1916-01-31

REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Report of Experimental Farm for the year ended March 31, 1915.-Hon. Martin Burrell.
-	PRIVILEGE-MR. TURRIFF.
Mr. J. G. TURRIFF:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In the Peterborough Review of a late date I see the following:
Bound to Have an Election.
The tilt between the federal member for West Peterborough and Mr. Carvell, the somewhat famous member of the Liberal Opposition for Carleton, N.B., and Mr. Turriff, the Liberal M.P. and free wheat champion from Assiniboia, was very illuminating. Could anything be plainer? We leave our readers to guess who are trying to run this country into the horrors of a general election in war-time. Hansard says:
Mr. Burnham: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question?
Mr. Carvell: Certainly.
Mr. Burnham: Does the hon. gentleman intend to move a vote of censure upon the Government for the conduct of the war, so far? If not, of what avail is all this abuse now?
Mr. Carvell: I do not wish to be discourteous to my hon. friend-
Mr. Marcil: Do not hurt his feelings.
Mr. Carvell

but I may say I am not the leader of the party, and do not move votes of censure unless I am instructed to do so. I have the greatest confidence, however, that the people of Canada, when they get the opportunity, will carry into effect a vote of censure much more effectual than anything we an say in this House.
Mr. Schaffner:	They do not want it.
Mr. Burnham: This is for a general election, then?
Mr. Turriff: That is what we wanted last year.
I am not attributing any blame whatever to the paper. The mistake has occurred through the Hansard reporter not catching exactly the right woid; the word "we" was substituted for .the word "you," which changes the whole meaning of the sentence. What I said was:
That is what you wanted last year.
Instead of "you," they put in "we."


Mr. SPEAKER:: I ,may say to the hon. member that a correction will be made in Hansard according to his wishes.
THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH. ADDRESS IN REPLY. Consideration of the motion of Mr. Alfred Thompson for an address to His Royal 
Highness the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Friday, January 28.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough, N.S.):: Mr. Speaker, before beginning the few remarks which I purpose making on the motion before the House, I wish to refer for a moment to the speech made by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. McCurdy), who, I regret, is not in his seat. The speech was made on last Friday night, and it has the appearance of being *a deliberate attack upon my hon. friend fiom North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie). I suspect, Sir, that the brains of more than one Nova Scotia member were commandeered in the preparing of that speech. It was written out so that the statements made were deliberate and made in cool blood. The incident arose out of remarks by my hon. friend from North Cape Breton on pointing out the importance of the appointment of men bearing good characters to command the volunteers from the province of Nova Scotia, and incidentally my hon. friend referred to the part that Major Muirhead took in a celebrated election in the county of Victoria. The hon. gentleman began by indulging in a lecture to hon. members on this side of the House on political decorum. He deprecated the mixing up of politics with the discussion of military affairs, iamd then he launched out into ia violent partisan speech. He was not speaking ten 'minutes until he consigned my hon. friend from North Gape Breton to political oblivion. Then he took the Premier of Nova Scotia, Hon. Geo. H. Murray, and threw him to the wolves. I do not often undertake to give advice to my colleagues in this House, but if I were permitted to give a word of advice to my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, it would be that he would take the rafters out of his own eyes and then he would be able to see more clearly when he attempts to extract motes from the eyes of hon. members on this side of the House.
The incident arose, as I have said, out of the election in Victoria, N.S. I do not intend to discuss the Victoria election or the character of Major Muirhead, Major Muirhead may be, a good soldier; my hon. friend says he has already seen active service at the front. That is greatly to his credit and, for my part, I would forgive him a good deal on that account. It may be that Major Muirhead was unfortunate in getting into bad company. If he is the kind

of man that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens say he is, and I do not dispute it, the best thing he can do is to change hie friendis, because if he continues to associate with the gang that took part in the Victoria election 'and tries to behave himself like a decent citizen at the same time, he will be lonesome. The reason I mention this matter at all is that I wish id take this opportunity of expressing my regrets thiam the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens should have found it necessary to have said that my hon. friend from North Cape Breton had deliberately stated what was not true in this House. I do not hold any brief for my hon. friend from North Cape Breton; he is well able to take care of himself, and I have no doubt will do so when the opportunity arises. He may unintentionally make a mistake in a name or a date, but when the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens stated to the House that he deliberately made a false statement to this House, I want to say to him that that accusation will not be believed in any place where my hon. friend from North Cape Breton is known.
I have known my hon. friend from North Cape Breton for twenty years, and I hold him in the highest respect as am honourable and truthful man. I am sure my opinion of him is shared by the hon. gentlemen who sit around me in this House, and I think I may say by a good many honourable gentlemen opposite. The best that I cam wish my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens is that after he has been twenty years in public life he will have as clean and honourable a record, and will stand as high with the people of Nova Scotia as does my hon. friend from North Cape Breton.
Mr. Speaker, in listening to this debate, as I have done for the last ten days, one cannot fail to observe that there is one question, and one question only before the House and the country. Other matters may and will be mentioned, but the war overshadows them all. It is the duty of this House at all times, Sir, to give the closest attention to what may be called onr domestic affairs, as a nation, and especially does this duty devolve upon His Majesty's loyal opposition. When we remember that a defeat of the Empire in the present crisis would leave us without any domestic affairs to attend to, it follows that our first duty must be the vigorous prosecution of the war. Did it ever occur to
you, Mr. Speaker, that this may be the last [DOT] session of the Canadian Parliament.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: Your last.


John Howard Sinclair: A complete and final victory for Germany in this struggle would ail-most certainly make Canada a province of the German Empire and there would he no further need for this Parliament. Your seat, Sir, and the mace on the table, would be thrown on the scrap-heap, the British flag would be tom from the main tower, and this building itself instead of being a place where the representatives of a free people meet to make laws for a free state, would probably be converted into the headquarters of a company of Prussian Dragoons with the sign of the death's head over the front entrance. And that, Sir, being a possibility, is it not our first duty, following the example of the Highland chiefs in the olden days, to send out the fiery cross to the young men of Canada, inviting them without distinction of race, or party, to rally to the call of King and country in the great crisis in which the Empire is engaged. In my judgment one of the most impressive sights the world has ever seen is the way that men have flocked to join the colours from all parts of this vast Empire-from Australia, from New Zealand, from South Africa, from India, from Newfoundland, from Canada, from wherever the flag floats. If the German Emperor ever stops to ask himself the reason for this, he must be driven to the conclusion that Britain's colonial policy of the open door, and self-government, has knit this Empire together as no military system ever could have done. Why, for example, is the Boer in South Africa, who was our sworn enemy only fifteen years ago, willing to-day to enter the lists for Great Britain against men of his own blood. The reason is plain; Mr. Speaker, loyalty is the child of freedom.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Sinclair: The Boers received fair and generous treatment from Great Britain; she trusted them and accorded them the - right to govern themselves.
There are two matters on which the people of this country have every reason to congratulate themselves. The first is the united front we have been able to show to the enemy. This is largely due to the patriotism and leadership of the distinguished statesmen that, we are so fortunate as to have at the head of the Canadian Liberal

party in this crisis. With the exception of the attitude taken by a small and unimportant wing of that hyphenated party known as the Conservative-Nationalist party in the province of Quebec, I suppose there never was a question on which the people of Canada have been so unanimous as on the question of this war.
The second matter on which we have reason to congratulate ourselves is the splendid record made by our soldiers at the battle front. Many people feared that raw colonial troops, without much training and without experience, would be at a great disadvantage when facing trained German soldiers in the shock of battle; men who have had the advantage of long training in the art of war. But we have every reason to be proud of the results. The courage and heroism of our soldiers has shed new lustre on the name of Canada; and while this result has been purchased by the sacrifice of the lives of many brave men, it throws upon us who remain Here a new duty to see that those brave men stall not have died in vain. The sacrifice of life has beeim great, but the heroism that has been developed in the course of this struggle will ever be a cause of inspiration to the Canadian people. The tales of the brave deeds on the part of our soldiers, told to our boys around our hearths and camp fires, will go far to kindle love of country and devotion to the cause of liberty in the hearts of young Canadians for generations to come. There is undoubted evidence that the Canadian soldier has made a splendid record in this war; I wish we could honestly say as much for the Canadian Government.
I notice in the speech from the Throne a proposal to extend the life of Parliament for one year. That is a question which, when it is brought forward, will have the serious consideration of the members on this side of the House. In my opinion there is a pretty general feeling in my province that this House is suffering from senility, and that some new blood, especially on the Speaker's right, would be a good thing for the country. If we on this side of the House had even a moderate degree of confidence in the present Administration it would be easier for us to agree to the proposed extension, but in the face of the damaging disclosures of the past eighteen months it is asking a good deal of us on this side to pass what is in effect a vote of confidence for another year in tihe present Adminis-
	.
tration. I suppose the main argument in favour of the extension is that the country is at war, and that it is not wise to swap horses when we are crossing the stream. During the present session we will be asked to vote enormous sums of money to carry on the war, and while we on this side of the House will cordially do so, we shall also insist on full particulars as to how the 1150,000,000 already voted has been spent. It may as well be understood at the outset that we shall regard it as our duty to expose graft and crookedness, - wherever found, even at the risk of seeming to break the truce which my hon. friend from East Toronto (Hon. Mr. Kemp) said never existed, so far as the Tory party is concerned. We on this side of the House have no desire to spend precious time in the apparently hopeless task of trying to induce this Government to do business on business principles. All the same, this is no time to tolerate the grafter or the patronage hunter; on the contrary, it is the very time when that kind of vermin should be stamped out relentlessly by honest men of both parties' lae soon ae they are seen 'crawling along the floor. Looking black 'over the di'Sql-as'ur-es before the Public Accounts Committee aind the Davidson inquiry, I think it is a safe statement to irnaike that this Government, at the very outbreak of the war, capitulated to Tammany methods in the purchase of war supplies, the only difference being that instead of one Boss Tweed we had scores of them operating in every province of Canada. The patronage system, which has been rampant under the present Government, is the -cause of a good deal of our trouble. No -hon. gentleman opposite will deny that. This is why we have been compelled to go to war with spavined and painted and decrepit horses, rotten boots, squinting binoculars, shovels without handles, high-priced trousers and a discredited Shell Committee. The man who -steals the church collection has always been regarded as a low type; but to my mind he is no lower than the grafter who steals the money dedicated by the people for the defence of the country.
These abuses have, all grown out of the patronage system. If the business of purchasing supplies had been open and above board and conducted by the trained officers of the Militia Department, men like Foster and Garland an-d Ellis would never have had an opportunity of carrying on their operations. The system produced the men.

Scattered over this Dominion from Cape Breton to Vancouver we have hundreds of Borden clubs, and Conservative-Nationalist Associations, whose advice is taken by the Government to the great loss of the ratepayers of this country. This is ho picture of the imagination. We have the statement on oath of Mr. H. W. Brown, the head of the purchasing staff of the Department of Militia and Defence, to the effect that the patronage list on file in his office here at Ottawa, a list furnished to him by the supporters of the party in power, contains the names of no less than
8,000	of their political friends, all insisting on giving Mr. Brown advice of a Tammany character, as to how he can combine the task of defending the Empire and fattening the Tory party at the same time. Now, if any one desires to have examples of the working of this Tammany system, they can be easily supplied. My hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) has already placed on record the mode of appointing shell inspectors in the province of Nova Scotia. His remarks Will bear repetition. The letter which I am about to read was written by Mr. Joseph A. Gillies of Sydney. Who is this Mr. Gillies? He is the defeated Conservative candidate in the county of Richmond and has the patronage of that county. When I read the letter, Sir, you will see that there is not a word in it about the fitness of the man to be an inspector. He is not required to know anything about the manufacture of steel or of shells. The only requisite is that he is a Conservative, and that he can secure the recommendation of the Borden Club'. This is the letter:
Sydney, C.B., June 30, 1915.
Mr. 
,
Sydney, N.S.
Dear Sir,-I am to-day in receipt of the enclosed letter received from Mr. Douglas in reply to mine of the 28th, written in your behalf, making application for the position of inspector of shell steel. From the enclosed you will see that Mr. Douglas has acted upon my suggestion, namely, that he should write yourself so that you might see that he was interesting himself in the matter.
I hope to see you get the position. I will see the president of the Borden Club and will urge upon him to have you strongly recommended for the appointment.
Trusting that you may get this position, and wishing to see you from time to time, I remain, .	Tours very truly,
(Sgd.) J. A. Gillies.
The second letter that I purpose to read is over the signature of Mr. John C. Douglas, M.P.P., of Glace Bay. Now, Who is
27	'
this Mr. Douglas? He is a Conservative member in the Nova Scotia Legislature. He has also been nominated as one of the candidates for the Dominion Parliament from the county of Cape Breton and Richmond, and he has the patronage of that county. Mr. Douglas is well posted in political affairs; in fact, I would regard him as an expert in such matters. I suppose there is no Conservative in the province of Nova Scotia who knows as much politically of a subterranean character as "Mr. Douglas. There is no man who knows the underground ,workings of the Tory party -better than this gentleman; and when he says it is absolutely necessary to have the recommendation of the Borden Club in order to be a shell inspector at Sydney, he knows what he is speaking about. This i-s Mr. Douglas' letter:
Glace Bay, C.B., July 29, 1915. Joseph A. Gillies, Esq., Barrister, etc.,
Sydney, C.B.
Dear Mr. Gillies,-I have your favour under date of June 28th, with reference to the application of the above-noted for a position as inspection of shell steel. I have to day written
Mr. 
as you suggest, and am also placing
the case before the Borden Club, through whose hands all Sydney1 recommendations must be made.
Thanking you for your interest in the matter, Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) John C. Douglas.
If more proof of the prevalence of this system of patronage is required, I can furnish it. The letter that I now purpose reading is from the pen of another Conservative candidate, a dispenser of the patronage of the Department of Militia and Defence. The writer is a very respectable gentleman, a townsman and personal friend of my own, and I wish it to be understood that I am making no personal attack on him. I refer to Mr. Alex. McGregor, Conservative candidate for the county of Pictou. The letter explains itself. It appeared in the Glasgow Evening News of January 10, 1916. This is an extract:
I have only to say that I did no talking about this shell business, boastingly or otherwise. When the time comes for talking about shells, I can talk as much as any one and will do so if it will be necessary. It is sufficient for me to state that the trip I made to Ottawa in connection with the manufacturing of shells was instrumental in keeping the local plants working up to their capacity to the present time.
My visit to the capital was at the request of a number of shell manufacturers who considered they were not receiving fair treatment from the old Shell Committee. I have been successful in satisfying these manufacturers and enabling the workingmen in this district


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to state that he is opposed to the finishing of the Hudson Bay Railway and the building of the terminals?


John Howard Sinclair: I think I made it quite plain. I believe that route cannot be made a commercial enterprise. If we have thrown away a great deal of money in it already, and we now find it impossible to make it a success, it is better we should stop now rather, than go on piling up more millions in Hudson bay.
Reference has been made in this debate to the irresponsible way in which the public money has been handled by this Administration and especially by the Militia Department. For example, take the case of Mr. De Witt Foster. This gentleman was given a blank cheque-book. No limit was set to the amount of the cheques to be drawn, any more than to the age of the horses he was authorized to purchase. He spent about $73,000, and I do not know how many more thousands were spent later on in trying to find out what he had done with the money. There has been a disposition on the part of the Tory press and of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I fear to some extent on the part of Judge Davidson, to throw the blame of this disreputable piece of business on the farmers of King's county. As a matter of fact, the farmers had very little to do with it. The sales of spavined and aged horses were mostly made by horse-traders, and you can find horse-traders anywhere to take your money if you are foolish enough to give it to them. The Prime Minister, in a speech delivered in this House on the closing day of last session, exonerated the farmers and horse-traders too, and practically placed the blame where it belonged, on this Government. This speech was made on the 15th of April last in this Chamber. The Prime Minister said:
We are confronted with this extraordinary situation, that the Government having placed $73,000 in the hand of Mr. Poster and the veterinary surgeon, have, up to the present no accounting for the money entrusted to them.

There you have it in a nutshell. It was the Government	that did	it. That isfrankly admitted by the Prime Minister. Who appointed Mr. Foster to purchase the horses? The Government. Who gave him the blank cheque-book? The Government. Who selected the veterinary surgeon, Chip-man, to assist him? The Government. Who is responsible for the loss of the public money? The Government. Who is responsible for the	purchase	of the	ante- *diluvian and	spavined	horses?	TheGovernment-I	mean the	Borden	Government-and no one else. There is another peculiarity about this Government. They do not seem to have confidence in their own appointments. They no sooner appoint a man to perform some public service than they issue a Boyal Commission or send a secret service man to see whether he does his work right or not. We have the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that these Boyal Commissions are as thick as blackberries; the Conservative press has actually counted it for righteousness, the willingness of this Government to appoint Royal Commissions to investigate their own misdeeds and the misdeeds of the men whom they appoint to responsible positions. The case that I have just mentioned is an example. They appointed De Witt Foster to purchase horses in Nova Scotia, and afterwards they sent Sir Charles Davidson, with a full-fledged Royal Commission, to see what he did with the money. They selected James R. Fallis, Conservative M.P.P., to do the same kind of work in the county of Peel, in the province of Ontario, and they followed his appointment up by an official investigation which, I am told, resulted in damaging disclosures. They selected a number of politically appointed doctors to take charge of the military hospital at Halifax. One of them was Dr. Hayes, the Conservative organizer for the province of Nova Scotia, who had not been engaged in the practice of medicine for ten years. Subsequently they sent a secret service man to set traps for these doctors, the doctors were easily caught. Then we have a Royal Commission to lay bare the whole miserable business. The evidence goes to show that the medical staff of that hospital is incompetent, and a menace -to the lives of our soldiers. Do you suppose that if these doctors had been selected on their merits from the medical profession of Halifax, without any political interference, we should have had any such results? What have we gained by all these investigations? The 
cases of graft have been frequent; scores of them have been exposed, but so far as I know, only one criminal has been punished. I submit that it would have been just as well to have left that solitary crook at large with the others.
In dealing with the matter of purchasing supplies, I may say that in the early months of the war horse buyers were sent to eastern Nova Scotia; and in the county which I have the honour to represent, as well as in the county of Antigonish, represented by the hon. gentleman who sits behind me (Mr. William Chisholm), very good horses were obtained for war purposes. The prices were fair; there was no scandal; no aged or spavined horses were offered on the market; everything was properly done. The farmers were encouraged to go into the breeding of horses; to keep their half-grown colts in the hope that they would be bought later, and to refrain from selling the horses that they had in stock. During the year 1915, while, I am told, very large numbers of horses were purchased for military purposes in Western Canada and in the United States, no opportunity was given to the farmers of eastern Nova Scotia to supply any horses to the Government. I want to ask that the persons who have this matter in charge will give the farmers of that part of the country an opportunity of supplying horses to the Militia Department. I can assure the Government that this can be done to the advantage of all parties concerned.
Reference has been made in this debate to charges against the Shell Committee. I do not intend at this stage to discuss those ' charges; I presume that the matter will come up later. The question that the people are asking-a question that has not been answered-is: Why was the old Shell Committee dismissed? If the first Shell Committee deserve all the praise that my hon. friend the Minister of Militia showered upon them the other day-and I am not saying that they do not-why were they turned out when their work was only half finished? That is a very pertinent question, and the House and country should have an answer. The hon. Minister of Militia was closing his speech the other day without giving the House any light on that important question, when the hon. member for Pictou interrupted to ask the following question:
Would the minister be good enough to say why there was a change from the old Shell Committee to the Imperial Munitions Board?

To this question the Minister of Militia replied as follows:
The early part of the work was what I might call scientific. X chose the very best men X could get who would do the work. Bertram, Carnegie, Cantley and the others were all. experts. I also picked the very best military men I could get, such as Col. Lafferty. I don't remember the names of the others, but they were men who had been accustomed for years to this highly technical work. Before the Shell Committee was dissolved there were in the factories of Montreal and Toronto, and the other big cities of the dominion, a hundred men who were just as expert as these men were at the beginning of the war. A commission was appointed to look into the question of the steel production of this country, and to look after the best interests of the steel work, for steel is the basis of this industry. I think that should be a satisfactory answer to my hon. friend.
Rut that was not satisfactory to the hon. member for Pictou, who again asked:
Why were the services of these men dispensed with, and new men who knew nothing about the business taken on to purchase shells?
To which the minister replied:
I am not aware that there has been any purchase of shells. Orders have been placed with certain firms. Before the Munitions Board was formed the arrangement was that a certain number of shells would come in automatically from month to month.
I submit that this answer given by the minister was very extraordinary, and very unsatisfactory. He tells us that be selected General Bertram and Colonel Cantley because they were experts; because they understood the business. That, of course, was a good reason for selecting these gentlemen. The minister informs us also that they made a splendid record; that they produced shells cheaper than they were produced in Great Britain ot in the United States. To -an ordinary man like myself, that would be a good reason for retaining their services. Why, I repeat, did the minister dismiss them when their work was only half finished? Look at the reason which the minister himself gives. He says that when they started this business, experts were -scarce; that he retained the services of these men until he developed a hundred experts in Montreal, Toronto and other cities who were just as good and who knew just as much about the steel industry as Bertram or Cantley. I do not believe that -a -man -in Canada will credit that statement. Are we to be told th-at these so called experts with the experience of a few months making shells could be expected to know as much about steel as Colonel Cantley, who has devoted -a whole lifetime to
the -study of the industry. Then, the minister goes on to say that when he found that there were -a -hundred other experts in the -country who were a-s good as Bertram or Cantley, he decided to dismiss the Shell Committee -and appoint -some one else in their place. The extraordinary -thing is that he did not -select any of these mushroom experts for the new munitions board. He went outside altogether and recommended as chairman of the new board a man who never -saw -a shell; who, while he might he a -thoroughly trained -bu-sine'ss man in other ways, could know no more about the highly technical -steel industry than a -cow knows about algebra. In other words, the minister tells us that when the business was small and in its early -stages, he -secured the very best men in Canada to manage it, but when the business grew to enormous proportions, involving hundreds of millions of dollars, he dismissed the experts an-d appointed inexperienced men to take their places w-hb knew n-tfthing ab-ou-t it. When the minister called the old Shell Committee to his office to inform them that their -services were no longer required, -his 6xplan-ation to them, if we are to judge from the remarks which he m-ade during the course of his -speech the other d-ay, must hav-e been -something like -this: Gentlemen, you have made -a -splendid record. You have created a new industry in Canada. You have given employment to hundreds of thousands of Canadian workmen, -and have brought -millions of money into the country. You have made scientific tests at your own expense and proved that native -Canadian -steel is as g-ood as any in the world. Your success, gentlemen, h-as been beyond my wildest dreams, -and I desire to tender you my warmest congratulations.
But there is one thing that I must draw to your attention. True you are only now in the middle of your gigantic task. When you were first appointed experts were scarce. They are now as plenty as honorary colonels. The woods are full of them. For this reason I have decided, to relieve you from all further responsibility and my plan is tc place a Toronto gentleman at the head of this industry who knows absolutely nothing about steel but who is thoroughly posted on all questions relating to the packing and selling , of pork. I trust, gentlemen, you all see the wisdom of my decision. If you do, well and good. If you do not, you can go straight to blazes, for its going to be done anyway. And that was the end of the
42J

interview. Mr. Speaker, the pretence that has been put forward toy the Solicitor General and by some other hon. gentlemen that this Shell Committee was an Imperial institution in anything more than name has been eomjpletely disposed of by the speeches of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy), and the very able speech of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell). One charge against the iShell Committee is that they handed out fat contracts to companies in which they were interested. I am well aware that the rejoinder is that provision had to be made in these contracts for the initial outlay. All these questions must be considered. The man chiefly responsible was General Bertram, the chairman. The Treatment of General Bertram by this Administration is a sample of the flabby way in which this Government deals with important matters. If Gen. Bertram and Col. Cantley were innocent of any wrong-doing and nothing has been even hinted against Col. Cantley, then the Government that appointed them should have stood by them.
My own idea is that Gen. Bertram, who says he let all contracts without consulting his colleagues, was, to a large extent, a sort of figurehead, and did what he was told to do by the party machine here at Ottawa. He nominally held for the moment a very important position. As well as being chairman of the Shell Committee, he was trustee of large Imperial funds, and in an important sense custodian of Canada's honour. If he was found guilty in any degree of a breach of trust then he should have been promptly dismissed. But what does the Government do? They depose him from the position of chairman, put another man in his place, and ask His Majesty the King to mix himself up with the unsavoury business by conferring a knighthood on General Bertram ! But they do more. They induce the Imperial Government to take him back, not as chairman, but as a private member of the new Munitions Board. I submit that by doing so they have made themselves responsible to the people of this country for all the sins of the former Shell Committee, whatever these may be.
One does not care to dwell on these matters, but it is our duty to speak plainly. It is far from creditable to this Dominion that the Shell Committee appointed by this Government to deal with a matter so vital to the safety of the Empire as the produo tion of munitions should have to be dis-

banded when their work was only half done and the business practically taken out of the hands of the Canadian Government, and a new Munitions Board appointed to take their place, not by the Canadian, hut by the Imperial Government.
In demanding the fullest details about these war expenditures, we are doing no more than our duty. We are doing no more than is expected of us by the Canadian people. We do not look for perfection from hon. gentlemen opposite, or their political friends. If we did we would be sadly disappointed.
We on this side are prepared to make allowances. There was a Judas among the twelve apostles and that was bad enough- But,- all the same, we do not expect to meet a Judas Iscariot' at every street corner with his hand out and ready to betray his country for a consideration-and every single one of the motley gang claiming allegiance to one political party. Lloyd George's representative, Mr. Thomas, did right when he called public attention to the fact that there was too much politics mixed up with our military expenditures. We, on this side, cannot fail to notice the importance that has been given to political considerations all through this struggle in connection with the production of munitions and the purchase of war supplies- It leads us to wonder if this Government even yet realize the tremendous issues at stake. Do these gentlemen really believe that the Empire is in danger and that success in this war is more important than the triumph of any party? The war itself is world-wide. From the valley of the Euphrates in the Far East to the bay of Biscay in the west-and from the Arctic Circle to the Southern boundary of Egypt, the whole of Europe and a large part of Asia and Africa is an armed camp. Every mountain pass and hamlet and every city street, echoes with the sound of the bugle and the tramp of armed men. The results are so tremendous should our Empire be defeated that it makes a man's blood hot to think that petty questions of party politics get any consideration from rthe Government. Imagine if you can the position of our army on the western front through the long and dreary months from August 1914, to August 1915, holding their ground
4 p.m. as best they could, crying out all the time for munitions and being mowed down day by day by the German artillery. What was our Government doing

through all this anxious crisis in the nation's affairs? Were they making a broad and statesmanlike effort to deal with the most important problem ever committed to them to solve? Did they consult the Manufacturers' Association as to the best plan to be followed? Did they use their own, shops at Winnipeg and Quebec, which were standing idle and which were so well equipped for the manufacture of munitions? They did nothing of the kind. They had a splendid opportunity to do a big thing for Canada and for the Empire-and they failed. They spent their time in dealing with petty requests from Borden clubs and Tory committees and in peddling out war contracts and other war jobs to their political friends. Is it any wonder that there is a demand for the exposure and punishment of these war grafters?
We have had glimpses from time to time of what was going on behind the scenes. We hoped for improvement but have been disappointed. If we make up our minds on this side that it will make for efficiency to do so, we may decide to take the lid off the pot at the present session and show the whole miserable mess. I venture to say that there will be no class of the population that will be better pleased if the war grafteT is exposed and punished than the men who are risking their lives for us on the battlefields of Europe. And it would be no small thing to win the approval of the 200,000 gallant men who have already enlisted in the country's service.
Is it any wonder that there is a demand on the part of the people of this country for an opportunity to'rid themselves of a government that has so signally failed to measure up to its opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, a general election has been hinted at in the press. We on this side are not throwing out any challenges about an election. That is a matter for the Government. If they decide to take the offensive they will find no shortage of munitions on this side of the House. Election or no election, the Liberal party are united as never before. They are full of hope and confidence, because they know that the triumph of their cause is made surer day by day. However we on this side are not asking for an election. We are demanding a vigorous prosecution of the war, honest administration, and fair and generous treatment of the men and the families of the men who are risking their lives in the country's defence.
I read somewhere recently a story of
Charles M. Schwab, the great Pittsburg steel manufacturer. He was crossing the Atlantic and met a prominent New York merchant on the deck of the ship. It was during that period of severe depression in the United States. The merchant remarked " And you, Mr. Schwab, are, I suppose, like the rest of us hoping for better things."
" No " said Schwab, " I am not hoping for better things, I've got my sleeves rolled up and I am working for them." That, Sir, is the spirit that should animate hon. members on both sides of the House in this crisis.
The only desire of members on this side of the House is to guard the public, treasury, to see that Canada plays her part with honour, and to assist in such measures as will hasten the final victory of Britain and her allies.


Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity of addressing you as the presiding officer of this House and I think my first words to you ought to be that we in the West still want free wheat and free agricultural implements- Lest you might, like some of your predecessors not remain long, I want to make sure that I should not forget that announcement. Having made that very important observation that we are more anxious than ever for these two desirable steps to ibe taken by the Government, I will proceed with more general remarks. The debate, so far, has been one in which there have been a great number of very excellent speeches coming from both sides of the House. I think I would be justified in applying the words " very clever " to them. With many of them I do not entirely agree, but I do not recollect ever having heard a debate in which the speeches have been, on the average, of so high an order as those that I have listened to here.
Our hon. friends opposite say that everything went smoothly until my hon. friend from St. John, N.B. (Mr. Pugsley) spoke, and they seemed to think that he was the wicked partner on this side of the House who broke up the love feast and started things along quarrelsome lines. I am afraid that hon. gentlemen opposite must owe more of that idea to their own accusing consciences than to anything else. I say that there is no exception to be justly taken to the speech of my hon. friend from St. John; I say that that speech was in good faith, and was reasonable. My opinion of the speech made by my hon. friend from St. John is that in almost every

and critical the condition of affairs must be to justify you in extending the trust he has placed in you. I notice that the Government's main organ in the West, the paper of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, uses rather unfortunate language in speaking about the prolongation of the term of Parliament. In its issue of January 19, 1916, after giving an account of the Address in the Senate, and quoting Senator Lougheed's words, the Winnipeg Telegram went on to say with regard to the extension:
This statement from the Conservative leader ' in the second Chamber is taken to indicate that the Opposition may accept or reject the measure as presented, and that a refusal to agree to their proposition will result in an immediate appeal to the people.
That is the utterance of the mouth-piece of the Minister of Public Works, I do not say that the Minister saw it himself. I admit that a great many people do not read the Winnipeg Telegram to-day who used to read it a year ago, but no doubt it is still the mouth-piece of the remnant of the Conservative party in Manitoba, or, to use the word of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, the corpse; I would not have used the word if he had not. There is no use saying unkind things about a defunct party, for we shall all be defunct some day. However, the Conservative party is gone, and the Winnipeg Telegram remains for the sole purpose, I presume, of being the mouth-piece of the Minister of Public Works, and the Winnipeg Telegram says: The Opposition may accept or reject the measure as presented. I leave it to my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) whether that is a good way to start off if you want unanimous action on the part of this House. This same article appeared in the Moosejaw News, and I expect in all the Western Conservative dailies, and the Conservative faithful in the West will be possessed of the fact that either we are going to take the measure as presented, without any changes, and without using our minds on it at all, or else it will be a matter of going to the country. When the Minister of Public Works puts the matter in that, shall I say, slightly offensive form, it is no use saying that we on this side of the House are throwing down the hat. This extension measure should be the subject of deliberation, and perhaps we can reach a common meeting ground.
Previous speakers have spoken of the greatness of the struggle in which we are engaged. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. 
Burrell) seems to estimate a man's loyalty by the time he spends talking about the war. Among other things, he sized up my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) by giving him a lecture on what an English gentleman should be, and again he measured up his speech with a tape-line or foot-rule, and said there were a certain number of inches devoted to the war, and ten times as many inches devoted to other things. According to that figuring my speech will not be an Empire-saver, for I am not going to talk about the war very much. One thing I would say, and that is that the war has helped to make Canada a nation. The boys who went over there were officered, as the Minister of Militia has said, very largely by Liberals, and I must say that in my town there was no quarrel at all about the officers. I think they were chosen irrespective of their politics, and I think I should have known had it been otherwise. There was no preference given as far as I know, and that is as it should be. I speak only for my own constituency, because I know nothing about any other. 'The fact that our boys went to fight was to .my mind a remarkable proof of what before had been a matter of more or less sentiment. When 200,000 or more of our young men take the sword in their hand and plight their troth to their king, and say farewell to all they possess and to all whom they know and love, and go forth and endanger their lives, there is no doubt about their being true citizens of the British Empire. Our soldiers who have gone to the front have acted in such a way so as to cause us to be proud of them. Since this war began, there was no hour that we were prouder of the gallant conduct of our soldiers than at Langemarck, the first place where poison-gas was used, and where our gallant soldiers, in the face of that gas and the deadly fire of the German artillery, so conducted themselves that one of the British generals declared that the Canadians had saved the day. Our young fellows lived up to the high standard of British man-' hood, and we were proud of them. I could not help thinking, as all Canada was aglow with pride and gratification on that occasion, that if we had only sent thirty-five million dollars or ever thirty-five billion dollars as our contribution in this war, it would not have taken the place of our boys going out there and fighting, not as vassals, nor as slaves, but as free men fighting for freedom. Let ns apply the same argument

to the navy. The Government is gratified at the conduct of our gallant soldiers, and my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) will no doubt be proud of the boys who have gone from Prescott. Suppose in a naval fight our contribution was represented by only $35,000,000 and that none of our young men had gone out to fight in the navy, would we not have felt a pretty poor lot. That is just what we Liberals fought against when the Borden Naval Bill came up a few years ago, and I think that this war should do much to confirm me in the belief that my view was then correct, and that our contribution to the navy, as our contribution to the army, should toe to send our men, and to do our part as a young nation to the best of our ability both in men and money.
The country to the south of us has so far not taken any part in this war. I am not here to reflect at all upon the United States, but my opinion is that the issue before the different countries engaged in this war is just as vital to the interests of our friends to the south of us as it is to us. Hon. gentlemen are aware that at the second Hague Convention, to which ex-President Roose-[DOT] velt was a signatory, it was agreed that the neutrality of the minor nations should be respected. That convention wias violated toy the Germans when they overran Belgium. It will be recalled that exPresident Roosevelt wrote "a very strong letter, which appeared in the Chicago Independent about a year or so ago, in which he said that he never would have been a signatory to the Hague Convention if he bad thought it would not have been lived up to by the United States. Whatever this war may be costing this country in men and money, it will be a source of gratification to us afterwards, if justice prevails, that we have done our share as a nation instead of merely making money out of this struggle as the United States has. Perhaps there were reasons why the United States did not enter this war; perhaps their population is so cosmopolitan that there would be a revolution if they were to do so, but it seems' very strange that we have never heard a protest from them as a nation, and that they did not even protest, at the very first, the violation of the neutrality of Belgium. When I see in the American newspapers accounts of the new millionaires thtft are being made in the United States, it makes me think that when this war is over, we in Canada, however depressed we may be financially, and however much of our men we may have lost, will be gratified to think
that we have done our little share in this war, instead of making millions out of it. Although it has been a heavy self-sacrifice, we * will ever be proud that we have not shirked our duty, and that we have done our utmost to preserve civilization and justice in the world. I recently read an article in the January number of the American Review of Reviews describing tha immense fortunes that the Americans are making. Your head, Sir, would reel and stagger if I were to give the figures. The writer goes on to say in regard to peace:
Surely the coming of peace will be foreshadowed so ~ that the manufacturers can prepare for it, and surely there will be some kind of advance notice given before the blow is struck.
I have not the article before me, but I _think you will find that my words aTe correct. This statement 'strikes me as something that the American nation cannot be very proud of, because it is a very selfish and a very material way of looking at this great struggle. The day when peace will be declared is, of course, unknown to any of us, 'and personally I feel' that it may be very far off. When one considers how long it took for Great Britain to overcome a comparatively weak and small nation like the BoerS, how long it took the powerful North to overcome the South, and how long even the Crimean war lasted, it makes one very doubtful, with all the preparedness of Germany, and with Poland 'and the Balkans, and with part . of France, and part of Belgium, in her possession, that we are going to beat the Germans in a very short time. We ore asked to extend the life of Parliament for one year, but I shall be pleasantly surprised af at the end of that period we are not in the same position as we are now, of not knowing when peace will be declared. We can only go on and fight the fight as long as we can.
I presume we shall have a report from the Government that it is making every preparation possible for the returned soldiers, to fit them to enter some kind of occupation, and that every necessary step will be taken with regard to supplying artificial limbs and instructing the cripples, the deaf, and the blind. The salvage of humanity is, at best, a sorry job. It is a terrible thing that humanity has to be wrecked at all, but out first duty-and we shall never be forgiven if we omit it-is to do what we can- to save the wreckage that comes back from the battlefields of Flanders and France.
The Minister of Marine (Mr. Hazen), and

also the Solicitor General (Mr. Meigheo); who is a sort of omniscient man, a very omnibus of knowledge, have dealt with the question of transportation, and we were pretty nearly as wise when they were through as when they started. . They both told us they had secured transportation for the wheat of the West. If the transports were let loose in such a way that they were to charge 43 cents per bushel for taking the wheat across the ocean, it is a pity that my horn, friends went into the business of engaging transports. They released 23 transports, and the result is that the freight on wheat .is forty to forty-two cents per bushel, whereas the normal rate is four or five cents. It would have been better if my hon. friend the .minister of Marine had commandeered the transports, and given the owners a fair remuneration for the use of the boats, and not made them rich by permitting them to charge rates 800 per cent over what they .should be. The wheat problem out West-.it seems that annually we have a .sorry tale to tell- -is a serious one. I do not suppose that any one will question it, when I say that we are greatly up against it for transportation. Our elevators are full at Fort William and on the prairies, and there are many people on the prairies who are in great need of opportunity to transport their wheat so that they can get money to pay their debts. I wish the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) could do something for them. He commandeered wheat-though I will not deal with that now, but intend to come to it later-and I wish he could do something for those farmers who have not been so fortunate as to get their wheat out. I wish he would buy their wheat for which
they are not able to get transportation. In the western part of my own constituency, in the country of Webb, Maple Creek and Gold Lake, there are millions of bushels of wheat lying on the ground that cannot get transportation. Further west, in Alberta, it is even worse.
Of course, we have the Government elevators. Now, I am not going to try to give the Government elevators a black eye. If I did, I am sure that my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) would think that I am against the farmers. I noticed that he was careful to ask my hon. friend from Guysborough. (Mr Sinclair) if he was against the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. No doubt he will mark and send out many copies of Hansard containing the hon. gentleman's reply. I am not a political faker, so I will get along. I am going to give you a few figures to show what a disappointment the Government elevators have been. I think the Government should try to devise some way to get the elevators more used.


Mr. REID:: Up to what date do the hon. gentleman's figures cover?


William Erskine Knowles: To the 12th of January.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman has not the figures down to the present time?


William Erskine Knowles: No, but I shall be glad to have them if they are available. But January 12 was months after harvest, and I should think it would be a reasonably fair date to take. When I prepared this speech, I got the latest figures that the Trade and Commerce Department could furnish me. They are as follows:
Capacity of Saskatoon, Moosejaw, and Calgary Elevators with Quantity of Grain in Store,
January 12, 1915.
* -	Capacity.	Wheat.	Oats.	Barley.	Flax.Saskatoon	
Moosejaw	
Calgary	
Total in store... 	Bush. 3.500.000 3.500.000 2.500.000	Bush. 1,249,057 187,232 29,072	Bush. 86,802 51,337 70,657	Bush. 5,935 8,246 2,991	Bush. 23,709 4,4621,460,361	211,796	17,172	, 28,171


John Dowsley Reid: Has the hon. gentleman received the figures down to the present time? The reason I ask is that I understood from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir 
George Foster) on Friday last, when I asked him a question on the subject, that the elevators were filling up very fast. I take it for granted that the elevators at Fort

William and Port Arthur being almost empty at the end of navigation, they would till up first.
.Mr. KNOWLES:	I am not giving these
figures at all in a contentious spirit. One party is-, as much responsible as the other for these Government elevators, .for both parties supported them. But the responsibility is on the Government to use these elevators and not to allow them to remain idle. The Government could secure favourable freight rates, or -offer some other attractions-advertise the elevators if necessary.


John Dowsley Reid: I will get the figures down
to Saturday last and send them to the hon. member that he may see whether they confirm what I have said. If they do, I am sure he will be glad to know it. *


William Erskine Knowles: I thank the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) and shall be glad to have his statement confirmed. The obligation is on all of us to do what we can to prevent the great expenditure that the country has made in building these internal storage elevators being a loss. The farmer is like anybody else, if he gets a car to load he controls that car, and is not apt to be concerned whether it will make a short haul and come back to be used by somebody else, but he shoots it right down to Port William even though that trip takes longer. I think the trouble is that there are no buyers in the internal elevators. If a man could put his grain in the Government elevators and release a car so that it would be available for another farmer in a few days, that would be a good thing. I do not intend to dogmatize as to the way this is to be accomplished. Perhaps, as I have said, it would be better to advertise the elevators, and so make them better known among the people. Advertise them, let us say in the Grain Growers' Guide, or in the Winnipeg Telegram, for that matter. Some people may read it even yet, and so it might be made the means of making known to the people the advantages of using the Government elevators. It seems an unfortunate thing that with all the hopes we have entertained of these elevators they are used only fifteen per cent.
Now I come to another point which, I hope, will interest the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen), whom I am glad to see in his place. I refer to the commandeering of wheat. I hope the Solicitor General will do me the honour of listening to me. A year ago, out West, we had no wheat. We were urging the Government -to buy what wheat
there was in the West-not commandeer it but buy it from the farmers before it got away, and would have to be brought back. But they would not commandeer it, they waited until the spring came on, and then through their political friends, the Roblin Government being then in power-they bought the mixture of seed and weeds and brought it back to us. This year there was the greatest plethora of wheat the West ever had, and there was no more need of commandeering wheat than there is need of commandeering " hot air " In this Chamber. Then the Government come and commandeer the wheat. The farmer's dream in our province, as in the Solicitor General's own province, is to get a dollar a bushel for wheat. Last year the dream came true-wheat went over a dollar-but the farmer had no wheat. In the spring, when he came to buy wheat from the Dominion Government-and they bought many millions of bushels, for the first time in their lives wheat was at a dollar and a half a bushel. But the poor farmer was on the other side of the bargain. The Borden Government had the wheat to sell and the farmer was the buyer. A brighter day than even that which he dreamed of had dawned, for wheat instead of being a dollar was a dollar and a half a bushel-but on that occasion he was the buyer. If our friends opposite are so strong on commandeering wheat, why did not they commandeer it when it was needed for the farmer, instead of buying it and bringing it back and making the farmer pay all expenses as well as a profit to somebody, as they did?
I do not know why they commandeered the wheat. I think the Government does not know itself. Of course I am not in the confidence of any members of the Government. The first announcement they gave us as a reason for commandeering was that the crop was so abundant and they were going to assist in marketing the surplu-s. This commandeering of wheat was, I think, a specialty of the Solicitor General; I believe he had special charge of it. I would advise him after this to stick to closure, if he wants to make a name for himself. He will do much more in that way to raise his own stock thap by commandeering wheat. Later the announcement was made that this would have the effect of inducing a repetition of orders from the Allies. Then he said:
The action taken by the British Government is based entirely on war conditions.

I think this Government did not know why they commandeered the wheat; and apparently the British Government not only did not know why they did it but even did not know that they had done any commandeering, because they came out with an announcement that they knew nothing at all about it. The Solicitor General does not seem to think that it would keep up prices for he says:
There seems no reason why the grain markets should he radically affected by the -action taken. Obviously, it does not involve any increase in the world's consumers or indeed in the world's consumers demands. It means simply the filling of the existing demand to the extent of the grain taken by this much of the Canadian surplus, instead of filling the same from other surpluses.
In reply to the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who spoke early in this debate, the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) stated that this action had been taken on the recommendation of some people of whom he was 'confident, the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) would have a favourable opinion. On November 30, a few days after the commandeering of the wheat, the Winnipeg Telegram said:
T. A. Crerar and Geo. R. Crowe-
T. A. Crerar is president of the Grain Growers Grain Company, and George R. Crowe has some other official position.
-who were called to Ottawa last Tuesday by Sir George E. Foster to confer on this question, returned last night. Mr. Crerar issued a statement this morning, in which he states that he has no doubt the Government's intentions were good. Nevertheless, he advised against commandeering, holding the opinion that such action would too greatly disturb trade. He_was asked what effect the commandeering would have on the export business of the Grain Growers Grain Company, of which he is the president, and replied that he had no statement to make as to that, for the present. Mr. Crerar in his typewritten statement handed to the Telegram, says, against commandeering:
" The thought that first occurred to me when I received a telegram from Sir George Foster, asking me to come to Ottawa, was that possibly it might be in connection with the question of free wheat."
But that was too good to be true. (Reading.):
" Both Mr. Crowe and myself were quite unaware of what matter was coming up for consideration until we reached the conference. We advised strongly .against the plan of commandeering to secure the wheat desired, pointing out that it would very seriously disturb the trade, and that if the proper method were taken the grain required could be secured through ordinary channels without any serious disturbance of trade conditions. We urged this view as strongly as we could, pointing out that the

disturbances of trade might result in more or less of a tie-up that would he in the interests of either the trade or the producers."
I- presume their expenses were paid; they were then sent home and their advice rejected. On the same day-Nov. 30, 1915, page 4, column three, the Winnipeg Telegram, under the heading, " Farmers Get Raw Deal," says:
John E Smith condemns the commandeering and prospective purchase of the wheat because he has fifteen cars of grain that he thought he could have sold for a higher price, and now he can't. " The farmers always get a raw deal," he grumbled. " The Government might as well have put its hands into a man's pocket and taken money away from him."
In the Winnipeg Telegram of Nov. 29, page 1, .column 8, there appeared a statement by A. T. Hepworth-Simpson Company. As I am quoting from the Winnipeg Telegram, there should be no question as to the correctness of the statements made:
One point that stands out is the fact that a large percentage of the wheat that has been taken by the Government is farmers' stored grain, which was held there by them for higher prices.	[DOT]
I hope the Solicitor General notes that carefully.
And the Govermnent has taken it, fearing the price might he driven too high by speculators.
Notice that.


Mr. MEIGHBN:: Who says that ?


William Erskine Knowles: A. P. Hepworth, of the HepwoTth-Simpson Company.	I	quote
from the Winnipeg Telegram, a paper which my hon, friend relies upon. The hon. gentleman cannot be paying much attention to what I am saying, otherwise he would not have to ask who said it. (Reading.)
The farmer is entitled to any advance that may accrue to his advantage through speculation, the same as he has to suffer by speculation, by bear operators who sell in order to make money on declines.
That,Sir, is a reasonable statement. Many of my constituents were holding their wheat-using their brains, which they have just as much right to do as the hon. Solicitor General has-thinking that the price would go up. My hon. friend comes along and says, I am afraid that the price is getting too high and that you will get more for your wheat; I will take it from you at $1.04i and call it square-and the farmers lose their profit. But hon. gentlemen opposite did not commandeer steel-I am told

that steel has gone up a good deal. They did not commandeer anything in connection with war munitions, except the boats to get them across to the other side. They did not commandeeT any boats to take the wheat over; they commandeered the wheat itself for fear the farmer would get a little more money. Patriots, friends of the farmers, Umpire savers. Then hon. gentlemen go to work and lend some of the grain back to the millers and shippers. The hon. Solicitor General had better have kept out of the conversation which he had over special telegraph wire that Sunday afternoon. I would advise my hon. friend to leave special wires and special cars alone. I know dozens, even hundreds of farmers, who do not say bless the hon. gentleman, but who use another word when they speak of the wheat that was taken away from them at $1.04i cents. I tell them, however, that the hon. gentleman did not realize what he was doing; he went about it blindly, or he would not have done anything so unwise as this commandeering turned out to be. As I say, they lent some of the wheat back to their friends the millers; I think the operators got some too; I am not sure-we have never had any statements in regard to that. Ever since I entered this House I have been an admirer of the speeches of the hon. Solicitor General. They are clever and pleasant to listen to. My hon. friend is an expert in the business of leaving alone the things that he had better not refer to, and of hair-splitting in dealing with the matters to which he wishes to refer. . I enjoyed my hon. friend's speech the other day, but I notice that he did not say a word about the commandeering. He flashed these answers-I have every one of them; there are nine-that Sunday afternoon to Winnipeg as fast as you would say " good morning " to me if you met me in the corridor. It is reported that the last message from the Government to the effect that the move was " actuated by an earnest desire to secure timely markets for our abundant crops," brought forth a ripple of laughter from the meeting in Winnipeg. The hon. gentleman answers these questions like clockwork. Put at one end of a special line a representative of the grain dealers, who are handling 285,000,000 bushels .of grain; call my hon. friend from Sunday dinner and put him at the other end, and he can give all the information that is desired; but when he gets up in this House, he has not a word to-say about commandeering. He can split hairs and chop off
minute particles when dealing with the remarks of my hon. friend for St. John City, but about the poor farmers who lost twenty-five cents a bushel on their wheat, he has absolutely nothing to say. I am informed by what I believe to be good authority-if I am wrong, I shall be the first to take it back-that this is the way my hon. friend lent back some of this wheat:	He asked
for a depoisit of ten cents a bushel, in case the price of wheat should go up. Wheat did go up, from $1.04i to $1.10, $1.12 and $1,141. When it got to $1,141 their friends the millers said:	keep the ten cents and
go to blazes. Now it is up to $1.31, and the millers are twenty cents better off, because they told the Government to keep the ten cents. I am told that this happened in connection with a great deal of the wheat. I have here certain items on this point, from the Winnipeg Telegram of December 1, 1915, as follows:
At conferences which took place last night between members of the Government and representatives of the milling and shipping interests, arrangements were made which will obviate the difficulties apprehended by these interests, following the action of the Government in commandeering all high grades of wheat in store at elevators in the East and the head of the lakes.
The needs of the milling industry will he met by a loan of such portion of the commandeered wheat as Is necessary to meet immediate demands. The wheat so loaned will be replaced by the borrowers within a specified period in the quantities and grades as are taken out. The amount affected by this arrangement has not been stated, etc.
Another article published in the Winnipeg Telegram on September 3 from New York, says:
New York, Dec. 3.-Some difference of opinion exists between grain dealers here as to the extent of the concession made by the Canadian Government when it allowed commandeered wheat to he delivered to the United States buyers who had contracted for it before the order of seizure went into effect.
Henry Stemper of the Grain Growers Export Company, said he believed about 5,000,000 bushels of grain would be released to Canadian . contractors so they could fulfil their American contracts, but that no grain would be released for any neutral country.
Holland, Greece, Spain, Sweden, and other 'neutral European countries, will not be permitted to get any of the commandeered grain ", he said. " It will be released on the condition that it will be replaced within 60 days, and it will be necessary that the grain released was contracted for before the wheat was commandeered. It must be declared for delivery in the United Kingdom, however, or the Canadian Government will not permit its shipment.
If it be that my hon. friend- helped the great big millers and helped the great big

contractors out of the hole and did not help the farmers out of the hole, then I just say we have got another piece of evidence to show us which side he is on, with all his fair words. If it be that on that occasion the farmers got no redress from him, but the great millers and the great wheat dealers came here and got his ear and said to him: Lend us this wheat back, and he helped them out of the hole, it shows that his first desire was to serve these people, whose interests, as we say, are always in conflict with those of our con-
5 p.m. stituents and you cannot serve two masters. Whether my information be correct or not, I have this to say; that it is no courtesy to this House, as a gathering of the people's representatives, that when my hon. friend was on his feet for an hour or two he never made the slightest explanation of this very important matter, although he knew all about it, that it had been referred to in the House, and that questions had been asked by different members, particularly by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) long before my, hon. friend addressed the House.
I wish to say a word about this dirty seed grain. Here is a letter which I received last June from Gravelbourg where the municipal authorities rejected a great deal of my hon. friend's seed grain because there were too many weed seeds in it, and I suppose they burned it. The letter is as follows:
Gravelbourg, Sask., June 4, 1915. W. E. Knowles, M.P.,
Moosejaw, Sask.
Dear. Sir,-The following case has been brought to my attention and I wish to communicate the facts to you as the same may furnish an interesting subject for an article in the newspapers.
One H. E. Cork has been sent to Gravelbourg by the Dominion Government to distribute feed grain to the farmers. I take it that the Government sells this grain to the farmers who want it and take a lien on their land as security for the payment of the purchase price.
The grain thus distributed is however of a such poor grade that the weed-inspector of the municipality was compelled to take proceedings against Mr. Cork for disposing of the Dominion Government grain contrary to ' the Noxious Weeds Act of the province.
The case came up on the 29th of May for a hearing before P. N. Aussant, a Justice of the Peace, and Mr. Cork having failed to appear, the evidence on the part of the complainant was heard. Mr. Cork was found guilty and fined $25.00 and costs.
The farmers of this vicinity and more especially the grain growers are greatly disgusted with the work of the Government.
Rural municipalities spend their money yearly, earnestly striving to get rid of the

weeds, and the Government comes along and infests the country with more weeds than ever. Apparently friends of the Government secure contracts to provide the grain for seed purposes, and its seems immaterial whether it is free from weeds or not.
I shall not go further into the matter of the seed grain, but I wish to say a word or two about the collections made by the Government this fall. This fall they got busy. I suppose the Solicitor General was consulted about this. However, they said: We are going to get every dollar we advanced from the farmers of the West, no matter whether we leave them without coal and ishoes for the kiddies, or food to eat, or dresses to wear. Mr. J. Bruce Walker, for the Minister of the Interior-I wish the minister was in his seat, he is away a very great deal, I am sorry to say, but perhaps he will be in some time this week-Mr. J. Bruce Walker, for the Minister of the Interior, wrote a letter on the 31st day of July to the elevator people saying that when the homesteader brought in his grain the elevators were to grab as the first grab out of that grain, enough to pay the Government. Those are the homesteaders my hon. friends opposite are helping! That letter reads as follows:
Department of the Interior, Immigration Branch.
Winnipeg, July 31, 1915.
Sir,-The seed grain or other advances made to you by the Dominion Government in the winter of 1911-15 are, under the terms of the mortgage agreement entered into by you and the legislation governing the transaction, payable at the time the crop grown during the year 1915 is sold. I am therefore directed to notify you that the amount of such advances is required to be paid when you market this season's crop.
Arrangements have been made by the Government with' the respective grain purchasing interests and railway companies (these being the agents of the Government for this purpose) under which there will be set off or secured against the proceeds of the grain marketed by you the amount due by you. The a-ceipt of the elevator representative or the member of the Grain Growers' Association or other licensed grain buyer, or of the railway company (which will endorse the amount payable ' to the Government on the bill of lading in the case of grain shipped by the grower before sale) will be delivered to you and will be evidence that you are entitled to a discharge of the lien or mortgage. These receipts will be on forms furnished by the Government to the grain purchasing and shipping interests. Information as to the amount of the .advances and particulars of the location of the land charged with payment will be in the possession of these respective interests at the points at which you market your crop.
I am, sir,	>
.
Your obedient servant,
J. Bruce Walker,
For the Minister of the Interior.

It was no trouble for this Government to make an arrangement with the big elevator companies, and the railways, to act as their agents. This seed grain, and these coals, and this relief work, had all been extended to men who were at death's door from starvation a year ago. They had not a cent left with which to buy anything; they had -nothing but debts, and this beneficent, parental Government of which the Solicitor General is such an active member, a Government which has millions of dollars to see flow away to the blood-suckers, and verm-in around here, making themselves rich- it says to the poor homesteader who is trying -to make -a -country for us in Canada, an-d to develop our -resources: You bring your grain in to our ifrifin-ds and. agents, the railway eompiainies and the big elevator companies, and we have written to our friends -and -agents to grab the first bushel, or ten bushels, or one hundred bushels, and let your children go hungry, your wives unclothed, and your houses unwarmed, until we get paid. That is the true honest story of it, and I do not care whether I were a supporter of Sir Robert Borden or not, I say that is an outrage. Is there a man opposite who will say it is not an outrage? If these people [DOT] were worth helping as a charge on and an asset of our country, it was the greatest suicide to strangle them and put them out of business as soon as they had a chance to get on their feet. It was bad business, as well as being lacking altogether in the humane element.
When that came out I sent a long telegram-I remember it cost me $4 or $5. I paid for it because I did not think that a Government that has to take the last cent from a homesteader would pay for it. I sent it right to the Prime Minister, I did not fool with anybody else. That telegram was as follows:
Moosejaw Sask., Sept 4, 1915. Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Ont.
Interior Department threatening to force payment by homesteaders for advances made by the Dominion Government last winter. This seems unreasonably drastic. Advances often made in former years and no such exacting requirements, and never was understanding under which advances accepted this year. As Federal representative of district most vitally concerned, I earnestly request your immediate and favourable consideration with view to withdrawal of such drastic orders. Considering total losses of last year, present low markets and unaccommodating attitude of banks, homesteaders cannot finance if Government exacts its pound of flesh, and result will be another
year of pitiful privation for homesteaders and their families. Surely this is not the year to coerce loyal and devoted citizens who are the chief factor in development and prosperity of our country.
That is signed W. E. Knowles and marked paid. I did not get any answer until the 8th, when I got this answer from the Prime Minister. He was afraid that I would get a little credit in this matter. I could anderstand, perhaps, my hon. friend from Souris thinking that. The reply was as follows:
Telegram received; Minister of Interior has already given consideration to subject

It took him four d-ays to tell me that. I do not belieye Sir John Macdonald, or Sir Wilfrid Laurier, or Sir John Thompson, would have taken the trouble to wire an ordinary back bencher that he had already attended to it, that -his wiring had had no success, and -that he had spent his four or five dollars for nothing.
Telegram received; Minister of Interior has already given consideration to subject and arrangements have been made which I think will be regarded satisfactory.
(Sgd.) R. L. Borden.
However, his wire came along showing that it had been done. I am glad that I received the wire because nobody knew it had been done until long after my wire was sent. I do not doubt the Prime Minister's word, but, of course, he has a great many things on his mind, and I think he has got a little mixed on the sequence of events. I very much question if it had been all fixed with -the Minister of Interior because it was three days after my wire had been sent forward that the announcement came that they were going to be content with the collection of -half of the seed grain advance. After having got that wire of mine-I do not say that it influenced their decision

but having got that wire, they decided that they would only take half of it this year. But, you will be sorry to know that a man who is so unfortunate as to have a judgment against him, and the sheriff goes after him, must submit to having it all taken from him. The poor chap whc- is in difficulties, and whose possessions the Sheriff is seizing, is placed in a most unfortunate position; the Government is taking every cent that is due by him, they are exacting their pound of flesh from him, I am going to prove it. Here is a letter from Mr. Charles H. Beddoe, superintending accountant, Department of the Interior, addressed to the sheriff, saying, that if a



seizure has been made this concession to let half of the thing go until next year does not apply, but that he must take every cent out of the poor fellow who has a judgment against him. The letter is as follows:
Ottawa, Jan. 8, 1916.
J. Rutherford, Sheriff,
Moosejaw, Sask.
Re Dominion Seed Liens and Liens for relief.
Dear Sir,-In reply to your favour of December 30, regarding' the above, I beg to advise you that the ruling of the department in regard to seizures, is, that the full amount of the Government's indebtedness must be provided for in full.
While the Government is satisfied to collect one-half of the seed grain account in all cases [DOT]where the security is in no way impaired, and the crop not interfered with, this does not apply where seizure has been made. Therefore, I will like your office to see that the total amount of indebtedness is collected. Unless in cases where half or part have been paid I will then advise you of the balance owing, which must be collected and remitted to this office.
I trust that you will regard the above instructions as being specific and entirely satisfactory to your office. Thanking you for your co-operation, I am,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.)Chas. H. Beddoe, Superintending Account.
Does my hon. friend not think- that instead of helping out the wealthy milling interests and the grain operators, he might have had some humanity in his heart and done something for the poor homesteader who has worked year after year, who is unavoidably the victim of an execution, who has a judgment registered against him, whose wife and little children have never had a cent spent on them for two or three years, and who has had to get credit for clothes, school books, and fuel to warm his house? But this Government said to this poor homesteader:	If you are so unfortunate as to have the sheriff after you, we shall come and take every accursed cent, besides costs and everything from you, and we will not make any concession to you. The man in the department, Charles H. Beddoe, who, under instructions, wrote that accursed, inhuman order, had no bowels of compassion whatever.


Arthur Meighen: I may say to my hon. friend that the letter which he has quoted was, I toelieve, written on a misinterpretation of a departmental letter, and that as soon as it was brought to the notice of the Department of the Interior, I believe that the interpretation was corrected, and that no difference is made at all in such a case.


William Erskine Knowles: I accept that as being so; hut there is no doubt that it was acted on for months out there.


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Erskine Knowles: Until a considerable time after I left Moosejaw it was acted on, because this was forwarded to me from Moosejaw a few days ago, and no letter had been sent to correct it up to that time.


Arthur Meighen: That is the only case that was forought to the attention of the department that I know of.


William Erskine Knowles: I accept the statement that it was brought to the attention of the department, but why should the Government squeeze and persecute, and inhumanely treat these poor homesteaders, and say that they should get from them as much as possible, and that they .should refrain from doing this when it is brought to their attention? There is nothing to show that the sheriff acted on any representations from the department to the contrary, and I will be very much surprised if the Government has not a lot of money in its coffers collected from this source. I will be glad to find that the money collected has been sent .back to the homesteaders. But, in view of the harm that was done by the course that was pursued by the department, the Solicitor General _now comes forward and says something about a misinter-fpretation. Misinterpretation fiddlesticks. They realize that they made a mistake. If they could have got away with it; if they could have got away with the homesteader's money, we would not have heard anything about misrepresentation. The Government do not make mistakes that hurt the manufacturers, but they do make mistakes that hurt the homesteaders. They would not make any great mistakes affecting the manufacturers, the wheat operators or the millers. *


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Has the hon. gentleman any information as to how much was paid back at the end of the year of this $15,000,000? I understand about $1,000,000.


William Erskine Knowles: I could not say as to that. The Government did all they could to have it paid back and it was not for lack of trying that they did not get the last drop of blood.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is not correct.


William Erskine Knowles: They were trying to get every cent, and if I cam do 'anything to

prevent them from bleeding the home-'steader I will do it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is your business.


William Erskine Knowles: Yes, that is my business. I wish it was my hon. friend's business, and if he realized his position he would make it his' business.
There are certain problems that confront us that I wish to refer to and I say again that. I am sorry that the Minister of the Interior is not here. The greatest problem in this country, during and after the war, will be the problem of producing wealth. We are taking on very heavy financial responsibilities and liabilities. We are going to lose a great many of our producers. The country is going to be very severely strained in many ways and it is for us today to consider how we can replace this national loss by promoting national production. The production of wealth in this country has to come out of the soil. We have the productions of our mines, forests, fisheries and things of that kind but in the last resort our wealth must come out of the soik Before this war started when we are of course, under an abnormal condition of affairs,-and it bas been that very much since, although not so much now- there was not a town or city in the east or the west-and I will speak now more particularly of the west-in which you could not find men by the hundreds and thousands who could not get work. I could take you on trains and trails in almost any back township and I could show you millions upon millions of acres of land unused and producing nothing.
The problem of Canada is to bring together these men wiho are crying for work, and the land that is crying out to be worked. That is our national problem. You may call it a Western problem, but it is not a Western problem; it is a Canadian problem, and not a Liberal problem any more than a Conservative problem. We have millions and millions of acres crying out for men to go and cultivate them, and we have great numbers of men crying out for work, though not so many to-day as before the war,-and the problem of Canada is to bring these two together. Then you will have a great and wealthy Canada. When the Liberals were in power-I do not say it was because the Liberals were in power-these men wanting work, and the land wanting men, were brought together. Three or four years ago that all stopped, like a broken-down Ford automobile, and
28*
it has not gone on again since. The land is crying out for men, the men are there, but the two are not being brought together. It may be a joking matter to some hon. gentlemen opposite, but what made Canada great during the fifteen years the Lauriei Government was in power was that these two were brought together. I do not say it was the Laurier Government that made Canada great, but the men and the land were brought together, and national wealth was produced and we had a rich Dominion; and until these two can be brought together again Canada is not going to develop. What is going to bring them together? That is for the Government to decide. We on this side of the House thought and we still think in our humble way that conditions must be so fa- ourable and inviting that the men would be attracted to the land and become wealth-producing citizens. We tried to bring about these conditions by open markets, by reducing the taxation, by encouraging immigration, and by the Railway Commission. We tried in every way to encourage men to settle on the land. For four years now those conditions have not prevailed. I am not going to make a party speech.	,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


William Erskine Knowles: I could make my speech a great deal hotter if I liked. If the Government does not think our way of bringing these two factors together is right, in Heaven's name let them tell us what is their way. The land should not be allowed to remain idle when we have railways, elevators, and steamships to take the grain out. We should not remain at standstill. We want to grow, and especially so in these times when we are assuming such large national obligations. The Minister of Finance would be doing a great work if he could solve this problem of bringing the men and the land together. If every acre was made to produce $16 or $25 annually we should have a wealthy Canada compared with what we now have, for there are millions of acres idle. I say that it is a problem for the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of the Interior to solve. If 1 were Minister of Interior I think I would tax those men who own land and arc not using it, say twenty-five cents an acre, or fifty cents, or a dollar an acre, any amount that would make them get rid of the land or hire a man to cultivate it. That is what the land is there for. Surely some method could be devised of making it too expensive for a man to hold

idle land. Perhaps a commission could solve the problem, though Heaven knows we have commiseionis enough. There must be knighthoods to spare, and if a commission could make a success of the job, we could afford to make them knights, or honorary colonels.- The greatest problem in Canada is how to use the soil that the Creator has given us. When we have solved that, there will be no trouble in financing the country. The Liberal party's solution of this problem was not accepted by the people of Canada. The present Administration does not think well of that solution, and it is therefore up to them to say what is the proper way to bring about the condition of affairs that we stated our policy would bring about. And in the meantime-I do not think this is a partisan statement to make-the responsibility is on the Government that such a vast amount of land is lying idle.


John Gillanders Turriff: Mr. Speaker, -as this is the first opportunity I have had of addressing the House since you have been elevated to the position of first Commoner in Canada, I wish to take this opportunity of tendering to you my congratulations. I feel satisfied that in the discharge of your duties you will be absolutely fair and unpartisam, which is all that any one can demand from the Speaker of this House. While I do not hope that you 'should stay in your office too long, I do hope that you may stay there until there is a change of Government.
The speech of His Royal Highness the Governor General deals with two matters only: the extension of the term of Parliament, and the war. I would have thought that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, and the men behind him, would have considered the carrying on of the war to a successful issue the most important question that this Parliament has to deal with at the present time. But the Prime Minister puts war in the second place, -and the extension of the life of Parliament in the first place. I suppose that keeping himself and his party in power so much longer was of more importance to the Prime Minister and his party than the carrying on of the war to a successful conclusion.
I shall deal with these two questions in reverse order, which is, I think, their proper order. As I have said on the two previous occasions we have met here during the war, we on this side of the House stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in anything that pertains to the 
proper carrying on of this war. We told the Government last year that if the $150,000,000 we voted did mot carry them through, we would be ready to vote whatever further amount was needed. We said plainly on both those occasions that while we were voting laTge sums of money we did not intend to relinquish the right that every Opposition member, and every private member has of criticising the .manner iin which this money was being spent, and that we would hold the Government to account for the proper expenditure of that money. I do not think any hon. gentleman opposite can take exception to that position. I know that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister will not take any exception to that position, because he said that it was all right. But what do we find now? As soon as any effort is made to have an investigation of any kind in connection with the carryings on of the war, hon. gentlemen opposite undertake to lecture us and to tell us that we have no right to criticise the Government as we are doing, and that we are endeavouring to hinder them in the conduct of the war. My hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) the other day read us a great lecture about our action in criticising the Government, and he tried to make out that we were doing our best to force an election. During this debate I have not heard one word about an election, or about the forcing of an election. Why then did the hon. member from Peterborough wax' so indignant at us? Where was his indignation last year and the year before, when my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) was doing his utmost to drive the Government and the country into a general election? It was far more objectionable to consider an election then, practically in the middle of a term, when only three sessions of Parliament haa been held, than it is to-day when we are practically at the end of a parliamentary term, and when we are holding our fifth session. But there was no indignation on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite then. They thought there was going to be an election. Why was the Bill giving votes to our soldiers put through if hon. friends opposite had not thought of bringing on an election? Why did the Minister of Public Works make a speech down in Montreal
Eractically announcing that there was to e an election, and when he took the opportunity of handing out a gratuitous insult to a large number of the clergy qf the

Dominion of Canada? On those occasions no one on the other side of the House said anything at all against bringing on an election. Then it was all right; but now, when nobody on this side is saying a word about an election, when all we are doing is asking for an investigation into the expenditure of the Government, hon. gentlemen opposite, because they do not want to have the accounts looked into and investigated, say:	Oh, you are trying to
force the country into an election. Was anything ever further from the truth than that? We stand here to-day just as much in favour of supporting the Government in the carrying on of this war as we ever were. We are deeply involved in the war, and things have not been going as well as might have been expected or as many of us hoped, but we are into the war, and we are in it to stay until the end, cost what it may in men or in money. That is the position the Liberal party has taken, and that is the position we are going to stand by until the end of this war.
When the Prime Minister gave out a message on New Year's day calling for
500,000	men from Canada, he was only echoing the sentiments that have been advocated by many people in Canada during the past year. It was nothing new. Mr. Rowell, leader of the Opposition in Ontario, had advocated the same thing for many months. While I do not think it will be possible to get 500,000 men under the voluntary system, still it may be, and I hope it will be; but if we are going to succeed in getting 500,000 men, the Government will have to adopt very different tactics from what they have used in the past. The greatest hindrance to volunteering in the last year and a half has been the action and the words of the Minister of Militia. Time and again when I have been going through the country, I have said, when talking to young men:	"well, why have
you not volunteered to help the Empire?" " Well," the young man would say, " why should I? I have a good job and am getting good pay'; why should I offer to go when the Minister of Militia says that for every man they want there are two and three volunteering?" Ever since the war started, the Minister of Militia has been taking credit to himself for the manner in which he is conducting the raising of an army. In this way he has prevented hundreds and thousands of young men from joining the army, and at the same time that the Minister of Militia was making
these statements, thousands, and tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of dollars were being spent in the endeavour to secure troops. If you want men why not say so at once, and then you will have some chance of enlisting them. When the minister makes statements such as he did, it savours a good deal of partyism. He wanted to take some party advantage from it. There should be no partyism in the army. There is no partyism in the ranks. The Government is just as glad to get Liberals to fight in the ranks as to get Conservatives, I think it will be found throughout the country that at least as good a proportion of Liberals are volunteering for the trenches as are the Conservatives. One hon. member undertook, last year, to state on a platform that ninety to ninety-five per cent of the men who were going to the trenches belonged to the Conservative party. I characterize that statement as an absolute falsehood, and that hon. gentleman was forced to retract his words before he could leave that platform.
I know of one settlement that is practically almost all Liberal, a Scotch settlement, and in that whole settlement there is only one man of military age who is not wearing the King's uniform. And in face of tha-t, for a man to say that ninety to ninety-five per cent of the men in the trenches belong to the Conservative party is not the way to deal with recruiting. Does this Government expect to get volunteers if such statements are made? I trust that in the future the Minister of Militia will put a little grip on that tongue of his, because it is very apt to Tun away with him, and I hope that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister in the future will take a greater part in military matters than simply acting as a balance wheel for the erratic actions of the Minister of Militia. It was not I who said that the Prime Minister was a balance wheel; it was the Minister of Militia himself who made that statement, and I am only quoting his words.
I would like to ask my right hon. friend why the large number of vacant constituencies in Parliament have not been filled, some of which have been vacant for quite a long time? Are these seats not to be filled, and especially when the Prime Minister is coming down to ask for an extension of the time of Parliament? Why should these constituencies be disfranchised during this session? This is a rather serious matter. We are badly enough handicapped by still


John Gillanders Turriff: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I had been making a few remarks about the loans that had been effected by the Government. I stated that I was very pleased to see the Finance Minister borrowing money both in Canada and in the United States. I think in that way we can help Great Britain in this waT a great deal better than by continuing as we have done in the past, to borrow in [DOT]Great Bnitian alone. I pointed out that we were paying a fairly high rate for the money, but I have learned since then that we are paying even more. I understand now that bonds have been issued for $100,000,000, and that these bonds can be exchanged, during a certain period, for forty years bonds at five per cent. I understand from the minister's gesture that that is not exactly right.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: The notes issued in New York for one or two years are exchangeable at the option of the holder for twenty year bonds.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am glad to hear that, because that is much better than forty year bonds. I do not object so -much to five per cent or five and-a-half per cent to our own people, but I trust, if the minister goes to the United States for more money-and I think it would be good policy to borrow in the United States if wc? can get the money at the Tight rate-he will be able to secure more favourable terms. I -see that the state of New York has borrowed money within the past few days at 3-80 per cent. The securities of Canada ought to be as good, I think, as the security of the state of New York. I trust that the Finance Minister, in making future loans, will be able to make a good bargain, and that he will have lots of trucking and trading with the Americans if he can borrow -money cheaper there than he can any place else.

* I would ask the Minister of Public Works to bring to the attention of the Minister of Militia a matter which I wish to bring before this House. My information is- and I get this information from an officer in Canada who ought to know what he is talking about-that in the ordinary battalions stationed in Canada full rations are drawn every day for the number of men in the battalion. If a battalion is at full strength, with a thousand men, they draw their rations daily for qne thousand men. I am informed that in the average battalion throughout the country, through leave of absence and one thing or another, from ten. per cent to twenty per cent of the men are not at headquarters-but the rations are drawn just the same. So the people of Canada are paying for those rations, whether the men are there or not; and in the opinion of this officer this amounted to about $500 a week in the case of many battalions, which would represent $2,000 per month for each battalion. If we have one hundred battalions at $2,000 per month, there you have $200,000 per month, or $2,400,000 per annum. Where does that money go? If the men are not at headquarters they can not use the rations, but yet the rations are charged up in full. I do not know that that is an absolutely correct statement, but that is the statement I have from an officer of the force who knows his duty, who is a good soldier, and who assured me that his statement to me is an absolute fact which can be verified by the department very, very easily. If that is the case, surely to goodness such a state of affairs should be stopped.


Mr. BRADBURY:: An affair of that kind could not possibly exist in a battalion which is run properly, because the rations are requisitioned by the quartermaster every morning. If you had a dishonest quartermaster it mfiighit occur, but it could not occur in the regiments generally.


John Gillanders Turriff: If that state of affairs
exists it must be by connivance between certain officers and contractors. After what we have heard in connection with shell contracts, I do not know that it would be beyond belief that perhaps some of the contractors who are furnishing the supplies might not be above making some money over and above a legitimate profit. However, I bring the matter to the attention of the Government and hope it will be investigated; and, if it is found that the

statement is well founded, that the abuse will be put a stop to.
My attention was also directed, by an officer who has been overseas and has been through many battles, to a statement that the medical examination in Canada is hardly worthy the name of inspection, and that hundreds and hundreds of men have gone overseas who should never have been allowed to pass. They have been drilled, and fed, and paid for from six months to fifteen months before being sent over. Then, after experiencing the discomfort of the trenches, and the other discomforts, altogether apart from the danger, they get tired of the trench life, they trot out this trouble, whatever it is, that should have been detected in the first place by the medical examination; they are unfit according to the law and they should never have been sent to the front. They are tired of the whole business and they want to be sent home, and they are sent home at a cost of probably $1,000 or $2,000 per man. They come home, and in many cases they will demand and will secure pensions. There is no doubt that this has happened and is happening. It is a matter of great importance that should he looked into. We will have tens of thousands of men to look after through our pension office when the time comes; but why should we have men who are taken over there through the absence of proper medical inspection, and who, as soon as they get tired of soldiering, show up their defects and are sent home to become a charge on the country, and to remain so, many of them, as long as they live. To my mind, it is a most serious matter and one thoroughly well worth looking into. If it be the case, as I know it is the case, a stop should be put to it at once. Let us send no more unfit men overseas; let us send only fit men to bear the brunt of the fight, because it is only a waste of money to send the unfit.
That brings me to the question of pensions. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Marine (Mr. Hazen) speak as he did in connection .with pensions. In my judgment that will be one of the most important phases of the war that we as a Parliament will have to deal with; there will be a great many men who will be entitled to claim a pension from the Government, and it would seem that the matter should be removed, as suggested by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, entirely out of the hands of politicians in any shape or form. You know that there will be 300,000 or

400,000 coining back from the war and they will be a big power in the country. They will probably represent one-fifth, or one-seventh, of the voting power of Canada, and it seems to me of the utmost importance that the subject of pensions should be dealt with early by absolutely independent men, or by a department as long as it is properly dealt with that it should be gone into thoroughly and quickly, and that a decision should be arrived at that will be fair to the men, the officers and the relatives who have been left behind by those who have lost their lives in the war. The whole matter should be settled once and for all so that we will not find ourselves in the position of the United States which, fifty years after the war, is paying a larger sum in pensions that it was paying many years ago. With regard to the sums that are now being paid according to the schedule, it seems to me that there has been too wide a difference between the private and the officer. However, I am not in a position to take that subject up and I am quite sure it will be dealt with by whoever may handle the pension fund. My main point is that whatever is done should be done quickly so that there will be no complication that can be avoided.
I want to touch .for a moment on a subject that has been discussed very much here during the debate and that is the question of the supply of shells. I am not going to deal with it at any particular length simply because the matter has been dealt with fairly fully- But, there is one thing that strikes me as very strange. If the Shell Committee was all that the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir . Sam Hughes) says it was, if it was such a fine committee, the minister has given us no good reason so far why that Shell Com-mitteee was dismissed. Practically every member of it was dismissed. If they had done their duty, why should they have been dismissed? I should like to get an answer from some hon- member of the Government as to why that should have taken place. Of course, I think the Government have a very poor opinion of that Shell Committee, because the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) stated absolutely that he would not defend them, meaning, judging from his remarks, that they could not be defended. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries also stated that he was not here to defend the Shell Committee.
They had no defenders whatever in this House until the Minister of Militia and Defence came along. He undertook their
defence at once. He said that this Shell Committee was his child, and that he was going to stand by them. He spoke about the Shell Committee in a manner different from that of the two ministers who had preceded him. He was very careful to say nice things about them, but he did not explain, any more than the others did, why, if the committee had done their work, and done it properly, they should have been dismissed. The fact remains that this old Shell Committee gave out contracts to themselves at the highest possible prices, and we have the evidence of the Solicitor General that these prices were extortionate. He took credit to the Government that it had reduced the prices from $5.70 for machining a certain class of shells to $1.75.
It seems to me that, considering that all this took place within a few months, instead of it being an excuse for the Shell Committee, or the Government, it was the very highest possible sort of condemnation; within a short time they were getting shells, or certain parts of them, manufactured for $1.75 -that, a few month? before, they were paying $5.70 for. They are getting in shells to-day, and will be for months, for the machining of which they are paying $5.70, and at the same time letting contracts for $1.75. If ever there was a case of where a thorough investigation was advisable it is this one. To my mind it would be the best thing that could happen the Government, and if they refuse this investigation the people in the country can almost take for granted that all the charges which have been made in connection with this Shell Committee are true, and that the Government do not want to have them examined into.
It is no use saying that it is an Imperial Board, and that, therefore, we can not deal with it. The hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) has told us plainly that we are paying our share of the shells manufactured under this committee, and our share of the munitions that the Canadian army uses in any part of the world that it is fighting in. If we are paying for these shells and these munitions generally why should we not have a committee of this House to look into the question and find out whether the right thing is being done or not? In every case where, during last session, the Opposition undertook to bring any matter up for investigation, either before the Boots Committee or the Public Accounts Committee, it was shown that they were absolutely justified in all the state-

ments they had made, it was proven that there had been a great deal of wrong-doing, and since then the Militia Department and the Government have been buying their supplies, boots, drugs, horses and everything else at much better prices and more in the interest of the country than before these investigations took place. If good resulted from the investigation of these matters last year, why should it not be beneficial this session, and why should there not be an investigation?
We have heard a good deal in the last five years about patriotism and loyalty. Is it patriotic or loyal to charge Canada and the British Empire $5.70 for doing the work that we now have done for $1.75, and which can be done at a profit for $1? If that is patriotism and loyalty, then the members of this Government are the most patriotic and loyal men in Canada. We have had a change; the old committee has been done away with and we now have a new Munitions Board. The chairman of this Munitions Board, Mr. Flavelle, of Toronto, states that as long as he is chairman of the Board all of the shell contracts are going to be let by public tender.
If that is so, how is my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works able to assure his manufacturing friends in the West that they will get their full share of contracts?
to do with it. How can the Minister of Public Works then see that these western manufacturers will get their fair "share" of war orders?


Mr. ROGERS:: In so far as any orders are concerned that come to the Dominion of Canada from any of the Allies, it is only natural to expect that they will be distributed fairly over all portions of the Domin-Canada. If my hon. friend thinks that the West is not entitled to its fair share let him say so from his place in the House.
. *y opinion is that the West is entitled to its fair share, and must receive it.


John Gillanders Turriff: 
John Gillanders Turriff: 
Robert Rogers: They will get them at the s-aime price.


John Gillanders Turriff: Wherever there was
political pull men got higher prices on their contracts. Why, the Imperial Munitions Board let contracts at different prices. They let a contract to one man at $4.50, and a contract to another man who had more pull for $4.75, and it was for a much bigger order. A larger contract still was let to their own friends at $5. It does not go by merit or by tender. They may call for tenders, but the contract is given to the man who has the most pull. It seems to me that this has gone on long enough. I was in hopes that under the new board things would be better, but apparently it is going to be under the influence of ministers just the same as the old one was. And who pays? The people of this Dominion pay. It strikes me as nothing less than an out-lage at this time when the Empire and Canada is bleeding at every pore, and' when we are sending off our men by the hundred thousand. At such a time the Government should be trying to save every dollar in the letting of contracts. They should find out where the contracts can be

let the cheapest, aind then let them irrespective of politics, and irrespective of pull. Where they can give an advantage to their friends, well and good, I quite understand that. But why should dozens of big machine shops in Canada, owned by Conservatives as well as Liberals, be refused contracts for a single shell even, while mushroom companies organized within the last six or eight months, with a small capital and no facilities, are able to get orders at top prices running into hundreds of thousands, and sometimes into millions of dollars? It is an outrage, land should be put a stop to. But I am afraid, after reading this letter and hearing of other things that have taken place under the new Munitions Board, that things are not going to be much better than in the past. They will probably be a little better; they certainly could not be worse, and perhaps not as bad. But the business is not on a proper basis yet by any means, and it is time it was.
I should like to touch on another phase of this shell business. This demand for shells came some three or four months after the war started. At that time the Government had all kinds of large machine shops lying absolutely idle. These shops, which had cost many millions of dollars, were equipped with the most modern machinery that exists in the world, and if anything further had been necessary for them to turn out shells, it was simply the addition of a few simple lathes and boring machines. Everything else was in apple-pie order. You would have thought, Sir, that this Government would have wanted to supply *shells and other munitions of war cheaply, and as there were four or five hundred million dollars worth of contracts to be let, that they would have organized a department to look after the manufacture of shells, and find out just what they cost to produce. Did they do it? No. They said they would *do it when they were asked by Mr. Thomas, the man Lloyd George sent out, and they got credit all over the country for their patriotism in placing these shops at the disposal of the Empire at the eleventh hour. Did they carry out their promise? They never thought of carrying it out. As one of the ministers said, he thought it would be a very bad thing for the Government to establish shops in competition with private labour. Why should that be any worse in Canada than in Great Britain or Australia -or anywhere else? The only way in which
it would have been a bad thing is that it would have shown the Government and the Shell Committee just what it cost to make shells, and public opinion would not have allowed the game to go on. Public opinion would not have allowed Britain to pay three times as much as she should for shells, simply because these blood suckers had fastened themselves on the Government and were bleeding the country white. Many of these shell manufacturers have already, become millionaires out of the excess profits on these shell orders. It is one of the most humiliating things that have ever occurred in Canada. A good many people believe, and I would like to believe myself, that the war will be over in another year. Unfortunately we have no proof of that.
It is only a supposition; it may occur or it may not. The history of all wars is to the contrary, namely, that they last much longer than appears at the first, and if this war should' go on for two, or three, or four years yet, what is to hinder the. Government from taking those big railway shops and turning them into hives of industry where the men will get fair wages and where the country will get shells manufactured at actual cost? Would not that be a patriotic thing to do? Would it not be a better order of patriotism than this business of giving out large contracts to their own friends in order to enable them to become millionaires? That subject is worthy of consideration by the Government and the Government should take action on it. If the Government does not take action, the people of this country will be very likely to take action on the Government, because the people will not stand for- * ever being fleeced in order to make fortunes for half a dozen big ammunition con-' corns.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Oockshutt) said it was costing Great Britain $25,000,000 per day to carry on the war, and the cost is increasing practically every month. Now if it is costing as much as that every day to carry on the war, is it not the duty of every one to see that the war is carried on as cheaply as possible, because as was pointed out by an hon. member on this side to-day, every time you pay a dollar more for an article than should be paid for it, you are just weakening the Empire and strengthening the enemy to that extent, so that if there ever was a time when economy should be practised, it surely is at this time. Economy should be practised not only in war matters but in do-

mestic matters. This Government is not toying to practise economy. The Minister of Finance every year bands out to his colleagues thirty or forty or fifty million dollars more than it took to run the country five years ago. For this increased expenditure, there would be some excuse perhaps if we had an overflowing treasury, hut we have not an overflowing treasury these days. The public revenue has been very ma-_ terially cut down; and had it not been for the practically double' crop that we have had in the West, and the moderately high prices-fair prices, in many	partsthe revenue would have fallen very much short of what the Minister of Finance estimated last year.
But what has taken place throughout the country? I shall not go into details now, because this is neither the time nor the place for that, but let me draw the attention of the House to some of the things which have taken place, and which are to-day taking place throughout the Dominion. The Department of Public Works is the- big spending department of the Dominion, and I am sure every hon. gentleman on both sides of the House knows that we have had a good, lavish spender in charge of the Public Works Department for the last two years. *
Mr. GRAHAM That seems to be right.


John Gillanders Turriff: Let us take the matter
of the harbours of Victoria, B.C. It was shown the other day that even in the small matter of buying coal for the dredges, a friend of the minister would not give the orders to the man who had secured the contract, but gave them to the secretary of the Conservative Association in Victoria at about $1.50 to $2 higher than the tender price of the man who actually got the contract. It was shown by an investigation held there the other day that the secretary of the Conservative Association got a rake-off of fifty cents a ton on each ton of coal, thft total amounting to a few thousand dollars. But what took place in connection with some dredging that went on in the harbour ? The engineer of the Department of' Public Works, a first-class engineer, a capable and honourable man, a man accustomed to the work and one who knew what he was about, made all the surveys and the estimates, and according to the plans there were some 4,800 cubic yards of rock to be removed. A contract was let at $9 a cubic yard for solid rock and sixty cents for clay. This contract was sublet to a sub-

contractor at $7 a cubic yard for solid rock. As soon as the sub-contractor went to work, he got into trouble with the engineer ; and because the latter would not stand for any monkey work, he was got rid of and another man put in charge, and this sub-contractor, by giving a quarter interest to the superintendent of dredging whom my hon. friend sent out, and another quarter interest to the resident	engineer-the minister
knows about it-was enabled to put in estimates, have them certified to and paid,' for over 20,000 cubic yards of solid rock at $9 per cubic yard, when less than 5,000 cubic yards had to be removed. An additional four or five thousand yards was certified to by the resident engineer, and the superintendent of dredging, hut fortunately one man got tired of seeing the country robbed to this extent and he squealed on the whole business, and that part has been tied up. It has been shown in the evidence given in court that they had planned to put in 30,000 cubic yards of rock at $9 per yard, where only 5,000 yards existed.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend ha^ made a definite statement which I want to say is absolutely incorrect and not in accordance with the facts.


John Gillanders Turriff: Has my hon. friend
paid for over 20,000 cubic yards?


Robert Rogers: I do not know what we
have paid for, but my hon. friend has made the statement that we had deliberately planned to pay for 20,000 cubic yards, where only 5,000 existed. That statement is absolutely incorrect-


John Gillanders Turriff: I did not make any such statement, that the Government had deliberately planned anything. I said that the sub-contractor, the resident engineer, and the superintendent of dredging had deliberately planned it. That is what I stated, and that is what I know to be a fact. I do not suppose anybody in the Government outside of the Minister of Public Works knows anything about the matter.


Robert Rogers: May I say that, as I
understand the facts, that is equally incorrect.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend can say that, as he understands the facts,-and I guess he does understand the facts-it is incorrect. I know that over 20,000 cubic yards have been paid for, and I know that the Government engineer, the good engin-

eer, the honest engineer, who made the plana, certified that there were leas than
5,000	yards to be removed. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works; cam put titoaft into his pipe and sanloke it and make what he likes out of it. Those are the facts. The matter will perhaps not name up this session, but it will come up next session and the whole matter will be ventilated in the Public Accounts Committee. This ctaiae, however, has been in the courts of British Columbia, and the facts have come out and there are sworn .affidavits.


Robert Rogers: It has been in the courts of British Columbia at my own request.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am not saying that it was not in the courts at the request of my hon. friend. I do not know at whose request it was. I understand it was the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Barnard) who put the papers into the court-


Robert Rogers: nt my request.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, that is all right.
That may be all true enough, but the fact remains that less than 5,000 cubic yards of rock had to be removed, and that my hon. friend's department had paid for over 20,000 cubic yards, and has also certified to an additional 5,000 cubic yards more or less These are the facts, and they can be proven. If the Government wish them proven before they come out in the Auditor General's Report of next year, all they have to do is to appoint a committee to investigate the matter.
But all this is no worse than what is going on in Vancouver, I am told; no worse than what is going on in St. John, or Toronto; no worse than what went on in Winnipeg under the machine built up by my hon. friend. But he got away in pretty good time from that. And this is what is going on at a time when we should have economy, at a time when the Minister of Finance should be right on his job and watching his colleagues-because some of his colleagues will stand a whole lot of watching if the expenditure of the country is to be kept wiithin proper bounds. I would urge the Minister of Finance, in the interest of the Empire, in the interest of Canada), and as a means of bringing this war to a successful issue, that these overcharges should be done away with, and that the Government should pay only for the work done, and not pay three or four or five times over in order to put money into the pockets,of sub-contractors.
Now, I come to the question of the commandeering of wheat. I am sorry the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) is not in his place. Because, although this comandeer-ing of wheat was done through the Department of Trade and Commerce, as a matter of fact that department did not have a great deal to do with it. The matter was left pretty much to the Solicitor General, and I think it very probable that he was the villain in the play. The Government make the excuse that this was a rush order for wheat from the British Government. If so, how is it that for some weeks after they got word that the wheat was wanted, the Government took no action to secure the wheat in the ordinary legitimate way? Why did they not employ brokers to go on the market and buy the wheat, instead of dislocating trade, as they did? Do the members of the Government mean to say that they could not find brokers who could handle this business properly, buy at a right price, and hand the wheat over to the Government at a right price? I hardly think they would take the position that they could not find honest men to buy the wheat for them. They wired to Winnipeg for two experts to come down, Mr. Crerar and Mr. Crowe. I do not know Mr. Crerar very well. He has been for some years president of the Grain Growers' Grain Company, a prominent man in the grain business, a man who handles probably thirty or forty million bushels of wheat every year. Mr. Crowe I know very well; he has been in the wheat business all his life, and for thirty years, to my knowledge. I do not think the Government could have got advice from two better men. But why did they not follow the advice when they got it? Both these gentlemen advised them strongly not to commandeer the wheat but to buy it in the ordinary way. I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had bought some wheat for New Zealand-I think it was for New Zealand-the year before, and his experience was very sad in that transaction. But why did not the Government leave the buying of the wheat to the Department of Agriculture? That department has men who are accustomed to buying wheat, and who would have looked after it. Or, what is this Grain Commission for, to the three members of which we pay large salaries? I am afraid that the trouble was that the Solicitor General wanted to handle this matter himself, thinking to make a political scoop. At that time there was a very strong agitation in favour of free wheat, and I think the Solicitor


Robert Rogers: Minneapolis, Manitoba?


John Gillanders Turriff: If I said Manitoba, I meant Minnesota.
Friend Davis: I understand the Canadian railroads will not accept cars from the railroads on this side to load with grain to be delivered at Minneapolis or Duluth. We have several large shippers in western Canada who must move their grain at once. We stand ready to furnish the Canadian roads with 100 cars a day if they will let the cars run to Minneapolis or Duluth, and can guarantee shippers as much or more than they can get in the Canadian market.
Yours truly,
William F. Converse.
Now here is the situation. As I stated a moment ago, we have millions of bushels of wheat that cannot be shipped out this winter over the Canadian roads. Millions of bushels of wheat are lying outside, with just straw between it and the ground and

straw over it in the shape of a stack. That is all right in our dry western winter, but when spring comes it will be difficult to save that wheat. They cannot get the cars, and here is an offer of 100 cars a day. That would mean at least 1,500 to 2,000 cars at work to keep that going. But because that wheat would go down to Minneapolis, and Duluth, to the Minneapolis and Duluth markets, where the farmer would get as good a price or a better price than he could get at home, they cannot get cars.


John Dowsley Reid: Are they not shipping a lot down to Duluth now?


John Gillanders Turriff: Certainly, they are shipping some, but here is a special offer that-


John Dowsley Reid: To whom is the offer made?


John Gillanders Turriff: This is a letter written to the Hon. Senator T. O. Davis.


John Dowsley Reid: To whom did they offer the cars, was it to Senator Davis?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes. I understand that my hon. friend is the- acting Minister of Railways. I shall give the letter to -my hon. friend. Here is an opportunity to do something that will be of real value to the farmers. The farmer to whom I was talking to-day has 13,000 bushels of wheat and has so far been able to get out only one carload. Be cannot get the cars; the road is tied up. But here is a chance to get 100 cars a day.


John Dowsley Reid: They have to have motive power too.


John Gillanders Turriff: They will supply the motive power from the boundary.


John Dowsley Reid: But to the boundary.


John Gillanders Turriff: Does my hon. friend acknowledge that this road, to which the Government gave $45,000,000 a year ago, has not sufficient motive power to carry wheat out of the country as far a-s the boundary line?
l\Ir. REID: Not all in a day.


John Gillanders Turriff: Oh no, not all in a day. Here is a man with 13,000 bushels of wheat who has got out -only one car. I saw it stated- in the press that on that whole stretch of railroad they did not average a car a day per station. That is the state of affairs that exists in -certain parts of the West. Where two or three roads come in competition at any point they get all the cars they need, but in certain parts where there is only one railroad they cannot get

cars, and the railroad keeps the farmers waiting until it suits its convenience to send cars. The Government is the owner of 40 per cent of the stock of that railroad and ought to have something to say about this, -and- see that this wheat is got out. If it is not -got out, a lot of it will spoil, and the farmer will 'be the sufferer. There can be no doubt that if it is not got out in the near future, owing to the rise in the price of wheat some farmers will be -better off than if they had sold their wheat earlier; but if they -lose it in the spring they will -suffer a tremendous loss, and it is up. to the acting ' Minister of Railways to see that the wheat is got out in the near future.
A word as to the freighting of the wheat across the Atlantic. We have heard a great deal since this debate started as to what the Prime Minister has done for this country in connection with shipping; we have been told that he went across to the Old Country almost purposely to have arrangements made to get the produce of Canada taken over there. We heard it from his own lips on the opening day of the debate, and then we heard it from the Minister of Marine (Mr. Hazen) how much they had done and what they had accomplished. I want to take that question up with the minister, too. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries made the following statement, page 194 of Hansard:
At the end of June the Prime Minister went to London to confer in person with His Majesty's Government, and particular attention was devoted to this problem of providing adequate transportation for general commercial purposes. The whole question was fully discussed during July and August at a number of interviews whiph the Prime Minister had not only with the permanent officials of the Admiralty, but with several of the members of the Cabinet, all of whom realized its importance. It was recognized that the matter was equally important to Great Britain and to Canada ; to Great Britain because of the food supplies which she must receive from this country and in order that her manufacturers might have access to the Canadian markets; to Canada in order that trade with the Mother Country might be maintained, and that the large crops which were to be harvested might find a portion of their market in Great Britain and other European countries. It was pointed out that in view of the part Canada was taking in the war it was especially desirable that every facility should be given to continue our export trade. The fact that a very large wheat crop was anticipated was particularly and insistently put forwrd. It was urged that from sixty to sixty-five per cent of our normal tonnage, peculiarly constructed for the North Atlantic trade, had been requisitioned, and that a serious situation would develop unless adequate steps were taken to meet it.

Then, a little further on, the Minister ol Marine pointed out that the Government had secured three prize ships from the British Government and that they had been put on this route to carry produce from Canada to Great Britain. I would ask the Minister of Public Works, who is leading the House, a question. The Minister of Marine stated that three prize ships captured by Great Britain had been put on the Canadian route to carry produce from this country to the Old Country, but these ships did not carry the wheat any cheaper than other ships. Might I ask the Government why these captured ships, which were not owned by anybody else than the British Government, could not have carried the wheat at the ordinary rate in order to help the western farmer out, or if not to help the western farmer out, to help the British tax-payer out. Why din those vessels charge five and six times the rate of freight that was in force before the war?


Robert Rogers: I do not know that the
question is quite clear to me.


John Gillanders Turriff: According to Mr. Hazen's statement, Sir Robert Borden, by great effort, arranged that some twenty ships which the British Government had commandeered should be released for trade between Canada and Great Britain. Later on they got about twenty more released. Then, in addition, there were three prize vessels that had been captured by Great Britain and put on this route. The British Government is the owner of these vessels; the Germans who owned them cannot claim any ownership in them now, I would think. These vessels were put on this route to carry wheat and other produce, and they are charging just as high freight rates as any of the other vessels; that is, they are charging rates about six times higher than they weTe before the War. Who is getting the profit? Why do these vessels make such high rates of profit? Why do they not carry wheat at the rates that existed before the war, or charge low rates and give the advantage to the British consumer of bread?


Robert Rogers: In so far as the ships are concerned, they were entirely under the control of the British 'Government, and when they gave them to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and to'the Government of Canada for the transport of grain, they no doubt fixed the rate that they should obtain for that business, which would be the general rate that existed on
shipments of grain from ports in Canada to different ports in England,- France or elsewhere.


John Gillanders Turriff: All right, Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to get a clear and definite answer from my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works who is leading the Government. Now, I am going to deal with it. My hon. friend is not the only leader of the Government to-night, but he is chairman. of a committee of the Government that was appointed particularly to deal with this question. He, and the Minister of Agriculture, and our friend the villain of the piece, the Solicitor General, and one otheT member of the Government-I forget who he is-composed this committee. However, we have a definite, straight answer from the Minister of Public Works on this matter. Now, let me give you a little more of what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries said, and then I am going to ask the Minister of Public Works .to reconcile the two statements, the two positions. Here is what the Minister of Marine said further. He had spoken about the appointment of a gentleman, named Mr. Harris, to look after the shipping of goods from Canada-munitions and other things, and this is what he said:
Under the direction of the Government, this officer entered into negotiations for the chartering of suitable vessels, and by anticipating charter conditions and securing ships in many instances considerably in advance of requirements, the Government was enabled to move war material, munitions and supplies at rates approximating those prevailing in normal times for ocean freights.
Here we have the admission that this Government, through the right hon. the Prime Minister, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the committee of which the Minister of Public Works is the chairman, were able to go to the British Government and secure from it commandeered ships and that they were able to ship shells and other war munitions over to England at practically the normal rates that existed prioT to the war. Have I made it clear that this Government, through their efforts, were able to get for the manufacturers a rate of freight between Canada and Great Britain which was the normal rate of freight and practically what it was before the war? But, when it comes to the western farmer, or the eastern farmer, and he has to send freight over to the Old Country, this Government, although they could have done for the farmers what they have dome for the manufacturers, did not



do it. If this Government had been able to do for the farmer, or had been willing to do for the farmer what they had been willing to do for the manufacturer, instead of securing from the British Government a release of a certain number of ships which were permitted to charge the piratical rates that these ships do charge the Canadian farmer, rates six times higher than those which existed prior to the war, they would have secured for the farmer as favourable conditions as they secured for the manufacturers. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Thompson), in the very able address with which this debate was opened, stated that, owing to the work of the British navy, we are free from German raiders, certainly, thanks to the British navy, which we have no part in, unfortunately, we are free from the German raiders, but is my hon. friend who is leading the Government to-night able to get up in his place and say that we are also free from the Canadian raiders in the form of Baron C.P.R., Baron Allan Line and Baron Somebody Else?


Robert Rogers: I would like to know from my hon. friend whether he realizes, that Great Britain is in a state of war, and, being in a state of war, that the Government have commandeered, and have control of the ocean-going ships, and that they have secured a special rate, for the munitions of war necessary to carry on the conflict in which we are engaged; and that in so doing they are fulfilling a duty which they owe to themselves and to civilization. I do not know whether my hon. friend purposes making a point as against this Government, by instituting a comparison as between the rates charged for the transportation of munitions of war, and of grain, to the markets in the old country.


John Gillanders Turriff: The British army to-day is using 50,000,000 bushels of wheat. If a soldier were in the trenches, without wheat, without bread, without food, what good would his munitions be to him?


Robert Rogers: That is a matter for the British Government.


John Gillanders Turriff: If he is left with an
empty stomach of what use are munitions? He has to have wheat as well as munitions to fight the enemy, and my hon- friend's Government could secure for the manufacturer of shells a rate that was practically the same as the rate before the war, but when it came to the farmer they charged him six times as much-


Mr. OLIVER:: Ten times.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) says ten times, but I am going to be within the mark and I will put it at six times. That is only in line with all of the actions of the Government in their dealings with the farmers. How does it come that you can ship a car load of wheat from Regina, Calgary, Brandon, or Portage la Prairie, to Winnipeg and down to Fort William over the Canadian Pacific Railway at exactly the same rate as you could two years ago before the war started? There is no difference. Why? Because we control the rates on the railways in Canada. As soon as that wheat strikes the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers at Montreal they charge us as much to-day for one car of wheat as they charged for six cars two years ago.


Robert Rogers: Simply because we cannot control the rates.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend says
that, but last year, when the Canadian Pacific Railway charter was up for discussion in this House I moved the following amendment:
That the following clause be added to the Bill as clause 6 :
That the freight rates charged by the companythat is the Canadian Pacific Railway Company who were asking for a new( charter for their boats.

shall be subject to the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
The Minister of Public Works and all his colleagues, would not accept that and de-' feated it. Therefore, we have no control of the rates at the present time, and, therefore, we are paying from six to ten times as much to get a bushel of wheat from Montreal to Liverpool as we did prior to the opening of the war. The previous year a new charter wiais granted to the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation. Company. On that occasion we on this side of the House, and, to their credit, some hon. gentlemen opposite, tried to induce the Government to put that and other companies under the direction of the Railway Commission, which would regulate their issue of securities, freight rates, and other matters. The majority of hon. gentlemen opposite, however, refused to support us, and the result is that on the lakes to-day we have freight rates three or four times as high as before the war. Has the war made shipping on the lakes any more dangerous, thereby causing insurance rates to go up? No.

Owing to the refusal of hon. gentlemen opposite these inland and ocean lines are able to do anything they like in the way of robbing the farmer of a legitimate price for his wheat.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: What proportion of the export grain of the Northwest passed through Buffalo during the past year?


John Gillanders Turriff: I cannot give my hon.
friend the exact figures, but it would be a very large amount.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am told it was about eighty per cent. How could the shipment of this grain to Buffalo be caused by the rates on Canadian vessels, when the bulk of it was carried by American vessels?


John Gillanders Turriff: Why should this grain
not go via Buffalo when it cost such a high rate to take it from Montreal? Had the freight rates been lower on the St. Lawrence route, more wheat would have gone that way'. Another reason that accounts for this grain going from Buffalo was the commandeering of the wheat by this Government a month ago. Dealers do not want to be put in the position they were in then, of having their wheat taken from them, and being unable to fill contracts. In order to take no chances they shipped via the United States rather than via the St. Lawrence.


Robert Rogers: There is no difference between the two routes.


John Gillanders Turriff: Instead of commandeering the wheat, wha't might this Government . have done? The lake and rail rate to Montreal during the fall was thirteen cents a bushel. That price would enable the Transcontinental Railway to land the wheat in St. John, N.B., or in Halifax, or in Portland, Maine, and make a big profit. It would have made about ten thousand dollars per train from Winnipeg to Portland, or to St. John. There was an opportunity to do something for the railroads, but the Government did not take advantage of it. And they could have helped not only the railroads, but the farmers, too, to the extent of six or ten cents a bushel. Some time during the month of November last I was in. Estevan, in my constituency. I went on the market, and found that farmers were getting eighty-four cents a bushel for their wheat, but when it was loaded on the car, if it was available at once, they could get ninety-four cents a bushel. That is, there was a difference of ten cents a bushel between the track price and the street price. The Government could have bought the
29i
wheat in the elevators in the West, and paid the farmers a higher price than they could have got elsewhere, and then they could have brought the wheat over the Transcontinental to St. John, or Halifax, or Portland. The wheat could have been got to the seaboard cheaper, and the farmers would have got a bigger price. . But oh, no, the Government would not do that. They commandeered the wheat, and did the farmer out of his legitimate gains, in order that my hon. friends the Solicitor General and the Minister of Public Works might make a political scoop. It was done to stem the rising tide of a demand for free wheat.	.


George Henry Bradbury: How much of the farmers' wheat was commandeered?


John Gillanders Turriff: Those in a position to
know better than myself state that more than one-third of the wheat commandeered belonged to farmers.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not believe it.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend does not like to believe what does not suit him. He does not know-


George Henry Bradbury: I know as much as
the hon. gentleman does.


John Gillanders Turriff: Neither you nor I know much about it, especially you. Those in a position to know state that between five and six million bushels were owned by the farmers, and they were deliberately robbed of twenty-five cents a bushel. That is a fact. My hon. friend may not like it, because he will have his difficulties in explaining to his constituents the action of his friend the Solicitor General.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: And the St. Peters affair.


John Gillanders Turriff: This will be much worse than the St. Peters affair. Every other hon. gentleman who supports the Government in commandeering that wheat will have some explaining to do before the electors. This shows very clearly how differently the Government treats the manufacturer as compared with the farmer. They secure for the manufacturer practically the same rates as before the war, and they enable their friends the manufacturers .of shells to charge three prices-everything for the manufacturer and nothing for the farmer. My hon. friend the Solicitor General is a very fine speaker. He can dilate on the fine points and split hairs with the best of them, but he has some contract before him in convincing the
452.


Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, allow me at the outset to add my congratulations to you on your elevation to the Speakership. At this particular time, which is unparalleled in Canada's history, even although this debate which has lasted for some days may seem somewhat prolonged, it is our duty, seeing that we sit here as representatives of Canadian constituencies, and that we are all practically of Canadian birth, to offer what suggestions we may to the Government of this country in this time of stress. In view of what has been done by the citizenhood of the Dominion of Canada-and may I in that respect mention especially the women of the Dominion-there are two duties incumbent on the parties in this House.
The duty of the Government is to give the lead to patriotic public sentiment; to sacrifice all other considerations in the determination to make Canada's share in the struggle a worthy and effective one; to banish sternly and rigorously the petty and often costly intrigues of mere party politics, and the reprehensible and dishonest tactic3 of get-rich-quick-at-the-country's-expense middlemen. It is further the duty of the Government to invite friendly counsel and thoughtful and honest criticism; to legislate with an eye single to the speedy accomplishment of the great task of the Empire; to deal resolutely with every instance of impropriety brought to its attention, by searching public investigation, and to further improvement in methods wherever they have been shown to be faulty.
There is also a duty that devolves upon us as the Opposition party in this House. It is, to give sympathetic and hearty support and assistance to the Government in all legislation making for the attainment of the national and imperial objects immediately in view; to pass with the utmost freedom and despatch all war grants and all bills designed to make more effectual Canada's part in the conflict; to bring promptly and frankly to the Government's attention all cases of impropriety or worse, that may come to its attention, and to urge full investigation, and, wherever possible, restitution. It is as well, Sir, the duty of the Opposition to aid the Administration with helpful counsel and suggestion; to put aside for the time being mere party criticism and devote its energies solely to its foremost responsibility at this hour-to see to it, so far as may be in its power, that the full measure of the service and sacrifice of the people is applied in the most direct, honest, and efficient manner, to the patriotic purpose for which it has been so heartily given.
These appear to me to be the outstanding duties of the members of this House. I do not here desire to make any protestations of loyalty; these are unnecessary. I firmly believe that, with the exception .of the leaders of the Nationalist party, there is not a disloyal man of Canadian birth in Canada. I believe that we are all loyal, that we are all doing what we can in the great cause to which all our energy should be directed. Let me point out in passing, that even Bourassa, with all that he would have us believe of Canada and of the British Empire, has his practical views of this matter. When the war broke out, by the strange irony of fate, he was in France, the home of his fathers, and immediately upon the declaration of war he was one of the fiTst 'to jump aboard a British boat and under the British flag come back to Canada. That was Bourassa. He may not admire this country, he may have hard things to say of the British Empire, but the fact remains-for his actions speak louder than words-than when he desired- to save his own hide the British flag was good enough for him.
It has been said, Sir, that Canada- in this war has found her soul. There is this much to be said of Canada and Canadians: that more than ever before have they been brought to a greater sense of their responsibilities and of Canada's position as a part of the British Empire. Canada's responsibilities are no longer nebulous or theoretical. If we desire to remain a part of this

great British Empire and of that I have not the slightest doubt, and I pray God we may so remain-our duties are plain, our duties are concrete; Canadians must rise to a greater sense of responsibility than that to which they have hitherto attained.
The Government of Canada has passed through twenty months of happenings such as no Government in this country ever passed through before. They have met their responsibilities, in some cases well, in some cases not so well. But though great questions have arisen heretofore in the course of this war, greater questions are going to arise shortly after the close of the war; questions that will call for consideration by the whole Canadian people; questions that must be looked square in the face and in the light of day, especially by every man who takes upon himself the responsibilities of a representative of the people. The Government will have to face a period of reconstruction at the end of this war, and it will have problems to deal with that will call for men, strong, courageous, and irrespective of party, with an eye single to duty.
Our debt to-day is enormous; it is rapidly growing and will be very much greater at the close of this war.' That debt must be met and taxation applied therefor in a way that shall be as equitable as possible. In levying that taxation and making provision for the payment of that debt, my own opinion is that the men of great wealth in this country-to preserve which wealth great sacrifices have been made, much blood shed, and enormous treasure given- when that final reckoning comes, the responsibility of these men who have been so greatly taken care of should not be overlooked.
Another problem that will confront us at the close of this war is the home-coming soldier, and that is a problem, with one other I shall mehtion, that, above all others, the people of Canada, if they dare to call themselves loyal citizens, if they have faith in themselves and in the Empire, must take care of. To my mind, it is the State's most sacred and bounded duty to see to it that these men, when they shall return, whether whole or maimed, shall find just provision .madie for them as for men who sacrificed their all, and by the shedding of their blood shed such lustre upon Canada.
Then there is the pension scheme, and that is the other problem that I refer to, as being, with the problem of the returned 
soldier, the greatest that we have to deal with. We mourn for those who have lost their lives in defence of the honour of this country, and for the maintenance of liberty, justice, and civilization,. The dependents of these men, the widow and the orphan, should be protected in such a way that no man can look a Canadian in the faoe and say that we have not done our full duty to honour the memory of those who have given everything for Canada. We who remain at home have lived and are living, even during war, in peace, comfort and happiness. True, many of the homes of this country have been rendered sad by the loss of those who were most near and dear, and therefore it is that I say, that as through their efforts and their sacrifices we have enjoyed a period of prosperity 'and happiness in this country, they having lost their lives in this war, leaving dependents behind them a pension 'scheme must be devised by whatever Government that may be in power that will be absolutely fair and will amply provide for those who are dependent upon it.
Another matter that will require attention When this reconstruction takes place is the land question. Peradventure a great flood of immigration should come to this country from the war-ravished lands of Europe after the conflict is over, and a land scheme should be devised for the soldiers who return, on the basis of actual settlement upon the land. I am not in favour of issuing scrip as a bonus, as has been done heretofore; the land should be given to the returned soldiers upon the condition and understanding that they should become actual settlers upon it; that they should cultivate it, and that no title might be made, by way of giving speculators a chance, within five years of the granting of the patent, or at least until the death of the patentee. I think some such system ought to be evolved. It appears to me that these are some of the few problems that will have to be faced; in my humble way they strike me as being important; I give them to the House for what they are worth.
Another matter that will require consideration is improved defences both_ by land and by water. I do not believe that there will ever be such a thing as perpetual peace; I do believe that from now on such preparations will have to be made by every nation that hereafter no war may be brought about and carried on as this one has been. I believe that the only way

to prevent such an occurrence is by absolute and entire preparedness. There is no doubt about the fact that at the present time Canada is passing through a period of transition. She is passing from a too self-satisfied, money-making people to a people who realize that they have left behind them the dependent stage, and, by sacrifice of blood and treasure, have passed into a great world of nations. We welcome this transition; we join in that nationhood with our heads up as self-reliant, courageous Canadians.
It has been broadly stated that there should be no criticism of the Government's action at this particular time. I am not inclined to agree with that view, although for the moment I do not intend to criticise to any considerable extent. I merely desire to say that wholesome criticism of any government is good. The Government should welcome any criticism that is honest and that will make for the betterment of the country in the present strenuous times. My genial friend the Minister of Public Works, for whom I have a great regard, sometimes exercises a rather fine Italian hand along these lines. I think that in some respects he has been endeavouring of late to manufacture a few more thunder tones for the country. I make that remark on account of an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Saturday Post of January 22, 1916. I understand that the policy of this paper is in some way controlled, or at least guided with a parental hand, by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works.


Robert Rogers: I am sure that my hon.
friend does rot wish to do me an injustice. I can assure him that I have no connection in any shape or form with the Winnipeg Saturday Post, and never had.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I am most delighted to
accept the hon. gentleman's explanation. However, the Winnipeg Saturday Post is a rather strong Conservative organ. It says:
The Opposition, since the beginning of the war, has professed ultra-loyalty and at the same time has done everything possible to give the impression that the Government has been remiss in its duty. Either the Government is at fault, or the Opposition is in error. The most expedient method of determining the correctness of the several attitudes involved is by making an appeal to the people. Precipitating a general election at the present time may justly be regarded as unfortunate, but it could not be so unfortunate as the condition that we have to-day, where an Opposition, while professing loyalty, is striving by every subtle means to handicap the Administration in its patriotic efforts to advance the British cause.	:
I take a decidedly opposite view to' that which is expressed in this article. As I have already said, honest criticism is good and the Government should welcome it. May I say to the Government and their supporters that if, by reason of the criticism which they have received during this session, they take it upon themselves to say that they have a mandate from the Canadian people to ask for their opinion at the polls, there will be no justification for that attitude; and if they do bring an election on, the blame will be entirely upon their own heads.


Robert Rogers: Do not be afraid, we do not intend to do it.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Surely it is not unjust
criticism to say that the Minister of Public Works might to-day, when all our resources ought to be conserved, do a little less spending in his department. Surely I might say also to my hon. friend the Minister of Cus-. toms that he refrain from taking on every man who wants a job, and thus curtail the expenditures in his own department and not increase them, as he has been doing. Surely we might say to the Postmaster General your revenue is decreasing and your expenditure is increasing. Why? Because Conservatives are out of jobs and want to be looked after. Surely it is right and proper to bring these matters to the attention of the Government. Surely we might say, Sir, to the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) that the people of the province of Ontario want to know why, with a tender in from T. Eaton & Company, of Toronto, for trousers at $3.20 a pair, the Capital Brand Trouser Company, of Toronto, were given a contract at $3.73 a pair, and that the people of the Dominion of Canada paid $40,000 more for the soldiers' trousers than they should have paid. Surely that is honest criticism. Is it not honest criticism also to ask the Government why Ellis & Ellis should have contracts for parts of shells when they are not in the shell-making business? These are all matters interesting ajt lelast to tihe people of the province of Ontario, and I do arrogate to myself the right to speak for some small portion of them. I say to the Government that these are things that must be cleared up. I say too, that the people demand the clearing up of these things; and I say further to the Government, that if they do not clear them up in a way that is satisfactory to the people of the province of Ontario, they will be deemed to have been remiss in the trusteeship of

the people of the Dominion of Canada which they are there to carry out. These are all things that must properly and thoroughly be explained to the people of the Dominion of Canada; and it is the bounden duty of this or any other Government to see that they are so explained.
There are so'me lessons to be drawn from this war, hard though they may have been to learn. The one lesson that strikes me and that I would ask those on the other side of the House to take to heart is that, the other day, the Minister of Militia in making his speech in this House in defence of his department, unconsciously I know, and utterly unwittingly, paid the members on this side of the House a tribute that essentially, at least to my mind, established the fact that when the Minister of Militia voted as he did vote against the naval scheme propounded by the Liberal party, he voted in a way that he knew was not in accordance with the dictates of his conscience; that he voted in that way for party purposes and party purposes only. At page 305 of Hansard the minister said, in answer to a question as to whether any shells were manufactured in Canada'before the war:
Yes, at tht arsenal at Quebec. About 75 shells per day was our output, and 75 per cent were bad.
Then, he went on, and, by easy stages, led up to what was being done in the way of the manufacture of shells by the Shell Committee; and he said, speaking of an occasion where Canadian soldiers were fighting:
Let me point out that on that occasion our boys were armed with Canadian rifles, shooting Canadian ammunition, and firing Canadian shells. Having no shells to Are on Thursday, General Morrison found on Friday afternoon that a shipment had come to one of the stations eight or nine miles back. He sent his wagons back and commandeered 8,000 shells, and found that they were Canadian. Then, on Friday evening and Saturday, Canadian riflemen, armed with Canadian rifles, firing Canadian ammunition, and Canadian artillery, firing Canadian shrapnel shells, held back upwards of one hundred thousand of the best soldiers the world has ever produced.
I would like to -ask my hon. friends on the other side of the House, and I would particularly -ask the Minister of Militia if he were here, if he would just transpose that a little bit and take himself back to the naval debate we had in this House but a few years ago; and then bring himself along again by easy stages until at this time he might have said to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries from his place in the House': Here we have what? CanfMr. Pardee. J
adian boats, owned by Canadians, built in Canada, manned by Canadians, patrolling the Canadian coasts, convoying Canadian troops, protecting Canadian trade routes, with Canadian guns, firing Canadian ammunition and maintained by Canadian money. It does not appear to me that that is much of a step in advance of the concrete instance given to us by the [DOT]Minister of Militia the other day. To-day we might have had a naval reserve of thousands of men, and the British naval officers calling for men might go to the Great Lakes and to the sea coasts of Canada, east and west, where you have thousands of young men whose very home is the water, and who to-day would gladly enlist to help England's navy if she needs them-and she does need them. We should have had all that to-day had the scheme as originally laid down and as accepted by this House, backed by the last man. of the Opposition of this House, been carried out. Together with Canadian ammunition we would have had the nucleus of our Canadian navy, and not have had to depend on Japanese boats or Australian boats. We would have had the same sight as was given as an object lesson to those Canadians who had not in them the real pride of Canadianihood, that they were as good as any people under the sun. You would have had the same object lesson that was given by the Sydney, the Australian cruiser. The very words uttered by the Minister of Militia, to my mind, absolutely prove that contention. I sincerely trust as a Canadian that I shall never -again see the -spectacle presented by any Government in Canada, to the world or to our sister colonies, of a Government saying to Canadian mechanics and Canadian artisans, the best there are in the world: You are not good enough to do the work that other artisans and mechanics can do. They s-aid it only for -the purpose of hiding themselves behind the mantle of nationalism. That is why it was done. The old, old story again. I ishall not enlarge upon it, it would be impertinent on -my part after the, classic in those lines that the hon-. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) gave u-s the other day.
There is one -other thing as to which I purpose speaking. I approach the matter, I will confess, with some degree of hesitancy because along these lines, as along others, I trust I am a good enough Liberal to let every man have his own opinion; even if he does not -agree with me, his

opinion may be as good as mine, but we may not look at it in the same way. We rather pride ourselves on the fact-at least speaking for myself, I do-that this is a democratic Canada. We are young, we are big, and we are broad. We have great stretches of country that positively spell democracy.
It has become the fashion in this country to attempt to build up a sort of pseudoaristocracy. Upon every available occasion, when we take up the papers, we see a long list of titles. You positively stumble upon these knights in the streets. I met one of them the other day and I had forgotten for the time that an honour had been conferred t upon him- Presently he came around to it and, after preening himself very considerably he said: Oh yes, but you know, Fred, the women want it. That may be all very well, it may be true, but, Mr. Speaker, I have an idea in the back of my head that the women are put up to it by the men. Speaking in all seriousness, I jotted down a few moments ago such worldwide names as William Ewart Gladstone, John Bright, Richard Cobden, Herbert H. Asquith, Lloyd George, Edward Blake, George Brown, Alexander Mackenzie. Do you want better men than these? Would Blake, Brown, or Mackenzie, have been greater Canadian had they had prefixes and half the letters of the Alphabet after their names? They stood upon their merits as those merits were recognized by the Canadian people. I say, Sir, that for a young, democratic country, we have had enough of titles and that a man in Canada should be recognized for one thing and one thing only-the merit that there is in him and the good that he does to his fellow-men. Provided he is a Canadian gentleman it is a good enough title for anybody.
I want to say, in conclusion, that our Canadian soldiers have shown themselves to be equal to any in courage and in resourcefulness. The people of this country, especially the women, are doing their share, and it remains for the members of this House to be their equals in political courage and political morality.
On motion of Mr. Levi Thomson, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
Tuesday, February 1, 1916.