1916-01-24

REPORTS AND PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Regulations under the Destructive Insect and Pest Act.-Mr. Burrell.
Report on the Agricultural Instruction Act, 1914-1915.-Mr. Burrell.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Alfred Thompson for an address to His Royal Highness the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Friday, January 21.
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
be associated with the previous speakers in this debate who have referred in terms of congratulation to your elevation to the high and important position of Speaker of this House. I think it is a fact that you are the youngest man who has ever been called upon to be the first commoner of Canada; but in spite of that fact, those who have been associated with you in the work of this House for the past four or five years are satisfied that you will discharge the duties of this important position in a way that will be worthy of the traditions of the office; that you will have due regard to the preservation of the dignity and decorum of debate, and that as between the parties in this House you will hold the scales of justice with an even hand.
I desire also, as others have already done, to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for the Yukon, (Mr. Alfred Thompson) and to the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) on the manner in which they discharged the task of moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the Throne. It was my pleasure a few years ago to visit that far distant constituency of the Yukon; and although I think in no constituency in Canada is there keener party feeling,, yet I found on all hands an expression of opinion that the present member represents that constituency in a way that gives satisfaction to the people irrespective of politics, and with due regard to the ambitions and potentialities of that great and extensive district.
I also, Sir, would like to say that 1 concur in the words that have been uttered with regard to' the Governor General of

Canada. It has been a good thing for this country that during this time of stress and strain the representative of His Majesty in Canada is a gentleman who has had such an extensive, varied and long experience as a military man, and whose knowledge of military matters has been of very great value in making more effective than it otherwise would have been the aid which Canada has given to the Empire in the present crisis.
My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), to whose speeches, I, in common with other hon. members, always listen with pleasure, who always holds the attention of his auditors, whose moderation in criticism and in debate, and whose admirable parliamentary manner are worthy of emulation, has made certain representations in regard to delays that may have occurred between the time when the Canadian troops are enlisted and the time when they actually get into the firing line. I would like to say a few words on that. At page 37 of Hansard, the hon. member for Red Deer used these words:	.
But the point that is exercising- the mind of our people is this: I think they would be glad of the assurance that there is no undue delay in getting the recruits, once they are raised, into the trenches. I hope the Government appreciates my point, and I hope that some one will give the country and Parliament the necessary assurance upon that point.
I can assure the hon. gentleman that the Government fully appreciates this point. It has been the subject of more or less discussion in this country, and there is no doubt that there is, among those who enlist, a feeling that possibiy at times unnecessary delay has occurred before they are able to get into the ' trenches, and come face to face with the foe. That opinion reaches us from those who are overseas. My youngest son, who is serving with the Artillery overseas, who went to -England in August last, and who,
I think, about a week ago crossed over to France, has frequently written to me .complaining about the length of time that h-e is obliged to remain under training in Great Britain, and expressing his impatience at the delay in getting into the firing line. That is the feeling which characterizes all of our young Canadians who go overseas. They are impatient at any delay that may occur, as their desire is to get into the firing line as -soon as possible, and they are apt to fret and chafe at the months they have to spend in training and drill before the British mili-

taiy authorities think it is desirable that they should actually go into the trenches. Hon. gentlemen know that the First Canadian Contingent which crossed the seas was only a comparatively few weeks in camp at Valcartier before it was transported to the other side; but after it arrived in England it was kept under most unfortunate conditions in camp at Salisbury Plain during the whole of the winter before the British authorities thought our troops sufficiently trained and disciplined to take their place in the firing line; but, when they did meet the foe face to faee, they proved themselves the equal of the best soldiers that were fighting side by side with them, and they brought undying honour and glory to their country. Everybody knows that, except in comparatively few gases' our Qsuniadiaim soldiers have had little training of a military character, and so it is necessary that they should undergo a certain amount of preparation before they cross the -sea. The Canadian -Government and the Department of Militia are sending those men forward week by week as they get the necessary training, and as the war office wants them, and as transports can be obtained. When they arrive on the other -side of the water, then their disposition is a matter for the British War Office. They are not members of -the Militia of Canada, but, are enlisted specially for overseas service, and when they get to the other side they become part and parcel of the British army. It is then for the British War Office to decide when they shall be sent to France and when they shall take their place in the firing line. I say to my hon. friend from Red Deer, and. to the people of this country, that, so far as the Government of Canada and the Minister of Militia of Canada are -concerned, th-ey are fully alive to the desirability of -sending the men forward as quickly as they can bo sent forward, having regard to their, training and fitness for the work, and they will continue to do so in the future gs in the past.
My hon. friend and colleague from the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley) made a lengthy speech to this House the other night, a speech very different in tone and in style of criticism from that delivered by the leader of the Opposition and that of the hon. member for Red Deer. In the course of that speech the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) referred to the question of transportation, the difficulty of getting tonnage, and the increased freight rates upon the
ocean, and he referred to it with the intention of holding the Government of Canada responsible for the conditions that exists. The hon. gentleman, with an absolute lack of generosity-to use no stronger term- suggested that the reason for the existing conditions was that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) last year had to spend several weeks away from Canada, overlooking entirely the fact that the Minister of Agriculture was forced to leave Canada on his doctor's advice and in consequence of the condition of his health, and that while he was away under his doctor's orders he was able to render good service to Canada by representing the Dominion, and also His Majesty the King, at the Exposition in California. The hon. gentleman suggested also that the Government were not attending to such matters because they had gone out to address recruiting meetings. It is very hard to satisfy my hon. friend and some of his friends. I have been reading in Liberal newspapers criticisms of the members of the Administration because they had not made more recruiting speeches than they have been able to make, in view of the tremendous amount of work thrown upon them during the last two years. A leading newspaper in Ontario, some months ago, found fault with the Prime Minister because he was not addressing more recruiting meetings, and it asked, who had heard a word in favour of recruiting from the lazy lips of Sir Robert Borden. And now the hon. member for the city of St. John holds the Government responsible for the high freight maxes- beoauae. as he suggests, the members of the Administration had been spending too much time in addressing recruiting meetings.
With the war, a state of affairs arose regarding tonnage and transportation that has certainly been very difficult to deal with. The breaking out of the war put out of business a great many ships that had been engaged in the carrying trade. Go down to the ports of Boston and New York, and you will see there steamers of the North German Lloyd and the Hamburg-Ameriean swinging at anchor, absolutely idle, unable to continue the business which they had carried on before the war, because were they to venture out from their safe havens in Boston, New York, or other American ports, they would be captured by the vigilant British cruisers which, operating from Halifax, are protecting the trade routes across the seas for the people of Canada and the Empire.


Mr. KNOWLES:: If the honourable
gentleman will pardon me, I should like to ask him two questions. The first is: have the twenty-three vessels that were released

for the ordinary commercial transport work been earmarked for the carrying of Canadian export trade, or are the owners at liberty to ply the ships in any waters that they like? The second question is: what is the total tonnage or carrying power of these twenty-three vessels?


John Douglas Hazen: I cannot give my honourable friend an answer to his last question, but, in reference to the first, I may say that the release of these vessels had special reference to the Canadian carrying trade.


William Erskine Knowles: They cannot engage in anything else?


John Douglas Hazen: 
Mr. LEMIEUX:: that the Department of Naval Service, amid ithe other departments of the 'Government will continue to press upon the Bniti-sh Admiralty and the iBriltish GovemmieMt the importance and necessity of having ships lawailable to canry the products 'and manufactured goods of Oaniada to the markets of Great Britain. We will continue to press that. I have had requests made to me to use my influence to get the British Admiralty and the British Government to release ships that had been requisitioned for other ports. In a number of cases they have requisitioned that the ships after reaching the other ports of the United States proceed to the ports in Canada. Under the circumstances I felt I could not make that request to the Admiralty because we were urging the British Admiralty and the British Government to supply 11s with all the ships necessary for the purpose of carrying the products of this country across to Great Britain. Under the circumstances I felt it would be a most illogical thing for me to make that requisition. The men whose ships are requisitioned are paid according to a scale prepared by a committee of ship-owners and a committee of the Admiralty. It may be that they can get more while engaging in private work than they might be paid by the Admiralty, but during this time of war we must all be prepared to make sacrifices,, and ship-owners cannot be any exception to the general rule.


William Erskine Knowles: Did the commandeered wheat go over in Admiralty vessels or in ordinary transport vessels?


John Douglas Hazen: I speak entirely subject to correction, but I presume it goes over in the ordinary transports. I think that is the case. I wanted to point out to the House-and I am sorry my hon. friend from St. John is not here, because one would gather from his remarks that shipping on the ocean between Canada and the Motherland, wlas not .so great as formerly-I should like to have pointed out to him, taking the port of St. John for example, what the effect of the action of the Government in regard to that trade has been. I hold in my hand a letter written by Mr. A. H. Harris, the acting Director of Overseas Transportation, dated Montreal, January 6. In it he says:
Dear Mr. Hazen,-In the memorandum to which you referred at our interview yesterday afternoon I stated that the Overseas Department would put an average of about 50,000 tons per month of Imperial supplies through ' [Mr. Hazen. 1
West St. John this season and that this added to Canadian Pacific estimates would probably mean the handling on an average of about 350 carloads per day at that port.
During the month of December the following Imperial. transport^ cleared from West St. John,-
Peshawur,
Dunedin,
Thespis,
Hunstriek,
Trelawny,
Wayfarer,
Egori,
Pascal,
Royal Transport, Elswick House, Lord Strathcona.
with 67,484 tons of cargo as compared with five transports containing 14,296 tons of cargo for the corresponding period 1914-an increase of 400 per cent.
During December 1915 eight steamers of the Canadian Pacific and allied lines cleared from West St. John with 67,892 tons of cargo plus 1,166 horses as against four vessels containing 29,351 tons of cargo plus 605 horses for the same period in 1914-an increase of 130 per cent.
Other lines in December 1915 had 19 steamers from West St. John with 45,994 tons of cargo, as against 11 steamers with 16,699 tons of cargo and 657 horses in December 1914,-an Increase of 200 per cent.
The whole making a grand total of 181,370 tons and 1,166 horses in December 1915 as against 60,346 tons and 1,262 horses in December 1914, a general increase of 200 per cent.
I am told that the result will he even more satisfactory during the present month and during the month of February. Further, I am told that while I have given the figures for the port of St. John, a similarly gratifying state of affairs exists with regard to shipments from the port of Halifax. I may tell the House furthei for their information that from statements I received this morning, I find that to-day there are seven transports loading at the port of 'St. John, six transports loading at the port of Halifax, in addition to vessels of the O.P.R. and other commercial lines.
My hon. friend from St. John made special reference to the lumber trade of New Brunswick. He said:
The same is the case with the lumberman. Go down to the province of New Brunswick, which is a great spruce producing country, the market for which is on the other side of the water. Although there is a great demand in Europe, resultant from the war, yet the lumberman cannot get his lumber to the European market except upon the payment of freight of as much as two hundred shillings per standard, whereas before the war the normal rate was about thirty shillings per standard. That is an increase of about eight hundred per cent in the tariff upon lumber, which is a great burden not only upon the producers, but upon those on 1 *other side of the water who might be able to use the lumber to advantage.
Let us see what the facts are with regard to the lumber trade and the transportation of lumber to the other side of the water.

The lumber trade received the consideration of the Government in the same manner as the other business of this country, and since July 14, 1915, the Naval Service Department, in conjunction with the Acting Director of overseas transport, has shipped, under orders from the Admiralty, by vessels entirely distinct from those transports which I have referred to as having been commandeered by the Admiralty for other purposes, the following quantities of lumber from the ports named:
Quebec.-Pour cargoes (spruce, elm, pine), toal approximately, 7,600,000 feet B.M. from six shippers.
Gaspd.-One part cargo, 724,000 feet B.M. from one shipper.
Chatham, N.B.-Two cargoes from three shippers, total 5,700,000 feet B.M.
St. John, N.B.-Four cargoes, approximately, 12,000,000 feet B.M. shipped to date.
Four further cargoes of approximately the same dimensions now loading or due to load from five shippers.
Halifax, N.S.-Two cargoes, 6,500,000 feet B.M.. Two further cargoes of approximately
the same total now due to load from five shippers.
Box shooks.-In addition to above quantities, 400,000 boards for ammunition boxes are being shipped, part from St. John and the remainder from Halifax.
Estimated total from eastern ports, 50,000,000 feet B.M.
Pacific cSast ports.-Ten cargoes, 30,000,000 feet B.M. from various shippers.
Estimated total shipments from Eastern and Pacific ports, 30,000,000 feet B.M.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: What about
+,Vip. rates?


John Douglas Hazen: This is lumber which is bought and paid for in this country, and the man on the other side is paying for freight. I shall have something to say about that later.	_
I give a further statement, more in detail, of lumber shipped from Canadian ports under the direction of the Imperial Transport Service and the Department of Naval Affairs. The ships which carried lumber from Canada are given in the following table:
List of cargoes
of lumber shipped from Canadian ports under direction of the Imperial Transport Service and the Department of the Naval Service.
	From Quebec.			
Ship.	Sailed.	Cargo.	Shippers.Statesman	
. Germanic	
[DOT] Dunclutha	365 standards	Gooday & Coxlong, part cargo.July 20	
* * [DOT] Nov. 20	
Total, 7,600,	3,000,000 ft. B.M. . .. (estimate) 500 standards., .. .. 1,482 " 	
)00 feet B.M.	Burstall & Dobell Becket Co. Gooday & Co., part cargo Price Brothers.
From Gaspd.
Eagle Point		July 30		362 standards		Coxlong & Co., part cargo.
	Total, 5,700,000 feet B.M.		
From St. John.
Grantley Hall.. ..	..
K"kerran	
E'swick House	
Quantock	
Aug.	31.	.	.	.Sept.	11.	<-	.	[DOT]Dec.	25.	.	.	.Jan.	14.	.	.	.Alton	Oceania	Rio Tiete	
(Name not known) . .
Jan. 17 . . . .
Now loading: Now loading Shortly due. ,
Shipped
. . . . 1,768 ' ' . . . . 1,597
standards. . . .
. . McKean & Co.
1,239
1,481
to date, 12,000,000 feet B.M.
Partington Pulp Paper Company. John E. Moore.
and


John Douglas Hazen: No, I am not. I have quoted figures regarding the shipments of lumber which have taken place from Gaspe and from the province of Quebec by means of transports prior to the close of navigation on the St. Lawrence. But I was dealing with the statement made by my hon. friend from St. John, who confined his remarks to the question of lumber shipments from the province of New Brunswick, and my answer was simply directed to that. My hon. friend from St. John dealt with the question of the conduct of the Shell Committee, of which General Bertram was Chairman. I do not intend to follow him all through his argument, and his address on this subject, but I do intend to take up one or two points in connection with the question, and, first of all, I would say that it was remarkable how gently and with what soft gloves my hon. friend referred to the manufacturers of this country. What a change has come over the spirit of the dream of my hon. friend! He would do nothing to injure the manufacturers, and yet, if the argument of my hon. friend meant anything, it meant that the manufacturers had employed middlemen for the purpose of approaching this committee, that they had got their contracts by dishonest and improper means, and that



they had received money in excess of the value of the goods which they had supplied. That was the meaning of 4 p.m. my hon. friend's statement if it meant anything. My hon. friend can - not attack the Shell Committee without reflecting upon the manufacturers of the country, because his whole statement, his whole grievance, was, that middlemen had been emfployed by the manufacturers, and that sums had been paid for shells to manufacturers for political purposes, and that they were far in excess of the value of the goods that they had provided. My hon. friend was treading on delicate ground. My hon. friend knew, and this was the reason he did not want to offend the manufacturers, that fully fifty or seventy-five per cent of the orders for shells which had (been placed by the Shell Committee had been placed with companies some of which were controlled by friends of his own and others of which had friends of his own on their boards of directors, and that if he uttered a word reflecting upon the directors of these companies, he was reflecting very seriously upon his own friends and quite as seriously on those who were associated with him politically and who supported the party on that side of the House. My hon. friend knew that in reflecting on manufacturers who were supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite, he would be reflecting upon gentlemen sitting at the back of my right hon. friend opposite who are interested in many cases in these companies, and in some cases are directors of companies to whom contracts for shells were awarded. Therefore, my hon. friend, while attacking the commission at considerable length, repeated time and time again that he made no reflection on the manufacturers of the country.
Now, Sir, I think everybody will admit, while I hold no brief for the Shell Committee and am in no way bound to defend it, that it had a very responsible and difficult task to perform. When it was first appointed it was to manufacture 200,000 shells, representing about $.1,000,000, and then the business developed more rapidly than any business in this country or anywhere else was ever developed, before. In a short time it found this business running .into thousands of shells and hundred's of millions of dolla/rs. The perfecting of the organization was a great work, and it had to be got through very quickly. If they had proceeded with mathematical precision, step by step and detail by detail, with every 
feature of the work, it is very probable that some money might have been saved to the country, hut, while they might have been able to save a certain amount of money, they would have denied to the manufacturers and mechanics of this country the great bulk of the business which has come to them through the action of the Shell Committee, and which is still continuing under the action of the Imperial Commission.
The hon. member for St. John undertook, as men are very apt to undertake, to underrate what is done by our own people, what is done here at home, in comparison with, and in contrast to, what is done at a distance. My hon. friend undertook to praise the way in which shell contracts were awarded in Australia, and the way in which the problem has been dealt with there, in comparison with the way in which the matter has been dealt with by the Shell Committee in Canada. I do not purpose entering into an argument on that point, or answering the argument that my hon. friend has made. I will let one of his own friends answer it. I will let his own friend, the editor of the Free Press, which has been referred to as the leading Liberal paper in Ottawa, and one of the most ably conducted Liberal papers in Canada, answer the statement of the hon gentleman when he makes an invidious comparison between the Canadian and the Australian methods.


Mr. CARVMLL:: Can the minister do it without smiling?


John Douglas Hazen: I thought I was dealing with a serious question. I certainly should not (think that any one in this House, on the other side would laugh when he found how quickly the argument that had been made on this question by the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) was answered by the editor of the leading Liberal paper here. The Free Press, in its issue of January 21, Friday last, say.s:
Fair-minded men, anxious not to jump to too-hasty conclusions in regard to the general charges against the Shell Committee which handled the entire munitions business of Canada for the first fifteen months of the war, will, we believe, study the statement (reprinted in another column), made by the chairman of the committee, Sir Alex. Bertram, in December last before leaving for a much-needed rest.
The keynote to the whole situation, we submit, in General Bertram's assertion that he " had difficulty in obtaining fifteen manufacturers at the outset who would take a contract." The other important fact is that at the beginning the orders placed by the War Office were so small, with no assurance that they would be

followed up by others, as to make expenditures on the necessary plant by manufacturers a very doubtful investment.
It is an, easy thing- now to say that, at the outset, methods should have been adopted that were put into operation later. At a time when manufacturers had to be metaphorically dragged into the making of shells, of what avail would it have been to advertise for tenders as was done last fall, when the War Office orders had been enormously increased and when manufacturers were falling over each other for contracts?
Some of General Bertram's statements, 4 -* which particular attention may be drawn, are the following:
Of the first Canadian order from England, all contracts, with the exception of one, were placed in Canada, at prices fixed by the War Office.
The exception was for 100,000 shells which were awarded at a price fixed by General Bertram, a practical machinist, at $1.45 lower than contracts awarded in the United States by J. P. Morgan & Co., the British representatives.
The first Canadian order was filled at a price $20,000 lower than the estimate of the War Office.
The statement submitted to the Duke of Connaught in June, 1915, showed contracts awarded in Canada at a saving of $14,000,000 over the prices estimated by the War Office.
The contracts awarded in Canada at the end of 1915 totalled, as audited, $345,000,000, or $42,000,000 below the War Office estimate.
The manner in which Australia is handling the business of making munitions has been held up as an example in contrast to the Canadian method of supplying British guns with shells. The current issue of the Canadian Liberal Monthly, published from the Central Information Office of the Canadian Liberal party, contains an interesting article on " Australia and war munitions." The commonwealth and State governments in that colony do seem to have tackled the problem of manufacture in an aggressive and business-like way from which excellent results may be expected. In this article we notice, however,
(1)	It was not until " the call for shells came from Great Britain in the early summer of 1915 " that the Australian government took any action at all towards manufacturing munitions;
(2)	Up to November 1, 1915, " 31 tenders had been received of which 19 had been formally accepted, the balance being still under consideration ; and
(3)	It was not until November, 1915, that " the first steel, after exhaustive tests, was shipped to the different States."
Now, it should be observed that all the criticisms aimed at the Canadian Shell Committee are in respect of transactions prior to ** the early summer of 1915," when Australia took the first steps; that Canada began operations six weeks after the first outbreak of the war and six months before even the W u* Office thought it necessary to organize the privately-owned factories for the manufacture of munitions; and that by November Canada had placed orders for three hundred million dollars worth of shells in numerous factories spread all over the country, and at competitive prices, which, we are assured, are on the average lower than the " cost prices " fixed by the Australian governments.
m
The editor of the Free Press says that prices in Canada are lower than the cost prices fixed by the Australian Government. At first it was difficult to get people to go into the business of making shells, because it was not known how many shells would be wanted, or how long the war would last, and necessarily the price had to be fixed at a higher figure. As time passed, however, the price became lower, until now the Liberal Free Press says that the average price paid for shells in Canada is lower than the cost prices fixed by the Australian Governments. The editorial says:
If Australia had done in September, 1914, what it did in June, 1915, and on as little encouragement as Canada received from the War Office for what it did in September, 1914, then we should agree with the Canadian Liberal Monthly that Australia is a fitting object lesson ; but with the facts as they are, we cannot admit that the example is very impressive.
Passing from that, Mr. Speaker, I will now refer to a statement made by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), as reported on page 76 of Hansard. Endeavouring to show that the Shell Committee acted entirely from partisan reasons and placed their orders with Conservative firms in consequence, he said:
And so I am sure, if my information is correct, all over this country orders of that character were given, given to the middleman, the man who had no machinery, and given in this way for the purpose of distributing patronage and doing what was a gross injustice to those who had manufacturing plants.
Mr. Rogers:	Unfortunately about 75 per
cent of the orders went to Liberals.
Mr. Pugsley :	Well-
Mr. Hazen:	That is certainly the case in
the city of St. John in my hon. friend's constituency.
Mr. Pugsley:	In my own constituency? I
suppose the hon. member refers to Haley Bros.
Mr. Hazen:	To the Messers. McAvity and
the Phoenix Foundry.
Mr. Pugsley: The Messers. McAvity got their order as a sub-order from the Canadian Car Company, as part of an order which the Canadian Car Company had obtained for shells for the Russian Government. And while my hon. friend is upon that subject, what would he say about the York and Cornwall Cotton Mill?
Mr. Hazen:	What would the hon. gentleman
say about it?	.
Mr. Pugsley:	They are very worthy people
and make splendid cotton. There is no better cotton mill in Canada than the York and Cornwall Cotton Mill. Their whole buildings are well filled with their cotton manufacturing plant. Their people are well employed in making cotton and I do not think from the intelligence of the gentleman-take my hon. friend Senator Thorne, one of the directors of the York and Cornwall Cotton Company, a most worthy gentleman, a gentleman of the very highest intelligence, who would not for a single

moment mistake a shrapnel shell or an 18-pound explosive for a hall of cotton.
When the hon. gentleman made the assertion that the Shell Committee acted from partisan motives, the hon. Minister of Public Works said that unfortunately about 75 per cent of the orders went to Liberals, and I followed it up by stating that that was true in the hon. member's own constituency, which is also part of my constituency. The hon. gentleman seeing how that would weaken his charge that these things were being done for partisan purposes, at once, without a moment's hesitation-although living in the city of St. John he must have known the facts, but 1 must presume that he did not-said that the contract awarded to Messrs. McAvity were awarded to them by the Canada Car Company as part of a contract which the Canada Car Company had obtained for shells from the Russian Government.
On the following morning I sent over to the office of the Shell Commission and asked for an answer to these questions:
1.	Is it correct, as stated by the hon. Mr. Pugsley, that Messrs. McAvity received an order for shells as a sub-order from the Canadian Car Company, as part of an order which the Canadian Car Company had obtained for shells for the Russian Government?
2.	Were any orders given direct to Messrs. McAvity by the Shell Commission?
The answer to the first was:
Nothing known of transaction by Shell Committee. Was awarded by KjSsiho Government direct to Canada Car and Foundry Company.
And the answer to the second question was:
On March 15, 1915, 10,000 4.5 shells at $6.70.
On May 15, 1915, 20,000 4.5 shells at $6.00.
January 1916, 25,000 4.5 shells at $4.00.
Or, there was given direct to Messrs. McAvity by the Shell Commission these three orders for shells to the amount of $287,000.
In addition to this the Shell Commission gave them the following orders:
Cents.
Dec. 23, 1914-25,000 brass sockets and
plugs at	 60
Feb. 12, 1915-65,000 brass sockets and
,	plugs at	 55
May 3, 1915-50,000 4'5 sockets at. ...	70
Aug. 26, 1915- 5,000 plugs at	 25
Oct. 23, 1915-10,000 plugs at	 25
These orders made $224,500. All told, this concern in the city of St. John which my hon. friend said had got these orders from the Canada Car and Foundry Company, got orders direct from the Shell Commission for $511,500. I charge my hon.
[Mr. Hazen.j
friend with impropriety in making a statement of the sort he did, intended to mislead, but if the truth had been stated to the House at the time it would have shockingly weakened the effect of bis argument that the Shell Committee were handing over these contracts for political purposes. So far as I am concerned, I am glad that these contracts have gone to Messrs. McAvity. They are not political friends of mine, though they are personal and social friends. But, apart altogether from friendship, I am glad that the Sheil Committee awarded to a long-established firm like the Messrs. McAvity these contracts, the carrying out of which represents employment given in the constituency I have the honour to represent. While I was approached time and time again by different manufacturing concerns in my province to give recommendations to the Shell Committee by writing, stating what I knew of their capacity and their ability to carry out contracts, I never refused any concern that was under Liberal' control if I believed they were capable of turning out good work, because I was desirous of seeing the work placed with firms that would carry it out properly and naturally I was desirous also of seeing a fair and reasonable proportion of this work go to manufacturers in the province I represent.
Now I come to the Phoenix Foundry Company. And, while the hon. gentleman makes no charge-and he is quite in the habit of making no charge but deals in insinuation and innuendo-yet, as he has dragged in Senator Thorne's name in connection with the Phoenix Foundry Company, I wish to say a few words on the subject. Who are the directors of the Phoenix Foundry Company? They are James F. Robertson, manager, W. H. Thorne, Jas. Manchester, A. C. Dawson and F. P. Starr. These are gentlemen of the highest possible business standing and reputation in St. John. Some of them are Conservatives, some, I believe, are Liberals. But the hon. gentleman picked out Senator Thorne's name, basing an insinuation upon the fact that Senator Thorne is a prominent and active Conservative. These gentlemen are public-spirited and have subscribed their share and done their bit in connection with the patriotic purposes of the war, and are among the last men who can fairly be charged with making money out of the crisis which Canada faces. I refer to the matter because some gossip has reached my ears, and the mat-

ter might as well be cleared up. A contract was given to the York and Cornwall Cotton Company, of which Mt. J. B. Cudlip, of St. John, is manager. In the month of November, I think it was, of last year, about the time the talk of shell orders became general, this cotton company had been for some time running on short time. It occurred to Mr. Cudlip, who is a most expert mechanic and machinist, and who knows the cotton business from the ground up, having been through every stage of it, that it might be a good thing, as keeping the company's help employed, to obtain a shell contract. Mr. Cudlip is an expert mechanic, as I have said, and he knew that a part of the plant of the mill might be available for the manufacture of shells. He came to Ottawa, saw the Commission, and obtained an order for the manufacture of 20,000 4:5 shells at $6. This was the month of May. Mr. Cudlip, as I understand it, was taken ill, and found difficulty in connection with the manufacturing of the shells, though there was room and plant in the establishment of which he was manager that could be utilized for this manufacture. So he made a contract with the Phoenix Foundry Company controlled by Messrs. Flemming, who are not political supporters of mine-or were not at the last election, but one of whom was chairman of the committee of the hon. member for the city of St. John in Victoria ward. The Phoenix Foundry Company is an old-established and well known industry. Messrs. Flemming enjoy a splendid reputation as did their father and grandfather, the latter of whom, I understand, was the founder of the business. I understand that Mr. Cudlip had difficulty in persuading Messrs. Flemming to undertake the manufacture of shells, as they thought there was little in it for them in view of the need for the purchase of new machinery and the uncertainty of the continuance of the business. However, after discussing the matter they undertook it and the contract was handed over to them. When the Shell Commission learned that Messrs. Flemming were filling the order the name was changed to that of Messrs Flemming or the Phoenix Foundry Company, and all continuation orders were given direct to them. They got orders as follows:
Jan. 28, 1915, 25,000 18-pounder shrapnel shells at $3.80.
May 15, 1915, 20,000 4.5 shells at $6.00.
October 18, 1915, 20,000 18-pounder shells at $2.90.
January 1916, 55,000 18-pounder shells at $1.85.
I have not totalled this exactly, but it amounts to something in the neighbourhood of $300,000.
Let us follow out the other orders placed in New Brunswick and see if they bear out the statement made by my hon. friend from the city of St. John, that the commission had been placing these orders simply for partisan reasons. Large orders for boxes had been placed with the Wilson Box Company, in the parish of Lancaster, adjoining the city of St. John. They are a wood-working concern whose special business it is to make boxes. And who are the directors of this company? Their names should be known by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) as well as they are to me: T. H. Estabrooks, Stanley E. Elkin, S Y. Wilson, of Halifax, John Galey and Alexander Wilson of St. John. These names of directors do not bear out the idea that the commission were actuated by poli-cal motives in giving these orders to Messrs. Wilson. I was glad to see this concern get the orders because it is an important industry in the constituencyl represent and I am sure that their work will be done in a way satisfactory to the public.
The Record Foundry Company of Moncton is another concern for which orders were obtained, and obtained, according to the hon. member for the city of St. John, by middlemen and on party grounds. I think the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) will know the names of the directors and will be able to judge Whether or not it was for party reasons that a contract was given to the concern which is-under their control. The directors are Hon. Clifford W. Robinson, president, who was until recently the leader of the Liberal party in local politics in the province of New Brunswick; Mr. F. C. Dennison, a local Liberal in Moncton is the secretary; Hon. James Barnes, of Buctouche, for years member for the county of Kent, and a member of the Government in which my hon. friend and colleague the hon. member for the city of St. John was attorney general; F. J. Shreves, His Honour Josiah Wood, Lieutenant Governor, and the late Graham Fraser. Would anybody say that it was for political reasons that this contract was awarded? It was awarded to a company composed of both Liberals and Conservatives-though Liberals seem to predominate; it was awarded because the Record Foundry Company was the only



one equipped in such a manner as to be able to fill their contracts satisfactorily.
So far as shell contracts in New Brunswick are concerned, a contract was placed in Chatham with a foundry company called, I think, the Maritime Foundry Company. I do not know who the stockholders or directors are. A contract was placed in Campbellton with the McLellan Foundry Company; I do not think .that anybody from Campbellton would suggest that the gentlemen in that concern have been active supporters of the Conservative party in the past. A contract was placed in Fredericton with the Smith Foundry Company, the members of which-all oi them, I think-are supporters of the Conservative party.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Come to Sackville now.


John Douglas Hazen: A contract was given to ' Messrs. Fawcett, supporters of the Conservative party. I do not know whether there are any stock-holders in that company outside of the Fawcett family or not, but Messrs. Horace and Charles Fawcett, and I presume, their brother-in-law, Mr. Ryan, now in British Columbia, are members of the concern.


Mr. MARCIL:: Have any contracts been awarded in Campbellton?


John Douglas Hazen: I understand that a contract for 12,000 shells has been awarded to the McLellan Foundry Company. With regard to box contracts, the following js a list of some of the firms to which contracts have been awarded: The Wilson Box Company, ,of St. John; Sussex Manufacturing Company, of Sussex; Hillsboro Manufacturing 'Company, of Hillsboro; W. H, Farnham, of St. Stephen. I do not know what Mr. Farnham's politics are. I presume that stockholders representing both political parties may be found in the Sussex Manufacturing Company. I think that the leading man in this company is Mir. S. H. White.
So much for contracts which have been awarded in my province; I presume the same is true of those that have been awarded in the other provinces of Canada. In doing what they did, the Shell Committee were guided solely by the desire to advance the public interest and the public good. They were not influenced by narrow considerations of petty party politics; they placed the contracts with those who, they thought, would properly carry them out in a manner satisfactory to the British Government, and who would provide shells

of the quality necessary for our armies in the field.
I have here a list of the contracts awarded generally throughout Canada. I do not intend to read it all, but I shall read a few of the names, and ask hon. gentlemen of this House who are familiar with the manufacturing industry -in Canada if they think that the names which I read suggest for one moment the idea that the Shell Committee were trying to make political capital on behalf of the party in power.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the hon. gentleman would put the whole of the list upon Hansard, it would be much more convenient for reference.


John Douglas Hazen: I would have to get it in more perfect form, but if the hon. gentleman wants it all put on Hansard, I will do it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Take it as read, then.
. Mr. HAZEN: There is a little that 1 will read before I do that. .
Mr. .CARVELL: Put it all on Hansard; do not put it in your pocket.


John Douglas Hazen: I am willing to put it on Hansard. I do not wish to weary the House by reading it all, but . there are certain names that I am going to read.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We would like to have the contents of your pocket as well.


John Douglas Hazen: That is just a covering
letter, which would give no information of value to the House. What, do we find? We find that in Broekville contracts were awarded to the Smart Manufacturing Company, and the Broekville Lumber Company. In Amherst, Nova Scotia, contracts were awarded to the Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Victor Wood Works, Ltd., and the International Engineering Company. These companies are each, I understand, composed of both Liberals and Conservatives. In Dartmouth a contract was awarded to the Star Manufacturing Company, which, I am told, is a very excellent concern, composed of stockholders of both political parties. At Kingston, Ontario, a contract was awarded to the Canadian Locomotive Company, which, I believe, is controlled by Mr. Harty, formerly a Liberal member of this House. At Levis, in the province of Quebec, a contract was awarded to the Lauzon Engineering Company, and to the Public Enterprise Company. I find that contracts have been awarded to the

following companies in Montreal and vicinity: Canada Cement Company, Canadian Vickers Company, B. J. Coghlin Company, Deacon Construction Company, George La-belle, Peter Lyall & Sons, Lynburner, Limited, Robert Mitchell Company, Henry Morgan & Company, Montreal Tramways Company, .National Acme Manufacturing Company .William Rutherford & Company, James Shearer, Wilson-Paterson Company- and so on. In Nova Scotia the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company; I do not think this Company can be regarded as a political concern, one way or another; it has directors and stockholders on both sides of politics. At New Glasgow, a contract has been awarded to the McNeill Machine and Motor Company, and to John J. Grant. I do not think that my hon. friend will say that contracts were awarded to these companies for political purposes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The contract in the
last two cases was.


John Douglas Hazen: In Sherbrooke, Quebec, the MicKinnon-Holmes 'Company; Sorel, Beau-chemin & Company; Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, the New Burrill-Johnson Company. I may be wrong, but I understand that the Burrill-Johnson Company of Yarmouth went under Liberal control. I have a list here; it is not as complete as it should be, and I do not think it takes in everything, but if my hon. friend wishes me to do so, I shall be glad to lay it upon the table of the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Put it on Hansard.


John Douglas Hazen: I will hand it to Hansard.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the hon. gentleman at the same time give us a list of all the firms in Canada who have received contracts?


John Douglas Hazen: I have been'trying to get a completed list.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend has not onoquarter of them.


John Douglas Hazen: This list may have some
omissions. I did not prepare it with the intention of laying it .before the House; it was for my own purposes in this debate. If my hon. friend does not want me to hand it to Hansard, I will not do so; I was merely acceding to the request of the hon. member for Pictou.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We should like to have it, as well as a supplementary list showing all the contractors.


John Douglas Hazen: How easy it would be for my hon. friend to ask that somebody should bring down a statement showing the names of the concerns to whom contracts were awarded by the Shell Committee. I am sure that if he himself would go to the Shell Committee, they would be delighted to give him such a list. However, I will do as the hon. member for Pictou has requested; I will lay this document, as I have it, on the table of the House, and, in order to save my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) trouble I shall be very glad to go to the Shell Committee and ask them to give me a statement containing the names of those to whom contracts for shell boxes were awarded. This I shall lay upon the table of the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will you give the dates, quantities and prices? As the hon. gentleman is in a good mood, it may be a good time to get this information.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be glad to get it
for my hon. friend; I am always obliging. My hon. friend could get it for himself, but I shall be glad to send to the Shell Committee and get it for him. Under these circumstances, I suppose it is not necessary that I should put this statement on Hansard, as I told the hon. member for Pictou I would do.
I have, Mr. Speaker, quoted these names as an absolutely complete answer to his statement made to the House by the hon. member for St. John city:
X am sure, if my information is correct-
"If my information is correct." The hon. gentleman made no independent investigation on his own account; he has simply listened to the gossip on the subject.
If my information is correct, all over this country orders of that character were given, given to the middleman, the man who had no machinery, and given in this way for the purpose of distributing patronage and doing what was a gross injustice to those who had manufacturing plants.
I ask my hon. friend, who was the middleman in the case of the McAvity Company? Who was the middleman in the case of the Record Foundry Company? Who was the middleman in the case of the Fawcett Company? Who was the middleman in the case of the Wilson Box Company, the Nova Scotia Steel Company, and other companies all throughout this country? General assertions of this kind are very easy to make.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Who was the middleman in the case of the Phoenix Foundry Company of St. John?


John Douglas Hazen: So far as I know, there was no middleman. I have told my hon. friend the circumstances as told to me: that that contract was obtained by Mr. Cudlip, who, being unable to carry it out, turned it over -to the Phoenix Foundry Company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will supplement that information at a later date.


John Douglas Hazen: Very good. The hon.
gentleman says that he will supplement that information; we shall wait and hear what he has to say about it. The Phoenix Foundry Company, as I have said, obtained their first contract through the Cotton Company, the directors of which I have named. I am satisfied that these directors would not act as middlemen for anybody; I am sure that they would do nothing which was not in the public interest.
I now pass on to refer to a few other matters in connection with some subjects that were dealt with by hon. gentlemen, opposite. First, I desire to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for St.
John with regard to the investigation held by Sir Charles Davidson into the purchase before the war of the submarines at Seattle, for use in British Columbia waters. The circumstances under which these submarines were purchased are well known to this House. This matter was fully discussed here last year, and since then it has been investigated by the Commission of Sir Charles Da/vidson. I think I will satisfy the House that the investigation earned on by Sir Charles Davidson was of the most thorough and searching character possible. Hon. gentlemen remember that there was very great alarm in the province of British Columbia just before the outbreak of war and for some time after. It was known that certain German cruisers, the Leipsic, the Dresden and the Nurem-*burg, were abroad on the Pacific, and great fear Was entertained that an attack might be made on the coast cities of British Columbia, Victoria especially, and also Vancouver, which were without any adequate means of defence. It came to the notice of Sir Richard McBride that there were two submarines at Seattle, which had been built for the Chilian government, and which could be purchased. Sir Richard McBride purchased these submarines, paying for them $1,150,000. They were brought 
over to Victoria and proved a great source of relief to the people there; and undoubtedly they were absolutely effective in preventing a German attack on the small British cruisers on the Pacific.


Mr. TURRIFF:: Were they provided with torpedoes when they were purchased?


John Douglas Hazen: I doubt whether I should answer that; there is a question to that effect on the Order Paper, which will be dealt with when it is reached, and, as my hon. friend is aware, it is contrary to the rules of order to answer a question of Which notice has been given on the Order Paper.
Those submarines were bought for $1,150,000. The matter came before this House last session and .the charges made were practically of a two-fold character. One of the charges was to the effect that there had' been graft in connection with the purchase of these vessels. When I say charge, it was just the same sort of charge that the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) always makes. He says: I do not make .any charge- and then he goes on to deal in insinuation and inuendo. The result of what he said last session was that immediately after the session newspapers supporting hon. gentlemen opposite and public speakers advancing their cause from the public platform did not hesitate to herald all over this country that there had been graft to the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars in connection with the purchase of these submarines. Let me read to the House the statement made by my hon. colleague from St. John When he discussed this matter in February of. last year.
I quote from page 122 of Hansard.
I should like to know when I made any insinuation that Sir Richard McBride had received this $250,000? I did not do so. I have great respect for the intelligence of Sir Richard McBride, and I would not for a single moment suggest that, having paid out $1,150,000 of the money of the people of British Columbia, he would be guilty of taking back this large amount of $250,000 and putting it in his own pocket or using it for an election fund. We all admit that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works knows how to run elections, but who for a single moment would suggest that the Minister of Public Works would besmirch himself with the handling of election funds? Who would imagine that Sir Richard McBride would do so? But Sir Richard McBride and this Government have their friends in British Columbia, and if any one were disposed to take advantage of it, here was a magnificent opportunity. Here were two submarines, valued by Mr. Logan at $375,000 each, the price of which according to the original contract to build was only $387,000 each. They had been rejected by the expert of the government of Chili. War was on, and public opinion in British Columbia

demanded that these boats should be purchased at any price. Oh, Sir, what a temptation there was for those in the Conservative party who would like to wipe the Grits off the face of the earth, and who know so well how to use campaign funds in order to do so. What a temptation there was to take advantage of the situation. I do not, upon the information which has come to me, charge the minister with wrongdoing, nor did I do so from the beginning to the end of my address. I do not charge Sir Richard McBride with wrong-doing; I did not do so from the beginning to the end of my address.
And yet the effect of his speech, which was heralded broadcast through the party press and by their .supporters, was that Conservatives had profited by this transaction for improper and election purposes to the amount of $250,000. These submarines were taken over by the Dominion of Canada on the advice of the British Admiralty. 'Before we confirmed the purchase made by Sir Richard McBride we communicated with the British Admiralty and they advised us to purchase them if we could get crews to man them.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Did not this Government inform the British Government that the reason they were not taken by the Chilian Government was that it was not able to pay for them?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not remember the
language of the telegram, but it makes no difference-	'


William Pugsley: It would have made a
difference if they had been condemned. _


John Douglas Hazen: -because the British Admiralty have, and then had, a thorough and intimate knowledge of every war vessel being built in any shipyard in the world. They knew all about these, they knew their price and everything about them; and they advised that we should purchase them if we could. And we did right in purchasing them, because the evidence is conclusive, after a thorough investigation, that there was not a dollar of graft in connection with the transaction, and that the submarines were most efficient, and have continued to give good service down to the present hour. Let me read to the House the statement made by Sir Charles Davidson at the opening o.f the inquiry. He said:
Our sittings will be held in the sight and hearing of all men. Our determination is as it has been throughout our past sittings, to pursue the investigation of any matters which may need inquiry, with great thoroughness and earnestness. I had, at the outset, the good fortune to secure the consent of Mr. John Thompson, one of His Majesty's Counsel at the
Ontario Bar, to act as counsel to the Commission. He will examine the witnesses and I am sure he will welcome any information which may reach him from any source, and which are germane to our future duties.
At the inquiry, which was open to all men-it was open to my hon. friend had he chosen to attend, and he was in the neighbouring city of Vancouver when Sir Charles Davidson was holding his inquiry in Victoria.


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend know that Sir Charles Davidson distinctly refused to allow any counsel to be present to examine or cross-examine witnesses?


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend is making the same interruption that he made the other day. What Sir Charles Davidson did decline was something quite different. He was vested with the duty of probing the matter to the bottom, and other matters that came before him-and a better man for the purpose could not be obtained. He is a judge of high standing and great experience. He had a large practice at the bar and was regarded as an able practice lawyer. Sir Charles had the advantage of the assistance in that work of Mr. John Thompson, K.C., a prominent member of the Ontario bar, a son of the late Sir John Thompson. In addition to that, at every inquiry, the Auditor General was present. As each witness was examined, the Auditor General was asked if he had any further question to put to him, or if there was any further witness whom he would suggest should be called for examination. The fullest opportunity was given for the fullest possible hearing. What Sir Charles Davidson did decline was something quite different. A counsel appeared before him and said that he appeared on behalf of the Liberal party of British Columbia. Sir Charles declined to allow him to act as counsel and examine and cross-examine witnesses-and I would ask where the end of this thing would be if that sort of thing was permitted. He permitted him to suggest any question, and I shall read from the evidence of the Auditor General in a moment what he said about the matter. I shall read the evidence of the Auditor General because I think the Auditor General was the man responsible for this inquiry being held, and possibly for the discussion with regard to the matter. I find that Mr. John Fraser, I.S.O., was examined by Mr. Thompson, K.C.:
I asked Mr. Auditor General to come to Victoria in advance of the sittings of the commission to ascertain, if possible, any further In-

formation with regard to the purchase of these submarines-have you been able to obtain any evidenee or any source of information which would lead you to the opinion that anything has not been disclosed in evidence that should have been disclosed?
Mr. Fraser:	No, X have not.
Mr. Thompson:	Generally speaking, have
you anything to suggest that I may further inquire into, with regard to the purchase of the submarines?	-
Mr. Fraser: Nothing, unless it may be advisable to examine officials of the Electric Boat Company, if they are willing to be examined.
Mr. Thompson:	I think that is the intention of the commissioner.
Sir Charles Davidson:	You mean the officials of the Electric Boat Company in New York?
Mr. Fraser:	Yes.
Sir Charles Davidson: That is our immediate purpose, so far as the commission is concerned. The moment we return East we will seek at Montreal or at their own homes to secure their [DOT] evidence, and we hope they will facilitate our inquiry.
That is what Mr. Fraser said, and I quote it ito show that the Auditor General, who went to Victoria to find out everything he could in regard to the matter of the submarines, was asked to suggest any questions that had not been asked, to suggest any line of examination that had not , been undertaken, or any line of inquiry that had not been pursued, and that the only suggestion he made was as to the examination of certain officials of the Electric Boat Company, which examination was carried out.
There were examined before Sir Charles Davidson, Sir Richard McBride, James Venn Paterson, F. L. Crawford, Manager of the Bank of Commerce; Capt. William Henry Logan, Mt. H. Barnard, M.P., the Auditor General, Mr. Taylor, auditor for the Electric Boat Company; Mr. E. B. Frost, Vice-President of the Electric Boat Company, and Mr. Carse, President of the Electric Boat Company. The whole inquiry was in the nature of an inquisition. Questions were asked of a character, which, if they had been, asked in a court of law governed by the ordinary rules of evidence, would never have been permitted. The inquiry was broad, comprehensive, searching, and thorough. I am sorry I have not the time at this late hour in the afternoon to go into the evidence more fully; I do not wish to tire the House unduly by reading too large portions of the evidence, but there is one portion I should like to read. The question was first brought up on June 25, 1915, when Sir Richard McBride voluntarily appeared before the Commission at Ottawa and was examined with reference to the question of commission, as follows:
: >
Xdazen. ]
Mr. Thompson:	There is just one question
I may ask you-
I am dealing with the question of graft; the question of efficiency will come later.
There is just one question I may ask you- do you know of any rebate or money being paid to any private individual or any official by way of commission?
Sir Richard McBride:	Absolutely not one
cent.
Sir Charles Davidson: Directly or indirectly? Sir Richard McBride:	Directly or indirectly.
Sir Charles Davidson:	Either as a matter
of commission-*
Sir Richard McBride: Or otherwise.
Sir Charles Davidson:	Or as a matter of
contribution to election funds, because that has been mentioned?	.
Sir Richard McBride:	I can say positively
that I know of no commission that was paid directly or indirectly to any person or persons, corporation or corporations, in respect to this operation.
Sir Charles Davidson:	Or contribution?
Sir Richard McBride:	Or of contribution.
Then later on:
Sir Charles Davidson:	Mr. Auditor General,
are there any questions which you would suggest as being desirable to he put to Sir Richard McBride?
Mr. Fraser: No.
Sir Charles Davidson:	If there are any, I
hope you will freely mention them.
Mr. Fraser : I do not know that there is anything more than Mr. Thompson has asked him, and the suggestion that Mr. Paterson, who is the one who can clear up the suspicion, or rumour, should he examined.
Sir Charles Davidson:	What was the suspicion and what were the rumours?
Mr. Fraser: ' That there was a very large commission paid.
Sir Charles Davidson:	Did you hear anything further than that?
Mr. Fraser:	There were some rumours that
I would not care to put on record here; I do not think it would be fair to do so.
Mr. Thompson : You considered them not substantiated ?
Mr. Fraser :	Not substantiated.
Mr. Thompson:	Not substantiated at all
events sufficiently to make a statement with regard to them before the Commission?
Mr. Fraser:	Yes.
Sir Charles Davidson:	Is this the whole of
the correspondence which you have in your department respecting submarines?
Mr. Fraser : Yes.
Sir Charles Davidson: Private or otherwise ; have you private correspondence?
Mr. Fraser:	I had some, but not in connection with any of the people dealing with the matter at all.
Sir Charles Davidson: Of what character?
Mr. Fraser:	Sometimes people might have
been giving me some information.
Sir Charles Davidson:	Have you pursued
that information?
Mr. Fraser:	As far as I could.
Sir Charles Davidson:	And?
Mr. Fraser:	Without results, as I say. I
think the only man who can clear it up is Mr. Paterson.

Then we 'have the examination of Mr. Paterson:
Q. And no commission was paid yourself?- A. I did not pay it to myself, X had It.
He referred to the fact that for his services he got $40,000. Here is the examination by Air. Thompson, K.C.:
Q. What we want to ascertain, Mr. Paterson, is whether any part of this money was waylaid or improperly paid?-A. You mean, whether I have got some underhand way of getting out of answering a straight question?
Q. No, I am not making any reflection on you at all.-A. That is what it means to me. There is -only yes or no about that thing. The question is, was there or was there not a commission-there was none.
Sir Charles Davidson I desire, just to put to you an enlargement of the question which was put to you before by Mr. Thompson-was there any contribution directly or indirectly to any association or interest in Canada made by you or your company?
The Witness:	None at all.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend read that again, please?


John Douglas Hazen: Sir Charles Davidson: I desire just to put to you an enlargement of the question which -was put to you before by Mr. Thompson-was there any contribution directly or indirectly to any association or interest in Canada made by you or your Company?
The Witness: None at all.
Sir Charles Davidson: Nothing whatever?
The Witness: Nothing at all, nothing was paid in Canada, at all, or to any Canadian.
Sir Charles Davidson:	Or to any association?
The Witness: Or to any association m any way whatever.
Sir Charles Davidson : And you say there was absolutely no irregularity in connection with that?
The Witness: Absolutely no irregularity.
Then we come to the evidence of Mr. F. L. Crawford, the Manager of the Bank of Commerce. The Commission even went to the extent of examining the books of the bank, so thorough and searching was Sir Charles- Davidson's inquiry.


William Pugsley: That is the bank at Victoria.


John Douglas Hazen: The bank that cashed the cheques and sent-the drafts. (Reads):
Q. Do you know of any account in your bank in Victoria which has any suspicious circumstances about it pointing to a commission on these submarines?-A. No, none.
Q. None whatever-A. No.
Q. Have you any account which would show any payment which would appear to be an indirect commission on these submarines ? A. Not that I know of.
Q. Were there any payments made into any aocount in your bank shortly following or appreciably a short time after these cheques
were issued, which excited your suspicion that there was a commission on the purchase of the submarines?-A. No.
Q. Was a payment made in respect to the sale of the submarines that you know of? A. None.
Q. I am using the term in the broadest possible sense, and you say that there is not in the books in your bank any account which would excite your suspicion in that regard? A. None to my knowledge.
Capt. William Henry Logan was also called. My hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) suggested that Capt. Henry Logan, who negotiated for the purchase of the submarines, was simply asked a question, "Did you pay any commission to any one?" As a matter of fact, he was examined and cross-examined most thoroughly.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has forgotten what I said. In commenting upon what I thought was the insufficient examination of Mr. Logan, I said that while he sought to convey to the Commissioner the idea that he was simply called in a cursory way, that he had -had a conversation at th,e club about the submarines, and had said he knew very little about submarines; it was stated in the Order-inCouncil of the British Columbia Government that it was Mr. Logan himself who, after considerable negotiation, had purchased those submarines.
What I argued was that it struck me as strange that he was not thoroughly examined as to why he did not know the price after negotiating for two weeks, and was practically merely asked as to whether a commission had been actually paid.


John Douglas Hazen: I will read the examination -of Capt. Logan as I have it here By Mr. Thompson, K.C.:
Q. Did you make' any claim for commission? -A No.
Q. You did not render a claim for commission?-A. No.
Q. Of any sort?-A. Not of any sort, nor did I get any commission of any kind from anybody.
Q. Did you not render an account to the Dominion Government for commission?-A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you receive any commission from J. V. Paterson?-A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you receive any promise of a commission from him?-A. No, sir, I did not.
Sir Charles Davidson: Or other benefits?
The Witness: Or other benefits of any kind. By Mr. Thompson, K.C.:
Q. You received no indirect benefit from anybody?-a. I received no indirect benefit of any kind in connection with that matter, or with that purchase.
Q. And you received nothing from the Seattle Dry Dock and Construction Company?-A. I received nothing from the Seattle Dry Dock

and Construction Company, or from anybody else.
Q. Nor from the Electric Boat Company''- A. No.
Q. Nor did you receive any promise of any contribution to any political party funds?-A. Not at all, of no kind. I say most emphatically that I got nothing from anybody or from anywhere.
Q. You say that all you received, either directly or indirectly, in connection with this matter is the amount you received on that account to the department for $620?-A. Yes, that is my account.
Q. And you did not on that occasion ask him whether he would reduce the price?-A. No.
Q. Did you ask him over the telephone whether he would pay a commission?

A. No, s.r, I did not; I never mentioned a commission.
Q. When you saw him in Seattle, did you ask him if he would pay you a commission?- A. No, all I mentioned then was the boats.
. Q- Did you ask him whether his company would pay you a commission?-A. No.
Q. Or whether the Electric Boat Company would pay you a commission?-A. X never mentioned a commission of any kind.
Q. Neither on behalf of yourself or any other person?-A. Neither on behalf of myself or any other person.
Q. Nor did you suggest it in any way?

A. Nor did I suggest it in any way. I did not get any commission. The only thing I got was a lot of abuse since that time. I have heard nothing but dishonourable insinuations and innuendo since the last twelve months, and I have, in a small way, shared in the heap of abuse piled on the Premier of this province. I feel indignant and disgusted over the whole thing; I think it is enough to make a man who is inclined to do anything for his country stand aside.


William Pugsley: Is that all he was asked?
Mr. HAZEN; That is all I have in this quotation.


William Pugsley: I have not seen this evidence.


John Douglas Hazen: I should judge not from my hon. friend's speech.
Mr. PUGSLEY; I have not; but it seems to be word for word what I saw in the Victoria papers, and, therefore, it shows how accurate was the report in the Victoria papers. Will my hon. friend let me ask him this? How does he explain the fact that this Gapt. Logan was stated by Sir Richard McBride in the order in council to have negotiated for these submarines and to have purchased them, and that yet for fifteen days 'before they were bought not a word was said as to the price?


John Douglas Hazen: As I did not draw the order in council and have not consulted with Sir Richard McBride I have nothing to say about the matter at the present time.


William Pugsley: Would not my hon. friend have though, that Sir Charles Davidson would have asked him about that?


John Douglas Hazen: In view of that apparently Capt. Logan is recalled, and I have here some further evidence given by him. Sir Charles Davidson apparently had him recalled for the purpose of putting these questions to him and the report of his evidence on this point is as follows:
Sir Charles Davidson: I would desire, Mr. Thompson, that you should' put to Capt. Logan the questions Tn the same broad form that you put them in to Mr. Barnard, as to payments or commissions in connection with these submarines, because your previous questions were identified with his personal acts.
Mr. Thompson : I ask you now, Capt. Logan, whether you know of any commission being paid to any official or unofficial person in Canada, by Paterson, or the Seattle Construction and Dry Dock Company, or the Electric Boat Company, or by any person or company, or by any person on their behalf, either directly or indirectly, in respect to a commission on the purchase of these submarines?
Capt. Logan: None whatever.


William Pugsley: Is the question always limited to the words, "in Canada"?


John Douglas Hazen: Not always. We have the question theTe whether any commission was paid "in Canada" and we have the question whether it was paid "either directly or indirectly." Then the examination proceeds:
Sir Charles Davidson: Or gift or benefit?
Capt. Logan: No, sir, nothing of any kind, from anybody.
Mr. Thompson: Or a promise of anything 1 Capt. Logan: No.
Mr. Thompson: Either to any person here or as a contribution to any party fund?
Capt. Logan: Nothing of the kind.
Mr. Thompson: Or for any political purpose ? Capt. Logan: Nothing at all, sir, I do not know of anything of that nature.
Sir Richard McBride came back to the stand. You will see how 5 p.m. careful Sir Charles Davidson was that no question should be left unasked:
Mr. Thompson: Did Logan make any suggestion to you as to a commission?
Sir Bichard McBride: No.
Mr. Thompson: Of any sort?
Sir Richard McBride: No, sir.
Mr. Thompson: Or did he suggest that the Seattle Construction and Dry Dock Company would allow a commission?
Sir Richard McBride: No.
Mr. Thompson: Or did he suggest that Paterson would ?
Sir Richard McBride: Absolutely no Mr. Thompson: Or that the Electric Boat Company would allow a commission?
Sir Richard McBride: No.

Mr. Thompson: Or that any of them would make a contribution to party funds?
Sir Richard McBride: Absolutely no.
Mr. Thompson: Did anybody else suggest
that?	x
Sir Richard McBride: Never, except Mr. Pugsley in the House of Commons, and the Auditor General, I believe, has a suspicion; at least he so expressed himself at Ottawa, that the transaction was not an honest one.
Here is further evidence by Sir Richard McBride?	[DOT]
Mr. Thompson (to Sir Richard McBride) : Before we conclude taking your evidence in Ottawa, I asked you on the subject of a commission, and I put to you the questions that have been put to other witnesses. I ask you now do you know whether Paterson, or the Seattle Dry Dock Company, or the Electric Boat Company, paid any commission to anybody, either official or unofficial?
Sir Richard McBride: I recollect that you asked me that question, and my answer was:
no.	,
Mr. Thompson: Or whether they made any contribution of any money, or whether they made any promise of money, to party funds, or anything of that kind, of an indirect or direct nature?
Sir Richard McBride: No, sir, neither directly, nor indirectly, did any person or persons, or the agent of any person or persons, in any capacity whatsoever, mention the subject of commission to me, or to any one of whom I know.
Mr. Thompson: Or paid any?
Sir Richard McBride: Or paid any.
Mr. Thompson: Or promised to pay?
Sir Richard McBride: Or promised to pay anything, or paid anything, or undertook to promise anything.
And so on. I cannot read all this because time will not permit. I have the evidence of Mr. John Friaseir, Auditor-General, who had been asked to go to Victoria in advance of the commission. He tells Mr. Thompson that he has nothing further to say, nothing to ask, and he only suggests that the officials of the Electric Boat Company might be examined. So, the officials of the Electric Boat Company are examined. Mr. Taylor, the auditor of the Electric Boat Company came to Montreal to give his evidence and this is what he said:
By Mr. Thompson, K.C.:
Q. Did you pay anybody whomsoever any commission out of that money?
"Anybody whomsoever"-not anybody in Canada, but anybody anywhere?
A. We did not.
Q. Did you make any allowance to any person by way of commission out of that money? -A. We did not.
Q. Neither directly nor indirectly?-A. No, sir.
Q. Is there any part of that money held in suspense by way of commission for any person?-A. No, sir.
Q. Has there been any suggestion to your company that any part of that money should be paid by way of commission to any person?-
A. I think Mr. Bailey claimed that he ought to have a commission.
Q. Bailey was your agent, was he not?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you encourage that?-A. We did not.
Q. Is it finally settled and' disposed of that he shall not get a commission?-A. Finally settled.
Q. What was he asking in the way of commission?-A. I do not think he named any sum; I think he left it to the company.
Q. Is Bailey working on commission, or is he on salary?-A. On salary.
Q. At any rate, you decided finally not to allow him any commission?-A Yes.
Q. There is no outstanding question now about any commission out of that money, or any part of it?-A. None whatever.
Q. And your company has used the whole of that money for its own purposes?-A. Yes.
Mr. Elihu B. Frost, vice-president of the-Electric Boat Company, gave this evidence on the question of a commission:
Mr. Thompson: With the exception of the $40,000 which Paterson obtained, I understand that your company received the full amount of the purchase money paid by Canada, and, excepting, of course, the legitimate hills which were paid and owing to the Seattle Construction Company.
Mr. Frost: Less the sum which went to Mr. Paterson, which was about $40,000, and the 130,000 odd thousand dollars which was due to the Seattle company and paid to them, the Electric Boat Company received all the money that Canada paid for the submarines.
Mr. Thompson: And you eventually refunded to the Chilian government the amount they had paid you on progress estimates?
Mr. Frost: We did.
Mr. Thompson: Did your company pay any commission to anybody?
Mr. Frost: Apart from the Paterson commission, no.
Mr. Thompson:	Neither directly nor indirectly?
Mr. Frost: Neither directly nor indirectly.
Mr. Thompson: You paid nothing whatever to any Canadian?
Mr. Frost: We did not.
Sir Charles Davidson: How do you consider the commission to Mr. Paterson, as to it being reasonable?
Mr. Frost: I think our people think that It was a fair commission and not exorbitant.
Mr. Carse, the president of the Electric Boat Company, was examined in New York, and the question was put to him:
Mr. Thompson: Do you know of any commission being paid to any person other than the $40,000 paid to Mr. Paterson?
Mr. Carse: There was absolutely nothing paid to anybody outside of that.
Now, I have gone hurriedly over this. I say that the evidence shows that this inquiry was of the most thorough and searching character possible. Sir Richard McBride was examined dnd cross-examined and re-examined. The manager of the bank

at Victoria, the president, the vice president, the general manager and the auditor of the submarine companies were examined. Everything was done that could be suggested by the Auditor General; every precaution was taken to elicit the truth; and while I do not know what Judge Davidson's finding on the evidence will be, it seems to me that only one conclusion and one finding can be come to. It is unfortunate, however, that this discussion has been precipitated before we have Judge Davidson's report and before the evidence has been laid on the table of the House.


William Pugsley: The discussion was provoked by the Solicitor General.


John Douglas Hazen: While my hon. friend admits that he has made a very serious charge; while he has criticised the evidence, while he has made the charge against Mr. Thompson, a lawyer of standing, that questions had not- been asked which a law student of six weeks' experience would have felt it necessary to ask, while he has commented upon the standing of Judge Davidson, and while this commission has been referred to as a whitewashing commission, it appears that after all, my hon. friend has made his criticism of Judge Davidson's conduct of his commission before reading the evidence submitted to Judge Davidson. It is true that my hon. friend read some evidence in the newspapers-


William Pugsley: That is not correct.
, Mr. HAZEN: It is correct with this limitation: My hon. friend says he read the evidence as published in the newspapers. Every hon. member knows-and a lawyer of the standing and experience of my hon. friend knows very well-that no lawyer would depend for his facts in addressing a jury or in summing up before a court on the summaries of evidence that are printed in the newspapers, but that he would have before him the whole official evidence if he intended his remarks to carry weight. It is a matter of regret that my hon. friend could not have waited for a little while until Judge Davidson had made his report, before bringing this matter before the House and endeavouring to base his remarks on evidence as published in the daily press.


William Pugsley: The Solicitor General
provoked the discussion.


John Douglas Hazen: The Solicitor General asked my hon. friend a question, and at once my hon. friend went into the whole matter

and told how badly the witnesses had been examined and how badly the investigation had been conducted. I appeal to any hon. member who will read the evidence carefully, if my statement, which has been made several times already to the effect that the inquiry was a most thorough and searching one, is not absolutely true, and if it is not supported by the evidence which Mr. Justice Davidson has taken.


William Pugsley: My honourable friend
says he appeals to every member of this House if he is not correct. Let me ask my honourable friend this question, as he has the official evidence before him:	Did the
commission, when it was in New York, examine the books of the Electric Company, and was there any explanation of how it came about that this $1,150,000 was divided into three amounts, one being a draft on Seattle for $250,000, less exchange, one being a draft on New York for the net sum of $500,000 and the third being a draft on New York for the sum of $400,000, less the bank exchange and charges?


John Douglas Hazen: I am sorry I have not the whole of the evidence here. As I recall it, it affords ample evidence with regard to the division of the cheques.


William Pugsley: My honourable friend
ought not to make statements unless he has the whole evidence before him.


John Douglas Hazen: Is it the desire of my
honourable friend that I should read the whole evidence from first to last?


William Pugsley: My honourable friend
will pardon me. This is what 1 say: when my honourable friend appeals to the House to say whether or not there was a full and complete examination, he ought to be able to answer a question which a member Duts as to whether there was any examination, upon a most vital and important question, namely, whether the books were examined to. see what actually became of those two drafts on New York, as well as of the draft for $250,000 for Seattle. .


John Douglas Hazen: I have read enough of the evidence to satisfy the honourable members of the thoroughness of the investigation that took place and of the absolute unfair- . ness of ithe criticism directed by my honourable friend against the manner in which Judge Davidson conducted the examination. When Judge Davidson's report is received and is laid on the table of the House, as it will !be, if my honourable friend wants to discuss the matter further, there will '.be ample opportunity for him to do so; but 1

think it is a matter to be deplored that a gentleman of the high standing and ability of my honourable friend should have undertaken to cast aspersions upon the professional standing of Mr. Thompson and upon the bona tides of Judge Davidson, before reading the evidence produced before them, and before the report of Judge Davidson is submitted to the country.


William Pugsley: I cast no aspersions
upon the gentleman whom my honourable friend calls Judge Davidson. He is no more Judge Davidson than the Minister of Justice is Judge Doherty, tie has retired from the bench. I cast no reflections upon the Hon. Sir Charles Davidson; but what I said was that there has occurred in this case what will always occur when you have a lawyer upon one side only. Unless you have both interests represented, so that witnesses may be examined and cross-examined, there is apt to be the very gravest possible injustice done, and the commissioner is not responsible for that because he takes the evidence which is presented to him, and in this case he evidently relied solely upon Mr. Thompson who simply represented one side of the case.


John Douglas Hazen: My honourable friend wants the statement to go broadcast throughout the country that there was a lawyer on one side of the case only.


William Pugsley: Yes, there was.


John Douglas Hazen: Mr. Thompson did not
appear before the commission as representing Sir Richard McBride or the Department of Naval Service of this country; Mr. Thompson was there representing the people of this country, just as Sir Charles Davidson was. The provisions of the Inquiries Act-


William Pugsley: He was representing the Conservatives.


John Douglas Hazen: When my honourable
friend says he was representing the Conservatives he is making a statement that is not correct. My honourable friend cannot browbeat the House in that manner. Mr. Thompson was representing the people of this country. Every requirement of the Inquiries Act was complied with by Mr. Justice Davidson and every question that had any bearing upon the matter was asked. The Auditor General of 'Canada, who was here before the commission to protect the treasury of Canada, was asked to go to Victoria and make suggestions; every witness he suggested was examined, and every question he suggested was asked. The inquiry
was thorough and fair, hut 1 do not wish to say anything further about it until we receive Judge Davidson's report. (Now I have been speaking so far with regard to the circumstances connected with the purchase of the submarines and of the attempt made to make the people of this country believe there was something dishonest in connection with the transaction.
I wish now to refer briefly to the other ground of attack, namely, the question of the efficiency of the submarines. I find that on that point evidence was given by Commander Jones, Mr. Paterson, Admiral Story, Commander Hose, of the Rainbow; Engineer-Lieut. Wood, Admiral Kingsmill and Mr. Elihu B. OFrost, vice-president of the Electric Boat Company of New York. The first witness is Commander Jones, who gave this evidence with regard to these boats:
Q. Did you inspect them?-A. I inspected them, yes.
Q. Did any other officer accompany you?- A. The Chief Engineer of dockyards.
Q. Is he in Canada at present?-A. He is in the dockyards now.
Q. Is he available as a witness?-A. Yes.
Q. What is his tame?-A. Engineer-Lieut. Woods.
Q. Did he inspect them with you?-A. He inspected them with me.
Q. Both of them?-A. Yes.
Sir Charles Davidson: Is he of the Royal Navy?
The Witness: He is Royal Canadian Navy' now, he was in the Royal Navy.
By Mr. Thompson K.C.
Q. Did you make a thorough inspection of them?-A. I made a thorough inspection, yes.
Q. After you had brought the submarines to Canada, did you make further tests of them?

A. As soon as we had them we commenced practising with them and training crews.
Sir Charles Davidson: What had been your previous experience?
The Witness: I had been five years in the submarine service at home.
By Mr. Thompson, K.C.
Q. What was the result of your further tests?
__A. The results were that the boats behaved
very well and as far as I remember it was the day following or may be two days after they arrived, one boat was diving outside the harbour training the crew. We started on one boat because it is very difficult to train two crews at the same time.
The instruction staff was limited.


William Pugsley: Would the hon. gentleman state what took place when one of these boats sank to the bottom?


John Douglas Hazen: I will come to that. I have noticed, in many years' experience of the hon. member for the city of St. John, in the legislature or in Parliament, that it is with great difficulty that the hon. gentleman can remain quiet while any one else is

speaking. He has got into the unfortunate habit, if he will allow me to say so, of interrupting one who is trying to present an argument. I continue the citation:
Q. And after the crew was trained, was it placed on the other vessel or how did you arrange about that?-A. I think it was a fortnight after the arrival of the boats that one boat had a complete crew trained, and we proceeded with the training: of the second crew, and at the end of August both boats had complete crews, and we were diving and carrying out exercises daily.
This evidence is somewhat lengthy, and I can not read it all and finish my remarks by six o'clock, as I desire to do. But, generally, Commander Jones states that the boats were efficient and very desirable in every respect.
The next witness was Mr. Paterson, who also told about these boats. Then we have the evidence of Admiral Story. He is an admiral in His Majesty's Navy. He was living in Canada at the time the war broke out, and was appointed by the Naval Service Department of Canada to take charge of naval affairs at Esquimalt. This is his evidence:
Q. I would like you to make a statement as to the efficiency or otherwise of the two submarines purchased by Canada.-A. I consider these two boats as very efficient boats in their way. Since I have been here I have been in touch with the officers in command and they have always expressed themselves as satisfied with the behaviour of the boats. They have been continually at work. When I first came to Canada they went out to sea alternate days and kept to the sea. Since then they have been going out every week for exercise, several days in the week, and this has been going on all the time, except when they were having . their annual refit. On one occasion one of the boats went out to Flattery, early this year. There was a heavy sea on, and the officer that was in charge of the other ship that was with this boat told me that there was a heavy sea on and that the submarine rode the water like a duck, and the officers generally have said that the boats are very handy in every way and compare very favourably with the English boats of the same class.
Q. Do you know whether or not the cost of repairs has been normal or abnormal in the case of these vessels, comparing the cost of repairs with that of similar vessels In the Royal Navy?-A. The amount of repairs has been normal, what would have been expected. They are new boats. They had their annual overhauling and as new boats a certain amount of work would be expected, especially when they were built by people not used to that class of work. There was nothing hut that might be expected.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How long have the submarines been in dock since they were acquired?


John Douglas Hazen: A very short time. One met with a small accident which involved some repairs, and then, of course, every vessel must have its annual overhauling.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How did it meet with an accident?


John Douglas Hazen: That is all given in the evidence. Something was wrong with one of the valves. It was believed that she struck something crossing from Seattle. It was a trifling matter, and soon repaired. Probably the hon. gentleman refers to something that is mentioned here in the evidence :
Q. It was reported that a portion of the side of one of the vessels had been removed for some purpose or other and Lieut. Jones stated that no part of the hull had been removed, but that a part of the superstructure had been removed in order t.o have the hull painted?-A. Yes, that is quite correct. When they were having their annual refit it was found that some of the rivets in the stern tube had to be attended to, replaced, and the only way to get at it was to removed these plates belonging to the superstructure. That is, the part above the cigarshaped hull, but the same plates were put back; you could not get at it without removing them.
Q. Had Number 2 submarine been at sea as much as Number 1?

A. Oh, quite.
Q. And used in the same way in practice and so on?-A Yes, exactly.
Q. And no distinction is made between these two vessels.-A. No distinction whatever* made between the two.
Q. It has been said that the crews are afraid to go to sea in Number 2 submarine, on account of the danger attending cruising or diving in that vessel. What do you say to that, have you heard anything about it?-A. I never heard one single word of any sort or description about it.
Q. Has any complaint been made to you by any of the crews?-A. No.
Q. Or any representations?-A. None. Certainly I should have heard it if It were true.
Q. You would be the first person to whom such reports would he made?-A. Certainly.
There is further evidence about it, but it simply shows that idle reports got abroad for which there is no foundation. No doubt some of these idle reports have reached the ears of members of this House.
Engineer-Lieut. Wood gives evidence as to the efficiency of the vessel. I will give just one answer which is typical of the whole of Engineer Wood's evidence:
Well, I think so, so far as submarines go, they are in every way efficient.
Similar evidence was given by others. And now I come to the evidence of the director of the Naval Service, Vice-Admiral Kingsmill, which I will read in full. This is Admiral Kingsmill's evidence:
Mr. Thompson, ICC.: You will recollect, Ad-mil al, that Canada purchased two submarines

at a cost of $1,150,000 just on the eve of the declaration of war, would you give the Commission your opinion as to the cost of these vessels, considering the conditions under which they were purchased?
Admiral Kingsmill: My opinion of the cost of the vessels was that under the conditions of war it was not an excessive price to pay. It was a price less than that paid by the Admiralty for the same class of vessels, when they paid a heavy premium for them being finished within a certain time, which was much what we were doing in this case. The submarines would have been no use to us two months later. I presume that the price we paid, although it was a very heavy price, was worth it.
Mr. Thompson: What do you say as to the expediency of acquiring those submarines at that time?
Admiral Kingsmill: As a matter of expediency, I consider that the British Columbia Government which had made the purchase, acted promptly and rightly. The fact of these submarines being there, I am perfectly certain in my own mind, saved the city of Victoria, if not the city of Vancouver, from serious damage.
Mr. Thompson: That is on the part of the German Navy?
Admiral Kingsmill: On the part of the German Eastern squadron, which had left Kiau>
Chow almost on the outbreak of the war, and which we know were cruising in the Western Pacific at the time.
Mr. Thompson:	I understand that at the
time these vessels were acquired, an officer named Lieut. Commander Keyes was at Victoria, or arrived there shortly after they were acquired.
Admiral Kingsmill:	Lieutenant-Commander
Keyes was a retired lieutenant-commander in the Royal Navy, who had been an expert in submarines. At the outbreak of .the war, I happened to hear of him being in Toronto in the employ of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and I telegraphed him and he arrived here the same morning, I think, that we received the information that the submarines were being delivered, and he immediately went out. He picked up one or two experts in Toronto, men he had happened to meet, who were ex-service men, and he went out there and gathered a crew and took .the vessels over from the Electric Boat Company, or the vendors -I forget who they were without looking at the file. At all events, he took them over from a Mr. Smith and he tested these vessels. When I arrived in Victoria, some time afterwards, he informed me that the CC-1, that is the first one, was in excellent condition, and quite serviceable. He admitted he would not like .to say the same about the other one without having her docked, as there was some leak somewhere that he could not detect. So the vessel was docked and it was found that she had struck something and that there was a slight leak which prevented her from maintaining her buoyancy, but otherwise the vessel was in excellent condition, and both of them were efficient. I may say that from that day they have continued ordinary work, out for practice, firing torpedoes, submerged and on the surface. With the exception of minor defects and one or two accidents they have had, there has been nothing to complain of in the vessels at all.
Mr. Thompson: My recollection is that Commander Jones is now in command of these two submarines.
Admiral Kingsmill:	Lieutenant-Commander
Jones, after the Scharnhorst and Emden had been sunk, Mr. Keyes returned to the Admiralty and subsequently served in the Dardanelles.
Mr. Thompson: I understand from the evidence of Commander Keyes that the defect which existed in one of the vessels that was brought across from Seattle was in one of the valves not being properly seated; would that be caused by an accident, such as you spoke of, before they were acquired?	_
Admiral Kingsmill: It might have been caused by the vessel striking some submerged object.
Mr. Thompson: I understood from Commander Jones that that was a, very minor defect.
Admiral Kingsmill: All the defects have been minor; there Was no serious defect at all.
Mr. Thompson:	After .these defects were
remedied, was submarine No. 2 as efficient as submarine No. 1?
Admiral Kingsmill: Yes, quite.
Mr. Thompson: What are the qualifications of Commander Keyes to make a report on such vessels?
Admiral Kingsmill: Commander Keyes happened to be a-man who had served in all of our earlier submarines and had been out in all their tests. I asked him, when he came to Ottawa: " Do you happen to know anything about submarines?" I did not send for him because he knew anything about submarines, but because he was an ex-naval officer. He said: " I happen to know a great deal about them ; I was out on the tests for buoyancy and stability in nearly all of the A class." When I heard this I suggested that he should, go to Victoria, which he did. His reputation as an expert is very high.
Mr. Thompson:	Is he in the service at
present?
Admiral Kingsmill: He is in the service at present, and lately has been honoured for good work at the Dardanelles.
Mr. Thompson: What do you say as to the' efficiency of these vessels as compared with vessels of a similar class in the British Navy at the present .time?
Admiral Kingsmill: From all the information we can ge.t, and from Keyes' own report, he says they are quite on a par with anything they have.
Sir Charles Davidson : What as to buoyancy?
Admiral Kingsmill: That I could not remember without the files ; that is a technical question that I did not know I was going to be asked.
Sir Charles Davidson:	The Chilians made
that a ground of rescilliating the contract.
I think rescinding is what is meant.
The boat company rather suggest that the Chilians did not want to continue the bargain for another reason, and I would like, if possible, to know what your official opinion is.
Admiral Kingsmill:	As to their buoyancy?
Sir Charles Davidson: Yes.
Admiral Kingsmill:	The submarines are
efficient in every way. They are continually out and diving and firing their torpedoes. The statement that there was anything wrong with their buoyancy or anything wrong with them in any other way is absolutely false, because from the very day that Keyes got hold of them he went out. In my presence in Victoria these submarines have gone out and submerged and done their work and come back again.
Mr. Thompson:	Were ever any complaints
made in any way that there was a lack of buoyancy in .these vessels?


William Pugsley: Does he say what the
length of the submarines was?


John Douglas Hazen: Similar boats, he says.


William Pugsley: I understood that they
were larger boats. They were built in a shipyard at Massachusetts.


John Douglas Hazen: They were assembled at
Montreal.


William Pugsley: Ten were built at the
Fore River Shipyards, and then assembled at Montreal. I understood that they were larger boats, but I may be mistaken.


John Douglas Hazen: These boats were built at
the Vickers-Maxim works in Montreal; when I say " built," my hon. friend knbws what I mean. The material that entered into their construction came from the Fore River Shipbuilding Company, and, I think, the Union Iron Company of San Francisco. The parts were assembled at Montreal. It was in respect of this contract that Admiral Kingsmill says the British Government paid more than $572,000 a boat.


William Pugsley: It is said that one of
the submarines assembled at the Vickers-Maxim works in Montreal is the submarine that sank a large German cruiser in the' sea of Marmora. Can my hon. friend give me any information on that subject?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know whether or not that is the case, but I have been informed that these submarines have done excellent work.


William Pugsley: It is a pity that Canada did not turn out more of them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it a fact that the
Vickers-Maxim people employed about 1,000 people in the construction of these submarines?


John Douglas Hazen: They employed a good
many people; I do not know how many. Admiral Kingsmill's evidence continues:
Mr. Thompson: The premium would be in addition to the $572,000?
Mr. Thompson:	The premium would he in
addition to the $572,000?
Admiral Kingsmill: The premium and the cost of building, which Vickers charged, is more than $572,000. I only know there was a premium because Mr. Tynan, the representative of the company who were building at Vickers, told me so.

Sir Charles Davidson: What is the character
of the premiums concerning- which you have spoken?
Admiral Kingsmill: It is a premium if the vessels were built within a certain time.
He is asked to state the extent and so on, and he says he cannot. I think there is nothing further in the evidence.


William Pugsley: Did Sir Charles Davidson ask any of these experts what was the actual weight of the supplies? I would like to know what weight of supplies these ships could carry.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not see that question here.


William Pugsley: A vessel ought to carry some supplies. If it did not I would regard it as defective.


Mr. MURPHY:: 
John Douglas Hazen: I suppose that is what he means. He says that the boat is absolutely satisfactory, but he means that he could not give scientific and technical data without reference to the files.


Charles Marcil: I wish to ask the minister just one question.


John Douglas Hazen: I am beginning to think that I am on the witness stand, being cross-examined by hon. gentlemen opposite.


William Pugsley: It is all very interesting, this question of the submarines, and I think it is a pity that the Government have not seen fit to give us more information.


John Douglas Hazen: The evidence of Mr. Frost, Vice-President of the Electric Boat Company, wa3 taken at New York. He says:
To my knowledge the boats were very effective and efficient boats.
I think the evidence I have quoted must .satisfy any one whose mind is open to be satisfied of three facts? First, that the transaction was honestly conducted and [DOT]honestly carried out, and that there was no foundation or justification for the charges made with regard to Sir Richard McBride or the people who had to do with the transaction. Second, that the boats were efficient. The evidence of all the experts, Admiral Storey, Commander Keyes, Admiral Kingsmill, and others all goes to show that. Third, the evidence of Admiral Kingsmill goes to show that the boats, bought as they
were in a hurry, were bought at a price not as large as the price that the British Government subsequently paid for submarines of similar type. Wihen the report of Sir Charles Davidson is laid upon the Table, and when we have an opportunity to read Sir Charles's summary of the evidence, we will have an opportunity for further discussion if my hon. friends care to pursue the subject further.
The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) referred to another matter of great importance, that is, the pensions paid to Canadian soldiers. I have in my hand two tables, one showing comparative rates for pensions for totally disabled soldiers, the other, comparative rates for widows of officers and men killed on active service. This is not the first time the matter has been referred to in the House. I turn to Hansard of last year, March 24, 1915, and I find that on that day Sir Robert Borden laid on the table of the House -the draft Order in Council that had been prepared containing an amended scale of pensions. He said:
It is very desirable that the House should be made acquainted with what we propose and that an opportunity should be given for discussion, if desired. Therefore, I shall lay upon the table of the House a copy of the proposed Order in Council. It has not yet been passed, and will not be passed until the House has had an opportunity of making suggestions and expressing an opinion upon it.
That was three weeks before the prorogation of Parliament. The matter of pensions was referred to only once afterwards in this House, at page 1450 of Hansard, when my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) who sits beside the right hon. leader of the Opposition asked the question, when the Minister of Militia was making a statement on some other .subject:	,
Will the .pensions be paid according: to the rank which the men held in the militia of Canada or according to the rank in which they have been serving in the war?
There was some little discussion on that point, and that is the only time it was referred to. The Order providing for the pensions was on the Table of the House for three weeks, open and available to every member of the House, and1 no discussion took place in regard to the rates to be provided. That, however, is no reason for not discussing it now. It is a perfectly proper subject for discussion, and I -think the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) is within the bounds of legitimate and proper discussion in bringing this matter to the attention of the House, because it is one

*which, for my part, I would be very sorry indeed to have regarded from a party standpoint. I wish, however, to give a few facts to the House and then, if the House will permit me, I shall ask permission to have the tables which I hold in my hand inserted in Hansard. It wonld take a very long time to read them and they would hardly be grasped by the members. I shall give a few figures first. In Canada the unmarried soldier who is totally disabled is paid $264 per annum. I am speaking now of private soldiers. In Australia he is paid $253 and in Great Britain $316. Thus, in Great Britain, the unmarried soldier who is totally disabled gets more than in Canada and' still more than in Australia. But in Great Britain no provision is made for extra pension if the man is married; while in Canada if a man is married his pension becomes $396, in Australia $380, and in Great Britain $316; in Britain it is just the same as he would receive if he is a bachelor. The pension paid to a soldier who has a wife and one child is, in Canada $456, in Australia $443, and in Great Britain $348; a wife and two children, in Canada $516, in Australia $506, in Great Britain, $380; a wife and three children, in Canada $576, in Australia $569, and in Great Britain $412. If he has a Iwife and four children he receives in Canada $636, in Australia $633, and in Great Britain $444.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would the minister tell us the difference between the amounts paid to officers in the two countries?


John Douglas Hazen: In Canada a lieutenant who is unmarried would get $482, in Australia $443, and in Great Britain $700. The higher officers get larger sums in Great Britain, in proportion, than they do in Canada and Australia. A lieutenant with a wife and one child, in Canada gets $774, in Australia $727. With a wife and four children, a lieutenant [jets $990 in Canada1, and $917 in Australia. *	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What about Great Britain?


John Douglas Hazen: As far as I can tell, the pension there does not increase on account

of his being married. I have a note saying:
In addition he receives a gratuity of one year's pension the first year.
That is in Great Britain. I am not clear about the state of affairs in the United States, but I think their pension there, for total disability, is higher. It is lower in other respects. In the United States, as far as I can learn, there is no fixed amount covering the term total disability, as the rate varies according to the form of disability, without regard to rank. I see it is $400 a year for total deafness and it runs up to $1,200 a year for the loss of the sight of both eyes. It is fixed according to the nature of the injury, without generally saying total disability, and for total disability I should say that in the United States a larger amount is paid than in Australia, Great Britain, or Canada.


Mr. OLIVER:: Is that $1,200 to a private .
soldier?


John Douglas Hazen: I think it is. I am told
that there is no distinction as regards rank in the United States. However, we want to obtain further information on that point.
Now, I come to the question of the rates paid to the widows of officers and men who were actually killed. In Canada, the widow of a private without any children, under the pension scheme laid on the table, would get $264. The widow of a private in Australia would get $253.


Charles Marcil: That is, so long as she
remains unmarried.


John Douglas Hazen: In Britain she would get
$126, .and in the United States $144 or $120 less than the widow in Canada. In Canada the widow with one child would get $324, in Australia $316, in Great Britain $189, and in the United States $168. The widow with four children in Canada would get $504, in Australia $504, in Great Britain $283, and in the United States $240, and so on. I will place these tables upon Hansard so that hon. members may have an opportunity to study them for themselves.



TABLE I.

[Stage Direction]
Comparative Rates of Pensions for totally disabled Soldiers, Active Service.
Rank?	-	Unmar- ried Soldier.	Married Soldier and wife.	Soldier Wife and 1 Child.	Soldier Wife and 2 Children.	Soldier Wife and 3 Children.	Soldier Wife and 4 Children.	Remarks.$	$	s	$	$	$	Rank and File (i. e., Corporals and	Canada	264 00	396 00	450 00	516 00	576 00	634 00	Rates may be increased ^ if constantPrivates).	services of an attendant are required.Australia	253 00	380 00	443 00	506 00	569 00	633 00	British	316 00	316 00	348 00	380 00	412 00	444 00	*	United States	There is no fixed amount to cover term of	" total disability ", as	rates vary according to form of disability, without regard to	rank, viz ; from $480.00 a year for total deafness, up to $1,200	a year for loss of sight of both eyes.	336 00	504 00	564 00	624 00	684 00	744 00	Australia	340 00	496 00	560 00	623 00	701 00	764 00	British	366 00	366 00	398 00	430 00	462 00	494 00	480 00	672 00	732 00	792 00	852 00	912 00	Australia	377 00	566 00	630 00	693 00	756 00	818 00	British	506 00	506 00	538 00	570 00	602 00	634 00	Lieutenant	-	Canada	482 00	702 00	774 00	Australia	443 00	064 00	727 00	846 00	918 00	990 00	British	700 00	791 00	854 00	917 00	In addition receives a gratuity of oneyear's pension the first year.Captain	Canada 	720 00	990 00	1,074 00	1,158 00	1,242 00	1,326 00	Australia	492 00	737 00	800 00	864 00	927 00	990 00	British	1,000 00	In addition receives a gratuity of 1 yr'spension the 1st year.Major	Canada	960 00	1,260 00	1,356 00	1,452 00	1,548 00	1,644 00	Australia	565 00	847 00	910 00	973 00	1,0.37 00	1,100 00	2,000 00	In addition leceives a gratuity of 1 yr'spension the 1st year.Lieut-Colonel	Canada . 	1,200 00	1.560 00	1,680 00	1,800 00	1,920 00	2,040 00	638 00	9*6 00	1,019 00	1,083 00	1.146 00	1,200 00	3,000 00	In addition receives a gratuity of 1 yr'spension the 1st year.
{Mr. Hazen.]

[Stage Direction]
Comparative rates of Pensions for Widows of Officers and Men killed on Active Service.
£
Rank of Husband.	-	Widow without Children.
		s
		2fi4 00
	Australia			253 00
	British		126 00
	United States		144 00
Sergeant 			330 00
	Australia		340 00
	British		 		138 00
Warrant Officer.				384 00
	Australia 	 		377 00
	British			175 00
Lieutenant			444 00
	Australia		443 00
	British 		400 00
Captain			540 00
	Australia		492 00
	British 		500 00
Major			600 00
	Australia		565 00
	British 		700 00
Lieut-Colonel			720 00
	Australia			638 00
	British		900 00
With one Child.	With two Children.	With 3 Children.	With 4 Children.	Remarks.$ 324 00	$ 384 00	$ [DOT] 444 00	$ 504 00	Receives also a gratuity equivalent to316 00	379 00	442 00	504 00	two months' Pension in the first year.189 00	233 00	258 00	283 00	Pensions vary according to age; on168 00	192 00	216 00	240 00	attaining to 35 increase of $30.00, and a further $30.00 at 45.396 00	456 00	516 00	576 00	403 Q0	466 09	529 00	692 00	201 00	245 00	270 00	295 00	Increase on attaining 35 years and444 00	504 00	564 00	624 00	again at 45.440 00	503 00	566 00	629 00	238 00	282 00	307 00	332 00	Increase on w idow attaining 35 years516 00	588 00	660 00	732 00	and again at 45.506 00	569 00	632 00	695 00	475 00	550 00	625 06	700 00	624 00	708 00	r92 00	876 00	555 00	618 00	681 00	774 00	590 00	680 00	770 00	860 00	096 00	792 00	888 00	984 00	628 00	691 00	751 00	817 00	805 00	910 00	1,015 00	1,120 00	840 00	960 00	1,080 00	1,200 00	701 00	764 00	827 00	890 00	1,020 00	1,140 00	1,260 00	1,380 00
[Stage Direction]
There is one important point which requires consideration. If any one looks over the casualty lists of the Canadian forces, especially those of the spring and early summer, he will find that in a great many cases the next of kin of the men who went from Canada, and who were killed, were residents of the British Isles, so that the pensions we pay will go to people who live in Great Britain, to the children, widows, or mothers, as the case may be. That is going to give rise to this state of affairs, that the next of kin of the soldiers who have gone to fight from Canada and who have been killed, living in Great Britain will get pensions very considerably . higher than those paid to the next of kin of British soldiers who live in Canada or Great Britain. I think that is a matter worthy of some consideration.
The new scheme of pensions was drawn up by a committee of the Militia Council in consultation with a subcommittee of the Privy Council who had before them the scales of pensions paid in other countries. The pensions for totally disabled soldiers are based, to a very large extent, on those introduced by the Parliament of Australia. In the case of totally disabled soldiers, it will be noted that the Canadian rates are slightly higher than the Australian rates, and considerably higher than the British rates. In the United States there are a number of rates for different classes of disability, and these are awarded without any regard to the rank of the individual, with the consequent result that the rates for disability of soldiers is much higher than in any other country; but it should be noted that special provision exists in the Canadian scale by which the pension may be increased by one-third if the soldier requires the constant services of an attendant.
As regards officers-in the case of those who are single-my summing up is that the Canadian rates are -higher than the Australian rates, but considerably lower than the British rates. The Canadian rates for the widows-of soldiers are almost exactly the same -as those recently provided in the Australian Act, and they are practically double the amounts authorized for the widows of British soldiers, although in Great Britain the rates have been materially increased since the outbreak of waT. The rates allowed to widows of soldiers of the United States -are considerably lower than the Canadian rates. As regards officers the Canadian rates for
widows of lieutenants -and captains are almost exactly the -same in Canada, Australia, -and Great Britain, with the advantage slightly in favour of Canada. As regards officers of -higher rank, majors and lieutenant-colonels, the Canadian rates are higher than the Australian, hut l-ess than the British. In both Canada an-d Great Britain on the widow re-marrying, a gratuity equivalent to two years pension is granted on re-marriage taking place.^ The only other point worth mentioning is that in Great Britain an increase o-f pension of $30 a year is given to a soldier's widow on attaining the age of 35 years, and another increase of $30 on attaining the age of 45 years, but even with this increase the rates do not come up to the Canadian rates.
This, as I said, is a proper -subject for discussion in the House, -and the Government will welcome the discussion of it and any suggestions that may be made. * I do not think there is a m-an in this House who would attempt to make political capital out of the question of pensions. We are all striving to provide a -pension rate that will be fair to the brave men who are going forward to the front to fight the battles of Canada and of the Empire.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit me to transgress a little -and prolong my remarks beyond six o'clock. There are one or two other -matters with which I would like to deal, an-d I think my remarks would come sooner to an end if I were -allowed to continue before the adjournment for dinner. My bon. friend the -member for St. Jo-hn (Mr. Pugsley) made certain references to the extension of the term of Parliament. My hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) -also referred to it. He h-a-s always been a -stout upholder of the Constitution of this country, -and I -have always respected his opinions on matters of this sort, for I know him to be sincere. He pratically t-ol-d us he -had an open mind on the subject and that although he was always prepared to stand behind the Constitution he might vote in favour of an extension. My hon. friend from St. John, however, has discovered that the question is -a most serious one, that we have to interfere with the British North America Act, and th-at that i-s -a -most serious thing to contemplate. Ye-t, it is no more s-eriou-s now than it was on 15th September last, and on the 15th day of September last my hon. friend from St. John knew as well as when he delivered his speech on the Address that, if there was to he an extension
[Stage Direction]
of the term of Parliament, there would have to be an amendment to the British North America Act, because without legislation by the Imperial Parliament this Parliament has not the -power to extend its term. I find that on the 15th September last my hon. friend from St. John, in the city of Winnipeg, declared to a reporter of the Free Press:
The present circumstances are so grave from the standpoint of Canada and the Empire that it would be deplorable in my opinion to have the people divided upon party questions. -
Another of the reasons why X favour putting off an election until after the war is because X think it would be a great pity to hold one just when the energies of all the people of Canada, and especially the members of the Government who are primarily charged with the duty of attending to the recruiting and equipment of the soldiers should be devoted to this one end.
Why this sudden change? Why is he so impressed with the importance of the matter now when he was not so impressed with it in September. It may be due to the - fact that in September last the Government was supposed to be contemplating an election, and my hon. friend thought he would put himself 'squarely against such a proposal as something opposed to the best interests of the country. But now, when the Government comes to Parliament and asks for an extension of the term, my hon. friend must again be against the Government -and so he is deeply impressed with the importance of the question, an importance which ihe did not see in September when -he was interviewed by the Winnipeg Free Press.
But my hon. friend from St. John was not alone in making such -a statement. My hon. friend from Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) whose criticisms, -as I said before, are always moderate, and none -the less effective because of their moderation, also placed himself squarely on record as opposed to an election during the period of the war. Then my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) -has practically -said the same thing in speeches he has made and in interviews he has had throughout the country. I might refer to the -address he gave in the House of Commons on 19th of August when he said:
Speaking for those who sit around me, speaking for the wide constituencies which we represent in this House, I hasten to say that to ail these measures we are prepared to give immediate assent. If in what has been done or in what remains to be done there may be anything which in our judgment should not he done or should be differently done, we raise

no question, we take no exception, we offer no criticism and we shall offer no criticism so long as there is danger at the front.
Then the righ-t hon. gentleman in a speech delivered at the Montreal Beform Club on December 12, 1914, declared that:
As soon as war was declared we thought it was part of the duty we owed, not only to our policy, but also to our country, to lay down for the time being, all party discussion, and to give our whole thought and energy to the new problems which were brought by the war, and not in any way embarrass the Government, but on the contrary to facilitate its duty which this new situation created for the Government.
At the present time the only thing we have to think of is to finish the war, and to adjourn to a future date those domestic problems which will have to be taken up later.
The war is still on. Upon the policy introduced by the Government to discharge the duties we owe to the Mother Country, we have taken no issue with the Government. We have supported their policy, and therefore there is no cause for an appeal to the country.
I am as strong a party man as there is in Canada, but at the present time I overlook all my connection as a party man, simply to remember the duty which I owe to the Mother Country, England, and I must add to France also, the land of my ancestors.
The hon. member for Pietou, N.S., (Mr. Macdonald) was interviewed by the Toronto Star on September 17, on which occasion he made this statement:
An election while the struggle is raging for liberty and humanity would be a crime. An election during the war would divide the Dominion ; there should be no election during the war.
The Toronto Globe on September 6, 1915, said:
If the war is still in progress.... Liberals will be just as keen to postpone a general election as Conservatives. Election talk should cease. It distracts attention from the greatest work Canadian statesmen and the Canadian people have had to do since Confederation.
On October 20 the Toronto Globe said:
, To secure an absolute insurance against partisan strife in our national political arena there must be an agreement for the extension of the Parliamentary term until a period some time after the close of the war.
The Toronto Star, on September 9, said:
We do not want an election now, or during the war.
The Star again says:
As there is a general agreement of opinion that there should be no election during the war there should he no difficulty in making the arrangement referred to (extension of parliamentary term). It would be an advantage, not only to have the election deferred until after the war, but to put an end to the nuisance of periodical election rumors.

The Winnipeg Free Press of August 23, 1915:
A bitter party election in Canada would be a deplorable diversion of national energy.
The Chronicle, Halifax, April 12, 1915:
We need not pause to remark that election day should not come until the war is over. Every decent-minded Canadian, regardless of party, knows and admits that.
In the Chronicle of September 13 and also of September 16 a similar opinion is expressed. The Recorder, Brockville, says:
Both parties in Great Britain have agreed that there will be no election until after the war is over. From Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and every other outlying part of the Empire come similar announcements. Canada alone talks of a party conflict at a time when [DOT] none should be for party, but all be for the state.' This country would present a fine spectacle to the Empire, and to the rest of the world, if an acrimonious conflict should held while the Empire is fighting for its very existence.
The Herald of Montreal, in December last, put the case against an election very strongly and the Free Press, Ottawa, on May'll, said that at the next session Sir Robert Borden should introduce enabling legislation extending the life of Parliament. The Ottawa Citizen on April 14, said that it did not believe that the people of either party wish a general election and the Times of St. John, N.B., the particular supporter of my hon. friend from St. John, says:
All that Sir Robert Borden needs to do is to announce that there will be no election until after the war.
Yet, in spite of his own previous declarations, in spite of all these pronouncements by prominent men in the Liberal party and their leading journals, my hon. friend has discovered that it is a very serious thing to taut about amending the British North America Act so as to provide for the extension of the parliamentary term.
The hon. member for Richmond, N.S., (Mr. Kyte) spoke the other night about the evidences of patronage in connection with shell matters in Cape Breton and more particularly in connection with the appointment of inspectors. My hon. friend stated that nobody could be appointed as an inspector unless he had a recommendation from the Borden Club or some other political organization there. I am not quoting my hon. friend's exact words but that was the effect of them. What are the facts, as I am informed? I am informed that the chief inspector of the district of Cane Breton is Mr. A. E. Strubel, whose appointment did not come through the Borden Club, or any Conservative candidate, or any political pull of any kind whatsoever. He had been the chief inspector for the Canadian Inspection Bureau, which is the bureau that inspected shells that were manufactured under the direction of the Shell Committee, or of the Imperial Munitions Board. He had been chief inspector for the Canadian ' Inspection Bureau before the Government inspection service wa3 organized and he continued the work under the new arrangement. 1 am informed by my correspondent that he does not believe that there are a dozen persons on either side of politics in Cape Breton county who know on what side of politics Mr. Strubel is, and as far as anybody knows he has never yet cast a vote in a Dominion or provincial election in this country. The inspector who stands next to Mr. Strubel, I am informed, in the matter of salary received, is Mr. D. E. Ross, a Liberal in politics, secretary of the Sydney Fielding Club, and son of Mr. A. C. Ross, formerly the Liberal member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. Another inspector is Mr. Wells Woodill, who is a Liberal, whose father was a Liberal, and all of whose brothers and immediate relatives belong to the Liberal party. For the appointments which have been made during the past six months, I am told, Mr. Strubel gives the assurance that he himself is personally responsible. Naturally he has received letters of solicitation from politicians, but he has never been influenced by them. Some time ago he wrote to a gentleman who had urged an appointment for political reasons, advising him that all appointments would be made on merit, and that preference would be given to Canadian wounded soldiers who had returned from the front. I am told that there are at present six inspectors under Mr. Strubel, three Liberals and three Conservatives. Mr. Strubel, I am informed, is not in any sense a political partisan or connected with any political organization in any way. The statements made by my hon. friend from Richmond are wide of the mark, and he must have received inaccurate information in regard to the matter.
Mr. McKENZIE:: Who is my hon. friend's authority?


John Douglas Hazen: I have not the right to give the authority now, but I will see if I may be permitted to do it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I might suggest to my hon. friend that if any question be raised as to why Mr. Ross had received his

appointment, the answer would be that it was because his father had renounced the religion of his fathers.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know anything about that. I am simply giving the House the information I have received.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am giving my hon.
friend the correct information.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know Mr. Ross, but I come to the conclusion, from the hon. gentleman's remarks, that Mr. Ross must be a very sensible man. I must trespass no further upon the time of the
6 p.m. House, which I have already occupied too long. When I addressed the Canadian Club at Boston a few months ago, I pointed out that after the war is over there will, no doubt, come a period of reconstruction for Canada, as for all the other countries engaged in the conflict, which will be followed, I believe, by an era of tremendous expansion, so far as our Dominion is concerned, caused by an immense influx of population, attracted to our country by its fertile lands, its moderate taxes, its democratic institutions, and the opportunities which it affords to every man within its borders of acquiring for himself a happy home, and of winning position and distinction if his talents and character entitle him to do so. We have no doubt in Canada of what the ultimate result of the war will be. While no man can foretell its duration, we conscientiously believe that our cause is just, and that there is an unflinching determination to make it triumphant. In the language of Sir Robert Borden, any reverses that have come or may come in the future will only inspire us with deeper courage and a greater determination.
All that our fathers fought for and achieved, all that we have inherited and accomplished, our institutions, our liberties, our destiny as a nation, the existence of our Empire, are all at stake in this contest, and we are confident that the resolution, the determination, the self-reliance, and the resourcefulness that have never failed Canada irr the stress and trials of the past will assuredly not fail her now.
Since Parliament prorogued in April last we have had some disappointments, and events have not moved so rapidly and favourably as we then believed they would, but the spirit of the Allies of Canada and of the Empire is undiminished, and there is an even greater and more serious determination than existed months ago to bring

the war to a successful close. Recruiting in Canada has proceeded satisfactorily, and in Great Britain political difficulties that at one time seemed threatening and serious have largely disappeared. No matter how long the war may last, or how serious the sacrifices, personal and national, that must be made, and which Canadians, in common with the inhabitants of other portions of the Empire, are fully prepared to undergo, we will always remember that:
Freedom's battle once begun,
Bequeathed from bleeding sire to son, Though baffled oft, is ever won.
It is freedom's battle that is now being waged, and the Canadians in the battle line are fighting for freedom's sacred cause.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth session of this Parliament and the third session since the v war began, and I think it might not be out of place, in speaking to the Address in this third war session to recall briefly the changing events, so far as Parliament is concerned, since August 1914. We all remember that, like a bolt from the blue, the news of conflict came, and the representatives' of Canada in Parliament, called suddenly together, came here to take counsel as to what our attitude was to be in a war, the extent and consequence of which we had then but little knowledge. With one accord, disregarding party lines and previous political disputes this Parliament voted to give all that was necessary in the way of money, and of men in the field to help the Empire. There came a period of doubt and suspense when throughout this land as well as throughout the whole of the English-speaking world, there were discussions as to the effect of this White Paper, and that Yellow Paper, and as to which nation was responsible for the initiation of the war. These discussions, without any marked event, attracted a great deal of attention until we met about one year ago. And even then,
I think it will be conceded, that honourable members of this House as a body were not impressed with the deep consequences of this mighty struggle.
We came through that session with a shadow overhanging us, yet we were not given up wholly and exclusively to the contemplation of what our duties and our rights were in the circumstances. Honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House claimed our attention for some time

with what I think will be recognized to-day to have been a rather singular measure in view of the peculiar world situation, a proposition that we should send to Flanders- [DOT]and, as it would appear now, to the Dardanelles also-ito take the votes of the boys who had gone out to fight for liberty. That proposition	was	seriously discussed one year ago.	In the light
of events since then, I think it will be conceded that that proposal and that discussion seem very singular indeed. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) told us that the country was demanding in thunder tones some remedy for the alleged evils arising from the decisions of the other branch of this Parliament. I do not believe that the people weie demanding this in .any kind of tones, to say nothing of thunder tones; but I cite these facts to establish the truth of what I say, that we in Parliament last year hardly realized the position in which' the whole world and our own nation stood in relation to this great conflict.
Since that time there has 'been, I am sure every one will concede, a great and marvellous change not only in the feelings of the majority of members of this House but in the feelings and sentiments of the whole Canadian people. We had hardly reached our homes when we were shocked by the news that the German nation had violated every rule of the code which is supposed to guide the relations of belligerents and had sent to the bottom of the ocean hundreds of people in the steamer Lusitania. Then came the woid of the disaster at St. Julien and LangemaTck, when the Canadian boys for the first time felt the stress of conflict, and which cast a shadow of sorrow upon many a home in this land. Then came the after results, the splendid position maintained by our sons at Ypres, where, it is now conceded not only by Canadians but by the sons of Empire everywhere, the bravery, intellli-gence and capacity of our Canadian boys prevented the Germans from coming through to Calais. In the intervening days there has been this stTange, peculiar association of Germany with the Balkan principalities and Turkey, the outcome of the immense ambition of this man who rules the German nation, this personality actuated by the lust for world-wide power, bringing home to us the dangers and seriousness of this war in a measure in which they had never come to us before. Hence it was that from all portions of this land
our boys have gone forth to the conflict, animated with the highest ideals. Here in this House there are vacant chairs of members who have gone to the conflict, while all around us are men whose sons are at the front or are preparing to go at the earliest opportunity. And into the homes of many of our people has come the sorrow for the one who will never return, and there are returning to us the maimed and the blind whom it will he our duty to maintain and provide for in the future.
So, we have met this year under conditions different from any that have characterized the opening of any session of Parliament in the history of our country and,
I believe, under a deeper sense of our duty than we have ever had before. I think the majority of us are animated with the desire in our deliberations to correct the mistakes of the past and to correct them in the full light of day. If this is done it should not call forth complaint or criticism from those who may be responsible for those mistakes. I believe that we desire to provide those things and take those steps which our duty calls for, and, so far as we can look into the future and provide not only for the soldier boys who shall return, but also for the people who shall live in this country happy and prosperous .under the benign rule of the great nation to which we belong. Looking over the history of the year, we, the representatives of a free people, may express ourselves in an adaptation of Lincoln's immortal words: "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that, under God, this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, for the people, and by the people shall not perish from the earth."
With these feelings I approach the consideration of the questions that come before us as representatives of a free people at this time. And I say again, that* if there have beqn mistakes in the past, let us frankly ascertain and correct them; if there are abuses, let them be righted, and let us prepare with all sincerity for our future.	.
Shortly before the New Year the Prime Minister announced that, in addition to the 250,000 men who have already been called to the colours, 250,000 men are to be called and' are to form a quota of Canada's contribution. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that according to the census returns oi 1911 there are, or were at that time, only 1,537,581 men in Canada between the ages

of 20 and 45. That means that if we are to get the 500,000 men, we must take one man out of every three. Without conscription you can get those men only by living up to the highest ideals; you can get them only by impressing them with the fact that the consequences of this conflict are so great that this Government and this Parliament are willing to throw aside the considerations which in the past have furnished ground for complaint and for proper investigation, on the part not only of the Opposition, but also of Parliament as a whole and of the people at large. If hon. gentlemen opposite fall short of this ideal; if they are not guided in every respect by the highest motives, how can they expect one man out of every three in this country to come forward and fight? They need not expect them; they will not come.
The other day the Solicitor General, referring to the hon. member for St. John city, said that he " isolated " him from the other members of the House. Language of that kind from any member of the Government is entirely out of place. If the freedom for which our boys are going out to fight and to die is a really valuable thing, then here where we have freedom we must maintain it. And if hon. gentlemen, speaking as representatives of the free people of this country in the debate, on the Address- where they get an opportunity of pointing out their grievances and asking for redress -aTe to be told that they shall be isolated because they give expression to that which is heard on the streets, read in our newspapers, spoken by supporters of the Government; if, I say, they are to be told that they shall be isolated, I for one protest most emphatically.
I noticed in the Conservative papers that the hon. Solicitor General was stated to have referred to the remarks of the hon. member for St. John City as being along the line, of treachery. I find on looking at Hansard that the Solicitor General did not go that far, and that his remarks were misinterpreted by the press. But the hon. Solicitor General must not be so sensitive of criticism. If this Government will conduct the affairs of the country fairly and honestly, along proper lines, and with the highest ideals in view, they will receive from the Opposition the utmost possible consideration at this time. If, on the other hand, they disregard these ideals; if they sink to lower levels; if they are guilty of mistakes or acts of malfeasance, they may expect criticism; they 
will receive it, and have no right to complain because of it. No government in any British country has a right to set itself up as a body which ought not to be criticised. Just as we object to the domination of the German autocracy, so do we object to the Government's declaring itself to be above the people. We want no kaisers in this country; we want no field marshalls and no crown princes to say that .hon. gentlemen on this side are guilty of lese, majeste if they criticise the Government. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House realize to the full the tremendous importance to the Empire of the present situation. Let hon. gentlemen on the other side, many of whom realize the seriousness of the situation to the fullest extent, remember that they are the representatives of a democracy, and that that democracy must have its fullest expression in this Parliament, as it should in every other parliament over which the British flag flies.
My hon. friends opposite complain of criticism. Let me suggest to them a very ready way of relieving themselves of a great deal of criticism. Let them abolish the patronage system in the Militia Department in regard to war expenditures; for it is the case that only a Conservative can sell supplies to the Militia Department. The people of this country will find their ideals rudely shattered if that continues to be the practice of hon. gentlemen opposite. After all, a time will come when these men who have the patronage will not be able to expect from other men, actuated by the highest ideals, the highest form of sacrifice in this war. My hon. friends, who are so very sensitive to criticism, can settle that difficulty by simply declaring that they will do as is done in Great Britain; that they will tell the party heelers and the men who want to control the distribution of favours in this, that, or the other constituency, that the nation is in too serious a position for them to potter with dealings of (that kind. Let hon. gentlemen opposite take this opportunity of doing away with that system for ever in Canada. My hon. friends maintain a list in the Militia Department. If, as is the case in my county, no medical man who is not a Tory doctor may examine a recruit who desires to go to the war, I want to know what kind of idealism you are going to have from the Liberal doctors in that and the other Liberal constituencies in Canada.
JANTJAttY 24, 1916
*221


Mr. DUGALD STEWART:: There is
nothing in that statement.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why is it that my
hon. friend, who is supposed to be a major in the medical corps, is not down earning his money in Nova Scotia and attending to his business? I want to tell him that I know more about the county of Pictou than he does. I want to tell him that I can give him an instance where men who were supposed by Conservative medical men to be not satisfactory to the gentleman who has the patronage in my constituency were prevented from . examining and reporting upon recruits who wanted to go to the war; that the reports were not received, and that the applicants were compelled to go to a man who was named by the man who had the patronage. My hon. friend, who is a major in the army medical corps in Nova Scotia, should correct that abuse. There is no reason why any duly authenticated medical practitioner in this country, no matter what his politics may be, should not, at first hand, be permitted to certify as to the physical qualifications of the men who want to go and fight. I mention that merely to indicate to my hon. friends that I make this statement on my responsibility as a member of the House, knowing the circumstances as they exist in my county- and having a son who is preparing to go to the front. Will it be said-it is just as well to be clear on this point-that anyone was guilty of treachery or lese majeste last winter when we discussed the question as to _ the wisdom of taking $75,000 out of the Militia Department and giving it to Mr. Foster of Kings to spend in buying horses. Was it improper that that matter should have been investigated? My hon. friend the Minister of Finance should see to it that no department of this Government permits seventy-five thousand dollars or seventy-five thousand cents to be paid out in the way in which that $75,000 was paid out.
The fact that $75,000 can 'be taken out of the treasury of a department of this Government and given to any man to spend carte blanche is not sound and proper administration and the Minister of Finance knows it.
That brings me to the consideration of the matter which was brought up by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley). And let me say that the intimation which has been made by some hon. gentlemen opposite as to that hon.. gentleman occupying a position of isolation on this side of
the House is entirely beside the mark. When you find a paper that is ai consistent supporter of the Government, like the Montreal Star, asking an investigation, when you find the Montreal Daily Mail asking for an investigation; when you find this question of shells discussed all over this country in the papers, why should an honourable gentleman be declared to be in an isolated position because, as a representative of the free people, at a time when, under the constitution, these things should be brought to the attention of Parliament, he does so? Does he commit any wrong in doing so? These things are a matter of public notoriety, they are known to the press, they are discussed in all the business centres of Canada. Hon. gentlemen know that. The Government come here and, through their Solicitor General and .their Minister of Marine and Fisheries, absolutely decline to take any position by way of'defence of the Shell 'Committee. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries said this afternoon: I hold no brief for the Shell Committee. The Solicitor General said: I do not stand here as a sponsor for, or as one responsible for the 'conduct of the Shell Committee. I am not here to defend the Shell Committee. I am here to offer some remarks in regard to what they have done, in regard to their status and character, in regard to their responsibility, in regard to our duties [DOT] towards them. But when my hon. friend says further, as he does:
I am not saying and I do not wish to be taken as saying that there cannot he any attack made on the Committee. The Committee may be open to criticism. Nor will I say, under proper authority and at the proper time, there should not be review ot the work of that Committee.
That is the position taken by the Solicitor General. The Minister of Marine says: 1 hold no brief for this committee. He will not undertake the responsibility of defending them. But while he and the Solicitor General take that position and say: We are not responsible for the Shell Committee at all; yet they are able, in some mysterious way, to get from this committee, which they say is connected with the Imperial authorities only, the information which the minister was able to bring to the House this afternoon. It is a very strange committee this, if it is a body having relation entirely with the Imperial Government, for which this Government has no responsibility whatever, if ministers of the Crown here, who wash their hands clear of it, can go and get this information and bring it

down as they did to-day. The position of the Solicitor General in regard to the Shell Committee is very much the position of the lawyer who goes into court and says: I am going to demur to the plaintiff's statement of claim, not upon the ground that it does not disclose good cause of action, not upon tlte ground that it is untrue in any way, and I say the court in which he has brought suit is not the proper court; he should go to some other court. That is the position of the Solicitor General when it is simmered down. Or it might be compared to another position sometimes adopted in court. He confesses the case, but he pleads in avoidance, as we say: It is true that this committee should be investigated, there is no doubt about that, and some time in the future we or somebody else may investigate it, but the man who ventures to stand up in Parliament to-day and say anythiiig about it, is isolated from his friends and from the House, because he ventures to bring to the attention of Parliament this very thing which we say ought to form a matter of investigation.
I want to say in regard to the hon. member for St. John that there are few men in this House, apart from our revered leader, whom we hold in higher esteem. He is a man whom we regard as a great parliamentarian, a man of great ability, as he has demonstrated in this House over and over again, and he has the confidence of every one of us.
No other hon. gentleman in this House but the Solicitor General, with his casuistry, would venture to dispute the soundness of the doctrine which has come down from the days of the revolution, so far as constitutional principles are concerned, that wherever Parliament or the country, for which Parliament stands, or of which it is a representative under British institutions, has had anything to do, directly or indirectly with the spending of money, the expenditure of that money is a proper matter for investigation by Parliament. I stand for that proposition, and I take the statement of the Minister of Finance who told us the other day-and as he indicated in Toronto in his speech before the Board of Trade that Canada was arranging for credits for Great Britain, more particularly with reference to munitions. They have told us that Canada is going to pay for these things, both munitions and other things that are going over to the other side. Yet the Solicitor General comes in and says: It is true that the Shell Committee 
requires to be investigated; I will not defend them for a moment; it is true that they were changed and in some mysterious way a new body called the Imperial Munitions Board came into existence; it is true that we threw them down and all that, yet if anybody wants to make a charge against any Minister of the Crown, we will investigate that, but we will not allow an investigation of the Shell Committee. I assume the papers are going to be brought down. I say that in this Parliament every gentleman should he actuated -by the highest ideals, and if this Government refuse to go on and look into this whole matter in this Parliament, they will be falling short of the ideals they are holding up to the boys of this land whom they are asking to go out and fight 'for liberty. Let us see where we are on this question. It is well to understand it fully, because these issues are apt to be beclouded. We had the story given to us last year by the Prime Minister in regard to the Shell Committee. He told us how it was constituted. It was constituted by the Minister of Militia.
On the 8th of September, 1914, at a meeting held by the minister at the Dominion Arsenal the following Committee was appointed to organize the work throughout the Dominion.
And he gives the names:
About two weeks after the organization of the Committee Mr. Carnegie of London, England, was appointed by the minister as ordnance advisor of the Shell Committee.
He goes on to tell what they did:
The executive work of the committee has been very wisely entrusted to the chairman, Colonel Bertram-[DOT]
The strange part is that this statement is signed by Col. Bertram, in which he states that the executive work has been very widely entrusted to him.
[DOT]-who reports weekly to the Minister of Militia and also to the committee when it meets, which is usually monthly, or more often at the call of the minister.
At this point, I should like to correct my hon. friend the Solicitor General, who I am sorry to see is not here, in regard to the statement he made about the Minister of Militia -and Defence in connection with this committee. "Why," says the Solicitor General in that positive way which he assumes, "the Minister of Militia was present at this Shell Committee only twice, once when it was going out of office and once when the new committee came in;" whereas Col. Bertram says here that when

this committee was appointed all the executitve work was entrusted to the chair- 1 man who reported weekly to the Minister of Mil'itia, and also to the committee which met once a month, or more often at the call of the minister. As I shall show as I go along, the Minister of Militia must have been in close touch with the committee at every stage of its operations; it is so stated here. Who passed -the bills after all? The chartered accountant of the department, says Ool. Bertram:
A chartered accountant recommended by the general manager of the Bank of Montreal, checks the accounts of the committee every month. These are then forwarded to Mr. J. W. Borden, chief accountant for the Militia Department.
Now, why were these accounts forwarded to Mr. J. W. Borden, the Accountant of the Department of Militia? What bad he to do with them? "Why," says the Solicitor General, "we divorced ourselves from this committee," or ratheT he says, "we divorced the committee from us,"-a curious kind of transfer which I think was hardly legal. "We divorced the Shell Committee from the Canadian Government in the matter of responsibility," says the Solicitor General; "we made it a committee under Imperial authority." I would like to know the date when this wonderful divorce took place'.
Mr MURPHY.: After they were fouhd out.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There never was any divorce; there could not be any divorce. It was not a case of "whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder." It was a case of a father disowning his own child. That was the trouble; there could be no question of divorce.


Mr. ROGERS:: Has my hon. friend
proved the consummation of the marriage yet?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works did not catch what I said. I said it was not a case of marriage or of divorce; it was the case of a father trying to disown bis own child. It was a case of leaving the baby on somebody else's doorstep. Now, I assume that the Government will bring down these orders in council, and 'tell us all about this thing. This is the proposition seriously put forward by a responsible Minister of the Crown; that this Government could call into 'being a committee having the powers which they had in regard to
performing the wonderful duties set out by Col. Bertram in his report, which was read by the Prime Minister last year, and that on their own volition they proceeded to make that creation of theirs a committee under Imperial authority. Well, this Government has done some pretty queer things, but they could not do that, and they have not done it; there is no way in which they 'could do it.
Let us go on and see what Col. Bertram says. These hills were all made out and sent to the Accountant of the Department of Militia.
The Minister of Militia called a meeting of the committee at Ottawa and, after discussing the matter, cabled to Lord Kitchener, pointing out that much larger contracts could be undertaken by the manufacturers of Canada.
Now, I think the 'Solicitor General will be bound to admit that he is wrong in regard to the Minister of Militia being present at only two .meetings, for already we have seen that he was present at three or four. Col. Bertram goes on:
It was proposed by several of the manufacturers that a deputation from the committee should he sent to the War Office, London, to put their claims before the Secretary of State for War. The Minister of Militia dedided on the recommendation of the committee, to send Mr. David Carnegie, as he was familiar with the whole situation.
Is that not a very strange thing, that this body, constituted by the Government, divorced in some mysterious way from the Government, that this body, having been in 'existence for quite a period of time, should -send Mr. Carnegie over to England to tell the Imperial authorities what they could do, or what they could not do. When did this transfer from the Canadian Government to the Imperial Government take place? He goes on to say:
He also informed the various officials at the War Offioe that it was the intention of the Minister of Militia and his committee,, to make ultimately the copper hands in Canada.
So we have this situation: we have this committee constituted by the Minister of Militia, we see that the accounts went to the man who passes the accounts of the Militia Department; and there is no evidence at this moment that in any order in council any powers were given to this body as an imperial institution; on the contrary the evidence shows it has always been a Canadian institution operated by the Minister of Militia as a side wind of his department.
I do not wish to go into detail with regard to the various matters that might

be urged and have been urged from time to time in regard to the Shell Committee; but coming, as I do, from a constituency where, I think, the first shells made in Canada were made by the Nova Scotia Steel Company, I have followed this matter very closely. Colonel Bertram and Mr. Carnegie are the gentlemen who seem to have .been running this committee in regard to the allotment of contracts, and when it is said that there was no politics in the inspection of-shells-I do not care how many letters my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) may read from people in Sydney-if my hon. friend goes to my constituency, he will learn what everybody in the community knows, what my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) who lives in my constituency, knows, something in regard to the carrying on of the industry. We have two systems of inspections in regard to shell construction. There is an inspection which is carried on by the Canadian Inspection Company of Montreal, the inspectors being experts whose business and duty it is to pass upon the quality of the steel that enters into the ingot that makes the sjjell. I have no complaint to make in regard to the inspectoral duties carried on by these experts. Their duties are very technical; and have to do with the analysis of the quality of the steel. In that respect a careful inspection has to be carried out, but when it comes to measuring the shells when they come from the presses-why, who are the men employed as inspectors? There is one political heeler from Cape Breton; there is another who had been engaged as a party scribbler in the Conservative press, a man who is known by every Liberal in my own constituency. And so it is down the whole list; that class of inspection is entirely under the control of the gentleman who has the patronage in my county. Hon. gentlemen need not come here and make any statements with regard to there being no politics in the matter, because these are the facts so far as my county is concerned, facts that cannot be questioned.
I am not going further into the question of the creation of this committee. I assume that the Government will bring down all the information that they have in their power to give in regard to that, that is, all the information which relates to the expenditures that have been made, all the information that they can bring down having regard to the limitations placed upon such questions in time of war. I wish to reiterate in the
	.

strongest and most emphatic way that so far as any evidence is before us at this moment, my hon. friend the Solicitor General has no warrant for the statement, either as a matter of law or as a matter of parliamentary practice, to say that the right of investigation is not in this Parliament. If my hon. friend the Solicitor General or any other -hon. member of this Government, came into this Parliament and said: Yes, we believe that this Shell Committee is a body which has done that which is honest and right, and, while it may have made mistakes, still, it is not entitled to be criticised; if any minister of the Crown ventured to take that position in regard to it and was able to satisfy Parliament and the people that that was a tenable position, that would be one thing; but when the Solicitor General and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries say: We will neither defend nor will we excuse, nor will we say that we yield any principles to this institution which we have divorced ourselves from and attached to the Imperial authorities in some imaginary way; we think it may have been wrong and that it ought to be investigated and all that, but the Imperial authorities, or some other people, are to do it-if, I say) they take that position, and if they expect from this House, and from Canada a continuation of those ideals Which many of us entertain in regard to this war, it. is an impossible position, a position liiey cannot take in the face of Canada and of this Parliament in regard to this question and they must realise it.
My hon. friend from North Essex (Mr. Wilcox) was put up the other day to deal with this question and to answer it. I want to say what one of their own papers said about that. We will leave out the Toronto Telegram. There is no use of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries coming to us and stating what the Free Press said, and thereby settling the whole question. Why do not these hon. gentlemen tell us something themselves, something that they know about, instead of taking the Free Press and saying that 'excuses the whole thing. What does the Free Press know about making shells? What has it had to do with the shell business? If it knows all about this thing, the Minister of Militia ought to attach the editor of the Free Press to his staff and put him in charge of the business of making shells. The ,minr isters themselves do not appear to know anything about it; they run away from the situation and say we will not stand up for the Shell Committee, and abuse my hon.

friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley). This is *what the editor of the Montreal Evening News says with reference to the extraordinary remark which my hon. friend from North Essex made in the House the other day:
General Bertram and his associates may well cry to be saved from their friends.
There should be no stirring up of strife over a few old horses and a few shells.'
The remark was made seriously and will be taken seriously. . .
In the face of the evident unwillingness of the members of the Dominion Shell Committee to defend their honour, the country must look after its own honour which is also compromised in the charges that have been made. . . . The apologists of General Bertram must be told that they are doing a great disservice to that gentleman and his colleagues, to themselves, and to the country by their ostrich-like policy. As for the remark of the member for North Essex, it condemns itself. It is indeed beneath contempt.
I 'have attempted to emphasize as strongly as I could the duty which this Government *owes to the country and to Parliament of endeavouring, first, by the abolition, .and if not the abolition, the restriction at least, of patronage during the war, and by the taking of an attitude having a semblance of justice .and fairness in regard to the situation which has been created with reference to the Shell Committee, to put themselves in such a position that they can hold up to the 250,000 Canadian boys who will rally round the flag that ideal and those sentiments which they must have if they are going to come forward to fight for their country.
But there is .another thing that I think this Government should do in this regard having reference to the sentiments of the Canadian people. I am sorry that the hon. the Secretswy of State ((Hon. Mr. BlondSn) is not in the House. There is a certain duty that these hon. gentlemen who are his colleagues are charged with and one which they will not perform in regard to him. We all knew the constitutional principle of the collective responsibility of the members of the Government in regard to their views upon important questions. That is laid down by all the constitutional writers. I am speaking from the seat of a colleague admired and esteemed on both sides of this House, who is now in a German prison in Berlin because he was taken in Antwerp engaged in the humane task of giving succour by his medical science to Belgian wounded. Speaking by his authority, and repeating what he said to me, I want to say that there sits in this chamber in this time of stress when the heart of the nation is
stirred, a man who in 1910 on a platform in the province of Quebec, in the presence of Dr. Beland, fell on his knees on the platform and with hands uplifted in the attitude of prayer besought the Holy Virgin and all tbe( saints that the young men of the province of Quebec might be saved from the awful calamity that would come upon them if this Laurier naval law went into effect and they were asked to go and fight the battles of Great Britain upon the sea and be compelled to lose their lives on the deck of a British battleship. I am aware that the former Minister of Inland Revenue, now Secretary of State, has a habit of denying these things. But there is. something more that he said from his place in this Parliament in 1910. I find by reference to Hansard, page 44-53, 1910, that he said this:
I feel that I am bound to protest loudly against the policy of the Government and against that of my own party as regards the question of creating a Canadian Imperial war fleet or of making a cash contribution.
He loudly made that protest in Parliament, those of us who were here heard him, and you will find the statement in Hansard. In these days when all our hearts are stirred, when our boys are going out to fight, when the bodies of some of our friends are being left in Flanders and the Dardanelles, are we to have in this Government a man who has made this statement, which I have repeated here, and who has never taken it back as he should have taken it back right in this House. It will not do for this gentleman, with his last hour repentance, to make recruiting speeches in which he never disavows a single one of these utterances. What ideals will the boys of this land have in regard to governmental management when you find within its leadership a man who has never taken back these words and who will not now stand up in Parliament and declare that he has abandoned forever his nationalistic principles as he should do. I declare that this is a time for the searching of hearts upon questions of this kind, and it is up to the Secretary of State to let us know whether these recruiting meetings of his are wholly mockeries or whether he has foregone those sentiments which he reiterated all over Quebec.
Now let us take another honourable gentleman. We have not got to know him very well yet. He, (the Hon. Mr. Patenaude) is the successor of the former Minister of Inland Revenue now the Secretary of State. Mr. Bourassa declared, I am told, in Le Devoir that he was one of his great friends at St. Remi and other places in Quebec and



it is interesting to know what he thinks of the attitude of the Canadian people in war time. The Hon. Mr. Taschereau, whom, honourable gentlemen will recall, is the Minister in the province of Quebec who had a verbial encounter with Mr. Armand Lavergne, a week or so ago, spoke in the city of Toronto in the year 1909. Loyal and true Canadian, and lover of Britain he is, then as now entertaining sentiments to which we would all give adhesion. Mr. Taschereau, expressing his views said:
We consider that Canada develops in a marvellous manner; we feel that she is on the highway to nationhood; we recognize her as a part of the greatest Empire that ever existed: we think that Canada should hear her share of the burden that falls to the lot of all prosperous and growing countries; we believe that, for a long time to come, our future is bound up in the advancement and integrity of the Empire; we believe that a call coming from the Mother Country should be heard.
Will our sons serve on that fleet? In answer to that question I will cite the following fact: In one of our public squares, some years ago, a monument was erected in honour of eleven of our brightest youths of Quebec who had given their lives in South Africa. There were one thousand of them to go forth ; those who fell sleep under the sands of the dark continent, but their memories live in bronze to remind our children of the courage and loyalty of the Quebecers.
Gentlemen, what Quebec did in the past she will do again in the future, and when the trumpet calls, in true Canadian style, we will answer " present."
That is an extract from the speech of the Hon. Mr. Taschereau delivered in Toronto in December, 1909. In the following session of the Legislature, this motion was proposed by Mr. Pr&vost:
Whereas in December last, during a trip to Toronto, which the speech from the Throne has invested with an official character, the Minister of Public Works and of Labour declared himself, in the name of the province of Quebec and in presence of the Prime Minister, to be in favour of Canada's participation in the wars of the Empire, the formation of a Canadian war navy or of any other measure which the Federal authorities might deem proper to adopt in that regard;
This House regrets that one of the ministers of the province should have, without any mandate, upon subject foreign to the jurisdiction of the Government whereof he is a member, and under circumstances that impart a significant meaning to his words, made indiscreet declarations which are calculated to place the views of the electors of this province in a false light.
This resolution was voted upon, and I have the division list in my hand. Amongst other names appear those of Mr. Armand Lavergne and Mr. Patenaude in very singular proximity.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Who is Mr. Patenaude?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He is the new
Minister of Inland Revenue. At this time when naturally our hearts call for unity in all things, these two gentlemen, if they have ceased to entertain those sentiments and feelings which they entertained in 1910, should come forward and in the light of day before this Parliament and this country declare that such is the case, so that the boys who have gone out to fight and perhaps to die, may know that the men who compose the Government of this country are in earnest in ^regard to this question and are not fooling with them.


Mr. PARDEE:: When was the Minister of Inland Revenue sworn in?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Some time last fall, I think. The remarks which I have made with regard to these gentlemen have not been made with any personal feeling, but under a deep sense of the serious attitude which I entertain towards this war and its consequences. There are hundreds of men in this country who entertain the same sentiments that I do; in fact, every one does who knows of these things, and I ask the Government under the circumstances to see to it that these men declare where they stand in this year of grace 1916, in view of the situation in which this country and the Empire now stand owing to the war.
We had this afternoon from my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) a lengthy and interesting speech in which he dealt with a variety of subjects. In regard to one or two of the matters to which he referred 9 p.m. I think he claimed a little too much credit. In the province from which I come, the lumber trade had last year reached the highest possible point. My hon. friend rather indicated that he was entitled to some especial credit by reason of the fact that in July, 1915, the Naval Service had taken some steps to arrange for vessels to carry lumber and other products to Great Britain, and the figures which he gave to the House were to the effect that more lumber had gone from our Maritime ports in the year 1915 than in either of the two immediately preceding years. That is true, and I am very glad to know that the hon. minister has made those arrangements in regard to the carrying of lumber. I am not quarrelling with him on that score; but from business dealings with clients and others connected with the lumber business, I know that in so far as that business in our part of the

Maritime Provinces is concerned, the arrangements for the sale of the lumber and for the carrying of it by Norwegian vessels were all made in the winter of 1914-15. Yet my hon. friend, if I understood him correctly, did not begin to make any arrangements until July, 1915. Therefore, while I am perfectly willing to give the minister all credit for any efforts put forth by him to encourage the transportation of our products to Great Britain, in that respect I think he is not entitled to the credit which he claims.
We hear from many sources that the ministry is overburdened with work. The stress of this war upon these hon. gentlemen is so great that they have to appoint commissions to do this, that and the other thing. Let us be perfectly frank about this matter. I recognize fully that the right hon. the Prime Minister of this country has at this critical time in our history, a very great and serious burden placed upon his shoulders, one which is probably the most onerous that any man in this country has ever had to bear. I make the same statement with regard to the gentleman who fills the position of Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), and also with regard to the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). These three gentlemen have very serious and responsible duties to perform; but when I am told that my genial friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) has worked harder at his duties since the war began, I am asked to believe too much, because I fail to see where in the slightest degree this war has added to my hon. friend's burdens. We are told that only large public works are going on, and that the thousand and one details, that I have no doubt troubled the minister in the past, are absent. I see, however, that the expenditure is still maintained at a great height, and I wonder whether my hon. friend is really as busy in connection with this war as he is alleged to be. I believe that if we are able thoroughly to appreciate the situation, we shall find that the Minister of Public Works has very little to do in connection with -war matters. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) has so little to do at the present time that he is running not only his own department but the Department of Railways as well, and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) is taking the time for a jaunt across the ocean to see his sons. That is a very laudable thing to do, and I have no complaint to make with regard to it, except 15 J
that I wish to look perhaps a little frankly at the situation and see how much there is in this mystery about the burden of care that is weighing these hon gentlemen down, with the exception of the first three whom I have mentioned.
Take the Minister of Inland Revenue to whom I referred a moment ago. How much is he worrying about the war? Or the Secretary of State (Mr. Blondin), how much is he worrying about it? Then there is the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche), he is having no immigrants to look after, and not many homesteads are being taken up. He is not working as hard as he used to. And the Postmaster General (Mr. Cas-grain) is not looking as if he were worrying about things. He goes about spending a good deal more money than his predecessors spent and adding a great number of people to the service, and though he has taken a large amount of money from the people he manages to acquire a deficit, which deficit is not due to the war in the slightest degree. The statement that it is due to the war will not hear analysis. So,
I go through the list of these gentlemen and I find that when one of their supporters talks about the awful burdens resting upon them, I wonder at the imagination of those who can believe it.
Take my hon. and genial friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and of the Naval Service (Mr. Hazen), he has been leaving undone the things he ought to have done' ever since the war began. He has not been attending' to his business at all. Let me show you in what respect he has failed. Take the Island of Newfoundland, the smallest of the British Dominions, with a population of a little over two hundred thousand, or about half that of the province of Nova Scotia. In addition to sending its quota of men to fight in the field, Newfoundland has sent a thousand men as naval brigade to fight upon the seas. Take Australia and New Zealand; three thousand of their Iboys have gone out as part of the naval service and have done marvellous work in the peninsula at Gallipoli. Then there is South Africa-South Africa with whom we were fighting only a short time ago. Why, Cape Colony sent to the naval brigade a first instalment of 1,692 men and has been sending reinforcements ever since. All these other oversea dominions have been there with naval assistance but, though we enjoy as they do the protection of the British navy, we have not done a single thing; the Minister of the Naval Service

has not even tried to do anything since this war began.
And, mark you, the need has been very great. Let me read to you an advertisement that appeared in the British papers. People talk about the necessity of having trained sailors, trained mechanics, in order to be of assistance in the naval brigade. But here is the advertisement-
Royal Naval Division-Public School Battalion.
The Admiralty have given official permission for raising a battalion of 1,000 men, which will be strictly limited to public school or university men and who will serve together as a unit.
Training is now going forward.
Applicants desiring to enrol should apply at once to
Royal Naval Division,
,	6, 7, 8, Old Bond Street, London, W.
Here is what they said last week in the Imperial House of Commons when this question was before them. An amendment was adopted to the Bill in regard to compulsory service by which the Admiralty was given first call on men desirous of enlisting in the navy. And the First Lord of Admiralty stated that a supplementary estimate would be presented for the expense of 50,000 men for the navy by next March. And here is what Mr. Ash-meade Bartlett, the brilliant war correspondent of whom we all have read, says, in regard to the naval conditions in the Dardanelles:
Mr. Ashmead Bartlett states that in some of the vessels off the Dardanelles there is hardly an active service rating on the upper deck. "There are many men between 48 and 56 years of age; nearly all are fathers and many are grandfathers. They have reached .hat age when, after a hard life at sea, they might reasonably expect to look forward to passing their declining years surrounded by their children and grandchildren, in the happy enjoyment of their small pensions, and engaged in the civilian pursuit each may have adopted at the conclusion of his period of active service."
That means simply that the condition is so serious that these men who had passed through all the stages of active service and had gone home have to be called out again in order to fill up the positions in the navy. We talk about having done our duty. Think of our tremendous sea-coast, stretching on the Atlantic from the Maine border around the province of New Brunswick, from which my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) comes, around what is almost an island, the province of Nova Scotia, then on the eastern side of New Brunswick away up the Baie des Cha-leurs and around the peninsula of Gaspe and all through that tremendous St. Lawrence territory; and then our British Col-

umbia coast running from Puget Sound up to Alaska. Can any man say that we are doing our duty when not one sailor boy has gone from Canada to assist the navy in this time of stress? South Africa has put us to shame. See what General Botha, who was fighting the Empire in 1900, said when the South African naval contingent started on its voyage to the scene of hostilities, where it has done such splendid service:
" Please convey to the commander, officers, and men of the Naval Contingent, South African Division of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, my warmest good wishes on their departure. It gives me and my government great pleasure to think that the Admiralty, by asking for their services, has recognized the good work and efficiency of the only naval unit which South Africa has yet been able to organize for the common cause. I feel confident that all ranks of the contingent, by constant devotion to duty and by irreproachable conduct, at all times, will show that South Africans, even though few in numbers, are worthy to he represented in that great naval service which is the pride and bulwark of the Empire, and now striving, as ever, to guard our most precious inheritance of justice and liberty."
And we have not got a man there at all. This is what Dr. Macnamara said in regard to the South African naval contingent:
Dr. Macnamara, in reply to a question by Commander Bellairs, states that the offer of the services of a number of the South African Royal Naval Vo'unteer Reserve was gladly accepted by the Admiralty, and the men are now attached to the Royal Naval Division in this country. It was understood that they wished to serve as a unit representing their corps. -
Now, there is this to be said about the Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), that he has been energetic. Whatever criticism may be directed against his actions, and whether he has done right or wrong, a point which I am not considering at this moment, he has been busy; he has been " on to his job. " But the Minister of the Naval Service has not done anything, nor has he tried to do anything.
I have information to the effect that in 1912 a number of enthusiastic young men in Victoria, B.C., and surrounding districts, conceived the idea of forming a volunteer naval reserve similar to the one recruited in South Africa.
I am instructed that although that reserve was formed in 1912, they were unable to obtain any recognition from the Department of Naval Service until after the war began.
I have looked through the reports-I have them under my .hand-and I can find in them no mention of the Royal Volunteer reserve until, in the report of last year,

Admiral Kingsmill referred to the fact that such a body was in existence. Gentlemen from British Columbia will know whether or not what I say is correct. I am told that Sir Richard McBride, who was in England after the war began, wanted to raise a naval brigade in British Columbia; that this Government was approached in connection with the matter, and that-I am simply stating the information that comes to me from what I consider to be authentic sources; if I am not correct, hon. gentlemen will tell me-nothing was done either to encourage or to assist the project. In January and March, 1915, after that volunteer naval reserve had been formed, an order was issued notifying the men who had come together in that body that they had permission to retire from that service and to join the army instead of the navy. If these are the facts, I should like to Know from this Government why that condition of affairs has been allowed to exist. Shall we say that we are going to do nothing for the Empire upon the sea? Shall we say that we will not try to do anything? If so, the Newfoundland boys had better not have gone, the Cape Colony boys had better have stayed at home; and so with the boys from Australia. I am not going to renew the old discussion of naval matters; 1 am going to deal with this matter simpiy and solely from the standpoint of whether or noi we should be doing something upon the saa to aid Great Britain. I say that we should.
Hon. gentlemen tell us that this war was foreseen; that we should have done this, that or the other thing. But it was a strange thing if anybody in connection with the Naval Department foresaw the war. Here is the official report of 1914 in regard to the recruiting of men for the Canadian ships:
No recruits have been entered since 1st October, 1912, pending a decision being arrived at as to the future naval policy. The repairs to the Niobe were completed in December, and trials were carried out, which proved satisfactory ; the ship is now in an efficient seagoing condition, but is not able to undertake cruises, owing to a deficient complement, the active service ratings having been sent back to England without being replaced.
Which means that all men who could engage in active service on the Niobe in that year had been sent back to England, and nobody had been supplied to take their places. The same thing occurred in regard to the Rainbow. The report says:
The Rainbow made various cruises on the coast of Vancouver island until August, 1912, when the active service ratings were sent to
England and were not replaced, since when the ship has remained at Esquimalt, with occasional cruises to keep engines in an efficient condition.
That is the way things stood in 1912; let us see what where they were in the next year. The report says:
The Government having decided not to continue H.M.C. ships Niobe and Rainbow in full commission, no recruiting was carried on during the year, and the programme of exercises and training laid down for these ships was not continued. During the year free discharge was given to those Canadians who entered the service as boys and wished to avail themselves of the offer; in addition, many of the ranks and ratings lent from the Imperial service have completed their engagement .under the Canadian Government, and returned to England, without being replaced.
That was the situation in April, 1914, just before the war broke out. Having read this report, I say to hon. gentlemen that if they had any prescience of the war, they were dealing with it in a very strange way.
In September, 1915-that is, last year- we find mention for the first time of the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve. The report says:
The R.N.C.V.R., chiefly recruited at Esquimalt, have been actively and usefully employed both ashore and afloat, and have shown, both officers and men, commendable zeal in the performance of their duties.
That, mark you, was the first time we ever heard anything about a volunteer reserve of any kind. When the war broke out-it is told here in the books, and needs no amplification-the Niobe was tied up at the wharf, with not a man on board but the few officers who made their homes there. No recruiting had been done. While the Niobe was tied up at the wharf the valuable German vessel Willehad left Quebec, came down around the coast of Nova Scotia, passed the harbour of Halifax, and reached the port of Boston in absolute safety. According to these books, the Rainbow was in exactly the same position as the Niobe, and we were indebted to Japan *-Japan, mind you-for the protection of our western coast during a period of time after the beginning of the war and until the Newcastle came. It is just as well that our people should know the facts in connection with these matters. As soon as possible after the war, but too late to catch the German vessels now interned in New York and Boston, Great Britain sent out ships. The Niobe could have captured these German vessels; every naval officer will tell you that; they told me in Halifax that they, could have captured these ships

had the Niobe been afloat and ready for operation. About a month after that the Niobe came out. What for? To intercept *any German ships that might be in the vicinity of the coast. These were soon cleaned off the seas by Craddock and Stur-dee-and what are our ships doing now? What have they been doing all summer? It is the humiliating fact that the flagship of the squadron, which was off our coast last summer, was the Sidney, which had been built and equipped by the overseas Dominion of Australia. That was the flagship which headed the fleet that was off our coast last summer, and which was there chiefly for the purpose of guarding the trade routes to and from United States ports. When our transports wanted to cross the ocean last summer were they consorted by British ships? Not at all. If it had not been for the vessel with which Mr. Jack Boss presented the Government, the Grilse, which had been fitted up as a torpedo-boat destroyer, and which escorted practically all, if not all, of the transports which went from Quebec there would have been no protection against German submarines in the vicinity of the Atlantic coast. The Government of Canada did absolutely nothing in that regard. The people in the Maritime Provinces, in Montreal, and elsewhere in the province of Quebec, last year heard a good deal about the danger from German submarines. German submarines had found their way to the Mediterranean; in order to operate at a long distance from home waters, all they had to do was obtain a base of supply for oil and provisions.
A vessel of a neutral nation, say from Norway or Sweden, could carry these supplies to some inaccessible spot. Any one who knows anything of the geography of our sea coast knows that, and men who are connected with naval matters were fully convinced that it was possible last year that German submarines could have made a base anywhere along the western coast of the old colony of Newfoundland, or on the northern portion of Cape Breton, or on the southern portion of Nova Scotia. There was no reason why submarines could not have come out and operated from a base in any of these districts. If they had done so what protection had Canada? Mark you, the larger vessels are not the protection which countries have against submarines. There has been a wonderful development in regard to naval construction as the result of this war. Look at the stories of the battles that have taken place
'Mr. Macdonald.]
in the North sea, where the destructiveness of the submarines has sent to the bottom vessel after vessel of the ironclads of Great Britain, which were unable to protect themselves against the silent and stealthy message of death that came from the nose of these submarines. The only way to protect a vessel against these submarines is by a torpedo boat destroyer or another submarine. The minister said nothing in regard to that. Why has not the minister gone to the Vickers-Maxim Company in Montreal or some other industry and kept them busy during this winter building some submarines for the protection of our coast? Great Britain took the submarines that came from the Vickers-Maxim shipyards across the sea, under their own power. We have not a single submarine in Canada to defend ourselves. Why has not the Minister of the Naval Service done something in this regard? It is quite natural that gentlemen who do not live near the sea-and I do not wish to be understood as speaking in an offensive way-should not be fully alive to this matter; but I would strongly impress on this House and on this country that, through this Department of the Naval Service, some steps should be taken to defend both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts from submarine attacks, There is little danger of a large German ironclad getting out. One might pop out from the North sea and get around the north of Scotland, but it could be easily caught. But the submarine could come out undetected, have hier base on the iSt. Lawrence or Cabot strait, and from there send to the bottom our transports crossing the ocean, for all the protection that Canada has. Every one in the Maritime Provinces says that and knows that; I am not stating any fact that is not fully known. The minister should even now proceed to provide protection by the construction of submarines and of torpedo-boat destroyers, which can be built in Montreal or elsewhere. I do not wish to go into this old argument of what Canada can do and what it cannot do do. But we have done it. We have gone ahead by the enterprise of our own people in this way, and have built submarines, and they have sailed across the ocean and, as the hon. member for St. John said this afternoon, one of them has performed marvellous work and rendered splendid service in the sea of Marmora. Shall we do nothing on the sea for Great Britain? Will we not even protect ourselves? 1 say to my hon. friends from British Columbia, who, I be-

lieve, ace very much interested in this question, that I regard it as the bounden duty of every one to face this situation -and, if the facts are as I have stated, the situation is one which must be dealt with, and dealt with speedily. I am not able to understand why the minister has not dealt with this question. I visited the dockyard in Halifax two weeks ago or a little over, and I was astounded to find that at that moment there was only one vessel that was able to go to sea out of all the vessels around the dockyard belonging to the Canadian Government. That was on the 2nd of January. The Canada was in the marine slip at Dartmouth. Here were two vessels purchased in the United! States last summer for which large prices were paid. They were taken to Montreal and a very great amount spent upon repairs. Then they were brought down there, and the information given to me very freely in the dockyard was that the captain of one of these vessels absolutely refused to go to sea. That was the condition of affairs on the 2nd of January, 1916, with this war on. All the British vessels at that moment were down in the West Indies, there was not a single one within hundreds of miles of the Nova Scotia coast, except one vessel, a sort of lame duck, which was able to struggle out. There was quite a regiment of little tugs and other small boats which were of no use whatever. Again, here in this dockyard, built by the money of the Imperial Government, which the Imperial vessels use but very rarely and to a very slight extent, anybody who looks honest to the Dominion policeman who 'Stands at the gate of the dockyard can walk in and go anywhere he pleases. I say the Minister of the Naval Service should have that dockyard under the control of men who are there attached to the Niobe. There are seven or eight hundred men there on the Niobe, which was being dismantled, at least her guns were being taken off.
Mr. 'CARVELL: Again?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Again, the guns were being taken off her, she was practically being torn to pieces. I asked some of these seven ot eight hundred men what they were going to do and they said they did not know. There was nobody guarding the dockyard gate except a Dominion policeman. If this Naval Service is not the most awful farce that any Government ever intended to carry through in any country, do you not think that they would have some of their men detailed to
guard the gates of this dockyard at the city of Halifax, which is supposed to be the great centre of the Atlantic squadron on this side of the ocean? Yet that was the situation. It seems to me surprising,
I am bound to say I was astounded,
I bring this matter to the attention of [Parliament not from any desire to be partisan in placing the matter before the House; but I believe that these conditions axe such that Parliament should know of them, th< country should be informed of them, and the matter should be dealt with accordingly. What are we to do 'in regard to this matter? I should like to have any hon. member of the Government tell me why, with our magnificent Atlantic and Pacific sea coasts, we should not send over to England some men to help the fleet, to join the naval division, to take the places of those hardy old men who have been dragged from their homes to go out and fight at Gallipoli because the younger men could not be had. We have been doing splendidly in sending boys to fight on the land; but around the sea coast of this great Dominion there are as many men, just as good and stout hearts, who go down to the sea in ships, and . make their living amid the perils of the life of a fisherman, who would make .splendid material for the navy. There are many more of these men in Canada than there are in the colony of Newfoundland. Why aTe these boys not asked to go and join the Imperial fleet? I venture to say that in the county of Guysborough there axe hundreds of men who would be willing to go and who would acquit themselves nobly as the boys from Newfoundland have done. Will anybody say why they should not go? Among hon. gentlemen living in the interior of this country in our great inland centres, from Montreal to the Rocky mountains, it is quite natural that there should be apathy in this matter. I can quite appreciate the fact that the man who lives m Winnipeg or in Western Canada generally, who is away from the Great Lakes, would not know, as those of us who have lived on the seaboard from boyhood know, just what the possibilities are in that regard. I know there are boys in my county who would much rather go into the navy than into the army, but they have never been asked to go; no opportunity has been given to them to go. I am sure that that is true of the constituencies of hon. gentlemen on both sides of politics, and I would ask the minister to seriously consider the

matter, and let us have a statemient at some later period as to whether or not it would be possible to offer to Great Britain a naval brigade, and so do what South Africa, Newfoundland, New Zealand and Australia have done,
I would like to ask, too, in view of the tremendous amount of money which we are spending in connection with this war for all kinds of purposes, whether there is any reason why we should not have two torpedo boat destroyers on our Atlantic seaboard. We have the Grilse, a converted [DOT]steam yacht, but outside of the Grilse there is no boat that could catch or cope with a submarine if it happened to come through [DOT]the Straits of Belle Isle. Why should there not be destroyers in course of construction at Montreal which would be ready for the summer, and why should not the same condition exist in regard to the Pacific coast? I seriously urge upon my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that this is a problem which ought to be dealt with at once. In these matters we must look ahead, as well as at present conditions. The old theory that we could not build steel ships in Canada has been entirely exploded; there is no longer any room for argument in that respect.
What are the people of this country going to do when the war is over? Already you hear mutterings from our western friends in regard to the transportation of the great wheat crop, complaints as to freight rates, and as to the failure of the Government to get ships to carry the grain; and these conditions will continue, I warn the Government, until Canada sets herself to provide and equip herself properly for transportation upon the sea just as she has equipped herself so magnificently upon the land. To-day we have three transcontinental lines stretching from one end of this country to the other, and after the war is over we look for an immigration which will exceed anything we have had before. Add 100,000,000 bushels of -grain every year to the production of western Canada, bring them down to our seaports, and then what are you going to do? Are you never going to build ships; are we never going to provide for transportation on the sea just the same as on the land? I say, Sir, that this is the time for the examination of the conditions of the future. Unless the Government at this juncture immediately proceeds to give special encouragement to transportation so that we may have a merchant marine upon the seas, those who live inland may be 
pardoned if, with their inexact knowledge of marine matters, they think probably that their business will be paralysed. When this terrible war is over, we must look forward to a readjustment of conditions. Mr Speaker, I have already talked too long


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I hope that the imperfect remarks I have made will not be misunderstood. I have spoken strongly on some questions, but I have refrained from approaching the consideration of those problems, in so far as it is possible to do so, in the spirit of keen or aggressive partisanship.
An hon. MEMBER Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend who wears the uniform ought to be earning the money for it and should refrain from sniggering. When hon. gentlemen like my hon. friend from Lunenburg come into this House as majors of medical corps, I am bound to say that I do not understand why, if they are on active service, they are not attending to their medical duties instead of coming here, or how their medical duties are performed in their absence. They should either do the one thing or the other. There are certain hon. gentlemen whose imputations I might not resent, but I do resent any such imputation as that thrown upon me by my hon. friend when he suggests that I have approached these questions upon a partisan plane. I have endeavoured in all sincerity to approach them on a higher ground than ordinarily. The views I have presented in regard to this whole matter have reference to questions which the people of this country and the Government ought to seriously consider at this juncture. I am sincerely desirous that at this stage in dur country's history we should endeavour in Parliament to hold up an example to the boys who have gone and who are going to the front, and that when we go to recruiting meetings and ask our young men to make sacrifices in order that our liberties may be maintained, we should show them an example and convince them that we know what we are talking about. We must correct the mistakes of the past and of the present as we go along; that is what Parliament is here for, that is our duty as representatives of a free people. Not only that; we should look forward to the future. Moreover, our duty to-day is not only in regard to these material things. Let us remember what was said at the time of the American war. Let us strive to finish

the work we are in and to bind up the nation's wounds, and let us do the best we can for the widows and the children of those who are fighting for Canada and the Empire.
The question of pensions, which was discussed this afternoon by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, is one of great importance, and one which I was delighted to see my hon. friend approach in the manner he did, because I regard it as one of the most important matters which could be considered by the members of this House. Hon. gentlemen will probably remember that a gentleman in Toronto, Mr. Frank Darling, prepared a pamphlet which discussed the question of pensions in a most interesting way. After that pamphlet had been brought to my attention, I placed on the order paper a notice of motion in regard to this matter, so that the whole question may come up for discussion at a later day. However, i appreciate very much indeed the action of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in placing upon Hansard' the information which he gave us this afternoon, because it is a question in which hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, no matter what their political predilections may be, are interested, and one with which they are anxious to deal fairly.
Over and above that, there is a question which has not, perhaps, been specially mentioned. One of the great problems, apart from pensions, is, what is to be done with the soldier who comes back partly injured and entitled to receive a pension, but who desires to avoid living a life of idleness. I understand that the Government have appointed a commission to deal with that question, with Senator Lougheed as chairman, but I wish to suggest, as I am interested in that question, having taken it up in Nova Scotia, that that committee is too large. The matter should be taken hold of by a minister, and dealt with by him on his responsibility as a minister. The relations between the Federal Governemnt and the Provincial Governments are very close and intimate in regard to this matter, and require attention in a greater degree than can be given by a commission. Provincial committees have been appointed also to deal with this matter. Complaints have been made as to the difficulty of getting together and working out these problems. I want to make a suggestion with all deference to the gentlemen who compose that commission, and I do so without making any reflection upon
them, but living as they do, in various portions of the country and being engaged in various occupations, it is almost impossible for them to get together and have that concentration and community of ideas which is necessary in order to work out that problem. It is becoming more acute every day. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) referred to cases that have come under his observation. There are young men who have come back to our part of the country and they are in the same way. While drawing their pensions, their future should be anticipated. Then, there comes in the problem of the development of technical education. By careful consideration of the possibilities of technical schools you may be able to give all these veterans that species of education which would enable them to fit themselves for earning an honest livelihood for themselves and their children, in addition to receiving their pensions. Then, there would be the avoidance of those conditions which we have heard from story and history, are always to be found after a war-the lack of employment and the lack of interest in the men who have fought for the nation. That has occurred in the Old Land, and history always repeats itself. My suggestion in regard to that question would be that some one of the ministers should take that matter under his direct control with his own staff and deal with it, and be the means of communicating directly between this Government and the various Provincial Governments whose assistance and cooperation may be desired.
The problems of the future for Canada are very serious. Already they are engaging the attention of out press. I see that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) has made an address upon this question and has been looking to the future in that regard. How these things will shape themselves is a. matter which is most difficult, no matter how far seeing any one may be, to tell with any degree of certainty. This much we do know, however, that there ought to be coming to this land from the older countries an immigration of even greater extent than that which came in the past. There ought to be special attention paid by the Government to this problem.
Again let me say that I have no faith in these commissions that this Government persist in appointing. The British system in relation to constitutional government is that the members of the Administration of the day, on account of their having been

trained in public affairs, and with that sense of responsibility which is always possessed by men in public life to a greater degree than those who have not had the experience, with that intimate knowledge of the conditions of Government that only men on the treasury benches can have, are the proper ones to deal with these questions, and, if they have the ability to do it, they should be seized of their responsibility and should endeavour to formulate and lay down whatever plans they can conceive for the future. Whatever our notion may be about the position of this 'Government in that regard is one thing, but this duty is one which ought to be seized by the Government themselves. If there is any device, any method by which attention can be properly directed to Canada when the day of victory comes, this plan ought to be thought out and developed by a responsible minister who would have the advantage of being able to provide in advance in their executive administration for the conditions which would produce the desired result.
It has occurred to me that a suggestion might be made in that regard as to how to deal with a condition that has 'been found a difficulty in the past. We find it in our province and I am sure it exists elsewhere. Take the .small farmer in a European country and bring him out and put him on a farm in the East or the West; he buys a farm in the least of 100 or loO acres and if he goes west he gets a homestead of 160 acres. Both of these farms are entirely too big for him, they are beyond anything he ever had to do with before and the consequence is that he is endeavouring to deal with a problem so far beyond anything he has ever attempted in his own country that he gives up after a short time and drifts into the city. You should endeavour to provide him with a homestead, or to put him in possession of a holding, smaller in area and under conditions more in consonance with those of the country from which he came and more in keeping with the conditions that exist where he grew up. In that way you would have a collection or a colony of people who, living together, would have a community of interest and you would dtevelop all those (conditions that go to make happy homes and to make life interesting. That is a problem, however, which I am quite sure hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House who know the West better than I do are more able to deal with

than I am. I only throw out that suggestion because it appears to me to be one that is well worthy of consideration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken very much longer than I had intended. In this third war session, with a deeper appreciation throughout the country and in the hearts and minds of every one of us as to the position in which we are at this time, I think that, in so far as it is possible for us to do so, we should endeavour to proceed to our duties with the understanding that the interests of Canada shall be advanced first and last, and that if possible division and dissension may be avoided upon non-essential matters. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have no right to complain, and must not complain, if there have been errors in the administration, if there have been mistakes which are injurious to the commonwealth, if we, in pursuance of our duties, as members of Parliament, point them out. If investigations should be had they should be granted at this time more than any other time. We owe this duty not only to ourselves, but to the people, who are watching to see how the affairs of Canada are being carried on.
As yet there are very few signs of the beginning of the end. There have been many dark days in the year and a half since this war began, but every one who has studied the story of the great nation to which we belong remembers that all down through the stormy pages of the history of the islands where to-day and for so many years has been foupd the centre of this Empire, there have been times when things looked far darker than they do today. Recall the days of the Crimea; the older men who lived in that period told you of the sad hearts in England, and of the doubts and fears which existed there as to whether or not the issue of the war would be favourable. Following that were the days of the Mutiny, of horrible atrocities in India with the great nation in tliat southern land which had always been associated with Great Britain in revolt against the Mother Country, and under conditions which indicated that that revolt very likely would be permanent. These days of gloom passed by. So will, I feel sure, these days of doubt and uncertainty; they will be dissipated, and if we Canadians, as true believers in that constitutional government which we have inherited from our fathers, will do our duty so that we may transmit to our children those principles of freedom

and justice which have come to us, we will be fulfilling in some measure our ideals, and will be laying the foundation of that future prosperity and greatness which I hope and believe we in Canada will see with certainty.
On motion of Mr. Garvell, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Robert Rogers, the House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.
Tuesday, January 25, 1916.