointed a commission under the Inquiries Act to make investigation. Now, the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie lias made certain charges with regard to the sale of ammunition. All I ask is that the Government should appoint counsel, having the same status exactly- neither more nor less-that Mr. Johnston has in the Meredith-Duff Commission. That is all we ask; will the minister do that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have used the words of the English language, as I understand them, which convey the idea that we are

willing that counsel should be appointed*. I do not know that I have anything more to say. I do not follow what it is I am asked to define.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Take away the condition you imply.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Do I understand that
what is asked is, when we are giving counsel to act for the people of Canada generally, hon. gentlemen opposite say: That is no good, we want counsel to act for somebody who is not the public of Canada? Surely that somebody else must be the somebody taking the responsibility of the charges.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for
North Cape Breton is making the charges.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have said that there
' may be counsel before this commission to prove these charges the best he knows how. What further I can say I do not understand.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am done. I did not Tise to discuss the subject-matter of the so-called charge which the hon. member for North Cape Breton has made, and 1 have not gone into it. It is now before a competent tribunal of investigation, and 1 am absolutely satisfied to leave it there and to abide by the result which shall be reached. I rose only, I may say, because I felt that it was incumbent upon me, as a duty, not to let go unanswered such abso-. lutely reckless vilification-


William Pugsley: I think that is out of
order, Mt. Speaker; the minister is forgetting himself.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: If the hon. minister
was referring to the words used by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie, or by the hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr Carvell), I think he is out of order; but I understand that not to be the case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that under
your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will have to admit that I was making that reference, and will have to withdraw the expression. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) suggested that I was forgetting myself. May I say that I was not forgetting myself that I was remembering the language of the hon. member for Carleton. However that language may be characterized, I felt that I should be doing very much less than my duty if I did not stand up to make-I do not know that I should call it a defence, because I am sure that the reputations of

the two gentlemen who have been attacked stand so high that they might be left to stand as the sole defence against the attack (I hope that is parliamentary) made upon them by the hon. member for Carleton. We had some discussion this afternoon on comparison of reputations. May I say to the hon. member for Carleton-and in this I am not depreciating in the slightest degree the height of his present reputation- that if he ever succeeds in attaining the reputation which Sir Charles Davidson has attained, after a long career lived out in the public eye, and under conditions in which his qualifications for such a position as he now occupies were put to the severest test, the hon. gentleman can flatter himself that his life has been that of one of the most honourable, the most distinguished of men whom Canada has produced.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the matter now before the House may be said to be a sequel of what began as long ago as the 9th of March. The Minister of Justice charges my hon. friend from North Cape Breton with being in this position in bringing this matter before the House-that he desired to have something to talk about, having found that the Government had referred the matter to Sir Charles Davidson. The hon. minister should not have made that remark; it was totally unwarranted. It is just as well that we should be clear as to the facts. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), on Monday last, informed the Prime Minister that he proposed to make a motion based on the papers that had been brought down. It was after my hon. friend from North Cape Breton had intimated that he would move in this matter that the Prime Minister moved.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg the hon.
gentleman's pardon. There is no foundation whatever for that statement.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why not?


Robert Laird Borden: I have already
explained, but the hon. member must have overlooked it, that on Thursday or Friday last I spoke to the Minister of Justice and told him that Sir Charles Davidson should be instructed to proceed with that inquiry. He saw Sir Charles Davidson on Saturday, I think. On Monday he reported to us that Sir Charles Davidson thought that an additional Order in Council would be necessary, and the recommendation was brought
to Council on Monday by the Minister of Justice.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It appears, then, that my right hon. friend discovered last Thursday that this was a matter that ought to be investigated. My- right hon. friend was very alow in bringing down information to the House in regard to this question. It took him two months to give to this House information which he might have given within two weeks after the matter was first called to his attention.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it was as long as that.
Mr. (MACDONALD: I will give the' House the story of the way in which this matter came before Parliament. Last Thursday it developed in the mind of -the Prime Minis' ter that this was a matter that ought to be investigated, and he communicated the fact to the Minister of Justice. He knew, or ought to have known when the idea first developed in his mind, that there was no power in Sir Charles Davidson, under the Order in Council under which he had been appointed a commissioner, to deal with this matter. My right hon. friend knew that last Thursday.


Robert Laird Borden: The statement that my hon. friend has just made is not a correct statement. It was not presented to my mind at all that -any further Order in Council would be necessary. That was first brought to my attention on Monday by the Minister of Justice.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then my right hon. friend did not know the extent of the powers that he had previously conferred on Sir Charles Davidson?


Robert Laird Borden: I did not have the Order in Council before me, and it did not occur to me that it related to purchase and did not include sale.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why did my hon. friend not have in mind that according to the statement which he made to the House, and under the Order in Council creating the Meredith-Duff Commission he could have sent this matter to that commission without specially dealing with it? My right hon. friend intimated here more than once that the Order in Council creating the Meredith-Duff Commission contained powers which were sufficiently wide to enable him to send to that commission any matters coming up in Parliament that might require investigation.


Robert Laird Borden: It would have required an Order in Council even in that case. My hon. friend ought to know that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend some weeks ago constituted a commission which for the purposes of this discussion we will call the Meredith-Duff Commission. He announced and re-announced to the House that the Commission was constituted for the purpose of dealing not merely with those charges in which the name of J. Wesley Allison was mixed up, but with any other charges of a kindred nature that might arise. Some days after having brought down to the House the papers which, produced only a week ago Monday, he could have brought down long before that day, he decided that the papers which he himself had produced indicated the existence of a state of affairs which demanded an investigation. Instead of referring the matter to the commission which he had led the country to believe was constituted for the purpose of investigating matters relating to J. Wesley Allison, my right hon. friend in some inscrutable way decided to utilize the services of Sir Charles Davidson. Last Monday the member for North Cape Breton went to my right hon. friend and intimated to him that he purposed moving a resolution in the House based on the facts disclosed in the return brought down by the Prime Minister, and then and not till then did my right hon. friend disclose to the member for North Cape Breton the fact that he intended to refer .the matter to Judge Davidson. What did my right hon. friend do subsequent to that? On Tuesday the Order in Council was passed. He did not notify Parliament; he did not bring the Order in Council down to the House. No one in the country except my right hon. friend and his colleagues knew that such an Order in Council existed. It was his duty to give us the facts.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I have already stated that when the member for North Cape Breton spoke to me on Monday last I told him that the matter was referred to the Davidson Commission.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As a matter of fact, it had not been at that date.


Robert Laird Borden: The recommendation had been signed and sent to the Governor General for approval at the time that I made that statement to the hon. 
member for North Cape Breton and Victoria.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We have here in this file the memorandum of another Order in Council which had apparently been prepared but had never been approved or passed. It is rather curious, therefore, that my right hon. friend's Order in Council was in that position. But my right hon. friend has not told us why he failed to place on the table of the House the- Order in Council which was passed on Tuesday.	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: I told the hon. member for North Cape Breton that the matter had been referred to the Davidson Commission. If the Order in Council had been asked for, I should have been perfectly willing to lay it on the table of the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Prime Minister does not say that he mentioned anything about an Order in Council to me?


Robert Laird Borden: I told my hon. friend that the matter had been referred.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There was no mention of an Order in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: It could only be referred by Order in Council of some kind.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend admits that he did not tell the member for North Cape Breton that an Order in Council had been passed. He simply used the word "referred," not the words "Order in Council." How could we ask for the Order in Council when we never knew it had been passed? It is a peculiar fact that though my right hon. friend mentioned to the member for North Cape Breton and Victoria the fact that the matter had been referred, the member for North Cape Breton and Victoria had no notice of that, and never knew that such an Order in Council had been passed. The memorandum of Council, which is like the one in the Militia Department of January 5, which was never passed, might never have been passed at all. My right hon. friend can find no good excuse in the assertion which he makes that if the Order in Council had been asked for he would have brought it down. My right hon. friend should have brought down the Order in Council, because no one but himself and a few of his colleagues knew that such a document existed. I think my right hon. friend ought to tell us here and now what are the contents of the ref-

erence which has been made to Judge Davidson. I pause for a reply.


Robert Laird Borden: A copy of the Order in Council is here; it will be laid on the table of the House to-night. I handed it just now to the Minister of Justice; I will send it over to my hon. friend.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: At this juncture I
might as well' read this document. It is dated the 9th of May, and is as follows:
The committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report dated 8th May, 1916, from the Minister of Justice submitting with reference to tne commission of 2nd June, 1915, issued to the Honourable Sir Charles Peers Davidson to investigate the purchase of arms and munitions, etc., and the expenditures and payments therefor, that it is deemed desirable to extend the powers of the commissioner so as to enable him to inquire into and investigate the facts and circumstances of or connected with the sale or disposal by Your Royal High, ness's Government of small arm munitions since 4th August, 1914, referred to in returns made to the House of Commons on the 1st and 2nd of May, 1916.
The minister therefore recommends that Your Royal Highness cause inquiry to be made pursuant to part 1 of the Inquiries Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, chapter 104, concerning the aforesaid transactions and that a supplementary commission be issued in the case conferring and charging upon the commissioner all the powers and duties for the inquiry aforesaid which the commissioner has under and by virtue of the aforesaid commission of 2nd June, 1915.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
The Minister of Justice had the temerity to denounce my hon. friend for North Cape Breton for bringing on this resolution this afternoon because the Government had referred this matter to a commission. Yet no one ever saw this Order in Council outside of himself and the Prime Minister until this moment. The Minister of Justice really had the temerity to charge my hon. friend with having brought this question on for the purpose of discussing this matter in advance. That suggestion is not worthy of my hon. friend, and he would not have made it had he not been in a temper, and were it not for the fact that he was indulging in a species of buncombe such as I never heard him attempt to perpetrate in this House before.
The minister appealed to the House and the .country to regard with indignation the suggestion made toy my right hon. leader that Captain John 'Thompson, wearing as he does the King's uniform, engaged as he ought to be and no doubt is, in preparing himself to go overseas, and being a subordinate for the time
being of the Minister of Militia and, as the Minister of Justice knows, under his control and direction, would .place himself in an anomalous position by continuing to act in that investigation.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As a friend of Captain John Thompson, as a professional man, I want to say that tooth from a military and a legal -standpoint, and in view of all the ethics that apply to the professions both of law and of arms, my friend Captain John Thompson knows that he would occupy a most anomalous .position before the -people of this country if he undertook to go on with an investigation into the conduct of the man -who is, at this -moment, his superior of&cer. Such a suggestion as was made toy my right hon. friend was an eminently proper one. My hon. friend's criticism was pure buncombe and .playing to the gallery, and my hon. friend knows it very well. Not only was it unworthy of him, but I venture to say that I never saw him .before descend to such tactics in discussing a public question. He complains because this resolution was introduced. Why sir, what are the facts of the case? The story is a long one. On March 9, over two -months ago, I ventured to ask this question in the House:
Mr. Macdonald:
1.	Was any small arms ammunition disposed of by the Militia Department since August 4, 1914? If so, to whom?
2.	What was the price received?
Mr. Kemp:	All serviceable ammunition has
been issued to Canadian contingents. It would not be advisable to give the details during the present emergency, in the public Interest.
The moment I saw that answer in Hansard I knew, as every hon. gentleman who read it must have known, that there was something very peculiar in regard to the question of the sale of small arms ammunition. I had no detailed information in regard to the matter; I had no means of knowing whether there was anything incorrect in the transaction. But -the very answer given by the Minister of Militia at that time was an indication that he was concealing something that 'was suspicious. I proceeded to put further questions, and, quite unconscious of the fact that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carviell) * was moving along the same lines, and without any communication with him, I asked, on March 14, a general * question in regard to the whole matter, while my hon. friend

asked a similar question on March 13. These questions remained unanswered for quite a number of days. On March 23rd my question was put and this occurred:
Mr. Macdonald:
1.	Did any one purchase from the Militia Department, since August 4, 1914, any small arms ammunition?
2.	If so, what quantity, and what price was
paid therefor?	.
3.	Who was the purchaser?
Mr. Kemp : Stand.
Mr. Macdonald: How long does my hon. friend expect this question to stand. It has stood for two weeks now.
Mr. Kemp: We will give the information just as soon as possible. We are doing everything possible in that direction.
'One would think it wae necessary to make some very involved and deep exploration in order to answer the question; yet all the papers relating to the transactions were lying in the Militia Department, and the transactions 'bad been closed on the 1st day of January, 1916, and every hon. gentleman comprising the Government knew that a memorandum had come to council and had never been passed. Yet the Acting Minister of Militia wanted the House to believe that he was straining every energy to get this information in order to give it to the House. Finally, on March 27, an answer was given to the question of my hon. friend from Carleton. That answer was to the effect that this ammunition, which we are told to-day is no good at all, had been sold lor money to various rifle clubs throughout the Dominion for the use of men who were practising and learning to shoot. ' At the end of the answer there came this statement:
To Vickers, Limited, a certain number of rounds of Mark VI, at $20 per thousand rounds represented to be for the purpose of testing machine guns.
The sale of a quantity of ammunition to Vickers-Maxim to be used for testing machine guns, coupled with the suspicious circumstances in connection with the returns up to that time, at once suggested to one's mind that here was a field in which further information might be desired. So following that, on March 29, I moved for an Order of the House, and I was met by my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden), who told me that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose the quantity of ammunition that was sold. My right hon. friend indicated that I must amend my motion before I could have it passed. I was compelled to amend the motion, eliminating the matter of quantity, because, for-TMr. Macdonald.j
sooth, there was liable to a national menace if the quantity were published. All this time the quantity that was sold, apart from the sale to Vickers-Maxim, was sold to people in this country foT practising with the rifle, rifle clubs and organizations of that kind, so that the theory that the disclosure of the quantities would be liable to hurt somebody or be dangerous to the public interest was entirely illusory; it had'no justification whatever.
What follows? On April 6 my question was answered. Varying slightly in terms from that of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), it had been dropped from the Order Paper in my absence from the House on the theory that the answer to the question of the hon. member for Carleton was a sufficient answer to my question-tion. I was compelled to call the attention of the House to the fact that I had asked for certain information and that my question varied from that of the hon. member for Carleton. It was not until April 5 that my question was answered. On April 5, in a discussion with my hon. friend on the subject, he said:
I have no objection to this motion passing, subject, of course, to some consideration as to giving the quantities. I shall also endeavour to expedite it.
From April 5 to May 1 nothing was done with regard to bringing down the return, but on May 1, two months after we had started to get the most ordinary information in regard to this matter, the return was formally brought down. These facts indicate a condition of affairs which naturally would cause suspicion to be aroused in the public mind.


Robert Laird Borden: On what date
was the order passed by the House?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: April 5.


Robert Laird Borden: When was the
return brought down?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On May 1.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not two months.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Two months, I said, elapsed from the time at which the matter was first broached in the House until the Government were able to bring down the return. My right hon. friend was not then in charge of the department, but the acting minister who was in charge knew that the subject was not only a matter of interest but that it was to come up in the

House and he ought to have been able to have got the return in much less time than it took. Well, the return was brought down. It goes into a lot of ancient documents that have no relevancy whatever to the question. Notwithstanding this unnecessary and irrelevant matter, what does the return disclose, beyond the shadow of a doubt? It discloses this and I speak from the official statement:
On September 8. 1915, Col. J. W. Allison, representing the Vickers, Limited, applied to purchase 236,000 rounds of Mark VI ammunition required by Sir Trevor Dawson.
Application approved by the minister.
These hon. gentlemen talk about the *Quartermaster General having the sale of bad ammunition. Any theory of that kind, such as we heard put before the House this afternoon, vanishes in the face of the official statement. I find on page 13 of the return:
Application approved by the minister. The shipment in question was made on September 22.
On December 18 Col. Allison applied for 2,000000 rounds of Mark VI ammunition.
Application approved by the minister.
No Quartermaster General is selling that ammunition. The minister sells it as this document shows. Imagine the temerity of hon. gentlemen in talking about bad ammunition and the Quartermaster General having power to sell it. It seems absurd in the face of this positive statement that this application was approved by the minister. Then:
On November 11, Col. Allison applied for
1.000.	000 rounds of Mark VI ammunition for his principals.
Application approved by minister.
Later Col. Allison asked that this amount be increased to 2,000,000.' This was authorized to be issued-
By the minister.
On December 18, Col. Allison applied for
2.000.	000 rounds of Mark VI ammunition.
He applied in a telegram from New York in which he said he was there with the minister and that the minister had authorized the sale of this ammunition, but he wanted to let the Quartermaster General know about it. Inquiry was made by the proper officials to know if this quantity should be issued and at what price and it was:
Approved by minister-
On the 20th December, 1915.
-later endorsed by minister to ascertain by whom to be used, and if sold, to be by Order in Council. The deputy minister endorsed the
application that this sale would only be by Order in Council.
Then we have the
Application for Order in Council as Anally settled.
There was a memorandum from the minister asking the Governor General in Council for approval not merely for the sale of the balance of the 5,000,000 rounds of ammunition but for approval of the sale that he had effected without any Order in Council permitting him to do so. There the matter stood. No Order in Council was ever passed, and as my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition pointed out this afternoon, the result was that a Minister of the Crown undertook to sell the property of the Canadian people without the authority or consent of the Crown which, under the law, he must and should have got before undertaking to dispose of that property.
These are the facts in connection with the matter. When you remember that this gentleman, Mr. J. Wesley Allison, was the man who negotiated this unusual and peculiar sale, you have a further condition under which investigation' becomes absolutely imperative. Mr. J. Wesley Allison went to the minister first in regard to the purchase of this ammunition and the minister sent him to the Quartermaster General. Mr. J. Wesley Allison writes the Quartermaster General telling him, and his letter is to be found at page 16 of the return:
Referring to my arrangements with you some time ago for the purchase of 236,000,-303 Mark VI cartridges for Sir Trevor Dawson, I have just received a cable requesting me to have these shipped.
J. Wesley Allison arranges with the Minister of Militia that he is to get this quantity and then he writes to the Quartermaster General for the purpose of getting it. He writes to the Quartermaster General that he has been instructed by the minister to apply to him for the purpose of getting the ammunition. Then we find a statement made to the House and made in the memorandum accompanying the application for the Order in Council to the effect that this ammunition was required for testing purposes. There is not a line or word in any of these documents on record to show that the Vickers Maxim Company ever asked to get this ammunition for testing purposes. That is purely the creation of the minister in preparing the memorandum for council. No one of his subordinates made a statement of that kind. It is not here stated from any source that it was to be used for

testing purposes. Yet, the Government undertake to ratify that assertion by stating to Parliament, in answer to my hon. friend from Carleton, that they had sold a large quantity of this ammunition to the Vickers Company to be used for testing purposes. I would like to know where the minister who answered that question got that information. Is it to be found in any document? If it is contained in any document it should have been brought down. This House was entitled to see that document and to know whether the Vickers Maxim Company wanted this ammunition for testing purposes. It turns out when the minister does bring down the return, that he has placed on file a memorandum, a sort of apology or excuse or justification for the sale in which he intimates that this ammunition was not used for testing purposes at all but that it was wanted by the British Government.
Right here I want to ask the right hon. gentleman who leads the House what possible explanation he has for a department of this Government selling ammunition or anything else to the British Admiralty through the intervention of Col. J. W. Allison. If the British Admiralty wanted to buy ammunition, how is it that my right hon. friend was not communicated with? How is it that the British Admiralty did not communicate their wishes to this Government in the proper and official way? But that is not the situation; J. W. Allison appears in this transaction. This House and country is being absolutely deceived by the official statement made to the House that this ammunition was sold to Vickers-Maxim for testing purposes. It was not sold to Vickers-Maxim for testing purposes; the Government knows that, and the	Minister of Militia
knows . it.	But in some way this
ubiquitous individual, J. W. Allison, who turns up at every corner in this country where there is a dollar to be made, is thrust into the position of mid-10 p.m. dleman between this Government and the British Admiralty. My right hon. friend took very great care this afternoon not to refer to J. W. Allison. He said nothing whatever to defend or excuse him, or even irfdicate that he had any existence at all. True, the Minister of Militia once more rushed to the defence of his friend in his usual vigorous style; but the right hon. -gentleman left J. W. Allison alone; he was not going to father him. He has not assumed Macdonald.]
any responsibility for him up to date, although this afternoon he did endeavour to assume responsibility for the righteousness of the sale of this ammunition. But he was not going to assume responsibility for J. W. Allison. He told us that this ammunition was no good. Why was it no good? Because it was under suspicion. And he quoted Colonel Barlow's report that the ammunition was not to be used in Mark II rifles.
And yet the ammunition was sold. During the past year I find that Major J. S. Thom, of Sarnia, for instance, purchased 1,000 rounds of this very same ammunition; the Prince Edward Island Provincial Rifle Association also purchased a large quantity; the Amherst Canadian Rifle Association purchased 1,000 rounds of this ammunition on two occasions; the 63rd Regiment, in the constituency of my hon. friend, purchased 4,754 rounds of this very same ammunition, which the minister says he will never allow to get into the hands of our boys who are fighting at the front. But he is willing to let the 63rd Regiment take the chance of shooting themselves while practising rifle shooting with this ammunition; he did not care about them. Then the 183rd Rifle Association purchased 1,100 rounds; the Mor-ven Canadian Rifle Association, 600 rounds, and the 20th " B " Horse.


Frank Oliver: What did they pay?
iMr. MACDONALD: The price varied according to the amount purchased. Some paid $20, and here it says that $25 was paid by the 20th " B " Horse, but it does not indicate whether that was the price per thousand rounds, or for the total quantity bought.
What did the Minister of Militia mean this afternoon when he talked about the Quartermaster General having power to dispose of this ammunition without an Order in Council? Did he want the House to believe that Quartermaster General Macdonald had sold this ammunition without his authority? If he did not mean that, what was he talking about the Quartermaster General for? In addition to the names given in the main return, there appears in the supplementary return a list of other parties to whom this ammunition was sold. Under the authority of the Minister of Militia we find that Vickers, Limited, of London, bought 236,000, 2,000,000 and 750,000 rounds at different times. The man who was responsible and whose authority was given for the sale of

these three lots is given in the official document as the hon. Minister of Militia. It is clearly proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in regard to these various items that the Minister of Militia himself directed the sale of the ammunition to Allison. There is nothing in these returns to indicate for one minute that the ammunition was to be used for testing purposes. The first time any suggestion .was made about its .being used for testing purposes was in the memorandum sent by the minister to Council on the 5th of January.
It appears further from this return, from the statement of the minister himself justifying this transaction, that the sale was not to Vickers-Maxim at all, but that the ammunition ultimately went to the British Admiralty. These are the facts, unquestioned and undoubted, that are given in the return. These are the facts that the Government was fooling with from March 5 to May 1, and were preventing from getting >to the public. I should like to ask the Prime Minister why the answer was given on March 5 that serviceable ammunition . had been issued to all Canadian contingents, but that in the public interest it would not be advisable to give details during the present emergency. Why was that answer given if it was not to prevent the information from being given to the public? The defence made this afternoon was that the Quartermaster General had disposed of this ammunition, but I have proved from the return that he did not sell it, and that it was sold1 directly under the authority of the minister. Other documents in the return indicate that in December the minister and Allison were conferring in New York, and wired up to Ottawa that a large quantity of ammunition be provided, but the deputy minister made a memorandum, which is on the return here, to the effect that the requisition -would have to go to Council for sanction. So much for the Quartermaster General and his poweT.
My right hon. friend this afternoon went at great length into Colonel Barlow's report as to the quality of the ammunition. It is needless for the Minister of Militia to make assertions -that he is not going to let any of his boys at the front fight with this ammunition, as if there was any chance of them getting bad ammunition unless he put it into their hands. He need not make doughty assertions of that kind, as if we were forcing bad ammunition upon them. Who is doing that? No one. If this ammunition was of no value why did the
British Admiralty want it, and why did this Government sell it to them through its own minister? If the ammunition was no good, -why did they put through a transaction, through their own middlemen, whereby the boys on the ships -and in the naval brigades in England were provided with ammunition which the minister would not allow the boys in the Canadian regiments to use? Having regard to the fact that all the forces of the Empire are one, what difference does it make whether the ammunition explodes in the rifle in the hands of a boy in one of the naval brigades in England, or in the hands of a Canadian soldier? Why should an attempt be made to mislead the public in regard to this ammunition? Why is it asserted that the ammunition was of no value, when the British Admiralty got it and used it? And this Government knew that the British Admiralty got it and used it. If they knew this ammunition was no good, they were guilty of a crime against the state and against the Empire in permitting improper ammunition to go into the hands of any portion of the forces of the Empire. Yet they did that, and they kept on selling to the men in the rifle club throughout this country this ammunition for practice. It is no wonder that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister came to the conclusion that the matter deserved to be investigated. The question is as to whether he is going to give that full and complete investigation which he avowed to the country he was prepared to do in regard to all matters. He can choose two tribunals, both in existence at the present time, one presided over by two distinguished judges with ample counsel representing all possible parties, a tribunal in active operation which can proceed with the inquiry at once. My right hon. friend said that there were witnesses available in town which could be heard at once. Who were the witnesses? Col. J. Wesley Allison is in town. Does my right hon. friend mean to say that that gentleman may -skip out before the Meredith-Duff Commission would get through with him in regard to this matter? What other witnesses are in town? This transaction is not one in which Americans are involved; it is a transaction in which men of the British race are involved, and I am quite sure that if it is necessary to get information from England, means could be adopted to get that information. We are not dealing with aliens in this matter, and it is within the purview of the

Meredith-Duff Commission if my right hon. friend would give it the poweT to deal with the matter. His only excuse for not giving them that power is that there were some witnesses in town.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not correct.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the excuse?


Robert Laird Borden: It is not an excuse; it is a reason. The reason was that the Meredith-Duff Commission had been appointed to deal with expenditures made by the British Government. The Sir Charles Davidson 'Commission had oeen appointed to deal with matters that directly concerned this Government, as that matter does. Therefore, it was thought advisable that it should be referred to that commission.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my right hon. friend will pardon me, that is not a very good reason, and if he will stop to think for a moment, he will see that this is peculiarly a matter that ought to go before the Meredith-Duff Commission, because it is a matter affecting the sale of ammunition by this Government to the British Government. According to the facts that are admitted, the British Government purchased from this Government certain small arms ammunition.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not admit anything of the kind. I have already stated that no such proposal ever came to the attention of the Government, so far as I am aware. The proposal that came to the Government was that this ammunition should be sold or its sale ratified to Vickers, Limited, of England.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is the statement of the minister himself. My right hon. friend has seen this memorandum.


Robert Laird Borden: What does the hon. member say contrary to that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The memorandum
says:
It is understood that, to cover the cost of transport, handling-, exchange, insurance, etc., a sum was added, hy one of Vickers' officers, to the price, but, on learning that these expenditures were borne by the British Government, they were immediately removed.
My hon. friend the Minister of Militia this afternoon stated that this ammunition went to the British Admiralty.
[Mr. Macdonald.


Robert Laird Borden: Does not the statement that my hon. friend holds in his hand state definitely that the ammunition was sold to Vickers, Limited?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: That was what I was alluding to.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But it was resold by Vickers, Limited, to the Admiralty, according to the statement of the Minister of Militia this afternoon.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not remember that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not only that, but he says in this memorandum:
The assurance was given that not one cent was paid in commission hy the firm to any one, and no profit was made on it. It is understood that, to cover the cost of transport, handling, exchange, insurance, etc., a sum was added, by one of Vickers' officers, to the price, but, on learning that these expenses were borne by the British Government, they were immediately removed.
Those munitions went to the British Government; they went to the Admiralty. I say this is essentially a case that ought to have gone to the Meredith-Duff Commission because it referred to relations between this Government and the Admiralty in regard to ammunition. The Meredith-Duff Commission was the proper tribunal; the counsel were there, everything was in readiness to proceed; J. Wesley Allison was before the commission or going to be before it. My right hon. friend must admit that it was an unnecessary and unusual act on his part when he proceeded to resurrect Sir Charles Davidson. and hand the matter over to 'him. We have the question before the House and the country as to which would be the better tribunal, and after a long discussion this evening, the Minister of Justice indicated that he might be prepared to appoint counsel, but he was very careful in regard to that; he was making very large reservations in regard to what he was going to do, and he did not speak with frankness in regard to the subject. I say that the Davidson Commission is not the proper commission to try this matter. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister knows that; he knows that Sir Charles Davidson is a jurist who has retired from the bench; that he is a very old gentleman; that the task of dealing with this matter or any matter of an investigation is one that requires strenuous virility on the part of any judge. I remember, when my right hon. friend was leading the Opposition, that the present Mr. Justice Lennox,

who was one of his lieutenants, discussed year in and year out the lack of wisdom in appointing judges as commissioners to deal with matters of this kind. I say without hesitation that the Sir Charles Davidson Commission is not one which has the confidence of the country at the present time.
Just let us see what was said to-day in one of our papers in regard to the subject.
- I agree that in this country the maintenance of the fair name of the judiciary is one of the highest possible importance, because anything that would create a lack of confidence in the mind of the public in the men who have to sit as judges would be an unfortunate thing for the people and for the state. This is a letter which I think is worthy of the attention of the House:
The following is some of the evidence given by Mr. Allison as it appeared in the press report of the 8th instant, before the Davidson commission
Have you any letter to act as agent for General Hughes?-No, I had letters of introduction from him and I found the minister's influence was of great assistance to me.
Was the introduction to the Colt Company one?-I am not sure. X think I knew the Colt officers before that, but not in a business way.
" I am to understand," asked Sir Charles, " that while you had letters of introduction from General Hughes you never utilized them?" -Not for business, but for social purposes.
Is there anything in that evidence which would possibly give Sir Charles Davidson to understand ' that while you had letters of introduction from General Hughes you never utilized them'? Is this not rather the evidence of Commissioner Davidson than of Allison? Then look at Allison's answer.
So says the wily Allison.


Robert Laird Borden: Who signs the
letter?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The letter is anonymous.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The fact that it is an anonymous letter does not make any difference because it draws an inference which an eminent lawyer like my right hon. friend would draw himself. The letter goes on:
-and yet Allison says at the commencement that he found "the minister's influence was of great assistance to him." Socially or commercially, which did he mean? We don't know who he met socially; we know what he did commercially. Is it any wonder the public grin when they read the report of a commission such as this?-Reader.
My hon. friend the Minister of Justice dilated upon the tremendous work of this commission and the fact that it had been sitting for a year.
Anyone who stops to think will realize that what Judge Davidson has been doing is trying a number of different cases during the past year, just as every judge who sits in the Supreme Court of any of our provinces. But, although he has been trying these cases, and began to deal with them last autumn-September or even earlier- he has never given judgment in a single one. What is the reason he does not decide in regard to the question of the purchase of horses in Kings County," Nova Scotia? He tried that case last fall. It has no relation to anything that he is trying today. Any judge would be almost driven off the Bench, or, at the very least, difficulty would be raised, if he should reserve judgment as long as Sir Charles Davidson has reserved judgment in this case. Everybody knows that Mr. Foster, the gentleman who was concerned in that matter, is telling his friends that he is going to be whitewashed, and that he will be the candidate of the party in Kings County again. My right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) has heard that.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN I have heard nothing of the kind.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then all I can say
is that the right hon. gentleman is getting very badly out of touch with his own home constituency. Is there any warrant under heaven for Sir Charles Davidson, who tried that case in. regard to the Kings County horses not giving judgment? That is what the people of the county are asking. It is a very singular thing that even though the evidence in these cases is all in, this gentleman cannot take time to consider the question of fact involved and sit down and write a judgment. Though Parliament has been sitting for four months, and though we have asked that some suggestion be made that this report should be brought down, we are going to close next week and there will be no report. And there may be no report when we come together for next session. Yet the Prime minister in giving another case to this judge who never decides anything, another case to be put away, never to be decided and never heard tell of. Had my hon. friend committed the task of inquiry in this matter to the Meredith-Duff Commission, he knows there would be a finding within a reasonable time. If it is given to Sir Charles Davidson, who has worked so hard that he cannot decide the cases he tried nearly a year ago, when can we hope for a declaration from the commissioner as to his opinion on the facts of the case?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mar-eil). Had I voted I should have voted against the amendment.


Mr. CROTHERS:: But that I was paired with the hon. member for West Kent (Mr. McCoig), I should have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MORRISON:: I was paired with the hon. 'member for Saltcoats (Mr. MaoNutt), otherwise I should have voted against the amendment.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was paired with the hon. member for York, N.B. (Mr. McLeod), otherwise I should have voted for the amendment.


Mr. STEVENS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan), otherwise I should have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GREEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria, Alta. (Mr. W. H. White), otherwise I should have voted against the amendment.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodee in the Chair.
Canadian Northern Railway Company-loan not exceeding $15,000,000.
Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a few observations in order to have them placed on Hansard and to direct them to the attention of the Government, particularly of the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of the Interior. I purpose making them upon this item. The problem of the best solution of our railway question is one that I cannot discuss in any very full way. Different speakers have had different solutions to offer, and different observations to make. The observation that I desire to make is that there is one way to render our railways successful, and that is to develop our country, especially the West, in such a way that there will be more business for the railways. The facts and figures which I propose to offer on that bear out



the contention I desire to make, namely that we have at our disposal in Western Canada an enormous quantity of arable land which, if put to use as it was meant to be, would give a sufficient production of wealth in this country to enable us to better bear our burdens, speaking in a general sense, and would afford increased business for the railways. The three railways we have on our hands, I suppose, like other business concerns, are for the purpose of doing business. No business man, and no association of business men, having established a great factory or plant, would say that they had arrived at the goal which was before them when they had merely constructed their plant. The building of our railways is in itself only a means towards an end. It is worse than useless to build railways unless you are going to use them. It is worse than useless to build a factory unless you are going to use your brains to get grist for your mi'll, goods to manufacture, and markets in which to sell them. We in Canada have these railways, and they have a certain thing to sell, namely transportation; and you cannot sell transportation unless there is something to transport and unless there are men who are able to pay for that transportation, or, in other words, are able to buy the thing that you are ready to offer on the market. While there may be many suggestions to be made as to other ways in which this principle might be applied, such as in the development of our manufacturing industries, I, coming from the West, wish to call the attention of the committee to something which I think worthy of the attention of this House and of this country, from the viewpoint of the great resources we have lying in the West.
Last year we had in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and I speak of those two provinces alone, nearly 15,000,000 of acres of land under cultivation. I take the figures from the statistical departments of this Government. The total amount of arable land which is at our disposal in those two western provinces is 190,000,000. We had 15,000,000 acres, approximately, under cultivation, producing wealth for this nation, and 175,000,000 acres lying idle. There must be some reason for this. There must be something that is standing in the way of ' using that great national resource that we have there, and my point this evening is, without any reference to party issues whatever, that whatever is standing in the way of the development of these western acres, surely there must be in Canada brains

enough to find out how to use and develop and make productive that great national asset that is lying there, not being developed in any way. Of course we cannot develop it all in a day, or in a year, or perhaps in a decade. During recent years, and I shall not weary the House with comparative figures, we have not been stretching out our arms to take into the national use these great national assets. We are not developing in the direction of even gradually exploiting that great national asset which lies before us. Last year according to the statistics of the Government, and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy, the value of the crops produced on those 15,000,000 acres in those two western prairie provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, was over three hundred million dollars. If we could apply the same proportion to these unused arable lands, we would have, not three hundred million dollars, but three billion, nine hundred million dollars. When we are through with this war we are going to have an enormous debt; it may be one billion dollars; it may be two billio l dollars. The interest on it will be probably fifty million dollars per annum at the least. Here there lies in our hands and in our possession 175,000,000 acres of land which, if they were to produce at the rate the acres in use last year yielded, would produce in one year three billion, nine hundred million dollars worth of produce, a value four times as great as this terrible war debt that is staring us in the face. I desire to say to this Government, and especially to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, that the responsibility that rests upon him at this time is very great. We have other resources. We have the fisheries, the mines, the lumber; we have our industries, our manufacturing plants, and all of these can, no doubt co-operate, and can in a very great way help us to meet this tremendous obligation that is before us. But, all said and done, while I may be partial to the West, and, like many a western man, may think more of it in a comparative sense than I ought to think, yet. when you see lying there, unused, 175,000,000 acres of land, you must realize that we have in our hands an asset that it is our duty to develop to the greatest degree possible.
There may be some difficulties in bringing this about. Of course there is the difficulty of immigration, and of that I shall say nothing, because there are reasons why to-day, and for the last two or three years, we are not able to achieve a'l we should like. But I make this suggestion to the

Minister of the Interior and to the Minister of Finance, that, in the case of such of this land which is lying idle as is owned by private owners, they should penalize the holding of that land in such a way that men would have to use it. Men are holding enormous stretches of land, within 5, 10 or 20 miles of the railways, . just waiting for the rise of the market. They went in at the low prices, they went in for the purpose of speculating and trafficking in the unearned increment of this country ; and I declare that I would penalize the holding of this land. That may seem a strong word, and there are many upon whom it would bear very hardly; but the financial desperateness of our country is going to be such that I would feel quite justified', for my part, in penalizing men who hold land not for use, because we have no time in Canada to-day to waste pity on the men who want to lie still and wait for the unearned increment to make millionaires of them.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Would that not be a matter for the Provincial Governments rather than for the Dominion?


William Erskine Knowles: I think the observation of the Minister of Finance is well taken, and I had that in mind when I said that surely there are in Canada men who could devise some remedy.


William Pugsley: Are not the provinces in the West doing that now by the super-tax?


William Erskine Knowles: They are doing it now in a degree, about $10 per quarter-section. But that is not meeting the purpose that I have in view. It is true that this matter really comes under the provincial jurisdiction, but we are a democracy, and surely no man will say that because it happens, by the accident of our constitution, that the provinces have a more direct and more customary control of the taxation of land, we are going to lie down and say that we can do nothing. Immigration is under the Federal jurisdiction; the administration of the war is under this Government; and those things to a certain extent would justify this Government in saying that the interest of trade and commerce, the interest of the war, the interest of immigration, require that this Parliament should exert its powers and pass such legislation as is necessary to ensure the cultivation of that land.
If it were only a matter of amending our constitution that would be in itself a very simple thing, These provinces down here
248J
do not realize the necessity because the matter has not pressed itself upon them as it has upon us. This fetish of the British North America Act which you invoke when any change is proposed is only a fetish after all and it is a small thing to stand in the way of bringing under cultivation 175,000,000 acres of land. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) would agree with me that in a democratic country like ours, possessing great resources, a great part of which belonged to the -prown, when you find great areas in the hands of speculators, men who are not using the land for cultivation, the question of amending the British North America Act is a very small thing to stand in the way of the cultivation of this land. Make it gradual. Undoubtedly it would force down the price of land.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend give us an idea of what portion of the 175,000,000 acres is owned by the Crown and what portion is granted?


William Erskine Knowles: I am sorry 1 cannot do that. I might have anticipated that question and I recognize my oversight m not having informed myself on that point. But in regard to that which is owned by speculators, and there is an enormous quantity owned by private individuals, I would adopt means such as I have suggested. In regard to the other, surely we can get experts to advise us if the minister thinks the task is too large to be undertaken by himself. We have a countless number of commissioners trying to find out academic things, and you might as well try to find out what the moon is made out of for any good that that is going to do. If there ever was a commission that would be justified, I think it would be a commission that would tell us how to go about this question so as to enable men to get on these other lands which are still in the hands of the Crown. We aTe going to have 175,000 or 200,000 soldiers coming back from the war. Many of them will be able to work on the land while others will not. With all the modem agricultural machinery now in use, a man with an arm off, or otherwise incapacitated, can often do a great deal more work on the farm than he can in the city. I do not see any reason why a tax should not be put on companies, and on those men who are rich enough to hold land for speculation, and why you should not use that money for the purpose of developing the lands still in the hands of the Government. Surely something of that kind could be worked out in order that men could go on the land.


Mr. WEIGHT:: Is there not a scheme before one of the legislatures to put a tax of 30 cents an acre on uncultivated land? I understood there was such a proposal.


William Erskine Knowles: Yes, there is an extra charge of $10 on 160 acres of uncultivated land.
iMr. WRIGHT: But I understood there was a proposal to impose a tax of 30 cents an acre.


William Erskine Knowles: I am not aware of it. I was speaking only of my own province, and there, I understand, it is $10 per quarter section. The expense incurred in getting this thing under way would not be very great. It might have to start in a small way, but we should not allow that land to lie idle for such a long time. We cannot speak of conditions as if they were normal conditions. We can only speak of the last conditions we know of as being normal. In Moosejaw we had men walking the streets by scores who were crying out for work, men who wanted simply to make a living, and they could not get work of any kind. Out on the prairies there was this immense number of acres crying for men to come and work. There was something wrong when these two could not be brought together-the men seeking work and the land 'belonging to this Government crying out for men to come and work it. Then we saw that there was no encouragement for these two to 'be brought together. The raw material was there, and the men were there ready to exercise their muscle on the raw material, but the conditions were not sufficiently encouraging to bring the two together. Surely we could make these conditions encouraging enough to bring these two elements together. You are bonusing every kind of industry. By protection you are bonusing them all. It may be hard to work out, but surely we can work out some system by which men will go on the land and use it for the purpose for which it was meant to be used. No doubt the minister can throw many difficulties in the way. Suppose a man owned one section of land instead of the millions of acres we own. He has been a man of comparative wealth before and has had no trouble in meeting his payments. But, suppose he met with reverses and had to live more economically, to use other resources for his income, the first thing he would do would	be to go to his
section of land and .start work at 
farming. I have seen many a man in Moosejaw do the same thing. A man got "busted" in real estate, ot in trading jack knives that had been making a fortune for him, he took his land and he is doing better than he ever did before. We, the Government, are in one sense a great big farmer with an immense farm of 175,000,000 acres, we are in a desperate position financially and we have the ability to produce $3,900,000,000 worth of grain in one year. Why not use that immense farm in such a manner as to increase our income and thus create a business that will make us able to meet our financial obligations?


Hon. W. J. EOCHE (Minister of the Interior) :: Just a few words in regard to western land settlement. I quite agree that we have a very large area of unsettled land but it must be remembered that a very large proportion has already 'been alienated from the Crown. It has passed into the hands of railway companies in the form of land grants. Whether we have had a judicious system in the past or not it would be altogether useless to discuss at the present time. In the early history of Canada it was absolutely essential to 'hold out extraordinary inducements to get the great West opened up by means of railways and as a consequence of this a very large acreage was alienated from the Crown. There is also a large area in the hands of private speculators, land companies and individuals, in addition to regular homesteaders and others holding Government land. The question of compelling these people to bring this land undeT cultivation is a very important one, a very complex one and one which more directly comes within provincial jurisdiction. The provincial legislatures have attempted to grapple with it during the last few years by means of taxing wild land and a surtax on uncultivated land. I do not know of anything that they have quoted in the United States to discredit immigration very much more, with the exception of conscription, than the question of provincial taxation.


William Pugsley: Or the duty on grain.


William James Roche: No, I heard very little about the duty on grain when I was there. A great deal of fault has been fotmd on the part of residents of the United States with the provincial taxation on land companies. Eepresentatives of these companies have been down here giving their

3&37
evidence before the Economic Development Commission, complaining bitterly of the discouragement to the investment of capital in Canada by reason of the very large taxation that has been put on land by means of that surtax. I am not finding any fault with the local legislatures for having adopted that policy. I think it is the best policy to penalize people who are holding out uncultivated land in order that it may be brought under cultivation. But at the same time it has its side of criticism and the premier of Saskatchewan, when I invited him to attend the conference of immigration agents in February, , devoted almost his entire remarks to a justification of his Government in imposing this surtax.
One thing the American papers have made a great deal of in trying to keep die American farmers at home has been the printing of facsimiles of the tax notices sent out through western Canada. In one column they will show general taxes, in another school taxes, and in another gopher taxes, and so on, giving the American people the impression that the Canadians are taxed to death. America is, of course, more thickly populated and their lands are higher priced than ours, and the American farmers would not look so much to the total of these taxes as to the number of different items, and those interested in discouraging immigration have made the utmost possible capital out of this. The hon. gentleman has said that this is a large question which should be referred to some commission. That has been done already. The Economic Commission has been working on it during the past year.


William Erskine Knowles: Were the commissioners selected for their fitness to grapple with an economic question of this kind?


William Roche: It is an honorary commission, but an honorary commi sion is, as a rule, composed of competent and representative men. This commission is comprised of farmers, business men, land men, transportation men-representative men from every province of the Dominion almost. I think it is a very good commission.


William Erskine Knowles: It is too big.


William Roche: They can collect information just the same as any other* commission; I know that they have had this question under consideration, and that they have had a number of witnesses before them. Perhaps they are not getting on as expeditiously as we should like, but Senator
Lougheed, of course, has been very busy during the session and probably has not had the time that he would otherwise have been able to devote to it. In this problem of land 'settlement the provincial Governments should act in co-operation with the Dominion. The provincial Governments themselves have a great deal to do with land settlement. I think one of the essential questions for Canada to determine is what we are going to do with the immigrants who come to this country after the war. I am afraid we are going to have-a large immigration, probably of those who-have never been brought up on the farm, and who know little about agriculture. To-put these men on the farm without previous agricultural experience and without: capital would be useless. They must have-training of some kind, either at an agricultural college or by seeing the demonstrations or experimental Farms, and so on. That is a matter that should be taken jp by the provincial Governments. Manitoba is grappling with it already. They set aside a sum of money last session to purchase stock to assist poor farmers. These men, of course, have to be hand-picked. Then there is the system of agricultural credits. A few years ago I understand that the various Governments in the West sent a commission to nearly every country in Europe and the United States, gathering evidence on this question. The commissioners made a report to their respective Governments as to the policy that should be pursued with regard to agricultural credits, but T do not think there has been any practicat outcome as yet. In Saskatchewan some law was placed on the statute-book, but it has not been taken advantage of. I think we should do everything we can to encourage those who come out to this country to go upon the land. That would involve the expenditure of a very large sum of money; there is no question about that; and that is one reason why, at the present time, when all our energies should be devoted to the winning of the war, we should not launch out upon any expenditure in this direction. As a matter of fact I do not look for any large immigation to Canada until after the war is over. History teaches us that there is little immigration to any country at war. But after the war I think we shall have abundance of immigration although I will not pledge myself that it will be of the kind that we have been endeavouring to secure-that is, agriculturists. We have had a very large immigration in years gone by. In the year ending

March 31, 1914, 385,000 immigrants came to Canada, and in the year before, 402,000- the largest number in the history of Canada. It may be true that not so many are taking up homesteads, but that is not a good criterion by which to judge. Many of these immigrants did not go to our western provinces at all, but located in the East. Then many of those who went out to the West went out as agricultural labourers, and never put in homestead entries. For the years ending March 31, 1914, and March 31, 1915, there was a larger immigration into the province of Ontario than into the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta combined. So you cannot say that the immigration is not of the Tight sort, simply judging by the homestead entries. I quite realize the importance of the subject the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) has brought before the House. We expect a report from the Economic Commission in the very near future. It does not necessarily follow that their recommendations will be adopted in toto, or even in part, but at any rate we shall have the benefit of what information they collect, and shall then be in a better position to judge what policy to adopt.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):: I think the question raised by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) is one of the most important this House could discuss. No one doubts that when this war is over Canada will have a tremendously large debt, with a large fixed sum to pay annually on account of interest and sinking fund. Unquestionably, also, if we can increase the population of Canada we shall lessen to just that extent the per capita payments on *that debt. For instance, if within the next ten years the population of Canada doubles our per capita payment will be halved. It is quite true, as the minister says, that a great part of the 175,000,000 acres that the hon. member for Moosejaw spoke of has passed into the hands of private owners, and there is ho object in going into that subject now. But there is in the northern part of the three Prairie Provinces many millions of acres that are not prairie lands in the sense that the plains of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are. In that area north of the Saskatchewan river from lake Winnipeg westerly there is a large stretch of park lands north of Prince Albert. There are some stretches of prairie and great stretches of timber land; but the timber is mostly poplar, and poplar is nearly always found on dry land. It is first class land when it is cleared up,

and grow splendid crops. Every one in the West knows that poplar bush is easy to clear up; the stumps come out very easily, or in the course of a few years they will rot out. When you get as far west as Edmonton, that class of country extends four or five hundred miles north of the Saskatchewan river, and in some places a great deal more, and as you go further west, the country is much more open. Probably only pant of that country could be called first class land, as compared with the country in the southern portions of the province, but it is very well suited for mixed farming. I know that in the southern portion of the province of Saskatchewan there are districts that are not well suited for raising wheat; where, although a good deal of wheat is grown, at the same time the land is more suited for mixed farming. My hon. friend will know, because it is the country he lives in, that there are some parts a little north and west of that that are better for stock raising than wheat. The farmers who, during the last 25 years, have gone into those parts that I have mentioned and have gone in for mixed farming, are the farmers who are most prosperous to-day. In my own constituency, on the eastern and northern side of the Moose mountain, where the land is more broken up and rougher than the general run of the land, the farmers who have adopted the system of cattle-raising and mixed farming are to-day amongst the most prosperous settlers in the whole province of Saskatchewan. In that country to the north of the Saskatchewan river there are millions and tens of millions which some time in the future will be settled by a thrifty, contented and prosperous population that will pay its share of the revenues of the country. If you wish, however, to have that country bring forth its best resources, it will be advisable to give a certain amount of assistance to the settlers, and I have in mind a scheme somewhat along the following lines. Supposing a settler goes into that northern country and takes up one of those more or less rough quarter sections and builds a little house and stable, thus showing the Government that he is a bona fide settler, and that he knows how to handle his farm and to take care of cattle, I think, instead of doing as we have been doing for the last twenty years, spending a huge amount of money annually on public buildings and other public works throughout the country, many of them necessary and proper if times are prosperous, but unnece.-

sary in times such as we are having mw and such as we are going to have on account of the war and the railroad situation that is confronting us, the Government should commence a grant of, say, $1,000,000 a year, gradually increasing that amount to $5,000,000 or $10,000,000 a year, and appoint a body of men to buy cattle and give such settlers as I have described from two to ten cattle each according to his capacity for looking after them. Then they should charge that settler the full cost of the cattle laid down at his station, but charge him no interest on the cattle for, say, three years, then for a couple of years charge him interest on the cost, and then after he has had the cattle for five years, charge him a certain percentage of the cost so that at the end of ten years he will have paid back to the Government the cost of the cattle with five or six per cent interest according to the rate at which the Government could borrow the money. In that way you would have thousands and tens of thousands of settlers in that part of the country who would be making a living out of those cattle and who at the end of those ten years would be able to pay back the amount that was put into the cattle by selling off the increase as they grew up to be three or four years old. In that way, at the end of those ten years, those cattle would be paid back and the farmer would have a big herd of his own from the increase of the original stock. Even those who have watched what some farmers in our own neighbourhood, starting with a couple of cows, have done, can hardly appreciate how a herd increases and how a farmer can get a good herd around him. To make that scheme a success, care, of course, would have to be taken that stock would not be given to men who could not take care of them. That is one difficulty in the way, but difficulties are made to be overcome. Many of our settlers from the old country are men who come from the cities and do not understand the care of cattle, and it would be impossible for those men, in the course of one or two years, to know enough about the care of cattle to enable them to handle a proposition of that kind successfully. The average foreigner knows more about stock raising and can make money out of caring for cattle, so tbat the difficulty might arise that our English-speaking friend might say: You are not treating me as liberally as that foreigner. But the matter would have to be dealt with according to the merits and the ability of the man. If we would
take the money that we spend annually in unnecessary and unproductive work and put it into cattle, and distribute them amongst the settlers in that new country to the north, we would accomplish with that money ten times as much good as we could accomplish by spending it in the way that we have been doing in the past. Nineteen out oi twenty of those settlers would make a success, and the loss to the Government would be very little, if any. You would have to keep up that grant for, say, five years, and then, as the money came in from paying for stock, it could be put out again. I am merely outlining the scheme as I have it in mind, and when this Economic Commission reports, the matter can be taken up.


William Roche: Would it be confined to the holders of unpatented lands?


John Gillanders Turriff: My idea would be that in that country the land would be all unpatented for a number of years after the settlers went in. The Government could not only take security oh the stock itself, but could register a lien against the unpatented homestead. In case the land was patented, if there were any in that part of the country, to which the Government might apply under such an arrangement as this, security could be taken on the stock itself and also on the man's covenants, and, if the land was not encumbered, take security upon the land as well. I do not think there will be great difficulty in the matter of security. My hon. friend mentioned a few moments ago that something of that kind was being done in Manitoba. I discussed this matter with some of the members of the Government of Manitoba, and they told me they were going to make an experiment along that line applying to the country lying north of Winnipeg, which is very much the same class of country, as the minister is well aware, as that lying north of the Saskatchewan river in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. In fact, it was more wooded, I imagine, around Winnipeg. The difficulty they have had there is that of getting the land under cultivation for grain, but it is a good stock country, and any men in that part of the country who have been able to make a start in raising stock have done remarkably well. It will only take two or three years for the Government of Manitoba to try thi6 plan out and prove whether it is feasible or not. I remember that when I went into

that country first, about forty years ago- I settled in the vicinity of Manitou, Manitoba-certain people there who had a little money for investment would buy, say, ten head of cows and give them to a farmer on shares, the farmer to look after the stock and to give the capitalist or financial man one-half the increase when they ar* rived at three years of age. At the end of the term of agreement, five or ten years, the farmer had to return the ten head of cows. In the course of that time, the farmer would have a great big herd of cattle from half the increase, and the man who put up the money would have received a higher rate of interest than he could get iby loaning the money on mortgage) on farms, or in any other way. If the same success should attend the Government in furnishing the money, it would be a profitable thing for the settler and the Government would not lose anything. Even if action should not be taken for a year or two, the experience in Manitoba, I imagine, will have gone far enough to enable the Government to judge whether this scheme would appeal by them. No one would want to see such a thing tried on a very great scale at first, because it is, to an extent, experimental. The matter would have to be placed in the hands of somebody who would be absolutely outside of political control. I say that regardless of what Government is in office, or whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are in power. If this matter were the subject of political patronage that would go a long way to kill it, and would certainly make it unsuccessful. I feel sure that we have a huge stretch of country there that would be occupied by settlers, settlers who would become wealthy and will do just as well as they could in the best grain-growing parts of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Alberta. For many, many years to come cattle and stock of all kinds will command high prices. There will always be a market, and it does not matter in a case of that kind whether a man is forty or fifty miles away from a railroad. I lived for many years in the West, and I was in one case sixty miles and in another case further from the railway. Settlers who had cattle had no trouble in marketing, because, in a couple of days, they would drive out a big herd when it was ready for the market. I believe the suggestion I make to' the minister is worthy of consideration, for I have seen it carried out most successfully in individual cases. This plan will help to populate a 
country as large as the whole settled area of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


William Roche: The Canadian Pacific are doing it now.


John Gillanders Turriff: They are doing something along the same line, advancing money to settlers. But I have never been much in favour of putting men on lands in the West who had no money of their own, starting them out with a debt of $500 or $600 and expecting them to pay interest right along and pay the money back. But where a man has shown his ability as a farmer, and has the stabling, or can put it up, and will grow the hay in the vicinity, he will be all the better settler for having a little help and will not only pay back the money but, while he has it, his use of it will add materially to the wealth of the country and the revenues of the Government.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: It is getting near to Sunday morning, and I should think that the Government, whatever we may think on this side, will hardly feel like holding the House longer. I have an amendment of which I gave notice, and I would like to move it, as the chairman (Mr. Rhodes) has stated a point in regard to if. The resolution is as follows:
That after the word "approved" in the third line from the bottom of the particulars of the proposed vote, there should be added the following words: "Before making such loan the Governor in Council shall require the Company to give to His Majesty the King an option to acquire at any time within five years from the date thereof the railways and other property of the company and of all other railways and property included in the Canadian Northern system at such price as to the Governor in Council may seem reasonable under existing circumstances."
I do not propose to say anything in support of that amendment to-n,ight.


Mr. ROGERS:: We came here at two
o'clock expecting to get some business through. And here it is half-past eleven, and the hon gentleman proposes to adjourn with nothing done. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite have discussed this matter at sufficient length to have said everything that they desire to say concerning it. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) has reduced everything that the other side desire to say into the motion he has presented, so I think hon. gentlemen opposite ought to be satisfied to vote on the motion and let us get the item through. My hon. friend knows that we are getting close to the end of the session. We are

hoping to prorogue on Tuesday and we have a considerable amount of business yet to do on Monday. If our hope of getting through on Tuesday is to be fulfilled, I would like my hon. friend to consider the idea of letting this item go through tonight if possible.


William Pugsley: The minister can readily see that the reason why nothing was done to-day was because the Government would not let the proposed amendment carry. If it had carried, it could have been said that a great deal of progress had been made. We on this side of the House, therefore, are not to blame. The minister says very truly that in the discussion of the Grand Trunk Pacific item the Canadian Northern also was pretty fully discussed, but there are some gentlemen who want to express some views on the subject. Although I could give no definite assurance in the matter, I do not think the discussion would take very long, and I think I can assure the minister that every reasonable effort will be made to conclude the discussion in a comparatively short time. I do not think that much could be accomplished, at any rate, by remaining here for twenty-five more minutes to-night. So far as I am concerned, I will do the best I can to bring the discussion to a close on Monday at an early hour.


William Erskine Knowles: Just a word to the
Minister of the Interior. He intimated that I myself suggested the appointment of a commission. I wish to say distinctly that I feel it my duty to put the responsibility for that on the minister himself. If we are here next session I purpose bringing this matter up and making reference to the observation I have made this evening, 'est the minister might then say to me that I myself had suggested a commission. I say now that I suggested a commission only incidentally. It is the minister who has the responsibility. In these war days there is danger of ministers standing aside and watching the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Finance-particularly the Minister of Militia-look after itheir respective departments. I do not purpose discussing the salaries of ministers of the Crown, but they are not paid, even in war times, to sit around and let the country run itself. The minister has been a long time in office, and we have never had anything startling from him.


William Roche: No scandals since I have been here.


William Erskine Knowles: No, but if a man is
asleep there can be no scandals-I do not say this offensively. The hon. gentleman is our minister, and we would like to be proud of him in the West. We would like him to have some really startling programme for next session that would show what ia real live minister we have. Whatever might be the case in Ontario, we would like him to show that the Minister of Interior, who 'lives in the prairie provinces, is really on his job. Then, when the question of salaries comes to be considered, as I think it ought to be, we from the West would give the matter favourable consideration.


William Roche: The hon. gentleman evidently overlooks the fact that this matter had been referred to a commission when he himself suggested that it ought to go to a commission; therefore he ought to qualify his remarks. Whether it is inci-. dental or not, the policy is there all the same. It is something like the policy of protection that my hon. friend used to advocate; it was only incidental, but the protection was there all the same. So, in connection with suggesting a commission, and it has gone to a commission. Of course, I do not think that I ought to anticipate any action of the commission, now that the matter has been referred to them, by making any comments before the commission reports. As' I said before, we cannot expect to do very much in these war times. We have to get through with the war first, at any rate. I admit that we should have a policy promulgated in relation to procedure after the war.
Mr. KNOWLES': I think serious consideration and discussion ought to be given to .these matters in the House long before the war ceases. I think the minister would be justified in appointing a commission, but I do not wish to be understood as saying that that would exhaust his duty.


John Gillanders Turriff: I have asked the Minister of Financq twice in connection with these railway matters, whether, if this vote of $16,000,000 for the Canadian Northern carries, he intends to ask them to hand over to the Government, in addition to the 40 per cent of the common -stock of the company that the Government now. owns, additional stock to the amount of say $16,000,000 or $20,000,000. I suggest this
3M2

not because I consider that this stock would 'be of any particular value, but in order that the Government might be ready to handle the situation and be in
a position to avoid 'being taken by the throat in connection with the matter in the future. My hon. friend is asking for $1)5,000,000 for this company and the company cannot get along without it. The company will hand over that additional stock, which is not now of any commercial value, if my hon. friend the minister insists upon it, and in the interests of the country I think he should insist upon it. What is his policy in the matter?


William Thomas White: The question that is raised is cognate to the amendment which is being moved by the hon. member for St. John city, and for convenience I had intended to take the two together on Monday.


Robert Rogers: Upon the assurance given by the hon. member for St. John city that he will facilitate this matter on Monday, we will not waste more time this evening.


William Erskine Knowles: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that time was wasted to-night? J do not like that expression "wasting more time." I do not think that the minister would say that time devoted to the consideration of western problems is wasted. The people will be sorry to read that in the Winnipeg 'Telegram on Monday.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.41 p.m.
Monday, May 15, 1915.