1916-01-25

REPORTS.

[Stage Direction]
ernment suggested to him that there should he a public investigation of the manner m whch munitions contracts had been let; they wished that this should be done to satisfy the criticism which was heard in Toronto and MontrSMr. Thomas stated that when he left England he had been directed by Mr. Lloyd George to do nothing to stir up trouble in Canada, or to give publicity to any points of fiction Therefore, he declined the suggestions which were made to him.
The Government in communicating with M . Lloyd George expects to receive an intimation from him that investigation at this Lme is no desired, and to settle in this way the agitation
I desire to ask the Government if there is .any truth in the statement in the latter part of that article, and if any representations along that line have been received of recent date by the Government.
Report of the Department of Labour for the year ended March 31, 1915.-Hon. T. W. Crothers.
Report of the Registrar of Boards of Conciliation and Investigation, of proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, for the year ended March 31, 1915.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.):: I desire to ask the acting leader of the Government (Sir Thomas White) if the Government is prepared to lay on the table a statement of the contracts for shells in Canada, with names, dates, amounts, and places, as promised by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Hazen), yesterday afternoon.


Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance):: May I ask my hon. friend to renew his question when the Minister of Marine is in his place?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I expect to discuss some of these matters this afternoon, and it would be convenient to have the information now.


William Thomas White: Possibly the Minister of Marine is attending to this matter, which was presented for his consideration yesterday.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then, before the Orders of the Day are called, I call the attention of the Government to an article in the Ottawa Free Press of yesterday, headed, " Ask Lloyd George about Inquiry Over Shells." This article goes on to say:
It has been stated that when Mr. D. A.
Thomas came to Canada to represent Hon. Lloyd George in putting the munition basis on a new footing, several members of the Canadian Gov-


William Thomas White: I am sorry to be ibliged to ask my hon. friend to renew his question when the Prime Minister is n his place. The matter referred to is lot in any way within my knowledge.



RECRUITING-THE COLOUR LINE

Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY:: May I ask die attention of the Minister of Militia, x, in his absence, of the acting minister, to' a somewhat urgent matter. I h!*v* a Letter from a coloured citizen of St. John, stating that some twenty young men were anxious to enlist and that they were sent to Sussex, and thence back to St. John. While at one time they were told that their services might 'be required, they have not yet had an opportunity to enlist, as they are anxious to. My purpose in rising is to ask if there is any colour line drawn for service overseas, it is a matter of great importance that any young men in Canada who are anxious to Live the Empire in these days should not be prevented from so doing because of their odlour. I ask the leader of the Government what is the policy of the Government in this respect; and will he kindly have the matter looked into? I shall be glad to give him any information in my possession, and to show him the letter which I received from a veTy respectable citizen of St. John who speaks positively as to the facts I have mentioned.


William Thomas White: I shall be very glad to bring to the attention of the Minister of Militia the statements my hon. friend has made. Personally I have no knowledge of the facts mentioned by the hon. gentleman.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Alfred Thompson for an address to His Royal Highness the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Monday, January 24.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to join with many other gentlemen who have spoken in congratulating you on the distinguished position which you occupy. I do not need to express the hope, for I have the knowledge, that during the time you occupy this position the affairs of this House will be presided over with dignity and ability.
We meet this session under conditions very different from those which have characterized any other session of the Canadian Parliament. We are here when the Empire of which we form no inconsiderable part is not only in a world war, but in a war which practically means a life and death struggle; a struggle the outcome of which will decide whether civilization shall rule the world, or whether barbarism shall be its guiding influence for the next century, and perhaps longer. When we attempt to discuss public matters under such tragic conditions, our feelings and thoughts cannot but be greatly different from those which have animated us in former times. If, in the observations I shall make to the House to-day I shall feel compelled to make some plain statements, I wish it distinctly understood that every statement I make is one which in my judgment it is necessary to make in order to bring the peoeple of this country, and the Government as well, to a better realization of the terrible conditions which exist at the present time.
When the great war was declared in August, 1914 the Parliament of Canada was called, and in a four-day session we voted $50,000,000 to help to defray Canada's war expenses for the remainder of the fiscal year. That money was voted without a dissenting voice, without argument, without discussion. We said to the Government at that time: take this $50,000,000 and use it in the conduct of the war. We leave the matter entirely in your hands; all we ask is that you use it honestly and properly. When the next session of Parliament was called, in January, 1915, the Government asked for an appropriation of $100,000,000, which was voted just as readily 
and just as gladly as was the $50,000,000 in the preceding year. I assume that the Minister of Finance will, in a few days, ask Parliament for an enormous sum of money -I do not know how much, but in all probability it will not be less than a quarter of a billion dollars. I should not be surprised if the amount to be asked in order to carry on the warlike operations of this country during the next twelve months should run up to $400,000,000 or $500,000,000. In view of this enormous outlay I do not think that any man in this House ought to be called disloyal, or ought to be charged with exciting party animosity, or with conducting himself in an improper manner if he discusses financial matters, and asks the Government to give an account of their stewardship in respect of the $150,000,000 that we have already voted, and of the three, four, or five hundred million dollars, which, in all probability, we shall vote during the present session.
I am anxious to hear what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will say with regard to the financial situation of the country. I am willing to confess, Mr. Speaker, that I ake a very pessimistic view of this matter. In the month of August, 1914, our public debt was something around $350,000,000. According to the latest announcement, our public debt to-day is something over $500,000,000, and, in view of the enormous current expense, I believe that by the close of the present fiscal year, on March 31 next, the public debt will be nearer $600,000,000 than 500,000,000. In any case, it will be somewhere between these two figures. If my belief as to what may take place in the next fiscal year is well founded, then, at the end of March, 1917, this little country-little in point of population-will be' saddled with a debt of about $1,000,000,000. This is such an enormous sum of money that possibly no person in the country can realize its extent. I imagine that the Finance Minister, who gives a great deal of attention to these things, has tried to picture in his mind what a billion [DOT]dollars means. I confess that it is almost beyond my comprehension. But, Mr. Speaker, I do know what the interest on that $1,000,000,000 will be. To-day we are paying 5J per cent for our money; probably by the end of the next fiscal year our interest rate will be 5f or 6 per cent. While it is true that, in respect of a part of our debt, the interest is at a low rate, I think I am safe in saying that it will average

5 per cent, which will mean an annual interest charge of $50,000,000.
In addition to that, we have an obligation-an obligation which must be met- to care for the maimed and wounded soldiers, and for the wives and families of those who have laid down their lives on the battlefields of France, and Flanders, and other parts of Europe. This is a duty which, no .matter who may be Finance Minister,, no matter which party may be in power, must be carried out bravely and manfully. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the frank manner in which he dealt with the subject of pensions yesterday afternoon. Supposing we should have half a million men, which is very doubtful, but suppose we have even 400,000 men in the army at the close of the war, I do not believe that we can possibly get along with a pension list of less than $30,000,000 a year, and it is more likely to run up to $40,000,000 or $50,000,000. In order to provide for interest and pensions, you will have to take every dollar of the unappropriated revenue, and you will have to look elsewhere for the money to carry on the business affairs of the country. Or, to put it in another way, in order to carry on the affairs of the country you will have to raise pretty nearly $100,000,000 in addition to the revenue we are raising at the present time. As I have said, I am willing to admit that I am somewhat pessimistic in regard to these financial matters. I realize that this is a new country; I realize that there are tremendous possibilities in our natural resources, and that we have a bright and active population; I realize that there may be some immigration at the close of the war-although I am not as optimistic on the subject of immigration as some hon. gentlemen opposite, and as some editors throughout Canada who are writing on this subject-and in view of this serious prospect of affairs, have we not a right to discuss financial matters in connection with the conduct of the war? Have we not a right to call the Government to strictest account, not only for every dollar they are handling as trustees for the British people, but also for every dollar they are handling as administrators for the Canadian people? The nature of the attacks made upon the hon. member for the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley), because of his having brought some of these matters to the attention of Parliament, would seem to indicate that there is something behind the indignation of hon. gentlemen opposite, and
that there must be fear as well as indignation on their part. Otherwise, I think we would not find the Solicitor General splitting hairs, bringing up the narrowest possible points of police court law, and telling that because the Liberals in 1902 did not give an investigation into a few tons of hay, the present Government are not going to grant an investigation into the expenditure of $400,000,000 or $500,000,000. I do not believe that the people of this country will stand for that. I do not believe that gentlemen on this side, including the hon. member for St. John city, will be censured by the people of Canada for bringing these matters to the attention of Parliament, and, through this medium, to the attention of the whole people.
A good deal has been said about shells, shell boxes, and all sorts of military contracts. We have heard two defences of the action of the Government, one by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and the other by the Solicitor General. Perhaps you will pardon me, Sir, if I deal with these in a very cursory manner, and in opposite order to that in which they were given to the House. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries always talks very glibly. His sentences are well rounded; he usually reads his speeches, and, therefore, he makes no mistake in diction. I must say that he did not depart from his usual custom yesterday afternoon.' I have no doubt that a copy of that speech was sent down to his personal newspaper in the city of St. John, and if we could see that newspaper to-day we would see a front page of vermilion with a twelve-inch square photograph of my hon. friend in the centre. Of course, he made exactly the same speech that he always makes every time he speaks in this House. Pie berates the hon. memoer for St. John city, and tells the people of St. John what wonderful things he is doing for them. For the next month the Standard newspaper will not cease telling what the hon. gentleman told them yesterday; the whole burden of their story will be what the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is doing for the port of St.. John. I congratulate the hon. gentleman on a number of things. I congratulate him that in his discussion of the remarks of the hon. member for St. John he did not get as far as the mud of Courtenay bay. We fully expected that he would land there, but, fortunately, he kept out of it. Neither did he get as far as the tumble-down wharves on the other side of the harbour; possibly he

may reach them before the session closes. Neither did he tell the reason why the only fighting ship Canada has on the Atlantic coast has been dismantled; a most remarkable thing which was mentioned by the hon. member for Pictou last evening. That announcement must have horrified this House and the country to a gxeater degree than any other announcement made public in Canada for the last twelve months. What object could there be in dismantling the Niobe? Indeed I do not have to ask. We know the object of dismantling her before the war. The assertion was that the Niobe was no good; that she was only a tinpot vessel, that she was a death trap for Canadian sailors, and they dismantled her in pursuance of their pre-election contract with Bourassa and the Nationalists in Quebec. They kept the Niobe dismantled until the war commenced, and, then four or five weeks after, they sent the Niobe to sea, when she should have been at sea the day before the declaration of war. We who live on the Atlantic coast know that if she had been at sea and in her proper place, more prizes would have been taken from the Germans in the first forty-eight hours of the war than would have paid for a dozen Niobes. But why in the world she has again been dismantled at this late -stage, is something I cannot understand. My hon. friends are not in a position to fall back on their argument of four or five years ago, that it was only a tinpot vessel and a death trap, because if you read the history of this war you will find that the first naval engagement off the bight of Heligoland was conducted by Admiral Beatty in a ship the exact counterpart or sister ship of the Nio.be. I am not going into the discussion of naval affairs here; I do not think this is the place. But I want to tell my hon. friends opposite that so far as I am concerned-and I am speaking now for my party-we will welcome a full discussion of naval affairs at any time hon. gentlemen opposite want to bring it on, either in this uouse, in the press, or anywhere else in Canada. If ever the Liberal party or any party was justified in its attitude by the course of events, the Liberal party has been justified in the attitude it maintained- on the navy in the years 1909 to 1911. The policy of that party was the building of ships of war, the manning of ships of war, the paying for them; having a navy in the biggest sense of the word, instead of being mere -hangers on of the Mother Country.
The remarkable part of the speech of the Minister of Marine, as I understand it,

was a defence, or a reply, to the gentle intimation made by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) that political considerations entered into -the contracts for the manufacture of shells in Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that these shells were being purchased by an entirely independent Imperial Commission for the Imperial Government. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries called attention to what has taken place in our own province. I do not purpose following him through all that tortuous course, but I shall refer to one or two matters, and, perhaps, the House will then see that everything is not as well as the Minister of Marine would try to make us believe. My hon. friend referred to the fact that the M-cAvity's got a contract. So they did

and I am not going to discuss the details of it, and I think the Minister of Marine knows why I am not. I can tell the House that the Minister of Marine knows how and why the Messrs. McAvity got a contract. If he wished to enlighten the House yesterday he had every opportunity in the world to do so.
I come next to the other firm to which he referred, namely, the Phoenix Foundry Company of St. John. The Minister of Marine told a very nice, plausible story, a story which was glossed over very nicely, a story which, if left there, might sound all right, and would give the impression that there was no middleman in the transaction. No man in Canada knows as well as the Minister of Marine the true story, no man knows as well as he who were the middlemen, no man knows as well as he how much money was paid for the contract. He had to admit yesterday that a contract was given to the York and Cornwall Cotton Company for 25,000 shrapnel shells. They have no facilities for manufacturing shells; they are running a cotton mill; they have no turning lathes, they have not room and space for the work, they have not operators, they have not machines.


Mr. STANFIELD:: Does not my hon. friend know that all cotton or woollen mills of any size have lathes?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, my hon. friend runs a woollen mill and has a little machine shop, ten by ten, with a little lathe and possibly a twist drill. But neither he nor any other man with his little lathe and his twist drill could make shells; he knows that and he knows that the York and Cornwall Company could not make shells and never intended to do so. The manager of that com-

pa.ny-and I am not charging the directors of the company with any wrong-doing, I take the explanation that the minister gives- but the manager, through political influence
__and you would not have to go very far to
see where the influence came from if you knew who Mr. Cudlip and his friends are in St. John-Mr. Cudlip got a contract for 25,000 shrapnel ' shells and immediately went to James Flemming & Son, the Phoenix Foundry Co.-and just here I want to endorse every word stated hy my hon. friend when he said that there is no better manufacturing concern in Canada for its size. They are an old-established firm, established, I believe, by the grandfathers of the present owners, they do a lot of marine work, as must be the case in a port like St John, and they are men who know what they are doing. Mr. Cudlip promptly went to these men and handed over the contract. But it was not handed over as quietly as the Minister gave us to understand yesterday. The Flemming people had to pay a commission of 10 per cent, and there is no man in Canada who knows better than the Minister of Marine that Flemmings have already paid on that contract a commission of nearly $5,000 to the York and Cornwall Cotton Co. But the Minister of Marine did not mention that yesterday when he was explaining this thing away, and showing that there is no politics in the shell business in New Brunswick. My hon. friend did not tell something else that he knows, and that is that when Mr. Thomas, the representative of Mr. Lloyd George, came to Canada to investigate, he went to St. John; he went into the foundry of Flemming Bros., and said it was the finest equipped machine shop he had found in Canada. He found them doing business under better conditions than any other factory in Canada, at least so he stated. But when he found the stamp " Y & C " on these shells he began to ask questions, and then the whole story was unravelled. It is said that a shell with " Y & C " on it was on exhibition in the Union club, St. John, and it is also said that Mr. Thomas first saw the letters " Y & C " on a shell at that club. Be that as it may, he found them. Finally the story was uniavelled, and he found that instead of the Flemmings working directly under the Shell Committee, they were manufacturing on a contract on which they were paying a commission of 10 per cent to a Conservative middleman. He told the Flemmings that there was no necessity for men in Canada who had an institution such as they had, paying a commission to anybody, that so long as shells were manufactured in Canada, they
would have all the contracts they wanted, and that they would be kept going by the Imperial Government without even having occasion to say thank you or anything else to the Shell Committee or to the Conservative party of Canada. My hon. friend did not* tell you that. I told him yesterday that I would supplement the information which he gave, and I will tell you more. If he has any doubt about the accuracy of what I have said, let the Government give us a committee of Parliament, and we will prove it. Well, Sir, I do not want to follow the vagaries of my hon. friend any further; anyhow, that is all the defence he made of the conduct of the Government.
I come next to the defence put up by hon. the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen).
If there is a man in Canada who can take up a bad case, argue from one corner to another, draw a line here, and put in a word there, and draw nice distinctions, it is the Solicitor General. I give him that credit; I give him the credit of being the lawyer par excellence in Canada who is able to perform that operation. Out of his ingenuity my hon. friend did his utmost to defend the Government in regard to the letting of those shell contracts. In order to be perfectly fair I desire to state what I understood were the two main propositions in his speech. The first was, that the Government of Canada had nothing whatever to do with the conduct of the affairs of the Shell Committee; that that committee was appointed entirely by the Imperial Government, or rather that it was appointed by the Canadian Government and handed over to the Imperial Government, that it is responsible only to the Imperial Government, and that it has nothing whatever to do with the Canadian Government. For fear that I might bt charged with not stating the case fairly and frankly, I am going to read a few extracts from the speech of my hon. friend, delivered in this House on the 20th Inst. You will find practically his whole statement of the case on page 131 of Hansard:
In the present case the Shell Committee, from its inception, has been answerable for its work to and has conducted its work under the guidance, jurisdiction, and superintendence of the Imperial Government. There is that distinction. . . . The committee, however constituted, and whatever its personnel, was, from the time of its institution, a committee acting under the authority of the Imperial Government.
Now, Sir, I do not know that any words of mine could make the case any plainer. I think I have rendered fairly the state-

ment made by my hon. friend the Solicitor General, but in case I have not given it fully I will read a quotation which will be found on page 125:
We divorced the Shell Committee from the Canadian Government in the matter of respond sibility; we made them a committee of the Imperial authority. I am not here to say whether they did wrong throughout or whether they did right throughout; they are answerable to the Imperial authorities for what they did. The Imperial authorities have so recognized ; they have acted upon it; they have conducted investigat:ons ; th*y have made reports; they have exercised their sovereignty over that committee; they have given their verdict.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, they gave their verdict; there is no doubt about that. This con-mittee was organized, as I understand, about the month of October, 1914, and immediately commenced to do business. I cheerfully admit that the manufacture of shells was an entirely new industry in Canada, but after all it is not a very serious proposition. There was not only one firm in Canada, but dozens, aye, hundreds, who were in a position at that time to manufacture shells, and who only needed the incentive of the business being given to them.
As to whether this committee is responsible to the Imperial Government or to this Government, it seems to me that that matter has been thoroughly settled by the statements made by my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte), who cited the Prime Minister himself as having, from his place in this House, on the day of the prorogation of last session, made the statement that the committee was composed of eight gentlemen, the last four of whom represented the Minister of Militia and Defence of Canada. My right hon. friend admitted more than that; he had asked for and had received a report from this committee as to what they had done, and altogether it was a wonderful panegyric of the virtues of the Minister of Militia and Defence. If you want any more evidence that this committee is entirely amenable to the Government of Canada, you had it yesterday afternoon. I would like to know what right had the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in order to bolster up a weak case, to bring here extracts from the records of that committee if that committee has nothing to do with the Government of Canada. The very fact that he produced those records, and that without hesitation he agreed to bring down a report and lay it on the table ol this House as to the work of that committee, as to the amounts paid, the dates, and 
so forth, is the best evidence that in his heart of hearts he recognizes that this is a Canadian committee,/ and not an Imperial committee. It is only an Imperial committee in name. It is a Canadian committee, created by the Canadian Government, and under the control of the Canadian Government for all practical purposes. I go further and say that it is a political committee of the Conservative party of Canada, created in oriier to work out what they think best for the interests of the Conservative party of this country. If any man has any doubt about that, I think I can remove his doubt. I know that the reading of documents in the House is not a pleasant occupation, but in order to make this record clear, I must trespass in this respect to some little extent. They say that the Canadian Government had nothing whatever to do with those contracts. They say that those contracts were given out by the Shell Committee, when, how, and to whom seemed best to them, without interference and without hindrance on the part of the Government. We on this side have not the advantage of having the records of the Shell Committee in our hands; but we have a lot of data, and we have some degree of common sense. We know how ordinary mortals act under ordinary conditions, and, placing the facts together, I do not think there is any man in Canada, no matter what his politics may be, who will not come to the conclusion in his heart of hearts that this committee is nothing more nor less than a commission created by this Government, manipulated by this Government, and worked by this Government for the benefit of this Government and its political supporters in Canada.


Mr. BURNHAM:: This is a truce.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no truce so far as boodling in Canada is concerned. We hear nice platitudes about the abilities of this Shell Committee; and just here, before I go into discussion of another branch of the subject, I want to refer to the old Shell Committee. I am very sorry to be compelled to do it, but there comes a time in the public life of every man, of every party, and of every nation, when men are compelled to do things for the public good that may not be to them a pleasant task. The chief exponent of the virtues of the old Shell Committee in Canada, outside of the Minister of Militia and Defence himself, is a publication in the city of Ottawa called the Ottawa Free Press, a paper which, on

the day that my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) made some remarks, came out with an article severely castigating the hon. gentleman for having referred to the matter at all, telling him that he was all wrong, that everything was well with the old Shell Committee, and that it was unpatriotic on his part or on the part of any one else to say one word against it. That editorial has been hawked around from Ottawa to every Conservative newspaper in Canada, since that date. No,' I will not say that much; I am happy to say there are a few notable exceptions. There is one notable exception in Montreal, and another notable exception in Ontario, but all of the smaller fry, all of the papers outside of the big cities, outside at least of Montreal and Toronto, have reproduced this article as conclusive on the subject, as the final word, as the absolute ablution of the old Shell Committee.


An hon. MEMBER:: Absolution.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, absolution.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Ablution.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Ablution might do as
well, but absolution is the word I want to use. This paper is reported as being the great Liberal journal of Ottawa; the great journal of the Liberal party of Canada.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, so far as I am concerned, I do not allow the Ottawa Free Press to speak for me. I do not believe there is a man sitting around me in this House of Commons who is willing to allow the Free Press to speak for him. It is not the organ of the Liberal party of Can-, ada, it is not the organ of the Liberal party in the city of Ottawa, it is not a Liberal paper, it is not owned by Liberals, it is not controlled by Liberals, and it is in no sense whatever a Liberal journal. When I say this, I am saying nothing against fee two estimable gentlemen who attend to the managing of that paper at the present time. These two gentlemen may have voted Liberal at some time, or they may not have. I care not how they may have voted. They are just as much entitled to their opinions on the virtues or vices of the old Shell Committee as I am, and in so far as they are voicing their own sentiments I have no fault to find. I am finding fault, not so much with the management of the Ottawa Free Press as with the Conservative party which has taken the words it has printed and heralded them broadcast over the country, as a castigation of my hon. friend from St. John by the principal exponent of Liberalism in this portion of Canada. Less than 33 per cent
of the stock of that company is owned or controlled by the men who are running it, and the remaining stock of the company is owned and controlled by a Conservative lawyer in the city of Toronto, acting as a trustee for certain newspaper interests in the city of Ottawa, one of whom is very close to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden). That company cannot pass a by-law without the consent of the Conservative trustee; that company, cannot sign the minutes of a meeting without the consent in writing of that Conservative trustee and under no possible conditions can the ownership of this paper pass out of the hands of that Conservative trustee until some time in the year 1923. With these statements of fact before us, unpleasant as the duty has been to me, I hope we will hear no more in this connection, or see no more quotations in the Conservative newspapers from the Ottawa Free Press as the great organ of the Liberal party in this portion of Canada.
As soon as this Shell Committee got to work it was only natural that men should commence to look for contracts. I want to ask this question: Why should not manufacturing firms get contracts? I do not have to argue it, when I ask you to agree with me in the statement that there never was a time in the history of the British Empire when we were as near going over the precipice as we were in the months of April, May, and June of 1915. There never was a time when the fate of this Empire trembled in the balance as it did during these three months. I have talked with returned militia officers, who have told me that the way in which our troops were sent into battle was almost legalized murder, because we did not have the munitions to back them up. It was a necessity, they had to do it, they had to go into battle under most unequal conditions, and they did it bravely and nobly. In one battle something like 12,000 or 15,000 brave Canadians laid down their lives in order to save this Empire, and they did it with the knowledge that there was not a sufficient supply of munitions behind them to make good any advantage they might gain by their heroism. Under these circumstances it was the duty of this Government; it was the duty of every government in the British Empire, to make shells, munitions, and everything that possibly could conduce to the winning of this war. It was their duty to manufacture, or buy, everything that was required, and to look after the smallest de-



tail which would make the British Army more efficient. In so far as they gave contracts to big concerns which were able to turn the work out in a hurry I have no criticism to offer.
There have been a lot of taunts flung across the floor of the House at my thon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) because he happens to be an officer of a company called the Canada Foundry and Forgings Company. The Canada Foundry and Forgings Company is one of the oldest institutions in Canada. It has been making this very class of material for years, and when the war broke out, outside of the Nova Scotia Steel Company, there was no big company but the Canada Foundry and Forgings Company which was able to do the work for which they had received an order. Who is going to blame them for receiving an order, and who is going to blame the Government for giving it to them? It was not a question of getting money; it was a question of getting shells, and of going to the men who could supply the material from which shells could be made. I would not care if at that time the leading industrial company in Canada which was in a position to make shells had been controlled by the Prime Minister himself; there would (have been no criticism from me if they had given him an order. But, what we do object to, the thing with which we do quarrel is the fact that there were dozens and dozens of big manufacturing establishments who wanted to do work for the Empire, who went to the Shell Committee and demonstrated that they were in a position to do the work more expeditiously than anybody else, and who, because they did not have political influence, were unable to get an order, while millions of dollars' worth of work was given out to little mushroom companies, organized, operated and controlled iby Conservative politicians and Conservative voters all over Canada.
You may ask me: what proof have you of this? Well, Sir, I usually try to produce the proof for any statement I make, and the first proof I am going to produce is something that took place in the little town of Woodstock, N.B. There is a firm of foundrymen and machinists in my town called the Dunbar Engine and Foundry Company. I am not putting them forward as the biggest manufacturers in the country, but it is a firm composed of Scottish mechanics, men who can build, and who, in the last twenty years, have built anything at all which can be built out of iron

and steel; men who have built logging engines which are nearly as large, and more intricate, than an ordinary railway locomotive; men who have been in the business for years and years, men who are backed financially, to the knowledge of the hon. the Minister of Marine (Mr. Hazen), by the biggest mamufactuxers in the pro voice of New Brunswick, a firm of lumbermen who annually cut, manufacture and sell more than 100,000,000 feet of ordinary lumber, and who are worth an enormous amount of money. They wrote to the Shell Committee and asked for a contract. I shall read this, not because I am putting them forward as men in the class of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, or the Canada Foundry and Forgings Company, but to show you the system that was adopted by the Shell Committee in dealing with the people who wanted to work for the Empire. The first letter is dated February 25, 1915, and it reads:
February 27, 1915.
The Dunbar Engine and Foundry Co., * Woodstock, N.B.
Dear Sirs,-Yours of the 22nd forwarded to us by the Master General of Ordnance, Ottawa, regarding possibility of getting contract for machining shrapnel shells, and would advise that we have already allotted to the various companies in Canada all the shells which we have contracts fo>- f -om the British War Office, and regret to advise that we will not be letting further orders for at least three months.
Yours very truly,
Shell Committee,
A. Bertram, chairman.
Mark the date, Feb. 27, 1915. I now come to a memorandum prepared by one of the biggest manufacturers in Western Canada. I am not going to give his name at the present time, but when the committee is appointed he will appear here to substantiate the facts in this memoranda, which I now hold in my hand. This man -and I can tell my bon. friends from Western Ontario that he is big enough and such an honourable mian, that when he makes his statement here they will not be able to gainsay what he says-this man started a correspondence wanting to get business away back on Feb. 4, 1915, but as I started this series of correspondence from the 27th of February I will come now to the letter dated March 12, 1915, from Colonel Bertram to him, advising that:
All orders for shrapnel shells have already been placed and that the order referred to as being placed with Wm. Kennedy & Sons, Ltd., Owen Sound, is for steel casting only for 4'5.
Then on May 8 this man wrote a letter to the Shell Committee inquiring:

Have you any additional orders to place for shells now, and will you please favour with specifications on sizes required, etc.?
That was answered by Colonel Bertram on May 13:
Would state for the present there is no further order to allot, and we have sufficient factories now equipped to carry on the orders we have on hand.
Mark yon, that letter was written on the 13th day of May, 1915. The next is a letter to the committee dated May 14, and inquiring whether they had any additional orders to place for shells, and asking that they kindly favour with specifications as to size and detail. In this letter they were not asking for orders, but merely for specifications in order that they might be ready to tender when orders were available. That is followed up by a letter dated June 4 stating the urgent need of Great Britain for munitions as indicated by recent appeals of Lloyd George, and (that Great Britain would doubtless call for still more shells from Canada. The (letter concludes:
Will you please leeep our request in mind, and as soon as you have further orders to allot favour us with advance specifications, etc.?
That was answered on June 7, by H. A. Bertram, assistant:
Expect that the British War Office will be placing: additional shell orders in the future, but of course we are not conversant with the size of the shell which they will order.
That is followed by a letter from the Shell Committee to the Dunbar Engine and Foundry Company, my own constituents, as follows:
June 1, 1915.
The Dunbar Engine and Foundry Company, Woodstock, N.B.
Gentlemen,-Acknowledging yours of the 28th ult., as stated in our favour to you on the 27th of February, all orders for shells have been allotted. Should we receive additional orders from the War Office, we will be pleased to consider your application further. Yours very truly,
Shell Committee,
H. A. Bertram, asst, to chairman.
The next is a letter dated July 8, as follows :
July 8, 1915.
Messrs. Dnnbar, Engine and Foundry Co., Woodstock, N.B.
Dears Sirs,-We beg to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 30th ult., inquiring if there are any prospects for shell contracts at present, but regret to advise that the situation at present is that we have a much larger machining capacity than our contracts call for and cannot offer any encouragement whatever.
Yours very truly,
Shell Committee,
H. A. Bertram, asst, to chairman.
You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that the correspondence I have read began on the 27th of February and continued with the different firms to the 8th day of July, 1915.
Let me now show you some of 4 p.m. the things which this non-partisan Imperial She'l Committee did between the 27th of February and the 8th day of July, 1915. I would not mind them deceiving-I cannot use a milder term than that-if it were necessary, and if they would admit that they were placing orders with big manufacturers; but when they deliberately play the game of politics, when their friends all over Canada were organizing mushroom companies by the score, without plant, without location, without material, and many of them without money, and were receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of orders; surely when I have proved that, I have gone a long way towards proving my assertion that this was a political game.
I will now give some evidence on that point. You will remember, Sir, that the correspondence I have read began on the 27th day of February, 1915. I have here a list of companies organized after that date and before June 8, and I will give you in as concise manner as possible their history, their capital, and the amount of orders they received.
The first is the Metal Drawing Company, Ltd., of St. Catharines, Ont., a mushroom company incorporated under the Ontario laws, March 5, 1915, with an authorized capital of $50,000. They took over the plant of the Reo Motor Car Company. The president of this mushroom company is Mr. J. D. Chaplin. Mr. Chaplin is the Conservative candidate in the county of Lincoln, and will contest that constituency in the next election, and this company of his, organized after the Shell Committee had said they had no contracts to give, and that their machinery plants were all established, received, I am informed, contracts amounting to four million dollars! You might say that there is some justification for that, as this mushroom company took over a motor car plant fitted up with lathes and other machinery. I have been in the plant and know something about it. It is a fairly good-sized factory where they assemble American motor cars. I now come to the smaller companies.


Mr. EDWARDS:: When was the order given to the St. Catharines company?
16*


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot imagine an order being given before the company was incorporated.


William Cameron Edwards: When was it given?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know, but if my -hon. friend means to say that the Shell Committee gave orders to their political friends before a company was organized, and then sent their friends over Canada' to organize a company, they were much worse than I thought they were, and they stand convicted out of my hon., friend's own mouth.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not want to interrupt, but


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I prefer not to enter into a discussion now.


William Cameron Edwards: We will have it later.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: What name?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Spartan Machine
Company-named no doubt after that wonderful people who never surrendered and never could be conquered. The president is R. G. Gilbride. This concern was incorporated May 21, 1915; authorized capital, $50,000, with $27,000 paid up. Mr. Gilbride was formerly connected with. the Grand Trunk Pacific; and Mr. Robb, the vice-president is president of the Cannuck Supply Company of which the Spartan Machine Company is a subsidiary company.
The next is one that will surely interest my hon. friends opposite-Hepburn Brothers of Picton, Ontario, of which the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Hepburn) is a member. The hon. gentleman told us the other day that he had some sort of a woodworking factory


An hon. MEMBER:: A planing mill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, a planing millat Picton, Ontario. I am not going to discuss this matter very much, because it is not pleasant to discuss the conduct of a fellow member. But one or two points I may call to your attention. This gentleman has a planing mill; he never had a machine shop in his life, for he tells us that he was compelled to get this contract worked out in Montreal. He received an order for 200,000 forgings, 4.5 shells at $2; the machining of 50,000, 4.5 shells at $6, or a total of $700,000. This was given to him on May 29 last. This was at a time when people were told there were no orders to give, and that all the machining plants were organized. Can a man believe that there is no politics in a thing like this? Is there a man on the other side of the House who can help hanging his head in shame when figures such as these are given to the people? I wish my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) would lift the veil

for one moment and1 tell ns what he knows about the securing of this contract for $700,000 by a man who had not even a factory or a place in which to put a plant. Will any man say that there is no middleman in this case? I wish the hon. member for Prince Edward were here, for I would like to ask him a question. I am not here to make statements on this subject, but I would put a question to this House: is there a man in this House who believes that the hon. member for . Prince Edward, and his company are able to manufacture 4.5 forgings? Why, there were only three or four companies, in Canada that could do it when the war broke out. There were the Nova Scotia Steel Company and the Canada Foundry and Forgings Company; later there were the Dominion Iron and Steel' Company, and the Steel Company of Canada, in Hamilton. I understand that there are one or two other firms in Ontario that are doing this work. I do not know whether Mr. Hepburn is making the foTgings or not, but until he stands up. and says he is I must reserve to myself the right to have very great doubts about it. It is my judgment that this is absolutely a case of the middleman making a profit out of the country, for, if Mr. Hepburn is not manufacturing the forgings himself, he is buying them from some other concern that is making them; and if he is doing that he is doing it at a profit. And, if he can buy them at less than $2, surely the Shell Committee can do the same. In the machining of these 50,000 shells he is like the other mushroom Conservative companies organized in Canada. I suppose he will worry them out, that he will get out a few shells at a time, and that ultimately he will get his $700,000. If ever there was a case that required close investigating it is this contract to Hepburn Brothers.
The next is another case which I wish the Minister of Militia were present to listen to, another one upon which I wish he would raise the veil for a moment to show what he had to do with the organization and the securing of a contract. This concern, F. W. Wilford & Company, Limited, Lindsay, organized May 31, 1915, and given an order for 50,000 shells at $4, a total of $200,000.
The next is a small one, the Alton Foundry Company, incorporated under Ontario laws, June 22, 1915; capital, $50,000; J. M. Dodds, president. This concern lhas a contract for $75,000.
The next is the St. Thomas Construction Company, of St. Thomas, Ontario,-we are here getting pretty close to another member of the Government. This is another mushroom company, incorporated in June, 1915. It was able to secure a contract for shells to the amount of at least $100,000. The members of the firm are all Conservatives except R. J. Strough, a German-American.
I presume he is a Conservative too,-of course he is.
The next is the Eastern Machine Company, Armand Lalonde, president. This is a mushroom company organized October 26, 1915. This brings me beyond the date of the letters to which I referred, and I cite these cases only to show that even after the time covered by this correspondence the same condition existed as before. The authorized capital of this concern is $45,000, and it got a contract for $50,000.
Then we have the Holden-Morgan Company of Toronto, organized November 8, 1914; capital, $40,000. This concern got a contract for at least $325,000.
Besides these, I have the names of dozens of these mushroom companies. Without going into details, I will give the names of some of them, and hon. members can look them up for themselves. There is the Albion Machine Company of Stellarton, N.S., which was organized for the express purpose of manufacturing shells. I may have something to say about that later on. However, I might as well tell the facts of the case now, for in my judgment this is a most obnoxious case, almost the most disloyal case that has come under my observation in the course of the somewhat extensive investigation I have made of this matter from one end of Canada to the other. Here is a company organized, as I have stated, for the express purpose of securing a contract to manufacture shells. The president is W. McNeill; vicepresident, Charles McNeill; secretary, Alexander R. Fraser. In the spring of 1915 they sent a consignment of shells to Quebec to be inspected. That consignment of 1,500 shells was condemned by the inspectors, a mark showing their condemnation was placed upon the shells, and they were afterwards returned to the makers. In the course of a month after that, the same shells, with the marks obliterated, were mixed up with another lot of shells and sent to Quebec. The obliteration was detected; they were rejected and again returned. I want to say here, to his honour, that one of the members of the Shell Committee wrote the committee

informing them that he objected to the Government of Canada or the Shell Committee having anything more to do with a company whose operations in this respect were so unpatriotic and disloyal. They came to Ottawa and investigated the matter; the Prime Minister was consulted, and knows all about it. With this knowledge in their possession, hon. gentlemen opposite allowed these men to continue manufacturing shells, and they are doing it to-day. Is it necessary that I should argue further in order to point out the real object, the real purview, the real -business of the Shell Committee?
Then there is the London Manufacturing and Machinery Company, to which a contract amounting to $200,000 was awarded; the IngeTsoll Machine Company, $175,000; the Invincible Machine Company of Walk-erville, Ontario, $160,000, the Zenith Machine Company, Montreal, $150,000, and so on. Before I leave this branch of the case, there is one contract which, I think, deserves more than a passing reference from any one who attempts to discuss this matter from a comprehensive standpoint. This is a matter which brings right to the door of the Government the question as to whether they want shells, or whether they want political support. I refer to the Trans-cona Shell Company, which has a large contract for manufacturing shells at the Transcona shops in Winnipeg.


John Hampden Burnham: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly.


John Hampden Burnham: Does the hon. gentleman intend to move a vote of censure upon the Government for the conduct of the war so far? If not, of what avail is all this auuse now?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not wish to be discourteous to my hon. friend-


Mr. MARCIL:: Do not hurt his feelings.
Mr. CARVELL-but I may say I am not the leader of the party, and do not move votes of censure unless I am instructed to do so. I have the greatest confidence however, that the people of Canada, when they get the opportunity, will carry into effect a vote of censure much more effectual than anything we can say in this House.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: They do not want it.


John Hampden Burnham: This is for a general election, then.


Mr. TURRIFF:: That is what you wanted
last year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I hope that my hon.
friends on the other side will have a chance to discuss this matter. They have been very reticent of lave; in fact, it looked at one time as if this debate would peter out for want of material. I am glad to observe that I am supplying them with something which makes them sit up and take notice, and I hope that there will now be more interest in the debate on the part of hon. gentlemen on the other side than there has -been during the oast ten days.
A -good deal has been said and written in Canada with regard to this Transcona shell contract, and I do not intend to weary the House by repeating things which have already been placed on Hansard. But my hon. friend the Solicitor General in attempting-and very weakly, at that, to defend himself from the mild suggestions made uy the hon. member for St. John city- because you could not call them charges at all-was compelled to read a report published in the Montreal Gazette of an aduress given by Mr. Thomas, representative of Lloyd George, before he left Canada. In doing this he was compelled, of course, to read the whole address. In ins speech Mr. Thomas referred with the greatest patriotic feeling to the fact that the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Railways, had patriotically offered to place at the disposal of the Imperial Government the magnificent shops at Transcona, near St. Boniface. I never had the pleasure of going through these shops, but I have been near them and I have some knowledge of wnat they look lure. From what I have seen and from what I have been told by others, I believe that no institution in Canada is so well equipped, so far as the ordinary requirements of a manufacturing establishment are concerned, as are these shops at Transcona. They have splendid power, splendid light, splendid facilities of all kinds, plenty of trackage rights, everything which could possibly be required in the manufacture of anything in the iron and steel line. The people of Canada felt a patriotic thrill when they heard that the Government of the day, getting away from their little grafting propositions, were going to manufacture these shells themselves; to manufacture them at cost, and to give the Empire the benefit of the money which we have expended in the Transcona shops. This would not necessarily interfere with the people who

were manufacturing. There is no doubt in the world that the Government can manufacture shells cheaper than private persons or corporations can. I am told by men who know that the actual cost of machining an ordinary 18-lb. high explosive or shrapnel shell is not more than seventy-five or eighty cents. I do not say that any private individual ought to produce a shell at that figure, but that is the actual cost of machining; in fact, I am told that it comes very much below that. I realize that a private company have to get the interest on their plant and on the special machinery which they say they have to install. They have their overhead charges to meet; they have to take the chances of cessation of business. I do not think, therefore, that it would be reasonable to ask private corporations or persons to manufacture shells for eighty cents. I do know, however-I am not drawing on my imagination now- that when they get $1.75 they are making a handsome profit. And, Mr. Speaker, if they make a handsome profit at $1.75, what in heaven's name can they do with the money which they make at $5.70? Just think of it.
As I have said, we all felt a glow of patriotic enthusiasm when we heard that the Government were going to hand over these splendidly equipped shops to aid in the defence of the Empire, and to supply the weary Titan, who is furnishing the sinews of war on the other side of the water, with the munitions of war which are necessary for the very preservation of the life of this country, and which should be furnished at the lowest possible cost. There are different stories as to who made the offer. From the statement made by the Solicitor General a few days ago, it would look as if the offer had been made by the Minister of Railways and Canals. I am in a position to say that the request came from Mr. Thomas, and was sanctioned by the Minister of Railways and Canals. If my hon. friends will give us a committee of inquiry, we will give them all the facts of the case; we will prove them not only by the statements of those who conversed with Mr. Thomas, but also by written documents emanating from one of the Government offices in this city. That is only a matter of detail; the important point is that we all hoped that the course suggested by this offer would be carried out, and that we are all disappointed that it was not. It meant a good deal, Mr. Speaker, not only to Canada, but to the Empire as well; it meant a good
deal to the businessmen of Canada. By adding a reasonable profit to the actual cost of making these shells, and by allowing for overhead charges, interest, depreciation on plant, increase of power at one place as compared with another, and all other incidentals of a manufacturing concern, it would have been possible to show what would be a fair and reasonable price at which these shells could be manufactured by private corporations.
Because, Sir, remember that this war, unhappily, is not over yet; and that there must be shells and more shells and after that still more shells manufactured before it can be brought to the successful issue that must result before the people of Canada or of any portion of the Empire can lay down their arms. And, Sir, you cannot win in this war, in Canada, in Great Britain, or any other part of the Empire, unless you have the very bone and sinew of the nation joined together by indissoluble bonds in order to carry it to a successful conclusion. You never can make a success, you never can have a proper economic organization for the manufacture of shells, so long as everything remains in the hands of the big corporations or the political friends of the Government. You have got to work right down to the very lowest strata of the people of this country, you have got to get the labouring man, who, after all, does things, the man without whom this war cannot be run, I do not care whether it be in Canada or in the United States. In order to present to you the view of organized labour in this country as to whether it was right or wrong to go into the manufacture of shells, I want to read a letter written by Mr. J. C. Watters, president of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress, addressed to H. R. Ward, secretary of Canadian District No. 2, International Order of Machinists .Winnipeg, Manitoba. I shall not read the whole letter, because in it Mr. Watters discusses the minister's view, and the question of whether the shells should be made by private corporations or by the Government. He goes into all of that, but he sums up the situation in two paragraphs which I wish to place on Hansard.
The Dominion Government is hearing the expense df raising and equipping contingents for active service to aid primarily the Mother Country and incidentally all of her Dominions-Canada included. The Dominion Government could and should have just as materially aided the Mother Country, without cost to Canada,' by converting all of its available machine shoos into shell-making establishments and turning the shells over to the Im-


An hon. MEMBER:: The foundry is not working yet.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, I beg pardon of the House. I was led to believe that it had actually got to work, but I am informed by my hon. friend that they have not yet commenced doing business.
That brings me to a consideration of the prices which were paid. In the correspondence regarding the operation of the Trans-cona shops, the principal objection alleged to have been raised by the Minister of Railways was that it would cost $150,000 or a little more to equip these shops for the manufacture of shells, and he said that in view of all the locomotives they had to buy, and of the small amount of money at his disposal-he was not like the Minister of Public Works, who disposes of it whether he has it or not-he could not see his way to spend the enormous sum of $150,000 to equip the Transcona shops. Therefore he was compelled to hand the shops over to a private corporation, with whom dame rumour connects the name of a member of this House. I want to say, Sir, that if these contracts are going to private corporations I have not very much objection to the gentleman to whom you know I refer getting a share; if they are to go to the Government's privateers, I do not see why he should not have a hand in the spoils as well as anybody else. But let us see what an awful thing the expenditure of $150,000 on a plant would have been. I want to specify a few of the contracts that were given out by this economical shell commission, and just here perhaps I should refer generally to the second part of the speech of my hon. friend the Solicitor General, because I desire to do him justice. On page 129 of Hansard he says:


John Gillanders Turriff: Where are the members of the Government now?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They will come back; I have something else for them. Before I am through some of them anyway will come back.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: Do not threaten.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think the Minister of Agriculture will be back before I am through.


Mr. BURRELL:: The Minister of Agriculture is here.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. This is what my hon. friend the Solicitor General said:
It may tie that the prices were higher than the conditions warranted; I am not an expert, and X do not know. But I do think it is worth our while to consider this fact: that when the orders were given, they were given at a price which amounted to compensation-and which was intended to amount to compensation-to the contractors for the machinery which they had specially to install for the purpose of executing the orders. At that time there was a more or less general belief that the war was to be of short duration, and that not a great deal of this shell production could go on, and as a consequence the only method that appeared to be at the disposal of the committee -so, at all events, the chairman has stated- of securing contractors to do the work was to include in the contract price an amount sufficient to cover the cost of the installation of the necessary machinery. Therefore the price was fixed at $5.70.
That means for the 18-pounder high-explosive shell; I think it is 3 inches in diameter, and $5.15 for the 18-pounder shrapnel, and that is just for machining. That is, under these prices the Government furnishes blanks to the contractor, and the contractor machines these blanks; he bores them out in the inside wherever it is necessary, then he lathes them on the outside, turns out the completed shell, and puts in whatever is required in the way of high explosives, or receptacles for the same, and so on. For that he got $5.70 for one lot and $5.15 for the other. They say it was necessary to give this high price in order that the first order should furnish sufficient profits to provide for the plant. The remarkable thing to me is the enormous discrepancy in the orders given to provide profits with which to pay for the plant. The first order on my list was given to a small concern, M. Beatty & Sons, Welland, Ont., who got a 10,000 order at $5.70. Evidently, Mr. Speaker, they did pretty well; they must have paid very quickly for their plant, because they came back in a short time and got another 10,000 order at $4. Then they came back again, and got an order for 20,000 at $3. To-day they are manufacturing shells by the million at $1.75 each. Therefore, out of a little order of 10,000 they could make sufficient profits to pay for their plant.
Then, what have my hon- friends to say about the Dominion Bridge Company of

Montreal? Their first order was for 200,000 shells at $5.70, and, taking $1.75, the present price, as a basis, that one order gave them a profit of $800,000. And yet the Solicitor-General, poor man, comes to this House, and by his specious hair-splitting tries to make out that it was necessary to give the Dominion Bridge Company, the finest organized mechanical institution in Canada, a profit of $800,000 to enable them to install a few lathes and machines for shrapnel shells. This concern came back a short time afterwards and got an order for 300,000 shells at $4; so that out of those two orders they made a profit of $1,400,000. And they tell us it is necessary to give prices like that in order to pay for a few lathes and drills.
Then, take the case of a little shop, the Chapman Engine Works. They managed to get along nicely with an order for 10,000 at $5.70, and then they came back and got another order for 25,000 at $4 each. They were able to provide for the machinery all right.
Then we come to another, the Massey-Harris Company, Toronto. They got an order for 100,000 shells at $5.70, so that they made a nice profit of $400,000 out of one transaction; and they say it is necessary to give them these prices in order to buy machinery.
Then, we have a little fellow, the smallest of them all, I think, the Mechanical Engine Company of Montreal- They got along with an order for 5,000 at $5.70, and repeated with a 10,000 order at $4. They got along all right, and they want more orders.
Then we have the Monufacturing and Contracting Company of Toronto, one of those mushroom companies, of which both the president and the secretary are Americans. They got an order for 125,000 at $5.70, and another order for 100,000 at $4; so that out of those two contracts they have made a profit of $600,000, based on the price of $1.75. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they are even making money with the price at $1.75, so that you can probably add another $100,000 or $200,000 to their profits.
Then, we come to the Metal Drawing Company of St. Catharines, Ontario, owned by a Conservative candidate. They got an order for 100,000 at $5.70, and afterwards an order for 50,000 at $4. I am told it was a small concern at the start, but that it was not very long before it was among the big ones-
I have another one on the list, and I think the Minister of Militia would want

to keep the veil drawn over it. I do not think he would want to lift the veil and tell you what he knows about the organization of and the securing of contracts for the company which is called the Universal Tool and Steel Company of Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do they spell
steel?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: On my sheet it is
spelt s-t-e-e-1. It may interest my hon. friends to know that the Universal Tool and Steel Company has, I think, for its president, or at least for one of its directors, no less a personage than one Sir Donald Mann. I do not know what the connection may be between building railroads and manufacturing shells; there may be a necessary connection; but really I am somewhat at a loss to know it unless I allow my imagination to run riot, and I do not know where I might land; I am afraid I would land pretty close to the Minister of Militia. However, this company got an order for 100,000 shells at $5.70, and a later order for 20,000 at $4. In other words, they made between them about half a million dollars profit out of the manufacture of those few shells.
I am prepared to state more than that: in the month of May, 1915, a contract was given to a Montreal middleman for a very large quantity of shells, which he sublet to an American, and, mark you, within eight days thereafter, tin's Imperial Commission gave an order to one of their own members at 75 cents a shell more than the middleman took it at, and he took it for the purpose of handing it over to Americans to manufacture for him.
But we find that it was not necessary to give prices like these. We find lots of tne smaller companies taking contracts at prices away down below that without any difficulty at all, begging and falling over each other in their eagerness to get them. The city of Ottawa simply swarmed with would-be manufacturers eager to get contracts, not at $5.70, but at any figure which they could possibly get, even down to $1.75.
Here we have the Alton Foundry Company, a little mushroom company, perfectly satisfied to take 75,000 at $3.25 

apiece, buy and install their machinery, and go on with the business. They are doing business and making at least $1.50 a shell, and out of that order they will get $37,500 profit.
The Canadian-Ingersoll Rand Company of Sherbrooke were satisfied to take 10,000

at $3.25 for their first order, and 30,000 for their next order at $3. They were able to install their machinery and make a profit.
Darling Bros, of Montreal were willing to take 25,000 at $4, and in the month of December last they took a little order of
10,000	at $1.75.
Then, there is the Peterborough Machine and Lubricator Company, of Peterborough, Ont.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, Peterborough, Ont.


John Hampden Burnham: What is the matter with that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Nothing at all; it is all Tight. These fellows are real patriots, because they were satisfied with a little order of 25,000 at $3.25 per shell. They did not want any $5.70. I pay that tribute to my hon. friend's town; they did not have to have $5.70 to enable them to buy their machinery.
Then, we have the National Manufacturing Company, of Broekville. My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) comes from there. Here are more of those patriots who took a 20,000 order at $3.25 and yet they were able to buy and install their machinery.
And so you might go on; there is no end to it. You could talk all night upon these inconsistencies. It seems that the only question was as to how much pull a man had, and then you could give the answer to the question how much of a contract he would get and what price he would receive.
Now, let me give some of the later contracts. I do not want to attack anybody. I am only placing facts on record, I will personally vouch for them, and if you will give me a committee I will prove every statement I have made this afternoon.


John Hampden Burnham: When do you want it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Right away, as soon as this debate is closed.


John Hampden Burnham: Surely you would not consider that an interruption?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is always gentlemanly; I have no fault to find whatever. We find that a lot of these small fellows are willing to take orders away down as low as $1.75 a shell. Here are Darling Bros., who take an order for
10,000	at $1.75; the Universal Tool and Steeil Company, of Toronto, 30,000 at $1.75.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The same shell?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The same shell exactly.
I am talking about the 18-pounder high explosive shell, because the same condition of affairs exists in regard to the 18-pound shrapnel or the 4.5 high explosive, or even a shell of larger calibre. It would, be an unending job if one attempted tp discuss the merits of the different shells, so I am only taking the 18-pounder high explosive as a standard.
I find that also in the month of November the Northern Electric Company of Montreal got a contract for 16,000 shells at $1.75 and as far as I am able to find out this was their first order. These men could install machinery at $1.75 a shell, and they only got a 16,000 order. Yet the Solicitor General says that it was necessary to give a somewhat higher price in the beginning in order that the manufacturer might make a sufficient profit out of his first order with which to buy his machinery.
I find here something I cannot understand-there may be a good reason for it. In the month of December the Manitoba Shell Company of St. Boniface were given a 10,000 order at $2, and about the same time an order was given to the Saskatchewan Bridge and Iron Works of Moosejaw for 20,000 at $2. There may be some good reason why they paid 25 cents a shell more in Winnipeg and Moosejaw than in Eastern Canada. However, on 25,000 this difference only means $5,000, which is nothing for this concern.
Then, I find another most remarkable thing, which I presume will interest some of my Conservative friends from Quebec. I find that in the month of December there was a small contract for 20,000 high explosive shells-that is, the 60-pound high explosive-given to the E. Long Manufacturing Company of Orillia, Ont., at $4.50. I find that in the month of December, a few days later, another contract was given to the Canada Malleable Iron Company of Owen Sound, Ont., for 70,000, but the price had climbed to the extent of a quarter of a dollar; they got $4.75.
Then, I find that in this present month of January A. B. Morgan and Sons of Montreal, Mr. Morgan being a former Conservative candidate in Richelieu-


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the future candidate.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And the future Conservative candidate in that constituency- got an order for 25,000 at $5.


Mr. HAZEN:: 'When?
Mr. GAitVELL: In January.


John Douglas Hazen: That would be given by the new commission.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Sure; there is no difference. 1 am not here to make any air tack on anybody but I have not seen very much difference in the general management of the thing. It is all politics.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: If the bon. gentleman says that it is all politics, let me state that the E. Long 'Manufacturing Company of Orillia are not in any way concerned politically, because Mr. Long was in the last provincial elections a Liberal candidate, he is a strong Liberal, and I am very iglad that he got the contract on his merits.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thank my hon. friend for the information; hut it would have been much more instructive to the House and to the country if he had told the House who was 'his associate and what he had to do in order to get the contract. There is also a most remark-able incident in this, that of these three contracts-and they are the only three that have 'been given lately- he got only $4.50, while the Canada Malleable Iron Company got $4.75, and the Conservative candidate got $5.


William Humphrey Bennett: I will add that I personally wrote a letter to the Minister of Militia recommending the E. Long Manufacturing Company as a most reputable company. I did not accompany them to Ottawa, hut they presented their claim and got their contract.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wonder how far Mr. Long would have succeeded in getting the contract if the member for the constituency had not written to the Minister of Militia, not -to the Shell Committee, another proof of politics in the beginning, politics in the middle, and politics in the end. Here we have the honourable member for East Simcoe standing up in this House and unblushingly confessing that in order to get a contract for a political opponent he went to the Minister of Militia, the man who has nothing at all to do with these contracts, and succeeded through his political influence in getting a contract for 25,000 shells. Is it not a pity that he did not press his claims a little harder and get the same price that other companies wholly Conservative were getting? [DOT]


Mr. GRAHAM:: He was long on shells
and short on price.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know the meaning of that term. Perhaps some of my hon. friends opposite do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He knows what
short and long is.


John Hampden Burnham: This is not a truce; it is an armistice.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have some other evidence here, and it is only another of the straws which show which way the wind blows. In this particular case the Conservative candidate in the county of Pictou in the province of Nova Scotia felt himself somewhat aggrieved. He was unable to get as much as he wanted, and so he came, to Ottawa to lodge his petition at the foot of the Throne. When here he made several charges. One was that no person could procure contracts unless they purchased the lathes through the company of which the chairman of the Shell Committee was a member. His second charge was that a sum of money had been paid by Flemings of St. John, in order to secure a contract for shells. I have referred to that already. He also said that certain contracts for the making of boxes had been re-let by the Nova Scotia Steel Company at a profit. He was very dissatisfied and had the matter investigated before the Shell Committee. The matter was also brought before the Premier. He knows all about it, but I do not know whether there have been any results or not. Whichever way you turn, Mr. Speaker, you will find politics mixed up with this business from beginning to end.
But the thing which in my judgment looks the worst, and which I think requires explaining to a greater extent than all the others put together, is the question of fuses. I have not very much inside information about these fuse contracts, except that I know what they are, and I am afraid we shall have some difficulty in getting inside information, because these contracts were placed in the United States and not in Canada. It is a most remarkable thing that with all these manufacturing concerns in Canada tumbling over one another in order to get contracts, we could not get fuses made in Canada. The result was that the Shell Committee gave first an order for 833,333 fuses to the American Ammunition Company of New York at $4.50 each. Later on a second order for just twice that number, 1,666,666, was given to the same company at $4.00 each. The average price on the two con-

tracts was $4.16f per fuse. About the same time the Shell Committee gave another order to the International Arms and Fuse Company of New York for 833,333 shells, and a second order for 1,666,666.
But, instead of paying $4.50 on 5 p.m. the first order and $4.00 on the second, as they did in the case of the American Ammunition Company, they paid $4.50 on the whole transaction, lock, stock and barrel. These 2,500,000 fuses will therefore cost this country nearly a million dollars more than the
2,500,000	bought from the American Ammunition Company. It does seem to me that if there is anything in Canada which should be investigated, it is this matter of fuses.
I find that the Shell Committee could have let contracts for fuses in Canada. Some time after these contracts had been made, a contract was let to the Russell Motor Car Company of Toronto. The Shell Committee bought the first quarter of a million fuses from the Russell Company at $4 each, and the next quarter of a million at $3 each; in other words, the half million fuses averaged $3.50 each, whereas the two and a half million fuses that were purchased in the State of New York cost $4.50 each. I am told-and I wish to place every particle of information which I have on this subject on record- that the fuses which are being made in Canada are not filled with the powder, but that the ones made in the United States are complete. I give this statement to the House because I do not want to do any person an injustice. Any of my hon. friends who know what a fuse is know that it consists of a brass knob that goes into the end of a shell. There is a graduating scale on the top of it, which turns around and can be set at the exact second or fraction of a second at which the shell is to explode. A spiral groove goes round inside the fuse, and this is filled with some kind of gunpowder paste, and in order that this shall burn at the same rate per second it must be pressed down at exactly the same pressure. This is merely a matter of hydraulic pressure, and the thing is done in a few minutes. I do not know what the cost of putting in that powder would be, but it cannot be very much. The powder ignites from the flash of the gun, and burning at the required rate per second explodes the charge of cordite, or whatever it may be in the shell. In the one case it would be cordite, and in the other black powder. It does seem to me, Sir, a most
remarkable thing that there should be this enormous difference in price in these fuse contracts, all of which were given within a short time of one another. Hardly a fuse has been delivered in Canada, and if our shells are not on the firing line in France and Flanders it is because we have not the fuses for them rather than because we cannot get the shells.
I find, also, evidence of all kinds of political partisanship, and everything else that ought not to exist in Canada at this time, in the contracts for shell boxes. Shell boxes are a very important matter, running not only into millions of dollars, but,
I believe, into hundreds of millions. They are something worth investigating in minutest detail. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen)), in trying to take so much credit to himself yesterday afternoon for the manner in which these contracts were being handled in his own province, referred to the fact that the contracts had been given to the Wilson Box Company of St. John, one of the officials of which was a Liberal.


John Douglas Hazen: i gave the hon. gentleman the names of the directors.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And one of them was a Liberal.
Mr. HA&EN: More than one.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well. The hon. gentleman also told us that the contract was given to the Sussex Manufacturing Company of Sussex, N.B. I want to tell him that if there was a contract given by the Shell Committee for which they deserve special credit, it was the contract given to the Sussex Manufacturing Company-and they are practically all Conservatives. This company is made up of men who know their business. They run one of the finest sash and door factories and planing mills in Eastern Canada. They were given a contract for 20,000 boxes, and were allowed three or four months within which to produce them. But they made their plans on business lines; they are men who know how to do things in a big way. The consequence was that they turned out these boxes in four weeks instead of in four months. Then they came back to the Shell Committee and said: Give us a contract for
100,000	boxes; we have demonstrated that we can do this business right. Do you suppose they could get a contract? It was impossible. But a man named W. H. Farn-ham, of St. Stephen, whom the Minister of

Marine and Fisheries knows nothing about -I do not wonder that he wants to wash his hands of the whole	businesswho had been in Montreal or Toronto, landed back in New Brunswick with a contract for 25,000 shell boxes, and this at a time when this great, big, efficient Sussex Manufacturing Company could not get a contract at all. Mr. Farnham went down to St. Stephen to get some factory to make these boxes. They wanted to know where the money was coming from. He went to the representative of the Steel Company of Canada in the Maritime Provinces, who told me the story himself, and wanted to buy the screws and the iron straps for his work, a matter involving from $3,000 to $5,000. This representative of the Steel Company of Canada wanted to know where the money was coming from. The answer was: I will pay when I get my money from the Government. Why, this man Farnham had not even $1,000 to put up. He hawked that contract about New Brunswick for at least a month. He went to different institutions in St. Stephen and St. John, and could not get a company to manufacture the boxes or even to buy the screws to hold them together. I have not followed this matter up-I have been very busy of late-but I believe that Mr. Farnham managed to get a combination of politicians together; but whether they are manufacturing or not I do not know. I will ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he looks upon this as playing the game in the big way that this Empire should play it, under the conditions in which we live to-day?
I do not wish to multiply instances, but let us go to the constituency of the Minister of Militia himself-to Fenelon Falls. I think that my hon. friend from Bussell (Mr. Murphy) has placed on Hansard a clipping from the Canada Lumberman.
Mr, MUBPHY: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then I will read it, because I think it is of sufficient importance to be placed on Hansard. It refers to the shell box contract of C. W. Burgoyne-5,000 shell boxes at $2.50, and a second contract for 25,000 boxes. The Canada Lumberman says:
In the first place, the contract was apparently secured through personal or political influence by a party who had no apparent right to it. In the second place, the contract was apparently handed on, or sublet, to Tiers, a proceeding which is understood usually to involve remuneration to the first party, although he actually produces nothing. In the third

place, another contract for a much larger quantity of boxes was secured by the same parties. We cannot see how such methods of handling the shell-box business can be justified. Even in ordinary times the letting of contracts in this way could not be defended, and at a time like the present it is quite indefensible. The suspicion that this contract was handed over by Burgoyne to Tiers for a definite monetary consideration is strengthened by the fact that these two parties formed a partnership under the name of C. W. Burgoyne & Company. Evidently they wished to give the transaction a more respeotable appearance ; but we cannot see how this can be considered as lending the affair any respectability. It amounts to the same thing in the end, namely, that a party quite unable to produce boxes, secured the contracts and turned them over to another party. The fact that he entered into a partnership with Tiers indicates rather clearly that he did so in order to make it appear that he was entitled to a share of the profits which he was securing and towards which he had contributed nothing. When one considers that throughout Canada there are hundreds of planing mill plants which have suffered heavily through business depression and would be greatly benefited by securing shell-box contracts, he is thoroughly justified in criticising a Government which has permitted the letting of contracts in such a manner.
If my hon. friend the Minister of Militia were in his place this afternoon, I would ask him to tell this House the part he played in securing that contract for his friend Burgoyne. As he is not here, I can only express the hope that when he addresses this House, as I understand he intends to do, he will not forget to tell the whole facts-all the things he said and all the things he did, in order to secure this contract for his friend, a grocer, who never owned a planing mill, and knew nothing about this business, handed it over to him to make money out of. Perhaps it would not be fair to be more particular than that.
Well, Sir, I have spent some time discussing the shells and shell boxes. I may have a word or two to add before I am through. But there is another matter to which I wish to refer. I may be charged, perhaps, with being provincial in this matter. It may he said that this is a purely local matter. But it is of such great importance to my constituents and to the people of the province of New Brunswick generally, that I should be recreant to my duty did I not refer to it. I hope the words I speak may not merely be heard in this Chamber, but that they may be read by every farmer in the province of New Brunswick, especially by every farmer in my own constituency. Yes, and I hope they may be read by the Imperial authorities themselves. And if they want evidence that

this Government is playing the game of politics-not honourable politics, but contemptible politics-I think I can furnish that evidence in connection with the hay contracts which this Government has been handling in the province of New Brunswick within the past two years.
Shortly after the war broke out, it became necessary to get fodder for horses, and the Government started out to buy hay. This was a perfectly proper transaction; no man could find fault if every pound of hay and oats in Canada were commandeered if necessary and taken away to be used in helping to win this war. But when we look into the matter-and I did not know all the facts of the case until some time well along in last session-we find that this is the state of facts. A contract was given to a company called the Atlantic Hay Company, among the members of which are B. F. Smith, my opponent in the last two elections, now a member of the local legislature; the A. C. Smith Company, of St. John, very close personal and political friends of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; the Peters firm, the exact name of which I have forgotten, but of which there are two members, also friends of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; and a Mr. McDonald, of Montreal. These men were given a contract for 7,000 tons of hay, afterwards increased to about 10,000 tons, at $24 a ton, delivered in St. John from press, ready to be put on board the vessel -I am not sure; I was under the impression that the contract price was $24.50. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs knows about this, because he and I talked the matter over.


Mr. J. D. REID:: When was that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That was one night last spring.


John Dowsley Reid: You are referring to something which took place a year ago.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am referring to something which took place a year ago.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is too deep for him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is not too deep for him. The Minister of Customs and I will not quarrel over this matter. If he had been allowed to handle this thing there would not have been the terrible condition of affairs that exists in New Brunswick to-day. The Minister of Customs told me that the contract price was $24.50. He may have been wrong, but we
will let it go at that; I presume that the Minister of Agriculture will tell us exactly what the facts are. The contract was far
10,000	tons of hay at $24 a ton, delivered at St. John. Then, through the political interference of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, three other contracts were given to three concerns in New Brunswick. One of these was to Messrs. Connelly and Wetmore. One of them pretends to be a Liberal, but he is very closely associated with a prominent Conservative in the city of St. John.


Mr. ROGERS:: They are all Tories there now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Are they? Bring on the election, and we shall see. Another was a Mr. Stephens, of St. John, a good Conservative; and the other was a man named Charles Cyr. This gentleman lives in the county of Madawaska and runs a barroom opposite the international bridge. Just across the line, in the State of Maine, there is a prohibition town of three or four thousand people; this gentleman, therefore, has the greatest gold mine that I know of in the province of New Brunswick. He was formerly a member of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, and, in all probability, will be the Conservative candidate against my hon. friend the hon. member for Madawaska in the united counties of Restigouche and Mada-waska. He was given a contract for 2,000 tons, Stephens a contract for 2,000 tons, Connelly & Wetmore a contract for 5,000 tons. These contracts were given at $21.50 a ton, not $24. These men never presses 1 a bundle of hay in their lives; they would hardly know the difference between an ordinary bundle of hay and one which had been pressed. They never owned a hay press, and never had anything to do with that business. At a rake-off of a dollar they sub-let their contracts to Liberals in my own town, the Phillips Estey Company and the McCain Produce Company. They got $20.50 for their hay, compressed according to government inspection and delivered in St. John at the same point at which the Atlantic Hay Company was required to deliver. The Atlantic Hay Company-that is, the political company-had an advantage of $3.50 to start on over the men who went out and bought the hay and did the pressing. These two Liberal concerns went out and bought the hay, brought it to Woodstock, pressed it, paid the freight to St. John and got their $20.50

for doing so. In this way they established the price of hay, because it would cost them a certain amount for pressing, a certain amount for freight, and a certain amount would have to be allowed for profit. The result was that the price was driven down to somewhere between $11 and $12. So the farmer of New Brunswick, during last season, through the manipulations and machinations of the Tory politicians, got between $11 and $12 for his hay, loose in the barn. I may explain that in the province of New Brunswick hay is always bought on the basis of its being loose in the farmer's barn. Sometimes the farmer presses it himself; if he doe3, he adds $1.25 to the price, but in nine cases out of ten the merchant presses it. The farmer boards the pressers, feeds their teams, hauls the hay to the railway station and gets the price, figured on the basis of the hay being loose in his bam. As I have said, the price last year was $11 to $12 a ton. Practically all the export hay which comes from the province of New Brunswick is produced in' my own county and in the constituency to the north which will be the constituency of Carleton and Victoria after the next election. Mr. Smith, a leading member of the Atlantic Hay Company, has warehouses in many portions of Vic-[DOT] toxia and Carleton county. When the price of hay was established at $11 and $12 a ton, Mr. Smith went and bought his 7,000 tons of bay out at that price-$11 to $12. He bought a few small quantities from the merchants, for which he possibly paid fifty cents additional. I have the information; I have the documents; in fact, I have a lawsuit in prospect in connection with this matter, and I know what I am talking about-When they established the price at $11, Mr. Smith bought his hay at the. same price as was paid by the others, and he made $2 profit in the compressing, the same as the others did, thus leaving him $3.50 over and above the legitimate profit which the other men obtained. There you have $45,000 taken from the pockets of the farmers of my constiutency, or out of the coffers of the British Government, for the small quantity of 19,000 tons of hay. This was nothing in the world but politics; this was done by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or with his knowledge-manipulated by him and by his followers-with the intention of giving to these people the chance to make that profit. Not one of them has had the hardiliood to stand up 
and attempt to defend this transaction from that day to this.
Mr. Speaker, I was busy during the last three or four weeks of the last session, and I was not in the House very much. I was in another part of the building most of the time.
An. hon. MEMBER:	Doing good work.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I hope so- Earlier in
the session I had put a notice of motion on the Order Paper asking for a discussion of this matter. On two occasions, when the motion was reached, the Prime Minister asked me to allow it to stand, taking the ground, I believe, that there was some doubt as to the right to discuss these questions, owing to the fact that the persons in question were said to have been agents of the Imperial Government. I went to the Minister of Customs, then acting Minister of Agriculture, and stated the case to him. He admitted the iniquity of the whole transaction and promised that if I would not say anything about it, this thing would not happen again; that this iniquity would be remedied. I believe that if the Minister of Customs had been continued to act as Minister of Agriculture, he would have carried out his promise, and that a similar iniquity would not have happened again.
In order to make the record clear, I should say that during last year practically all of these smaller contracts were carried out in the town of Woodstock. The Phillips Estey Company, men of good financial standing, big men in every way, entered into an agreement with James Scott & Sons, of Montreal, who are, I presume, the biggest hay merchants in Montreal. They brought a compressing plant down to Woodstock and operated it there on the basis of thirty cents a ton royalty; that is, they got thirty cents a ton for the use of their presser, paid the transportation of the presser and of two men to superintend the transportation from Montreal to Woodstock and back to Montreal.
They worked under rather unfavourable circumstances, but they compressed that hay for less than $3 a ton, including 30 cents a ton royalty for the use of the press, and including transportation charges. I know whereof I speak, because I am the solicitor of the company; and I have not only their consent but their hope that I will go on and discuss this thing, so I am at liberty to tell everything I know about it. They pressed that hay for less than $3 a ton, and the Atlantic Co. of St. John are pressing it for

less than $2.50. I will agree to take a contract and do it for $2.50 a ton and make a lot of money. I know what I am talking of. I have had experience in this matter. During the South African war I was a member of a company that compressed hay, and I speak with knowledge. I was not then a member of the legislature or of the House of Commons. I was a member of the New Brunswick Hay Company. We had a small contract from the Department of Agriculture, about $7,000 altogether. We had to compress our hay down to 70 cubic feet to the ton, whereas under present specifications it is compressed to only 100 cubic feet per ton. That makes a difference of from 50 cents to 75 cents a ton in the cost of pressing. But I am willing, in my argument, to allow $3 a ton for pressing, which is at least 50 cents more than it ever cost them or anybody else.
The other firm compressing hay in Woodstock was the McCain Produce Co., who also had a contract during the South African war. They had a press, but could not get a contract, although they got a sub-contract and pressed the hay at $20.50 a tan. Their plant is all set up in Woodstock; it needs only the turning, on of a motor, and they could be pressing hay in twenty-five minutes. Back as far as October 28, 1915, this company wrote to Mr. J. A. Ruddick, the Commissioner of Agriculture, as follows:
Kindly let us know if you are open to purchase any quantity of compressed hay to he delivered in West St. John, N.B., in the near future. As we have the only p'-ess in this province at the present time capable of doing this kind of work, we would he glad to have a chance to put our press to work, and would take an order for any reasonable amount that you would he willing tq let us have. 1
Kindly advise us by return mail, etc.
That was not answered until the 15th day of November, two weeks later, when they got back this answer:
Messrs. McCain, Produce Company, Ltd., Florenceville, N.B.
Dears Sirs,-I must ap'o'.ogize for the delay in replying to your letter of the 28th ult., with respect to New Brunswick hay. A contract has been entered into with the Atlantic Hay Company to supply 15,000 tons and as there will probab'y not he much more than that available this year there will he no object in entering into further contracts.
They wrote back on the 20th of November and offered to furnish any amount at one dollar a ton less than any other firm. On the 22nd day of November they wrote this letter. I have it here in my hand, for the inspection of any hon. gentleman, but I will not encumber the record with it. That



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
was followed up on the 11th of December, 1915, by a telegram to the minister himself:
Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa.
Offer two to three thousand tons hay, cof-pressed; delivered West St. John $22.50 per ton, subject to government inspection at pressing point. Answer.
The McCain Produce Co.
That was fifty cents a ton less than they are paying the Smith Co. or the Atlantic Co. They followed that by a letter, and they got an answer on the 13th of December, saying:
I am in receipt of your wire in regard of contract for compressed hay. The question of handling of hay in N:w Brunswick was given careful consideration, and, on our estimate of the amount of hay available in New Brunswick, and having in view the most convenient methods for ourselves in regard to shipment and inspection, a contract was awarded far an amount that we believed would practically cover the availab'e hay of the standard that was required. "We would not at the present time care to undertake any mo-e contracts and have pointed this out to one or two correspondents who have written us along similar lines. There is little doubt, however, that if there should prove to he more hay available in New Brunswick than was anticipated, every ton of it would he required before we get through.
(Signed) Martin Burrell.
That is followed by a letter of the 17th in which they protest very keenly against the course of the Minister of Agriculture in having given the whole contract to one concern, who had not a press, who never owned a compressing plant,* but had to bring down a plant from Montreal and operate it there on a royalty basis. They told the minister that they were the only firm with a press in New Brunswick, and said:
A'so we were prepared to offer to you and did suhm t to you an offer at a price which is much less than the price you have paid the people having the contract for some 15.000 tons; and now, at a time when the honour1 and independence of the Empire is at stake, politics and religion and all other issues should be laid to one side and everything work d out to the very best interests of the country.
That even did not bring an answer.
Then I come, Sir, to my own sphere of operations in this matter. On the 8th of December I wrote a letter to Sir George Foster, Acting Premier of Canada, because I knew tl\at Sir George was a New Bruns-wicker, I knew he was acquainted with conditions, I was aware that he knew many of the people, and I had no idea of being disrespectful to the Minister of Agriculture in going to him. I pleaded . with him to do justice to my constituents. I wrote him a long letter. It is unneces-

[Stage Direction]
saiy to read it. I told him the whole story. I told him the nefarious manner in which the matter was managed the year before. I followed that up by an interview in his office on the 20th day of December. We telephoned for Mr. Burrell, but he was sick in bed. Then Sir George Foster asked to have Mr. Ruddick brought over. Mr. Ruddick came and we discussed the matter for probably an hour in Sir George Foster's office. I told him my complaint, I told him that these men, under this contract, could pay the farmer $15 for hay loose in the barn, and if he would give a contract to McCain or any other man who would agree to pay the farmers $15, I would be satisfied. We discussed the whole question, and I have here the original figures, made upon a sheet	of	the	Weekly	Bulletin,	in SirGeorge Foster's office, giving all the figures, everything in connection with the whole transaction. I claimed that a contractor could pay $15 for this hay. I put down the cost of the hay at $15. I put down $1.25	as	the	cost of	pressing	in the
farmer's barn. I know that is enough. I am a farmer myself.' I press my own hay. I have my own press,' and I know what it costs me. I press my hajr, and hire every dollar of work done, for less than $1.25 a ton. We put in 50 cents for wastage in transferring the hay from the farmers' barns to the presses, but Mr. Ruddick said: " That ' is too much; put down 30 cents ";-and Mr. Ruddick is- the man who has charge of pressing hay for the Government all over Canada. He says that their experience is that 30 cents is a sufficient allowance for waste and loss in compressing. I put in $1.75 as the average rate of freight. It might go ten cents above that or ten cents below that, but that was a fair average. Then we put down $3 a ton for the compressing-[DOT] and that is 50 cents more than it ought to be.
If you figure that up you get $21.30 a ton. Sir George turned to Mr. Ruddick and said, "Are these figures correct?" "Yes," said Mr. Ruddick, "they are right." We are pressing our hay in Montreal, we are paying for all overhead charges, we are paying rent for our huildings and paying for the inspectors, and we are doing all that for'around $3; sometimes it might go five cents over, sometimes five cents under. When you go to the province of New Brunswick you find that they do not have to pay for inspectors, and I do not

think that the Smith Company even pay for the rent of their building.
John Douglas Hazen: They pay $300 per month.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Three 'hundred dollars per month, a mere bagatelle on a contract amounting to over $300,000. I said to Sir George, "What are you going to do about it?" He said, "I am not the Minister of Agriculture," but he turned to Mr. Ruddick and said, "You go to him, and tell him that my advice is either to make this man pay the farmers what that hay is worth, or give the contract to some man who will pay the price." I said, "Thank you," and left the office. But, Sir, just a few days before that, this Government had put an embargo upon the exportation of hay from New Brunswick. They gave these people, the political friends of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, a contract for every ton of hay in the province of New Brunswick, and after giving the contract they put an embargo on the.hay, so that the poor farmer in New Brunswick has the grip of this combination around his throat. There is no way of getting that grip removed except by the Minister of Agriculture. It is up to him to remove that death grip, which those politicians have upon the throats of the farmers in my constituency.


Charles Marcil: What was the reason for the embargo?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know. They say they need all the hay.	-


John Dowsley Reid: It was the British Government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no fault at all to find; if they want to put an embargo on everything produced in Canada they can do so. But I object to them saying, "You cannot sell your hay where you want to sell if." I have $1,500 worth of hay in my barns, and the Government says, "You cannot sell that hay in Boston," where I can get $16 for it to-day; they say, "You have got to sell it to the political friends of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for $13." That is what I object to, Mr. Speaker. If the British Government will out down the price of those people and make it $20 I will sell my hay for $13, and if they cut down the price still more I will sell my hay for $3 less. In this I am speaking for every constituency in the province of New Brunswick. But we do object to the Government taking us by the throat and preventing us from selling

our hay in the best market, and then telling us that we have to give it away at half price to the political favourites of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


John Gillanders Turriff: They are doing that with every one of our farmers in the West.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, I went home, and I felt I had accomplished something. But I did not know my man; I did not know the Minister of Agriculture. The day after I got home the McCain Company wrote this letter to Mr. Ruddick, the Commissioner of Agriculture:
Dec. 24th, 1915.
J. A. Ruddick, Esq.,
Commissioner of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear. Sir:
The writer has just returned from Woodstock after having had an interview with Mr. P. B. Carvell, M.P., who informs me that he has been discussing the hay situation with the Hon. George E. Foster and yourself and would say that-we are willing to take on a contract of three to five thousand tons of hay for $23 (twenty-three dollars) per ton as closely as possible to track West St. John, N.B., and will agree to pay the farmers $15 per ton loose for their hay in the barns. This hay to be pressed under the usual rules and conditions of inspection at pressing point.
I might say that we could start our plant in operation on very short notice as the press is all set up and the only connecting link would he having the motor replaced.
We have a large quantity of hay stored at our different warehouses throughout the county and as we are unable to sell same at a reasonable price we would thank you very much to give this letter your most favourable consideration and hope to receive your reply by wire asking us to make preparations for pressing at once.
Thanking you in advance for a favourable reply and wishing you the Compliments of the Season, we remain,
Yours very truly,
McCain Produce Co., Ltd.
I sent a letter also to Sir George Foster, and I had no doubt in the world that this man would get the contract, or that the other company would be told to pay the farmers a reasonable price for their hay. These letters were handed over to the Minister of Agriculture, and in due course I received a letter from the Minister of Agriculture dated January 5. Perhaps I should read it to the House, because I want to treat the minister fairly:
Ottawa, Jan. 5th, 1916.
F. B. Carvell, Esq., M.P.,
Woodstock, N.B.
Dear Mr. Carvell:
When I was laid up with the grippe I understand that you discussed matters relating to hay contract in New Brunswick with Sir George Foster and he subsequently sent me the letter
17}
which he had received from you on the same subject, but in special reference to an offer of Mr. McCain to undertake a contract for pressed hay. I received a somewhat similar letter from Mr. McCain some time previously which I answered and I am not writing him again as there is nothing to add at the present time. Since I have got around again, which was only a short while ago, I have been giving this matter consideration and getting fuller information on the subject.
My department has been acting for the War Office in regard to hay all over tho country and while the conditions in various parts of the country naturally vary, and in some cases a very low price would be obtained for the surplus hay if it were not for the War Office purchases, it is our desire to see that the War Office does not have to pay unnecessarily high prices, and that while the farmer gets a fair figure for his product the contractors should not make an unreasonable profit for the work and responsibilities which they undertake.
In so far as the situation in the Maritime Provinces goes, I am getting our officers to look thoroughly into -the situation in order that I may have full information on the whole matter.
Yours faithfully,
M. Burrell.
Perhaps I was a little incensed when I got that letter. Any man who knew the situation as well as I did would be incensed to find a minister of the Crown, with all the information he had, and after all the trouble over this thing, writing a put-off letter saying that he had instructed his officers to make an investigation in order to get more information. Here is the answer I sent to him:
January 6th, 1916.
Hon. Martin Burrell,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
I am just in receipt of your letter of yesterday regarding the hay situation in this county, but am sorry that, after reading it over several times, I fail to find anything in it which looks like a solution of the problem.
You state that you are getting your officers to look thoroughly into the situation. Let me assure you that your officers have looked into the situation, and have known all about it for months past.
You signed a contract with the Atlantic Hay Company, which is really B. F. Smith, a twice defeated candidate In this constituency, for 15,000 tons of hay at $23 a ton delivered in West St. John, and you have in your office an offer from the McCain Produce Company, or A. D. McCain, who are thoroughly responsible people in every respect, and well, able financially to carry out any promises they make, to deliver you the same quantity of hay at the same place at $22.56 per ton, thus saying the British Government $7,500 in the transaction, and to this letter, so far as I am aware, at the present time, you have- never even given an answer.
Then you received a letter within the last fortnight from Mr. McCain, agreeing to deliver you 5,000 tons of hay at West St. John at $23 per ton, and a covenant that he will

pay the farmer at least $15, loose for the product. To this you have made no answer excepting an acknowledgement of its receipt by Mr. Ruddick.
In addition to this your Government has prohibited the exportation of hay, and the farmers are entirely at the mercy of Mr. Smith, and your political friends. They are receiving today about $13.50, which is $1.50 a ton more than he was paying when I started after the business, and under the present prices, he is cleaning up no less than $3 on every ton he is handling, and in some cases much more, or $45,000 to $50,000 profit on the transaction being made out of the farmers of New Brunswick.
You know this is not a fair deal, and the only way to do justice to the farmers is to compel Smith to pay $15 per ton, not only in the future, but for that which he has purchased in the past, or give a contraot to McCain, under his offer of a fortnight ago.
I understand you have agreed to give to Mr. Hatfield an order for 2,000 tons and perhaps you are innocent, I am going to assume you are, but I can assure you that an offer of this kind will never raise the price of hay a cent. In fact, this is only part of the game to stifle competition.
Now Mr. Burrell, it Is fairly up to you, either make Smith pay the farmers $15 for their hay, or give a contract to the man who covenants that he will pay that amount, and who is financially able to stand by his covenant.
There is no other way of handling it, and I trust before I reach Ottawa next Wednesday, this matter will be worked out along these lines.
While I have not the power to force the Government, I suppose you will agree with me that I have the power of speech, and it is my intention to see that justice is done to my constituents, for I will never be charged with having been negligent in presenting the case.
Believe me,
Sincerely yours,
Mr. Speaker, what do you 'suppose was the answer I got to that? I had been here and had gone home again, and I found this letter on my desk acknowledging receipt of it, but the answer I got was a personal invitation from the Minister of Agriculture begging me, for God's sake, not to refer to this matter in the House of Commons, and telling me that it would look bad if it were published in the newspapers.


Martin Burrell: Would the hon. gentleman extend me the courtesy of allowing me to interject one remark? I do not want to do him any injustice, and I trust that he does not want to do me any injustice. I did not beg him, in God's name, to refrain from doing this. I stated my reason to him, as I did also to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. That reason is good, and I shall speak of it later on. It is simply a matter of justice to put this interview in its proper terms.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will stand by what I say, and this House and this country will

accept my word for it too. Let me tell the hon. Minister of Agriculture that if there was not something crooked and dirty about this, he would not be trying to stifle investigation and discussion in this House. It is true that at that interview he wanted to tell me certain things in confidence, although I told him not to. He told me certain things, and I shall not reveal them. It was up to him to explain to this House and this country about the manner in which he tried to chloroform me and to keep me from discussing this question. When he found that I was going to speak out, he went to the Liberal whip, and then to the leader of the Opposition,, and begged them to pull me off and keep me from telling of this dirty, contemptible stealing of these Conservative politicians in the province of New Brunswick.


Mr MACDONALD:: When was this?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Three or four days after this debate commenced. I told him also in that interview-and he will not deny it- that I did not want to discuss matters here that there might be some question about with relation to the public interest, but that this was a matter of so much interest to my constituents that I would never dare to face them again if I did not discuss it. I told him that if he would give to McCain a contract for 5,000 tons of hay at $23 with this covenant, or to some of his Conservative friends with the same covenant, they could have McCain's press; or if he would write a letter to the Atlantic Hay Company telling them that they must pay $15 for hay, I would never open my mouth, and that would end the whole transaction. Why does he not do it? Because the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will not allow him to do it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Saving the Empire.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Saving the Empire-yes. It is like Foster saving the Empire; it is like Garland saving the Empire; it is like that buncji of patriots whom we investigated in the Public Accounts Committee last session saving the Empire. Now we have the Minister of Agriculture saving the Empire by bleeding my farmers to the extent of about $50,000 for the benefit of the political organization of his friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The minister told me some of the things that he was going to do in order to have this thing straightened out, and I told him that he did not know his men. The poor, innocent Minister of Agriculture up against a

proposition like my dion. friend's friends down in New Brunswick! He does not know the Tory politicians of New Brunswick. But I took back a letter to him in order to show him something of the standing of my friend, and I gave him this letter, or rather I read it to him. " Now, Mr. Minister," I said, " in face of that, can you still refuse to do justice to my constituents." Here is the letter. It is a letter from a poor man, with a big family, a hard worker on a rocky farm, which, I am sorry to say, he does not own in full.. He is a good, hard worker; he is going to come out all right; he has paid, during the last year, more than one-third of the mortgage on his farm; but he is among the smallest of the small farmers. Here is the letter I received from him.
Centreville, Jan. 13, 1916.
Mr. F. B. Carvell,
WcoSstook, N.B.
Dear M\ Carvell,-I have sold my hay to B. F. Smith. I got stuck for money, so his brother gave me only $13 per ton. He said when Frank came heme he would give me more. So when he came I wrote to him and asked him, to send me the bill, which he did not. Now, how am I to make him? The letter I send you with this and also the bill for hay. Can you make him settle with me? He promised to give me as much as any one and said he was in a position to gi,ve a little more. The balance on the hay is $11.42-
Mr. Speaker, the amount is only $11.42, and what is that to a man who has a contract with this Government for $325,000?
-or you can flrure it up yourself. The weight of hay is 11,450. He paid me $13 per ton, *Wilt you let me know what can be done, please.
(Signed) Walter W. Pryor,
Centreville, N.B., R.M.D. Uo. 4-
Here is a man who only had an insignificant amount of less than 6 tons of hay to sell. Surely that man is entitled to all the British Government is paying for hay. Surely that man is entitled to protection from the Minister of Agriculture, and he should not be subjected to the scandal of having his hard-earned money filched from him in order to line the pockets of the political grafters in New Brunswick. Let me read the answer which he got:
East Florenceville, N.B., Jan. 8, 1916.
Walter W. Pryor, Esq.,
Centreville, N.B.
Dear Sir,-Your favour of January 3rd duly received. I note all you say with reference to what I was to do when I secured a contract. I fear that you have been listening to bad counsel.
I have usually paid my bills and paid as high a price for hay or anything else as any one else in the business and I do not think that at this time in life, after 1 have been in. business twenty years, that I will allow any one to come forward and tell me what I have to do. I think you know me well enough for that.
Yours truly,
.	(Sgd.) B. F. Smith.
God save the King, one of my hon. friends says, and may I add the poor farmer who is in the hands of this political monopoly and who is not allowed by this Government to -sell his hay to any person on earth except this monopoly.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
i The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When you left the chair at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was discussing a matter which I admitted was perhaps of a somewhat local nature. I was pointing out to the Minister of Agriculture some of his sins of omission and commission respecting the mismanagement of the hay situation in my province. I just want to add a little more in order that there will be no misunderstanding about the whole transaction.
I detailed rather fully the handling of this business by the Department of Agriculture in the year 1915, and also what is going on in 1916. I had pointed out that the department had first given a contract to a set of political friends for all the hay which they hoped to buy in that province for the present year. They then applied an export duty, which prohibited our people from sending their hay to the United States and obtaining the price they were entitled to. The Minister of Agriculture has in his hands to-day very serious protests from soma of the best farmers in the province of New Brunswick. A very illuminative and businesslike letter on the situation was written me from Sac-kville, in the county of Westmorland, by a Mr. Fawcett, a man known over the length and breadth of New Brunswick, well known to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and regarded as probably the most up-to-date farmer in the whole province. That letter was forwarded to Sir George Foster, and by him forwarded to the Minister of Agriculture, who has the document in his possession to-day. In the county of Westmorland the situation is even worse than in my constituency. As can be seen from the documents I have read, the farmers in my constituency are receiving about $13 for their hay, and the Government is paying $23. In some cases our farmers receive $13.50. If it is a

poor man who cannot help himself such as I have described this man Pryor to be, they crowd him down, but if it is a bigger man, who can hit back, they give him fifty cents more. In any case they simply put a string around the farmer's throat, and then twist it just as hard as they can and yet leave life in his body. There is no escape. That is the position in which we find ourselves. In the county of Westmorland the hay is hardly of as good a quality as ours. I do not say that offensively, but they grow in that county a certain quality of marsh *hay, which the authorities, at the time of the South African war, would not take at all. But they have also what is called upland hay, which is a splendid article, just as good as the Government are buying elsewhere, and which answers the requirements of what is called No. 2 hay. They started in to pay $12 for this hay in the county of Westmorland, but the Company thought that the gentleman from whom they were purchasing down there was paying too much, so they stopped doing business with him and started in with two other men, who are now paying $11 or $11.50, and to-day the farmers in the county of Westmorland, who have no market, at all for their hay except, this gang of politicians, have been compelled to sell their hay to these two men for $11 or $12. These agents then pay $1.75 freight on the hay to St. John, compress it there and get $23 from the British Government.


Mr. BOYCE:: Does my hon. friend say that that is what the farmers are getting now?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and I say it on the authority of the farmers themselves, the men whom I have seen personally and discussed the situation with. I also have the written authority of Mr. Fawcett, of. Sackville, a man known to the Minister of Marine, and, I believe, to the chief Government Whip, a man who is so big and well-known in the farming world in New Brunswick that every man who knows anything about farming knows him- These farmers are compelled to accept $11 or $12 for their hay which these men then sell to the British Government for $23. Worse than that, they are even bringing hay by the schooner load from the-Annapolis valley in Nova Scotia. The whole intention is to show the farmers of New Brunswick that they can get the 15,000 tons of hay without them, and make 
them accept the price they are willing to pay. Our hands are tied; we cannot help ourselves; we have no other outlet except a little local market.
I should just like to read three telegrams I have received recently from men who have been handling hay in my constituency, some of them for twenty-five years. The first is from the McCain Produce Company, who I am safe in saying are the biggest hay merchants in the Maritime provinces and among the biggest in Canada, handling between ten and fifteen thousand tons of hay per year. Here is what they say:
Hundreds of tons of hay here available, farmers at distance very anxious to move stock. Embargo on St. John shipment. Can't you do something secure contract and thus relieve situation.
McCain Produce Co.
The next one is from Bohan Brothers, an old established firm who have been in business over twenty years:
Hundreds of tons of hay available. Farmers anxious to haul. An embargo to St. John and United States. Can you not do something to secure contract and relieve the situation.
Bohan Bros.
The last one is from the Phillips-Estey
Company:
Is there any possibility of arranging for compressing hay at Woodstock. Several thousand tons available here. Embargo on St. John. Cannot ship to the States. Everything tied up. Can't something be done to relieve the situation.
Phillips Estey Co.
I have already discussed the embargo on hay going to the United States. The term " embargo " in St. John means this. These people have been bringing hay over from Nova Scotia by schooner loads and landing it op the Government wharf. They have also brought it from Westmorland County, where they paid $11 or $12 a ton for it. They will not receive any more hay than they can handle nicely, the yards are piled up, and the Canadian Pacific railway will not allow any more cars to be loaded for St John points. The result is that many of the merchants in my county have thousands of tons of hay stored up in their warehouses, and even if they wanted to sell to the Smith crowd they could not get the cars, and they will not get them till the place is cleared in St. John. I do not blame the Canadian Pacific railway for that. They cannot allow the farmers to use the Canadian Pacific railway cars as storehouses for hay. Accordingly, they put on an embargo and

said: " You cannot ship any more hay until they have pressed out what is in the yards already." There is no escape for us; we are tied hand and foot, and are compelled to take the treatment which these people are giving us-	_
If this were not had enough-and I think it is-let me tell you that last year, after these people had made $35,000 to $45,000 out of the manipulation of these contracts, after they had filled their order of 7,000 tons, they started out to get more. I find no fault with the Government for giving all the contracts they could, because they want the hay. But these people bought up every ton of the rotten, black, condemned clover hay there was in the county of Carleton. There were 300 tons of hay condemned at the plant of the Phillips-Estey Co. at Woodstock; there must have been more than 300 tons at the plant of the McCain Company at Woodstock, and 300 tons more at different points along the line. And, mind, at the two plants to which I have referred, this hay was condemned by Government inspectors. But every ton of that black, rotten hay was loaded on the cars, sent to St. John, put through the Atlantic Hay Company's presses, and they got $24 a ton for it from the British Government. No, I want to qualify that. There may have been a carload or two that did not go through their presses. I was in the shed at St. John in the summer, and there was a little lot of hay piled up in one corner. Now, what kind of inspectors must they have in St. John? What kind of supervision does the department give to the purchase of this hay? What kind of cursed influence must the Minister of Marine and Fisheries exercise upon the minister*of this department, and upon all the rest of them, to allow these things to go on unchallenged -to allow this profiteering to continue at the expense of the British Government and of the Canadian farmer?


Rodolphe Lemieux: All Smith?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: All Smith-the Atlantic Hay Company. These are facts that I charge publicly, facts that I got from the men who know-from the Phillips Estey Co., clients of mine; from the McCain Produce Company, clients of mine; men who have their books to show, men who know what they are talking about.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much do they get for it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Twenty-four dollars a
ton. Why, they bought some of that hay
for $12, landed in St. John. This hay, condemned by Government inspectors in Woodstock, was loaded on the cars and sent to St. John. And they were only willing to pay $12 for it. But the matter is not yet settled; it is quite likely there may be a lawsuit about it, because the McCain Company say that the price was $12 a ton f.o.b. Woodstock, and the Atlantic people say it was $12 a. ton f.o.b. St. John. I think some of it was consigned to Messrs. Connelly & Wetmore, and they made some kind of arrangement with Smith and put it through their presses. I hope the Minister of Marine is taking note of this. I think there is enough to make him take note, and I hope he will get the Minister of Agriculture to give the matter consideration and do what is fair and right.


Mr. CROTHERS:: With the hon. gentleman's permission, I desire to ask a question for information, as I am not sure that I understood him. Did he say this hay was pressed at Woodstock and then sent to St. John, opened up there and re-pressed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This hay was pressed in the farmers' barns. It was drawn into Woodstock for compression-that means to be opened up and re-pressed. It was unfit for compression' and would not stand the test. It was condemned by the Government inspectors and piled out. Then it was sent to St. John and compressed. I hope I have made that plain. I am only too happy to give information on the subject, so serious is its significance, so gross and so criminal, in view of existing conditions, that I think the fullest information should be given upon this ignominious subject.
I am "sorry the hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) is not here. I presume an attempt will be made to. answer me, and I should like to be absolved from my promise of confidence in the interview I had with him three or four days ago. Of course, as he is not here, I cannot be given that right, and without that right I cannot go into the matter. But I can say this: I know how the Minister of Agriculture hopes to straighten out this horrible mess in which he finds himself. But if he knew the character of the men he is up against he would laugh himself to ridicule; he would not know what to say to himself about his plan to protect the British Government and the Canadian farmers. As he is not here, I cannot disclose the matter. But if he does attempt to discuss this question, I give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I will take the earliest opportunity to show exactly what his little scheme means.

I know what defence the Minister is going to put up. He is going to say that in 1902, when I had an interest in a hay contract, the company in which I was interested got a greater price for hay than did the McCain Company and Peters, who had a contract at that time. Well, there was no politics at that time, for the Peters, now partners in the Atlantic Company, and Conservatives, under the name of the Imperial Hay Company, pressed hay in St. John for two years, while the company that I was in pressed hay for only a few months. As I have said, the Minister will say that I got a bigger price than the others. I do not know what the Imperial Company got. I may have known at the time, but I do not know now. We got $17 a ton for our hay landed in St. John, pressed down to seventy cubic feet to the ton. The McCain Company got $14 a ton f.o.b. at their place of business at Florenceville. The freight to St. John would be $1.70 or $1.80-the rate was 8i or 9 cents, I have forgotten which. Our freight would be the same from different points along the line. In addition to that, we put our hay off at McAdam Junction, re-pressed it, and sent it forward on the same bill of lading, and paid 20c. a ton more for freight than did the McCain Company. They would add to the $14 they received $1.75 to St. John, making the cost to the Government $15.75 in St. John. Ours cost them $17 in St. John, but it cost us	25c.	more	for	freight. It	workedout	that our	hay	cost the	Government $1	a ton	more than the	McCainhay. And here is the reason. We bought no hay from the farmers, but bought all our	hay	from	the	merchants;	McCain
bought no hay from the merchants, but bought altogether from the farmers. We bought hay from every merchant in the county. We got them all together. They knew what we were getting from the Government; they knew it cost $3 a ton to press it; they knew the freight rates, and the cost in the farmers' barns. We made a trade with every hay merchant for $10.25 f.o.b point of shipment; and they made an agreement among themselves to pay the farmer $8 a ton.
Among the men in that arrangement were Mr. Smith, Mr. McCain, and a dozen other hay merchants in the county and in the three or four adjoining counties. Prior to that time hay had never been worth more than $6 a ton, loose in the farmers' barns.


John Dowsley Reid: It must have been
worth more than that in some years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Never before?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It has never been worth more than $6 or $6.50.


John Dowsley Reid: That seems to be a very low price.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Martin Burrell: If my hon. friend's relation of that conversation is not more accurate than his relation of the conversation that he has already given to the House, I should prefer that he would not say anything at all about it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: All right; I accept that.
I assume from that that the minister will not refer to it either.


Martin Burrell: Since my hon. friend put3 that question, I think he will grant me the same privilege to state what took place and to put before the House a version as against the version that he gave this afternoon.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: So far as I have gone, certainly.


Martin Burrell: So far as you have gone.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly, but no further. Of course, if my hon. friend chooses to go further, I think I know enough about .the rules of the House to find an opportunity to have the matter straightened on*.
I have discussed this matter at considerable length, but I feel that I have done no more than I ought to do under the circumstances. I here publicly accuse the Department of Agriculture of having during the year 1915 deliberately, and with the knowledge of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, so manipulated the contracts for hay in the province of New Brunswick that his political friends were placed in a position to filch $45,000 either .out of the money which this Government is handling as a sacred trust on behalf of the British Government, or from the pockets of the farmers of the province of New Brunswick. I go further:	I here
publicly accuse the Minister of Agriculture of so allowing the contracts to be manipulated for the present year with the knowledge and consent of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that the Atlantic Hay Company will fildh about $35,000 either from the funds held in trust for
the British Government or from the pockets of the farmers of my constituency and the rest of New Brunswick. I am sorry to have to make these statements;
I am sorry on account of the Minister of Agriculture. I want to say here, Sir, that no man in Canada feels as badly over this matter as does the Minister of Agriculture.
I sympathize with him from the bottom of my heart. He is an Englishman by birth, a gentleman by instinct and training; a man who, I believe, is absolutely loyal to the core; a man who, if left to himself, would never have caused the nefarious conditions that have existed. I am sorry that he has allowed himself to be jockeyed into the position in which ne finds himself to-night, by his colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. But, Sir, he is the responsible head of the department, and he is the man whom I must blame for the condition, and to whom I must look for redress. I have presented the situation to the House, and my hon. friend can take whichever horn of the dilemma suits him best.
Mr. Speaker, the question now naturally arises, what are you going to do about it?* That is the question that every elector in Canada is asking to-night: what are you going to do about it? What is Parliament going to do about it? What is the Government going to do about it? What is the Prime Minister going to do about it? Today I have pointed out facts which, if I can substantiate them, ought to drive this Government into oblivion; ought to drive the Conservative party of Canada into oblivion for the next twenty-five years. 1 ask you again, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to get. behind the contemptible quibble of the Solicitor General, or are you going to investigate the matter? Are you going to give the electors' of Canada the right to get to the bottom of these things and to know whether or not I am right in the charges I am making? Or are you going to' chloroform them, muzzle Parliament and refuse a chance to investigate these matters? And if you are going to investigate them,-how are you going to do it? Before what sort of tribunal will these charges be inquired into? Will they be entrusted to a royal commission such as was fooling around the country during the last summer, or will the investigation be held in the broad, open light of Parliament? Will it be done by hole and corner means, where counsel for the public shall be absolutely refused the right to prosecute, or

will it be done in Parliament, so that every member on this side as well as on the other side of the House shall have an opportunity to examine into the matter, in the presence of the representatives of the people, so that it will receive such investigation as the condition of affairs in this country demands? That is the question. I hope' my friends, the members of this Government, will address themselves to that question very seriously. They think, in face of wihat has been said here during the last week, that they can simply close the door and say: Go hang yourself. If they want to take that responsibility, of course they have the right to do so; but I very much doubt if they will do it. I could pick out three or four members of that Administration who,
I think, would toe heartily ashamed to do that, and I am looking to them to see that justice and right and honesty is done to the people of Canada. You may say: what objections have you to a royal commission such as we had last summer? I have many objections to it. I am not going into the submarine business, and I am not going * to read these two immense volumes of evidence which I hold in my hand. The submarine business has been pretty well discussed by speakers on both sides of this House. I aim only going to call the attention of the House to the fact that one of the most serious charges that could be made against a public man in Canada was made against Sir Richard McBride, practically alleging that there had been a rake off of $350,000 in the purchase of these submarines, taking advantage of the nation in its hour of need, when these things were a real necessity, considering the fact that they were obsolete, that they had been refused by the government of a South American republic, not because they would not shoot torpedoes, but because the things would not come to the surface when they wanted them to.
Taking these considerations, taking the enormity of the charges, think of a royal commission that would not allow counsel for the people to appear before them, that closed the door to the people, that closed the door to any man who would have any real ambition to show the exact condition of affairs. The Minister of Marine spent half an hour yesterday afternoon trying to tell us how absolutely honest and upright Sir Charles Davidson had been. I am not charging him with dishonesty; I am simply charging him with not doing his duty-side-stepping, as my bon. friend fMr. Carvell.]
behind me says. Let me bring it down to our own experience. Suppose we had an investigation in the Public Accounts Committee of this House of some charge against a prominent member of the Government, a serious matter involving almost his political life, and there was nobody in the Public Accounts Committee except his political supporters. Supposing that no opposition members were allowed there1-and I do not care whether the ruling power be Liberal or Conservative-what kind of an investigation do you suppose you would get? How near would you get to the facts? I am sorry that my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) is not here to-night. Take our investigation of that poor deluded young man, Powell, in the Public Accounts Committee last spring. He was a young man whom I pitied as I do not think I ever before pitied a witness on the stand in my quarter of a century of professional activity, a young man who was brought there by Garland and made to perjure himself in the most horrible manner I have ever seen in any court. And the only contribution offered by my hon. friend from Ottawa to that investigation was to say: "Oh, well, that money would be very handy to put him through college." That is^ an illustration of what these onesided, jug-handled investigations are. If there was nothing wrong with this transaction, if everything was perfectly straight and honest, why has Sir Richard McBride thrown up the premiership of British Columbia and gone to London? Why has he accepted a twopenny-halfpenny job, with a great big salary attached to it, putting another man out on a pension of $10,000 to make room for himself? Men act on certain business principles usually; they do not do these things if everything is all right.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Did not the Davidson Commission discover very many more facts in connection t with the Garland case than the Public Accounts Committee under the guidance of my hon. friend?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. He owned up to
the Davidson Commission and he would not to us. Garland brought that poor young man there and made him perjure himself in the most blackhearted manner I ever saw.


Avard Longley Davidson: My hon. friend was
unsuccessful in getting the truth.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly; how could I help it if a man perjured himself? When

they got before the Davidson Commission a change came over the spirit of their dreams-they owned up and coughed up.


John Dowsley Reid: That must have been a better commission than the Public Accounts Committee.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it was not. The
Public Accounts Committee cannot help men perjuring themselves if they want to. But they had a chance to think it over; they repented, and I say I was sorry, and I am sorry to-night, for that young man. He had as fine a countenance as any man I ever met. I should like to have a young man like that for my own son, which unfortunately I have not. He appeared to me to have every instinct of a gentleman, and I am glad that he had the moral courage, or that his father had the moral courage, to make him go before the Davidson Commission and tell the whole story. I believe that he will be able to go through life with a clean record, because, according to my religion, if a man is willing to confess his sins I believe that there is a power to forgive him his sins both here and hereafter.
I come now to the horse investigation.
I am going to show the doings of this wonderful commission. The investigation of these Nova Scotia horses came up in the Public Accounts Committee. We certainly had a lively time of it for three or four days. We proved many things, and in substance here is what we proved. We proved that the Government gave about $73,000 over to one of its supporters, the member for Kings, N.S., with which to go out and buy horses. He was given carte blanche to draw cheques or drafts against this money, which was placed to his credit in the Bank of Montreal. He went to Nova Scotia with a gentleman named McKay, who had been the secretary to the chief Conservative whip.


John Stanfield: Acting secretary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Acting? He was in the office and had access to all books and papers. He was on the job, that is all I know. He took also two men whom he picked up in Ottawa, Keever and Woodworth. I think he went so far as to say that one of these men, Keever, had a desk in the same room as he had, in a building in Ottawa.


John Stanfield: That was not my office.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not blaming the chief Conservative whip a particle. I do not think the hon gentleman had the faintest connection with the purchase of these horses. I should be very sorry, indeed, if anything I might say would lead to such a suspicion. He took these three men down to Nova Scotia, and they startedi buying horses, and it was the most perfect whirlwind campaign I ever heard of in my life. Billy Sunday was not in it for a moment. They would lead their halt and maimed and blind horses up there and go through a process of investigation, which was all sworn to in the Public Accounts Committee. They would tie on a tag and send the horse on and bring on the next one. Some of them would not even be untied. They would look sometimes at their mouths, sometimes at their tails, and sometimes even at their sides. When a man went there with a good horse to sell, they said: "Nothing doing, we do not want that kind of horse." They bought a few good horses but as a rule the good ones were all turned down. They bought a few, but as a rule the horses were all turned down.


John Dowsley Reid: Not all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Harvey brought a good horse, and they would not buy it.


John Dowsley Reid: The same witness swore that there were good horses.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Government did not want good horses; the Government turned down good horses, and these men telephoned to their friends to bring in the lame, the halt, the blind, the spavined, the ringboned, and every other kind of horse with all the ailments to which horse flesh is heir to; and they brought them in, and got enormous prices for them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, where was the trouble? According to the evidence, the limit price to be paid was from $172 to $175; they must not exceed that. If they had bought horses up to the standard they would have paid $172 or $175 for them. But if they had bought those good horses at $172 or $175 there would have been no rakeoff; therefore they refused to have the good horses, and paid the limit price for the halt, the blind, the spavined, the ring-boned, and the aged and infirm horses, horses that had been too old to pass muster during the South African war 14 years before. The farmers got $125, $130 and $135 for the horses, and when the horses fell down they were just allowed to lie until they had sufficient force to enable them to get up again. According to the evidence, the price averaged about $130 each, and on that basis there was a total profit of $15,000 on the transaction.
I
2G8

You will remember, Sir, that when I cross-examined Mr. Foster I asked him what he had been doing in Washington on Easter Sunday. He was very much surprised, and wanted to know how I knew he had been in Washington. I said, " I know." " Yes," he said, " you have been trailing me with detectives for the last three years." I rather admitted the accusation, although I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it was not so.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend just took a flier.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I just took a flier. 1
happened to be at the Chateau Laurier the night before, when I met a gentleman Who told me he had seen Foster's name registered in the New Willard Hotel, Washington. He toad been telling his Government for days before this that he could, not get in touch with these men-that they were engaged in some mining propositions in Arizona. When he admitted that he had been in Washington, I asked him if he had seen Keever and Woodworth, and he said no. I said, " You met them in Boston. " and then he said that he had met them there, but that he had never asked them to come to Canada and produce the receipts. I do not know what the Minister of Customs thought about it, because he has a habit of keeping his tongue to himself, but I thought from his countenance that I could form a pretty good idea.
That was the state of affairs when we left Ottawa last session. I think I have narrated the facts exactly.
Now, Sir Charles Davidson went to Nova Scotia-I do not know what for. The Lord knows what took him down there, because we proved enough here and settled it all; the Prime Minister himself read the fellow out of his party, and told him to get out.
I do not know what more Sir Charles Davidson had to investigate, but he went down and spent a month in Nova Scotia. Of course, the climate of Nova Scotia is all right in summer time; he had a pleasant time, and all his entourage had a pleasant time at the expense of the country. I am sorry I have not the evidence before me. I have tried for three or four days to get it. The statement was made by the Solicitor General that a copy of the evidence had been sent to the Opposition. We have volumes 1, 2 and 5, and part of volume 6, but we have not volumes 3 and 4, and, as I understand, volume 3 contains the evidence taken in Nova Scotia in regard to the horse deals. Why we have not that evidence before us I do not know. I tried to get it on
[Mr. CarvellJ	#
Friday, I tried again on Saturday, and again on Monday, and I could not get it. I am told it will not be ready for perhaps two or three weeks yet. Therefore I am not able to discuss this matter from the evidence taken by the Davidson Commission, and I am lawyer enough, or farmer enough-whichever you like-not to discuss a matter without having the evidence before me. I have, however, a very distinct recollection that not a day was allowed to pass on which Sir Charles Davidson did not publicly, from his place on the bench, chastise the farmers for selling horses of that kind to the Government. He even went so far as to- ask men whether they realized the position in which they had placed themselves in making the sales they had made. The whole investigation was a deliberate attempt to throw the blame of those decrepit horses on the farmers of Nova Scotia, and to take it off the shoulders of the Tory party of Canada. Any man who read the evidence in the newspapers would come to the same conclusion. As I have said, I have not had an opportunity of reading the official evidence, and I reserve the right to make further criticisms upon the matter later. At any rate, that was the thing that impressed itself upon my mind, and that would probably impress itself upon everybody's mind.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, mote than that: Sir Charles Davidson made a statement to a gentleman not more than six or seven days ago that there was nothing wrong with Foster. No, there was nothing wrong with Foster; it was those two scoundrels who left for the United States. He blamed those two scoundrels for getting the money. But what on earth was Foster, a membeT of the .Conservative party in this House doing, handling the money for those two scoundrels?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who gave him the
money?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Government gave it to Foster, and Foster never looked after his receipts. There was one little bit of evidence in the investigation before the Public Accounts Committee which I did' not see reported in the newspapers. Foster admitted that on several evenings he and the secretary of the Conservative Association, Mr. Oates, went over the receipts and checked them up. They had them in their possession, and I would like to know, if they had them in their possession after the horses were bought, how they

got into the possession of Keever and Woodworth. I have very grave doubts about it.
I come next to the investigation of the horse deals in Ontario, and here again, while I have not the evidence before me,
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the same slipshod methods and the same conditions prevailed in Ontario as prevailed in Nova Scotia. When the Davidson inquiries were started there was a good deal of blowing of trumpets, nice letters, and that sort of thing, and at the opening of the commission a statement was made by Mr. Thompson. You will find it on page 7 of the evidence:
X wish to say at the very opening of this Royal Commission, that if any representations are made to me by reputable persons, which I consider will lead to the disclosure of any irregularities in the purchase of military supplies, or wrong-doing, or deceit, I place myself unreservedly at the disposal of persons who will give such information, and I am prepared to bring before you, my lord, any valuable information and evidence that appears to be of a reliable nature.
Acting on that invitation, men who were absolutely reliable, absolutely responsible, and absolutely respectable, went to Mr. Thompson and gave him not only information but sheaVes and sheaves of evidence. They had men meet him at different points all over Canada to arrange matters beforehand. These men would meet Mr. Thompson, and tell him who was to be subpoenaed, and who was not. More than that, Mr. Thompson was furnished with typewritten statements about ever'y case. I hold in my hand copies of the documents which were placed in Mr. Thompson's hands, and he was told m these documents who to subpoena and where to find evidence; he was told who were the guilty parties. I have not the time nor the disposition to read them all, but if the Prime Minister wishes^ to see them I will send them over to him. I will just read one of them in order to show the kind of information which those respectable persons gave Sir Charles Davidson. I am going to read one which deals with the purchase of horses in Ontario. A Mr. Cox-I do not know his Christian name-a son of the late Senator Cox, from purely patriotic motives, decided to present to the Government fifty horses from his stable at Oakville.
These horses were taken away, they were inspected by the Government veterinary, every one of them was passed and every one of them accepted. Their manes were
shaved off, their tails were trimmed, they were put in military shape, and became the property of the' Government. When Sir Adam Beck was put in charge, for some unaccountable reason, I do not know why, he refused this gift; lie sent around other veterinary inspectors, and they refused ts accept every one of these fifty horses. Then the man who had charge of these horses I.think that perhaps Mr. Cox may have had a little finger in the pie as well-decided to test the sincerity of those who were acting for the Government in this matter. Mr. Cox said: "We will see how serious these men are in their rejection of these horses; they will not take my fifty horses that I want to give to the Empire, but they are going around and paying fancy prices for old, broken-down horses, and I want to see how sincere they are in what they are doing-" Mr. Wilson, the man who was in charge of Mr. Cox's stable at Oakville, took at least twelve of these horses of which we know to a public sale at Brampton, he got different people to lead the horses up at the sale and every one of them was bought by Sir Adam Beck's men at a big price, they were all accepted without a murmur, and Mr. Wilson got his pay for them. What happened in the case of these twelve horses I believe we can prove happened in the case of the other thirty-eight horses. Here is the memorandum that was placed in Mr. Thompson's hands regarding this transaction:
Hugh Wilson is the farm manager of Mr. Cox, son of the late Senator Cox, who owns a very large stock farm at Oakville. It would appear that at the beginning or some time after the war started Mr. Cox presented to the militia authorities In Toronto 50 horses which he took from his stables at Oakville. They were accepted by some of the officers connected with the militia in Toronto. Later on when Sir Adam Beck ascertained that these horses had b en presented to the Government he made an inspection of them and rejected every one of the horses and sent them back to O kville. notwithstanding that they had been previously accepted by seme cffic r of the Government, and their manes had been cut off and they had been trimmed up for military purposes. No one seems to know what eventually became of all the horses, but it is known that M \ Hugh Wilson brought twelve of them to Brampton and through Jones presented them for inspection-
This man Jones was the accomplice in this whole transaction of Fallis, a member of the local legislature.
-and they were passed by the veterinary and acce ited by Fallis and the money paid for them. It is expected that some consideration was given fo passing these horses and either Jones or Fal is, more l'kely the former, would tell what this consideration was.

Jones went to Oakville before the horses were bought. When they reached Brampton Jones distributed them about, or in other words, had different people lead them up to be sold, and when the cheques were made out Jones had these different people endorse the cheques and he put the cheques in his pocket and had them cashed himself.
This information was placed in the hands of the commissioner, and more damaging information regarding other transactions in Brampton and vicinity. When the investigation came on, and when they had Jones on the stand, the only question I am told and this comes from Mr. Thompson himself* asked him was : " Did you buy. any horses from J. Wilson? '-and the answer was: "Yes." Not a word about what horses they were, not a word about what was paid for them, not a 9 p.m. word as to whether they were the horses that had been received and rejected! Can any man believe that this is an honest investigation? Do we want that kind of investigation into the pilfering of millions, such as I described this afternoon? No, Sir. I know the Prime Minister down in his heart does not want it. It may be that his followers behind him may drive him to it, but I hope that will not happen- I refrain from further comment on that branch of the case, because, as L said before, I have not the " evidence, but I am in a position to make that statement because Mr. Thompson told the gentleman who told me that that is the pnly question he asked, and he said that he was afraid that he forgot to ask the rest of them.
Now I come to another matter to show the searching investigation which this Commission gave to these grave public affairs-the most searching investigation, as detailed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and by the Solicitor General. I am afraid that I shall have to take a little more time, and I apologize to the House, but it seems necessary to get this before the people. I refer now to the sham investigation into the purchase of a thousand automatic pistols by Major John Wesleyname; there was a man here from Morris-burg.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nash.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We had a witness called Nash here for two or three days to give evidence about some suspicious circumstances that took place at Morrisburg regarding the purchase of military clothing, but the Government were in such a hurry to get away last spring-


John Dowsley Reid: That is not right. The hon. gentleman knows that we offered in that committee to wait as long as the hon. member was willing to have any matter investigated.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know you did, but I also know that when I had to go home on the Thursday before Good Friday, and when I was compelled to hold a nomination convention in my riding on Easter Monday, and could not get back here until Wednesday, I asked that the committee adjourn over until I got back, and they would not do it. They sat, not on Good Friday, but on Saturday and on Easter Monday, something which had never happened before.


John Dowsley Reid: But we went on with some other eases.


George Perry Graham: Colonel.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Colonel John Wesley
Allison-in the early stages of the war. You will remember, Mr. Speaker-I know you will, because at that time you were attending the committees with us occasionally-that we had a witness here for two or three days. I have forgotten his


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know you did, but they had nothing to do with this matter.


John Dowsley Reid: But there were other members who wanted to take up other cases, and we were willing to take up your case when you returned.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and we went into them pretty fully, too.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: However, there was not time to investigate Mr. Nash, and he went away. In the present month of January a so-called investigation into this transaction of the purchase of automatic pistols took place in the city of Ottawa. Col. Allison was called, and here is the evidence which be gave. I am sorry that it will take me some time to make this case complete, because I must read the evidence:	'
Q. Did you sell any revolvers to the Can-aaian Government?-A. No, sir.
Q. Or pistols?-A. No, sir.
Q. Were you the agent of any person who sold revolvers or pistols to the Canadian Government?-A. No.
Q. Or are you the agent ot any company who sold any revolvers or pistols to the Canadian Government?-A. No.

Q. Did you profit by way of commission on any revolvers or pistols that were sold to the Canadian Government or to the Department of Militia and Defence?-A. No, sir.
Q. Not in any way?-A. No.
Q. Neither directly nor indirectly?-A No. Q. While I am on this I might clean up another point-did you sell any clothing to the Militia Department for Canada?-A. No.
Q. Are you interested, as partner, with any person who sold any clothing to the Canadian Government?-A. No, sir, I never had anything to do With the sale of clothing.
Q. To the Canadian Government?-A. No,
sir.	.
Q. Not at any time?-A. Not at any time.
Q. Neither directly nor indirectly ?-A. Neither directly nor indirectly.
Q. Did you receive any commission on any clothing sold to the Militia Department of the Canadian Government?-A. None whatever.
Sir Charles Davidson: Was there a memorandum with respect to this?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, sir, that is the information ; I have asked the witness with reference to the information coming to me.
General Sir Sam Hughes:	I want to see
that memorandum, your lordship.
Mr. Thompson: I have not got it here.
Sir Charles Davidson: I have a vague recollection of having seen one. (To Mr. Allison.) Will you he in town for a day or two, Mr. Allison?
Mr. Allison: I do not know, X have been very unwell and came out of a sick-bed to he present here.	-
Sir Charles Davidson: Perhaps you could wait a little while until Mr. Auditor General is present, so that we may see if he desires to ask anything further. It is evident that you are in Quite a weak condition, Mr. Allison.
Mr. Allison: Yes, sir, I have been Quite ill. Mr. Thompson: X may say, Mr. Commissioner, that there is no evidence that Mr. Allison actually sold any clothing or equipment io the Militia Department. My information was that he had some clothing and equipment in his possession at Morrisburg, and the suggestion was that this had been sold to the Canadian Government, but he tells us that neither he nor any partner of his is associated in any way with the sale of clothing to the Canadian Government.
Sir Charles Davidson:	That should dispose
of the matter in the meantime.
It is all over with: the show is finished so far as Sir Charles Davidson is concerned. But there was another -gentleman who was not quite so willing that the show should be over, and that was the Auditor General; and this country should thank God that we have an Auditor General who brings -some -of these things to the attention of the public. We cannot have a counsel to represent the public on these oom miss ions; we have no way of investigating them ourselves; and therefore it is a blessing that there is one man whom this Government cannot turn out of office, and who will see that something like justice is done in so far as it is possible for him to do it. But be is only an official; he cannot act as counsel; and he has to do
the very best he can. I turn to page 7, and take the evidence of Sir Sam Hughes. Before this the minister had been giving some evidence about clothing, and I may say that he had made a most -grandiloquent speech. Why, it wais the chance of a lifetime to make a speech and have it published to the country. The minister seemed much more -anxious to make speeches at that time than he has been during the course of this debate:
Q. Do you know if that would apply to revolvers or pistols?
Sir Sam Hughes:	We have nothing to do
with pistols. The deal was made through American officers, or friends-perhaps I should not use the term "friends"-hut at all events he had nothing to do with the pistols in any sense whatever. Mr. Cochrane, who is a wholesale dealer complimented me on the prices we obtained the pistols at and he told me it was lower than the ordinary price.
That -settled it so far as Sir Charles Davidson was concerned, tout this ubiquitous little man Fraser was called the next day, and you will find his evidence on page 8. He says:
My information as to the wholesale price was that it was $18.50 with trade discount-ten and five, and two and a half, for cash. We paid $18.50 net. I know they were selling them to the New York State Government for about $14.00.
Mr. Thompson: Was it the same pistol?
Mr. Fraser: The same pistol.
Mr. Thompson: The same make of pistol? Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Mr. Thompson: That is the Colt Automatic? Mr. Fraser: The Colt Automatic.
Mr. Thompson: Do you know if that was a new model?
Mr. Fraser: I cannot give you the description now, but the description in the vouchers, and the description of those sold to the New York State Government is the same.
That settled it. On page 9 Sir Charles Davidson asks the Auditor General:
Q. Have you the vouchers for the Canadian purchases?
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Then, instead of having them produced and finding out what they were, Sir Charles Davidson said:
You might produce them to-morrow, Mr. Fraser.
Mr. Fraser says, " I shall," and then they went on to another part of the evidence. Mr. Fraser came hack. This little man was determined that he would get his evidence on the records anyhow, if he had to fight the whole crowd. You will find his evidence on page 17. He gives a lot of correspondence, which I will not read, as it is hardly necessary. However, he says on page 13:	.
In examining the accounts for the purchase of revolvers and automatic pistols I found

that the Government had paid $18.50 for each pistol. I subsequently ascertained that the same pistol was sold to the New York State Government for $14.50.
I think that should be " Canadian " Government. ' Coming down to page 17, Mr. Thompson asks:
That is the whole of the correspondence on the subject?
Mr. Thompson wants to shut it off, but this persistent Scotchman says:
Yes, there are the vouchers.
Mr. Thompson: You might quote one of them.
Mr. Fraser reads:
"Colt Patent Fire Arms Mfg. Co., sold to Canadian Government, Department of Militia and Defence, September 11, 1914, 1,000 -45 calibre, automatic pistols, Government model, $18.50-$18,500."
Sir Charles Davidson: There appears to be a deduction for two pistols?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, there appears to have been two pistols short, and there is a deduction for these two pistols.
Sir Charles Davidson evidently did not want this to go in, for he tries to shut the Auditor General out by asking him about two pistols that were not there. But the Scotchman says:.
The voucher continues: Shipped to J. Wesley Allison. Waddington, N.Y., duplicate copy sent to Valcartier to-day.
That is the man who had nothing to do with it. On page 21 Mr. Fraser states positively-I will not read his evidence- that the price of these automatic pistols was $18.50 with ten, five and two per cent off, which would bring the, net price down to about $15.42. He got that evidence in for the third time, and they shut him oft again. On page 23 there was a long discussion about these prices and as to whether Fraser would be able to substantiate the information he had got in New York. Sir Charles Davidson spent a couple of pages of the evidence quibblihg over this, and then they were through again. Sir Charles Davidson asks:
Is there anything further?
Mr. Fraser: I think you suggested that Mr. Thomason should aslt me who made the purchases.
Sir Charles Davidson: Yes.
Mr. Fraser: I was under the impression judging by the vouchers, that the purchases were made by Colonel Allison, but I read the evidence taken yesterday in which the Minister of Militia stated that Mr. Allison had nothing to do with the purchase of the pistols. The Minister of Militia stated that Mr. Allison had absolutely no connection with that, but he must have had some connection * with it as the pisto's were consigned to him.

Sir Charles Davidson: He may have been the consignee without having bought them? . Mr. Fraser: Certainly.
Sir Charles Davidson: Your impression grew out of the fact that they had been consigned to him?
Mr. Fraser: The voucher states so:
Sir Charles Davidson: Your impression was that he had been the purchaser because the' voucher said he was the consignee?
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
What a severe cross-examination that was! How anxious this gentleman was to get the facts of the case ! How his soul must have gone out in mortal combat almost, in the effort to find out who bought these pistols, whether Allison had anything to do with it or not. Such was the man who investigated these charges for the Government. Further on Mr. Fraser said that the prices were all wrong, that he could buy pistols himself by ones and twos for $18.50, and that the trade in Ottawa could buy them for that price with the trade discount off. And yet the Minister of Militia said that , Mr. Cochrane complimented him on having saved the country so much money by paying only $18.50 for these pistols.
They called one T. M. Birkett, a gentleman well-known to my hon. friends opposite-certainly not a very bad Grit, anyhow. Mr. Birkett was put on the stand, and here is his examination, at page 28 of the evidence:
Q. Are you an importer of firearms? A. Yes Q. Have you imported, within the last two years any Colt's revolvers or Colt's automatic pistols? A. Yes.
Q. What was the price paid by your company for Coit's automatic pistols?
Sir Charles Davidson: Give the dates.
He did not want the prices before the war; he wanted them as high as possible.
A. We imported Colt automatics on September 25th, 1914, and on March 4th, 1915.
Q. How many did you import on the 25th of September, 1914? A. We only imported two we are small dealers in those.
Q. What did you pay for them? A. We paid $18.50, less twelve and-a half, less five, and less two.
Q. Making the ne.t price per pistol how much? A. $15.06 f.o.b., Hartford, Conn.
Sir Charles Davidson: I would like to know the kind and quality, if there is any distinctive mark.
The witness: .45 calibre Government model, automatic pistol.
By Mr. Thompson, ICC.:
Q. How many of those did you import on March 4 th, 1915? A. Two.
Q. What were they? A. Two .45 calibre automatic pistols. Government model.
Q. What was the price? A. $18.50 each, less twelve and a half, less five, less two.
Sir Charles Davidson: You purchased them at the same price as you purchased the others? The witness: Precisely.

Then they called another witness, George Easdale, Manager of the Ketchum Sporting Goods Company, of Ottawa. Mr. Easdale's examination was as follows:
Q. Have you imported Colt's revolvers *455 calibre? A. Yes.
Q. Have you any invoices for them? A. I have not imported any Colt's *455 service since before the fire, and the invoices were destroyed by fire in our establishment, but I have here a list of the wholesale prices. Our invoices up to last December were all destroyed in the fire.
Q. How many automatic pistols did you import on March 6th, 1915? A. One.
Q. That was a .45 calibre, Government model, Colt pistol? A. Yes.
Q. What did you pay for it? A. I paid $18.50, less twelve and a half per cent, and two per cent.
There is something left out there, as the next question makes plain:
Q. That is the same as Birkett's price? A. Yes, I think so.
So evidently the five per cent, discount was left out.
Q. Let us take another one, November 8th, 1915, how many did you import then? A. We imported two *45 automatic pistols, Government model, price $18.50, less twelve and a half per cent and two per cent.
Q. Is that a Colt pistol? A. Yes.
Q. That was the same price as .the other you imported? A. Yes.
Q. Were your other importations at the same price and with the same discount? A. Yes, I might mention, of course, that although we only import one or two at the time, we are on the wholesale list, and I get the same price as the wholesalers do.
How many did you import-same price as wholesalers do?
They next called Mr. H. W. Brown, a gentleman well-known to members of the Public Accounts Committee, purchasing agent of the Department of Militia and Defence. He was put under quite a crossexamination, and here is the. report of part of it:
Let me ask you, initially, are you aware of the correspondence between the Auditor General and the Militia Department?
The witness: I know there has been correspondence, but I have not seen it lately, and I do not remember it, I have seen it but I do not remember what it was.
S r Charles Davidson: Then you had better look at the correspondence.
The witness looked at the correspondence filed by the Auditor General.
The Witness. Yes, Sir, I have seen these letters.
B'- Mr. Thompson, K.C.:
Q. Would you produce from your file the document showing how this contract for Colt's automatic pistols and revolvers was given?- A. So far as I know, there were no orders given for revolvers. The only orders I know of, I am speaking from memory, were orders for automatic pistols.
Sir Charles Davidson: The revolvers were only a small matter compared with the other. 18
I think there were just twenty of them purchased, and you will recollect, Mr. Thompson, that it was said that these were handed over to the Sifton battery.
By Mr. Thompson, K.C.:
Q. What orders were given for automatic pistols?-A The first order is one for 1,000 automatic pistols given on the 5th September to Colonel J. W. Allison, by authority of an Order in Council of that date. I have the Order in Council here before me.
Sir Charles Davidson: You might read that.


Mr. MURPHY:: That is the man who had nothing to do with it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not a thing.
"The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 5th September, 1914, from the Minister of Militia and Defence, recommending that he be given authority to purchase for the Canadian military forces 1,000 automatic pistols, 45 calibre, at a price not exceeding $18.50 each; and 10,000 rounds of ammunition therefor, 'at a price not exceeding $40.00 per 1,000 rounds.
" The Committee advise that the requisite authority be granted accordingly.
" Rodolphe , Boudreau,
" Clerk of the Privy Council.
" The Honourable the Minister of Militia and Defence."
In accordance with that Order in Council, and in accordance with verbal instructions which I got from the Deputy Minister of Militia, I wrote Colonel J. Wesley Allison, Morrisburg, Ontario, the same day, namely, the 5th of September, as follows:
" Ottawa, Sept. 5th, 1914.
" Sir,-	'
" I am directed to request you to be good enough to procure and supply to this department, at as early a date as possible, 1,000 automatic pistols, 45 calibre, at a price not exceeding $18.50 each; and 10,000 rounds of ammunition therefor, at a price not exceeding $40.00 per 1,000 rounds; subject to any instructions, verbal or others, which you may have already received^ Shipping instructions will be furnished later on. The invoice, in triplicate, should be sent to the undersigned.
" I have the honour to be,
" Sir,
" Your obedient servant,
" H. W. Brown,
" Director of Contracts. " Colonel J. Wesley Allison,
" Morrisburg, Ont."
Mr. Speaker, can any man imagine, in the first place, that evidence like that could be given before a public investigation in Canada? But, such evidence having been given, can you imagine this high commissioner, clothed with his great powers, never having brought to the witness stand Sir Sam Hughes, never having brought back Mr. J. Wesley Allison, doing nothing whatever to investigate this matter further, but closing the books so far as it was concerned? And I suppose he will come back and report to



this House that everything is lovely, and that there is no trouble in the country over the purchase of automatic pistols. It is true, they brought Mr. Brown back and hectored him for a day. He read order in council after order in council, and letter after letter, the only effect of which was to prove the case more completely and make it worse. They proved at least two orders in council to buy these from the Colt people themselves, and one order in council absolutely wide open.
Now, is there any man on the other side of this House so absolutely innocent that he believes that order in council having been put through by this Government directing the Director of Contracts to purchase these pistols from Mr. J. Wesley Allison at a price not exceeding $18.50


John Dowsley Reid: There was no order in council of that kind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, but the order in council was to purchase them, and a letter followed, authorized by the deputy minister, on the strength of that order in council-


John Dowsley Reid: That is the way to put it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to put it quite fairly. Is there a man in this House or out of it, so innocent that'he believes that the minister was innocent in that transaction? When Mr. J. Wesley Allison was told to buy these automatic pistols at a price not exceeding $18.50, do you suppose he was going to buy them at less? And is there any man so innocent as to believe that when the Colt Arms Company will sell two pistols to Birkett and two to Ketehum for $18.50, less discounts amounting to three or four dollars-their ordinary trade discount-that these men are going to get the whole $18.50 from the Government? I put it to the Minister of Customs.


John Dowsley Reid: Birketts are wholesale dealers, and get the trade discounts.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then, why on earth
did not they get some wholesale dealer to buy them? Why did not they get the Minister of Railways to buy them? He is a Wholesale dealer. He could have bought them for $18.50, less the trade discount, middleman, middleman, middleman-everywhere you go it is the middleman. Why could he not go to some one here in Ottawa? Why oouldi he not go to Birkett's? If there was any commission to be made, why not give it to them? They are in the business. Why not go to Ketohum's; why

n t to hundreds and thousands of people in Canada who are in the business and get the trade discounts? The hon. Minister of Customs tries to explain these things away, but there they are; I put them before him and before the Government. Do my hon. friends opposite want this country to go through another farce? Do they want to hand over the inquiry into a matter involving hundreds of millions of dollars, under the conditions that I have described this afternoon, to such an organization as that to which I have referred? Are they sincere in that? I cannot believe it. These things must be investigated in the broad light of day; they must be investigated by this Parliament, and I tell my hon. friends right here and now that the people will stand for nothing less than that. Hon. gentlemen might as well face the situation now as at any other time.
I realize the extreme gravity of the charges that I have made this afternoon and evening. I make them with full realization of my responsibility as a member of Parliament. I have been a member of the House now since 1904; I have been a barrister in the province of New Brunswick for nearly a quarter of a century; I have made my living during that time by practising my profession in the courts, and I think I know something about the rights, duties and privileges of a barrister. I think I know, too, what is required by the ordinary common decency of this country when a man stands up in his place in Parliament or in any public place and makes statements of the kind wmch I have placed before you this afternoon and evening. Sir, I do not believe that the Government -I do not want to believe that the Government-are going to allow this session of Parliament to pass without giving us a chance to investigate these matters to the very bottom. If there ;s anything in which I am wrong, set me right; if there is anything which have not made strong enough give me an opportunity and I will supplement it with the real facts of the case. I have pointed out the condition of affairs in Canada; I have pointed out the manner in which the shell contracts have been let and the manner in which the hay transactions have been bungled in my province. I want my people to know that, by the manner in which this thing has been, not bungled, but botched in the interests of Tory friends in New Brunswick- my constituents are compelled to take $13 a ton for their hay, whereas the people in the province of Quebec, where the Govern-

ment are buying the hay and pressing it themselves, are getting $17. In the daily papers to-day you will find No. 2 hay quoted at $20.50 in Montreal. Take away $1.25 for pressing and $1.75 for freight, and you get back to $17. In Quebec the farmer is getting $17, whereas my constituents are getting $13, or $13.50 at the very outside. In Nova Scotia-I am not going into that, but I am told that the Government are pressing there, and the contractors are not making the horrible rake-offs that they are making in my province. Perhaps I am taking a more serious view of the condition of affairs in Canada than I should. I confessed to you this afternoon that I took a somewhat pessimistic view of it; I repeat that now. The Government say that they are going to increase our army to half a million men. We have now little over 200,000; I tell you that they have a gigantic task on their hands to raise the other 300,000 men. I have no doubt they will find enough Conservatives to fill up the offices, but I am afraid they will have some difficulty in getting enough Liberals between the ages of eighteen and forty-five to fill the ranks.
Some 'hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Liberals are allowed to fill up the ranks, but that is as far as they are allowed to go in the defence of the Empire.


Mr. SMYTH:: That is not correct.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is it not? I will discuss that with my hon. friend the Minister of Militia; I am not going to discuss it with any back-bencher. I will have an opportunity of coming face to face with the Minister of Militia to discuss this matter, and I will prove my statements.


Mr.   SYMTH@: That is absolutely false.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: You are paid to tell
that.


William Ross Smyth: That is absolutely false, too.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is my duty to say
that the expression which the hon. gentleman has just made use of, that " it is absolutely false," is unparliamentary and offensive, and I should like the hon. gentleman to withdraw it.


William Ross Smyth: Of course, I bow to your ruling, but I say it is absolutely false, because the colonel of my regiment is a Liberal.
18J


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Some hon. MEMBERS,: Take it back.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Let it go, Mr. Speaker; it is another case of a man who forgets to be a gentleman.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, immediately after you called him to order, repeated the very offensive words which he had used. The other day, of your own motion, you required me-and very properly so-to withdraw an expression which I had made use of with regard to the Solicitor General. There should be one rule in this House, for members on one side as well as for members on the other.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I certainly always do my best to have but one rule in this House for members on both sides of the- House. As soon as I heard the hon. member say that the statement was false, I rose and called him to order, and asked him to withdraw it. The hon. gentleman said that he was ready to submit to my ruling; the hon. member for St. John says that he repeated the expression.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Immediately repeated it.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I understood that the hon. gentleman had withdrawn the remark; I did not catch the other words. If the hon. gentleman repeated it, I must fulfil my duty and ask him to withdraw it.


William Ross Smyth: Of course, I bow to your ruling, but will you allow me to explain? The hon. gentleman just said


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I object, Mr. Speaker, to any explanations; the hon. gentleman withdraws it, and that is the end of it.


William Ross Smyth: He made a mis-statement.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I object to any explanations on the part of the hon. gentleman.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I hope the incident is closed; I understand that the hon. member has withdrawn the remark.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Speaker, after this little breeze, I shall spend a few moments in trying to collect my scattered thoughts. I have tried to draw the attention of the country to the very serious conditions which have prevailed. I have tried to point out that the Government will have some difficulty in getting 300,000 men. But, Sir; it is the duty of this Government to get them, if that number of men is necessary in order to assist

in bringing this war to a successful conclusion. I am not advocating conscription-I do not like that term; I am not going to advocate force of any kind; but there are hundreds of means by which this Government can get men, if they would adopt different methods from those to which they are adhering at the present time. What do you think must be the view of the ordinary man of this country when he reads of the horrible pilfering of public trust funds which has been the subject of newspaper articles during the last two or three months? What will be the opinion of the man who has a family to support and who feels that if he goes away his wife and family may become a public charge? What will be the thoughts of the man who, perhaps, has scarcely enough money to keep body and soul together, when he looks around him and sees the political henchmen of my right hon. friend the leader of the Government profiting, not by the thousands of dollars, but by the tens and hundreds of thousands? I tell you, Sir, they must adopt a new principle, and turn over a new leaf, if they are going to get men. I tell them that if they will go at this thing honestly, uprightly, decently, patriotically, they can get the men; but they cannot do it by conducting affairs as they have been conducting them in the past. I asked the Government this afternoon if it was true that Mr. Lloyd George had sent a message over here that he did not want to have these matters investigated. I was not able to get an answer and I do not believe it is true. But if it be true, if Mr. Lloyd George does not want us to investigate his end of the transaction, I want our end of it investigated. If this Government has been misappropriating millions of our money- and the Minister of Finance says we are paying our proportionate share of these expenditures-we want our end of it investigated. I quite understand the position in which the British Government finds itself to-day. It is up against the most horrible proposition any government has had to face in the last one hundred years. The British Government wants every man, and every dollar, and every round of ammunition, and every ounce of influence of any kind that it can command, in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion. It is compelled by force of circumstances to deal with the men who occupy the Treasury benches in Canada to-day. It cannot come over here and quarrel with these men and tell them publicly the things that I am telling them to-night. It would not be politic. The British 
Government is bound to look to these men so long as they remain in office, in order to have them help them out of its troubles. But, if everything was all right, why did the British Government find it necessary to send a representative over here in the person of Mr. D. A. Thomas? And if things were all right after Mr. Thomas came here and investigated, why was it necessary to dismiss in ignominy the old Shell Commission, reorganize it, and form a new one? These are the questions I want the Government to answer. If things are all right why do these things happen? Why does Toronto Saturday Night announce:	No new orders
for Canada, while Russia tries to place $150,000,000 contract in the United States? Why do manufacturers all around the city the last day or two tell you that there are to be no more war orders for Canada? Why is it published in the public press? I think it is the duty of the Government to tell us at once whether it is true that no more orders for munitions are coming to Canada. If it be true it is a misfortune for Canada because it is, no doubt, of enormous advantage to us that our labourers be kept busy, that our factories be kept humming and our industrial life be kept in as high a state of efficiency as possible. It is of infinitely greater importance to this country to know whether the Government of Canada has so mismanaged, yes, so grossly mismanaged the affairs that the British Government has entrusted to its sacred charge, that the British Government absolutely refuses to come over here and do any more business with our Government? That is the lamentable part of it, the part of it to which I wish to direct the attention of members of the Government and their supporters. I repeat that it is the duty of the Government, and I hope they will not allow the sun to go down again, before they state to the House what the facts are in connection with this lamentable condition of affairs which exists in Canada to-day. How can these men expect recruits to pour in when they see this horrible condition of affairs existing? How can they expect recruits when they know that this petty political patronage is going on in every hamlet in Canada? A Liberal cannot get a chance to sell a pound of tea to the soldiers.


Mr. WILCOX:: Rot.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is not rot; it is a fact. It is known to every one of you. There is not a man sitting over there who is not guilty clear to the ground.

27T


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Order. The hon. gentleman knows himself, I think, that the expression which he has just directed to the members of this House of knowing that they are guilty, is offensive and unparliamentary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Perhaps I might be allowed to qualify the word "guilty" by saying " guilty of looking after party patronage."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Wihat do I understand the hon. member to say?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I say: guilty of looking after party patronage. That is the sense in which I used the word. I try to measure my words and to use proper * language. When you consider this state of affairs, when you consider that people all over the country are making sacrifices in order to work out this great problem which we have staring us in the face; when you consider the fact that public bodies, municipal corporations, have been granting money by the thousands and tens of thousands to supplement our patriotic fund; when you consider the great campaign going on in Montreal and Toronto to-day to raise millions for the patriotic fund; when you consider that in every hamlet in this country the women are organized in Red Cross societies and patriotic societies; when they are saving their quarters and sometimes their dimes in order to add to the amount of money available for these objects of mercy; when you realize that even the school children are holding concerts and saving the pennies and dimes for the same purpose; when you consider that the women of this country, the mothers, sisters and wives, are knitting and praying and praying and knitting, from end to end of Canada, for the safety and comfort of their dear ones at the front; when you realize the terrible sacrifices that the poor people of this country are making; when you realize the awful responsibility resting on every public man, yes, on every private citizen in Canada, to do his bit, and to do it in the most manly and upright manner, in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion; and then place against that the condition of affairs I have been describing here this evening; how can you go out and ask people to recruit, to take the chance of giving up their lives, to put their loved ones in the charge of charitable institutions in order that they may go to fight for their country?
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for the very patient attention which you have given to me. It has not been a pleasant duty, I can assure you, to lay before you these facts which I have been compelled to state this afternoon. But I have performed the duty to the very best of my ability. I have placed before this country the facts as I see them, as I know them; and I can only say, in conclusion, that if the Government will give us a committee of this House, I will guarantee to prove every word I have stated, and I will supplement it by very much which I have not stated.


Mr. S. FRANCIS GLASS (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, the congratulations
that have been extended to you by eminent leaders and other members of this House of high .standing in public life and in the country hut emphasize the honour conferred upon you. In my humble sphere as one of the rank and file among those who have the honour of representation here, I desire to join in the congratulations and endorse the kindly sentiments that have *been extended to you. The position of Speaker is not only an honourable one, but an historic one. I understand that in England it dates back to the year 1382. While it carries with it the highest honour within the gift of Parliament, it likewise symbolizes confidence and trust in the occupant. But great as are the responsibilities involved and onerous the duties, I venture to say they will be discharged by you efficiently, and with that fairness, dignity, and impartiality which for nearly the last half century have characterized those eminent men who have been elected to fill that honourable post. I will go further and congratulate the House on the choice it has made.
The unusual conditions which we are called upon to meet remind us of the weighty problems with which this country is confronted at the present time. It seems, therefore, peculiarly fitting that in the sentiments expressed by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and by the right hon. the Prime Minister and by other members Who have already addressed this House, there should be a preponderance of opinion and sentiment favourable to a unity of purpose and co-operation in the tesk that lies before us which on ordinary occasions might not be expected. Let me read the words used

toy my right lion, friend the leader of the Opposition in his address a few days ago. He said:
When the war broke out, both parties in this House agreed that it was the duty of the Canadian people to participate in the war to the fulness of our resources.
Further on in his address the right hon. gentleman said:
We on this side of the House, His Majesty's loyal Opposition, feel that we should declare that we are perhaps more than ever before imbued with the responsibility which appertains to an opposition, and especially in time of war. It will be our duty to criticise: to criticise fairly under all circumstances, and to criticise forcibly perhaps, but always to criticise wherever there is cause for criticism. It will also be our duty, and a far more pleasant duty tt is, to support whatever there is just cause to support. We come to this House with this one aim only: to contribute as far as may be in our power to the final and complete victory of the Allies over Germany.
If the right hon. gentleman speaks, as he should, for those whom he leads, it seems to me that some of his followers have not hewn closely to the high and lofty spirit of patriotism which was so much in evidence throughout the address of their right hon. leader.
I have listened patiently, and with a great deal of interest, to my hon. friend who has just preceded me (Mr. Carvell). I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I had hoped to have four or five hours of this sitting within which to address the few observations I might have to make to this House, but from the very extended remarks he has made, and at this late hour, I am afraid I will have to considerably curtail them. It is said that one in public life must be over-praised by his friends to compensate for the harsh criticism that he sometimes receives from his enemies. If the tone of this debate continues on the lines which have been followed by some members of the Opposition,
I am afraid, Sir, that we will have to extend to our friends on this side of the House who have been so harshly criticised a degree of praise that will overtax the thermometer to which my friend the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Wilcox) referred. The people of this country are awakened to a sense of the mighty problems involved in the prosecution of this war. I say that no matter by what standard we measure it, this war is without precedent or parallel. If we measure it by the destructiveness of the weapons employed, nothing so horrible has ever been known. Inventive genius has been exhausted to find new ways by which 
man can kill his fellow man. The trade of the whole world has been deranged. Transportation has been crippled, especially so by the withdrawal of shipping from the customary channels to provide for the more urgent needs of war. Not only the lack of ships, but the increased risks of the sea have resulted in higher carrying charges. As a result, it is said that it costs three times as much to transport a bushel of wheat at the present time as it did in times of peace.
And why all this struggle; why this destruction of life and of property? There is a cause to be found in that false philosophy, that false doctrine, that might makes right. McCutcheon has, in a recent cartoon, illustrated two characters, one representing War, and the other Anarchy, curious, hideous looking monsters, and across the breast of War was written the words, "Might is right," while across that of Anarchy was written, "dynamite is right." It seems to me to be difficult to draw a distinction between these two doctrines. If we support the doctrine that might is right, we must be prepared to repudiate all the moral code upon which we relied fox the protection of individual right, and for the guarantee of private property. There is one lesson, and that is, that nations which aspire to mere physical supremacy can have no hope of immortality. The fact that they put their faith in force is proof positive that they have only the seeds of death. The pathway of human progress, from ancient times down, has been strewn with the wrecks of empires which at the zenith of their power thought themselves invincible. We realize that Germany is the most resolute, the most cunning, implacable, unscrupulous foe ever arrayed against our country. We are fighting against a military organization which for forty years has been preparing for this struggle. Last May they were making shells at the rate of over 250,000 a day, while the Motherland was producing 2.500 high explosive shells and 13,000 shrapnel. The result of these superhuman efforts of Germany were seen in the tremendous turnover in Russia. Through a tornado of shells Galicia was won back, and the Austrian morale was restored, Poland came under the invader's foot, and a large part of the Balkan provinces have been overrun. The whole explanation of the astonishing success of the enemy, except in the case of Serbia, was that the Germans had enor-

mous .supplies of ammunition, whilst, compared with them, we bad none; we were short of guns, especially of machine guns. However, this preponderating advantage has to a very large extent been overcome.
That brings me to the point in the discussion which has taken up a large part of the time of my hon. friend from. Car-leton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), the munition question, which I think, has taken up the greater part of the debate since its commencement. I do not know that I can add anything new, but I do not think that the remarks of my hon. friend from Carleton will tend to stimulate and influence and increase production amongst the manufacturers of this country. From a patriotic point of view, from a sense of giving stimulus' to industry in this country, I am afraid that the remarks he has made this afternoon, if they are .spread throughout the country, as no doubt they will be, will rather tend to discourage the development of our industries along these lines. I noted that my hon. friend said, with a great deal of force and vigour, that he was prepared to prove every statement that he had made.
My hon. friend throughout his remarks gave a great deal of attention to that species of industries which he called mushroom industries, and in connection with these mushroom industries, he presumed to refer to an industry in the city of London. I would like to ask my hon. friend what is the definition of a mushroom industry. I do not know what his remark means as applied to those institutions which have carried out their contracts and have delivered the goods to the War Department. My hon. friend referred to an institution in St. Catharines, which, he said, had received a large order for shrapnel shells. Could my hon. friend tell me just how many shells were given to this company in St. Catharines to which he refers?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My notes have gone to Hansard, but when I get them back I will be only too glad to.


Samuel Francis Glass: My hon. friend has no doubt that there was an order for shrapnel shells given to this firm to which he refers?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot carry all these things in my head. But if I made the statement this afternoon I stand behind it.


Samuel Francis Glass: My information is that the Metal Drawing Company of St. Catharines,
incorporated with a capital of 850,000, took over the plant of the Reo Motor Company to which he referred.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I made that statement.


Samuel Francis Glass: We are then referring to the same company?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Samuel Francis Glass: An order was given for brass cartridge cases, not shells, and not shrapnel-brass cartridge cases were never before made in Canada, and, as far as I know, not made by any other plant now. I willl not say that they are not made now, because I do not know.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not made at that time.


Samuel Francis Glass: Not at that time, anyway. This company use presses, not lathes, for their work, and they added to their plant presses costing $200,000 to carry on the manufacture of these cartridge cases. Some one had to go into this business if Canada was to make fixed ammunition. Even if an order for shrapnel had been given to them I would be unable to appreciate the force of the argument that my hon. friend put up this afternoon. I would be rather pleased to know that these orders had been so widely distributed all over the country because the fundamental need of
10 p.m. the industries of this country was to distribute these orders so that labour might be employed as far as practicable. That was the object of the Government.
My hon. friend has taken a good deal of time to discuss the question of prices, which has been discussed amply and fully by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me.
I note that the hon. gentleman this afternoon read out of the Liberal party the Free Press of Ottawa. I fancy that the Free Press will survive. I do not even know now whether the hon. gentleman altogether represents the views of the Liberals in this House, or of the members of the Liberal party, but I do know that this paper has been recognized as a Liberal organ in this city, and my hon. friend knows that during the time the Liberal party controlled the Government that paper received its share of the Government patronage. Therefore it was rightly considered as a Liberal paper.
Just here I want to refer to the fact that my hon. friend was very much incensed because he was interrupted on one or two occasions this afternoon. My attention has

been drawn to the fact that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) was interrupted no less than sixty-three times during his address to the House yesterday and several times by the hon. gentleman who objected to-day.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I should call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that he is very much in error. I have no recollection of raising any objection. I tried to answer questions put to me, and I thought [DOT]that I did so with some degree of success. I did not know that I had objected seriously at all.


Samuel Francis Glass: I forget the incidents in connection with these interruptions, but if I have wrongfully interpreted the hon. gentleman's attitude I regret it and take it back.


William Cameron Edwards: There is no misinterpretation at all. I asked the hon. gentleman to explain in regard to the St. Catharines business, and he could not answer the question and consequently objected.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Speaker, I make
no comment.


Samuel Francis Glass: In the House yesterday
the hon. member for Carleton asked for some information in regard to the shell question, and the Free Press had some observations concerning it. It says:
In the House of Commons yesterday Mr. Carvell asked the Minister of Marine why he did not read a complete list of the companies who had received contracts from the Bertram Shell Committee.
"Go to the Shell Committee and get them," was Mr. Hazen's suggestion.
"Nice chance we would have of getting them," commented Mr. E. M. Macdonald.
"While the minister is in the giving mood," observed Mr. Carvell, "I would ask him to get the dates of the contracts, the quality of the munitions to be supplied, and the price to be paid as well."
Would it be believed that all this information, in just as complete and detailed a form as Mr. Carvell suggests, was actually supplied to the Liberal Opposition last July? Messrs. Carvell, Macdonald and Pugsley seem to be slashing around in the dark when men sitting alongside of them are in possession of documents which, though confidential, would at least enlighten them if they seek only for facts. These gentlemen pretend to laugh when The Free Press opinion of this shell business is quoted; but their laughter is as nothing to the amusement The Free Press derives from such dialogue as the one quoted above.
To sane men it is unnecessary to argue that the Bertram Shell Committee could not reveal all its operations in the newspapers. But knowing as we do that the Bertram Shell Committee did take the Liberal Opposition into its confidence privately, in regard to alt the contracts placed in the period under criticism, how

can we interpret otherwise than as petty partisanship the efforts in some quarters to create the impression in the public mind that there has been a refusal to "lift the veil"?
And The Free Press months ago set its face against petty partisanship for the duration of the war.
The Free Press has referred to these charges and to the Shell Committee scandals, as they may be called, and, in the edition of the 21st January, it published again the statement made by General Bertram. I think it is regrettable that Sir Alexander Bertram, who has sacrificed so much, who has so worthily discharged liis duties, and who has been honoured by his King only recently in recognition of his services, should be made the subject of reflections of this kind, and that these criticisms should be spread broadcast throughout the country. General Bertram is a gentleman who is held in the highest esteem by all who know him, and his honour cannot be questioned. General Bertram, in a statement issued on December 27 last, said:
I
At the outset, I wish it to be understood that I am not a politician seeking honours or graft. I have been trying to do a job faithfully and honestly, and to do something which will be a credit to the country. Evidently what little I have done has not pleased some-the Daily Mail, of Montreal, and others.
There is absolutely no truth in the report of my resignation, said Gen. Bertram. I have not resigned and don't intend to. I have been working night and day for fourteen months, and it has undermined my health. Mr. Fla-velle urged me to take a holiday. I expect to be away a month or six weeks.
Now I suppose it is proper, since I am going away, to make some answer to my critics. I want to clear the air. I have seldom sought to be interviewed, but feel now that it is necessary.
I was asjced to undertake a contract by the British War Office, and I have here the contracts showing that these were allotted through myself to manufacturers at prices fixed in all but one instance by the British War Office. That single instance I refer to was a contract for 100,000 shells at a price fixed by myself.
I had nothing to go by, or any records to assist me. In comparison, I can show that the prices for similar work on a contract let through J. P. Morgan & Co., New York, were $1.45 per shell higher. I was guided by American prices, and it was due to the ability of our manufacturers and mechanics that Canada was able to produce these shells much cheaper and quicker than elsewhere.
My hon. friend knows very well that in the early days of the war it was difficult to get manufacturers to take the responsibility of putting in equipment for manufacturing shells. In my own city of London the firm of E. Leonard Sons & Company, of which Mr. Frank Leonard is the head- he has two sons rendering distinguished

service at the front to-day-were offered orders for manufacturing shells, but at the start they did not feel that they had the machinery and equipment adapted for it, and at the prices offered and under the conditions at that time they did not feel disposed to accept the order. It was not until shells had been manufactured in this country for some time that Mr. Leonard, stirred no doubt by the splendid valour of his sons at the front and imbued with their loyalty and patriotism, made up his mind to go into the shell business. When the earnest appeal for shells came he accepted orders under the regular terms and conditions. My hon. friend seems to make a great deal of the fact that repeat orders were given for a lesser price than the original orders, that the price kept getting lower with successive orders until it has got down possibly to rock bottom. I do not think there is anything mysterious about that. I do not think my hon. friend is dull of comprehension at all. He told us this afternoon that he was both a lawyer and a farmer. Well, even a lawyer or a farmer can readily appreciate that experience and increased orders must regulate to some extent the cost of production. .Speaking of lawyers reminds me of a,little skit I saw in the Globe recently. A young fellow from the country went to town to study law, but after three days he came back home again. His father said: " Well, son, didn't you like it?" " No," said the boy, " I am sorry I ever learned it." My hon. friend has objected that shell orders have been given to certain firms, and he asks what connection railway companies have with making shells. I believe that one of the criticisms my hon. friend made later on in his speech was that the Government had not used the Transcona shops for manufacturing shells. In this crisis, so long as the goods are delivered, it makes no difference who makes the shells. The shells are what the people want and that ' is what the Government try to obtain.
I am not in a position to make any reply to my hon. friend's remarks about the hay scandal in his province, but I have no doubt the Minister of Agriculture will reply to him to the full satisfaction of this House. If I had any observation to make on that head, I would say that the farmers in his part of the country seem to be a good deal easier and softer than the farmers in my part would be. I submit that we should take a great deal of what my hon. friend has said this afternoon with a degree of
reserve, for I remember former occasions on which his judgment did not seem mature and reasonable. I wish to refer for a moment or two to some of the criticisms made by my hon. friend of the Militia Department's Estimates when they were up in the House in the year 1914. At that time my hon. friend said:
The principal cause of the trouble with the minister (referring to the Minister of Militia) and his top-heavy Militia is the report of a General named French, who came to this country some years ago, and in my judgment his visit was one of the greatest misfortunes that has befallen Canada.	.
Further on he says:
I told the late Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) publicly and privately, that in adopting the ridiculous and unreasonable report of this gentleman he had committed a great mistake. It might be all right if General French were reporting on the conditions in Bulgaria, or Russia, or Germany, or even Italy, but when it comes to a country like Canada where there is no possibility of trouble his ideas are ridiculous. There is no more possibility of war breaking out between Canada and any country in the world than there is of the Minister of Militia and myself committing suicide between now and to-morrow morning. There might of course be a possibility of the Bmpire being at war and we might find it our duty to volunteer.
Further on he says:
We do not want this top-heavy militia force. Mr. CARVELL: I would ask whether my hon. friend knows that the Conservative party have canned and discarded within the last three weeks some tons of literature which they had had prepared on the French incident?


Samuel Francis Glass: My hon. friend knows more about the Tory literature than I do.


Robert Rogers: I should know something about this. If any such thing had happened I should certainly have some knowledge of it, but I can assure my hon. friend that his statement is absolutely incorrect.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In view of what is taking place in Europe.


Samuel Francis Glass: The difficulty in arguing with my hon. friend is that he seems to believe in i.t. When a man really believes in such a policy as that, it is arguing with a crazy man, because there is no good in arguing with him. Does the minister believe that the Canadian Militia works for the benefit of any man in Canada, morally, religiously or in any other way in the world? He does not have, enough of it to improve him physically. When I was in Germany, I admit, I could see the result of military training there. You could see it as the men walked along the street. In Canada you do not get enough military training to be any benefit physically.

All you get in the militia of Canada is that you teach about twenty-flve per cent of the men in Canada how to get drunk. That is the size of
Further on the hon. gentleman said:
The trouble is my hon. friend is living in a fool's paradise over this. I believe he is sincere about it, and as I said before that is the difficulty. I am sincere when I say that I believe my hon. friend is sincere about it. He lives in this thing, he is dreaming over it, and he believes all of these fairy tales he is telling. I want to tell him they are only fairy tales and they do not exist.
This was six weeks before the declaration of war.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the hon. gentleman tell me how many of the first contingent had performed their annual drill during the three or four months prior to their going?


Samuel Francis Glass: I am not in a position to give my hon. friend that information, nor do I see what material bearing it has on the question. I am quoting these remarks of his to show that we have to take his words with reserve, because in the past we have not found them consistent nor altogether right. Eeferring to the engineering corps, the hon. gentleman said:
What is the good of an engineering corps unless you have highly trained technical officers? If you would take farmers or lumberjacks they would be some good because they know how to do a good many things.
If you can find two other sentences in Hansard, side by side, that are so inconsistent as these two, I should like to know where they are to be found. First, the hon. gentleman calls for trained technical officers, and then suggests that farmers or lumberjacks should be taken. I agree that the farmer is an intelligent man and understands a good many things, but I think the average man would question his adaptability as a technically-trained officer. The hon. gentleman proceeds:
The men there are dudes, lying around and drinking booze. They are good enough, decent fellows out of camp, but when they ge,t into camp it is simply drink booze from the day they come until they leave.
On the same day, the hon. gentleman made these observations, as recorded at page 4620 of Hansard. He was showing the minister how to be economical, how to spend money so that it would be good for the country.
If the minister would spend this money in something that was of real value to the people,
I would no.t mind so much, although I would not consent to spending $15,000,000 a year.
On rifle associations and bands-something of real value-he is only spending $80,000. If he 
would take half a million dollars of this money he is squandering and get some decent bands in the country he would be doing some good.
That is the hon. gentleman's idea of what was most essential at that time, before the war. He objected to the expenditure on clothing, munitions and arms, and all the accoutrements of the army. If the minister would discontinue his extravagance in building armouries, and training militia, and would buy half a million dollars' worth of bands-that is what the hon. gentleman thought the country most needed. He referred on this occasion to the fact that he had been in Germany, and had seen the result of military training there. He should have observed the meticulous preparations of the Germans, and, having had the benefit of such observations, one would naturally have looked for a broader vision and a keener perception of the future than that which fie displays.
But he is not alone in the views he expressed on that memorable day. The hon. member for Eouville (Mr. Lemieux) spoke on the same day and on the same question.
I refer to his speech at page 4591 of Hansard :
Canada is simply going military-mad under my hon. friend.
Referring, of course, to the Minister of Militia. He goes on:
This huge expenditure on militia is simply monstrous, and the people of this country will revolt at such useless extravagance.
Eeferring to the cadet movement in Quebec, he said1:
_ The cadet movement is not a new institution. ... My hon. friend has invented nothing and he will deceive no one. In our day the Minister of Mi itia did not try to impr ss upon the minds of the youth the foolish idea that war w. s 'mminent and that our country was to be a camp of warriors and of barbarians, as in the days of old.
And my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) at that time quoted a line from the pen of Eliza Cook, which, in view of subsequent events, seems to have been most appropriate:
Never trust the soft breathing that preaches of peace
With a pledge giving lip and a smile-lighted eye;
Hear it all with good will, but be provident still.
With men that are earnest and powder that's dry.
On the same occasion the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) gave expression to his sentiments in connection with the Address, at page 4580:

There is no danger in sight; why, then, raise the militia of this country to the enormous figure of between 75,000 and 80,000 men? There is no reason for it; there is no emergency in sight, and there will be none in our day and generation.
This was six weeks before the war. Further, the hon. gentleman said that on one occasion the Minister of Militia had said that he could turn out 750,000 men if the necessity arose, and then proceeded:
Well, he does not believe, X do not believe, and nobody believes, that the occasion for turning out such a large number of men will ever arise in our lifetime, or in the lifetime of the children who are to come after us.
That was the foresight that this hon. gentleman possessed at that time, in reference to the urgency of preparation.
I wish now to refer to some remarks that my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy) made the other day. The hon. member wished to make some capital-or I do not know what he was trying to get at-about the circumstances of the right hon. the Prime Minister of this country being called to the council of the Imperial Cabinet. And he went ahead to give statements made by Sir George Paish. I do not know that what Sir George Paish thinks or says has any more significance than what the press of England says. I believe that to a greater degree than any personal influence 'the press of the country directs public opinion. We remember that on the 1st of January the right hon. Prime Minister announced an increase of the forces of this country to half a million, and this is what the Post of January 4 said on that subject:
Canada had already authorized the raising of 250,000 men, so at the outbreak of war, Canada determined to contribute an army about the size of the existing British Army-and she has now doubled it. Together with Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, we are contributing men and treasure to the common cause of the Allies. Bach and all of the self-governing Dominions have won imperishable honour in the field. It is not too soon to understand what these things mean, for their significance is for the present, as well as for the future. What do the people of the Dominion mean by the word "Empire"? Even the most perfervid among those who opposed the Imperial idea before the war would hardly have affirmed that the Dominions considered it to mean a military autocracy. The Dominions are self-governing communities exercising in practice a perfect autonomy of government. Their local patriotism is intense, yet they somehow succeed in disproving the theory that local patriotism and a sentiment for something wider cannot exist together. Before the war there were many excellent people who were quite unable to perceive why the existing condition of affairs was not in itself sufficient.
The war has at least demonstrated the fact that the body of civilization and tradition and the material possessions of the Empire are liable to the most furious and determined attack, and it follows that as security can only be gained by unity, some closer form of unity is required. It also follows that as every state or assembly of states is exposed to the war of commerce in which the war of arms is often implicit, a security in this respect is also required, and it can only be attained by the same method of a common organization. In so far as this country is concerned, it has long been clear that, in default of some such coherent scheme of association with the overseas Dominions, she must decline from her place among the nations. The true conception of Imperial development has been defined by Lord Milner as " the permanent organic union of free commonwealths and states to maintain the greatest ideals common to them all." War was declared by this country without, so far as is known, consultation with the Dominions. Their entrance into the war was an act of free will; therefore the organic union has for the moment been actually achieved. That momentous fact does in itself alter at a stroke the whole situation. It is not England alone who is fighting on the side of the Allies, but the British Empire-a very different thing. Nor is it conceivable that in. the war the Empire should be acting as an organic whole, and that in peace it should resolve itself into separate parts, only connected each to the other by casual and indeterminate relations, subject to the whim of the colonial office. The old conditions cannot be resumed, because the people will not have them. That the present Government should have steadily declined to invite the premiers of the Dominions to their councils is greatly to be deplored. It is no longer a question of courtesy or of expediency; it is a question of right. The people are indifferent no longer. Men who have fought together side by side oease to regard one another as strangers. The nation will insist that no matter whatever else is done in the interval, the Dominions should have an equal voice in the framing of the terms of peace.
This is the view of the Post as to what effect the co-operation of the Dominion in the affairs of the Empire would have upon its future destinies and politics. It may be that considerable significance and honour was attached to the visit of the Prime Minister of this country to the councils of the Empire, and it is strange that there should be any objection to his not being prepared to make any complete statement as to what occurred at that time.
In the earlier part of my remarks, I referred to the loyal words of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition: " It will be our pleasant duty to support whatever it is just to support." As I listened to the remarks of my hon. friend this afternoon, I wondered, having in regard the statement of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, if the hon. gentleman really saw anything to support. It looks very much as if the idea of hon. gentlemen opposite as to their duties in this House is

that they should oppose and criticise everything. It looks as if they have made up their minds in advance that there is nothing good in the Government of this country. My hon. friend devoted a good deal of time to the subject of partisanship and patronage, and particularly to the partisanship exercised in the province which he represents, as well as in Nova Scotia. He was good enough, in the rambling remarks which he made, to take up the politics of even the distant province of British Columbia. The hon. gentleman says that he has been a member of this House since 1904. I should like to ask him if, during the time that he occupied a seat on the government side of the House, when the Government of which he was a member had the patronage, he on any single occasion, in connection with the Civil Service in his constituency, recommended a Conservative to office.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, many of them. And I may tell my hon. friend that when the Government went out of office, I had not a solitary constituent in the Civil Service at Ottawa', and I had but one on the Intercolonial railway.


Samuel Francis Glass: I am very glad that there is some good in my hon. friend after all. However, aside from that, I do not think my hon. friend expects that his personal Liberal friends in his constituency have the primary right to consideration in the matter of vacancies that may occur within his district. That is contrary to the accepted rule of party government, anyway, and contrary to the practice of his party when hon. gentlemen opposite wore in [DOT]power.
The address of the hon. member for .Richmond (Mr. G. W. Kyte) the other evening, until he reached the small and picayune politics to which I am going to refer, was full of interest and fair criticism. But I wonder if my hon. friend, when the pages of history are written, will recall with pride the fact that in this Parliament, at a time when 'his leader pledged his support to this Government, he discussed the matter as to whether a Conservative or a Liberal barber should have the right to shave a soldier in Ottawa, or as to whether a Liberal or a Conservative should do'the laundry work in the militia. In this time of mighty conflict, when all the physical, moral, and material forces at our -command should be co-ordinated and concentrated to tlhe purpose of prosecuting this war, remarks of this kind are scarcely in place,

and I hardly think that my hon. friend will have cause for 'congratulation when he comes to review the words of the speech which he made the other evening.
Very frequently the au^ude assumed by an opposition is that of pessimism. I have been looking for a definition of pessimism, and I find that the dictionary defines it as the doctrine that everything in nature is ordered for or tends to the worst, or that the whole world is essentially, evil.
Another definition is: The worst possible state or condition. At a time like this I do not feel that that should be the feeling permeating our people, even in the air of politics that surrounds this House, Robert Burns, away back over a hundred years ago, at a time wfyen the- Mother Country was at war and somewhat the same conditions seemed to prevail, made use of these words:
O let us not, like snarling curs.
In wrangling be aivided,
Be Britons true, be Britons still,
Amang oursels united.
I think and I hope that that is the attitude that the members of the House, on whichever side they may be, should adopt, that we should get away from this whining, captious criticism, and discuss the broader issues. I want to say right here, and I am now speaking for myself as a member of this House, so far as the criticism of the 'Shell 'Committee is concerned, that I know no reason why the fullest information should not be given to this House- I do not believe it is necessary to take up the time of this House in investigating a thing of this kind, which might be given over to a Commission. But I do not see why a Commission couid not be appointed that would give every possible chance to the Opposition to satisfy their interest in the matter. I give my own opinion of it, but I do say that public opinion has got t.o be respected; and if there is any matter of doubt, if there has been created even by the suggestions and criticisms of the Opposition, a doubt in the minds of the people of this country, I feel it is the duty of the Government and of this Parliament to satisfy the minds of the people. I take that attitude, so far as I am concerned, and express that view for myself. I have not discussed it with members on this side of the House and I do not know how they feel; but I believe that the great majority of the members of the House feel this way. But let me qualify that also. I do believe that our hon. friends do not criticise in that

kindly spirit and in that manner that can command the consideration that possibly they otherwise should be entitled to, and at the present time, when so much is at stake, I would ask my hon. friends:	Can
we not get this information, can we not criticise, without that apparent undercurrent of petty, picayune politics, which is so distasteful and which stirs up that feeling of resentment and enmity. I do not think that my hon. friend in his criticisms this afternoon has shown exactly that spirit of desire for information. I believe that questions are put on the records of this House, asking for returns and asking for information that could be obtained by any individual member, whether he be of the Government or of the Opposition, from the department concerned, without any hesitation, and without the necessity of occupying and wasting the time of this House. It looks to me as though a great deal of this information was attempted to be obtained in that way for the mere purpose of shall I say grand stand play? but certainly for some ulterior purpose.
I would naturally expect that under the extraordinary conditions and in view of the splendid condition of this, country financially, with the prosperity that seems to abound on all sides, that, so far as the Government can guide and direct these things, if our hon. friends were fair and wanted to follow out the lead set by their right hon. leader in the effort to carry out those ideals, they would have had some word of kindness and commendation to offer with reference to these conditions. Surely the Minister of Finance is deserving of praise for the way he has handled and guided the affairs of his department which has brought the highest encomiums from bankers' and from the biggest business men in the country. Hon. gentlemen have no adverse criticism of the policies pursued, except that old question of the tariff which will naturally come up from time to time. But, broadly speaking, the difficulties that they predicted a year ago and the pessimism that was so prevalent then, have not been justified by the result. Can they not see in the existing state of things something for which we should be thankful and not be altogether despondent in spirit and so be tempted to adversely criticise?
Naturally, at a time like this, there are considerations outside of the war which should and do demand the interest of this country, and for that reason I believe it is
all the more necessary that the members of this House should be united. When the wages earned, owing to the activity of industrial life, are almost unprecedented, as they are in this country to-day, some encouragement should be given to the labouring classes to save their surplus earnings.
In England this matter is .engaging the attention of the Government, and they have appointed a National War Savings Committee to look into it. The committee, I understand, have had many meetings and have considered some suggestions. Their inquiries are not yet completed. Arrangements are being made to take evidence from various represenative bodies, one of the first being the parliamentary committee of the Trades Union Congress. One of the suggestions there is to extend the facilities of the Post Office Savings Department, and to increase the rate of interest paid on deposits from two and a half per cent to four per cent. I do not know that, as a member of the House and supporting the Government, it is right for me to make an observation that I feel impelled to do, but I do think that at this time there are some changes that the Government might consider in view of the changed conditions in the country. I believe that the insurance companies of this country are collecting entirely more money in premiums than is necessary for the reserve they have to maintain. A three per cent reserve would appear ^ to be no longer necessary, in view of the present high earning power of money, and I think that, at this particular time, every effort should be put forward to encourage the labouring classes to conserve their resources and invest in life insurance.	_	.
The matter of vocational training is also of great importance, more so, possibly, than at any other time in our history.	_
The question whether Great Britain will adopt a protective tariff after the war is being discussed in England, and the idea finds favour among many newspapers which were formerly free traders. The Morning Post, for instance, strongly supports the protective idea as a means of carrying on the fight against Germany by economic pressure, and it urges certain steps to form a union with the colonies on this basis, and later to approach France, Russia, and Italy with a proposition for a zollverein. In view of this I believe that we should secure the most competent, the most able men of science available to advise and assist in developing the infinitely varied potential resources of our country.

I think, also, that after this war, with the increased number of immigrants who will come to Canada, the matter of rural credits, which has occupied so much attention in the United States Congress during the last year, and which will no doubt result in legislation during the present session of Congress, should receive some attention in this country. I am sure that the people of this country, and, I think, even the Opposition in this House, can find something in the conduct or management of the affairs of the country which commends itself to them. I read in an English paper also a report of the statement issued by Sir Robert Borden to the Canadian people on the first day of the year. I believe the sentiments he expressed in that announcement were full of patriotism, and would be endorsed by the people throughout the whole of this country. I desire to repeat these words announcing the authorization of an increase of the Canadian forces to 500,000.
In the dawn of another year our hearts are more resolute than ever to accomplish that task, however formidable it may prove. By the greatness of the need our future efforts must be measured. Nowhere is the Canadian spirit more firm and unwavering than among the men who hold the trenches, and those who will shortly stand by their side. Nowhere is it more undaunted than in the hospitals and convalescent homes. Already wo have learned the full measure of sacrifice. To all Canadian homes that have been saddened, to all Canadian hearts that have been stricken by the tragedy of this war, we pray Divine blessing may bring consolation and healing. Much has had to be learned during the past fifteen months, because we were not prepared for this war. The strongest assurance of ultimate victory lies in the fact that we have not been crushed in learning that hard lesson. Those who forced this war upon us may be assured by the tradition of our past that the lesson will be thoroughly learned, to the.end that there shall be an enduring peace. The very character and greatness of the ideals for which we are fighting forbid us to pause until their triumph is fully assured. The Canadian forces at the front have fought a good fight, and have crowned the name of Canada with undying laurels. To them and all of our overseas forces now under arms awaiting to do their part, we bid God-speed, in the sure faith they will never fail in duty.
. Morning Post of London, England, speaking of this action, says: Canada has now announced, has decided to raise its armies to half a million men. Do not let us lag behind our own children in duty to the Empire, but rather let us lead them by example-and we ought also to consult them both as to the conduct of the war and the terms of settlement. It becomes more and more evident as the great struggle proceeds, that if we are to hold our own in the world we must take our children into partnership. Alone, events may prove too much for us, but if a united Empire acts together upon a common policy, it may face anything the future has in store.

Now, Sir, in face of all that has happened, in view of the conditions that exist, is it not our duty to look forward with cheer and hope to the prospects of another year? Canada's outlook, to some extent, must be based on the experience of the last eighteen months; no idea based on the experience of peace years can be of moment in discussing the possible results of the year 1916. We assume that the war will continue throughout this year, and though the position of the Allies at the present time lends much encouragement, it seems evident that we are yet a long way from the end of the struggle. On that assumption, we may reasonably look forward to a continuance of the good prices for grain and farm produce, and it seems to me, Sir, that the programme, or propaganda, whatever we may call it, of production that was inaugurated last year may well be continued to the advantage of the country this year. The large increase in our wealth, the large increase in our exports, the large increase in the revenues all lend hope and encouragement, and yet behind them all there is the sacrifice which our people are making with good hearts to assist the Motherland. Those of us who have been around in the country and have witnessed the eagerness and the zeal with which the mothers of our land are devoting themselves to the things that may be of assistance in this war, must have been impressed by the loyalty and patriotism which prompts our people in all parts of the country. When I read of the campaign inaugurated in this city for the collection of $400,000 in three days for the Patriotic Fund, it seemed to me paradoxical that those who represent the people, those who are in this House of Commons should find so much to quarrel and wrangle over. I am satisfied in my own mind that, after all, there is behind these differences that spirit of loyalty and devotion to the country which will prompt our hon. friends opposite to lend assistance to the Government. If we get fair criticism, honest criticism, not that captious picayune party criticism which is offered for the purpose of politics and not for the purpose of obtaining honest information,
I think we will get rid of a good deal of those differences between us.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that I should detain the House any longer with the remarks I have to make. My hon. friend who spoke this afternoon (Mr. Car-veil) referred to some matters which, as I have said, do not come within my province or power to discuss, or answer, but

I am satisfied that, notwithstanding what he has said, when the Minister of Agriculture replies to him, there will be, as there always is, the other side of the story. In connection with his remarks as to how he could get the co-operation and aid of the labouring man, without which we cannot continue this war with conditions as they exist, and as he represented them, my hon. friend seemed to think that there will be considerable difficulty in getting the 500,000 men we have set out to get. That is only characteristic of the pessimism which has been exhibited before on the opposite side of the House, and I do not believe that tactics of that kind will aid the recruiting. I like the optimism and good spirit of the Minister of Militia, and when he is called upon to defend his department I have no doubt that he will be able to give an ample answer to the interrogations that have been put to him. My hon. friend the member for Richmond, the other night, referring to the conditions in Nova Scotia, and to the partisanship which he claimed had been shown there in almost every instance connected with the Militia Department, said' that at the moment he could not recall the name of more than one Liberal captain in that province. In the district from which I come the colonels of the three leading battalions that have recently been organized, one of which is at the front now, the 34th, were all Lib-, erals. I have never, in my experience, since the war commenced, found the minister acting in the partisan manner described by my hon. friend. I have found that the minister has on every occasion given consideration to the qualifications of a man seeking appointment.
Let me close my remarks this evening with a sentiment which I have thought appropriate at this time. We have been referring to the loss of the lives of our young men on the battlefields of France and Flanders, and the following lines seem particularly fitting:
Not in vain have these young lives been lost Amidst the carnage of embattled hosts:
The bravest of our sons have shown the world That in the hour supreme they were the mates Of those whose names are on the golden roll Of Britain's truest heroes.
They wrought that freedom might prevail throughout the world;
They fought the fight and counted not the cost. We sorrow for our honoured dead, but not in sorrow
Shall we prize their names, for all the future Shall we hold with pride the record of the deeds they did
When on the fateful day they met the foe And, grimly fighting,
Fell, victors in death, immortal in their deeds.
On motion of Mr. Stanfield, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Robert Rogers, the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Wednesday, January 26, 1916.