1916-03-28

Mr. SPEAKER:: After the vote was taken at yesterday's sitting on the amendment proposed by Mr. Bennett on Mr. Stevens's resolution, I decided that, the amendment having been voted in the affirmative, there was no need to again propose the principal motion as amended to the House.
I have since carefully examined this question and I have ascertained by referring to authors that the question as amended should have again been placed before the House.
Here is what May says, at page 291, 11th edition:
If the House resolve " that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question," the original question is put; but if they resolve that such words should not stand part of the question by negativing that proposition when put, the next question proposed is that the words proposed to be substituted, be inserted or added instead thereof. This latter question being resolved in the affirmative, the main question so amended is put.
Bourinot, at page 439, 3rd edition, says:
If the amendment be negatived, the Speaker will again propose the main question, and a debate may ensue thereon or another amendment may then be submitted. On the other hand, If the House adopt the amendment, then the Speaker will again propose the question in these words: " Is It the pleasure of the House to adopt the main motion so amended."
There are also numerous precedents, amongst others, at the sitting of the 6th June, 1904, as reported at page 431 of the Votes and Proceedings of that year, on a motion of Mr. Champagne, that Bill No. 110, " An Act respecting the Ottawa Electric Company," be read a third time, Mr. Puttee moved in amendment that all the word's after the word " that " in the main motion be left out and that other words be substituted therefor. This amendment of Mr. Puttee having been voted in the affirmative, the principal motion, as amended, was again submitted to the House.
Another precedent is found in the Votes and Proceedings of the session of 1906-07, at page 185. On a motion of Mr. Heron, Mr. Knowles presented an amendment

which proposed to omit all the words of the principal motion after that, to add other words. There was a vote on that amendment of Mir. Knowles' and it was voted in the affirmative. After this vote on the amendment, the motion as amended was' submitted to the House and accepted on division.
After the vote taken at yesterday's sitting, Sir Robert Borden proposed the adjournment of the House and nothing prevented making this motion; but Mr. Stevens' motion, as amended, is still pending and should be on the Orders of the Day to be taken at another sitting, and I have given instructions to the Clerk to reinstate the motion on the Orders of the Day in its proper place.


Mr. MARCIL:: Will the motion of the
hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) be treated as a private member's motion, or will it be included among the Government Orders? If it is left in public Bills and Orders, it will never be called.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: It will not
change its place, because that is where it was before. If, however, there is any great desire to have a vote upon it, I think we shall endeavour to find some convenient time to take one. I suppose the point of my hon. friend's suggestion is that some hon. members who voted against the amendment may vote for the original motion as amended. If any hon. gentlemen feel that they would like to make apparent their position in that regard, we will afford an opportunity of having a vote upon it.


Charles Marcil: I have no reason to suppose that any members are desirous of changing their votes; I simply wanted to make the procedure complete.


Robert Laird Borden: The procedure
is complete enough as far as it has gone, because the motion has been restored to the Order Paper. The only possible additional procedure would be a vote upon the main motion. Of course, that vote would not be taken unless Public Bills and Orders were reached, or unless we should move to proceed to Public Bills and Orders for the purpose of having it taken up again.


Mr. McCRANEY:: May I suggest that a vote be taken at the end of the division which will take place on the motion before the House to-day, in regard to the Shell Committee?


Robert Laird Borden: I will consider that suggestion.



EXPORTATION OF NICKEL.

[Stage Direction]
Sir ROBERT BORDEN laid on the table of the House an Order in Council with regard to the exportation of nickel. He said: I have not laid on the table of the House the report of Mr. Graham Bell, but I will send a copy of it to my right hon. friend.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Charles William Wilson.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 73 for the relief of Aimee Rita Elliott.-Mr. Douglas.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. A. iSEIGUIN: (l'Assomption) Mr. 'Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I read this morning in the Citizen the following paragraph in its report of the proceedings of the House yesterday:'
Mr. P. A. Sfeguin, of l'Assomption, said he was against prohibition in any form. It was worse than licensed liquor selling because it led to the establishment of blind pigs. People whq had voted for prohibition in many parts of the province of Quebec, said Mr. Sfiguin, would not do so again.
I did not say I was against prohibition in any form, but that I was1 Opposed to local prohibition, claiming that so long as alcoholic liquors are manufactured and imported in the country, people will drink, and if there is no licensed liquor selling, there will be blind pigs or other places where the liquor will be sold secretly, and where, not only drunkards will go and satisfy their deadly craving, but where also our boys will go and get addicted to drinking and a thousand other evils and degradations even more disgraceful. I stated I was in favour 'of prohibiting the manufacture and importation of alcoholic liquors under certain restrictions, believing that there will be found the remedy to the evil we deplore.
The Citizen makes me say also that in many sections of Quebec those who voted for prohibition would how vote the other way if they were given the chance. I simply said that in certain sections of the province of Quebec, many electors had given
[Stage Direction]
a vote favourable to prohibition because they had no opportunity to consider whether that system was a proper remedy for the evil complained of, and that they were rather guided by the men favourable to this measure of local prohibition, who told them not to listen to the voice of those who opposed prohibition, charging that the latter's motives were rather irreligious.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. CARVELL:: I wish very briefly to make a statement as a question of privilege. Shortly after the debate upon the resolution of my right hon. friend concerning the Shell Committee I wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board with reference to certain statements made by the hon. Solicitor General and myself, as follows:
March 17, 1916.
J. W. Flavelle, Esq.,
Chairman Munitions Board,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Flavelle:
I am enclosing herewith two tabulated statements with reference to the companies furnishing shells and fuses referred to by the Hon. Mr. Meighen in his remarks in Parliament on Tuesday, March 14.
I will be very much obliged indeed if you will fill in the different columns in order that we may have first hand information on the subjects.
Yours very sincerely.
Accompanying that was a tabulated statement which I now hold in my hand. The Chairman of the Munitions Board very kindly asked me to go to his office to receive the information, and in my presence he filled in a few of the memoranda in pencil. The remainder was filled in before he gave it to me, I know not whether by himself or by his clerks. However, it was official. In order that there anay be no question whatever about the actual facts of this case, or as to who might be right and who might be wrong, I wish to read this statement coming from the Imperial Munitions Board. It ie as follows:

s :
r- U '


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Order. I think that the hon. member, before he proceeds further, should state to the House the question of privilege.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: All right; I am ready.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Do not be too sure of that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The question of privilege was that I intended to give the actual facts as furnished by the Imperial Munitions Board about the dates of deliveries of the shells referred to by myself and the hon. Solicitor General. It is a question of veracity as between the Solicitor General and myself. I want the House to know the facts.


Arthur Meighen: If I am permitted to
have the same privilege when the hon; gentleman is through, I have certainly no objection. I am prepared to stand by every statement I made, and I am prepared to produce the proof of them. However, nothing can be plainer than that to have this altercation at this stage is a flagrant violation of the rules of the House. If it is allowed, I only ask that it work both ways.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I am within my rights. I am making no comment whatever; I am simply giving the facts.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: The hon. gentleman is
making a personal explanation in answer to a statement which he attributes to the hon. Solicitor General.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I read in Bourinot:
But such explanations must he confined to a statement of the words actually used, when a member's language is misquoted or misconceived, or to a statement of the meaning of his language, when it has been misunderstood by the House; for the Speaker will call him to order the moment he goes beyond that explanation, and replies to the remarks of members in the debate; or attempts to censure others; or proceeds to state what he was going to say, but did not; or to give the motives which operated in his mind to induce him to form the opinion which he had expressed; or to explain the language of other members.
So I think the hon. gentleman is out of order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Of course, I am compelled to take the ruling of the Chair. There was only one other company the statement concerning which I was going to Tead, but if the Solicitor General and the House do not want the facts-


Arthur Meighen: I have the facts all
right.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I assure you that I can get the matter before the House in another way.



ENLISTMENT OF EDWARD PAQUETTE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER (Two Mountains):: I wish to call the attention of the Government, and especially that of the Acting Minister of Militia and Defence, to an incident which occurred lately in Montreal in connection with enlistment. I have received letters from one of my old constituents now living in Montreal, complaining of the way enlistment is being carried on, especially in Montreal. I would like to submit these letters to the House, especially to the Acting Minister of Militia. I shall translate the letters, which were sent to me in French. On March 3, 1916, I received the following letter:
Mr. Ethier,
Advocate.
March 3, 1916.
Dear Sir,-I have a serious affair to settle and I am confident you might have it settled amicably. I have a boy named Edouard who is not yet 15 years old, who enlisted in the 150th Regiment, without my permission, and I want him back home. I called at the headquarters four times and was badly received. The officers threatened to have the boy arrested for perjury and put in jail for seven years if I insisted on having him back. Col. Barre promised us by 'phone on Friday afternoon last to keep the boy in Montreal and the same night he was sent to Amherst.
On Saturday his mother called at headquarters, with his certificate of baptism, but she was put out doors, the boy being en route for Amherst. It is very insulting to be treated in such a way after having/Sacrificed already one of my sons who has been in the trenches in Belgium for six months and who belongs to the 22nd Regiment. It seems they should be more polite towards us. The reason why we object to his enlistment is that the boy is too young and will not stand the training. He does not know what he is doing. He will be 15 years old on the 4th May next.
I may tell the minister that I have here the official certificate of the birth of the boy and that I am prepared to file it.
Will you write to Major General Sir Sam Hughes to ask for his discharge. I could not see him during the last days preceding his departure.
If the boy wishes to be enlisted in the home guard in Canada, I have no objection but I am opposed to his going overseas to the battlefields as he is too young.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) Emdrie Paquette.
Having received that letter of the 3rd March, before the sudden departure of the



Minister of Militia and Defence, I saw him personally.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: If the hon. gentleman wants to put a question-


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Yes, but I want to submit the correspondence, and then to ask the Government what they intend to do.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: It would be out of order to enter upon a debate.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I do not intend to do that.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: The proper procedure for the hon, gentleman is to put his question.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I only wish to give the facts and then to ask the Government what they intend to do. I saw the minister, I think, on the Tuesday before his unexpected departure, and he promised me that the boy would be sent back home. Then I received the following letter.
Minister's Office,
Ottawa, March 11, 1916.
Dear Mr. Ethier:
With reference to Edouard Paquette, I herewith return his birth certificate, and I am pleased to inform you that General Wilson has given instructions to Lt.-Col. Barre. to return Paquette to his family.
Trusting this will be satisfactory,
Tours faithfully,
(Sgd.) Harold Daly, Captain,
for Private Secretary.
Confident that these instructions would be carried out, I wrote to my friend that his boy would be returned home. On the 27th March, however, I received the following letter:
J. A. C. Ethier.
Dear Sir,-I herewith return you my son's certificate of baptism as the boy has not yet been returned. I strongly insist that they should bring me back my child because he is too young and enlisted without my permission. I proved his age to Co!. Barre and Major Bisonnette and they answered he was enlisted and they would keep him.
X went to the headquarters and they told me I had no business there, and if I did not go out they would put me out. The child is gone to Amherst and we did not even see him. You see the manner in which the officers of regiments are acting towards the public; it is really revolting to see such solicitations to our young boys. X made all efforts to have the matter settled without trouble. At noon the day before the boy left, he was brought to the place where I worked, accompanied by an officer to ask permission to leave and I then forbade the officer to take him. But they did not pay any attention to my refusal. Well, we must have our rights and I hope you will invoke them in our favour. I am convinced that you will show to these people that we are the

masters of our children and that they have not the right to do what they like with them and that the parents should be respected.
Tours truly,
(Sgd.) Emfirie Paquette.
Now, I wish to ask the Government what they intend to do in. such a case as this. I received another letter from Mr. Paquette stating that he is the father of ten children, one of whom has been in Belgium for seven months, and that he has not the means to take proceedings before the courts, to have this child brought hack home. I ask the Government if they intend to fulfil the engagement which appears by the letter of the 11th of March signed by Captain Harold Daly, for the private secretary, stating that General Wilson had given instructions to Col. Barre to return the boy to his family. Do the Government intend to carry out this undertaking, or shall I be obliged to take proceedings in the courts in Montreal and get a judgment, such as was rendered last week by Judge Dugas in habeas corpus proceedings which were taken before him. I put the question to iascertain if the Government intend to carry out the undertaking contained in the letter of the 11th of March and not force a boy 14 years of age to enlist, especially as this family has already sent one of its older sons to the trenches.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hon. A. E. KEMP (Acting Minister of Militia and Defence):: I understand from the memorandum which the hon. gentleman has read to the House that the private secretary of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) has already given instructions to have the boy returned, owing, no doubt, to his age, which, I believe, is 15 years. There has been some miscarriage, because otherwise the instructions which the minister gave to his priva e secretary would have been carried out. I have no information on the subject other than what the hon. gentleman has given to the House, and I can assure him that as soon as I get a copy of his observations in Hansard I will take the matter up and try and remedy the difficulty.



SHELL CONTRACTS.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion ot Sir Wilfrid Laurier for a committee to inquire into purchases of shells or other muni-

tions or goods by the Shell Committee, resumed, from Tuesday, March 14.
Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the resolution and the amendment now before the House, one point that stands out perfectly plainly and clearly is the fact that the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) stated in this House not many weeks ago that he was the father and originator of the defunct Shell Committee, and he took to himself great credit for the fact that it was he who started the manufacture of shells and brought it to a certain- degree of perfection, the movement culminating in the appointment of the Shell Committee. The first thing that is to be distinctly kept in mind,, and that I think is fairly imbedded in the public mind, is that the Government is responsible, through its Minister of Militia, for the creation of the Shell Committee. Up to the time that the minister spoke, and before this resolution and the amendment thereto were brought to the attention of this House, the minister took great credit to- himself for that committee. His followers backed him up in that assertion, but so soon as charges were made, so soon as the resolution and the amendment were brought" down, nobody seemed to be responsible for the Shell Committee as appointed by this Government. The Government, in their anxiety to shelve their troubles on to others, now say: " This was an Imperial committee; we had nothing whatever to do with it; and as a consequence we can grant no investigation." I repeat that, as long as the Shell Committee was supposed to be doing all that it ought to do, the Minister of Militia-and if the Minister of Militia, then, constitutionally, the rest of the members of the Cabinet-took great credit for appointing that committee; but the minute anything appeared to be wrong, they shelved the fesponsibility on to somebody else.
I submit that, so far as this question has gone, an absolute case has been made out by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. The Solicitor General said that the charges were vague and general; that there was nothing in them that had not been heard on the floor of the House practically every day; and that he saw no reason why a committee should be granted. I am absolutely satisfied that the right hon. leader of the Opposition has proved his case to the hilt, and, as far as I am concerned, I purpose to stand behind him. Does the Solicitor General call it an every-day matter that the
members of the Shell Committee, who were the appointed trustees of the people of this country, and were responsible for [DOT] the amount of money spent on Canada's share of the munitions ordered, should be charged by the right hon. leader of the Opposition with buying and selling among themselves? Does he call it an ordinary charge that the members of the Shell Committee could not be entrusted with the giving of shell contracts? General Bertram himself admitted that he did not trust the other members of the Shell Committee in the giving of orders; he said they were largely interested in those orders, and he therefore [DOT]>
carried on the work of giving out the orders himself. Are those charges specific or otherwise? Would any one say -for one single minute " that these charges were vague or ordinary with regard to a committee that was spending millions of dollars on munitions, for a proportionate share of which the people of this country are responsible, -as the Minister of Finance has said? Would any one say that it was an every-day thing for a man eminent in public life, and the leader of a great party, to charge the Shell Committee with buying and selling between themselves? The -chairman of the committee -admitted, not practically, but absolutely, that he had to give out the contracts without consulting his colleagues, for the reason that they" were in the business, and ought not to know what was -going on in the Shell Committee. Could anything be more specific than those charges? If nothing else had come out during this whole debate, I say that those two charges would be absolutely sufficient to warrant the Government in granting the investigation we have asked for. But are there no more specific charges? Will any one say that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), has not made charges specific enough for an investigation to be granted? Would -any one say that the charge of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), that $80,000,000 of the money of the people of this country had been wasted in the manner I shall describe later on, was not a charge specific enough to warrant the Government granting an investigation? The facts stand out as plainly as any facts could stand out. Specific charges have been made of the gravest character against the trustees who were appointed by this Government to spend the people's money. Yet the Solicitor General in an easy, off-hand way, says: " Oh, these charges are vague; they amount to nothing; we hear that kind of

charges thrown across the floor' of the House every day; there is absolutely nothing 'to investigate, and consequently the Government will not grant the committee that is asked for. The Solicitor General said: " Oh, you cannot deceive the House of Commons." If that is the view he takes let me tell him that the view I take is this: go where you will, in public places, on the train or elsewhere, the one thing that is discussed to-day by the people of this country-at least, I may speak for Ontario-is the charges that have been made against the Shell Committee by the hon. member for Carleton.
I want to say to the Solicitor General just as strongly as I can that the Government cannot deceive the people of this Dominion in their reasons for not granting a committee to investigate the charges against the Shell Committee. The people of this country know that charges such as have been made in this House would not have been levelled had there not been some foundation for them. The people of this country take the view that as their money is being spent -and it is-they have the right to know how that money is being spent.
The Solicitor General says that we should be exposing the resources of this country if a committee were granted. The Prime Minister says the same thing. Now, I should like to ask in all seriousness-and I am asking for information-how, in the name of all that is good and great, could you expose the resources of the Dominion of Canada by showing that the Shell, Committee had wrongly expended $80,000,000? The same answer was given to a question I put on the Order Paper asking the number of horses that have been bought in the United States and Canada. The answer was that the information could not be given because it would expose the resources of the country. Why, the farmers of this country would only be too delighted to find out just how many horses have been purchased by the British Government in the United States market while our Canadian horses were eating their heads off. Give the resources of the country away! The people of this country would be only too pleased to find out our resources along those lines, and why the Government is not helping them to get rid of those resources. Those are some of the reasons that have been given why an investigation should not be granted.
I desire to close this part of the subject with one remark. This Government accepted the responsibility of organizing the Shell

Committee. The Minister of Militia was the president of that Committee; duties were assigned him in the way of looking after shells; and as a consequence, this Government became wholly responsible for that committee. The Prime Minister himself also fathered the Shell Committee. It appears to me that it was of no interest to this House, nor of any particular interest to the people of this country, that the Prime Minister, in the remarks he made in opposing this resolution, should have read a long letter from some prominent manufacturer, or somebody of that kind, showing the difficulty in the way of manufacturing shells. The Prime Minister in the course of hi3 speech eulogized the manufacturers of Canada, saying that they had done such wonderful work that the people of Canada ought to be proud of them. I agfee with every word that the Prime Minister says along those lines; but, that being so, why did not the manufacturers of	Canada get	more orders and
more help than they did in certain ways? The Prime Minister also told us that the Shell Committee had done everything that one could ask them to do. That may be so; but, if the Shell Committee did everything they ought to have done, and if they merited an absolutely clean bill of health from the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General, why did Mr. Thomas come to Canada, and why, when 'he did come, was the Shell Committee dissolved?
After Mr. Thomas came here, the committee was reorganized and it entered upon a new phase. According to the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General the Shell Committee had done splendidly, but the committee was nevertheless put out of business. There never yet was a funeral that the pallbearers did not speak well of the corpse. Hichens, and Thomas, and the Prime Minister, and the Solicitor General, with crape around their hats, bore the Shell Committee to its last resting place, and they thanked Heaven that the remains were interred. What was the matter with the Shell Committee? The fact is that the charges which have been made here come close home to it, and it was thought well that a new committee with Imperial sanction should be appointed, so that when the crash came the Government might say: We have nothing to do with that committee; we have handed it over to the Imperial authorities. The Solicitor General says: " If they ask us to hold an investigation, we shall be only too delighted to do so,

but in the meantime we have put the old Shell Committee to rest in the graveyard; fire away at the new committee, if you like; we can get away from it on an Imperial excuse." I ask seriously: When in the name of Heaven is Canada, under this Government, going to stand on her own feet? Are we always to swell out our chests	and listen to our
good friends on the opposite side of the House saying:	Under the good
old Tory regime this Canada of ours is a nation within a nation, and yet we are afraid to investigate the expenditure of out own money, and give to the people an accounting for it. That is the true story. From beginning to end of the Premier's speech there was, in my opinion, absolutely no justification for the refusal of an investigation. From beginning to end of the Solicitor General's speech the one thing that he proved to his own satisfaction and to the eminent satisfaction of his friends was that the hon. member for Carleton had given wrong figures as to the deliveries of shells.


Arthur Meighen: They were fundamentally wrong all the way through.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That observation of the
Solicitor General only clinches my argument that, according to the Solicitor General, everything was right and nothing was wrong with the Shell Committee, and that it was only the hon. member for Carleton who was wrong. If the hon. member was wrong, then why in heaven's name does the Government not grant us the investigation and take the crSdit for showing that he was wrong? Is not the investigation denied because the Government knows m its heart of hearts that an investigation will show that the Shell Committee was not all it was painted by hon. gentlemen opposite? There is no question as to that, and there is little question in the minds of the people about it.
Mr. Thomas made a speech; it was rather a peculiar speech, and it would look as if he was going to say something, but he finally decided that he would be satisfied to leave it with an innuendo. All he would say was: Could I but tell you all I know; could I but raise the veil a little the people of Canada would know and would realize.
One strange and peculiar thing about the speeches that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite is that, although we heard one eulogy pronounced in this House upon the Shell Committee that was beautiful in the extreme, the real gem of the Government eulogies was that pronounced on one J. Wesley Allison by the Minister of Militia. To hear the Minister of Militia one would think that what J. Wesley Allison has done for this country would fill a large book. He has saved millions here; he has [DOT] saved millions there; he was the wise counsellor, friend, and confidant of the Minister of Militia, as the minister himself acknowledges. When anything went wrong,
J. Wesley Allison was rung up; he stepped into the breach, and the people of Canada, and incidentally the people of the whole Empire, were saved the expenditure ol millions of dollars, and J. Wesley Allison, in the goodness of his heart, said: Ah, this is all done by me so that I may prove my devotion to the British Empire and to the Minister of Militia; get thee behind me with any temptation in the way of offers;
I am working for Canada and Canada alone. Yet this is the same man who down at the town of Morrisburg had practically free customs entry for goods for long days at a time; who brought in there at the order of the Customs Department heaven only knows how much dutiable goods, and heaven .only knows how much good duty this Government and this country were deprived of. This is the man who, day after day, has evaded the service of a subpoena to appear before the Public Accounts Committee who want him to tell what he knows. This is the man who feigned illness in New York in order to evade that subpoena, and who yet was ready to meet the Minister of Militia on his arrival in that city the other night; this is the man upon whom a eulogy was pronounced by the Minister of Militia, and as the minister has taken him to his heart, so the Government as a whole has taken him to its heart, and so J. Wesley Allison is accepted by them all. I notice that the Solicitor General does not repudiate him. Does he accept him?


Arthur Meighen: I have nothing to do
with him.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Nothing to do with him?


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. gentleman anything to do with him?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: This is just one of those cases where the foster father is-now in the old land and has left another baby in the person of J. Wesley Allison, and none of the ministers want him at all. There are babies belonging to the Minister of Militia lying all around, and no one on the


Mr. BURNHAM:: In view of the professed policy of the Opposition to assist this Government in every way, why does not the hon. gentlemajn .throw out the life-line?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: When so eminent a follower of the Prime Minister makes such a speech as that, in which he admits that they are in distress and want the life-line, I think I can do no better than leave his own argument with him. I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) is not alone; there are a lot more who think the same thing; but, unlike him, they will not get up and say so.
Then, taking up the speech of the Prime Minister, he paid the highest tribute that could be paid to men when he spoke of the manufacturers of Canada, and with that I have no quarrel-I hope that the right hon. gentleman and his followers will always have the same faith in Canadian >
adaptability and Canadian intelligence

which he professed in that part of his speech. But if the Canadian manufacturer is all that the right hon. gentleman said- arid he is-I would like to ask why, when a contract was to be let for $22,000,000 worth of fuses, the sum of $3,750,000 should be sent to the United States to establish there manufactories of fuses, to the exclusion of the manufacturers of this Dominion? If there is one thing more than another that is the bounden duty of this Government, it is to stop the economic waste that goes on, and to build up this country by giving every encouragement possible to the producers of all sorts of things, and [DOT] the distribution of wealth among those who most deserve it. But this Government gave $3,750,000 to manufacturers in the United States, to enable them to provide factories to manufacture fuses, though factories could have 'been built up at far less cost in the Dominion of Canada to do the same work, and do it just as well. In that connection, I want to read just one paragraph from the Toronto Globe:
Ifhe order to the first company was placed at $4.50 per fuse and to the second at $4, and t}ie contracts aggregated over $22,000,000. The prices were known to he excessive, but were given because the Allies were dangerously short of projectiles, and the fuses were the most difficult part of the shell to manufacture.
Then it goes on to say:
Why was this amazing contract given? What part was played by Col. Allison?
Col. Allison is always about when there is money about.
These are questions that will not down. All the sophistries of Mr. R. B. Bennett will not prevent the electors from demanding that they be answered. The fuses could have -been made quickly and satisfactorily, and made at a factory cost which would have yielded a profit of not less than four or five million dollars to the makers. This has been proved conclusively during the past three months by Mr. T. A. Russell, of the Russell Motor Company of Toronto. General Bertram did not believe fuses could be made in Canada. To representatives of Canadian firms who asked for fuse contracts, Sir Alexander declared emphatically that they could not be produced.
Why was Sir Alexander Bertram so very certain that fuses could not be produced in the Dominion of Canada? Were proper inquiries made? Were manufacturers called in, in order to find out, or was it simply the case that the sum of three and three-quarter million dollars was, with common consent, handed over, holus bolus, to the people of the United States, the Shell Committee saying:	"We cannot manufacture
in Canada; we send this order to you to see what you can do with it." These are pertinent questions, and ought to be cleared up. These are questions which the people of Canada want to have answered. The Globe continues:
To representatives of Canadian firms who asked for fuse contracts, Sir Alexander declared emphatically that they could not be produced. Some four or five months after the letting of the prodigal New York contract, when no deliveries were forthcoming, and vast quantities of uncompleted shell cases were piling up in Canada, General Bertram's Shell Committee let a contract for fuses to the Russell Motor Company of this city at a price about a dollar per fuse less than the rate allowed to the New York companies.
Tl)at is perfectly true.
Mr. Russell at once arranged for floor space elsewhere than in the motor factory, installed over a quarter of a million dollars' worth of special automatic machinery, scoured the country for competent male and female workers, and early in the month of January began to turn out the fuses without which Canadian shells were useless. Between January Id and March 1, Mr. Russell produced 50,000 contact fuses which stood all tests, and the fac ory now producing 4,000 a day and will ultimately turn out 5,000 a day. Time fuses will also be
mannfn otlirfid.
Why was not Mr. Russell consulted in the first place? Why did not Canadian industry get the benefit of that three and three-quarter million of dollars of orders at a price much less than that at which the New York firm took the contract? Why were those things not done? As I understand it, although I stand subject to correction, no time fuses have ever been delivered from New York.


Arthur Meighen: Wrong again.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Wrong again? Have time fuses been delivered?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Since when?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Perhaps as many as you could carry in your ha-t.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What was the number of time fuses in the order? Was it three and three-quarter millions?


Arthur Meighen: Whose order?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Did not the Government, or the minister, or the Shell Committee, give an order in New York for 3,000,000 time fuses?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend, I
thought, would have that information be-

fore this; he should have all the facts if he had read the speech which I delivered.


George Perry Graham: Not the facts.


Arthur Meighen: The Shell Committee gave two orders for time fuses: One to the American Ammunition Company, for 833,334; and two orders, that is, one for each of two different kinds of fuses, to the International Arms Company, with which, no doubt, my hon. friend is acquainted, amounting entirely to two and one-half millions.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: And there have been about
8,000	fuses delivered altogether!


Arthur Meighen: You said there were none.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the size of the Solicitor General.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: 
Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, after an almost unbroken, and may I not say more or less discreet silence since I had the honour of occupying a seat in this House, I feel that I may now take up some of its time without offering any apology for so doing At the outset I want to say that this discussion at this particular time in the history of the Empire is to me distasteful, but so long as hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House can be found to precipitate discussions of this kind, which lead to more or less party controversy, somebody on this side of the House must be found to answer the charges that they see fit to make. I would like also to say that I am very conscious indeed of my inability to carry on this debate upon the high plane which has been set by those who have preceded me on this * side of the House. If there ever was a time in my life when I should be glad to possess the oratorical ability and force of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) or the eloquence, the logical and analytical ability and the irresistible power of reasoning of the Solicitor General, that moment is surely now. For I feel, Sir, that with the brief that belongs to any man who desires to oppose the resolution of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, he should not have a very difficult task in convincing the country that he is taking the right stand. During my time in this House I have had occasion to watch with the greatest interest and concern my
honoured leader. Since I have been here I have learned to feel that I have the right to place absolute confidence in the judgment that he has shown on many matters that have come before him during that period. I feel that if I had no other reason for offering my objections to this resolution, that in itself would be sufficient. But my honoured leader has given to this House definite and distinct reasons why this resolution should not carry, and in those reasons I heartily concur.
Let me refer to the speech made by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who introduced the resolution. It seems to me that in the short -address he made to this House, all that he said was very fairly put, and what he did say with respect to the Shell Committee does not altogether -agree with the remarks of some of the gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the House, many of whom take the position that the Shell Committee was appointed by the Minister of Militia. I observe that the right hon. leader of the Opposition does not take that position. On page 1566 of Hansard he is reported as having -said:
The attitude taken by the Solicitor General here is that he and the Government wash their hands completely of responsibility for the actions of the Shell Committee. Though my hon. friend admits that the committee was appointed by the Imperial Government, I believe we can all agree that the members of the Shell Committee, whose names I shall read, respectable though those names be, were not selected on their merits by the Imperial authorities, but upon the recommendation of the Government of Canada. I take issue with the Solicitor General upon the point raised. As this Government has given its recommendation to the Imperial authorities, then, notwithstanding his views that the members of the Shell Committee are responsible to the Imperial authorities, I say that the Government that made that recommendation, and that gave that advice is responsible to this House and to the people of this country.
I observe that the right hon. gentleman does not contend that the committee was appointed by the Minister of Militia; he simply says that the members of that committee were selected upon the recommendation of the Government of Canada. It seems to me that he is correct in taking that stand. Those who suggest the opposite cannot give any good reason for their contention. Would the Minister of Militia have any right to appoint a committee except by Act of Parliament or by Order in Council? It has not been suggested that either of these courses was taken. Is the fact that the Minister of Militia saw fit to

recommend certain gentlemen to act in that capacity any reason why the Department of Militia, or the Government of this country, should be charged with all the doings of the Shell Committee, no matter what they might be? I submit not. Surely the matter is purely one of principal and agent. The suggestion coming from the opposite side of the House is this: A person is asked for a recommendation in the matter of the selection of an agent. In good faith he makes that recommendation, and on the strength of it a man is appointed agent. Negotiations and business relations between the principal and the agent are carried on to the satisfaction of the principal, the one who is responsible. A third party comes along and says, I demand an investigation. Is that not the exact situation here? Surety if anybody has the right to demand an investigation in this case, it is the principal who appoints the agent, and who is in every way responsible for the acts of that agent. Can it be suggested for one moment -it as not suggested by the right hon. lead,er of' the Opposition-that this committee was appointed by the Minister of Militia r Surety, having regard to the fact that the members of that committee were merely recommended by the Minister of Militia, the only people who are responsible are the authorities in the British War Office. If they want an investigation, the country has been told that this Government is ready to assist in every possible way with that investigation.
The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), who has just taken his seat, has given us a quotation or two from the Conservative press. It might, perhaps, be well to give him a dose of his own medicine. I did think that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) was to precede me. A most interesting article appears in the issue of March 10 of the Eastern Chronicle, with which I have no doubt he is familiar, and which, I am told, is a Liberal journal published in New Glasgow, in Pictou county. It is very interesting, and I think that this would, perhaps, be an opportune time to refer to it.
The Government In Ottawa led the majority-in Parliament in voting down a motion of Sir Wilfrid's for an investigation into the shell making by the " Committee on Shell." We cannot understand what was to have been gained by such an investigation; but it was probably unwise to refuse it.
I am not reading the whole of the article.
In Great Britain the Government advanced money to any reputable firm which should un-

dertake to manufacture shells. In Canada there was no assistance offered. The firm undertaking the manufacture had to put up its own money for plant. When the question was put to the steel men of Canada they were told that Great Britain would pay such a price for shells and be thankful to get them. When the steel men agreed to try the manufacture the Minister of Militia recommended that a certain number of them be appointed a committee to take charge of the work. Was it strange that this committee was composed of steel experts? Would it not be strange if a committee of politicians or lumbermen, or grocers or farmers, was appointed? This committee had nothing to do with the price; that was fixed in Great Britain. What the committee had to do was to manufacture shells at a stated price. They undertook the'work and carried it through successfully. Who else in Canada could have done it? The business by private firms was new in Great Britain as well as in Canada. Very well, said the authorities, " we appoint you gentlemen a committee to inaugurate and carry on the work. If you are successful in manufacturing shells we will pay you a certain price for them."
That which follows is perhaps the most interesting part:
The Liberal leaders in Ottawa acted on general principles during this session like a lot of children. They chatter enough, they call names, they make charges, many of which are undoubtedly true, but before beginning to do these school children tricks they throw away the club that alone will keep tyrants, corruptionists and constitutional traitors in order. For all the good they do now they would better come home and let the Government do its worst; it will do it anyway.


Mr. KYTE:: I did not catch the date of that article.


William Alves Boys: Well, I would like you to
catch it-March 10, 1916, Eastern Chronicle, published in New Glasgow.


George William Kyte: The date is the only definite thing about it to catch.


William Alves Boys: Well, I hope you caught it. That answer is almost as childish as the action which is referred to in the article. 1 expected my hon. friend from West Lamb-ton, at all events, to show that the arguments of the Solicitor General and the information that he gave to the House two weeks ago were wrong. I thought there had been ample opportunity to point out wherein this information was wrong and yet the hon. member who has just taken his seat has not ventured-he certainly has the ability-to point to one single statement in which the Solicitor General has made a mistake in his somewhat severe arraignment of the hon. member for Carleton. Would I not have the right to assume that he did not do it because he could not? I am aware that the hon. member himself rose in this House to a question of privilege and

sought to place upon Hansard-I think he has partly done so-a statement received from the Munitions Board dealing with his ten charges. I sent over to the hon. gentleman and asked him if he would be good enough to allow me to have that statement, but he did not see fit to do so. I suppose he takes the position that because he was not permitted to give it to the House in its fullness I should not have it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to inform my
hon. friend that I was not allowed to put the last four items on Hansard. I was not allowed to put anything on record in regard to fuses. I referred to both shells and fuses. If I had been allowed to put those matters on record I would only have been too happy to have sent the statements to the hon. gentleman.	.


William Alves Boys: When you repeat a statement that, I presume, you have confidence in, is there any good reason why you should not send it over if you want to give it to the House? .


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You will get it in a few minutes.


William Alves Boys: I know that we are always going to get something from you, but it does not come. You frequently have the habit of standing up in your place, and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Alves Boys: The 'hon. gentleman frequently stands in his place in this House and announces that if given the opportunity he is' going to prove this, that and the other thing-that he never makes a statement without having the goods to deliver. I wish he would deliver the goods now. I wonder how it is that he could not have handed this statement to the hon. member for West Lambton so that he might have given it to the House. We would then perhaps have had an opportunity of discussing it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Have patience.


William Alves Boys: I would like to get it now in order that I might have an opportunity of dealing with it while I am on my feet.
Now, let me refer to the speech of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I would like to call the attention of the House to that part of it wherein he referred to the speech of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett). Here is what he said as found at page 1790 of Hansard;
Well, Sir, that hon. gentleman has not ventured to challenge the accuracy of the figures which were presented to this House by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). Need I argue that it was because it could not be done? The hon. member for Calgary is industrious and is most able and most intelligent, and if it had been possible to question the accuracy of the figures or statements presented by that hon. member, you may depend, and I am sure th a House will agree with me, that the hon. member for Calgary would have devoted himself to that task. He did not do so.
Because he did not do so, the hon. member for St. John, without attempting to verify the figures presented or the statements made by the hon. member for Carleton, proceeded to adopt them holus-bolus. That is about the only argument we got from him in so far as his remarks in regard to this matter were concerned.
Now, let us look at the matter in the light of what took place when the Solicitor General made his speech. The hon. member for Carleton had made a statement that the Canadian General Electric Company had not received an order. He was very much aggrieved over that. He said, at page 1598:
So far as my information goes, the Canadian General Electric Company did not get an order until away down in the summer of 1915, and then it was for only 25,000 18-pounder high-explosive shells.
I miss a line or two.
If there is a manufacturing concern in Canada with which I am intimately acquainted, it is the Canadian General Electric Company. I have done business with them for the last 12 years; I know that they are able to manufacture anything that any other firm in Canada can manufacture ; they have the money, the organization, the ability, and the plant, and I know that, if they had been given an opportunity, they would have manufactured the shells, as they are doing now. I think, Sir, that if a-committee is appointed that is one of the things that might be inquired into.
One o'f the things that the hon. gentleman wants to have inquired into, so as to get the truth is:	*
-why the General Electric Company who were willing to go into this thing were never given a chance until they got a paltry order of 25,000 18-pounder shells.
He goes on, as reported on the next page:
I have sometimes wondered if the fact that the same gentleman who is manager of the Canadian General Electric Company, is also, I think, vice-president of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, probably the greatest manufacturing establishment in the whole Dominion, who were anxious for the business, who were willing to devote' their whole organization, machinery, plant and business facilities to the manufacture of shells, and who pleaded and begged in vain for an order, had something to do with their failure to get work from the Shell

Committee. They never got a chance to do business, never got a look in, until October, or November, 1915.
What are the facts? In the first place, you can see the subtlety of the hon. gentleman. He first charges that the Canadian General got no orders and he then seeks to connect the Dominion Iron and Steel Company with them because one gentleman happened to be an officer in both, and he gave that as a reason why the Dominion Iron and Steel Company never got an order, until, as he said, away on in October, 1915. The fact is, that, so far as the Dominion Iron and Steel Company are concerned, they got an order for 600,000 18-pounder high explosive shells on Feb. 17, 1915. Further than that, the Canadian General got most extensive orders not only during 1915 but during 1914. The other day, when the Solicitor General was making his speech, the hon. member for Oarleton wanted some information as to these orders. I have a list of them. The first order was got by the Canadian General Electric Company on October 6, 1914, or within three months' after the war began. In that same month, the Canadian General Electric got no less than six more orders, and from that time on, orders have been regularly placed with that company, until they have now received the enormous total of $10,749,440 worth of orders. Yet the hon. member for Carleton told this House, and tried to tell the country, that for some reason the Shell Committee would not give any orders to that most worthy company, /with which he is so intimately acquainted, until the fall of 1915. He also tried to draw a distinction between that company and the Canadian Allis-Chalmers, Limited. At all events, if he did not draw a distinction, it is a fair inference that he was trying to, because he pointed out that the Canadian Allis-Chalmers got large orders. It is only proper for me to say that the $10,749,440 which I quoted a moment ago includes the orders given to the Canadian Allis-Chalmers Company as well as those given to the Canadian General Electric Company, and the question is: Is it fair to include those, or is it not? It is a little surprising to me that the hon. member for Carleton, with his long and intimate acquaintance with the Canadian General Electric, had not learned when he made his speech on March 9 last that they were practically one and the same concern. Why their very letter paper would show that, and he must have seen their letter heads. I have one here, and it says, "Canadian General Electric Company, [M:\ Brys]
Limited," and underneath, "Canadian Allis-Chalmers, Limited, Toronto." But, lest that should not be sufficient, let me show further how unreliable the hon. gentleman's information was, by reading a letter written by the president of the Canadian General Electric Company to the Solicitor General:
Toronto, March 18, 1916. Hon. Arthur Meighen,
Solicitor General of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Meighen:
I have yours of the 17th inst., and have to say that you are quite correct in assuming that the Canadian General Electric Company owns all the stock of the Canadian Allis-Chalmers, Ltd., which is simply a subsidiary of the Canadian General Electric Company, and therefore all orders given to the Canadian Allis-Chalmers, Ltd., inure solely to the benefit of the Canadian General Electric Company.
I have only read extracts of the debate on the munitions that appeared in the paper and would be much pleased if you could have forwarded to me a copy of Hansard containing Mr. Carvell's speech and your reply so that in case other incorrect statements should have been made by Mr. Carvell I will be in a position to give you corrected information.
Yours very truly,
Frederic Nicholls,
President.
Yet the hon. member for Carleton tells this House that that company was overlooked, and, further, that the Dominion Iron & Steel Company were overlooked because the manager of the Canadian General Electric was also vice-president of the Dominion Iron & Steel Company, and he demanded an investigation. Does he not think he has had investigation enough, so far as these particular features are concerned?
He then referred to the fuse contract given to the American Ammunition Company, and said that not a fuse had been delivered. As a matter of fact, at the time he was making his speech, 400,000 graze fuses had been delivered. Not satisfied with that, he went on to show that some ten mushroom companies in Western Canada had been given orders-for political purposes, he said-and that not a shell had been delivered, except, I think, in the case of one company. I just want to refer to this list of companies, and it is the same list the hon. gentleman referred to to-day when he rose to a'question of privilege. If I gathered the information he gave to this House this afternoon aright, there is not a thing in the statement he made which challenges the statement made by the Solicitor General. When the hon. member for Carleton was speaking of these ten

mushroom companies, the charge he made was that there were politics in it. Let me quote from his speech, which will be found reported on page 1628 of Hansard:
I And that the Dominion Harvester Company, of Medicine Hat, were able to get an order for
10.000,	and up to a month ago they had not delivered a single shell. The International Supply Company, of Medicine Hat, got an order for
10.000,	and not a shell has been delivered. The Manitoba Bridge and Iron Works, of Winnipeg, got an order for 20,000, and not a shell has been delivered.
Mr. Hanna: What is the date of these orders?
Mr. Carvell: I could not say exactly t it was during the summer of 1915. I am only giving these to show the political end of the transaction.
And on page 1629 he makes the further statement:
I have charged that there were politics in this thing; I go behind no man's back to say so. T charged it six weeks ago ; I charged it on Tuesday ; I charge it now.
Then he read a statement which indicated . that the companies he referred, to had not delivered shells up to early this year. It was not suggested by the Solicitor General that they had delivered shells. The bon. member for'Carleton had charged that there were politics behind the orders given to these ten companies; he said that the orders had been placed in the summer of
1915,	when the old Shell Committee was carrying on the work. The Solicitor General pointed out that, with one ot two exceptions in the whole ten cases, the contracts were let, not by the Shell Committee, which went out of business on November 30, 1915, but by the Imperial Munitions Board. That is another evidence of the hon. member for Carleton's desire to mislead this House. There could have been no politics in connection with these ten companies so far as the Shell Committee was concerned^ because, as a matter of fact, the contracts with these ten companies were given out by the Imperial Munitions Board-a board with which hon. gentlemen opposite are satisfied, which is doing good work, and against which no charge of any kind has been made; and in any case the contracts were nearly all let in January,
1916.
Another ground on which there should, not be an investigation is that so far not one dollar of Canadian money has been expended in connection with these shell contracts. I took the trouble to try and ascertain exactly how the funds obtained and used in connection with these contracts
were applied, and I received from the Deputy Minister of Finance this statement:
In the matter of the supply of funds for the payment of munitions ordered by the Imperial Government the Dominion Government placed their financial machinery at the disposal of the Home authorities; in other words the Dominion Government became the paying agency of the Imperial Government. Funds were supplied from time to time by the Imperial Government either at Ottawa or New York and at times advances were made by the Canadian Government for the accommodation of the Home authorities and charged to the Imperial Government.
T. C. Boville.
I further learn that not a cheque either of the Finance Department or of the Militia Department has been issued in payment of money due on contracts with the Shell Committee, and that all funds required for that purpose have been charged to the Imperial authorities. Under those conditions, what right is there, on that ground at all events, for an investigation5
Shortly after the Boer war a very similar situation arose in this House when the present leader of the Opposition was leader of the Government. During the sessions from 1900 to 1903 investigations and information as to amounts, prices, and vendors of hay and oats were sought. On March 7, 1900, a question was put to the Government, asking for details of hay and oat 'contracts for the Imperial Government. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) replied as follqws (Hansard, Vol. I, 1900, P. 1479):
By request, my department has been aoting as agent for the Imperial Government for the purchase of hay in this country, for use in South Africa, by the War Office. And believing that the purchase of such hay in Canada was for the benefit of our farmers and hay dealers, I have allowed Professor Robertson to conduct this work as an agent of the Imperial Government. The details, such as are here asked for, are in the hands of the Imperial Government.
In 1903, the matter was again discussed, and the Minister of Finance, Mr. Fielding, spoke as follows:
On a previous occasion on this question, I was asked across the floor of the House, if the Government had managed this business for the Imperial Government and I replied that while we were aware that the hon. Minister of Agriculture was lending his friendly assistance to the Imperial Government, in this matter, practically, it was not dealt with as a Canadian Government matter, at all. I want to qualify that statement now, to a certain extent, I found, afterwards in looking over the papers, that at the first stage, an Order in Council was passed, which virtually assisted with the credit of the Government of Canada in the first steps that were taken. After a short time operations took a different form. The Imperial Gov-

eminent provided the funds, and the whole transaction, from that time forward, was conducted as an Imperial Government transaction.^ I find that it is necessary to make this qualification because at the first stage an Order in Council was passed authorizing advances to be made by the bank. Of course, we had no power to authorize the advance, but the assurance that the Canadian Government was behind the transaction, undoubtedly, had its effect with the bank, but at a later stage and as respects practically four-fifths of the whole transaction, that wouid not apply.
The matter was again.dealt with in 1903, and as reported on page 676, Vol. 1 of Hansard, we find this statement by Mr. Fielding:
I think I am correct in stating that my hon. friend brought this matter before the House a year ago, in the form of a question, and my hon. colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, said that it concerned only the Imperial Government inasmuch as it did not affect the public moneys of Canada, in any way, and therefore he was unable to supply the information asked for. I think that we all should take the same position *o-day. For all expenditure of the public money of Canada, the ministers are accountable to this House, and the House is entitled to every information, but this is an expenditure of Imperial money for which this Government is not accountable to this House.
And at page 677 he said:
I cannot admit for a moment, that, because the Government furnished the good offices of any of its officials to the British Government, it is obliged to bring down all records of the transactions which may have occured, and in which only the money of the Imperial Government was used. As the money expended was not that of the people of Caifada, there is no ground on which this Government can be called to an account for that expenditure.
And at page 687 Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
We have no complaint from the British Government, and I therefore see no reason why this House should inquire into the expenditure of money which does not concern it.
As I have been informed, the motion for that information was voted down by the Government of that day and its followers. Now let me ask the House to consider the difference in the two situations. In the matter before the House we have, according to the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, nothing but the recommendation of the Minister of Militia for the appointment of a committee on behalf of the War Office, and it has been suggested that at some time in the future Canada may possibly be called upon to pay some portion of the expenditure on shells. It is not suggested that the shells will be these shells, shells made in Great Britain or shells made in the United States, and one might as well investigate the manufacture of shells in either of these countries. In this

case there is no Order in Council; in the other there was. In this case there is no department acting, only the Shell Committee appointed by the War Office. In this case there is no official in receipt of a salary paid by Canada, who is lending his services; whereas in the other case there was an official of the Department of Agriculture who apparently was making that his sole duty. In this case, not one dollar of Canadian money has been expended up to date, whereas at the time of the Boer war, in the purchases of hay and oats, at least one-fifth of the expenditure, on the admission of the Minister of Finance, was Canadian money. The contracts at the time of the Boer War were all negotiated and completed by the Department of Agriculture. In this case the Government of this country have not had a single thing to do with the matter; they have had no control and no say, and they have made no effort in any way to interfere with the administration of the Shell Committee. In this case the prices were fixed by the War Office. At the time of the Boer War, so far as my information goes, the prices, were fixed by the Department of Agriculture, and the whole transaction was governed by Orders in Council of the Canadian Government and was carried out by officials thereof. Even under those conditions the right hon. gentleman who moves this motion refused the investigation or information then asked for, but he now calls on us to investigate into the operations of a committee with which this Government has had nothing whatever to do.
The hon. member for Carleton-and this I' think applies to every other gentleman who spoke on the other side-is very careful to point out that the expression " unwise and improper " is equal to a charge of graft or corruption or fraud. I think I am stating fairly what he said when I put it in that way. If those words really mean that, and if hon. members opposite have any faith in their assertions, why do they not make a charge of fraud or graft or corruption against a member of the Government or, if you will, against any member of the Shell Committee? The nearest we have got to such a charge comes, as one might almost expect, from the hon. member for Carleton, who is the one bold member of the Opposition. At page 1624 of Hansard he says:
And it all comes back to the same dirty trail, J. Wesley Allison. Every dirty trail in the whole transaction leads to Allison, and there is not a dirty trail that J. Wesley Allison has not trodden in the last year and a half.

And at page 1625 he endeavours to make the connection:
This J. Wesley Allison, who the Minister of Militia says has saved this country and ihe Allies $50,000,000 in the purchase of munitions is the man who, along with Carnegie, a member of the Shell Committee,-[DOT]
Now, there is where we get the only connection.
-and I want to bring him :n because he is just as responsible as Allison ; he was in New York consorting with these gentlemen just as much as Allison was-these two gentlemen went to the United States, representing the Shell Committee, and made the nefarious transactions.
That statement naturally reached Col. Carnegie of the Shell Committee. Is it saying too much when I suggest that what the hon. gentleman wants to convey, but what he does not convey perhaps as fairly and as fully as he might, is that there has been corruption; that there has been crooked work, in which Allison, as he says, was engaged, and he connects Col. Carnegie with that. I submit it is fair to argue from what the hon. member says that he is endeavouring to throw out a charge in the shape of an insinuation against Col. Carnegie, a member of the Shell Committee, charging him with a species of corruption. I have been asked to read this letter of March 13, 1916, written by Col. Carnegie to Sir Robert Borden:	.
March 13, 1916.
Rt. Hon Sir Robert Borden, P.C., G.C.M.G., Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir Robert:
I have just read in Hansard the speech made on shell contracts by Mr. Carvell, in which he states on page 1625 that I made nefarious transactions with Allison regarding contracts for fuses.
X am aware that Mr. Carvell has made many statements throughout his address which have not a vestige of truth in them, but here he makes a distinct charge against my character, and as I am unable to challenge him in the House of Commons land demand an apology from him there, may I ask you, as Prime Minister, and on my behalf, to give the lie to his statements, and invite him to repeat his accusations against me where he will render himself amenable to the civil law.
All the negotiations I have had in connection with the fuse contracts in the States, both alone and in conjunction with General Bertram, have been absolutely frank, straight and aboveboard, and I shall pot permit any man to refer to my character in this way.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant, (Sgd.) David Carnegie.
The hon. member for Carleton is dying for an investigation. He wants an opportunity, of connecting up Col. Carnegie with some of those nefarious transactions. He has, under his privilege in this House, made that statement, a serious statement to make in regard to the character of any man. He professes to be brave and he despises those who are cowardly. I give to the hon. gentleman an invitation and tell him if he dares to make, in the shape of a letter or on any public platform where he could be got at and where the privilege that shields him in this House could not be pleaded, the statement he made on March 9, and which I have* put in Hansard; and if he accepts he will get the opportunity of having all the investi gation he wants in regard to the dealings of Col. Carnegie in that matter. The hon. gentleman smiles, as he always does. No matter what hole he may find himself in, no matter how wrong he may be, no matter how wrong he is proven to be, he can still sit in his place and smile. We must give him credit for that much courage, at any rate.
The hon, gentleman says-and this is what prompted me to make my first reference to the political end of this matter- that the Shell Committee is a political organization. We find this repeated in the Canadian Liberal Monthly at page 66 of the issue of February last:
It (the Shell Committee) 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 order to work out what they think best for the interests of the Conservative party of this country.
I would like to ask the right hon. leader of the Opposition if that statement was issued under his authority. One can hardly imagine that it could have been. For we are led to believe that while the war was on, and since we got rid of all thought of an election, we were enj'oying what has been called a party truce. I have here a little yellow circular-that may prove interesting to the hon. member for Carleton-with the heading, " Central information office of the Canadian Liberal Party; conducted under authority of Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier." This is the issue of February, months after we were supposed to have this political truce, and in it we find the statement to 5 p.m. which I have just referred, charging this committee as being a committee for political purposes and

furthering the interests of the Conservative party. And the bon. member for Carleton, in supporting that proposition in the House, referred to orders supposed to have come from the Shell Committee, when in reality, with one or two* exceptions, these orders were placed in the month of January, 1916, a month and a half after the Shell Committee had gone out of business. Sir, I realize that I am but a humble back-bencher on this side of the House; but it does seem to me to be nearly time that somebody should ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether or not we are to have even a semblance of observance of the go-ealled party truce, or are we on this side to observe it, while tons of literature are being sent out-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Alves Boys: I say it in all earnestness; if you like it you are welcome to it. Tons of political literature are being sent out under the authority of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, franked by hon. members on that side of the House. And this has been going on through October, November, December, January, and February. !I have not had the pleasure of seeing the March number, but I am told that it is out and is as vigorous as the rest. And all this while we are supposed to have a party truce. If that is the idea of hon. gentlemen opposite as to how a party truce should be observed, I am glad that we on this side-


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: How about the election you were going to have last spring?


William Alves Boys: Whether we were going to have it or not, I do not know. One thing is sure-we did not have it. But I am satisfied that if the people of the Dominion of Canada ever get a chance to express their views upon what Sir Robert Borden and his Government have done in furnishing substantial aid from Canada, for the first time on behalf of the Empire, we should have nothing to fear from the Tesult qf that vote.
Reference has been made to charges. Bet me just show what the right hon. leader of the 'Opposition demanded in regard to the making of charges when he was leader of this House. Again, I say, if hon. members opposite have charges to make-not charges of unwise expenditure or improvident bargains in every way similar to though not so extensive as the Grand Trunk Pacific proposition-why do they not make them

so that they can be dealt with? Why do they not charge somebody with fraudulent or corrupt acts, or with graft? The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) refused investigations when charges of unwise and improvident expenditure were made. Let me refer to one or two cases. During the session of 1897, Sir Charles Tupper referred to Mr. Charles Russell as being an emissary to Rome on the school question. The words of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) are to be found on page 66 of Hansard of 1897:
If he will make a charge, plain and substantial, that we can understand, I will meet him, but I will have no cowardly insinuations in regard to that matter.
Again, in 1897, when Mr. Davin made a motion for an investigation, we find the right hon. gentleman said, as reported at page 956 of Hansard of that year:
If the hon. gentleman wishes to make a charge against any member of the Government, or any member of this House, there is a proper way to do so, and conforming to the rules of the House, namely, to make a personal statement on his responsibility as a member of the House, concluding his statement with a charge, and that charge must then be investigated. . . The Government will not act in any idle newspaper gossip, but if the hon. member for Bast Assiniboia makes charges on the floor of the House, from his place as a member of the House against any hon. member of this House they will receive the attention of the Government.
Again, speaking in connection with the Tukon, the right hon. gentleman said, as reported in Hansard of 1899, page 6192:
Whenever a motion of this kind has been made whenever a member of this House has thought it his duty to charge against a member of the Government anything he thought should be investigated, he has done it, first, by making a solemn declaration from his seat, that he was credibly informed, and that he could prove such and such facts and that thereupon he has made a substantive motion. If any hon. gentleman will move for a committee of investigation, arid charge a corrupt act against us, he will have that committee immediately, and we will take the responsibility.
I commend that to hon. gentlemen opposite and give them an invitation to bring a charge which will conform to the requirements laid down by their honoured leader.
Mr. Taylor, now Senator, moved a resolution with regard to binder twine in 1899, and the remarks of the present leader of the Opposition will be found in Hansard of that year, page 9908:
If a member occupying the position he does, has any charges to make, he ought to make them, and not deal in insinuations. If he thinks that was a fraudulent transaction of some kind, in which the Department of Justice is implicated.

it is his duty to make the charges, and it will then be the duty of the Government to have an investigation.
Again, in 1906, the late Mr. Monk made a motion with regard to the North Atlantic Trading Company. The present leader of the Opposition spoke as follows:
If the hon. gentlemen opposite have just cause to suppose that a part of the money which is paid in this contract is given to parties connected with the Government, that is a charge which the Government would be bound to entertain, and if any hon. member will allege from his place in this House that some man connected with the Government, either as a minister of the Crown, or as an officer of the Government, had derived any benefit from this contract, nothing shall shield him from inquiry.
Prom first to last there is not a suggestion here, so far as the Government is concerned, of fraud, or corruption, and there is not a member of the Opposition who has seen fit to go so far as to charge anything of the kind against a member of the Shell Committee, unless the reference I have 'made to the remarks of the hon. member from Carleton respecting Colonel Carnegie should be deemed sufficient.
I think the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), in his speech in January, made some reference to the slow progress being made in Canada respecting shells, and referred to the strides which were being made in Australia. I have here a quotation, which I should like to read, published in Canadian Machinery, March 16, 1916, and taken from the Australian Engineering and Machinery. It is as follows :
The situation regarding shell manufacture in Australia is far from satisfactory. It is no fault of those who undertook to make the cases that their efforts have resulted in a pile of provisional rejects, with deliveries practically nil.
A great fuss was made at the beginning, and for that matter is still being made, about what the Federal Government was going to do. We are repeatedly assured that all is going pn favourably, a piece of bluff that ought to be dropped. lit is time that departmental tardiness and blundering in this matter received an exposure. The latest ridiculous decision is to increase the diameter of the bar with the strange notion that the extra metal will eliminate microscopic flaws, due to faults in manufacture. The price of the shells has been fixed and contracts taken on the original diameter. Who is going to recoup the manufacturers for the extra work involved in removing this superfluous stock?
The irony of it all, lies in the praise of Australia's handling of the shell committee by a member of the Canadian Parliament, who was out to criticise his own country's efforts, and of the Commonwealth Minister for Defence complacently quoting this uniformed comparison in reply to his critics. All who know anything of the facts-and Senator Pearce should
be among them-know that in the production of munitions Canada has shown a promptitude and a power of organization which leaves every other British community hopelessly behind. From her hastily-adapted shops she landed satisfactorily shell cases in Great Britain even before the private factories of that country got going on munitions, and by now she has delivered them to the tune of many thousands of pounds. The Toronto correspondent of a daily paper sums up the position thus: " Shell orders which have been filled or which are being filled in Canada, have reached the tremendous total of $500,000,000. More than 300 manufacturing firms are engaged upon the work in one way or another. These firms have installed $30,000,000 worth of special machinery, and emply 100,000 skilled workers."
Not a single shell has yet gone from Australia. These newspaper 'complaints are useless. The shell contractors should discuss the difficulties , among themselves and make united representations to the minister and the War Committee.
With regard to the charge of politics, I should like to say a word, or two in respect of my own county. I suppose that if there is a county in the whole of Ontario-I should say, perhaps, in the whole of Canada-that might be entitled to some consideration at the hands of a political committee, it would be the county of Simcoe. That county is entitled to seven members of Parliament, four in the local House and three in the Dominion, and every one of the whole seven belongs " to the great Conservative party. In my own town, which is part of the riding of South Simcoe, from the days of Confederation down to the present time, we have had the honour to return a follower of that great party. We have an industry in the town known as the Canada Producer Gas Engine Company, an up-to-date foundry, which was assisted by the funds of my town to the extent of $40,000. At their request I came to Ottawa no less than three times, and did my best to secure an order for the manufacture of shells for that company, but I was unable to secure one, and have not secured one up to the present time. In the neighbouring town of Orillia, some 22 miles away, there are four concerns which were then, and as far as I know are now, manufacturing munitions under contract from the Shell Committee. In one of those firms Mr. J. B. Tudhope, for years the Liberal member for Bast Simcoe in the local House, is very largely interested. In another of them, the Long Manufacturing Company, the president was the defeated Liberal candidate in the last provincial election. They were able to get contracts, but I could get none. I ask the hon. member for Carle-ton if he thinks it is fair to, charge this Committee with operating along political



lines, if these are the facts. And I have no reason to believe that the situation in my own county is different from that in any other county.
We have heard the Solicitor General invite the hon. member for Carleton to name a Conservative concern which received contracts from this Shell Committee, and he would undertake that for every Conservative concern thus named the Solicitor General would in return name a Liberal concern that got a contract. I hold in my hand now a list of contracts. I do not kn'ow that it is complete by any means, but I want to tell the hon. member for Carleton that if he accepted the challenge issued to him a month ago, which I gladly repeat now, he will have to name over 100 Conservative concerns before he will exhaust my supply of Liberals in answering him. Not only that, but we have this satisfaction, that a number	of hon.	gentlemen	on
that side of the House have themselves risen in their places and repudiated any suggestion as that made by the hon. member for Carleton, because they know perfectly well that Liberals have obtained numbers of contracts. Let us take one or two examples. In the Belleville district, which is represented by Mr. Porter and Mr. Northrup, we find four concerns with contracts, and I am given to understand that the whole four concerns are Liberal in politics. In Brantford, which Mr. CockshutT- has the honour to represent, we find four concerns having contracts; and again I say, if my information is correct, the whole four of them are Liberal concerns. In the town of Galt, where Mr. Scott, a member on this side of the House lives, we find seven concerns holding contracts, and three of them are Liberals. So I might go all through the list. 1 have no doubt that throughout the whole of Canada we will find just as many Liberal individuals and corporations receiving contracts at the, hands of this Shell Committee as Conservatives; and it ill becomes the hon. member for Carleton to make any such suggestion as he has made.
I have already said that, as far as 1 am concerned, this discussion at the present time is distasteful. I do not believe it will do any good or can do any good. The right hon. leader of the Opposition has told us that he desires to probe and remedy. No matter how much you probe, how can you remedy, even if there was anything wrong? The Shell Committee is a defunct organization, and the present committee is operating to the satisfaction of hon. gentlemen tMr. Boys. ]
opposite and of the people of Canada. No matter what this proposed investigation should reveal, what good, could it possibly do.? Is it not true that the members of this Government, whose departments require at their hands all the time that they can give, should be permitted to attend to the affairs of the Empire and to Canada's part in this war rather than that they should be bothered with this endless party discussion which has been going on in this House practically from the day we first met until the present time?
If the soldiers at the front who have suffered the consequences of war could be suddenly transported to seats in the gallery of this House, to hear what has been going on for the last two months, and then give vent to their thoughts, would they not be somewhat on these lines: " Is it possible that in the midst of this Empire struggle the Canadian House of Commons has been in session for two months, accomplishing practically nothing owing to useless and long-winded attacks upon the Government, without even the introduction of an amendment designed to further the interests of Canada in the prosecution of the war, wasting both time and money which are at present needed more than ever? Is it possible that all the members realize the nature of and are really thoughtful regarding the operations at the front? Are they fully cognizant of the death and bloodshed, the torture and suffering, the exposure and privations of every description that the troops are enduring, and that with these supreme considerations confronting them they are content, leisurely and in comfort, secure and safe behind the vast establishment of trenches so bravely manned by the best from our land, to criticise and embarrass for partisan purposes the Premier and his colleagues?"
I think, Mr. Speaker, that under these conditions the soldiers I have referred to would, with an expression of disgust, exclaim with one accord: " Get thee hence. Leave these men charged with the duty of administering Canada's affairs free t,o devote themselves to the discharge of their onerous and great responsibilities. Do not distract their attention from their supreme duty. Make all the suggestions you like for the good and welfare of our country and Empire. Make them earnestly and in a spirit of comradeship, as men fighting side by side for the common cause and not against each other. Beturn at the earliest moment to your respective homes, make

straight for all the patriotic, Red Cross and recruiting meetings you can attend. Do your utmost to interest the people in the cities, towns, and rural parts to continue with increasing vigour the splendid assistance so willingly rendered up to the present. Help on to the best of your energy and ability the ladies who have so earnestly and effectively engaged in the work of Red Cross and field 'comforts, and in that manner alleviate at least some of the sufferings at the front, and in all probability contribute to the saving of 'both life and limb."
Sir, these are the paramount considerations; these are the main objects to which our attention should be directed. If every member of this House were to devote the same [DOT] amount of time and energy to this work which some have spent voluntarily, ithers involuntarily, in lengthy, useless, and genefally speaking, unprofitable discussions and criticisms, no one could accurately estimate the good that such united effort would result in.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by expressing the profound hope that we have reached the end of this party strife until, at all events, final victory secures for us an honourable and abiding peace and establishes upon foundations as sure and solid as Gibraltar an international understanding which will forever shackle Prussian militarism and ensure for future generations a proper conception of international honour and the fullest measure of freedom and liberty, the very essence of democracy.


George William Kyte: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General, when he opened his speech on the ltth of March, referred to what he regarded as signs that hon. gentlemen on our side of the House were not showing deep enthusiasm for the resolution under consideration. Were I disposed to reply in kind, I should say to him that members supporting this Government since the resolution moved by my right hon. leader was placed before the House are quite open in their condemnation of the matters that are the subject of complaint. I do not say that their independence will lead them to vote against the Government, but inasmuch as an election cannot be long delayed, they are content do leave this condemnation in the hands of the electors of Canada.
It has developed in the course of this debate that an entente has been established between the two great central powers of
the Conservative party in this House-I refer to the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) and to the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett). Two years ago it would have been quite impossible to get these two hon. gentlemen to follow each other upon the same side in a debate. About that time the hon. Solicitor General was taken into the Cabinet and the member for Calgary was obliged to cool his heels upon the doorstep. That this was not particularly .agreeable to the hon. member for Calgary, he showed quite clearly in the debate upon the Canadian Northern resolutions. The prolonged absence, however, of the Minister of Militia and Defence from his post while his department is under fire suggested ,to the hon. member for Calgary that a vacancy in the Cabinet is imminent, which he believes he can fill with great glory to himself if not with satisfaction to the British Empire. Therefore he and the Solicitor General have entered into a magnanimous understanding by which they agree to sink their , differences while there is danger at the front- the front being, of course, the Government benches.
It is not my purpose to reply specifically to the speech made by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys). It must have been very apparent to hon. members who listened to his speech that it consisted largely of a restatement of the alleged facts given to the House by the Solicitor General, although in fairness to the Solicitor General I may say that the member for Simcoe did not quite equal his performance.
Two main reasons are put forward by the Government why this investigation ought not to be granted; first, that the Shell Committee was appointed on the recommendation of the British Government and for the purposes of the British War Office; second, that the money expended by the Shell Committee was the money of the British Government and not the money of the Canadian people. I will refer to what occurred during the Debate on the Address, when the hon. Solicitor General addressed the House. He stated

I quote from Hansard, page 124:
The naming of them-
-meaning the Shell Committee-
[DOT]-was done by this Government. They were constituted, on being so named, and having been constituted, they were placed at the disposal of the Imperial authorities and became a committee answerable to the Imperial authorities alone. Now, have I stated that emphatically and clear-

ly? Upon their being named by us at the request of the Imperial Government, they became an Imperial Government committee, responsible to and answerable to the Government of this Empire. They conducted their business directly with the Imperial authorities. Communications passed from the Shell Committee to the Imperial Government and from the Imperial Government to the Shell Committee. Had they been in a position where we had authority over them, had they been constituted as a committee under a department of this Government, they would have been answerable to this Government; we would have had authority over them and we would have been responsible.
Again, he says:
I apprehend from the speech of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) that he thinks, when the parting of the ways confronted us, that we took the wrong course; that we made a false election, and that we should have taken in hand and made it our business to ccntrol the manufacture of shells in Canada, and that we should have made the commission, or department which undertook that control responsible to the Government of this country. Well, if we had done so, if we had made that election and taken that course, then we doubtless would have been responsible. Then if errors were committed, we would have been the ones to answer for them; but at the same time we would have had control, and we would have been in the position to prevent errors from taking place.
I propose, by way of offset to the statement made by the Solicitor General, to quote from a speech made by the right hon. Prime Minister on April 15, 1915, with reference to the appointment, constitution, and authority of the Shell Committee. The Prime Minister said:
The Minister of Militia himself, it is only lust to say, at least two or three months ago brought this question before Council and urged upon Council the advisability of having his department assisted in this regard by a committee of three business men. In respect of some other matters, the Minister of Militia has taken a course along that line which has brought about most excellent results.
If the House will pardon me

my remarks have been extended beyond what I had at first contemplated-I wish to place before Parliament the record of what has been accomplished by the committee appointed in this country to fill orders which the British Government desired to place here, if they could be placed in Canada, for the supply of munitions. A committee was formed by the Minister of Militia in the early stages of the war, consisting at that time of Col. A. Bertram, Chairman; Thos. Cantley, Esq.; Geo. W. Watts, Esq.; E. Carnegie, Esq., representing the manufacturers ; Col. T. Benson Master General of Ordnance, Col. Greville Harston, Chief Inspector of Arms and Ammunition ; and Lt.-Col. F, D. Lafferty, R.C.A., superintendent of the Dominion Arsenal, representing the Department of Militia and Defence.
It does seem to me most extraordinary that hon. gentlemen supporting the Government, aye, hon. gentlemen in the Government, will repeat in this House day after day that this committee was only ap-

pointed upon the recommendation of the Imperial Government. Before I have concluded, with the reading from the speech made by the Prime Minister on the I5th April last, I will show that the Imperial Government never knew anything about the existence of this committee until the Minister of Militia and Defence sent a representative over to the Imperial Government to see if he could get any contracts for shells to be placed with Canadian 'manufacturers. The Prime Minister proceeds:
The executive work of the committee has been very wisely entrusted to the chairman. Colonel Bertram, who reports weekly to the Minister of Militia and also to the committee when it meets (which is usually monthly) or more often, at the call of the minister.
The work consists of controlling what mignt be regarded as a huge combination of factories, in which various contracts are being executed to British War Office specifications, which entails constant attention and queries regarding the selection of suitable factories, the placing of contracts, instructing manufacturers in the art, inspecting the parts made, and the payment and auditing of accounts, etc. . . .
The Minister of Militia called a meeting of the committee at Ottawa and, after discussing the matter, cabled to Lord Kitchener, pointing out that much larger contracts could be undertaken by the manufacturers in Canada. He emphasized the fact that many works were standing idle in the Dominion' while contracts were being placed in the United States for shells by the British War Office. This resulted in additional contracts for 18-pr. fixed ammunition, complete without fuses and empty 18-pr. shrapnel shells.
It was proposed by several of the manufacturers that a deputation from the committee should be sent to the War Office, London, to put their claims before the Secretary of State for War. The Minister of Militia decided, on the recommendation of the committee, to send Mr. David Carnegie, as he was familiar with the whole situation. It was also decided that he should visit Woolwich Arsenal and obtain the latest information on the various details in the manufacture of complete ammunition.
The result of his visit has been fully reported to the Minister of Militia, but it might be briefly stated here that the War Office officials did not fully understand the nature and impor-ance of the committee's work.
They did not understand the nature and importance of the work of a committee, which, according to hon. gentlemen opposite, was appointed by the War Office themselves. I am afraid there is something in the suggestion made in certain of our newspaper press that the parties in control of the War Office are not as competent and as capable as they might be in regard to the carrying on of the war if the statement made by hon. gentlemen opposite that they were so incompetent, so obtuse, as not to understand the work and constitution of a committee, which it is alleged

they appointed themselves, is true. I think this statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister effectively disposes for all time of the suggestion that the committee was appointed on the recommendation of the War Office:
Mr. Carnegie presented to the Master General of the Ordnance, General Sir Von-Donop, K.C.B., one of the first shrapnel shells made entirely of Canadian materials, excepting the copper band. He also informed the various officials at the War Office that it was the intention of the Minister of Militia and his committee-
-and his committee, mind you-
-to make ultimately the copper bands in Canada. As a result of this visit, several additional large contracts have been placed with the committee.
It appears to me that it is a useless and reckless waste of time to further argue that this committee is a committee appointed and constituted by the British Government, and not appointed and constituted by the Canadian Government. When the Prime Minister made the statement to the House of Commons that I have just read there was no anticipation in his mind that the time would arrive when it would be necessary, in the interest of the Government, to repudiate the appointment and constitution of the Shell Committee. He made the statement, as I have said, without having foreseen the mess that would be brought about by the work of this committee.
He made the statement frankly to the House, and it was only when it became known to the public that this committee had not discharged its obligations in the interests of the people of this country, that hon. gentlemen opposite turned around and said: This is not our committee at all, but a committee appointed by the British Government.
I now wish to refer to what the Minister of Militia had to say upon this subject. On page 295 of the Revised Hansard he is reported as follows:
At a meeting of manufacturers

That is, the meeting at which it was decided to appoint this committee-
At that meeting of manufacturers, which was a very large one, they were so nervous over their capital that only a very small number-I forget the exact number-could be induced to enter into the business at all, and they could not be induced to do so until we took them down to Quebec and showed them during a period of several days how the manufacturing of shells was done, comparing our not up-to-date equipment with the splendid machinery in their big factories. In some
cases we had to get them financially encouraged by the banking institutions before we could induce that small number at the beginning to enter into the shell business. We lent them our military experts, officers of the department; and, in passing, let me say that we lent these experts also to the big firms in the United States which had been making shells and which had asked the privilege of consulting our experts and seeing our factories turning out shells. We also sent our experts from factory to factory in the United States to give instruction in the making of shells for the British Government, because the urgency was so great. The Shell Committee was then formed.
That is the end of the minister's statement. Here we have the very man upon whose recommendation, according to the right hon. the Prime Minister, the committee was appointed, saying that the committee was appointed upon the recommendation of manufacturers. He says that he appointed them for the purpose of looking into the capacity of Canadian factories, and reporting to the British Government to what extent shells could be manufactured in this Dominion. On the same page of Hansard the Minister of Militia and Defence is reported to have used the following language:
And here let me frankly admit to the House that it (the Shell Committee) is my baby; I am the father of the concern, be it for good or be it for bad, and I purpose sticking to it as long as it has a button left on its jacket.
That is the jaunty and picturesque language which the minister used-language that so well becomes the dignity of a minister of the Crown. He was so enthusiastic over the appointment of the Shell Committee that he was determined no person should be appointed guardian over it; he was going to discharge the duties and responsibilities of parentage as long as the Shell Committee existed. In these statements-the statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister, and the statements made by the Minister of Militia and Defence-they told the people of this country the circumstances under which the committee was appointed, and I submit that it is too late when trouble has loomed up, and failure has been written on every act almost of the Shell Committee, for the Government to repudiate their creation, and cast the responsibility for its constitution upon another authority.
As to the second reason put forth for refusing to grant this inquiry, namely, upon the ground that the money spent by the Shell Committee was not Canadian money but the money of the British Government, I will quote the language of the Minister of Finance, who, in answer to a question

put to him by the hon. member for St. John, replied (Hansard, page 42):
In a general way, I may say to my hon. friend that the Government of Canada is bearing the entire expense of Canada's participation in the war. There will necessarily be certain accounts which cannot be adjusted until the war is over, or until a later date.
Mr. Pugsley:	That means, of course, all the
ammunition, all the guns, all the boots and shoes, and all the clothing used by the Canadian soldiers at the front?
Sir Thomas White:	Our understanding is
that the Canadian Government will pay all, but that an adjustment is necessary and will have to take place later. ... In other words, we desire to pay the entire cost of the Canadian Expeditionary Force abroad.
I am willing to put that statement of the. Minister of Finance against all the speeches delivered by the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General, the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. B. B. Bennett), and the hon. member for ISimcoe (Mr. Boys), and let the people j'udge whether or not Canada is expending any money, and whether or not the Canadian people have a right to an accounting from this Government and the Department of Militia and Defence for the money which is being spent to carry on Canada's co-operation in this war.
In addition to the two general grounds of objection to granting this inquiry two special pleas have been filed, one by the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen), and the other by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett). The hon. member for Calgary pleads what legal gentlemen sitting in this House will understand as a plea of Confession and Avoidance. According to the old practice in the courts, if the defendant, while admitting that the claim of the plaintiff was true, could show that there were circumstances by reason of which he ought not to be called upon to respond to the plaintiff's claim, the defendant filed a plea called a Plea of Confessiop and Avoidance; that is, he confessed to the charge of the plaintiff, but pleaded that there were circumstances which entitled him to judgment. Now, that is exactly the plea put in by the hon. member for Calgary. He admits that there has been wrong-doing. He says that after the war reputations that have been accounted great will fall; they will be tarnished by reason of wrongdoing in connection with the financial expenditures in this war. But then he goes on to plead an avoidance. He says that while the war is on, we are not going to investigate the charges that have been made. The hon, member for iSimcoe has said that a truce is on, and that

that truce ought not to be broken. There has been a truce, according to the statements made by hon. gentlemen supporting both parties. We on this side of the House have recognized the truce in so far as concerns our supporting the Government in all the votes they have asked to enable them to carry on the war. But surely the hon. member for Simcoe does not suggest that the truce is one in which the representatives of the people of Canada should fall asleep while men of the type of Col. Allison, and other associated with him, run away with the money belonging to the people of this country. I say there never was and never can be a truce with wrong, with dishonesty, with extravagance and with graft in connection with war expenditure. The people of this country would regard the Opposition in this House as having proved absolutely false to its trust if it accepted the interpretation which has been placed upon the term "truce" by the hpn. member for Simcoe.
Another plea urged by the hon. member for Calgary was that an investigation would expose our resources to the enemy; it would expose the number of men we are recruiting, equipping and training, and the number of shells we are supplying, and would give information in other respects which would be valuable to the enemy.
Let us see what is going on in the country of one of the greatest of our Allies. I refer to the Eussian Empire. A few days ago a despatch in the public press showed that they have in Eussia men of the same type and kidney, apparently, as those we have discovered in Canada since the war began. The following despatch is from Petrograd, and is dated March 23, 1916:
General Soukhomlinoff, former Minister, oi War, has been removed by imperial ukase from the council of the empire, says a semi-official news agency. '
It was announced from Petrograd on March 15 that Emperor Nicholas had approved the decision of a special commission of inquiry to bring evidence of alleged illegal acts of General Soukhomlinoff before the judicial. department of the Imperial Council, with a view to his arraignment on a charge of being responsible for the shortage in munitions which had seriously interfered with the operations of the Russian army. General Soukhomlinoff had resigned as Minister of War on June Z6, 1915.
There is apparently no fear on the part of the Eussian Government that an investigation into the misconduct of their Minister of War will disclose information that would be valuable to their enemies, and injurious to the Eimpire. The Czar took the course that the head of any other Government would have taken that desired

honesty and proper dealing in the discharge of its obligations. Since this war broke out investigations of a similar character have been held in France, in Germany, in Austria, though not in England, I am bound to confess, because there appears to have been no disposition on the part of anybody in authority there to filch the nation's money that was intended for the carrying on of the war. Here in Canada we have the only country, the only British possession that refuses to investigate the misconduct and the maladministration in respect to the carrying on of the war.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 11, respecting- the British America Nickel Corporation, Limited.-Mr. Northrup.
Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I understand that this amendment is not important, and it is customary, in such cases, to read the amendment a second time and pass it.


George Perry Graham: Can some hon. member explain what the amendment is? It seems' to be the striking out of a clause. *


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: The amendment is to strike out section 3, which is as follows:
3. The shareholders of the company may by a resolution passed by a vote of those present, or represented by proxy and holding not less than two-thirds of the issued capital stock represented, at a general meeting called for that purpose, authorize the directors to delegate any of their powers to an executive committee consisting of not less than three to be elected by the directors from among their number. A committee so formed shall in the exercise of the powers so delegated conform to any regulation that may be imposed upon it by such resolution or by the directors.


Mr. PTJGSLEY:: This is a rather important amendment. It affects the internal arrangements of the company.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: If it is the desire of the House, the Bill can be referred, to committee.
On motion of Mt. Wilcox, the Bill was referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.
On the Order:
Consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 22 to incorporate the Edmonton and Southwestern Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Is it the pleasure of the House that this Bill should be referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines?


William Pugsley: This amendment is not , important.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: This amendment is to section 17 of the Bill, which makes necessary the consent of municipalities or other authorities for lines upon highways. Whereas the section provides:
Nothing in this Act or in the Telegraphs Act shall authorize the company to construct or operate any telegraph or telephone lines.
and so on; the amendment provides:
Nothing in this Act or in the Telegraphs Act shall authorize the company, or any lessee or grantee under section 16 of this Act, to construct or operate any telegraph or telephone lines.
and so on. *


Mr. ROSS:: The amendment is protective rather than otherwise. I move the second reading of the amendment.


Mr. REID:: I would like some explanation.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: The reason I suggested that this amendment was not important is that it merely carries to a grantee or lessee of the company a restriction which is imposed upon the Government by the original section. It is very unimportant so far as the public interest is concerned.


Mr. ROGERS:: It seems to me very important, for, if the municipality have the right, in the first instance, to say whether or not a certain franchise should be given, it seems to. me their right should terminate with that, rather than that it should extend as suggested by the Senate. It might involve very serious ^consequences. I am not objecting to it at this time, but it seems to me it is a matter that would require consideration.


Mr. NESBITT:: If the municipality have the right to bind the company, they should have the right to "bind the lessee.
On motion of Mr. Ross, the Bill was referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals, and Telegraph Lines.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 70, respecting the Atlin Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Arthur Alexander Reinhardt.-Mr. Fripp.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, for the appointment of a special committee to inquire into the purchase of shells, etc., resumed.
George William Kyte: Before the House rose, I pointed out that the two grounds upon which hon. gentlemen opposite seek to refuse this investigation were not substantial, and, upon the testimony of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and statements made by the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), ought not to prevail. It is quite true, the Prime Minister, since making these statements, and for reasons which are obvious to all within the sound of my voice, endeavoured to repudiate to some extent the meaning taken from the statement he made. I understand that the Finance Minister is to follow ine in this debate, and it will not surprise me should he make an effort to show that when he made the statement that Canada was to pay her full share for participation in the war, he did not mean what he said.
I cannot conceive that any other course is open to the Solicitor General than to support the resolution of my right hon. leader. I pointed out before six o'clock that when he spoke in the debate on the Address he said that if the Shell Committee were appointed by this Government this Government would hold itself responsible for the conduct of that committee. I have proved that the committee was appointed by this Government and that it has expended money belonging to the taxpayers of Canada. Therefore, after the statement made by the Solicitor General, he must, to be consistent and to be honest with himself, support this resolution. The last special plea filed against the resolution was that filed by the Solicitor General, and, as was to be expected, it is the most technical plea of all. The defence made by the Solicitor General, in his speech following that of the hon. member for St. John, was based upon a plea of demurrer. Demurrer, as those of us who belong to the legal profession know, is a most technical pleading which has been abolished in most of the provinces in this 
Dominion. It is to the effect that when a claim is made, although the defendant agrees as to the equity of the claim, nevertheless, on account of some inaccuracy or of some inexactitude as to the description of the claim, the date, or circumstances, in the plaintiff's allegation, it ought not to prevail, but should be ruled out of court on account of these technicalities. As I said, this plea has been abolished in the several courts of Nova Scotia and in other provinces of Canada. But sometimes the plea is made in the police court. I have known myself that when a criminal is put on trial and is defended by a young and inexperienced lawyer, if the court before which the trial is held is not presumed to be as well grounded in the principles of law as the judges in the higher courts, the lawyer defending him takes advantage of the fact, and, although the criminal is proved to have committed the offence, if the evidence shows for instance, that instead of it having been committed at 9 o'clock in the morning it was committed at midnight, he argues that therefore the criminal is entitled to an acquittal. The whole answer of the Solicitor General to the demands of the right hon. leader of the Opposition for an inquiry into the purchase of shells and other munitions, is that the statement made by the hon. member for Carleton as to the quantities and deliveries of shells and fuses, as well as the particulars of claim in other respects, were not absolutely accurate, and therefore the resolution of my right hon. leader should not be accepted by the House. In effect, the Solicitor General says that, inasmuch as the member for Carleton did not state these particulars correctly, no matter how many millions may have been lost by the incompetency of the members of the Shell Committee and the dishonesty of some of those with whom they did business, no inquiry is to be made and no restitution ordered. The hon. member for Calgary stated that Mr. Thomas and Mr. Hichens and Mr. Kerr said to the Prime Minister that the prices had in some instances been high, but acquitted the gentleman presiding over the Shell Committee of any wrongful purpose. I should like to ask the member for Calgary how a baby can be convicted of any wrongful purpose. The Minister of Militia and Defence said that the Shell Committee was a mere baby created by him. I presume his description of the majority of the Shell Committee was an exact description. So it comes down to this, that while the Shell Committee, on

account of incompetence or for some other reason, may have committed the offences charged against it, nevertheless they ought to be acquitted of any wrongful act. It is a well-known principle of law that if a man places in the hands of an infant a weapon or instrument that is dangerous, and in the handling of that weapon or instrument the infant causes damage, the baby is not nut upon his trial for the act. Who is held responsible by the court? The party who placed the dangerous weapon in the hands of the infant. Therefore, if the Shell Committee is a mere infant, as described by the Minister of Militia and Defence, who is to be held responsible for the wrongs which it has committed? Why, it must be the patty who gave the opportunity to the baby to do those things which have resulted in loss to the people of Canada. Again, it brings the whole thing _back to the Minister of Militia and to the Government, and these are the parties who are on trial.
I stated that the defence made by the Solicitor General was that the bon. member for Carleton did not correctly state the dates, quantities, and deliveries. That may be partly true, but it must be 'borne in mind that the hon. member for Carleton did not have access to the records. He was obliged to get his information as best he could in reference to a number of contracts extending all the way over the Dominion of Canada from Cape Breton through to Vancouver, and from Toronto down to the state of Virginia. How was it possible that the hon. member could be absolutely correct in all the information he collected when he had to get this information as best he could, without any assistance from the records in the custody of the Shell Committee or the Munitions Board? To show the difficulty the hon. member for Carleton had in getting this information, I propose to put on Hansard statements made by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. When the hon. Minister of Marine spoke on the debate on the Address and referred to the charges made by the hon. member for Carleton in that debate, he said:
I have a list here; it is not as complete as it should be, and I do not think it takes in everything, but if my hon. friend wishes me to do so, I shall be glad to lay it upon the table of the House.
Mr. Macdonald : Put it on Hansard.
Mr. Hazen: I will hand it to Hansard.
Mr. Carvell: Will the hon. gentleman at the same time give us a list of all the Arms in Canada who have received contracts?
Mr. Hazen: I have been trying to get a completed list.
Mr. Carvell: My hon. friend has not one-quarter of them.
Mr. Hazen: This list may have some omissions. I did not prepare it with the intention of laying it before the House ; it was for my own purposes in this debate. If my hon. friend does not want me to hand it to Hansard, I will not do so; I was merely acceding to the request of the hon. member for Pictou.
Mr. Carvell: We should like to have it, as well as a supplementary list showing all the contractors.
Mr. Hazen: How easy it would be for my hon. friend to ask that somebody should bring down a statement showing the names of the concerns to whom contracts were awarded by the Shell Committee.
The Minister of Marine rather scoffed at the idea of the hon. member for Carleton asking him or anybody else to produce any proof as to the particulars of shell contracts. Then he proceeds:
I am sure that if he himself would go to the Shell Committee, they would be delighted to give him such a list. However, I will do as the hon. member for Pictou has requested; I will lay this document, as I have it, on the table of the House, and, in order to save my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) trouble I shall be very glad to go to the Shell Committee and ask them to give me a statement containing the names of those to whom contracts for shell boxes were awarded. This I shall lay upon the table of the House.
Mr. Carvell: Will you give the dates, quantities and prices? As the hon. gentleman is in a good mood, it may be a good time to get this information.
Mr. Hazen: 1 shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend; I am always obliging. My hon. friend could get it for himself, but I shall be glad to send to the Shell Committee and get it for him. Under these circumstances, I suppose it is not necessary that I should put this statement on Hansard, as I told the hon. member for Pictou I would do.
So the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not put the statement upon Hansard, and he gave a promise to the hon. member for Carleton that he would get a complete list of the contracts and hand it to him. Then, on the lOt-h day of February, the hon. member for Carleton spoke as follows:
I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to a statement made by him in the House on the 24th January last, when we were discussing certainl matters in regard to shells, and when there had been a number of questions asked by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and myself. I asked the minister when he was making a statement to the House if he would bring down a list of the contractors to whom contracts had been given. He said :
I shall be very glad to go to the Shell Committee and ask them to give me a statement containing the names of those to whom contracts for shell boxes were awarded.
Mr. Carvell: Will you give the dates, quantities and prices? As the hon. gentleman is in

a good mood, it may be good time to get this information.
On the next day, 25th January, I asked the minister if he would lay the statement on the table of the House, and he said that he would get it ready. Has the minister now the information and can he lay it on the table of the House ?
Mr. Hazen' No, X have not the information for my hon. friend yet, but I am getting it.
The first request made by the bon. member tor Carleton to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, was made, I think, on January. 26. Then on February 15, on the Orders of the Day, the hon. member for Carleton said:
I should like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that on two different occasions I received the promise of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that a complete list of all shell contracts would be laid upon the table of the House. We have waited patiently for this valuable information, and should like to know when we may expect to receive it.
Sir Robert Borden: I will direct the attention of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to my hon. friend's statement. I presume the information could only be obtained from the Shell Committee, and I have no doubt that my hon. friend could obtain it as easily as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Mr. Carvell:	The Minister of Marine and
Fisheries got a portion of it, by some means- I suppose by asking for it. He promised to supplement that information and to give up the whole of it. We feel that that is the proper channel through which it should come.
Then when the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries entered the House he made this statement:
I was not in the House when this matter was brought up. When I was speaking in the debate on the Address, I refered to the names of certain people to whom orders had been given for the manufacture of shells, in answer to the statement that these orders had been given for political purposes. I was asked by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) for further information, and I suggested that the information which he wanted might be obtained from the Shell Committee. The hon. gentleman then asked >
me if I would obtain the information for him, and X said X should be glad to do so if I could, and I believed I could. I wrote a letter to the Munitions Board asking for the information which I said I would endeavour to obtain for the hon. member for Carleton. I received a reply from Mr. Flavelle this morning, and enclosed it to my hon. friend with a covering letter, My hon. friend should receive that letter to-day. Mr. Flavelle in his letter said he did not think that under existing circumstances it was desirable to give that information to the public. In good faith I applied on behalf of my hon. friend who desired the information, and the answer will be in his possession this afternoon. As to my hon. friend's statement that I did not know what I was talking about, I think that statement ought to be modified by my right hon. friend.
, [Mr. Kyte.j
Of course, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries knew what he was talking about so far as he did talk, because he had the information from the Munitions Board. (Reading):
Mr. Carvell: It has been pretty well verified. The Minister of Marine now says he has been refused the information which I wanted by the Munitions Board. Will be kindly tell us how he was able to get the information which he wanted and which he furnished to the House?
Mr. Hazen: The statement which I had was furnished to me by a private individual who knew some of the firms to whom these orders had been given in the province of Ontario. Those that were given in the province of New Brunswick I happened to know myself; hut the Ontario names were given to me by a gentleman who happened to know of his own information what firms were manufacturing munitions in that province. My hon. friend wanted further a statement as to the amounts of the orders the prices, etc., which information I did not have at the time, as I told him then. In reply to my request for this information, I got the letter which I have enclosed to my hon. friend.
Mr. Carvell:	Would the minister object to
giving us the name of the private individual?
Mr. Hazen: It was given me privately.
- So we see how difficult it was for the hon. member for Carleton to get- anything like reliable information. I have a letter written by the chairman of the Munitions Board, a copy of which was forwarded to the hon. member for Carleton by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It is as follows:
February 15, 1916.
* Dear Mr. Carvell,-I wrote to Mr. Flavelle, Chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board and asked him to supply me with a statement showing the names of those with whom orders were placed by the Shell Committee, together with the dates, quantities and prices, and have received from him in reply a letter a copy of which I herewith enclose.
Yours very truly,
J. D. Hazen
Imperial Munitions Board,
Ottawa, Ont., Feb. 14, 1916.
Dear Mr. Hazen,-I have your letter of February 11, in which you ask whether I can give you a statement showing the names of those with whom orders were placed by the Shell Committee, together with the dates, quantities and prices. Such a statement would be very voluminous, over 3,000 orders having been placed by the Shell Committee. Many of the orders are still running, and in some cases the renewal of the modification of them is or may become the subject of negotiation. You will appreciate that under these circumstances it would he, from a business point of view, undesirable that the terms of the orders should become the subject of public discussion at the present moment, which is, I understand, the purpose for which the information is asked.
I am, yours very truly,
J. W. Flavelle,
Chairman.

Now we can appreciate how difficult it was for the member for Carleton to receive anything like authentic official information.


Arthur Meighen: Then should not the
member for Carleton have said that, instead of assuring the House that everything was absolutely sure and right?


George William Kyte: It was as sure and right as it was possible to be, and his figures were very much more sure and right than the figures and the dates given by the hon. Solicitor General.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
extract from the speech of the hon. member for Carleton any single fact that was right, and will he extract from mine any single one that he can show to be wrong?


George William Kyte: It is my purpose to do that to suit my convenience, and not to suit the convenience of my technical friend the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General either spoke without thinking, or he spoke with the object of conveying a wrong impression as to the rignts that the hon. member for Carleton had before the Imperial Munitions Boaru. Vvhy, the hon. member for Calgary twitted the hon. member for Carleton with having got information from the Imperial Munitions Board. He said: "There is no doubt that the hon. member for Carleton has been examining these records in a back room in the office of the Munitions Board." Of course, member# supporting the Government-the hon. member for Calgary and the hon. Solicitor General-had access by the front door, but members of the Opposition, representing the great Liberal party in this country, should be very glad if they could get in through the scuttle. It was insinuated by the right hon. Prime Minister that the right hon. leader of the Opposition had gone to the Imperial Munitions Board for the purpose of influencing the chairman to let a contract to one of his friends. The right hon. leader of the Opposition explained that he went to the chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board for the purpose merely of introducing a friend of his, and asserting q,t the same time-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George William Kyte: Was it wrong for him to go? Hon. gentlemen seem to think no persons but themselves should have a right to go to the Munitions Board. Again, the hon. member for Calgary insinuated that the right hon. leader of the Opposition had
committed a grave offence because he dared to appear before the chairman of the august Munitions Board. I should like to tell the hon. member for Calgary and the hon. Solicitor General that the right hon. leader of the Opposition had a great deal more right to go to the Munitions Board than they had. When Mr. D. A. Thomas came out here from England as the representative of Mr. Lloyd George, he was instructed by the Minister of Munitions in England	to consult with the	right hon.leader of	the	Opposition	as	to the bestmeans	of	securing	the	munitionsrequired	by	the Imperial	Government.
The reason why Mr. Thomas did not have the opportunity of consulting with my right hon. friend was that, unfortunately, when he arrived at Ottawa, my right hon. friend was in the hospital recovering from a very serious operation. I think it is rather unfortunate for this country, for the taxpayers of Canada, and for the success of the Allies, that Mr. D. A. Thomas did not get into communication with my right hon. friend.
Coming back to my hon. friend from Carleton, I think he is to be congratulated upon the fact that, considering all the difficulties surrounding his undertaking, considering the obstacles that were put in his path whenever he endeavoured to get official information, he received so much information that was absolutely correct and authentic. But, Sir, the Solicitor General had access to the records of the Munitions Board.


An hon. MEMBER:: By the front door.


George William Kyte: Of course, by the front door. He is the Solicitor General of the Government; more than that, he is the general of the numerous army of solicitors all over Canada whose names in recent years have been added to the patronage list of the Department of Justice. He had a right to get all the information. When he got up in his place in the House to reply to my hon. friend from St. John and my hon. friend from Carleton, he arose with all the confidence of an hon. member who had exploited and explored every source of information.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: He knew what he
was talking about.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And he got it wrong at that. '	.	.


George William Kyte: When the Solicitor General spoke, the hon. member for Carleton said, as reported at page 1821 of Hansard:
Mr. Carvell: Would the hon. gentleman give the dates of the orders?
Mr. Meighen: I have the whole string here- they are thirty or forty in number.
Mr. Carvell: It would be interesting to have them.
Mr. Meighen: I do not wish to encumber my speech by reading them.
Mr. Pugsley: Members cannot see the dates.
Why, Sir, the Solicitor General knew all *about it. He represented the very ipsissima verba, of truth and fact. He had all the information and he was prepared, he said, to give it to the House. You will bear in mind also, Mr. Speaker, that when my hon. friend from Carleton spoke he said that all the information he was giving was of the date of the 26th day of January. If the Solicitor General will look at Hansard, page 1626, he will find that statement made by my hon. friend from Carleton.


Arthur Meighen: Just read that, will
you?


George William Kyte: The hon. member for Carleton said:
I find that up to the month of January last, when the minister made his speech on the Address-and it is as of that date I am now speaking-orders had been given for the manufacture of about 11,000,000	18-pr. shrapnel
shells.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


George William Kyte: The Minister of Militia and Defence spoke on the 26th of January, so that the information that my hon. friend from Carleton gave was as of that date. It is important that that fact be borne in mind.
As I said a moment ago, the Solicitor General undertook to enlighten this House as to the exact condition of affairs in regard to the letting of contracts. Let us see how well he performed that duty. At page 1821 of Hansard the Solicitor General said:
There was another company which drew tears of sympathy from the hon. member from Carleton, the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. Here is a company, he said, that should have got some business, and they could not get a look-in. It is at page 1598 of Hansard that he wails bitterly at the treatment accorded this poor corporation:
"I wonder if the fact that the great business competitor of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company happened to be the Nova Scotia Steel Company, the manager of which happened to be a member of this Shell Committee, had anything to do with it.
They never got a chance to do business, never got a look-in, until October or November, 1915."

The Solicitor General proceeds:
I do not think the House would be surprised to know the facts in this matter. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Carleton will be surprised; he may have ascertained the facts since. At any rate, the facts are that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company had orders amounting to $4,100,000 in February, 1915. Does the hon. gentleman dispute that? I do not know what they got afterwards, hut on February 20, 1915, they had orders to the amount that I have stated, about three times what the Bertram Company got altogether.
Mr. Carvell: What was it for?
Mr. Meighen:	$600,000 was for shrapnel
shells-
Then he added another thing:
-not for the whole shell, I think ;	-
And again he added
__simply for the steel of the shell. The rest
was for some other part; I am not familiar with these mechanical terms. At all events, they were contracts from the Shell Committee; they were contracts just the same as others. The Nova Scotia Steel Company got similar orders until February, I think. That is all they got till then; then they got orders for some shells.
Then the Solicitor General says:
The Dominion Iron and Steel Company got an order of $600,000 in February, 1915. It has been suggested to me that perhaps we ought to reverse our policy. We have now arrived at the startling discovery that the Nova Scotia Steel Company got its contract in December, and that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company got theirs in February; surely that is a sufficient ground for investigation.
You will bear in mind that during this discussion my hon. friend from Carleton was speaking of shells and fuses.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George William Kyte: Shells and fuses. These were the subjects of the discussion all through, and when he spoke of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company not getting any contracts, of course, he referred to contracts for shells. The Dominion Iron and Steel Company is located in my new constituency, which was bestowed upon me by this Government in the late distribution of seats.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman contend that the hon. member for Carleton is right even then?


George William Kyte: If the Solicitor General will not get excited, and if he will' hear what I have to say, he will know what I contend. I have been- fishing too long to be dragged away from the trail by a red herring. Mr. Speaker, I started that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company is located in my new constituency. I knew that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company had no contracts

for shells, and when I heard the Solicitor General speak with all the authority which such a statement should possess coming from him as a member of this Government, and with all the access he had to the sources of correct information, I was, to say the least, astonished. I knew that for five or six months during 1915 officials of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company travelled from Toronto to Ottawa, from Ottawa to Toronto, and from Toronto to Sydney, to get a contract to make shells, but they never got a contract for a single shell. I must confess that when the Solicitor General, the paid adviser of this Government and the custodian of correct information, stated that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company received orders for making shells and parts of shells, my confidence in my hon. friend from Carleton received somewhat of a shock. I said to myself, if it is true that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company have had a contract for shells in the face of what my hon. friend from Carleton has said, then I will withdraw some measure of the confidence which I have reposed in the ability and acc uacy of my hon. friend. But I got the information, and, to use the language of the Solicitor General, will it be a surprise to hon. members to learn that the statement made by my hon. friend from Carleton was absolutely correct and that the statement made by the Solicitor General was absolutely incorrect. I find that on the 17th of February, 1915, they got an order for 600,000 18-pound blanks. What is a blank? It is steel. The Dominion Iron amd Steel Company .are selling steel all over Canada; they are selling steel wherever they can sell it, in the British Islands, South America and everywhere else; and the order which they got from the Munitions Board, or the Shell Committee, was an order for steel and nothing more. Does the hon. gentleman know what blanks are?


Arthur Meighen: They are just what 1
said they were, but I also said that they got an order for other parts.


George William Kyte: The Solicitor General said the otheT night that he did not know very much about it, and he does not know very much about it yet.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that.


George William Kyte: He said: "The rest was for some other parts-I am not familiar with these mechanical terms." Well, he has not informed himself yet, so I will inform him.
Shell steel, called shell blanks, are simply pieces of steel cut to the diameter and length of shells. There is no forging, no machining, nothing but steel, such as the Dominion Iron & Steel Company sells to every consumer of steel in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Just what I said.


George William Kyte: The Solicitor General was not going to stop at that. He was not quite sure, but he wanted to pretend he was sure. He said: "The rest was for some other parts." He was speaking of shells.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I said some other parts.


George William Kyte: Some other parts of what-I want to tell the Solicitor General now that there was no contract for any other parts, no contract for anything but steel. I cannot make that too emphatic. When the hon. member for Carleton said that they got no contract for shells he stated what was absolutely true, and the Solicitor General stated what was absolutely untrue.


Arthur Meighen: That is absolutely false, as the hon. gentleman will see if he will read what I said.


George William Kyte: The Dominion Iron and Steel Company did get contracts altogether for nearly $5,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


George William Kyte: The first ordeT, on the 17th of February, 1915, was for 600,000 shell blanks, which means 600,000 pieces of steel.


William Pugsley: Steel ingots.


George William Kyte: Yes. Then on the 15th of
May, 1915, they got an order for 1,000,000 more pieces of steel, to make shells out of. On the 2nd of April, 1915, they got an order for 460,000 more pieces of steel to make shells out of. The total value of these orders amounted to $2,060,000. There is another circumstance in connection with that which perhaps hon. gentlemen do not realize, but which they will realize when I call their attention to it. Here was a contract given by the Shell Committee, not for shells, but for steel for shells. The Shell Committee bought that steel at Sydney, and instead of having it manufactured into sheels there, as the Dominion Iron and Steel Company wanted them to do, they distributed it among shell factories all over Canada as far west as Vancouver, and paid freight on all these shipments; and then when the steel ingots were made

into shells, the Shell Committee paid the freight on all these shells from Vancouver and the other factories to the point of shipment. There is business for you! And yet the Solicitor General says there is nothing to investigate. He thinks that everything the Shell Committee has done was perfectly right. I say that, measuring their capacity by the term applied to them by the Minister of Militia, they were babies; they did no more than their ability enabled them to do.
The Dominion Iron and Steel Company did get another contract, for some $3,000,000. I hate to mention figures in the presence of the Solicitor. General; he is so exact himself, and if I should be wrong, I shall never hear the end of it. They got a contract from the Shell Committee for tri-nitro-toluol. Does the Solicitor General say that that is a shell, or part of a shell? Yes?


Arthur Meighen: I did not say so.


George William Kyte: The Solicitor General nodded his head, and I thought toe acquiesced. Tri-nitro-toluol is a high explosive. It is one of the by-products of coal tar. The Shell Committee required large quantities or tri-notro-toluol, which is known as t. n. t. With the exception of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, there was no factory or plant in Canada manufacturing t. n. t. There was not a single pound of it to be had outside of that company, though I understand that a very small quantity has been manufactured at the Sault recently. The Shell Committee could not get t. n. t. anywhere else but from the Dominion Iron and Steel 'Company. I suppose the Solicitor General thinks that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company should feel grateful because the Shell Committee gave them the order when they could not place it anywhere else.
In the course of his references to the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, the Solicitor General went out of his way to drag in the name of Colonel Cantley. He says:
Whose charge are we to investigate? I have no criticism to make of Mr. Cantley. There has not been a tittle of evidence brought before me that Mr. Cantley took any undue advantage of his position Jo benefit his company. There has not been a "suggestion of evidence of that by hon. gentlemen opposite. I have believed Mr. Cantley to be an honest man; I believe his company to be a credit to Canada.
I subscribe, as a Nova Scotian, tp every word said by the Solicitor General of Col. Cantley, who is one of the most enterprising, courteous, and successful of the

industrial giants we have in our province. I made no charge against Col. Cantley; the hon. member for Carleton made no charge against him; but there was a charge made against him, and that charge was placed in the hands of the right hon. the Prime Minister. Who made the charge? Mr. Alexander McGregor, the Conservative candidate in the county of Pictou, who, in the next election, will run against my hon. [DOT]friend the member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). I want to tell the hon. Solicitor General that charges have been made against individual members of the Shell Committee. Alexander McGregor made charges against both Col. Cantley and Sir Alexander Bertram, the chairman of the Shell Committee, and these are the particulars:
Mr. Alexander McGregor, Conservative candidate for the county of Pictou, in the month of August last made to the Dominion Government charges with reference to the Shell Committee, to the effect that it was not possible for any person to get an order for shells unless they purchased their machinery through the company to which Chairman Bertram belonged, and were agents for an American machine concern. They also charged that the Nova Scotia Steel Company had re-let contracts for boxes at lower figures than what they received from the Shell Committee. These charges were investigated before Mr. Riddle, accountant of the Shell Committee, and Mr. Robert Pringle of Ottawa acted as counsel for Mr. McGregor. There is no report as to what was the result of the investigation.
Yet the Solicitor General did in indignant tones, denounce the hon. member for Carleton and every other hon. member on this side of the House because they have insinuated that there is ground for making charges against members of the Shell Committee. What does he say of the charges made by the Conservative candidate for the county of Pictou, which, when sent to Ottawa, were investigated in camera; and no report of that investigation has ever been made public? What is there about this sacrosanct Shell Committee that no one but a Tory dares make charges against it?-unless because, when a Tory makes a charge against it, our friends hold an investigation in camera and the public never know to what extent the iniquities of the members of the Shell Committee have carried them.
I will take these contracts in the order in which the Solicitor General referred to them. My hon. friend says:
The Manitoba Bridge and Iron Works are next. The hon. gentleman says that they got an order for 20,000 shells, and that not a shell has been delivered. He had hardly taken hiB

seat until the answer to this libel was hurled at his head in a telegram from the Manitoba-Bridge and Iron Works themselves.
I have a statement here made by Mr. Flavelle, the chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board, and I will compare it with the statements made by the hon. member for Carleton and by the hon. Solicitor General.
The Manitoba Bridge and Iron Works, Winnipeg, the hon. member for Carleton states, had received an order for 20,000 shells, and the number of shells delivered was nil. The Solicitor General states that they had an order for 20,000 shells and that there were 47,880 delivered. The chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board says that they got an order for 20,000 on the 12th of January and that the number delivered was nil.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now, take you medicine like a man.


George William Kyte: I want to assure my hon. friend-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You are afraid.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: There is no necessity to be afraid of him.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Order. The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) has the floor.


George William Kyte: I want to assure the hon. Solicitor General that I am not afraic^ of anything that he can say.


Arthur Meighen: Just wait till you take your seat.


George William Kyte: I do not intend that the Solicitor General shall interfere with the order in which I purpose making my speech.


Arthur Meighen: That is too cheap.


George William Kyte: The next one is the Manitoba Shell Company of St. Boniface. The Solicitor General says:
I come to the Manitoba Shell Company of St. Boniface. He says they got an order for 10,000 shells, and that some of them have been delivered. They got an order for 10,000 shells, and when did they receive it i -in December, 1915, almost a month after 'the Shell Committee went out of existence.
Now, the Solicitor General endeavoured to make a point.


Arthur Meighen: No.


George William Kyte: The hon. gentleman says, "No." He does not know what I am going to say. The hon. member for Carleton states that the Manitoba Shell Company of St. Boniface received an order for 10,000, and that nothing was delivered. The Solicitor General says that they received an order for 10,000, but he did not like to say that there was nothing delivered, so he did not say anything further. The chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board says that they got an order for 10,000, and that nothing was delivered. There is another case where the hon. member for Carleton and the chairman agree.


Arthur Meighen: Tell the whole truth.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He cannot do it.


George William Kyte: I want to say to the Solicitor General that I happen to have a personal knowledge about the Manitoba Shell Company of St. Boniface. I was in
9 p.m. the city of Winnipeg on the 15th day of October last. A gentleman interested in the Manitoba Shell Company -of St. Boniface took me in his car over ' to St. Boniface. They bad just installed their plant. The installation had not been completed, but they expected to be in a position to make shells in a few days. I was informed there that six weeks before that they had made application for a contract for shells. They were told that they must go to a man named Deacon in the city of Winnipeg.


William Pugsley: Not Allison?


George William Kyte: No, not Allison this time. We will reach Allison later on. They were told that they must go to a man named Deacon, who, I finderstand, is the president oi the Western Shell Company. I may be mistaken, and I say it with bated breath-


Robert Rogers: He is president of the Liberal Association.


George William Kyte: Well, I am sure he is none the worse for that. The fact was that the Manitoba Shell Company of St. Boniface was unable to get a contract in September, or October, or November. I understand that a representative of the company came down to Ottawa, not to get a contract to make shells, because he thought he would never get a contract to do that, but to see if he could sell his outfit to some one who would be likely to get a contract from the Imperial Munitions Board. The Solicitor General endeavoured to make a point out of the fact that they got an order in the month of December, after the Shell Com-

mittee went out of existence. Why did they not get an order before? They applied for an order before that committee went out of existence, but they could not get one, so if they did not get an order before the 15t,h of December, it was due entirely to the conduct of the Shell Committee.
The next company referred to is the Transcona Shell Company. The hon. member for Carleton says that they got an order for 250,000 shells, and nothing delivered. You will bear in mind that the hon. member was always speaking as of date the 26th of January. The Solicitor General says they got an order for 250,000 shells, and that there were 28,530 delivered on the 14th of March. And what does the chairman of the Shell Committee say? He says they got an order for 250,000 shells, and on the 1st of February there were none delivered. ' And he says that on the 14th of March, there were none delivered. Here is another case where the hon. member for Carleton and the chairman of the Munitions Board agree, while the Solicitor General and the chairman of the Munitions Board disagree. But that is not the whole story. The Solicitor General again, in order to make the point that the Shell Committee was not responsible for anything complained of in connection with that contract, said that the contract was given on the 4th of January. Of course, the Shell Committee had been dismissed on the last of November. The Solicitor General thought he had scored a point when he stated that this contract was given on the 4tli of January, for that seemed to show that the Shell Committee had nothing to do with it. And what does the chairman of the Munitions Board say? He says that a verbal order was given to the Transcona Shell Company in November, 1915, and that not one of these shells had been delivered.


Arthur Meighen: When was the contract signed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George William Kyte: The hon. gentleman cannot get away with that. And now we come to perhaps the most indefensible of all indefensible statements made by the Solicitor General. The hon. member for Carleton said that the Western Shell Committee got an order for 300,000 shells and not a shell delivered. -Now, if it is going to afford any consolation to the Solicitor General I am going to make an admission that the hon. member for Carleton did make an error.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George William Kyte: I think I am proving that he did not make many errors. When he made the statement that they had delivered no shells he meant to say that they had delivered no shells manufactured by themselves.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George William Kyte: That is a statement that is absolutely true. The Solicitor General says that the fact is that the Western Shell Committee delivered 198,178 shells. / I am of the opinion," he says, "that this Western Shell Committee is' a committee of the different factories." It would appear that the Western Shell Committee is The clearing-house to dispose of the shells manufactured by all the other companies in the West. They received from the Manitoba Bridge and Iron Works, up to the 1st of February, 39,498 shells, from the Transcona Shell Company-which was the Grand Trunk Pacific-19,578 shells, and from the Vulcan Iron Works Company, 36,810 shells. These shells, bear in mind, were not delivered to the Shell Committee, but to the Western Shell Committee. The Solicitor General gives credit to the Manitoba Bridge and Iron Company for the delivery of 47,880 shells, to the Transcona Shell Company for the delivery of 28,530 shells, and to the Vulcan Iron Works, for the delivery of 46,416 shells. But, according to the statement of the Munitions Board, these three companies have not delivered a sneli to the Shell Committee. So the Solicitor Genera! gave credit to these three companies for the delivery of some 122,000 shells, and then he gives credit to the Western Shell Committee for delivering them all over again. Here are the hon. gentleman's words:
I am of opinion that this Western Shell Committee is a committee of the different factories out there who are doing the work; and while I do not wish to say positively, X have been inclined to believe that this represents other orders, and that to count those with the others would be to count the others' twice.
So the hon. gentleman gives credit to the Manitoba Bridge and Iron Works, to the Transcona Shell Company and to the Vulcan Iron Works for the delivery of shells, and then he gives credit to the Western Shell Committee for delivering them all over again; and he says:
I have been inclined to believe that this represents other orders.
But did he show the other orders? No, he left it to be inferred by this House that

these were not the same orders. He had the facts before him, but the facts were not what he was after.
That covers all the contracts about which there is any dispute between the hon. member for Carleton and the Solicitor General. I say again the Solicitor General had access to the records; every door was open that would enable him to get information any place that he chose to seek it. But the hon. member for Carleton, with the doors and avenues of information closed to him, had to go around and get the information the best way he could. Yet we find that in all those cases the figures given by the chairman of the Munitions Board agree with the figures given by the hon-. member for Carleton, and disagree with those given by the Solicitor General.


Arthur Meighen: But you will not let me get up.


George William Kyte: It is not that I am afraid of the Solicitor General.


Arthur Meighen: Just try it.
Mr.- KYTE: Now, I am going to give you a choice illustration of the art of side-stepping, as practised by the Solicitor General. He goes on to say:
The committee was appointed to supply the goods, and to deal with other men who would undertake to supply them. Who would he competent to deal with steel men, and to drive bargains with them in regard to supplying steel for munitions, if not men who knew the steel business, and knew all the secrets and tricks of the trade? My right hon. friend said: "You should have appointed somebody else." If we had done so, we could have shielded ourselves behind the example of the right hon. gentleman himself when he was head of the Government; we could have appointed lawyers and politicians and members of Parliament and every other class of men except those who knew the business which they were appointed to do. We could have justified ourselves by the precedent which he established. He appointed a commission to build the Transcontinental railway, and he chose a lawyer to build it and a politician out of the House of Commons and a box maker. We should not, he says, appoint a man who makes steel as a member of a committee who are to produce and supply steel to the British Government; we should follow the example of the leader of the Opposition and appoint a man who makes corsets instead.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Whom did you appoint on the Munitions Board?
Mr. Meighen: On the Munitions Board there are still manufacturers of steel.
How he side-steps.
Mr. Pugsley : Who is the chairman?
Mr. Meighen: The feature that was most in mind necessarily at first is no longer the most prominent feature of the work. They are now experienced in the work they have to do. It has become a great business which has to be
presided over by a man of large financial grasp. It is no longer a business where the chief work is to deal with steel men, and to have the expert knowledge necessary to deal with them. But there are steel men on it still. Most of the men my hon. friends are complaining about are on it still; on the first committee, the Shell Committee, they were all wrong, but they are all right on the Munitions Board. Mr. Bertram is on it still. Mr. D. Carnegie is on it still, and I think there are one or two others Who were on the old committee that are on the Munitions Board, but I am not sure.
You see he leaves a gate to slip out of. .
At all events, those I have mentioned are on it still.
So the Solicitor General makes the defence of the appointments that were made that it was necessary to appoint steel men-steel men only were competent, and when he is brought face to face with the fact that the chairman is not a steel man, but is engaged in the packing business in Toronto, he immediately side-steps and says: "Oh, it is unnecessary to have steel men on now." But, he says: "We have on our committee the men who were on the old committee." I am not absolutely certain, and again I speak with hesitation, but I think only two of the old Shell Committee are upon the present Munitions Board:	one, Sir
Alexander Bertram, who is breathing the soft perfumes of the orange groves of Florida, where Col. J. Wesley Allison is also resting, and the other, Mr. D. Carnegie, who is also in the United States. There is a great predilection on the part of these gentlemen to go to the United States. This is an- instance of artistic side-stepping in reference to the Shill Committee.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Carnegie is in town to-night, and has been here all along.


George William Kyte: The Solicitor General is very smooth. I assume he does not altogether neglect his English classics and consume all his midnight oil in thinking out how he is going to trap the other fellow's client by wily and subtle technicalities. I would advise him to read " Ten Thousand a Year," where he will find a description of the legal firm of Quirk, Gammon & Snap, and then let him tell me what he thinks of the application of Oily Gammon to the present situation.
I am not going to say that the absolutely incorrect figures given by the Solicitor General were quoted by him with a deliberate intention of deceiving the House. I do not say that, because the rules of debate do not permit me to say it. But the result upon


Arthur Meighen: You have yet to check me up.


George William Kyte: No, I am not going to say that he deliberately deceived the House. I will just say that he resorted to the Manitoba Tory methods of reckless statement. Roblin got away with it for twelve years in the Legislature of Manitoba. For twelve years Six Redmond Roblin could get up in his place in the House of Assembly and, with all the importance and influence of his position as Premier, make statements that were absolutely reckless; and, owing to the manner in which business was conducted, he got away with it. But the time came when Roblin could not get away-except to California where he went to recuperate in order that he may be in a better position to face his accusers in a criminal dock. The Solicitor General thought he was in Manitoba, and that he could get away with these statements in the House of Commons; but he has not succeeded.


Arthur Meighen: You are a brave man.


George William Kyte: Now, we will come to the subject of fuses. With regard to fuses, on March 14, the Solicitor General, on page 1824 of Hansard, said:
I cannot tell what they delivered in the third week of January; but I do know that they delivered practically 400,000 fuses when the hon. gentleman spoke in this House on the 9th of March, and when he stated that they had never delivered any fuses.
Let us see what the hon. member for Carleton did say. According to the Soli' citor General, the member for Carleton, when he spoke in the House on March 9, stated that they had never delivered any fuses. I turn to Hansard and I read what the hon. member for Carleton said:
The result is that the Canadian manufacturers are furnishing the fuses, exactly as per contract, for $3.50 each, whereas the American manufacturers, who have received over $3,000,000 of good British and Canadian money, have never furnished a fuse, hut have simply sublet the contracts to the friends and confreres of J. Wesley Allison, and I do not think. Sir, you would have to make half a dozen guesses in order to name his principal confrere.
The Solicitor General, in pretending to quote the statement of the member for Carleton, said that the hon. gentleman's

statement was that they had not delivered any fuses. What the member for Carleton did say was that they had not furnished any fuses, but had simply sub-let the contracts to the friends and confreres of J. Wesley Allison.


Arthur Meighen: In two other places he said that there had been none delivered.


George William Kyte: Is the hon. Solicitor General getting uneasy? If he is not, he ought to be. I am going to read now the respective statements made by the hon. member for Carleton, the Solicitor General, and the Chairman of the Munitions Board in this regard. The member for Carleton stated that on January 26 orders were given to the American Ammunition Company for 833,334 time fuses at $4.50 and 1,666,666 graze fuses at $4, and that the number of deliveries made was nil. The Solicitor General said that this company received a contract for 2,500,000 time fuses and 1,666,666 graze fuses.


Arthur Meighen: No, I did not.


George William Kyte: And that on the 14th day of March 417,000 graze fuses were delivered. Hon. gentlemen will remember that the member for Carleton was not speaking of the 14th of March, he was speaking as of the 26th of January. Mr. Flavelle, the chairman of the Munitions Board, says: Date of order, June 19, 1915; number of time fuses delivered, nil. In that respect he agrees with the member for Carleton. He says also that on the first day of February,
160,000	grade fuses were delivered. In respect of the International Arms and Fuse Company of New York the member for Carleton said that 2,500,000 time fuses were ordered and that the number delivered on January 26 was nil. The Solicitor General is absolutely silent on that question. Here is one case where [DOT] he thought that silence would be golden. The chairman of the Munitions Board agrees with the member for Carleton that on the first day of February there was not a single fuse delivered, and that on March 14 6,000 time fuses had been delivered out of 2,500,000.


Arthur Meighen: Where did I contradict that?


George William Kyte: following automatic guns with tripod mount: 2 spare barrels for each gun, 1 loading machine for each gun, and 36 feed belts for each gun, in addition to the four that go with each gun, and a sufficient number of asbestos mitts or gloves for the men in charge of the above.
Tours truly,	-
(Sgd.) J. Wesley Allison.
*p.S.-The verbal order which this confirms was for 50 Colt automatic guns.
So you see that Col. J. W. Allison, having ordered fifty machine guns from the Colts people on the first order, was authorized to order the 250 Colts machine guns which were provided for by the Order in Council which I have just read and which Order in Council was signed by the Prime Minister. Thus we see that Col. J. Wesley Allison has been through the machine gun transaction as the representative of the Minister of Militia and Defence. At page 14 I read the continuation of Mr. Brown's examination:
Q. Do you remember seeing Col. Allison at any time?

A. At that time?
Q. During the time that these orders were going to the Colts Company?-A. Yes, I saw Col. Allison several times in the office in 1914.
Q. In the department?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Discussing supplies for the Militia Department?-A. Oh, well, he was in and out; he was not in my office very often.
Q. But you know he was seeking business?- A. Yes, 1 have seen him there.
***** ***
Q. Do you regard him as the agent of the Militia Department?-A. Yes.
We have a further statement of the Minister of Militia and Defence speaking in the House of Commons on March 2:
On tri-nitro-toluol, picric acid, copper, brass, zinc, ammunition of various kinds, Col. Allison undoubtedly saved upwards of $50,000,000 to Great Britain and Canada. Even when the British Government wanted a hundred rifles for testing purposes, they applied to Col. Allison for them.
I wonder on whose recommendation. I wonder if the Minister of Militia and Defence could give any information to this House as to who suggested that the British Government should employ 'Col. Allison to buy the picric acid. Speaking in the House of Commons on the 26th of January, the Minister of Militia said:
I may say further concerning Col. Allison- I shall refer to the matter of fuses in a very short time-that in all his dealings with business firms in the United States he has in each instance, so I am informed and believe, given those with whom he dealt the following letter, or one similar:
May 14, 1914.
Confirming my' verbal statements to you of yesterday and in order that there can not he any room for misunderstanding, I now reaffirm
[Mr. Kyte.l
in writing my position in connection with the fuse question.
I have been and am doing my very best to secure the lowest prices possible for the Government, and, above all things, wish to do whatever I can to aid them in procuring the best workmanship, lowest prices, and largest deliveries possible; and if you are bidding for the manufacture of this fuse for the Shell Committee or the Canadian Government-.
Col. Allison must have known that the Canadian Government had something to do with it.
*

I want it distinctly understood that I do not want any profit added, to the price under any conditions, with the intention of providing a commission for me, as I would not under any circumstances accept a commission of any kind from anybody, in connection with this matter.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) J. Wesley Allison.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the date of that?
Mr. KYTE; That was a circular letter which he sent out to all parties who were proposing to take these contracts and it is dated May 14, 1915. The House will remember that Sir Charles Davidson was appointed to make inquiries in connection with war contracts and to make some investigation in particular as to the purchase of pistols and other munitions and supplies for the Shell Committee.
. In the month of January, I believe it was, the Minister of Militia and Defence appeared before Sir Charles Davidson in the city of Ottawa, arid asked to make a statement :	[DOT]
By Sir Charles Davidson :
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 "-but at all events, he had nothing to do with the pistols in any sense whatever.
" He " referred to Col. J. Wesley Allison. The Minister of Militia and Defence, therefore, stated in January last to Sir Charles Davidson that Col. Allison had nothing whatever to do with pistols in any manner or form. We now come to the evidence of Col. Allison. He was called as a witness, and this is the evidence he gave upon this point:
Q. Did you sell any revolvers to the Canadian 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 of 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. 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.
We have here the denial of the Minister of Militia and Defence that Col. J. Wesley Allison had anything whatever to do with the purchase of Colts pistols, and we have the evidence of Col. Allison himself that he had nothing whatever to do with Colts pistols. Then the Director of Contracts was called:
Mr. Thompson, K.C.:
Q. Would' you produce from your file the document showing how this contract for Colts 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 dfrders for automatic pistols.
Sir Charles Davidson: The revolvers were only a small matter compared with the other.
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 Col. J. W. Allison, by authority of an Order in Council of that date. I have the Order in Council here before me.
Mr. Speaker, do hon. members of this House who hear these declarations realize what they mean? Do the people of this country realize what these declarations mean? Col. J. W. Allison, the friend and confidant of the Minister of Militia and Defence, the agent of the Department of Militia and Defence for the purchase of machine guns and automatic revolvers, to m say nothing of all the other things he was concerned with, states upon oath that he had nothing whatever to do with the purchase of these pistols. The Minister of Militia and Defence, with all the responsibility and authority that he bore as Minister of Militia, tells Sir Charles Davidson that Col. Allison .had nothing whatever to do with pistols. And yet here is an Order in Council authorising J. W. Allison to purchase those very pistols. Is perjury an extradictable offence? I am not sure whether it is or not, but I think the Solicitor General had better look up the. Criminal Code, and if he finds it an extradictable offence, he had better get busy and bring Col. J. Wesley Allison across the border.
In order not to trespass too much on the time of the House, I shall not go into further evidence that I have as to Col. Allison's relations with the minister and with the Munitions Board, and I pass on to another subject. Yow will remember, Mr. Speaker, that a few minutes ago I read from the sworn evidence of Col. Allison, that he had never received any commission whatever, directly or indirectly. I read his letter addressed to those who were furnishing shells and fuses, also the statement of the Minister of Militia that he had the assurance of Col. Allison that he would not receive a dollar from anybody in respect of his services; and the Minister of Militia hoped that he would keep his hotel and railway bills so that after the war he could be compensated for these little items of expense at any rate. In the month of January, I think it was, Mr. Stone, the President of the Colts Company, happened to be in the city of Ottawa, and was summoned before Sir Charles Davidson for examination. He was examined under oath, and his evidence is as follows:
Sir Charles Davidson: Do you know of any commission having been paid by your company in connection with these Canadian Government orders?
Mr. Stone: Not a direct commission applying to the Canadian Government orders alone.
Sir Charles Davidson:	What do you mean
by a direct commission?
Mr. Stone: I mean that we have in our employment-
" Our employment," mind you.
-men who negotiate Government business tor us and who are working to secure Government business year in and year out, in various territories. We have one man who has done a great deal of business 'for us in continental Europe, during the last two years, looking to the securing of contracts from three or four governments there. That man was very instrumental in assisting the Canadian Government in the securing of these arms, and to him we have given what I may call a present, or paid him an amount of money which is in return for general services rendered, or in negotiating or securing business at large, and trying to get business which he sometimes does not get. So that it may, in a sense, he called a present; whatever we consider a man of that kind to have been worth to us, we give him a payment for it.
Sir Charles Davidson : And that purely has to do with relations between the employer and the employee?	,
Mr. Stone: Quite so, that is entirely so. I might say that any moneys we have paid to any persons who have represented us, or assisted us, in securing business of this kind in Canada, or from Great Britain, or from France, or from Russia, or any of the Allies, has no hearing whatever on the price at which the respective governments buy the arms; any money we have paid in that respect is not at the expense of the buyer at all.


Mr. TURRIFF:: Who got the other four dollars?


George William Kyte: 
Mr. THOBURN:: Who paid the commission? Was it the American manufacturer or the Canadian Government?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Both.


George William Kyte: I know that the Canadian Government paid $4 more than they should have paid for each Colt automatic pistol. I wonder if the hon. member for North Lanark (Mr. Thoburn) can guess who got the difference.
As I was going to say before I was interrupted by my hon. friend, there is the evidence of Col. Stone that Allison was their agent to sell Colts pistols and machine guns to the Canadian Government. Here is the evidence of the Minister of Militia and Defence 'and the evidence of the Director of Contracts that Col. W. J. Allison was the agent, of the Government to buy those pistols and those
10 p.m. machine guns, and here is the evidence of Col. Stone that he paid Col. Allison for selling those pistols and machine guns to the Government. Have hon. gentlemen opposite forgotten about the Secret Commissions Act? We used to hear a good deal about that Act in the old days when my right hon. friend beside rne was leading the Government. I suppose the Secret Commissions Act is as effective to-day as it was then. Had not the Solicitor. General better get busy and look up that Act? and, if a violation of that section of the Criminal Code is an extraditable offence, I think he had better bring back Col. Allison to Canada. Col. Allison is a criminal and a perjurer before the world. He is now a criminal in rdspect of the Secret Commissions Act. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite will say:	"There is
nothing to investigate; no interests have been sacrificed.'' Has there been no wrong-doing when an employee of the De* partment of Militia and Defence, who is also- an employee of the Shell Committee, has committed a criminal breach of trust, to say nothing else, in taking a commission from a company from which he was purchasing goods, and who has committed perjury before Sir. Charles Davidson's Commission? Hon. gentlemen opposite should take the night to think the matter over before they decide to vote against this resolution.
Now, we will proceed to the contract for making fuses between the Shell Committee and the American Ammunition Company. I have here a certified copy of the letters of incorporation of that Company. It was in-

corporated in the state of Virginia and was afterwards registered in the State of New York. I will read only a portion of this document. This is the certificate:
This is to certify that we do hereby associate ourselves to establish a corporation under and by virtue of the provisions of an Act of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, entitled " An Act Concerning Corporations," which became a law on the 21st day of May, 1903, for the purpose and under the corporate name hereinafter mentioned, and to that end we do, by this our Certificate, set forth as follows:
First:	The name of the corporation shall
be American Ammunition Company, Incorporated.
Second:	The principal office of said corporation in the state of Virginia shall be located at No. 700 East Franklin Street, in the city of Richmond.
Third:	The purposes for which the corporation is formed are as follows.
And it goes on to enumerate a considerable number of purposes, amongst others:
To manufacture, produce in whole or in part, ouy, import, contract for, or otherwise acquire, and to sell, exchange, export, or otherwise dispose of, deal in and deal with any and all kinds of war materials and supplies, ammunition, projectiles, shells, shrapnel, torpedoes, cartridges, bullets, gunpowder, balls, bombs, shot of all kinds, dynamite, guncotton, cellulose and its derivatives and compounds, and other explosives and combustibles of eveiry kind and description, cannon, mortars, guns, revolvers, and firearms of all kinds and description, fuses, percussion caps, chemicals and chemical compounds ; raw and [DOT] manufactured materials, and all like or kindred products.
The fourth clause is:	"
The maximum amount of the capital stock of the corporation shall be $1,000,000, to be divided into shares of $100 each, and consisting of 5,000 shares of preferred stock at $100 per share, and 5,000 shares of common stock at $100 per share, and the minimum amount of the capital stock of the corporation shall be $1,000 divided into ten shares of the par value of $100 each.
This tremendous corporation which was going to manufacture shells, fuses, submarines, torpedoes, was to begin upon a capital of $1,000. The seventh clause says:
The names and residences of the officers , and directors who, unless sooner changed by ' the stockholders, are for the first year to manage the affairs of the corporation, are as follows:
Officers.
Andrew D. Christian, President, Richmond, Va. W. G. Lt. McClure, Vice-President, Richmond, Va. Ernest B. Flippen, Secretary and Treasurer,
Richmond, Va.
Directors.
Andrew D. Christian, Richmond, Va.
W. G. L. McClure, Richmond, Va.
Ernest B. Flippen, Richmond, Va.
Tenth:	Given under our hands and seals
this 25th day of May, 1915.
(Sgd.) Andrew D. Christian, (L.S.)
W. G. L. McClure, (L.S.)
_	Ernest B. Flippen, (L.S.)
State of Virglna,
City of Richmond, to wit:
I,	O. Raymond Brown, a Notary Public in and for the city and State aforesaid, do certify that Andrew D. Christian, W. G. L. McClure, and Ernest B. Flippen, whose names are signed to the foregoing writing, bearing date on the 25th day of May, 1915, have acknowledged the same before me in my city aforesaid.
Given under my hand this 25th day of May,' i915.
My commission expires November 18, 1917.
O. Raymond Brown,
Notary Public.
This is one of the munitions companies to which the Shell Committee gave a contract for 2,500,000 fuses, and gave them in advance $1,500,000, to which I shall refer more particularly later on.
I have also a certified copy of the letters of incorporation of the International Arms and Fuse Company-and this, I may say, is the concern in which we are particularly interested:
We, the undersigned, all being persons of full age and at least two-thirds being citizens of the United States, desiring to form a stock corporation, pursuant to the provisions of the Business Corporations Law of the State of New York, do hereby make sign, acknowledge and file this certificate for that purpose as follows:
First: The name of the proposed corporation is International Arms and Fuse Company, Inc.
Second:	The purposes for which said corporation is to he formed are to do any and all of the things hereinafter set forth, to the same extent as natural persons might or could do, viz:
To manufacture, purchase or otherwise acquire and to sell, deal in or otherwise dispose of guns, cannon, rifles, revolvers and firearms of all kinds and description's.
To carry on the trade or business of manufacturers of ammunition of all kinds, and for that purpose to manufacture, purchase or otherwise acquire and to load, sell, deal in, and otherwise dispose of, cartridges, cases, detonators, fulminates line fuses, percussion fuses, bullets shot, and projectiles of every kind and description.
They have power to buy or lease buildings and:
In general, to do any and all things and exercise any and all powers which may now or hereafter be lawful for the corporation to do or exercise under and in pursuance of the Business Corporations law of the State of New York, or of any other law that may be how or hereafter applicable to the corporation.
Third: The amount of the capital stock is one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000).	.
Fourth: The number of shares of which the capital stock shall consist is fifteen thousand (15,000) of the par value of one hundred dol-

lars ($100) each; and the amount of capital with which said corporation will begin business is three thousand dollars ($3,000).
Dated this 9th day of June, 1915.
Marcus R. Peppard.
John C. Aisenbrey.
James A. McCann.
They begin the business of manufacturing $10,000,000 worth of fuses, the contract for which they received from the Shell Committee, upon a capital of $3,000.
This is registered on the 11th of June:
On this 9th day of June one thousand nine hundred and fifteen; before me personally came Marcus R. Peppard, John C. Aisenbrey, and James A. McCann, to me known and known to me to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing certificate and severally duly acknowledged to me that they executed the same.
The certificate of the Deputy Secretary of State, to the effect that this was duly recorded in his office, is appended.
Both these companies received contracts from the Shell Committee for the manufacture of fuses. These contracts are the same, and they are somewhat long, so I will not weary the House by reading them both, but will take one as representing both.
Memorandum of agreement made in duplicate this 19th June, 1915-
Nine days after they were incorporated:
-by and between E. B. Cadwell, its president,_
Bear that name in mind for we shall hear of it again.
-and Frank Callahan, its secretary, hereunto duly authorized, party of the first part; and
The Shell Committee, a body appointed by the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence of Canada-
Here is a contract entered into by the Shell Committee in pursuance of authority which, it says, it received from the Minister of Militia and Defence of Canada.
* for the purpose of purchasing munitions of war for the British Government hereinafter called the "purchaser", and acting herein by Brigadier General Alexander Bertram, its Chairman, party of the second part.
Whereas the company is prepared to manufacture fuses, and the purchaser is desirous of purchasing fuses from the company on the terms herein contained. .
Now, therefore, this agreement witnesseth:
1. The company agrees to sell and the purchaser to purchase one million six hundred and sixty-six thousand six hundred and sixty-six (1,666,666) No. 100 loaded fuses, and eight hundred and thirty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-four (833,334) No. 80-44 loaded fuses, to be in accordance with the drawings and specifications to be furnished by the purchaser, namely, drawings Nos. R.L. 20590 (L) three sheets, and R.L. 20920 (1), R.L. 16603-C (1) and R.L. 21070-A (1) ; and specifications Nos. L-3406 and L-3478. The gains are not to be supplied. The company at its

option may use either steel or brass for the body, cap and adapter, or any part thereof, of all or any of said No. 100 fuses. All steel parts thereof are to be either tinned or nickeled.
2.	The price of said fuses shall be four dollars and fifty cents ($4.50) per fuse, in lawful money of the United States of America in New York funds, in respect of fuse No. 80-44 design, and four dollars ($4) per fuse lawful money of the United States of America in New York funds, in respect of fuse No. 100 design. Design No. 80-44 to be complete with cover. All fuses shall be packed as hereinafter provided, and shall be delivered f.o.b. at the company's or its subcontractors' works for shipment to shell loading factories designated by the purchaser.
That ie, they were to get $4.50 for each time fuse and $4 for each graze fuse.
3.	The company shall begin to make deliveries of fuses under this agreement not later than five months from the date of the execution of this contract-
That would be on the 19th of November.
-and deliveries shall then be made at the rate of at least five thousand (5,000) fuses per working day on an average thereafter, and shall continue at such rate until two months later-
Which would bring it to the 19th of January, 1916.
-when deliveries shall be increased to not less than twenty thousand (20,000) fuses per working day on an average thereafter, and shall continue at said rate until all of said two million five hundred thousand (2,500,000) fuses shall be delivered. The total of said two million five hundred thousand (2,500,000) fuses shall be delivered, however, not later than April 30, 1916.
Provided, however, that if ninety per cent of the fuses to bJ delivered hereunder shall have then been delivered by the company to the purchaser, the company shall be entitled to a period of grace not exceeding thirty days beyond April 30, 1916, to enable it to complete all of the deliveries of fuses not then made hereunder.
In estimating the average of five thousand (5,000) per day or twenty thousand (20,000) per day, as the case may be, it will be sufficient to deliver at least thirty thousand (30,000) or one hundred and twenty thousand (120,000), as the case may be, in any one week, but if deliveries in any one week exceed the said average called for, the company shall be entitled to have such excess applied in fulfilment of the stipulated quantities during subsequent weeks.
3.	(a) Deliveries of No. 100 and No. 80-44 fuses shall be approximately in the proportion of two (2) No. 100 to one (1) SO-44 fuses, calculated on monthly deliveries.
4.	The purchaser shall, under the direction of the Chief Inspector of Arms and Ammunition, provide for the prompt examination and inspection of the fuses parts at the factories where same are manufactured, and also the fuses at the factories where same are assembled and loaded. As soon as' the company shall notify the purchaser that manufacture hereunder has advanced sufficiently to require inspection, the purchaser shall keep at all times at each of said factories an inspector or inspectors, whose duty shall be to inspect all

of such parts and completed fuses and to promptly inrorm the company and the purchaser of the results of such inspection.
4 (a) The Chief Inspector of Arms and Ammunition, and all other inspectors appointed by him, or by the purchaser, shall at all times have access to the factories of the company, and of its subcontractors, and the company shall provide all necessary and suitable accommodations for the purposes of all inspections required at any such factories.
5.	The company's manufacturing and inspection gauges shall be provided by the company, The inspection gauges may' be checked from time to time with the master gauges of the inspector of the purchaser.
6.	The said fuses shall be proved with promptness by or under the direction of the Chief Inspector of Arms and Ammunition, or his duly authorized deputy at Quebec, or at such other place or places as may be designated by him in the Dominion of Canada or of the United States of America.
7.	Lots of fuses (other than fuses selected for proof) to be delivered hereunder, shall not be required to be delivered for shipment to the purchaser, as hereunder provided, until all inspections and tests required by the purchaser in connection therewith shall have been completed, and all certificates required hereunder shall have been properly issued.
8.	The decision of the Chief Inspector of Arms and Ammunition, or any of his duly authorized deputies, regarding the acceptance or rejection of fuses, or parts thereof, shall be final and binding between the parties hereto.
Then we come to the important part:
The purchaser shall make an advance to the company in New York funds of 15 per cent of the total amount of the purchase price at the following rates and'periods:
(a)	10 per cent on the execution of this contract and the delivery to the purchaser of the proper agreement guarantee hereinafter mentioned.
Over a million dollars was to be advanced to them the moment this agreement was signed. The next clause is:
(b)	The remaining 5 per cent to be paid in equal monthly instalments over a period of four months from the date of the execution of this agreement, the first of such instalments to be paid at the expiration of one month from the date of such execution.
So that within four months they got over half a million dollars more; and altogether they got an advance of over one and one-half million dollars before ever a fuse was made or before they were in a position to furnish fuses to the committee. Section 10 of the agreement reads:
10. The purchasers shall also make from time to time on the first lots of fuse parts manufactured further advance payments to the company in New York funds (up to but not exceeding in the aggregate three million dollars) of sixty five per cent of the price of the finished fuses on the receipt of a certificate from the Inspectors of Arms and Ammunition or any of his duly authorized deputies of the completion and inspection of said lots of the complete sets of mechanical parts of said fuses and of the
shipment thereof for delivery to the company's assembling and loadfing factory or factories, which certificate the purchaser agrees shall be promptly furnished; provided, however, that if the amount of advances from time to time made under this paragraph remaining in the hands of the company unapplied towards payment for completed fuses as provided in paragraph 13 hereof shall reach one million dollars no further advances shall be made under this paragraph until said amount remaining in the hands of the company unapplied shall have been reduced by further applications thereof towards final payment under said paragraph 13, and then only in such sums that the total amount of said advances so remaining in the hands of the company unapplied towards final payment shall again reach one million dollars, and so on from time to time. The above advance payments being made for the purpose of aiding the company to finance this contract, shall not in any way constitute an acceptance of any completed fuses by the purchaser.
That means that this company shall at all times have one million dollars of the Shell Committee's money in their treasury, quite irrespective of whether the shells are there for delivery, over and above the million and a half they got when the contract was executed.
The above advance payment being made for the purpose of enabling the company to finance the contract.
The Shell Committee gives a contract to this mushroom company to manufacture shell fuses; the company have no factory, no capital, nothing; and the Shell Committee very complacently furnishes them with all the money to finance the undertaking. Then the contract proceeds to deal with factories and final payment :
The company shall be entitled at its option to draw on the purchaser for any moneys payable from time to time by the purchaser to the company hereunder by draft.
Pinal payments for lots of complete fuses accepted and shipped shall be due and payable by the purchaser to the company seven days after the date of mailing in New York to the purchaser at Ottawa, or at the option of the company seven days after the delivery in New York to the agency of the Bank of Montreal n New York of invoices in triplicate properly numbered, together with bills of lading therefor.
The company shall be entitled at its option to draw on the purchaser for any moneys pay-"able from time to time by the purchaser to the company hereunder by draft, payable seven days after date without grace in New York funds in the city of New York. In the case of the final payments mentioned in paragraph 11 hereof such drafts shall be accompanied by the invoices and bills of lading therein mentioned. All payments shall be due and payable in New York funds in lawful money of the United States of America or its equivalent.
The said advance payments mentioned in paragraphs 9 and 10 of this agreement shall be applied on the purchase price of lots of fuses delivered as follows: fifty per cent of such purchase price (or a lesser percentage if the bal-
2*282


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Is my hon. friend placing that contract upon Hansard?


George William Kyte: Yes.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
mentioned a guarantee clause in it. Will he please read the guarantee provision in the contract, if there is one?	.


George William Kyte: When I read this contract,
I referred to the name of E. D. Cadwell. Cadwell was not in the company when it was incorporated, but we find him in the company on the 19th jiay of June, and he signs the contract for the company. The contract is signed by the Shell Committee and by the Minister of Militia and Defence, which, as I have said, makes it to all intents and purposes a contract with the Government of Canada. I have here an agreement dated the 10th day of June, 1915, nine days before the date of the contract between the Shell Committee and the American Ammunition Company:
This agreement, made this 10th day of June, 1915, by and between B. F. Yoakum, of the city and state of New York, party of the first part, and E. W. Bassick, of the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut, party of the secoftd part, E. B. Cadwell & Oo., Incorporated, a New York corporation transacting business in the city of New York, acting herein by E. B. Cadwell, its president, hereto duly authorized, party of the third part, and said E. B. Cadwell and Company, Incorporated, as trustee hereunder party of the fourth part, witnesseth:
Whereas the Shell Committee of Canada, acting by Brigadier General Alexander Bertram, as chairman and agent, has agreed to purchase 2,500,000 fuses from a manufacturer to be designated by E. B. Cadwell and Company, Incorporated.
Think of that, Mr. Speaker-ten days before the contract was entered into between the Shell Committee and the American Ammunition Company and the day before they are incorporated B. F. Yoakum, E. B. Cadwell and Company, and a man named Bassick entered into an agreement to divide the spoils arising out of the contract to be thereafter executed between the American Ammunition Company and the Shell Com-jnittee of Canada. This, of course, meant
the dividing up of $1,000,000 which was paid at the time, as this agreement shows. The document goes on:
Whereas, said E. B. Cadwell and .Company, Incorporated, and said Yoakum, and said Bassick, were together instrumental in negotiating and effecting said contract for the purchase and sale of said 2,500,000 fuses, which contract is presently to be reduced to writing and executed.
The contract had no existence at that time; it was to be negotiated and signed afterwards.
Wherea^, the said E. B. Cadwell and Company, Incorporated, and said Yoakum, and said Bassick, are together entitled to receive as their total and aggregate commission for negotiating and effecting said contract the sum of $1,000,000 in the whole, being at the rate of 40 cents per fuse.
After they got the $1,000,000 from the Shell Committee they immediately proceeded to divide it for their trouble in negotiating the contract with the Shell Committee-and that is not to be investigated if hon. gentlemen opposite can prevent it,
I am quite sure.
Whereas of the total amount of said commisSion of $1,000,000 to be received, said Yoakum is to be entitled to four hundred and seventy-five thousandths, or eventually a total of $475,000, being at the rate of nineteen cents per fuse; and said Bassick is entitled to two hundred'and seventy-five thousandths, or eventually a total of $275,000, being at the rate of eleven cents per fuse ; and said E. B. Cadwell and Com- _ pany, incorporated, is entitled to two hundred and' fifty thousandths, or eventually a total of $250,000, being at the rate of ten cents per fuse.
And whereas sa,id Yoakum and Bassick are willing and desirous that said E. B. Cadwell and Company, Incorporated, shall receive in the first instance said $1,000,000 commission when and as it may be paid over to it, which it shall receive as. trustee, however, and for the sole purpose of receipting for the same and forthwith disbursing all of the amounts it may from time to time so receive as such commission on said contract in the above - proportions, to wit: four hundred and seventy-five thousandths to B. F. Yoakum, two hundred and seventy-five thousandths to E. W. Bassick and two hundred and fifty thousandths to E. B. Cadwell and Company, Incorporated.
Several other conditions are stated in the agreement, one of which is that the commission of $1,000,000 and each and every part of the same when and as received by E. B. Cadwell & Company, Incorporated, shall . be received by it as trustee and shall belong to said parties of the first and second and third parts in the following proportions: Four hundred and seventy-five thousandths to B. F. Yoakum, two hundred and seventy-five thousandths to E. W. Bassick, and two hundred and fifty thousandths to E. B. Cadwell & Company; and that the said


Robert Laird Borden: Is the hon.
gentleman reading from an agreement oi from a brief?


George William Kyte: I am reading from a statement I have prepared.


Robert Laird Borden: Would he be
good enough to send over any of the agreements he may have read as he finishes with them?


George William Kyte: I will send over everything that the right hon. gentleman is entitled to have from me. The Munitions Board is not very ready to give us information; I do not think we should hesitate to stand upon our rights in regard to this matter.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not asking the hon. gentleman to depart from any rights. I was merely asking, as a matter of courtesy, if he would have any objection to sending over the agreement he has read.


George William Kyte: We have sent over one document already.'


Robert Laird Borden: Oh, I beg the
hon. gentleman's pardon.


George William Kyte: I say that negotiations were pending with the Providence Chemical Company of St. Louis for the manufacture and delivery by them of 2,500 tons of picric acid. They spoke of a certain order for the manufacture and delivery of further quantities upon future orders, which when consummated would yield to Yoakum for the benefit of all the parties such a sum as should be equal to five to six cents per pound. Yoakum and Allison were to receive from five to six cents per pound upon 5,000,000 pound^ of picric acid.
Then, there were negotiation for the manufacture and delivery of 5,000,000 pounds of perchlorate powder upon a per cent order, and there was to be delivery of further quantities at a future time. Yoakum, his legal representative and assigns, were entitled to receive from the manufacturers such sums of money from time to time as would be equal to at least five cents a pound for each pound agreed to be delivered by the said manufacturer. It appears that Lignpmti was the owner of a one-eight interest :n all the moneys and properties to which Allison and Yoakum or their respective legal representatives and assigns should be entitled to receive from any person by reason of their negotiations had or 'to be had of the matters or things referred to in subdivision c.d.e.f. Those last are four contracts I have referred to. The contract procured by Lignanti for the Electrolytic Metals Company was to furnish the Canada Car and Foundry Company with 34 tons of powdered magnesium. On that Lignanti was entitled to receive a sum of $1 a pound. They proceeded to divide that up. Then Yoakum and Lignanti agreed to reimburse themselves for any outlays and things of that kind.
I have here a summary of the amount that was actually divided between Yoakum, Lignanti and Allison. Allison and Yoakum get $475,000 out of the contract for 2,500,000 fuses given to the American Ammunition Company by the Canadian Shell Committee. They pay Lignanti $50,000, and that leaves $425,000 between themselves. Then out of a contract given to the Edwards Valve Manufacturing Company by the Shell Committee, for 500,000 cartridge cases at $2.43 each, Allison and Yoakum get 4 cents per case, or a bounty of $20,000.

Lignanti gets $2,500 as his -share, leaving Allison and Yoakum $17,500 net. Out of a contract negotiated between the Canadian Vickers and Allison for 500,000 rifles, known as the Allison southern rifle deal for $8, 500,000, Yoakum and Allison receive $625,000; and Lignanti agrees to accept one-quarter of five per cent of the total contract, or $106,250, leaving to Allison and Yoakum $518,750 net. Then, out of a contract negotiated between the Canadian Vickers and J. W. Allison to sell 140,000 rifles, and known as the Allison southern rifle deal, Allison and Yoakum receive $1.25 per rifle, or $175,000, less one-eighth paid to Lignanti, $21,875, leaving net to Allison and Yoakum, $153,125. Out of a contract negotiated between the Providence Chemical Company of St. Louis and Yoakum and Allison for the -sale to parties unnamed of 2,500 tons (6,000,000 lbs.) of picric acid, and of all further acids that may be obtained, Yoakum and Allison get as their share of commission 5 to 6 cents per pound, equal to $250,000 or $300,000 as the case might be, less one-eighth paid to Lignanti, which would be $31,250 or $37,500, as the case might be, leaving net to Allison and Yoakum $218,750 or $262,500 as the case might be.


William Thomas White: Would my hon. friend state the contracts from which these commissions are to be derived?


George William Kyte: I have read them.


William Thomas White: Are they contracts with the Shell Committee?


George William Kyte: Not all of them.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
will realize the difficulty of following such a complicated statement as this. Does my hon. friend suggest that the commissions to which he has been referring are to be derived under contracts with the Shell Committee?


George William Kyte: Not all of them:	I think
there are three with the Shell Committee.


William Thomas White: And the others?


George William Kyte: It does not always state.
Two of them are with the Canadian Vickers. Then there is the one for perchlorate powder. It does not say whether all these contracts were with the Shell Committee or not. As a Canadian, and as one who believes that this Government ought to investigate, I hope that all these contracts are not with the Shell Committee. In connection with
the contract for picric acid, it might be interesting to ask the Minister of Militia or the Government to refer to a telegram sent from Ottawa to Colonel Bertram as follows:
Ottawa, 27.
Col. A. Bertram,
Montreal.
Please telephone Col. Allison, Manhattan Hotel, New York, immediately, as he leaves tonight, regarding guncotton and picric.
Sam Hughes.
The date of this telegram is probably April* 27, 1915. The Minister of Militia and -*Defence says that he got the picric through Allison, Iso I assume that this is the order.


Robert Laird Borden: With what Government was the picric acid contract made?


George William Kyte: It does not state.


William Pugsley: The contract was made
by the Shell Committee.


George William Kyte: I think so. The telegram is addressed to 'Colonel Bertram, who was chairman of the committee. Out of -a contract for 5,000,000 pounds of perchlorate powder, and further quantities, Yoakum and Allison get 5 cents a pound, or $250,000, less one-eighth paid to Lignanti, $31,250, leaving Allison and Yoakum $218,750 net. Out of a contract negotiated with the Electrolytic Metals Company, to supply the Canada Car and Foundry Oompany^this looks very much like the Shell Committee- with thirty-four tons of powdered magnesium, Lignanti is to receive a commission of $1 a pound, divided as follows: to Lignanti twenty-five per cent, $17,500, and one-eighth of the remainder, $6,375; or a total to Lignanti of $23,375, leaving a balance to Allison and Yoakum of $44,625.
If all these contracts were carried out-I do not wish to be misunderstood, some of them are alleged to have been in process of negotiation, and we do not know whether the negotiations have been completed; but, assuming that the negotiations were completed, this is a statement of what the three gentlemen netted on the transaction. Out of the contract with the American Ammunition Company for fuses, $425,000; out of the contract with the Edwards Valve Manufacturing Company, $17,500; out of the contract with the Canadian Vickers for the
500,000	rifles, $518,750, and for the 140,000 rifles, $153,125; out of the contract with the Providence Chemical Company, for picric acid at five cents a pound, $218,750, and out of the contract for perchlorate powder, $218,750; out of the contract with the Electrolytic Metals Company for powdered magfMr. Kyte.]

nesium, $44,265. Out of those few transactions they would together net $1,863,000, and Lfgnanti for his share of the transaction would get $266,500.
Now, Sir, I presume that you, as well as other hon. gentlemen who hear me, are anxious to know who Lignanti and Yoakum are. Col. Allison is too well known to. need any introduction from me. B. F. Yoakum,
I understand, is a rather celebrated curb-operator and middleman in New York. Lignanti, up to a few years ago, belonged to an orchestra in a hotel down in Montreal.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Ritz-Carlton.
Mi-. KYTE: I will not undertake to saywhat particular instrument he played, because, if I told this House that he played the flute and it turned out afterwards upon investigation that he played the piccolo, the hon. Solicitor General would urge that as a reason foT voting down this resolution. Therefore, I shall not particularize as to who he is, further than that; but Lignanti has given up his flute playing and has gone down to New York and has taken up quarters at the Manhattan hotel with Col. J. W. Allison as his associatet. I wonder if I am making any impression upon hon. gentlemen opposite?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: None whatever.


George William Kyte: Well, then, it is just what I expected, so I am not surprised.


Mr. PUGS  LEY@: The worse the story the less the impression.


George William Kyte: I wonder if I am making any impression upon the people of this country?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Less still.


George William Kyte: 
Arthur Meighen: Not very much.


George William Kyte: Not very much, because he has put the Solicitor General into the worst hole he was ever put in his life. Had the Solicitor General pursued his usual course and deferred hie speech to follow me in this debate-


Arthur Meighen: I wish I had.


George William Kyte: -and I may say he has already received the soubriquet of the "Speak-last Solicitor General"-ove can imagine with what vehemence he would have declared that it was not Yoakum with whom Allison divided up ^lis graft in connection with his fuse contract, hut that it wae Soakum; that it was not Lignanti, but Pignanti, and upon that ground he would, amidst the resounding plaudits of his friends sitting around him, call upon them to vote down the resolution moved by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. With what vigour would he declare that the amount of rake-off they divided on the contract for cartridge cases was not $20,000 but only $19,999; that the rake-off from the contract for picric acid was not $300,000 but only $299,999; and amidst the tremendous applause of his friends opposite he would call upon them to choke off inquiry and shut the lid down tight.
The right hon. the Prime Minister, in his address to the House, stated that this inquiry ought not to be granted because the Shell Committee was functus officio. The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) stated that the committee was dead and that the right hon. the leader of the Opposition proposed holding a post mortem. One hon. gentleman-I believe it was the Soli-
22S8

citor General, although I am not sure-said that we were going to investigate a corpse. Yet one and all are agreed to have an investigation after the war, when the corpse will have become completely decomposed. It is a corpse; vote against the inquiry, say they, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite are willing to inquire into the corpse Wo years afterwards. The cry is:	Delay, delay,
delay, and to what end? To enable Col, J. W. Allison to flee away into some far country with which Canada has no extradition treaty. Delay until the grave closes over the remains of some of the principal actors in this grim tragedy. Delay until records and documents are lost and perhaps destroyed and the proof of the charges rendered difficult, if not impossible! Delay to enable 'Col. Allison and his fellow bandits to make more millions out of the blood and agony of Canada and thfe Empire while they increase the peril of both!
There is another point, however in the speech made by the hon. member for Car-leton, another ground for accusation, and that is in regard to prices. The hon. member for 'Carleton found fault not only as to nondeliveries, but as to the prices being exorbitant and altogether unjustifiable. Not one hon. gentleman sitting opposite to me has ventured for a moment to defend the prices. That charge is absolutely undefended up to the present moment. By their silence, they have admitted that the statements made by he hon. member for Carleton as regards the exorbitant character of the prices are absolutely just and true and indefensible.
I would have no great fault to find with the contracts g.iven to the United States when the war first broke out, because the cry was for shells, and more shells. If we could not manufacture the shells in Canada, then the Shell Committee had a right to go to the United States, but did the Shell Committee make contracts with companies making fuses? No, they made contracts with middlemen, with mushroom companies, which divided up not only the profits but the advances that had been made to them by the Shell Committtee. The Shell Committee advanced to these people over $3,000,000, and we know that that amount was given them, they dllege, ' for the purpose of equipping factories. Now, $3,000,000 would be enough to equip ten fuse factories in Canada; for, as I am advised, $300,000 will equip one fuse factory equal in capacity to that now operated by 
the Russell Motor Car 'Company. What would that mean? It would mean ten fuse factories carried on in Canada and the expenditure of money among our own people. Have we hard times in Canada? Is there unemployment? I read only the other day of a case in Ottawa of four families huddled together in a shack, mother and children practically dying of hunger because the father had no employment. Under the very shadow of the Parliament Buildings this condition of affairs exists. Yet contracts for fuses, and advances to equip fuse factories, are given to Colonel Allison and his friends, and they hike off to the United States to spend the money. What does the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) say to that? Surely he is interested in labour problems. If he is interested in anything at all, he must he interested in the question of unemployment. Does he justify the advancing of this $3,000,000 to equip fuse factories in the United States, while men are walking the streets of Ottawa unemployed, and women and infants are dying of starvation in this capital of Canada? What about the city of Montreal? What about the city of Toronto? What about other cities in Canada? The equipping of ten fuse factories, the money for which was given to Col. Allison and his associates, would have given employment and prosperity, food and clothing and comforts, to hundreds of people in this country.
I had not intended to read any newspaper reports, but as my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) read an article from a newspaper published in Nova Scotia, in which the editor professes to believe that there is nothing in the charges, I shall quote from a newspaper published a g9od deal nearer to Ottawa and to the scene of Col. Allison's operations. I read from the Montreal Star, a thick and thin supporter of this Government:
The Shell Committee Charges.
Charges of the gravity of those which Dr. Pugsley has made against the late Shell Committee should not be allowed to remain as the mere casual remarks of a debater on the speech from the Throne. So old a Parliamentarian as. Dr. Pugsley knows that there is a proper way to bring statements of this sort before the House. And doubtless he will make good his accusations by some such formal step before the session is very much older.
In any case, the Government cannot permit these shocking and humiliating charges to remain uninvestigated. We are confident that no Canadian Government will hide behind the technicality that the money, said to be worse than wasted, was British money, entrusted to us to be carefully spent amidst the strain of a great war, and not our own money. That would be

to confess and proclaim that we would be less honest in dealing with sacred trust funds than in handling our personal property.
If a pound of British money, entrusted to a Canadian committee to buy the greatest possible amount of war material, was allowed to be diverted to Canadian private purses in inordinate profits, then the men guilty of this sordid and despicable treason were guility of weakening by just so much the fighting forces of the Empire in the face of an appalling peril. They might as well have gone to the trenches and taken the rifles out of the hands of our boys, fronting a German attack, and then sold these rifles for their personal profit to the first second-hand dealer whom they met. If this has been done, the country. wants to know it, regardless of the legal technically or partisan politics.
A thorough investigation into this whole shell game should be set on foot at once.
Mr. Speaker, some forty-three years ago public opinion throughout Canada became aroused by rumours that the party in power had taken advantage the necessities of the country for railway construction to snake financial gains for themselves and their friends. The matter came up in Parliament and an investigation was asked for. The leader of the Government on behalf of himself and his party denied the charges. Delay was demanded and the inquiry was refused. The Opposition put its case before the people, through the newspapers and the public forum. When Parliament again met, on a motion of censure the Government was defeated, and thereafter hopelessly beaten at the polls. It is the fate of another Conservative Government to have grow out of its regime another scandal, which, on account of the enormous amount of money involved and the tremendous magnitude of the interests jeopardized, the Pacific Scandal fades before it as the light of the morning star fades before the effulgence of the rising sun.	*
Do hon. gentlemen think that public opinion has become so calloused in Canada that it will permit their friends to traffic in the necessities of the nation, and in munitions and supplies needed for defending our civilization, nay our very existence, when it annihilated a Government for trafficking in a railway charter? All that Canada asks at the present time is that the Government shall show, by granting the investigation asked for by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, that they are not shielding, protecting or supporting the acts which are the subject of these exposures, and will prevent the possibility of their continuance. If they refuse, the appeal taken from their decision to the Cana-144
dian people will come in due time, and they will render as decisive a condemnation of this Government's conduct as was given against the Government of the late Sir John A. Macdonald in 1873.


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) has spoken for some five hours-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Thomas White: -some four or five hours, and he has traversed a very extended field. It seemed to me a curious thing that my hon. friend should feel himself called upon to devote so much time to extricating the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) from the distressing position in which he found himself after the speech of the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). The distress on the part of the hon. member for Carleton was quite marked. He has not been quite himself .since the 9th of March. He sent out a S.O.S. call to the good wrecking tug, his friend from Richmond. He felt himself completely stranded, and judging from the effort made to-night, the case is a total wreck.
Before I take up the serious parts-or what I assume my hon. friend to have intended as the most serious parts-of the address to which we have just listened, I desire to deal briefly with some of his arguments and statements in reply to the Solicitor General. My hon. friend came to the rescue of the hon. member for Carleton. He felt it was a case that needed his best assistance and, to do him. justice, I must say that he did reasonably well.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Thank you.
Hear, hear.	*


William Thomas White: Yes. He realized that he could only support fundamentally false statements by adding to them. He stood before this House to-night and, in the statements which he placed upon Hansard, he corroborated in every detail the statements made by the Solicitor General in answer to the hon.. member for Carleton. The hon. member for Carleton, in his speech the other night, in order to prove that the Shell Committee in giving these contracts had been actuated by considerations of political patronage, dwelt upon the fact that certain companies in this country had received no orders. He said: "Why has not the Dominion Iron and Steel Company received orders." And when the Solicitor General had pointed out that the



Dominion Iron; and Steel Company -had received orders-, then the apologist for the hon. member' for Carleton, the hon. member for Richmond, to-night says: Oh, the hon. member for Carleton was dealing with orders for shells. And yet it is a fact, it is on record in Hansard, that the hon. member for Carleton, in stating that the contracts that had been given to the Nova Scotia Steel -Company, referred to blanks, referred to discs, referred to plates, referred to numerous items not embraced under the term " shells." The great majority, in fact, were orders not for shells but for steel, or for parts of shells. My hon. friend referred to certain orders which had been given by the Shell Committee to companies doing business in the West. I want to direct the attention of the House to the argument of the hon. member for Carleton, when he was dealing with these questions. He said, as reported on page 1628 of Hansard:
No big orders were given for these-this is where the political part of It comes in. The Dominion Bridge Company got an order for 600,000, and the Canadian Westinghouse Company an order for 400,000. Outside of these, no big orders were given until you come down to the political end of it. I am not going into a long dissertation upon these transactions, but will merely point out some things which will interest my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. B. B. Bennett). I find that the Dominion Harvester Company, of Medicine Hat, were able to get an order for 10,000, and up to a month ago they had not delivered a single shell. The International Supply Company, of Medicine Hat, got an order for 10,000, and not a shell has been delivered. The Manitoba Bridge and Iron Works, of Winnipeg, got an order .for 20,000, and not a shell has been delivered.
Mr. Hanna: What is the date of those orders?
Mr. Carvell: I could not say exactly; it was during the summer of 1915. I am only giving these to show the political end of the transaction.
Now, what was the hon. member for Carleton attempting to establish? He was attempting to establish this, that this Shell Committee, fo-r political considerations, had given the orders to these companies in question, and he stated that these orders had been given some time in- the summer ot 1915. Now, what are the facts? The facts are precisely as stated by the Solicitor General, and, as a matter of fact, by the' hon. member for Richmond to-day. Take the case of the Dominion Harvester Company. Why, instead of that company having been given -an order by the Shell Committee for political purposes, they did not receive the order which was spoken of by the -hon. member for Carleton [Bir Thomas While.]
until January 12, 1916, after( the Shell Committee had become extinct. The order given to the Dominion Harvester Company upon the date given by the Solicitor General, January 12, 1916, for 10,000 shells, was given by the Imperial Munitions Board with which hon. gentlemen opposite find, absolutely no fault. The same statement can be made with regard to the order given to the International Supply Company on January 12, 1916. The same statement can be made with regard to th-e contracts given to the Manitoba Bridge and Iron Wo-rks, to the Medicine Hat Pump -and Brake Company, and to -the Manitoba Shell Company, and to all the other companies mentioned by the Solicitor General. It is 'a fact that shells were delivered by two of those companies but they were delivered on orders given previously to the date mentioned by the Solicitor General. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Richmond has corroborated in every particular the statements made by the Solicitor General in this House in his reply to the hon. member for Carleton. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), in order to bolster up a case against the Shell Committee, made a series of misrepresentations, I do not say wilful misrepresentations, to this House, -and when the Solicitor General met and answered the misrepresentations so made, the hon. member for Carleton felt himself called upon to -summon the hon. member for Richmond to his assistance, and to-night, as I stated, that hon. gentleman has attempted to bolster up the misstatements of the hon. member foT Carleton by further mis-statements, because only in that way could his course have been accounted for.
Some matters have been dealt with by the hon. member for Richmond to which I desire briefly to call attention. He referred to an Order in Council presented before the Davidson Commission. He said that Order in Council gave -authority to Allison, as I understood him, to purchase revolvers. The Order in Council gave authority to the Minister of Militia to purchase 1,000 automatic pistols. The name of Allison was not mentioned in the Order in -Council. He stated that the Government had paid a commission of $4.50 up-o-n every Colts revolver. That is an absolute mis-statement of fact. The Government of Canada did not pay $4.50 commission upon each -Colts revolver; the Government of Canada did not pay one cent commission upon the purchases of -Colts revolvers. The -Government- of Canada

obtained 'Colts revolvers at precisely the same rate as any Government-outside of the Government of the United States, which has a special arrangement-pays for Colt revolvers. The statement, therefore, is absolutely inaccurate. My hon. friend has referred to perjury before the Davidson Commission. I think it might 'be well to await the report of that commission; but if my hon. friend is too impatient to await that report, I think he owes it to himself and to this House, if he desires prosecution, to- lay an information against the party complained of; and if he lays a complaint and the matter comes before the Department of Justice, in the usual course, for extradition, the Department of Justice will do its duty, as in all similar cases.
My hon. friend referred to Yoakum, Lignanti and Allison. All I have to say is that he evidently knows these gentlemen better than we do, because until this night I never heard of Lignanti and Yoakum, and so far as Allison is concerned, I have heard his name but I have never seen him or spoken to him, and I believe the same can 'be said of all the other members of the Government sitting here to-night, or most of them.


Mr. BOIVIN:: The Minister of Militia also?


William Thomas White: The Minister of Militia has stated that he is acquainted with Allison.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend, after speaking for some hours here to-night, wondered if he was making any impression upon this House. Well, I will tell you how he could make an impression upon this House. If h^ will bring home to any membeT of the Shell Committee, or any member of this Government a charge of corruption or of dishonesty, or of dishonour, he will make an impression on this House and on the country. But he has not done so, Mr. Speaker, nor has he laid a foundation for it. There is not an hon. gentleman from the leader of the Opposition down who has dared to state that Alexander Bertram is a dishonest man. No one has dared to state so far that Col. Carnegie is a dishonest man. No one has impeached the integrity of Col. Cantley; he has been spoken of in terms of eulogy by hon. gentlemen opposite. No one has made a charge against any member of the Shell Committee, and no hon. member who
has spoken in this debate has made a charge against the honour, the probity or the integrity of any member of this Government.
The hon. member for Richmond has had a good deal to say about the Solicitor General. He stated in that connection that the Solicitor General likes to speak last. Well, I will say this for the Solicitor General- and I think it will be admitted to be true by all members of this House-that when he is on his feet he does not decline to answer questions, he is never unprepared to say: I am making this statement now; what have you to say in contradiction of it-and say it now if you want to? The hon. member for Richmond, attacking the Solicitor General, declined to allow the Solicitor General to ask him pertinent and relevant questions with regard to the matter which he was bringing to the attention of the House. Whatever may be said about the Solicitor General, it cannot be said that he lacks courage when he is upon his feet.
The hon. member for Carleton, following the right hon. leader of the Opposition, started out to prove that this Shell Committee had exercised favouritism in the placing of contracts. The hon. Solicitor General challenged him to name Conservative firms who had received contracts, saying that he would mention Liberal firms,'name for name-and that challenge remains unanswered. The hon. member for Carleton stated that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company received no orders. The Dominion Iron and Steel Company received orders to the amount oi over $5,000,000. The hon. member for Carleton said that the Canadian General Electric Company received no orders. As a matter of fact the Canadian General Electric Company received orders to the extent of over $10,000,000. That has been shown here to-night, and it was shown by the Solicitor General in his speech. That, it is stated, is a mere 'technicality; but although the hon. member for Carleton started out to prove that the Canadian General Electric Company, for which he professes admiration, had been discriminated against, the facts are that the Canadian General Electric Company and its subsidiary company received orders aggregating over $10,000,000. So far as the statements of the hon. member for Carleton are concerned, they have been proved to be fundamentally false-I do not mean false to his knowledge, because I do not believe that the hon. member for Carleton put them forward as false to his knowledge. The hon. gentleman had a bad

brief; if he had been in court- he would have thrown up his brief; he would have been obliged to throw it up.
We have had a good deal of assertion and counter-assertion in this debate, and I purpose taking up the text of the resolution in order that we may see what the right hon. leader of the Opposition asks us to do. He has moved a resolution as follows:
That a special committe of members of this House be appointed to inquire into all purchases of shells or other munitions or goods by the Shell Committee formed by the Minister of Militia, as stated to this House by the Prime Minister on the 15th April, 1915, together with all contracts made or orders given by the said committee for any shells or other munitions or goods, with authority to the said committee to examine witnesses under oath and to require the production of any documents, books, letters or papers; and that such special committee be directed to report from time to time to this House in such manner as it may think advisable.
Mr. Speaker, this inquiry would involve disclosure of all purchases of goods and munitions by the committee. It would involve disclosure of all orders or contracts given or made by tb^e committee. It would involve disclosures of all letters, cables, telegrams and documents connected therewith. 1 contend that if this inquiry is had on the resolution of my right hon. friend, there must necessarily be disclosed all confidential communications by cable or otherwise passing between the War Office and the Shell Committee. It would reveal to the world, to friends and foes alike, the extent of the orders which had been placed in Canada, the resources of Canada, the present condition of all contracts placed by the Shell Committee in Canada. It would by inference-I do not think this is a farfetched argument-disclose to a certain extent the -strategy of the War Office, because it would disclose the needs of the War Office from time to time. It would disclose the character of the shells, the size of the shells, indicating the views of the War Office with regard to the campaign. It would reveal further the financial difficulties experienced by the Imperial Government in placing these orders in Canada. I know that my right hon. friend would be the last to suggest that information should be given which would be of relief or assistance to the enemy. But if the Kaiser himself desired to know what orders had been placed in Canada, the conditions concerning all contracts and the entire history of the dealings of the War Office with the Shell Committee, he could not take a more effectual method of accomplishing his tSir Thomas White.]
purpose than through an inquiry such as that suggested in this resolution.
The granting or the refusal of this resolution shopld depend upon some underlying principle. What is the issue before the House? The issue is whether this inquiry should be held or not. I desire to take up the reasons given by my right hon. friend in moving for this inquiry. He says that the Shell Committee is a committee of this Government. Mr. Speaker, there cannot be responsibility unless there is authority. It is true that this Shell Committee was named by this Government, but it is also true that this Shell Committee was agent of the Imperial Government. It acted under instructions from the Imperial Government; it had no authority to take any step or give any order unless with the approval or upon the instructions of the Imperial Government. This Government had the responsibility of naming the members and this Government, having named the members, the Shell Committee became the committee or the agent of the Imperial Government. My right hon. friend himself says that the names are Respectable names; he could not say otherwise. No member of this House could say that the names of the member? of the Shell Committee are not respectable names. This Government discharged its duty in naming the members of the committee but that does not alter the fact that the committee is a committee of the Imperial Government. I repeat that no charge has been made against the honour or integrity of any member of this committee or any member of the Government. This Shell Committee spent no Canadian money; not one dollar of Canadian money has been spent by it. Every dollar that has been spent by the Shell Committee has been Imperial money. The Dominion Government, from time to time, made advances to the Imperial Government, but the Canadian Government did not pay for the orders given by the Shell Committee. It has been stated that Canada will indirectly pay a portion of the expenditures by the Shell Committee because Canada is paying her full share of this war. I rejoice that Canada is paying her lull share of this war. Canada in 1899 did not pay her full share of the war. When I stated in the House to the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) that Canada was paying her full share of this war I meant it, the Government meant it and the Government- meant it from the beginning. But that does not mean that

the Shell Committee has been spending any money of the Dominion Government. If it is argued that because Canada intends to pay ultimately to the Imperial Government a share of, the expenditure at the front that she cannot pay to-day, but which will be apportioned to her later, this Parliament is entitled to hold an investigation into the actions of the War Office, or the Minister of Munitions of the Imperial Government, then, it seems to me, it must follow on the same line of argument that this Parliament would be entitled to hold an investigation into all the orders placed by Great Britain in the United States, the United Kingdom or in any other country in the world. Does any one suggest that that would be feasible or possible or that this Parliament would have any right to do that? It seems to me that it is a farfetched argument for the purpose of giving this Parliament apparent jurisdiction to inquire into the transactions of the Shell Committee. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has stated that the Shell Committee was a branch of the Government.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: 
William Thomas White: My hon. friend
took a constituent, according to a statement made in this House, into the office of the Shell Committee and from what I can learn obtained a contract for him.
bir WILFRID LAURIER: Not a constituent of mine.


William Thomas White: A friend?


Wilfrid Laurier: A friend, yes.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
took a friend into the office of the Shell Committee and succeeded in getting a contract for him. In order to meet the charge that this Shell Committee was made use of by this Government, I desire to say that I am a member of this Government and that I never set foot inside the Shell Committee's office from the day it was established to the day it became, defunct.


Mr. MACDONALD:: The Minister of Militia did if you did not.


William Thomas White: The Minister ol Militia exercised no authority over the Shell Committee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You do not know.


William Thomas White: I am speaking of myself. My hon. friend does not know.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why do you say
that?


William Thomas White: / My hon. friend says that he knows?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, I did not.


William Thomas White: How could the
Minister of Militia exercise authority over Col. Cantley or over Sir Alexander Bertram, against [DOT] whose integrity no charge whatever has been made?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the Conservative candidate in my county made a direct charge reflecting on the integrity of General Bertram?


William Thomas White: I do not know
whether he did or not. '


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He did.


William Thomas White: Does my hon. friend make a charge against the integrity of General -Bertram or Col. Cantley?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I say that General Bertram dealt with contracts awarded by the Shell Committee for political purposes, that he so dealt with them in my county, and if necessary I am prepared to say so at length. I want to say that he and Mr. Carnegie let these nefarious contracts for the War Office in the United States through Col. Allison who has been exposed to-night. My hon. friend will require all his time to explain that, and he had better get down to it.


William Thomas White: I notice that when the Nova Scotia Steel Company is under consideration my hon. friend sings a different tune. My bon. friend speaks about favouritism in the letting of contracts. Has he anything to say about the Nova Scotia Steel Company getting contracts to the extent of $15,000,000 ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That has nothing to do with this.


William Thomas White: I am not complaining in regard to that, but the hon. gentleman h-as had not a word to say in regard to that particular question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: After the Shell Committee had been in existence for two or three months the whole work of awarding contracts was assumed by General Bertram and Mr. Carnegie, and General Bertram employed his son in dealing with the question. If the hon. gentleman wants me to address the House on t^hat question, I will take occasion to do so before the debate closes.


William Thomas White: If Col. Cantley was there he no doubt felt his responsibility and if General Bertram was allowed to let contracts it would seem that they all had confidence in General Bertram. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has referred to this committee as being a branch of the Government. What does Sir Alexander Bertram say about the matter? Sir Alexander Bertram is a man whose standing is high in the community.
I have never heard a word breathed against the integrity of Sir Alexander Bertram -What does he say about the relationship between. this Government and the Shell Committee? This is what he said before leaving, when he had to go away with his health shattered by reason of the attacks which had been made upon him:
There is nobody suffering but myself. There is nobody but myself who can be injured. The Government has nothing to do with these contracts. I had no interference and I believe that I awarded as many contracts to Liberals as to Conservatives.
That is what Sir Alexander Bertram says and the Tecord bears him out. I venture to say that he let more contracts to Liberals than to Conservatives, and that any charge in so far as political favouritism or the exercise of patronage in connection with the transactions of the Shell Committee is concerned is absolutely false and without foundation. My right hon. friend, in speaking in support of his resolution, said that the British troops needed munitions and he blamed the Shell Committee. 'The Shell. Committee was the agent of the British .Government in this country and he blamed it because the British troops needed munitions. Who had the placing of the orders to be forwarded for the British Army? The War 'Office. The Shell Committee was not a sovereign body' like a Government exercising its authority as to when it would buy ot what it would buy or the amount it would buy; it was simply the agent of the Imperial Government, taking instructions like any other agent and acting simply within the limits of its

authority. How did this committee originate? An order came for 200,000 empty shells to the Minister of Militia and it was suggested that he get them in the United States. At a time like that they were anxious to get munitions from any part of the world. The Minister of Militia called together some o-f the leading steel manufacturers of this country and one or two experts and said: Cannot we make these shells in Canada? That was the proper course for him to take. He called together the men he ought to have called together under .such circumstances. Whom else would he call together except the steel manufacturers, to see whether shells could be manufactured in Canada? On September 2 he has a conference, he has the experts present, they show the specifications, they explain the method of inspection and the Shell Committee is established.
The Shell Committee was established by the Minister of Militia for the purpose of obtaining munitions in Canada, and for the purpose of giving Canada the businesg. And there is just this to be said at this point. No matter what may be said against the Shell Committee, it is a fact that from that action taken by the Minister of Militia on September 2nd, 1914, there has grown in Canada the largest business in the British Empire, a total of no less than $500,000,000 worth of orders having been placed. It has been stated that the committee let contracts at high prices. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) admitted in his speech that the committee requested the War Office to authorize them to purchase at certain prices.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think that is practically correct.


William Thomas White: That is to say,
that instead of the Shell Committee having authority to place orders in Canada at such prices as it might approve, they submitted the prices that it might approve, they submitted the offers to the Imperial Government, saying, "We can obtain such and such'a price. Do you approve?" Now, it is perfectly clear that if there was any shortage of munitions for the British troops in the field, the blame cannot be attributed to the Shell Committee, for the Shell Committee was not a free and independent sovereign body, exercising its own discretion and having its own money to spend, but a committee that made no move without the sanction and approval of the British Government.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Mr.   CASWELL@: I assume that my hon. friend believes that statement. Can he give us any evidence to substantiate it? The reason I ask is that the statement has been made on two or three occasions, but I have never seen any evidence to back it up. I am referring to the statement that the Shell Committee could not make any contracts without the sanction of the Imperial Government.


William Thomas White: I understand that that is a fact.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We should like some evidence.


William Thomas White: It is consistent with the w,hole course of dealings with the Shell Committee and the Imperial Government. The Imperial Government was paying every penny expended by the Shell Committee, and that is on record, in some pases at least. I believe it was the usual procedure of the Shell Committee to have the prices authorized by the Imperial Government, and then to place the orders. What does Alex. Bertram say about that? He says:
I have told you that after our first order the British War Office gave us further orders at prices fixed by themselves. When we sent quotations they stated that our prices were too high, and we accepted their prices. In passing I may say that nearly $20,000 surplus was turned back to the War Office on the first contract of 100,000 shells.
So it is perfectly clear the Shell Committee was acting under the direct authority cf the Imperial Government in placing these orders for munitions. How, then, can it be said that the Shell Committee was in any way responsible for a shortage of munitions at the front?
There is another feature which we might as well discuss at the present time. There is no doubt that it was necessary that fairly high prices should be offered in order to induce manufacturers to engage in the manufacture of shells. When this war broke out, how few realized or believed that it
would last two or three years. The common expectation was that it would be over in six months or a year. Manufacturers were naturally reluctant to go to the expense of installing the plant necessary to produce shells, and it was necessary to offer fairly high prices as an inducement. The British Government, as I have said, were placing orders all over the world, and would know prices. In this country plants were organized, machinery was installed, and orders were given in Canada by the Shell Committee to the amount of $500,000,000. Now, I think that is a very considerable amount to spend on munitions in Canada. When we consider the financial situation, and remember that Great Britain had to import gold, in some instances, in order.to pay for munitions in this country, I think it must be conceded that $500,000,000 is a very substantial amount of business to be placed by the Shell Committee in the country. There are some 400 manufacturers engaged in the business, and over 130,000 workmen employed, and it is all due to the establishment of the Shell Committee and the orders they gave under the instruction and direction of the Imperial Government. It has been stated that larger orders might have been given to Canada. Now, there is a financial side to this that is not generally understood, and I shall only touch upon it. The Imperial Government could raise abundance of money in New York, because New York is an international market, but a condition of their raising money in New York was that thoy should spend that money in the United States. It was not open to the Imperial Government to borrow money in New York, and then use that money outside of the United States for the purchase of munitions. That was illustrated in the Anglo-French loan. When the $500,000,000 loan was arranged, it was stipulated that the whole of the money should be expended in the purchase of American goods and supplies. Great Britain, in order to place the $500,000,000 worth of orders she has placed in Canada, was obliged in many instances to buy exchange in America at a cost of from three to five per cent, and in other cases, she was obliged to ship gold to this country in order to pay for the munitions ordefed through the Shell Committee. So, in dealing with the orders that have come to Canada, as compared or contrasted with those that have gone to the United States, the financial situation has to be borne in mind.

Now, what are the outstanding features of the Shell Committee's administration? They made mistakes; they have admitted that they made mistakes. In time of war all Governments, and all those charged with responsible duties, make mistakes. The conditions under which they worked rendered mistakes inevitable. Sir Alexander Bertram admits that the committee made mistakes. But it is a fact, as I have stated, that from small beginnings they built up the largest business in the British Empire, and I submit that, if they placed their orders with Canadian manufacturers, they are not responsible if there was delay in delivery. They placed their orders in accordance with their instructions from the British Government; they placed orders for empties; they placed orders for parts; there was difficulty in assembling and co-ordinating; but can the Shell Committee be fairly held responsible for delay in deliveries of orders given to responsible manufacturers? How can they be held responsible for the fact that the British Army had not munitions after the battle of the Marne? I think that has only to be stated to absolve the Shell Committee from any responsibility in that regard. We are in the advantageous position in considering this motion of having before us the fact of an investigation by experts of the War Office of the records of the Shell Committee. What do they say? Mr. Thomas says:
There is no suspicion whatever with regard to the Shell Committee.
And he speaks of the good faith, the honesty, the integrity of the members. He says:
Without doubt, they are honourable, honest, upright men.
He said that the committee had done excellent work under trying conditions and that General Bertram had placed the country under a debt of gratitude. He stated further that General Bertram worked like a Trojan day and night, and gave his services wjthout fee or reward, and he stated also, as I have mentioned already, that the biggest business in the British Empire to-day had been built up in twelve months. Mr. Thomas, whose name has been frequently mentioned by hon. gentlemen opposite, considered the criticism of Mr. Cantley and others unfair. He said that General Bertram was free from party bias and placed orders widely, not with two or three firms. According to the hon. member for Richmond, what should have been done is that orders should have been placed with two or three firms and that the hundreds of

manufacturing firms throughout Canada should have gone without orders at all. The work of the committee was satisfactory, not only to Thomas, hut to Hichens, to Brand, to the experts of the British War Office who were sent out here. I repeat, because I say it goes to the very root of this matter, that no charge of fraud, dishonesty nor corruption _has been put forward against the members of the Shell Committee.
We come now to the question: shall the inquiry be had? The committee is defunct and one would ask himself what purpose is served in bolding an investigation. We could not summon officials from the War Office. I do not believe that the War Office would consent to the pub-12	m.	lication of	confidential cablegrams and	other communications passing between them and the members o'f the Shell Committee. The hon. member for Carleton said: "Give me the committee and I will show you that the prices paid were higher than the prices paid in the United States and in England." How	could the hou.	member establish
what prices were paid by the Imperial Government in the United States and in England unless he summoned the Minister of Munitions or officials from the War Office? In my judgment, the Minister of Munitions or the officials of the War Office would not, at this time, submit to be put under examination as to the prices which they paid for shells and other munitions in the United Kingdom and in the United States. So, my hon. friend, if he had his committee, would not be able to establish what he hoped to establish, because they could not investigate the transactions of the British War Office, because the transactions of the Shell Committee are the transactions of the War Office and of no one else. They are not the transactions of this Government; this Government had no responsibility whatever as to prices nor as to the amount of orders which should be given. The responsibility lay with the Imperial Government, who gave the orders to the Shell Committee, and where there is no authority, there cannot be any responsibility. This Government had no authority whatever over the Shell Committee, and this Government, on no principle of Which I am aware, can be made responsible for the actions of the Shell Committee. I certainly decline to take responsibility for the actions of a committee over which I had absolutely no control whatsoever.
-MARCH 28, 1916
There is another feature of this question. Have we any right to investigate without the Imperial consent? If tlhe British War Office paid every penny of the money, as they have; if no order was placed except with their consent or upon their instructions, have we any right to investigate their expenditures, not our expenditures? What did my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) say in 1903 when the Boer War was over? He said, through his Minister of Finance, if I recollect correctly, that Canada was responsible for the expenditure of Canada's moneys, but that Canada was not responsible for the expenditure of Imperial moneys. The Shell Committee's expenditures have been expenditures of Imperial moneys, and on the statement of my right hon. friend1, Canada is in no way responsible for the expenditures of the agent of the Imperial Government.
Would it be fair to the Shell Committee to hold an inquiry when it would not be possible for them to make public the instructions which they had received? Reference has been made by the hon. Solicitor General to the Crimean War investigation. What happened in that case? A perfectly futile investigation, with the result that was to be expected. It was not possible, for reasons of State, for the committee to call the witnesses to obtain the evidence which alone would establish the facts, and the result was that the committee was not able to make an investigation nor to make a report, as it vras instructed' to do. The whole investigation was futile, and It would be manifestly unjust to the committee for an inquiry to be 'had into their transactions when it would not be open to obtain the evidence as to what the British War Office had instructed them to do.	.
What is the attitude of this Government with regard to the motion? My right hon. friend the leader of the Government has dealt with this matter, and at page 1591 of Hansard he says:
Now, what course does the Government propose, to take with regard to the motion which my right hon. friend has proposed to this House?
As far as the Shell Committee is concerned_
I shall speak afterwards of another matter-our proposal is this: We shall direct the attention oi the British Government in detail to every charge, allegation and rumour broughlt up 5n this House or elsewhere by my right hon. friend or by any of bis supporters with regard to the Shell Committee. We shall further inform the British Government that if an inquiry is thought advisable we are prepared to co-operate with them to^ the fullest extent, and to issue any commission, take any proceedings, pass any
legislation, and do any other act for the purpose of making that inquiry as full, thorough, and complete as they deem advisable.
Then, further, the .Prime Minister made this statement:
The Shell Committee is one thing; the Government's responsibility in connection with it is another. I thoroughly admit what responsibility we had with regard to the Shell Committee, namely, to appoint men of -good repute, of high character, of experience, of recognized ability, and to co-operate with them so far as in us lay in order that they might do their best to develop the industries of this country for the production of munitions. But there is something else to be said, and I repeat that, if my right hon. friend, or any of Ris followers, has any charge to make against a member of the Government in regard to any of these matters let him make that charge in distinct and understandable terms, and he will have the -investigation as soon as he so desires.
I do not think it necessary to deal particularly with the so-called charge made by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley). It was really a condensation of the speech of the hon. member for Garleton. It certainly was not, a charge against the honour, the honesty, or the integrity of any member of this Government. It was a more or less condensed statement of alleged facts and some opinion as to losses alleged to have been sustained through the operations of the Shell Committee.
This evening the matter has been dealt with at some considerable length by my hon. friend from Richmond. He has referred particularly to transactions of the Shell Committee with the two companies in the United States relating to the matter of the fuses. The Shell Committee may have made mistakes in placing the contracts- that is admitted. My hon. friend from Richmond dealt with the incorporation of two companies in the United States. I looked over, rather hurriedly, the agreement which was submitted between the Shell Committee and the Minister of Militia, and one of these companies. It was stated that * an order had been placed for a very large amount,and that an advance had been made of a considerable sum of money-how much,
I have forgotten for the moment,-in prepayment of the contract. It is not an unusual thing to make advance payments to responsible firms where orders for munitions are placed and where large expenditure is required to instal necessary machinery. The Government of Canada, if it placed an order with the Vickers-Maxim Company in England-and I recollect that such an offer was before us for consideration about a year and a half ago-would require to pay one-quarter or one-fifth of the amount of the

contract. The Government pays in advance to the Ross Rifle Company for the rifles which that company were to deliver. I am only mentioning these facts to show that it is not unusual in such contracts to stipulate that payment shall be made in advance. Under section 15 of the agreement-which I have not before me-provision is made for a guarantee by responsible parties to ensure that the company in question would carry out its contract. I do not know at present whether such a guarantee was taken or not, but I think that could be ascertained. And it appears to me that, in so far as the argument of my hon. friend from Richmond was founded upon the provision of the contract that a large sum of money was to be paid over in advance, it may well be that the section of the agreement which provides for a guarantee would protect the Shell Committee. Contracts have been entered into by this Government in which advances have been made, and the guarantee of a responsible guarantee company taken for the purpose of protecting the Government against default on the part of the contracting company.
One further feature was dwelt upon by the hon. member for Richmond. He said that the agreement was approved of by the Minister of Militia, and he drew the inference from that that it was just as if that contract had been -made with the Government of Canada. How did the Minister of Militia sign himself in that agreement. He signed himself as acting for His (Britannic Majesty's Government and not for the Gevernment of Canada. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that . while the Minister of Militia did sign the contract as stated by the hon. member for Richmond, he signed it not on behalf of the Dominion Government, but on behalf of the (Government of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Speaker, it is twenty minutes after twelve o'clock, and, as I have a good deal more to say upon this subject, and would like to look into one or two matters, including this point of the guarantee, I beg to move that the debate he adjourned.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood that it had been agreed that the debate was to be concluded to-night; but, of course, if the hon. gentleman wishes to adjourn it, I must admit he has two good reasons-first, he may be tired; and, second, he has a very heavy task before him.


William Thomas White: If there has been any trespassing on the time of the House it was certainly not on my part.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, no.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
from Richmond spoke four hours and a half, and I think we are all fairly tired by the vehemence of his eloquence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

Robert Laird Borden: We can now
take up the vote referred to this afternoon, if there is no objection.


Wilfrid Laurier: To-night?


Robert Laird Borden: I understood
that it was just a vote and not a debate.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is true the debate was to have been resumed to-day. But it is now to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not at all anxious about it. I give the opportunity, but if it is not desired I have nothing^ more to say. I move the House do now adjourn.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is this a
threat-that we shall not have it again?


Robert Laird Borden: Not a threat;
merely a statement.


Wilfrid Laurier: When will the debate he resumed?	.


Robert Laird Borden: I will let my
hon. friend know to-morrow. .


Wilfrid Laurier: When will
this debate be resumed?


Robert Laird Borden: I will let my
right hon. friend know to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 12.20 a.m., Wednesday.
Wednesday, March 29, 1916.