1916-01-28

THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Alfred Thompson for an address to His Royal Highness the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Thursday, January 27.
Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (East Peterborough) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House farther than to make a protest in the name of the young men of the country, and, if I may so presume, of the people generally, against the conduct of the members of this House who are endeavouring to stir up party acerbity, party hatred, and all the contemptible politics which attach themselves to the prejudices of party politicians, especially at this time.
I am shocked, Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am terrified, to find this Hou-se being turned into a political shambles. I do not purpose to excite further controversy by saying which side is to blame; I leave it to an impartial public to judge when they have understood thoroughly how this debate was begun, -and how it has been carried on. Some time ago I noticed that there was gradually arising in the party press a feeling of disturbance which boded no good to this young country at this crisis in this historic struggle. For a time such papers as the Hlobe maintained their mental equilibrium. They protested against the idea of an election, and everybody that I know joined them in the hue and cry to stop those people who would sacrifice the

well-being of the country for the spoils of office, or even the remote prospect of them.
Now, however, I find the scer^e is transformed. I came to this House filled with the ardour of the men from the country who have been working with their political foes, shoulder to shoulder, in a united spirit, harmonious, strong. We had forgotten the question of politics; we were not thinking of politics; we were thinking of conquering the Germans, of standing true to Canada and to Canadian manhood now sacrificing itself so nobly in the trenches. We find the women of Canada working might and main. They have dropped their tea-tattle gossip for a time; . they have ceased to transport even with the charm of dress; they have got down, if I may use the phrase, to their knitting, and are working hard, night and day, for the purpose of providing comforts for the men at the front. Speaking more particularaly for my own constituents and the district I represent, I was amazed, charmed, delighted and elevated in spirit by the unanimity of feeling and of thought prevalent in that district-. 1 was more than charmed to find, not that it was rent in twain, not that it was being disturbed, not that it was being poisoned, but that it was [DOT] growing in strength and beauty from- day to day. I had to come to Ottawa to le.arn that the whole business was a fraud. I had to come to .this House to find that the poison which would destroy the life of this country was being distilled in this very Chamber. I turned in amazement to look at the record, and I found the noble words of the right hon .the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), which should have given the keynote to the whole discussion and the future conduct of the members of .this House. In that short war session which followed the declaration of hostilities he said:
This session has been called for the purpose of giving the authority of Parliament and the sanction of law to such measures as have already been taken by the Government, and any further measures that may be needed, to insure the defence of Canada and to give what aid may be in our power to the Mother Country in the stupendous struggle which now confronts her. Speaking for those who sit around me, speaking for the wide constituencies which we represent in this House, I hasten to say that to all 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 be done, or should ba 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.
That statement thrilled Canada. It also assured to the Government the steady and honest support, as one might reasonably suppose, of the Opposition. But whatever has got into them I am sure I do not know. It seems all to have turned .to poison, and now even the journals at large are attacking the individual members of this House. Even the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), a man who, I believe, devotes himself heart and soul with a single mind to the advancement of this country, is treated dike a common felon. On February 8, 1915, we find in Hansard these remarakable words of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition:
Let. me say at once that we who sit on this side of the House, and who represent His Majesty's loyal Opposition, took our course at the outset of hostilities when we declared that we would support the Government in their war policy.
Then, a little farther on:
But whilst we are prepared to believe, as indeed we do believe, that mistakes have been made in the manner in which the money has been expended, that errors of judgment have been committed, of those mistake's and of those errors of judgment we are not disposed to be critical.	.
It would be hardly possible to expect that in the case- of the expenditures of some fifty million dollars no mistakes would arise; n is perhaps more than we can expect from human nature; but we cannot close our eyes to the fact that not only have mistakes been made, but frauds have been committed which have resulted in injury to the health of our troops, and impairment of _ their efficiency. These frauds have been regarded as so gross and so criminal that the Minister of Militia himself, not more than two or three weeks ago, stated, not once but three or four times at different places in the country, that if he knew the nian who supplied the boots, which have been the cause of so much disease, and sickness, and suffering to our soldiers on the Plains of Salisbury, that man would deserve to be shot. The honour of the minister is at stake, and so is the credit of the country. It; is not impossible to discover the responsible parties. Up to the present the minister [DOT] is responsible, and it is for him to take the necessary measures to vindicate himself. We have been told that a commission of three members has Iron appointed by the Government to investigate this particular matter, and not later than ten or twelve days ago it was stated that the minister himself, not satisfied with this inquiry, had instituted a departmental investigation to ascertain the true facts. I do not know if this is all that is intended to be done by the Government; but let me say that the fullest light should be thrown upon' th's matter, so that the people of Canada, may know where the responsibility lies. No member on this side of the House intends to be critical, and for my part I certainly have no
such intention; but assuredly we are all gravely concerned that the health and comfort of those brave men who are risking their lives in the cause of the Empire shall have every protection that we can afford.
We have there the very .best keynote to the proper conduct of an Opposition, or, indeed, to the conduct of the people of this country in general. But we have witnessed, during this past week, an extraordinary transformation. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), skilful and serene as he is, has not hesitated to lay a train that would destroy the Government by a terrible explosion if he could so arrange it. He has been followed by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), who in turn has mlatrshalled all the vitriolic sarcasm amd invective he could possibly think of, and has blown it, like the German gas, at the Government side, in order, if possible, to asphyxiate them before they could arise in in their own defence. Then, we, have a Daniel come to judgment in the person of the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), who, with all due respect,
Sir, did himself little credit in an hour's speech that really would not have done credit to a child in the nursery. I listened patiently for one solitary noble thought, knd really it was an extraordinary performance when you think of it. He said:
I realize that in rising in my turn to address the House I am taking a great responsibility, although that respons bility may not be of my seeking.
Who, then, is responsible? Certainly he did not sound as if he were at all responsible. But when I quote his words I ask; Who, then, is to Re considered responsible? The leader of the Opposition had turned in his seat and was listening to him and looking at him with amazement. Nevertheless, the hon. gentleman contrived to say things ' that in no way could be considered as decent, let alone conciliatory.
But I do charge,- he says,

in the presence of the Prime Minister, who !is a Nova Scotian of whom we are proud, that in the county of Halifax, where I hold him responsible for the patronage, the vilest sort of Ipartisans are put at the head of battalions,
*in the highest positions that they can be given.
No proof is offered, and what time, pray, is this for proof? Is this not a debate on the Address in reply to the gracious speech from the Throne? Every suggestion is connected with an investigation.. Who has denied that there may be an investigation? Who has pretended that he will set aside the rules of the House and that whatever

may be done, or may have been done, shall not be referred to the committees that are constituted for the purpose of investigating? Nobody. Not a single soul has said: H there are frauds or shortcomings, if there 'has been misspent money, the thing shall not be investigated- That is not denied at all. No one pretends for a moment that "these things will ndt be investigated. The *cold fact is that for some reason, that used ito be occult but that is no longer so, the 'Opposition are bound to get this stuff before the country. What their purpose is the country is beginning to divine; and the Lord help them when the country gets hold of them! Then this Daniel come to judgment says further on:
But the government of which he is a member,-
He refers to my hpn. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes), a man who surely has borne the burden and heat of the day, a man who has been able to gather together nearly 250,000 Canadians who hardly knew the meaning of war before, who has despatched them to the front, who lias provided them with such materials of war that, coine what may, bad as some of it may have been, they nevertheless have been able with it to do themselves and the Empire the greatest possible credit. Is there, in these speeches, one word of commendation from beginning to end? None. These gentlemen are not large-hearted enough to give a member of the Government credit for one single good act. Are we to understand that all that has been done is as nothing, and that some little trifling charge, which may or may not be true, and wlhich yet, in the words of the leader of the Opposition, may, in the weakness of human nature, be to some extent true, is to be a ground for condemnation? Is it possible that the Minister of Militia and Defence, that the Minister of Finance <Sir Thomas White), that the balance-wheel of this Dominion, the riglht hon. Prime Minister himself (Sir Robert Borden) are not to be given any credit whatever? It seems almost as if jealousy, envy, hatred, and all uncharitableness have taken possession of the back benches of the Opposition to the exclusion of the last ray of common sense or pity. You will not find throughout the country any such spirit. Why, the", pray, should it be found here? I am terrified that the people in the constituencies, thinking that some colossal crime has been committed by the Government, may turn their attention, not to the
tMr. Burnham.]
things of war, to which they are devoting their thoughts at the present time, but (gainst each other, and that Canada will be irretrievably ruined. If this ruin should befall iher, who is there who will deny that the cause will lie at the door of a recreant Opposition?
But the Government of which he is a mcm-iber,-
says the hon. member for North Cape Breton, referring to the Minister of Militiahimself and the whole outfit,-*
That is a patriotic reference, surely !
-if I may use the expression, will learn, not 'many days hence, that there is a people in this country and that it is the people that speak.
Why these- promiscuous and repeated threats of an appeal to the people? For what purpose are we to be threatened with an election in the very midst of a war which, gives no sign of a settlement, and which will strain our resources and energies to their utmost? This conduct is without parallel on this earth. In no other country will you meet people so utterly devoid of patriotism as to seek to make .political party capital at the expense of the good name of their country. A little further on this gentleman says:
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I was going to put to you, in the form of a few questions, certain propositions that came before the Minister of Militia and DefenCe in regard to the running of his department. After he had received the warning which I read a moment ago he was asked by his party heelers: " Can we send the soldiers to the trenches with improperly made shoes, practically with paper shoes, and with bare feet?" The answer was: " So far as the department is concerned, yes if you can make money out of it, and can conceal it, I have no objection."
What could have induced any respectable man to utter such a sentiment as that in this House of Commons of Canada, where he is supposed to represent a portion of the people? Throughout what may, perhaps, in a spirit of extravagance, be dignified as that speech, we . find the same thing from beginning to end. Not a word of commendation or a word of credit, but everything that is calculated to infuriate the Government side of the House ahd have the effect, if possible, of turning this House into a seething cauldron of riot and discontent, to be paralleled possibly only by the naval debate of a few years ago, when the people at large got the idea that we had suddenly turned this House into a raving lunatio asylum.

I wish to warn these gentlemen. The Grain Growers' Guide says:
There are too many men in the front rank of the Liberal party of Canada to-day who have absolutely no conception of the true principles of liberalism and democracy.
For once I agree with a western man. Again, I find in glaring type on the front page of the Citizen this morning, " Election talk being revived." My heart sinks within me.


Mr. TURRIFF:: I do not wonder.


John Hampden Burnham: Of course, you do not wonder, being like-minded with the rest. There is nothing surprising to hon. gentlemen opposite in the fact of election talk being revived, for they all expected it; but it is a surprise to the Government side oi the House, and it certainly is to me. It is most deplorable. If there is one thing likely to minimize the value of our energies at this time in the carrying on of the war, it is the reviving of election talk. In the Free Press the other day I saw another complimentary reference to the Conservative party. It said, speaking of the caucus:
The consensus of opinion on this point was that, while it might not look well to refuse an investigation, still if an investigation were- allowed by the Committee on Public Accounts there might be disclosures which would be even more injurious to the interest of the Government.
There is your malicious innuendo. There is a lie in cold type. No one of us ever said or thought of any such thing. The truer spirit, to be found in the better part of the Opposition, is contained in the speech of the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) last night. He was trying to work himself up into a becoming fury, but he could not do it. His heart is too honest to vibrate responsively to any such appeal as is being "made. He said:
Now, to-day is it or is it not the duty of rthis Government to investigate the charges that have been made? I do not say they are true.
All the diatribes of the gentlemen about him had failed to convince him that there was a particle of truth in these charges, and I am sure I do not wonder at that. Further on he says:
, i hope, Sir, for the honour of Canada, foi tthe honour of this Parliament, and for the honour of these gentlemen who occupy these positions in the Government of to-day, that an [investigation will be granted. If there was no wrong-doing, no harm is done; if there was wrong-doing, it will he corrected and righted, and the people of this country will see that
tthe public men on both sides of this House are willing to do right and not shield the wrongdoer, be he Conservative or be he Liberal.
Are we to understand that on such a flimsy excuse as this hon. gentlemen would hurry us in Canada to the brink of civil war? Would any man with a clear sense of duty presume to say that he was not committing a crime, let alone a wrong, in seeking to inflame the members of this House and the peole of this country? Whether there is anything in these charges or not, hon. gentlemen opposite want the Government to promise that the charges will be investigated before the extension measures come up. It is hardly likely that the Government will do such a thing as that, because if the life of Parliament is not extended they could not carry out such a promise; but if the term is extended they can and must, and certainly will do it. It is therefore the duty of the hon. gentlemen opposite to vote for the extension measure first, and after that will come the realization of their hopes. For my part I would be quite content to allow a few choice spirits, of the Opposition to remain here for the rest of the year if they -want to, taking note of all the graft, of -which I regret to say my countrymen are sometimes capable. Let us agree on some margin of depravity. Let the maTgin be whatever you like, as the leader of the Opposition has said, hut for God's sake let us set our faces towards the rising sun some time, and let us not always be turning our backs on every bright prospect, in order to glory in the ruin and depravity of our country. It is not that spirit which actuated the men who went to the front. They went there trusting we were fair and square and honourable men, who might be left to garrison this country and look after the base of supplies. They had no idea that the little game of politics was being played, and that on the very first measure, so to speak, brought before the House, there would be a prolonged debate of the most acrimonious kind. Why do not hon. gentlemen opposite say, in the words of their leader, that whatever faults or frauds may be committed they will suspend judgment till the proper time. Now is not the proper time to fight this matter out. Why do gentlemen opposite.not lend us a hand? Ido not say that the Government is infallible: they may have made mistakes: but I have yet to find any minister condoning in the slightest degree fraud or anything of that kind, or refusing to give any official record

and every explanation of any record asked for. I believe in my heart that this Government is absolutely honest. I am not prepared to say why, because I do not care to dig into the motives of any man. But, whether it be from a natural impulse or from necessity, I believe that it is absolutely honest and that everything done on its part has been correct. What representative of a constituency will say that he has not had some narrow escapes from even the rascals in his own party? What representative of a constituency can say that some of the things he has had to do or to leave undone might possibly require invidious explanations, if not worse, were it not for the fact that it is not within the power of men sometimes, limited as they are by the usages, the regulations, the customs of Parliament and parliamentary procedure, to rectify those wrongs? They have to grin and bear in silence, and thank fortune that they are not successfully pilloried in the outcome. But no margin or allowance is made for all that. Condemn " the whole outfit." A man.who at one time I understood occupied a position on the bench of this country condemns this Government at the very height of this crisis as an " outfit," and he is not ashamed to use the word.
I want to warn hon. gentlemen against the very serious damage which they are doing to recruiting. When men go out and speak heart to heart with their countrymen upon the necessity of going to war, when they may be met by the statement: "You are a lot of political sinners; you are a lot of political'rascals; the Opposition at Ottawa say so "-what hope is there for that union in which is strength? What hope is there for the carrying out of the magnificent scheme conceived and managed by the Minister of Militia? There is a danger in all this that is so imminent and so great that sometimes I feel as if it would be impossible for me to describe it. There is not this danger in Great Britain or in Australasia. The people of Australasia are bearing their burdens and some grievous disappointments with a dignity and a patience which do them so much honour that not only do we admire, but we wonder; and when we turn our gaze back upon Canada and find that we are at the mercy of a lot of political tricksters bawling for an election, really it makes my heart sick. The impression of all this upon recruiting will be bad; throwing the apple of discord amongst the people of Canada will be worse; but the impression made upon our enemies will be a thousand times more detrimental to us. Instead of a united and cheering House of Commons,

ignoring the shortcomings, the depravities, if you like, of the members of the Government, we have men sulking in their tents who cannot find it in their hearts to force their tongues to utter one syllable of commendation. A boast was once made of a truce. Why, the truce has been torn to pieces long since. It -was evidently initiated and concocted only as a pretense, and it has barely served that purpose. It has long since been thrown to one side. Has a member of the Opposition uttered the word "truce" this session? Not one. Truculent they are, but as for a truce, hon. gentlemen opposite do not want one.
The other evening, in listening to some of the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite, which made me for a time low-spirited at the prospect before me of a disunited and a frenzied Canada, I thought, "can there be something else that is disturbing these gentlemen? Is it that the prohibition resolution is bothering them and they want to get to the country to avoid it for fear they may lose Quebec and irritate Ontario? And yet I said to myself, cold water could not have that effect. Possibly there may be prospects in that regard." But I will not transgress; I will stick rigidly to my text; I will not throw one particle of suspicion on the Opposition; I will not insinuate nor use innuendoes; if I have anything to say about the Opposition I will say it as straight and as clear as I know how. Hon. gentlemen opposite cannot accuse me of doing otherwise. Last night the debate, if it may be so designated, ran into all sorts of channels, into the little byways, the eddies, up the little streamlets and into the foul waters. Amongst other things, the Prime Minister was charged with having agreed to give Mr. Armand Lavergne and Mr. Bourassa positions in the cabinet. These gentlemen opposite have pointed with pride, and reasonably so, to the success of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition in harmonizing the discordant elements in Canada. Why should no credit be given to the present Prime Minister of Canada for gathering in Jew and Gentile, bond and free, Nationalist and Liberal, and anything else, and blending them into one harmonious whole? We read in the Scriptures that the stone that was once rejected has become the very greatest in the building. Repentance never should convict. There is no Nationalist in the Conservative party. If any man was a Nationalist at any time before he entered the Conservative party, when he entered that Conservative door he

left all Nationalism behind him. There is not one of them who does not deny that he is a Nationalist; they all say that they are Conservatives. Then I say: give the Prime Minister that which is his due, which you would certainly ascribe to the right lion, leader of the Opposition; give him credit that the has, with an iron hand, with a strong, firm grasp, with a dignity and a gentleness which blend so well, taken the erratic elements of our population and spanked them properly into line, put them where they belong, and where they are turning out to be some of our best citizens. When we have had another term of office, possibly there will not be a single Nationalist left in Quebec. Even the wildest and most disloyal of them will find that in the Conservative party there is not only strength and reason, but that patriotism which is an unction and a holy Oil to all reasonable souls.
On December 4, 1912, in the session of 1912-13, the following question was put by Mr. Lemieux and answered by tlhe Prime Minister:
Mr. Lemieux: 1. Is the right hon. the Prime Minister aware of the statement made by Mr. Armand, Lavergne, ex-M.P., at a meeting held in the county of Quebec on the 1st of November ult., , and reported as follows in the Montreal Star of November 2, 1912:
" Then Mr. Lavergne proceeded with Ids version of how the Prench-Canadian members ot the Cabinet had been selected by the new Premier after his victory of last fall.
" The first names proposed," Mr. Lavergne said, "were those of Messrs. Monk, Tellier ana myself. I declined th is offer of a portfolio In the Cabinet, and at Mr. Pelletier's request, I did my best to make Mr. Monk accept him in my place. He objected at first. Mr. Forger at the same time was working in favour of Mr. T. Chase Casgrain, but I refused to agree to that choice.	,
" It seemed understood then with the Premier and Mr. Monk that Mr. Pelletier would be the Quebec representative in the Cabinet. Later. I learned that Mr. Borden's intentions were to have only two French-Canadian ministers in his Government, and It was at this juncture that I went to Montreal on a special train, paid for by Mr. Cahan, to impress Mr. Borden with the necessity of following the tradition, giving three Franch-Canadian representatives in the federal Cabinet, which point we finally gained."
2. Is the above statement true?
Mr. Borden :
1. No.
On the same day the following question was put and answered by the Prime Minister, as reported at page 589 of Hansard of 1912:	.
Mr. Lemieux:
.	1. Is the right hon. the Prime Minister aware
[DOT]of a statement by Mr. Armand Lavergne, ex-
M.P., at a meeting held in (the county of Quebec of the 1st of November ult., and reported as follows in the Montreal Star of November 2, 1912:	.
" Mr. Lavergne made the affirmation that before entering the Conservative government Mr. Monk had received the assurance from Mr. Borden that a plebiscite would be taken before any kind of contribution to the British navy should be decided upon. The Prime Minister also promised his colleague that the Government would do something, Mr. Lavergne did not say what, for the Catholics of Manitoba and Keewatin. It was because Mr. Borden failed ito carry out these pledges that the Hon. Mr. Monk sent him his resignation."
2. Is the above statement true?
Mr. Borden:	No.
I trust, therefore, that those who created the little scene last night, trying at a late hour-it was half-past eleven-to cast on the Prime Minister in his absence the odium of having given way to Bourassa 'and Lavergne, will now repent it and acknowledge that when I said these statements had been contradicted by the Prime Minister, I was right.
Other questions were asked in connection with this matter and were answered, but it is unnecessary to go over these also;
I 'have given only those that arose in the debate. I saw in the newspapers a short time ago what was, possibly, a reprint of these things, though I took it to be a report of an interview with the Prime Minister. But it is unnecessary to quote that;- the questions and answers quoted from Hansard are sufficient. And I am glad indeed-if there is still anybody who doubts the stand taken by 'the Prime Minister-that this question has arisen, because the matter is so easily, so completely and, I may say so, opportunely, settled.
In conclusion, let me once more appeal to these gentlemen. If this agitation is for an election, say so and in God's name let us go to it and work it out before the country is Tuined; if it is not for an election, drop it, and let us do what we can for the men at the front.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamour-aska):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) opened his address with very strong words, but those words were fully justified by the speech of the hon. member for Frontenac (Air. Edwards) last night. I have no fault to find with the tone of the remarks of my hon. friend from West Peterborough. Strong as those remarks were at times, they were certainly a great improvement .on tlhose of the hon. member for Frontenac. I hope to refer in a later part of my ad-

dress to some statements which the hon. member for West Peterborough has made.
I do not think I should have taken part in this diefoate, had it not been for one or two remarks made by my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr.v Casgrain) in the very able speech he delivered in this House on the 18th January. Some parts of that speech ought not to be left unanswered, and this duty is made still more imperative by editorials which have been published in the leading Conservative organ of the city and district of Quebec which is supposed to reflect the ideas and opinions of the Postmaster General. Those editorials threaten the members of this House and the electors of Canada with an immediate dissolution of this Parliament and a general election unless we, the representatives of the people, agree to sit still and content ourselves with registering the wishes of my hon. friend and of the Administration. To this I do not intend to submit, and never shall. The policy of the rulers of the country dining a great national crisis is not their private property, and the people are entitled to discuss it and judge those who nre responsible for it.
With that part of the speech from the Throne relating to the effective participation of Canada in the great war which Great Britain and her Allies are now waging, I heartily agree. All the measures that can be necessary to sustain the honour of Canada and protect the most saored interests of our country, should be taken. It seems to me, however, that the figure of 500,000 men is rather large and will be very difficult to reach, though I would not like to use the language of the Toronto Saturday Night and say that it is a " somewhat hysterical figure."
With regard to the financial requirements, under the circumstances, our duty, difficult as it may appear, is to grant all the money that is asked for by those who are entrusted with the responsibility of national defence; but we must require, as we have done before, a proper, effective and honest use of the sums placed at their disposal. We owe that to our countrymen who have left their farms, offices and shops in answer to the call of the Government and the country. It is our duty to see that they are provided with the best military training, with the best military organization, with the best military equipment; and we should not be fulfilling our duty, were we to agree to a general conspiracy of silence and refuse to expose wrong-doing or to investigate the acts and 
omissions of those who are responsible to this Parliament for the military operations of the country. I believe that the interests of the Canadian people must be placed over and above the tranquility of the Government. Our share in the present conflict we must accept not only with a high sense of duty, but in a generous and cheerful spirit. It was .said last week in the other Chamber, .as an argument against our making further and larger sacrifices to help the Mother Country in this war, that Great Britain was somewhat responsible for the war, and was to be blamed for not	having declared
herself earlier in favour of the Allies. Quite naturally, those words were severely criticised, and Conservative newspapers like the Toronto News and the Toronto Telegram have tried to throw the responsibility of Senator Choquette's speech on the Liberal party. But Senator Choquette has always been opposed to the policy of the Liberal party with regard to naval defence and the participation of Canada in any war undertaken by the Empire. In 1911, his speech in the Canadian Senate against such a policy was circulated and distributed in every home in the constituency of Kamour-aska, which I represent, and which is a part of the division which my hon. friend Senator Choquette represents in the Senate; and the Conservative party paid for that'circulation. Sir, nothing could be more at variance with the facts than the statements of my hon. friend Senator Choquette, which I have mentioned. It is true that the British statesmen endeavoured strenuously to avoid a conflict and to preserve the peace of Europe. To the very last Sir Edward Grey tried everything that might call a halt. As late as. July 31, 1914, Sir Edward Grey suggested to Germany that the four outside powers should unite in suggesting to Austria that they would undertake to see that she obtain a full satisfaction in her demands upon Serbia, provided that these demands would not impair Serbia's sovereignty and the integrity of Serbia's territory. Under date of August 1, he wrote to the German Ambassador as follows:
I fully believe that It might be possible to secure peace if only a little respite in time can be gained before any great power begins war.
On July 30, Sir Edward Grey replied to the proposition from the German Government that England should remain neutral, under the condition that Germany should not annex any of the territory of continental Prance. I shall quote only the last part of that reply-and I commend these words

to the attention and admiration of the Canadian people, and more especiallly the people of my own province:
It would be a disgrace for us to make this bargain with Germany at the expense of France

a disgrace from which the good name [DOT]of this country would never recover.
On August 2, war broke out between Germany and France. On August 3, the German troops invaded Belgium, in defiance of the protests of the Belgian Government. The British Ambassador then demanded his passports, and on August 4, war was formally declared between Great Britain and Germany. In the face of these facts, how can any hon. gentleman say that Britain should be held responsible in any degree for this horrible war?
When, on July 30, it became apparent that France could not avoid a conflict with Germany, many people in my own province, especially those who could remembeT the dark and painful days of 1870, were watching with anxiety wthat Great Britain would do. During these days of expectation feelings of uneasiness were expressed in many quarters. Would England stand aside and let Germany crush Belgium and invade France? Finally, all efforts towards the securing of peace having failed, the voice of Britain was heard on the side of right and justice against might and tyranny. A feeling of relief was experienced everywhere; enthusiasm replaced anxiety, and from that day, Mr. Speaker, I have favoured and supported all measures that would help the Mother Country in this war. I have supported them as a national duty and as a profound expression of gratitude.
I believe that if England had refused to declare herself in favour of the Allies and to unite her efforts with those of Belgium, France and Russia, many of 4 p.m. those who now criticise our participation in the war would have raised indignant voices against the attitude of Great Britain.
I claim that under the circumstances, notwithstanding what has been said elsewhere, the province of Quebec has done her duty. Her people have contributed their full share, and they are still willing to contribute their full share. But there is a certain subject upon which I must speak frankly-though I should not like to hurt anybody's feelings. Our people resent very deeply the aspersions and the insulting remarks of a certain press. The hon. member for Frontenac, whom nobody in this country will accuse of being too'
broadminded, and who seems to be unable to deliver a speech in this House without directing a few mild and tender words to the unfortunate province of Quebec, was more prudent in his remarks yesterday, although there were some insinuations which he could not help indulging in. Certain articles which have appeared in Ontario newspapers have been a far greater obstacle to recruiting in Quebec than all the speeches of the gentlemen who are denounced and branded as traitors t>y the same press. Let those Ontario journalists apply themselves to their own shortcomings.
I believe-and I am glad to see that my opinion is sharbd by such a newspaper as the Ottawa Citizen-that the field for reform in their own province is wide enough to require all their activity and to satisfy their eagerness to work for the common good. I do not object to some people having a very high estimate of themselves-there have been such people since the days oi the Pharisees; but I protest against the unjust, inaccurate and odious comparisons which they are trying to make. Again I repeat that those charges and insinuations in the Tory press of Ontario have hindered the work of recruiting in Quebec to a far greater extent than all the speeches of the Nationalists who are opposed to Canada's participation in this war.
Having referred to the Nationalists, allow me to make a few comments on an incident which occurred recently. The people of this country have been aroused by certain words uttered by Mr. Armand Lavergne in the Legislature of Quebec. Only yesterday I read an article in a newspaper which demanded that poor Lavergne be court-martialled and shot with the least possible delay. I think the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) went almost that far last night. Well, I am not here to defend Mr. Lavergne. His words should have been left unsaid, and it is to be regretted that in this Dominion such statements should have been made.. But, Sir, to those who have been so>
highly scandalized over this matter, let me recall that, unfortunately, similar and even worse statements were made only four years ago by certain hon. gentlemen who were friends and associates of Mr. Lavergne, and who were subsequently rewarded by the present Administration. Some are occupying the highest positions at the disposal of the Government, in the judiciary and elsewhere, and at least two of them are on the Treasury benches,
38U

members of the Government which is entrusted with the sacred duty of supervising the participation of 'Canada in this war. Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the financial means for the carrying on of their nefarious campaign were supplied, and as my hon. friends from Quebec on this side of the House know only too well, abundantly supplied, from the treasury of the ultraloyal party in Ontario. I have a right to say these things. You are assailing the Nationalists who are outside of the House; I wish to include in the reprobation those who are inside, and those who are members of the Government. Here let me state to the credit of my province that she did her duty nobly in spite of that violent and demagogic campaign. In spite of the money provided by the Tory loyalists of Ontario, she elected thirty-eight Liberal members, pledged to stand up in this Parliament and vote for a Canadian navy and for the voluntary acceptance by Canada of her share of the burden in time of danger, whenever the Mother Country should be called upon to fight for the rights of the oppressed- .arud the liberties of the world.
The right hon. leader of the Government has called to his councils some of the leaders of the Nationalists. Mr. Lavergne has even stated that he was invited to accept a portfolio. Let me remark in answer to my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) that the statement which Mr. Lavergne has, made time and again is that he was offered a portfolio, not by the Prime Minister, but by the late Mr. Monk. That was the statement he made when the regretted Mr. Monk was not -alive, and it has never been contradicted. We have had successively in the Government -Messrs. Pelletier, Nantel, Coderre, and the present Secretary of State (Mr. Blondin), and the present Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Patenaude). Would you like to know, Mr. Speaker, what the relations of those gentlemen were with Mr. Lavergne? I will take the words of the most prominent of them, the former Postmaster General of this country, and for a time, too long a time, the high executioner of the Government. Here are the words he uttered at St. Gregoire on the 18th of September, 1911. I quote them from L'Evenement,. the great Conservative journal of the city of Quebec. In order to he more accurate, I will read them first in French, and then translate them into English:

Le peuple vous aime Lavergne, parce que vous 1'avez aim6. Bourassa et vous avez ecrit line page unique dans l'histoire de notre pays. Je me suls presents parce que j'avais 1'appui de M. Armand Lavergne, et le 21 septembre vous aurez a. chanter la victoire de Pelletier et Lavergne. .. .
The people love you, Lavergne, because you have loved them. Bourassa and yourself have written a page unparalleled in the history of our country. I have accepted nomination because I have the help of Mr. Armand Lavergne, and on the 21st of September you will be cheering the victory of Pelletier and Lavergne.	,


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: Who said that?


Ernest Lapointe: Hon. L. P. Pelletier. I think the House is well acquainted with the words uttered formerly by my hon. friend the Secretary -of State. Those of my hon. friend the Minister o: Inland Revenue are not so well known in this House. I would like to supplement the information given the other night, and I will read a few extracts from an article signed by Mr. Bourassa in Le Devoir of October 15, 1915, after the appointment of my hon. friend. The article is entitled: " Is Mr. Borden again becoming a Nationalist?" and Mr. Bourassa says-I will read it first in French and then in English:
M. Borden redevient-il nationaliste?
M. Patenaude dtait plus nationaliste que tous nous autres. A 1'assembiSe de Saint-RSmi, or-gan-isge par ses soins, il s'Scriait le 4 septembre 1910:
" Nous sorpmes a. 1'aise aujourd'hui pour discuter cette politique, parce que nous sommes detaches des deux grands partis. . . Mats j ai encore confiance dans la population cai.a-dienne frangaise, car je erois qu'elle est oil-core plus loyale au Canada qu'fi, I'Angleterre, aux traditions de la province qu'aux desire d'un gouverneur gdndral ou d'un premier mi-nistre....
"II existe une autre voix: celle des hon-neurs et des titres. C'est celle qui a perdu Laurier et Borden, qui a perdu le Gouverne-ment canadien et les deputes moutons qui en sont la grande majorite."
Et M. Bourassa, apr&s avoir constate que le premier ministre choisissait tous ses ministres de gauche, dans les rangs nationalistes, a part M. Casgrain, dcrivait:	[DOT]
" Au lendemain de 1911 ce choix s'appli-quait:	M. Borden savalt bien qu'il devait son
suceSs a Fagitation contre la loi navale, mende par M. Monk, avec 1'appui des nationalistes. II avait alors rdsolu de faire abroger la loi navale. Mais aujourd'hui? M. Borden songe-t-il a revenir bientOt a la politique nationaliste? Compte-t-il sur M. Blondin pour faire de nouveaux accrocs au drapeau anglais? Garde-t-il M. Patenaude en reserve pour une nouvelle election de Drummond-Arthabaska?"
Mr. Patenaude was more Nationalist than any one of us. At the'meeting of St. R6mi, organized by himself, he said, on the 4th of September, 1910:

"We feel at ease to-day to discuss that policy stand, as we are free from the two great parties. . . . But I still have confidence in the Freneh-Canadian people, because I believe that they are more loyal to Canada than to England, and to the traditions of the province than to the wishes of a Governor General or a Prime Minister. . . . There exists another voice-that of honours and titles. It is this that has been the doom of Laurier and Borden, the doom of the Canadian Government and the sheep-like members who form the great majority."
* It is interesting to know the opinion the minister had of the members of this House before he became one of them. Mr. Bour-assa, after finding that the Prime Minister had selected all his Quebec ministers from the Nationalist ranks, except Mr. Casgrain, said:
" On .the morrow of 1911 that choice could he explained. Mr. Borden knew well that he owed his success to the agitation against the Naval Bill, led by Mr. Monk, with the aid of the Nationalists. He then decided to have the Naval Bill repealed. But to-day does Mr. Borden intend very soon to adopt the Nationalist policy? Doesi he rely on Mr. Blondln to tear new rents in the British flag? Does he keep Mr. Patenaude in reserve for a new election in Drummond-Arthabaska?"
Much can be 1 done by the distribution of patronage, but the Prime Minister seems to have forgotten that leaders and generals lose their usefulness and worth as soon as they abandon their army. However, the prodigal sons have come back, and the thanksgiving banquet is still going on under the eyes and with the participation of the hon, member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). Personal ambitions have been satisfied, but we are sure that opinions and convictions have been changed? Have these gentlemen retracted, or withdrawn, or repudiated, one of the statements which are still ringing in the ears of the electors of that province? I am not aware that they have and until they do so, and nntil they apologize to the people whom they deceived in 1911, their appeals for enlistment cannot be very effective and cannot carry much weight. I protest as strongly as I can against my hon. friend the Postmaster General mentioning the names of his two exJS'ationalistic colleagues and asking the people of the other provinces to judge my province and my countrymen by the actions and expressions of these ministers, I believe in political morality. The loyalty of my hon. friend to his colleagues deserve admiration, but the respect he owes tp his province and to the people he represents
should have been more binding upon him than ministerial loyalty.
I shall now refer to another part of the Postmaster General's speech. H6 said that he and his colleagues have refrained from all political activity in the province of Quebec, and have devoted all their time and energy to recruiting and addressing patriotic meetings.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: That is not what I
said. I did not say that we had not devoted any. of our activities to political life.


Ernest Lapointe: I understood my hon.
friend to say that they had not indulged in political activities.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, I did not say that.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, I accept the
statement of my hon. friend. .
Mr. -CASGRAIN: Read my, statement in Hansard.	.


Ernest Lapointe: I will look up Hansard again. That is the impression that was left on the minds of those who listened to the speech of my hon. friend. Then, my hon. friend said-and T would not have taken the trouble to contradict him if he had not said it-that some Liberal members at least had not followed the example of their leader and had- indulged in the discussion of political questions. He even stated-my hon. friend will find it in Hansard-that on a later occasion-I think he said on a less dignified occasion-he would perhaps discuss that matter. Does my hon. friend remember that?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, and I will keep my promise.


Ernest Lapointe: Before my hon. friend keeps his promise I will give him some material. Of course, I will kfeep some in store for the occasion when my hon. friend . will come back. I do not know to whom my hon. friend referred, but I purpose to say to this House that if any hon. members on this side did discuss political questions, they had to do so to protect themselves or their party against the attacks and political speeches of the ministers of the Crown in the province of Quebec since the last session of Parliament. Let us look at some of these thoroughly patriotic utterances of the members of the Government.
" A tout seigneur, tout honneur 1 begin with the master, the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers). The Minister
38*

of Public Works came to Montreal-and here, I am afraid, I am going to scandalize nry hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). The Minister of Public Works came to Montreal and delivered a speech on May 3, 1915. Here are some extracts which I take from the report of the Montreal Gazette of the Minister's speech, so that the House may be made aware of the patriotic declarations uttered by that hon. gentleman on that occasion. He speaks o'f the Prime Minister and says:
"But the fact that he has sp 'honestly and so honourably discharged these great responsibilities apparently means nothing to a certain horde of designing Grit grafters and simpletons-grafters that are strong and powerful to reason of the wide scope given them in their field of operations during the fifteen years of Liberal reign. For example, who will deny the strength of the press of Canada to-day that represents Grit graft, Grit loot, and Grit plunder? A press that in its desperation descends to the very lowest possible level; and when I make this statement I frankly acknowledge I am thinking of the Montreal Herald, ithe Toronto Globe and the Winnipeg Free Press-all papers that have prospered in one form or another by the purchase and sale of influence with Liberal leaders, by the purchase and sale of Liberal principles, or by pure and unadulterated graft during the reign of the late Administration.
Allow me to make the remark that when that hon. gentleman was speaking so loudly and so earnestly about graft, he was exchanging telegrams with his friends in Manitoba and telling them that he was looking around Eastern Canada; to get the *best counsel available to send to the rescue of the grafters of Manitoba. He proceeds:
It is true, for a time they were temporarily silent, nursing in shame their remorse of conscience for their conduct of the year previous, through which they were obliged to witness their own most ignominious downfall in the eyes of every good Canadian, and for months and months they were treated by the Government and by the people generally with the reverence and respect that is always due to a political corpse.
I might read his reference to the ministers of religion in the country, but I do not think it is necesary for me to do so. A few weeks later another minister-he was not a minister at that time; he was Solicitor General; but he is now a member of the Cabinet. The Solicitor General came to Montreal and made a patriotic speech.
I take the report from the Montreal Gazette of June 11, 1915:
A strong fighting speech was made last night by the Hon. Arthur Meighen, Solicitor General, before the Westmount Conservative Association, at Victoria Hall.

Here are some extracts:
" Can you call that anything hut party trickery?" asked Mr. Meighen. . . , " The Liberals Showed they were blind to the facts on the naval issue, as they now show themselves blind. Ho you think that, knowing what the leader of the late Government has . done and what has been achieved by the present Government, the people of Canada would wish to restore LaUrier to power?" It was there, as a monument over his political remains. . . . There will be immense deficits without a doubt.
I will now quote, from a speech delivered by the Minister of Finance at Durham, and reported in the Montreal Gazette of June 19, 1915:
The Liberal leaders had acted like a lot of bad children, rather than responsible statesmen seized of the gravity of the crisis.
Further on he says:
It was true that public expenditure had been increasing. In a country like Canada it always will increase, but by far the greater part of the increase in recent years has been due to the policy of wasteful extravagance of the late Government in enterprises such as the National Transcontinental. *
Further on he says:
In all their actions they have displayed a wilful and perverse blindness which has resulted greatly to the detriment of the Empire in the day of trial.
I now come to my own province. My hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Blondin) made a speech at Louiseville, in Maskinonge county, on July 12. That speech was reported in La Patrie on July 13, and I will quote the following extracts:
Sir Wilfrid has received everything from the province which has bestowed all things upon him-confidence, power, and a halo of glory. Why has he accomplished so little for her? The Conservatives have but twenty seats in the House of Commons, and yet more than under any previous administration they have acquired the recognition of the rights of the French language. The future looks forward to a great many efforts. But give Us your help, grant us your confidence. One can hardly explain the reason why certain Liberals, the Hon. J. E. Caron especially, so persistently criticise new taxes at the creation of which the Liberals have unanimously applauded. That small boot scandal has fallen through. These boots had been manufactured by Canadian firms. The inquiry has been closed. Why *have the members of the Opposition discontinued to push it forth after they had obtained so little out of it? The evidence was that one fourth of one per cent of these boots had been found defective. The sole conclusion is this: Praise be given to the Canadian manufacturers! Praise be to the Government! Following all the financial disasters, wheat shall be the essential wealth, and that of prime value. The Government has been far-sighted and has established a protective tariff which will prove efficient.


Mr. BLONDIN:: Will my hon. friend admit that this is a very incomplete report of my speech?


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps it is, but 1 have read the report as published in La Patrie, which represents Conservative views, and so far as I know the report has never been repudiated.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am not repudiating it.
I say it is incomplete.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend did npt
respect the truth in this speech of his.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I was answering the Hon. Mr. Caron, and my hon. friend will not deny that Mr. Caron was attacking us at the time.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend state in this House that the Liberals voted with the Government on the new tariff brought down by the Minister of Finance last year? He will say so at Louiseville, but he will not repeat the statement in this House. Mr. Cousineau, leader of the Opposition in the province' of Quebec, was on the same platform with the Secretary of State, and spoke a few words about the Dominion subsidy:
Since the Conservative Government is in power in Ottawa it is very difficult to reach an effective understanding between the federal and local governments. Should the Conservatives acquire the confidence of the majority in the province of Quebec, the re-adjustment of the federal subsidy will be an easy problem to solve.
I now come to the Postmaster General, and I regret to do so, because I have the greatest personal regard for him.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: He is not a bad fellow.


Ernest Lapointe: Unfortunately, even
saints have weaknesses, and the Postmaster General is not above reproach. At one of his so-called patriotic meetings my hon. friend said at Notre-Dame du Lac:
I am told that there is here a large Conservative majority. I congratulate you, gentlemen, and I hope that you will increase it further, in order to send to us in the House of Commons a Conservative member upon whom we shall always be able to rely.
I am quoting from l'Evenement of October 11, 1915. My hon. friend the Postmaster General will have to admit that he was trying to recruit Conservatives as well as soldiers. The following day the Postmaster General spoke at a Fraserville meeting, and l'Evenement of October 12, 1915, in reporting this speech, says:
Dube Hall proved too small to contain all the good Conservatives who flocked in yesterday to hear the speech of the Hon. Mr. Cas-grain, Postmaster General in the Borden cabinet.
Really, his speech was a patriotic op'-on the whole. The only statement which 1 did not like was this one:
Compare the line of conduct followed by both governments in the inquiries held regarding the scandals. Whilst the Liberals endeavoured to conceal' everything, the Conservatives have established complete light and chastized the guilty parties. This is proven by the act of Sir Robert Borden in expelling from the party Garland and Foster, found guilty of theft and graft.	t
My friends from Nova Scotia will be able to use that speech of my Ihon. friend. My hon. friend complained that those meetings were described as political meetings. If he has been wrongly interpreted he has been so interpreted by those who participated in the meetings and even by the organizers. Every hon. member knows that Mr. Charles Beaubien, of Montreal, was appointed to the Senate in December. Mr. Beaubien is a clever and highly estimable gentleman, and as long as a Conservative has to be appointed his appointment deserves approval. My friend Mr. Beaubien was known, if not as the principal, as one of the principal, organizers of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec. After his appointment he gave an interview, wlhich was published in the Montreal Gazette Of December 3, 1915. Here is what he said:
He especially wanted to say that in his opinion the war policy of the present Administration is endorsed by 95 per cent of the people of this province. Neither did he think that the political situation could be called anything but hopeful in Quebec., Hard work would, of course, be necessary-
I believe that.
-on the part of the ministers and their followers-
Here is the sentence to which I call the attention of my friend:
-and he thought that the activity they had displayed during' the past few weeks was a safe promise for the future.
I have some more extracts, but I will keep them in store for that happy occasion when my hon. friend discusses that matter, as he has announced his intention of doing.
The right hon. the Prime Minister, speaking in this House on the last day of the last session of Parliament and referring to the appropriations voted for the war, said:
It will be the duty of the Government to see that not one single dollar of it shall be lost

or wasted, so that we may he enabled at another session of Parliament to give an account of our stewardship.
We now ask the right hon. gentleman and the Government to give that account to us and to the people of Canada. From- one end of the country to the other there are rumours and charges of wrong-doing against men for whom the Government is responsible, more especially the Shell Committee, which was the creature of the Government. Specific instances have been mentioned by hon. gentlemen in the course of this debate. That Shell Committee, under the eyes of the Government, and certain departments of the Government, seem to have allowed and encouraged combinations in which patriotism and fiinancial cupidity are amalgamated in very discernible doses. The interest of Canada and Britain seems to have been mixed up with the interests of a few rings of selfish financiers. It is np to the Government to clear the atmosphere. I regret to say that since the speech of my hon. friend the Solicitor General the Government of Canada stands in a humiliating position before the country. By their hesitation, their quibbling, their resorting - to technicalities for the purpose of avoiding investigation, the members of the Government are assuming the part of the accused instead of being the accusers. They should have been willing and anxious to grant an immediate and thorough investigation in order that those unworthy speculators who are trying to enrich themselves unduly out of the blood of our soldiers and the misfortunes of our country should be discovered and dealt with most severely. The honour of the Government and this Parliament is at stake; the honour of the people of Canada is at stake; and on behalf of those whom I have the honour to represent in this Parliament, I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister of my country to do full justice, and not to allow himself to be carried away by the sentiments which seem to animate some of his followers and his colleagues. The noble actions of the sons of Canada in the battlefields of Europe have covered the name of this country with glory. They have written with their blood one of -the -finest pages of Canadian history. We owe it to them to leave intact and untarnished this great page which they have written, and we can do so by divorcing it from the unfortunate condition ' which has been shown during the last few days to exist in our internal affairs. We owe it to those who have died for their
King and country; we owe it to those who are still upholding the honour and interest of Canada; we owe it to those who will come after us. This is the wish which I sincerely hope may be realized, and by such an achievement we shall leave unblemished the glorious history of our national participation in this great war.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may I add to the general expression my felicitation that so worthy a representative of my native county has attained the dignity of presiding officer of this House. It is always a pleasure to me to associate myself with felicitations of any kind ' cqnnected with the province of Quebec, just as it is a matter of perennial regret that long absence has dissociated me from the picturesque politics of the province which to my Irish instincts are attractive in the proportion that they are strenuous.
The outstanding feature of the sessional programme as indicated in the speech now under discussion, is a request for authorization of the increase of the Canadian Expeditionary Force to 500,000 men, an enrollment calling for the serious attention of every member of this House whether with regard to his personal interests or with regard to his influence upon his own constituency. That from this call the' members of this House do not consider themselves exempt is abundantly evident from the fact of the many places vacant by attendance of members at the front or in serious training, and also by the presence here of so many officers in the King's uniform whose participation in the affairs of Parliament is yet made possible because their enlistment is only in the earlier stages. For myself, it is a matter of pride that I have been granted a command in the draft called for a few months ago to bring our first enlistment up to two hundred and fifty thousand. And, as in the thirty-seven years since I first had the privilege of assuming .the Queen's uniform, I have passed through all the stages from private and gunner to the rank of commanding officer, I trust it will not be imputed to me as it has been imputed to others connected with the public life of this country that I secured the privilege of commanding an overseas regiment for any political reason or for any reason other than that it was the position naturally coming to me because of my rank in the militia and the only one for which my years make me eligible.
CMr. E. Lapointe.]

I desire to pay a tribute to the splendid executive courage of the Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) in the conduct of Canada's share in this war. Criticism is inevitable, and so far as that criticism is based on truth or on 'honest belief, it seems to me that it should mot be resented. Irregularities are to be expected in the conduct of affairs on so huge a scale and eternal vigilance is necessary to prevent these irregularities developing into scandal. But, the business of the present hour being the prosecution of the war, the minor consideration of dealing adequately with those who seek to traffic indecently in the country's difficulties may very well be put in the background for the present. It is my hope, however, that at the proper time the searchlight will be turned on all questions connected with the commercial side of this campaign; and I have no apprehension that the Conserva-titve party or any One in authority in it will be found shielding in any degree, any person to whom censure or penalty should be .accorded. In my opinion, howeveT, the duty of the hour is not investigation or recrimination, but Tat'her the exercise of every possible means to supply 'the men necessary-first to encourage and then to reinforce our advance guard at the front, and to supply to them promptly and adequately the munitions without which the personal bravery of our soldiers must end only in sacrifice.
Fortunately, the splendid spirit of the Canadian people makes it unnecessary to discuss seriously in this Dominion how our legions may be secured, and it is a matter [DOT]for regret in my opinion that the bogie of the word " conscription " has been introduced to cause discord in the minds of free citizens to whom any form of compulsion is distasteful. It seems to me that the word " conscription " is most unfortunately chosen to represent the idea involved, and that since the temper of the Canadian people is to regard service for the Empire as a privilege to be coveted rather than as a duty irksome and only to be assumed of necessity, the work of selection might well be presented as the drawing of a prize rather than as a penalty. In that sense, I am heartily in favour of a ballot for positions in the military service to award to each citizen in proper turn in time of emergency the rank for which he has fitted himself in time of peace. Under such circumstances no man of self-respect, in my opinion, would wish to assert the chief



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
privilege of citizenship, the franchise, while opposing or shirking the duty of serving; and the manhood of the country, making, on enlistment, personal sacrifices which in many cases bear severely on their dependents, would be freed from the worry of the thought that the gratification of their desire for .service h)ad left ibheir mothers and sisters, or their wives and children, under conditions less favourable than those of their acquaintance who disregarded the call of duty when it came to them. I would give opportunity to those Who had not the privilege of personal service to compensate themselves by making the most generous provision possible for the dependents of soldiers serving in the field or who have answered the last roll-call, as well as those who return to us unfitted for ordinary pursuits. I am pleased that the subject of more adequate pensions has been introduced, since, though the Canadian scale is comparatively liberal, it was not made for conditions such as those of this war, where the magnitude of the numbers engaged makes it idle to expect that the ordinary offices of philanthrophy in the several communities can provide for any deficiency in the scale for the dependents of disabled or returned invalided soldiers. So that the mind of the volunteers should be set at ease, I think it most advisable that authoritative announcement that steps to increase the pension scale should be made as early as possible.
In following Imperial example and seeking an extension of the life of Parliament, in my opinion the Government interpret properly the will of the Canadian people. How can we be united in the preparation for warfare .and in every patriotic endeavour at home while the desire to secure party supremacy is allowed sway; and when, an election being supposed to be imminent, our citizens are armed to the teeth politically, each watching with jealousy the movements of every rival? But of what avail is an .armistice in the matter of an actual ballot if the campaign is not interrupted? Thaf is the German idea, as I see it, of an armistice to bury the dead, used for the purpose of placing the big guns in better positions.
Observations of some hon. gentlemen opposite while this debate has been in progress make the situation well capable of illustration by picturing the members of this House *as invited to an entertainment, say to promote recruiting or to enlarge the Patriotic Fund, to which some of the members who addressed this House recently would proEDITION
* >
COMMONb
ceed in a spirit anything but philanthropic. For example, there is the hon. member for Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie), who, I am sorry to see is not in his seat. I can very well picture him on the approach to this gathering arguing that the motor cars bearing the guests were not coming along what he considered the proper road, and as resenting this I can conceive him strewing tacks along the way of these erring motors. Then, take the hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Pugsley), and I have in my mind's eye his progress along the pavement from the street to the meeting place, having distributed along the walk a collection of banana peels, and then standing at the door and watching the downfall of the unwary guests, but offering an urbane welcome to those who bad escaped the pitfalls. Then there is the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), who also is absent. After listening carefully to his address the other night, I saw in my mind's eye his early and furtive entry into the tea-room and his carefully anointing with vinegar the jugs of cream. I pictured next another absent critic of the Administration, the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., (Mr. Carvell) whose role, it seems to me, would be having asked permission to dry a small bundle of hay in one of the stoves on the premises, to mix with the bay a noxious perfume in order that he might make his influence felt on the olfactory nerves of his audience, if he could not impress them by any other means. It seems to me that the result of the various performances of these absent critics would do anything but make for the peace and harmony of a patriotic gathering. Under these circumstances' the threat, if it were threat-the promise, or sinister suggestion, whichever it was-of the hon. member for Carleton, that Canadians, because of his criticism and the criticism of those like him, should refrain either from enlisting or from subscribing to the Patriotic Fund, would be very likely to receive some attention.
The cream of the present campaign undoubtedly had been [DOT] the efficiency and the overwhelming superiority of the navy. Yet the hon/ member for Pictou. puts this to the acid touch of his complaint that Canada has neglected to gild the refined gold in that she has not offered what he thinks should have been the" proper assistance to the Imperial Navy in the shape of strengthening their naval brigade. I will deal with his remarks practically in so far only as they affect conditions on the

Pacific Coast, although he had a good deal to say about conditions at Halifax also. Take first the steamship Rainbow, the protection bequeathed to us by the late Government. The hon. gentleman informed this House that that ship was dismantled and useless at the beginning of the campaign. But on the contrary, so reckless was the hon. gentleman in his assertions and so little care did he take to have ground for the criticism that he levelled against the Government, that the fact is quite the opposite. At the opening of the war the Rainbow was in full commission. In the spring of 1914, Canada had undertaken to send a ship to the Behring Sea Patrol to replace the Algerine and the Shearwater of the Imperial Navy, which were detained on the Mexican coast by the trouble arising in that country. The Rainbow was fitted for this service, and was prepared to leave when war broke out. The ship was immediately placed at the disposal of the Admiralty, and -has been at such disposal ever since. The -complement of the Rainbow was completed by the addition of a numbeT of Royal Nav-al Canadian Volunteer Reserve ratings who had been training at Esquimalt, and the ship put to sea immediately to protect the Canadian coasts. A report in British Columbia at the time which caused great apprehension, was to the effect that the German -ships Leipzig and Numb erg wer e off the American coast. The Rainbow went south to meet these ships, and, by so doing, enabled the little Imperial -ships Shearwater and Algerine to regain Esquimalt in safety; and also deterred the German vessels from entering the Canadian harbours without, at least -a serious conflict.
The hon. gentleman also complains of inattention on the part of this Government to requests from British Columbia for the -formation locally of a branch of the Royal Naval Reserve. In this case also he is	mistaken.
During the year before the war the question of the organization of naval reserves was taken up by the Department of the Naval Service.	In the fall of 1913,
authority was given to organize a company in Victoria, B.C., in a preliminary manner, and facilities were given for drilling in the Esquimalt dbckyard, the direction of the movement being undertaken by the naval officers at that station. During the winter of 1913-14, a -scheme for organization was drawn up, which was put into effect by Order in Council. In the spring

of 1914 arrangements were made with the Admiralty to obtain officers for the training of a corps of volunteers to be distributed throughout the country.
5 p.m. -A company was organized in Victoria and another in Vancouver, and the organization was being perfected when war broke out. The Admiralty stated that they were unable to send out the officers who were to have undertaken the training of these bodies. It was, therefore, necessary to postpone the projected organization, but the measures which were authorized were utilized for the purpose of enlisting volunteers to serve for the period of the war on the Niobe and Rainbow, to man patrol vessels and to take part in other defensive measures on the coasts of Canada. These men have been extremely useful and ' have done good service-service which has been recognized by the Imperial officers wjio have been associated with those two vessels since the outbreak ef the war. While the German vessels were patrolling the Pacific, some 450 men were enlisted in the province of British Columbia and were divided into various patrol services along the coast. After Admiral Sturdee's victory at the Falkland islands, it was no longer necessary to keep such a large number of the volunteers on service, and all. men wishing to join overseas forces were allowed to resign, and a number of other men who wished to rejoin their families were also allowed to leave the force. A number of these volunteers are still serving on the Rainbow, the Shearwater and the submarines, and employed on patrol and other duties as well.
The hon. member for Piotou seems to be under a misapprehension as to the requirements, if not the functions, of the Royal naval brigade. At the beginning of the war the Admiralty called out the Royal naval reserves, composed of men engaged in mercantile marine, but trained to a certain extent in the Royal Navy. When these men responded to the call, the Admiralty found themselves with a large body of trained seamen, from which they manned the ships ready to put to sea, and still had a considerable number of men over. The naval brigade, thus organized, while formed of reserve seamen, was partly officered [DOT] by naval officers and partly by army officers. The men were trained as a military unit and given the uniform of the land forces; they were armed and equipped in exactly the same way as the infantry regiments, and took
25J
their places in the trenches alongside of the latter. The point of this is that as Canada was already sending land forces in quite as large number as the Imperial Government could handle, it made no difference to that Government whether we sent those forces under the name of a navaJl. .brigade, a® the hon. member for Pictou suggests we should have done, or whether we enrolled them as infantry and sent them over under the name, as well as to perform the duties, of land forces.
A feature of the early part of this debate was the submarine warfare of the hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Pugsley) who, when taken to task from this side of the House, excused himself on the ground that his periscope was the press of Vancouver and Victoria. I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not present, because I would have liked in his presence to remove from him the last vestige of protection or excuse for having, with the product of the peculiar state of mental exaltation in which he must have been on his visit to the coast, given so inadequate and distorted a report of what he learned from his perusal of the press of Victoria and Vancouver. Since the hon. gentleman spoke in this House, I have been looking up the press of Victoria and Vancouver to which he had access, and which, he says, he carefully perused. I find that that press contradicts him in every particular, that there is no manner of complaint that he has alleged here and that is dealt with by the evidence as read by the Solicitor General, which was not adequately covered by the press of Victoria and Vancouver at that time; and that there are no facts which, to a man with any interest in the subject, would not have been disclosed by the perusal of that evidence. I find a statement by the hon. gentleman, for instance, that there was no explanation o,f the division of the submarine money into three drafts. On the contrary, we read in the newspapers an exact explanation, first by the manager of the bank as to the nature and amounts of the drafts; next by Mr. Paterson, the agent of the Company, as to why those divisions were made, and as to what disposition was made of each dra„ft. Further, I find that the receipts from the recipients of those drafts, showing the purpose of them, were produced before the Commission, and are on file with the other documents.
I find in the statement made by the hon. member for St. John the reiteration that he was justified in supposing that Captain Logan should have known something about
[Stage Direction]
the price of the submarines by reason of the fact that, as shown by his bill which forms part of the record presented to. this House last session, he was engaged for fifteen days in this business. On reading the Victoria press for my own information, I find that that is most carefully and thoroughly dealt with, that Captain Logan's evidence was to the effect that his first connection with the submarine business was on Sunday, August' 2, the declaration of war. being on the' 4th, and that the greater part of the fifteen days, for which he has put in a bill to the Government, was taken up, not by negotiations for the sale of those submarines, as the remarks of the hon. member for St. John would lead this House to believe, but, as plainly stated by Captain Logan himself, in the endeavour to secure torpedoes and other supplies for the craft after their purchase and delivery to Esqui-malt dockyard. So, Mr. Speaker, we have an addition to our cause for amazement that an hon. gentleman should have attempted to inform this House as to the facts of an incident, facts wlhich he said reflected severely, not only upon the politicians whom he connected with the transaction, but upon a most esteemed retired member of the judiciary engaged as a Royal Commissioner, and that he should have presumed to cast reflections, with no warrant at all in fact, so far as his own statements as to where he procured these facts admit of investigation of his allegations to this House.
Then, again, .Mr. Speaker, so far as the participation of counsel* for the Liberal party in British Columbia is concerned, I would like to add something to what has gone upon record, something which, wlhen I was perusing the press of the Coast for the purposes intended, I saw very fully set forth. I find that when Commissioner Davidson refused the counsel for the Liberal party the right to appear as such, on the ground that one party could not be represented without the other, at the same time he extended to him a most cordial invitation to attend at the sessions of the Commission, and to give Mr. Thompson, the official counsel, all the assistance in his power.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: Did the counsel for the Liberal party stay?


James Davis Taylor: 
Mr. GRAHAM:: I think that is hardly
fair. There are no hon. gentlemen who stay in the House as steadily as one of the hon. gentlemen to who my hon. friend is referring. This is Friday, some of these gentlemen may have been called away, and we do not know why members cannot be in the House. My hon. friend may be a sinner in that respect himself at times.
Mr. TAYLOR; I grant I am very often out of the House, but I would feel it my duty to remain if I had gone so far afield as to make accusations against a province with .which I had no personal concern. Had I made such accusations, had I dragged in affairs so extraneous to my own personal duty, I would have felt some responsibility to attend while an opportunity was given for the answers to be delivered.


George Perry Graham: He stayed long enough
for the answers to be given, but they were not given.


James Davis Taylor: Two of these hon. gentlemen were present when I commenced my remarks; so that, as to the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), their absence from the House at this moment is purely voluntary and is not occasioned by any circumstances over which they have no control.


Mr. A. B. McCQIG (West Kent):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words in this debate, I wish to join with previous speakers in extending to you, Sir, my most hearty congratulations upon your promotion to the high office which you now occupy. I feel satisfied that I am only expressing the sentiments of hon. gentlemen on both sides1 of the House when I say that I feel confident that you will discharge the duties of this high and honourable position with that ability and impar-
390 '

tiality which have characterized your distinguished predecessors.
I regretted very much to hear some of my hon. friends on this side of the House make the complaint that in the selection of regimental officers, and other officials of the Militia Department, in their respective constituencies, discrimination was shown against those of their friends who might be of the Liberal persuasion. I am glad to say that in the county of Kent, a portion of which I have the honour to represent in this House, appointments such as have been described have not been made. When companies were formed by the Militia Department, the officers were selected from the very best- men regardless of their political opinions.
I am proud to say that when the first contingent left Canada we sent a couple of companies from the county of Kent, and the .man in charge was Major George Smith, a Liberal in politics. He fought at the front with his men behind him on many occasions, and I am sorry .to inform the House that in the last great battle in which he was engaged he was killed while attacking a third trench after he and his men had already captured two. I wish to extend to the Prime Minister of this country and to the Minister of Militia the most sincere thanks of my constituents, as well as my own, for the kind letters of condolence that they extended to Major Smith's wife and orphan son. I am glad to inform the House that since that time many of the brightest young men in the county of Kent have left for the front to do battle in defence of their country-not only men in the humbler walks of life, but sons of our wealthiest families in the city of Chatham, and in the municipalities and in the whole county. I am also glad to say that the ladies of Kent county have at all times endeavoured to do their duty. Whether in connection with the Red Cross Society, the Daughters of the Empire, or some other patriotic association, the ladies of my county, like the many ladies we see at different times in the galleries of this building, are providing comforts for those who have gone to the front, working from the time they get up in the morning till they go to bed at night. The ladies in the country districts in the county of Kent went so far last harvest as to can hundreds and hundreds of qparts of peaches and forwarded them to the front, and the boys at the front have expressed their appreciation not 
only for the fruit that has been sent them, but for the many other acts of kindness which have been extended to them by the industrious women of Kent. The fund which was provided to look after the boys at the front from the county has, I am glad to say, on no occasion been exhausted. I see by the Patriotic Bulletin, issued under the direction of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames), that Kent county raised $85,000 in three days for the Patriotic Fund. Furthermore, Mr. Harry Collins, the local treasurer of the fund, has assured Sir Herbert Ames that the city of Chatham and county promised $150,000 for the year 1916. I think we all admire Sir Herbert Ames. He has given much of his time and attention to the Patriotic Fund, and as its secretary enjoys the confidence, I believe, of all members of this House and of the people as a whole. When he visited Chatham he was received there in the most unpartisan way imaginable, and he said that the county had contributed even more generously than the figures showed, as they had previously spent the sum of $15,000 for the use of the wives and dependents of the soldiers who had enlisted at an earlier date.
I am also glad to inform the House that the Minister of Militia has given instructions to form a Kent battalion, known as the 186th, for overseas service, and they have already obtained some three or four hundred splendid fellows. The man at the * head of that battalion is Lt. Colonel Neil Smith, a Liberal. The Minister of Militia appointed him befcause he knew that he was the best man that could be found for the position, not only in the county of Kent, but possibly in the whole of Ontario. The Minister of Militia knew him personally. Lt. Colonel Neil Smith is such an expert marksman that he was chosen for the Bisley team which went to England some years ago, and he did honour to the county of Kent while he was there, for he carried off some of the highest prizes.- He was selected to go with the Bisley team on another occasion, and I am proud to say that in competition with the greatest marksmen in the Empire he was second in the competition for the highest prize awarded. He not only brought honour on himself, and on the Minister of Militia who appointed him, but upon the Dominion of Canada, the county of Kent, and will say, also, on the new battalion which is now being formed. When the day comes for this battalion to leave Canada, Lt. Colonel

Smith will have associated with him as officers some of the brightest young men that ever breathed the breath of life, Liberals and Conservatives, and I doubt whether a finer fighting force will be found than the 186th Kent Battalion. When the occasion presents itself at the front I know that the 186th will do themselves proud, and do the Empire proud. I say this in all seriousness; in the county of Kent we fight elections as keenly as in any other section of Canada, but when the elections are over politics are forgotten, and we work for the very best interests of the county. As far as great industries in the city of Chatham are concerned, if the Prime Minister were in his seat he would bear me out in saying that Chatham has the very best industries of any city of its size in the wlhole Dominion. I remember well the Premier paying us a visit during the elections of 1911. On that occasion I had the privilege of hearing the right hon. gentleman address one of the largest meetings ever held in the county, and he paid one of the highest compliments to our industries that has ever been paid by any statesman or leader of any great political party.
I do not remember his words exactly, but he was so impressed with our industries and the agricultural district surrounding the city of Chatham that when he came back to headquarters in Ottawa he insisted upon the Minister of Finance paying us a visit, also the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Justice, and, as regards members on the back benches, the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. J. E. Armstrong), the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith), and the hon. Mr. Good-eve, who represented Kootenay at that time, but has since been promoted. All these gentlemen came to see the splendid industries established in the city of Chatham and the splendid agricultural sections surrounding it. After they had done their part in paying compliments to our splendid city and county, we also had a visit from: Sir Clifford Sifton and Mr. Arthur Hawkes, who also paid their respects to the people of the county of Kent, and I am sure that all these hon. gentlemen will hear me out when I say that no honest Government could conscientiously, if they considered for a moment the industries in the county of Kent, let contracts as they have done by the hundreds of millions of dollars and overlook that county and city of which they said they were so proud,
when they paid us those complimentary visits at that particular time. Contracts for shells and 'boxes have been let not only in the city of St. Thomas, which the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) has the honour of representing, but in the city of London, in the town of Ingersoll; but when the Shell Committee came down the Grand Trunk line, they missed the city of Chatham, jumped over to the town of Walker-ville, and gave that town a big contract. As we had some industries that were lying idle, that could manufacture shells or other goods required by the Militia Department for the carrying on of this war, we sent deputation after deputation of the very best citizens of the city of Chatham to wait on the different members of the Government and on other men connected with it Who, we thought, might persuade the Government to give our manufacturers some work, because a number of our factories were closing down and a number of men capable of doing work along this particular line were anxious for,employment. As proud, however, as all these ministers of the Government and their colleagues were of the city of Chatham, not one dollar's worth of shells or boxes was given to that beautiful city. Seeing that they had visited the city, I thought that it would be well for me to write the Minister of Labour, believing that he would have the, patronage of the southwestern part of Ontario. I received from that hon. gentleman a very kind letter in which he asked me to write to Colonel Bertram. I took advantage of his suggestion and wrote to Colonel Bertram, and I received a reply from the colonel assuring me that the contracts were all awarded for the shells that were needed at that particular time, but that he would not overlook Chatham at the very earliest opportunity when there were any shell contracts to be let, and that our manufacturers could be sure that they would get their share. While at that time we were in need of work for our labouring men, who are as good a class of mechanics and labourers as are to be found in the province of Ontario, we were unable to get work for them, and all I have to say is this, that thanks to the progressive board of trade and the council and certain intelligent citizens of the city of Chatham, those factories which at that time were in need of contracts to make shells and boxes are going to be working full blast, and our labouring men will be employed without any thanks to the present Administration. We enjoy to-day the proud distinction of being one of

the cities that have not gone back at this time of financial stress and trouble, and our city is going to go ahead. In the near future a large sugar plant will be erected which will mean the expenditure of about a million dollars, and other industries are being established at .the present time. And I simply want to assure this Government that 'as far as the city of Chatham is concerned, even if they cannot see their way clear to give us. any contracts or any work, the labouring men as well as the manufacturers throughout the county will do everything in their power to put up money and to send men to assist this Government in bringing to a successful conclusion the war which is now raging.
. I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. Minister of Militia the other afternoon when he addressed this House make the following statement, as reported on page 304 of Hansard:
Let us take up next the Militia appointments. Two divisional commanders out of three are good staunch Liberals. I refer to General Currie, of Victoria, and to General Turner, of Quebec, two of the finest fellows who ever stood inside jackets, and two of the best men to be found in the Dominion.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.
Sir Sam Hughes: Not a solitary Conservative in the Whole Dominion objected when I nominated these men for brigadiers long ago. The other one is General Mercer. As regards the politics of the brigadiers, I understand they are about half and half. I do not know what my own son's politics may be, but I know he will vote straight anyway. As regards the lower commanders, I am told by those who ****<. looked up the matter-I have not looked up myself, it would make no difference anyway-that three-fourths of them are Liberal and one-fourth Tory.
It is gratifying to me as one of the younger members of this House to hear the Minister of Militia give not only to the members of this House but to the people throughout the length and breadth [DOT]of Canada, the assurance that the Liberal party is doing its share in sending men and officers to assist in this great struggle. There are some who make invidious comparisons, men who we sometimes say belong to the flag-waving party. These men, in. the face of this announcement, will never again dare to say that the Liberal party in this great struggle is not doing its duty in the way of supplying officers, when we already have three out of four commanding the different companies and regiments.	.
On this and on other occasions there have come up matters to which almost every speaker has referred, and there is one which is certainly very ahiusing. 
Speakers on the opposite side, and on this side, are all referring, Sir, to two gentlemen from your native province, Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Lavergne, and they all seem to be trying to drop them like two hot coals. In the constituency which I represent, one of the great points made during the campaign at the last general election was that all that the Conservatives needed was to win twenty-two seats. In the Conservative paper of my city, on the night when the hon. Minister of Finance addressed the electors in my riding, there was quite a long article saying that twenty-two seats would win the election for Sir Robert Borden, and in the report of that meeting in the paper there was given a summary of how it could be accomplished; that is, that Mr. Bourassa would carry many seats in Quebec, because the fight was not on the reciprocity issue,	but the great issue
was that the people of Quebec were opposed to Laurier and his navy. This was the argument they were putting up-that they would carry so many seats in Ontario, so many seats in the Maritime Provinces and the West, and Bourassa would carry so many .seats in Quebec, and this would put the Conservatitve party into power. Let me assure hon. gentlemen that, so far as the county of Kent is concerned, on patriotic lines we are a united people, and will do everything possible to assist this Government in carrying on our share of the war.
Many references have been made to the speech of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), especially in the speech of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), whom I am glad to see in his place. I feel that I speak for every hon. member on this side of the House when I assure the hon. minister that so far as he is personally concerned we regard him as one of the finest gentlemen we have in this House at this time. I believe the member for Carleton rendered a great service not only to this Parliament hut also to the agriculturists of Canada in placing before this House the charges he made with regard to the contracts in his own province. It is greatly to the credit of the hon. member for Carleton that he at last woke up the Minister of Agriculture to deliver a speech with the fire and vim that the minister displayed. If the minister would only follow up his great agitation of a year ago for "Patriotism and Production" with the same force and energy that he displayed

in his abuse of the hon. member for Car-leton, it would be a great blessing for the agriculturists of Canada. What has the hon. mimilster been doing itttie iasit two or three sessions? I put that question to the respected colleagues of the hon. minister. The charge is made that a contract has been entered into for 15,000 tons of hay at $23 a ton. I cannot understand why the members on the Conservative side of the House, particularly those from the province of Ontario, elected by the agriculturists of that province, will sit in their places and pound their desks when the minister announces a contract of this kind, when there are tons upon tons of hay in the province of Ontario for which we cannot get more than $12 or $13 a ton. No person knows better than I do that if one cannot get a market for his products it is mighty little use to grow them. But if the minister wished to contract for 15,000 tons of hay-I put this to hon. gentlemen on the other side who are interested in agriculture-would it not have been better to divide that up into two or three contracts of moderate size and give to the farmers of Ontario-of whom we are so proud at election times particularly, and to whom we always/appeal for support-an opportunity to supply the requirements? In the southwestern part of Ontario we have the best hay-producing section in this whole dominion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Except Rouville.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Out of respect to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux), I will revise that, and say that we can produce hay equally good and in equally large quantities with any other section of the Dominion. But * if we can not sell our hay to the Government or to the people of our own large cities, then, if we see a market across the line, we want the privilege of sending our hay to that market. But what has happened? This contract is let at $23 a ton to friends of the Government-that is not denied by the minister-and the very minute that contract is let an embargo is put upon hay so that it can not be sent out of this country. That simply means that the Minister of Agriculture was neglecting the men whom he is alleged to represent in this House.
In the same way, on the first day of May last, a very similar thing was done by this Government when it passed an order in council placing an embargo on wool. The Minister of Agriculture-


Mr. WILCOX:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me-


Archibald Blake McCoig: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker-you have been one of my old friends on the ball ground. The hon. member for North Essex had his innings the other day, and I think the House will allow me my innings to-day. I say that on the first day of May last an embargo was placed upon wool, and I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture if that is not so. This was in the warm season when the farmers were shearing their sheep-at any rate that was the case in my own constituency. Now, naturally, farmers in humble circumstances do not know the minds of this Government and of the Minister of Agriculture. They naturally thought that this embargo was put on for keeps. They would not suppose that it was done for a joke. These farmers assumed that this was a business act by business men. And so they went on and sold their-wool. At the time the embargo was put on the price of wool was 30 cents a pound. On 8th May it was 20-25 cents; on 15th May it was down to 20 cents, and the same on 22nd May. But the agricultural papers of the province of Ontario put up such a fight that the minister could not stand it, and so he put the embargo off. Immediately the price went back to 25 cents, and by 25th June it was 35 cents. The difference in price between this date and the time when the embargo was on was 15 cents a pound, and who was the loser? The loser was the man in humble circumstances, wherever he may live throughout the length and breadth of Canada, who was engaged in the sheep industry. The loss of the average man in this matter was enough to have paid his hired man for the season.	.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 3, respecting The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.-Mr. Stevens.	_
Bill No. 4, respecting The Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Bradbury.
Bill No. 5, respecting The Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 6, to confirm certain agreements made between The Canadian Northern
[Stage Direction]
Ontario Railway Company, The Canadian Northern Railway Company and The Canadian Pacific Railway	Company-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 7, respecting The Parnham and Granby Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 8, respecting The Niagara, St. Catherines and Toronto Railway Company. -Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 9, respecting The Peace River Tramway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 10, to incorporate Les Soeurs de l'Assomption de la Sainte-Vierge.-Mr. Lemieux.
Bill No. 11, respecting British America Nickel Corporation Limited.-Mr. North-rup.
Bill No. 12, respecting The Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 13, respecting The Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No- 14, respecting The Central Western Canada Railway Company.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 15, respecting The Pacific Northern and Omineca Railway Company.-Mr. Green.
Bill No. 16, respecting The Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Lemieux.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Archibald Blake McCoig: Mr. Speaker, when the
House rose at six o'clock I was endeavouring to draw to the attention of the Hon. Minister of Agriculture some of the reasons why I felt that he should look into many parts of his department and try to make some alterations which would be greatly to the benefit of the farmers whom he represents in this House. I had finished my references to the question of placing an embargo on wool. There is now another matter which I should like to draw to the attention of the House, and that is the tobacco industry.
We have in the county of Kent, and also in the adjoining counties, a great number of farmers who have been encouraged to go into the tobacco industry, and who have spent large sums of money on the advice 
of the Government of this country. About two years ago, after the farmers had invested large sums of money in that industry, and had endeavoured to put it on a paying basis, and give employment to a large number of labouring men who were looking for work in the different counties, I drew the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that the farmers, who had grown the tobacco, had been unable to dispose of it and that they felt that the purchasing of that particular crop had been left too much in the hands of one buyer. In fact, it was alleged by these producers that there was a combine,- so far as the purchasing of tobacco was concerned, in the different southwestern counties of the province of Ontario. I drew the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the matter, feeling that he would be interested, or at all events should be interested, in the different agricultural industries which are carried on in all parts of the Dominion, and'that he should endeavour to do something to assist the farmers in that particular industry.
The reply I received from the minister, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, was very cold consolation for the farmers to whom I referred. If I remember rightly, his letter referred me to the Minister of Labour, and told me that if there was a combine, the farmers could take the matter up under the Combines Act and possibly get some redress from that source. Whether the Department of Agriculture could do anything or not, it certainly did very little at that particular time in trying to assist the farmers who were engaged in the tobacco industry, or in endeavouring to find markets for the crops which they could not dispose of in that particular section of the country.
Time went on, things grew worse, and the farmers, feeling that they could not possibly continue in that industry unless something was done, made up their minds to come to Ottawa. They came to Ottawa and were received by hon. ministers of the Government. The Minister of Agriculture was absent, possibly unavoidably, at any rate he was not present, but I have never heard that he got any information from the ministers who received that delegation, or that he took any steps to assist them in the work in which they were interested. I can assure you, Sir, that on that occasion the deputation, which numbered between 200 and 300, and the members of which had paid their own fares from extreme points in the province of Ontario to Ottawa, and included many from the province of Quebec, went away after their courteous recep-

tion feeling that they would have some assistance from the Government of this country.	,
I remember the arguments that were advanced. They asked if the Government would change the excise duty to a customs duty. It was contended by the Minister of Finance, and by the other gentlemen who spoke on that occasion, that there was practically no difference .so far as that was concerned, They asked for other concessions. I remember well that some of the farmers argued that there was a great difference between an excise duty and w customs duty, and that if the Government said that their request would be granted they would go home perfectly satisfied, feeling that they had accomplished something as a result of their trip to the capital of the Dominion.
Shortly afterwards I remember the Minister of Finance summoned some manufacturers of this country to meet him. The manufacturers, who numbered possibly four or five, had an interview with the minister, but the 'Government has done practically nothing since; certainly, nothing has been heard so far as assisting the tobacco growers is concerned.
After their visit to Ottawa the Ontario producers met Quebec consumers, and were able, by their own efforts, to dispose of a portion of their crop which they had in their barrife at that particular time. The position is this: If the farmers cannot depend upon the Minister of Agriculture taking an interest in the crops which his department encourages the farmers to produce, to whom are the farmers to go for assistance in important matters of that kind? I understand that the people who are interested in this great industry are coming back to Ottawa to wait upon the 'Government again, and to see if there is not some possible way of assisting them. I hope that when they do return the Minister of Agriculture will be able to join his colleagues in receiving such an important body of men, and will see his way to give not only encouragement but some substantial assistance.
There-is another matter to which I wish to call the attention of the Government, particularly the Minister of Agriculture. There are many matters of importance connected with his department in which he seems to take very little interest. A year ago the farmers, not only of my county, but of other counties in the province of Ontario, were threatened with an epidemic of
hog cholera, which threatened to wipe out the hog industry. At that time the farmers connected with one of the farmers' institutes in my county wrote to the minister and asked him to come and wait upon them and discuss the situation with the view of suggesting measures which would save those interested in the hog industry from great financial loss. What happened on that occasion? The Minister of Agriculture replied to those farmers that he was too busy to come and meet them. He was too busy at that time to go to the county of Kent and discuss that important question which was causing financial loss, but he was not too busy a short time before that to go and address a Conservative convention in the city of Chatham. The farmers took the matter up and one of the veterinaries came to the city of Chatham and heard the arguments of the farmers, and he left with an entirely different view of the situation from fbjat he had formerly held. When the matter was brought up in this House, the Prime Minister made a note of the matter, and I believe he insisted upon the Minister of Agriculture taking steps to assist the hog industry. I repeat if you cannot depend on the Minister of Agriculture to look after the industries connected with his department, whom can we depend upon? A year ago the minister and his department, recommended the farmers to go in for wheat extensively. A few weeks ago I read in one of the Toronto papers an interview in which'the deputy minister advised them not to go into wheat-growing extensively, but to curtail their wheat crops and go into cattle raising extensively. The result is that today in the province of Ontario, and particularly in the section I come from, we' have not one-half the acreage in wheat which we had twelve months ago. What followed? The farmers curtailed their crops, and when the market opened they were receiving $1 a bushel for their wheat. A few farmers at that time disposed of it. I was one of the few who were fortunate enough to do so, and I got a dollar a bushel for a thousand bushels of wheat. But after that wheat began to drop; it went down from $1 to 95 cents, then 85 cents, then 80 cents, and finally as low as 75 cents a bushel. The men who were in humble circumstances in the province of Ontario had to dispose of their wheat at the smaller price. On the 24th November this Government commandeered 15,000,000 bushels of wheat. If my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has the confidence of his col-

leagues he should have known that this wheat' was going to be commandeered in November. The minute that announcement was made by the Government the price ol wheat began to go up until to-day we see that May wheat is quoted at $1.35 a bushel. The farmers who, after threshing, were forced to sell their wheat to pay their taxes, their rent, the interest on their mortgages, the notes that they had given for the things which it was necessary for them to procure to enable them to conduct their business, and generally to meet their liabilities, had to dispose of their wheat, and these men who were	unable to	hold it for	thereasons I have enumerated, had to take a smaller	price	than that whichthe wealthy farmers, - millers and elevator men	were	able	to demand	forthe wheat	which	they	had in store.	We
had a larger acreage of wheat in the province than usual, largely because of the campaign which had been carried on in 1914. The farmers should have been advised that there would be this demand for wheat by the Minister of Agriculture, whose duty it is to give information to the people who are depending upon him. I was glad that my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B., (Mr. Carvell) woke up the Minister of Agriculture the other day to new life and vigour in this House, and I hope that an equal energy will characterize his administration of the department over which he presides.
Not only did the farmers in humble circumstances sustain a loss by the disposal of their wheat at this particular time, but the farmer has even a greater grievance against the Government than this. I refer to the scandals which have arisen in different parts of the country in connection with the^ purchase of horses for military purposes. The question of the purchase of horses by the Government was brought prominently before the House twelve months ago. After the late member for Kings, N.S., had been read out of the party by the right hon. the Prime * Minister, we expected that we would hear no more about members or supporters of the Government taking a prominent part in the purchasing of horses. A year or two ago, wftien a great many horses of an inferior quality were thrown upon the market, it was advertised in ithe press of the country that this was the class of horses that was being shipped from Canada for war purposes. As . far as the purchase of horses is concerned, we care not ihow much . was made by certain, men down in Kings
[M'. McC g.]
county, N.S., but we do complain that, as a consequence of these men throwing an inferior class of horses upon the market, in order to make a few dollars, the reputation of Canadian horses has, to a certain extent, been ruined, to the great injury of our legitimate farmers, wlho, for many years, on the advice not only of the present Government, but of previous governments, have been endeavouring to make the horse industry one, of the most important in this Dominion. But what do we find? We find that the same practices which occurred in Nova Scotia were repeated in Ontario. Considering the high regard- that we all have for the hon. gentleman who represents the constituency we would scarcely expect that a similar ambition would manifest itself there; but in the constituency of the hon. gentleman who represents the county of Peel (Mr. Blain) we find that the Conservative member of the Provincial Legislature gets a contract and goes into the horse-buying business also.
Now, let us see what the press of the country says about these particular transactions. First, I shall read from the Toronto World, a good Conservative paper, which, I am sure, my hon. friends opposite will not object to me quoting. The World says:
Tells Sir Charles Davidson, Royal Commissioner, of Sale of Horses for Army- * Some Rejected Sold-Albert Kee, Brampton Liveryman, Says Horses Turned Down, Accepted After.
Brampton, Dec. 1.-As a result of rumours that have been in circulation here for some time, an investigation regarding the buying of army horses in Peel county, dating back to August, 1914, was opened before Sir Charles Davidson, Royal Commissioner, here yesterday afternoon, John Thompson, K.C., of Ottawa, conducted the examination.
The first witness called was E. J. Jones, a horse dealer of Brampton. He had, in partnership with James E. Fallis, also of Brampton, sold 360 horses in August, 1914, to the government agents, Col. Hall and Capt. McDonald. Fallis financed the business and received two-thirds of the profits, one-third being his share.
To Mr. Thompson's inquiry as to the profits out of this sale of horses, Jones replied :
"About $3,200. I received $1,000 and my partner about $2,000."
This Mr. Fallis was a member of the Legislature, and he received $2,000 and his partner $1,000. That is where the trouble began again.
What did the Toronto News say about the investigation? I will just read the headlines. As every ihon. member of this House knows, this is one of the leading Conservative papers in the province: "

Fifteen-Year-Old Horse sold at Brampton for the Army-Sir Charles Davidson continues investigation into Purchases-'Deny Payments of Commission-One horse said to have been " fixed up " by Shoes.
I have another from the Toronto Star:
Davidson Probe at Brampton Wednesday-Too many Middlemen in the Horse Purchases for Government-A man who "helped"- Evidence not sensational, but " influence " was apparently a Requisite.
Then follows the report, which states that:
Twelve others were rejected. Some of these had been sold for war purposes later.
Witness declared that an inspector named Hall had first rejected and later purchased some of the horses.
Four or five of the rejected horses-possibly the whole 12-had been sold through Fallis.
Asked if he had paid any commission to anyone, he said he had given $110 in cash to E. J. Jones, a previous witness. This was after the rejected horses were purchased.
Here is another heading from the Toronto Star:
Jack-Spavined horse sound " in a sense "-Sold as Four Tears Old, Although Age couldn't be estimated-Another was lazy-Would Balk when Heavily loaded-Royal Commission Investigates Purchases.
The Mail and Empire states practically the same thing:
Albert Kee, of Brampton, said that he had purchased 22. horses, but had only been able to dispose of eight of them at the outset to the Government. Subsequently five or six of the animals which had been at first rejected were accepted and sent to the Union Stock Yards in Toronto. He admitted that he had given E. J. Jones $110 after the inspection was over. Pressed for his reason for making the payment, he said that he thought Jones "had
" How had Ire earned it?" he was asked, and he replied, "He helped get the Inspectors to our stables."
The Toronto Star again has a large headline:
Peel County War Horses not up to Standard- Bocal Veterinary says many could not stand up to the Work-Were bought by J. R. Fallis, M.P.P.-Conflicting evidence given as to Price asked by a Bolton Vendor.
I have a long editorial from the Toronto Globe. It is headed: "A Disgrace in Public Life." Many hon. members of this House have no doubt read this article. I have also a few clippings from the Conservative press which it would be in order to read to the members of the House. But I find that the Globe, on December 11, 1915, says:
J. R. Fallis, M.P.P., for Peel, confers with Premier.
What is to bs done about Mr. J. R. Fallis, M.P.P., for Peel, who made handsome profits
buying horses and selling them to the Government for military purposes? The question -is taking up some of the time of Premier Hearst. Mr. Fallis had a lengthy conference with the Premier yesterday. Mr. Richard Blain, M.P., for Peel, was the third party in the conference, and was there presumably to assist Mr. Fallis in presenting his case.
Mr. Fallis greeted the newspapermen amiably, but said, holding up his hand, "I have nothing for you," and left with Mr. Blain. "I have nothing at all to say regarding the conference," said the Premier. No other member of the Cabinet was present with the Premier.
The Toronto Telegram of December 6, 1915, also has a strong editorial demanding the resignation of Mr. Fallis from the Provincial Legislature. The Toronto News strongly condemns the action of this gentleman. I could go on reading clippings to the same effect from leading newspapers throughout the country, but it is hardly necessary. I should just like to call attention to the following from the Toronto World of July 28, 1915:
Shipment of Horses on way to the War.
Two Grand Trunk railway trains loaded with army horses passed through Toronto yesterday en route from Chicago to Montreal. One of these trains had 50 cars, and the other 19, so that in all there were about 1,400 horses. At West Toronto the cars were unloaded the chargers to be exercised and watered, and horsemen who saw them were surprised at the quality of the selection. The horses were bought by the British, military authorities in Chicago, and were rounded up in all the Western States.
A Grand Trunk railway official stated that since the declaration of war more than .80,000 horses have been shipped through Toronto on their way to the front.
Since that date many thousands more horses must have passed through this country from American points. The farmers of this country have a right to expect the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister to help them dispose of the large surplus of horses we have in this country, particularly lin Ontario. But what do we find? Instead of helping the farmer, the Government imposes an embargo which prohibits the farmers of Ontario from shipping their horses just over the line to the State of Michigan, where, after paying $10 duty, they could dispose of these horses to the army buyers in the States. The Government did nothing to help the farmer until practically the very day before Parliament met, when an order in council was passed removing the embargo. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the farmers of this country are discouraged, and it is incumbent on the Minister of Agriculture or some other member of the Government to an-

nounee to this Bouse and the country whether they intend to give any assistance to this great industry, or 'are going to follow the same unfortunate policy they have pursued in the past. Unless the horse industry is stimulated and encouraged, and the Government finds some way of disposing of the surplus horses we have on hand, the farmers will not raise so many faoTses in 1916 as they did in 1915. I think I have shown that the Government is neglecting this great industry.
You will Temember, Mr. Speaker, that we were told some time ago the Cockshutt Plow Company were not going to raise their prices on agricultural implements because they were too patriotic. In conversation with a farmer the other day who had endeavoured to purchase a Cockshutt machine, I learned that he had been told by one of the Cockshutt agents that their prices had gone up all along the line. This hon. gentleman, who was so patriotic a year ago that he was complimented by the Prime Minister on his stand, has fallen from grace and is raising the price of agri cultural implements to the farmers of this country. It is now rumored that there will be another increase in the tax on agricultural implements. I hope this will not take place. I appeal to the Government to . be satisfied with the taxes they are already levying upon the farmers of this country, and in this connection let me quote from a speech made by the Minister of Labour in the city of Chatham during the Reciprocity campaign of 1911. I am quoting from the Chatham Daily Planet of July 31, 1911. The minister said:
If the farmers went down (to Ottawa) they would get the same answer as the fruit growers got. The duty will remain on hinders though. In other words, the duty will remain on everything the farmer buys, because Sir Wilfred says the duty will remain on manufactured goods. The duty-in other words, the taxes-will be removed in all things you produce and left on all things you have to buy. Is that fair taxation? Why, this agreement is directly in favour of the manufacturer instead of the farmer!
If the question of raising the duty comes up again, I hope the Minister of Labour will practice the same thing that he preached before the Conservative convention at Chatham bn that day.
We have been told by different gentlemen in this House that questions of a contentious nature should not be brought up in the House at the present time. I contend that the matters I have had the privilege of bringing before the House are not con-
tentious in any sense of the word. I have brought these matters to the attention of the ministers of the different departments, because if they give them their serious attention, it will be of great benefit to the farmers of my county and of Canada as a whole, and will greatly assist the manufacturers of my city, and labour generally. We shall then be in a better position to hear our share in the great war that is now going on. I appeal to the Government to give these matters their earnest consideration, and I feel satisfied that if they do so it will greatly assist us in doing what we are all interested in, <* that is to carry this war through to a successful conclusion.


Mr. F. B. McCURDY (Shelburne and Queens):: 
Mr. McKENZIE:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman states that I made statements which were absolutely and patently untrue. Will he please repeat what I stated and what he says is untrue?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think that the point
of order is well taken, and I would like the hon. member to withdraw the expression " untrue."


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The hon. member for
North Cape Breton has asked me to state in what regard his statements are absolutely and patently incorrect and untrue, and with your permission, Sir, I shall have pleasure in doing so. On page 316 of the Unrevised Hansard, we have the following statement by the hon. member for North Cape Breton:
If the Prime Minister, or anybody else who cares to look the matter up, will turn to the flies of the Halifax Herald-the organ of the right hon. gentleman-of a few days ago, they will find on the front page the picture of a distinguished gentlemen who some time ago fled the country on the pretext that he was going to the war. He will find that this gentleman is back in Nova Scotia with the title of major, and that he is going to he given a battalion in the province of Nova Scotia and sent back to the front. Why was he sent away? Why did he leave the country? He left the country, Sir, because the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia was entering upon a trial at that time, in. which trial he has been found guilty of forgery; in which, in not less than eight cases, he has been found guilty of being an accessory before and after the fact to perjury. He was blacklisted and disqualified by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, and under that cloud he left the country.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is all true.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: But .he came back-he came back promoted to the position of major, and he is to-day honoured and petted and advanced in the county of Halifax, where the patronage belongs to the Prime Minister, and with the knowledge that the records of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia prove to the hilt everything that I say in respect of him.
Was it fair, was it honourable, was it truthful, for the hon. gentleman to assert that Major Muirhead fled the country on the pretext that he was going to the war? The hon. gentleman cannot deny that when Major Muirhead enlisted for service at the front, there was no charge against him of any kind, and that it was only after he

had been gone for months that his name incidentally figured in an election trial begun many weeks after he had gone overseas. What does the hon. gentleman mean when he says:
Major Muirhead fled the country on the pretext that he was going to the war.
Does he wish to intimate that Major Muirhead has not actually participated in the war? Will he deny that the major has for the last eight months faced death in every form in the defence of the rights and privileges which my hon. friend to-day enjoys in ease and without privation? When the hon. gentleman sgiys:
Major Muirhead left the country, because the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia was entering upon a trial at that time, in which trial he has been found guilty of forgery; and in which, in not less than eight cases, he has been found guiltv of being an accessory before and after the fact to perjury.
The hon. gentleman says something which he has every facility for ascertaining is absolutely and patently untrue.
Mr. MoKENZIE: As a member of this House I have a right to protect myself. I was quoting a matter of record of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, and I consider that the record is open to my hon. friend, and the record will show that 1 was not wrong at all.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I have not the honour of being as familiar with the practices of that court as is my hon. friend. I have not had the privilege of being a practicing barrister before the courts of Nova Scotia, nor of being a judge of the County Court of Nova Scotia, but I do affirm and my hon. friend cannot controvert my statement that the record of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia- gives no warrant for my hon. friend's assertion that Major Muirhead was ever disqualified by that Supreme Court. Furthermore, at that trial Major Muirhead was not found guilty of perjury; he wlae not even charged with perjury; he had no notice before be enlisted, nor before he went oversea^ that he would figure in any way in the trial, and consequently he had not the slightest opportunity of rebutting references to him which were disclosed as the trial proceeded.
I have the personal assurance of the major himself that had he been present he could have absolutely absolved himself from any blame in connection with the election in question in any way whatever,

and I .accept his statement without the slightest reserve.
The hon. member for North Cape Breton has also deemed it his duty to attack an officer of the 85th Battalion now quartered at Halifax, Dr. Joseph Hayes. He states that Dr. Hayes was made a colonel by the present Minister of Militia. Once again the hon. gentleman's statements are at absolute variance with the facts. He has not even taken the trouble to look up the militia list which is available to every member of this House and to every citizen of this country. Like some other members on the opposite side of the House, he satisfies himself with making assertions although the proof that these assertions are unfounded is open to any person who will take the trouble to seek it. Dr. Hayes received his commission as colonel while the Liberal Minister of Militia was in office six or seven years before 19X1. Does the hon. member for North Cape Breton question the truth of that statement ? Furthermore, Colonel Hayes received his appointment with the 85th Regiment, with which he is now connected, on the recommendation of the officer now commanding that regiment. The name of that officer was mentioned in the House the other day by the Minister of Militia. It is no secret that this officer stated that in the [DOT]election of 1911 he went from Ottawa to Halifax and personally mairsihialled the mem bers of the force there to vote against the present Prime Minister of this country. Colonel Borden has himself stated that he, and he alone, was responsible for the appointment of that officer. Furthermore, Colonel Borden has assured me within the past two weeks that he would not know where to look for a more efficient officer than Colonel Hayes. He says that no -more satisfactory and capable officer could possibly be found.
The hon. member for North Cape Breton criticises Dr. Hayes' appointment as medical officer of the 85th Regiment on the ground that he is a Tory. Why did he not criticise the appointment of Dr. J. A. Sponagle as medical officer of the 25th Battalion on the ground that he is a Grit?
Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to be able to state that no Conservative member in this Parliament, and I believe no Conservative in the country, has ever been guilty of attacking Colonel Sponagle or any
9	p.m. of the numerous other Liberal officers who have received just recognition and promotion on the ground of

their party affiliations. It remained for statesmen of the stature of my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) the hon member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) to introduce a discordant and unprovoked element into a branch of the service, which, of all others, should be immune from such attacks.
The hon. member for North Cape Breton states that in the county of Halifax, to quote his own words, " the vilest sort of partisans are put at the head of battalions in the highest positions that they can be given." Who are these " vile partisans " of whom he complains? The last battalion to complete mobilization in the province of Nova Scotia is the 85th. Colonel Allison H. Borden, to whom I have already referred, is the first in command'of that regiment. Who is the second in command? Colonel N. H. Parsons, one of the strongest and most active Liberal workers in the county of Kings, a gentleman who quite recently has been addressing Liberal clubs in the Annapolis valley. As to Paymaster Morrison, who, I think, comes from the hon. gentleman's own part of the country, is he to be branded a "vile partisan"? The third officer in command of this battalion is Major Day, whose residence in the United States has removed him from close connection with party associations in this country. He is a splendid type of the expatriated Canadian who in this great emergency have returned to Canada to offer their lives and their all to defend the land of their birth and to ensure the triumph of the cause of civilization.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the sturdy soldiers who compose that regiment, particularly those from the county which the hon. member represents, would say to the hon. gentleman, who would state, on his responsibility as a member of this House, that the officers in command of this regiment-Colonel Bordep., Colonel Parsons, Major Day, Paymaster Morrison and the other officers of this popular and efficient staff-are " the vilest sort of partisans." 1 take the responsibility, in their absence and on their behalf, of publicly branding that statement as one absolutely untruthful, unfortunate, and regrettable, one that should not have been made either in this House or out of this House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I never made the
statement at all.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I will refer to the hon. gentleman's statement as reported at page 316 of the unrevised Hansard:
But I do charge, in the presence of the Prime Minister, who is a Nova Scotian of whom we are proud, that in the county of Halifax, where I hold him responsible for the patronage, the vilest sort of partisans are put at the head of battalions in the highest possible positions that they can be given.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That' is absolutely
true.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The highest position in the battalion is that of colonel. The latest battalion mobilized in Nova Scotia is the 85th, of which Colonel Borden is the respected, efficient, and honoured commanding officer.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I had no reference to
Colonel Borden.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: If the hon. member for North Cape Breton does not refer to Colonel Borden, I would ask him to whom he does refer. There are only two regiments quartered in Halifax-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the hon- gentleman wants to know, I had two men in mind, two men blacklisted and condemned by the Supreme Court,-Muirhead and Hayes. These are the only two I had in mind, and I have the record of the Supreme Court to back me up.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I would suggest to my hon. friend from North Cape Breton, in view of his confession at this time, that he can properly be more particular in the statements he makes in this House. It is not too much to expect that hon. gentlemen who make statements in this House reflecting upon the character of others should be most particular as to what they say. But apparently my hon. friend has imbibed the spirit which has been characteristic of some hon. gentlemen opposite during the course of this debate-that of being ready to make charges and assertions without having the proofs to back them up. The language which my hon. friend used was most explicit. He said that those who hold the highest commissions in these regiments are the vilest sort of partisans. That narrows the case down to the highest officers of the regiment, and, necessarily, so far as I can see, includes the colonels of the 85th and 64th regiments.
I think it is extremely unfortunate and most regrettable that any reference should be made to the politics of the men who are fighting for their country at



the present time. I believe, furthermore, that the references that have been made in this connection are most repugnant to them and most repugnant to the people of the country at large. If there is to be no truce in this Parliament, if there is to be no truce upon the hustings, hon. gentlemen opposite should at least afford to declare a truce with regard to the army itself. Surely men may be allowed to go to the discharge of their duties without being attacked for political affiliations one way or the other.
I can fully appreciate the fact that the provincial by-election, which so emphatically pronounced against Grit methods in the province of Nova Scotia, should he a point of extreme soreness on the part of my hon. friend. More than once has this House listened to the _ lamentations of this modern Jeremiah, who quotes so glibly from Holy Writ. There is a reason for the hon. gentleman's woe. Victoria county is a part of his own constituency, and in the election referred to a Liberal majority of 500 was converted into a substantial Conservative majority. It would appear, therefore, that this election points with unmistakable finger to the goal of political oblivion to which my hon. friend is fast hastening.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I shall be glad to meet the hon. gentleman if he wants a test in Victoria county.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Order.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend would
be glad to meet me or some one else there; my opinion is that he will have sufficient opposition without me.
In his speech ,the hon. gentleman pretended to see indications that the country was returning to the Liberal faith. But I noticed that he had to go a long way from home for consolation. Why does he go so far afield? Why does he not pay attention to his own county of Victoria? Why should he look to the politics of British Columbia, of Manitoba, of even Prince Edward Island, or New Brunswick, for consolation? Why does he not cast his practised eye on the political situation in the province of Nova Scotia? Since the last general election in that province four local contests have been held in counties which have been looked on as having strong Liberal proclivities; to quote the classic language of my hon. friend, they are known as " Grit hives." In every one of these cases-Liberals had represented three of the four of them pre-[DOT] 
vious to the by-elections-the electors pronounced strongly and unmistakably against the party to which my hon. friend belongs.
The political mentor of my hon. friend in the province of Nova Scotia, the Hon. George H. Murray, years ago had a slogan: " Trust the people." The result of the elections to which I have referred has evidently convinced him that he is not altogether safe when he trusts the people. In fact, they say in Nova Scotia that he has changed his motto from " Trust the people " to " Safety first." Would it surprise you, Mr. Speaker, to know that the riding of Victoria has been vacant over a year; that my hon. friend's own constituents were denied the privilege of representation in the last session of the Provincial Legislature, and will be denied that privilege in the coming session, because, forsooth, acting possibly on the advice of the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria, the Premier of that province feels that it is unsafe to trust the people to fill the long existing vacancy in the local House for the county of Cape Breton-
With a splendid show of public spirit the hon>. gentleman pretended to take great pride in the fact that "from the start to the finish of the present war the yeomanry of Canada were ready to sacrifice their lives and property and everything near and dear to them for the general advancement of our country, and to lay everything within their reach upon the altar of our country." I would respectfully commend to my hon. friend the advisability of his profiting iby this splendid example set by the yeomanry of Canada. But while this attitude is being assumed by our yeomanry, what is to be said of those who from their position should he regarded as leaders in this country? It is to be said that, while the yeomanry of Canada are making such splendid and heroic sacrifices for the liberties that we enjoy, the only -people to refuse to make sacrifices are those to whom the people ought to be able to look for leadership in Canada? While the yeomanry of Canada, as my hon. friend says, are sacrificing their all for their country, and brave soldiers like Major Muirhead are holding l-ife itself cheap that the interests of the country may ibe advanced, a small critic gives us the spectacle of being unwilling to forego the opportunity of venting his personal spite and spleen for one moment in the interests, of unity and national strength.

Mr. ARTHUR B. COPP (Westmorland): Mr. Speaker, since the opening of this, the third war session of this Parliament a great many admirable addresses have been delivered by gentlemen on both sides of the House, addresses which, I am sure, as showing the strong feeling of loyalty and patriotism with which members of this House are imbued, must appeal to the country as a whole. I am sure, Sir, that no one could listen to or read those adL dresses without feeling that every member of this House, on which [DOT] ever side of the Speaker he may sit, is prepared, as he has been prepared since the beginning of the war, to do his part to bring this world conflict, which is shaking the British Empire to her very foundations, to a successful and triumphant conclusion.
Mv hon. friends opposite have, at least to a certain degree, questioned the right of 'hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to offer criticism, or to make charges in regard to the administration of the affairs of this country, offering as a reason for taking this course that, because the country is at war, we should not offer criticism and thus embarrass the Government. Now, I am sure that the hon. member Who has just left the chamber, and who addressed the House a few moments ago (Mr. F. B. McCurdy) will pardon me if I do not attempt to answer anything personal he has said in regard to my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie). That is ^ matter in which I do not care to join, even if I had the facts to discuss it intelligently, which I have not, as it is a matter apparently of veracity between the members who represent Nova Scotia on the other side of the House and the hon. members who represent that province on this side.
But I would like to refer to one remark which my hon. friend made. He said it was an unfortunate thing that reference should be made to the politics of men who were engaged in .this war. I agree with the sentiment expressed by my hon. friend, but I would remind him, and other hon. gentlemen opposite, that it can be no greater crime to refer to the politics of men who are engaged in this war than it is for hon. gentlemen opposite to select men because of their politics to fill places in the army service during the war.
My hon. friend spent some minutes in discussing the recent elections in the province of Nova Scotia. Is it possible that my hon. friend has a nightmare in regard to
elections in Nova Scotia or elsewhere at the present moment? Nothing has been said in the debate on the address about elections in the province of Nova Scotia, or in the Dominion of Canada, so far as I have heard, and when the hon. member takes up the time of this House to tell us what has happened in the province of Nova Scotia I should just like to point out that my hon. friend's friends in that province and elsewhere ihave proved very poor prophets indeed in the past.
I wish to refer for a moment or two to the question of our right to criticise the actions of the Government in regard to what we consider questions of great public importance. I lay down the proposition that fair criticism is in order and proper at all times. My hon. friends opposite say that we are offering unfair criticism, and thus embarrassing the Government. My hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) this afternoon, and other hon. gentlemen opposite during the progress of this debate have said, Cannot you find something of which you can say some words of commendation in regard to the Government? Why do you always find fault? Surely some little thing may be said to encourage the Government in regard to public matters on which they are occupied at the present time. Well, Sir, I would not for one moment detract from any member of the Government; but surely the hon. gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches at the present time should be satisfied with the congratulations showered upon them by their hon. friends who sit behind them, and not expect so much congratulation from hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. I am bound to say, Sir, that in many respects the Government have conducted the affairs of this war in an energetic way, and they are entitled to all the credit which their actions may bring to them. But I desire to say to my hon. friends opposite, who claim that we on this side of the House are showering upon them unfair criticism, that it is' just as incumbent upon them to put up a fair defence to their actions as that we should criticise fairly, which we hope to do.
When the other day my hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley) in the few quiet, well considered remarks which he made to this House, offered the suggestion that some things had not been right, and that the business of this country under the control of the present Administration had not been properly conducted, a terrible wave of disturbance affected our hon.

must keep our mouths closed, let me say that if there is any man in the province of New Brunswick to whom my hon. friend owes allegiance, it is Governor Josiah Wood, who is also a very large stockholder in this concern. It was through that gentleman's resigning his position in the Bed Chamber here to accept a more lucrative position that my hon. friend was given easy entrance into this House. Would it not have been better if my hon. friend had frankly told the House the names of all the persons interested in that Becord Foundry and Machine Company? That company was promised a contract of 20,000 shells at the price of the first contract, but when they had prepared their plant they w'eTe given a contract for only 10,000 shells. Was that because Mr. Bobinson or some other gentleman in the company was a Liberal? It is well that we should know the whole facts of the case.
I now come to the Charles Fawcett Manufacturing Company in my own town. While these gentlemen are political opponents of mine, and always have been, there is no concern in the whole province of New Brunswick or even further afield that is better equipped to carry out 'a contract than this firm. The Minister of Militia .has told us that he had great difficulty in getting manufacturers to embark in this business of manufacturing shells-that the Government had almost to go to the banks to get them to finance the manufacturers. That may have been true of some shell-makers, "but on behalf of this organization, let me, say that they [DOT] did not need anybody to finance them, as they were well able to do it themselves. They have been turning out shells now for some considerable time. I am glad that the Fawcett Manufacturing Company' got that order. My objection is that no one has a right to get a contract for making shells at a higher price than is reasonable.
I have a short statement which shows that in the province of New Brunswick the following firms had contracts for shells: Cornwall and York Cotton Mills, St. John, N.B., 25,000 shTapnel shells, at $3.80 each; Charles Fawcett Company, 20,000	4.5
howitzer shells at $6; James Fleming,
St. John, N.B.,

 4.5 howitzer shells
at $6; Maritime Foundry and Machine Company, Chatham, N.B., 20,000 howitzer shells at $6; T. McAvity and Sons, St. John, N.B., 10,000 4.5 howitzer shells at

$6.70, and 20,000 at $6; the Smith Foundry Company, Fredericton, N.B.,	20,000	4.5
howitzer shells ' at $6. The Cornwall and York Cotton Mills got $3.80 'apiece for machining 'and assembling these shells. About the same time another, firm, the Electric Steel and Metals ' Company, of Welland, which I understand is largely controlled by Mr. Carnegie, a member of the Shell Committee, got an order for 25,000 shells at $5 apiece; that is an advance of $1.20 over the other firm. The Canadian Car and Foundry Company of Montreal, of which I believe Senator Curry is president and one of the largest owners of stock, also got an order at the same time for making shells at $5.15 apiece. I should like to know why all these firms were not paid the same price for manufacturing shells. At Sackvilile the Charles Fawcett Company got a contract for 20,000 4.5 howitzer shells at $6 apiece. The Canadian Car and Foundry Company got an order for 50,000 shells at $6.70. Why the increased price? I claim that that is absolute evidence that there was some influence somewhere that caused the Shell Committee to give these contracts out at these different prices. We go a little further and we find that the James Flemming concern of St. John, N.B., got a contract for shells at $6 the same prices as the Fawcett Company received. The Montreal Locomotive Company of Montreal, Que., got orders for 10,000 shells at $6.70 and 150,000 at $6 per shell. The Maritime Foundry and Machine Company of Chatham got a contract for
20.000	shells at $6. The Macdonald Thresher Company of Stratford got a contract for
16.000	shells at $6. We find Messrs. EMc-Avity and Sons of St. John, N.B-, supplying 10,000 of the same size of shell to which I have referred at $6.70 and 20,000 at $6, and the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company of New Glasgow, owned by a member of the Shell Committee, got their first contract for 25,000 shells at $6.70, and a second for 25,000 at $6.50 at practically the same time that these other concerns were being paid $6. I draw the attention of the House to these facts, and with these facts before us we naturally expect explanations why different prices have been paid to different manufacturers of shells getting contracts at the same time.


Mr. BHODES:: Can the hon. member
tell us whether the delivery points in all cases were the same? Does not that fact account for the difference in price?


Mr. COPP:: I do not know. I have the
facts before me that these were the contract prices.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The freight charges are not
added on to the prices.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: You should have the
delivery points.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have not the delivery
points. Does my hon. friend say from his knowledge in regard to this Shell Committee, that the difference in the delivery points explains the difference in the prices?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not particular
knowledge of the shell contracts to which the hon. member refers; but I have information, not from the Shell Committee, but from those who have contracts for shells, that prices vary according to the circumstances.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Will my hon. friend tell me where these different shipments are to be delivered for shipment to the Old Country?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know.	.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then my hon. friend does not know much more than I do about this subject in regard to point of delivery.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not discussing it; you are. I want to know how much you know about the matter.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend asked me a question. There is enough Scotch in me to ask him one in return. I shall be very glad if my hon. friend can give me some good reason why the delivery points should make the difference in the price.


Mr. ROGERS:: Were the contracts all entered into at the same time?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Practically at the same time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would cost more to tranship shells from Sackville to New York than from Montreal to New York.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Shells could be sent around the world for seventy cents.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend says that it would cost more to pay the freight on a shell from Sackville to New York than from Montreal to New York.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is the cost of transportation of steel, and there are many other considerations which cause variations in the prices.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I grant there are many considerations, and there were many considerations in regard to the letting of these contracts by the Shell Committee. The Fawcett Company is at Sackville, which is a small place, and it is not so closely in touch with the Shell Committee as the Canadian Car and Foundry .Company, of which Senator Curry is president. If we get down to brass tacks, that is the condition, and that is why these' gentlemen are getting more for their contracts than are the people in Sackville, St. John, Chatham and Fredericton.
My hon. friend the Minister of Militia attempted yesterday, in a very cordial, genial, and pleasant way, to explain the condition of affairs in regard to matters that are being looked after by himself, or by his adopted child, as he calls the Shell Committee. I do not intend to follow all the arguments made by my hon. friend the Minister of Militia. He glossed over, very creditably indeed to himself, many things, and he kept the House in good humour, to say the least, while he was giving as little ' information as he possibly could in regard to this Shell Committee. For one thing, Sir, you will note that he spent a considerable amount of time in telling this Parliament and the people of this country that, irrespective of the fact that this is a Conservative Administration, or, to be more correct, a Conservative-Nationalist Administration, it apparently selected seventy-five or eighty per cent, of Liberals to do its work throughout this country. Did my hon. friend seriously expect-I do not wonder that the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) laughs-this House to believe that that has been the case during the past three years? Not at all. It has been just the reverse. I am not here to criticise hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to that point, nor to say anything in regard to the political affiliations of the men whom they appoint to do their work if they will only do it well; but there has been a great deal of discussion and many extracts have been placed upon Hansard during this debate in regard to this matter. My hon. friends opposite took refuge behind an editorial in the Ottawa Free Press, in which an attack was made on the hon. member for the city of St. John because of his attitude towards the Shell Committee, and submarines, and other things in which this Government and this country is interested. I have no quarrel with the Free Press in regard to its

Fitzsimmons that he would see to it that he got a contract?
I have said that one of the four requirements for the proper carrying on of Canada's part in this war is that of proper officers to conduct and control the men on the field of battle. From the information which I have, I understand that when the Canadian soldiers go over to England they are placed under the command of British officers. Against this I have not a word to say; but I do wish to say a word to the Minister of Militia dn regard to the officering of the men while they are under training. I -make this complaint not for the purpose of making political capital or of indulging in political criticisms. I -have said at different times during the course of my remarks that I care not whether a man is a Grit or Tory so long as he is doing his best in connection with this great conflict. But I do say that many young boys, sons of the more wealthy people, are being sent to military schools and are getting commissions, while some of the older men who have been in training for years, are occupying positions as privates. In the course of their duties they are meeting with these young boys, who must appear to them somewhat as my hon. friend the Minister of" Militia described the barristers the other day, with their hair parted in the middle, and with pencil and paper, seeking contracts.
I do not claim this because they are Liberals, but I do say that if these old soldiers, veterans and warriors, who have had the advantage of education, training and experience, were given a better show when officers are being selected, it would be very much more to the credit of the department and would result in much greater benefit to the training camps.
I am not so big a farmer as my hon. friend the .member for Carleton (Mr. Car-veil) ; I am not, I suppose, as good a lawyer, but I have had some experience with the hay question. I sell some hay myself, and I think I know whereof I speak so far as hay is concerned. I listened with a great deal of astonishment to the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton upon this subject. The hon. Minister of Agriculture, if any man in Canada is supposed to do it, is supposed to protect the farmers, who are really producing the wealth of Canada at this time; and we would expect that he would accord them fair treatment. Well, I knew that this contract had been given, and I 
knew the effect it had in my county. When the hon. member for Carleton made the direct charges in this House in regard to hay, a storm took place in the mind of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. I have only a passing acquaintance with the hon. minister; I do not purpose entering into the personal quarrel between him and the hon. member for Carleton. I hold no brief for the hon. member for Carleton; I am not here to say whether his parliamentary conduct was proper or improper, or whether my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture did himself justice in the language which he used in reference to the hon. member for Carleton. My position, however, is different from that of the hon. member for Carleton. The Minister of Agriculture seems to think that the trouble between the hon. member for Carleton and the Atlantic Hay Company was occasioned by a personal quarrel. I have a personal and intimate acquaintance with the gentleman *who has charge of the Atlantic Hay Company, B. F. Smith. I am not here to say an unkind word or to make an unkind reference to that gentleman in so far as the hay contracts are concerned. I am bound to say that I do not blame him very much for getting as much as he could, within reasonable scope, for the hay he had to sell. I do charge that the Minister of Agriculture did enter into an improvident bargain and an improvident contract in regard to the supply of hay from the province of New Brunswick to the Imperial Government. I think I can show why. In the first place, when the Department of Agriculture, as agent or trustee for the Imperial Government, wanted to obtain from the province of New Brunswick a supply of
15,000	tons of hay, amounting in value to about $350,000, in round figures, it would seem to me that the cautious and businesslike way to deal with the matter would be to ask for tenders from the different hay dealers, so that the farmers would have an opportunity of tendering for the supply of this hay at the lowest possible price.
My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture attempted to defend his department against the charges made iby my hon. friend from Carleton; but you may search Hansard from the beginning of his remarks to the close and you will not find any indication that he asked any other firm in the province of New Brunswick concerning the price of hay. What was his answer? He said they wanted a certain quantity of hay, and he decided to make -a deal with one

man. Let ns take the hon. minister at his word that it was more reasonable and proper for the department to deal with one man in that matter. If the hon. minister thinks it is necessary to deal with one man and pay him an exorbitant price for hay he is placing- himself before this House and before the country in a most unfavourable. light. This hay was to be shipped from West St. John, one of the winter ports of Canada. There is no mistaking the facts; there is no getting around them; there is no use in saying -that this thing is wrong and that is wrong; the farmer has the hay to -sell. I may tell the hon. minister that last year I -sold hay. I have hay to sell this year. Last year I sold my hay for $15 per ton; the merchant who bought it resold it, and made his profit which was not less than $1. He sent the hay to the United States, I understand.
What happened this year? The hon. minister says that -he made this contract with the Atlantitc -Hay Company at the price of $23 f.o.b. West St. John. The distance from Woodstock to St. John is about the same as from Sackville, my shipping port, to St. John, and from Sackville the freight, to -St. John costs from $1.65 to $1.75 per ton. The price we p-ay for pressing is $1.25, sometimes $1.30; but on an -average the pressing and freight to St. John run about $3 per ton. It costs $3 to compress the hay; that is wh-at the hon. Minister of Agriculture admitted in his remarks yesterday. That makes $6 as the cost from the time the hay leaves the farmer's barn till it lands f.o.b. -cars at West St. John. Now, to-day they are buying that hay in my town or in the vicinity of Sackville, and shipping it at Sackville for $12 and in some oases as low as $11 per ton. But let us say $12; it was up to $13, and dropped back again to $12. Add the $6 which it takes to get -the hay to West St. John, and you have $18. Now, the contractors	of the hon. minister are
getting $23 per ton, which means that they are making a profit of $5 on every ton of hay that goes from Sackville to West St. John. They are making a profit of $5 per ton on 15,000 tons, or a net profit of $75,000. There is no getting around these figures. There are no excuses; there is no answer to the charge made. When my hon. friend from Carleton charged the Minister of Agriculture as the head of his department, and the man responsible for the conduct of that department, with taking $45,000 or $50,000 out of the pockets of the
farmers of New Brunswick, or out of the coffers of the Imperial Government, he left him to choose whichever horn of the dilemma he car-ed to take. My hon. friend from Carleton put the amount very fairly, because as a matter of fact they are buying a very large portion-I will not say more than half-but a good portion of the hay for at least $13 per ton and in many cases less.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture, from his place yesterday, stated that he always wanted to do what was fair and right for the agricultural people of this country. We all remember the cry of patriotism and production that' passed over this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific last year-It was all very well to talk about patriotism and production. The farmers responded to the demand for production, and what is the result? The Minister of Agriculture has entered into an improvident contract with a firm of political supporters in the province of New Brunswick which is taking from $2 to $3 and in -many cases more on every ton of hay from the farmers of that province. The hon. minister said he was ready to defend his action from first to last. He charged the hon. member for Carleton with striking below the belt. Let me tell the Minister of Agriculture that if my hon. friend from Carleton struck below the belt in defence of the farmers of New Brunswick, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture struck below the belt when he entered into that contract, and sacrificed the interests of the farmers of New Brunswick to the tune of $50,000 to which they were entitled. That is the condition of affairs as regards the hay question in that province, and, although the Minister of Agriculture attempted to defend himself, he utterly failed to answer the charges made by my hon. friend from Carleton. His own confession is the very best evidence that he did wrong. He told us that he had cancelled the contract at the demand or request of my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B., because he had concluded it was an improvident contract. That i-s the confession he made. He found it was not a proper contract. We have heard read the letters that passed between the Minister of Agriculture and the firm which got the contract. I can discuss this question without any personal feelings against the firm. The minister charged the hon. member for Carleton with entertaining some such feeling against the firm, but I have a very -warm feeling for the farmers in my own county, and proper-

ly so. When the minister entered into that contract and immediately afterwards, the Goyernment put an embargo upon the exportation of hay to the United States, what did it mean? It meant that they were taking from $2 to $3 per ton from th< farmers in that section of the country. ] it was necessary for the Imperial Government to have all the hay in the province of New Brunswick, or in that particular section of the province, in order to carry on the war, the farmers were prepared to allow them to take the hay, and they were willing to make the price $13 or $12 or $10. But they were not and are not prepared to make sacrifices in order to put $3 or $4 per ton into the pockets of certain individuals. I know that I am voicing the sentiments of every one of tlhe farmers of my county when I say that they are prepared to put in their hay to this Government if the Government will take it themselves and do away with the middlemen provided they are prepared to accept the hay at the price mentioned by my toon, friend. But they are not prepared to sacrifice their interests for the benefit of others.
I hope that the Minister will not, in the future, for his own benefit, for his own credit, attempt to make the people of the country believe that he has made a proper contract and one that is in the interest of the farmer. The best proof that he has made an improvident contract is that he has changed it because, for, to use an expression often heard, the coon came down. He has changed his contract, and in that connection my hon. friend from Carleton says he does not know his man. I am not going to go that far, but my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, in making that announcement, at the same time makes the admission that he has made a contract at too high a price. Now, he has told the Atlantic Hay Company that in the handling of this hay they will only be allowed to make a dollar a ton.' He has opened a situation that I doubt very much if the hon. gentleman, with all the ability that he may have, will be able to carry through.
I am anxious to see what kind of a bill of expenses will be made up for buying this hay and these presses and other incidentals; it will be interesting to have it brought before Parliament and see what final adjustment is made. It reminds me of the story of the man who got a bill from his attorney. The attorney put a great many items in this long bill-so much for 
drawing the bill of costs, so- much for drawing the defence, and so much for drawing something else. This was so astonishing to the client that when he got his bill that he wrote at the bottom of it: You forgot to put in anything for drawing your breath. When the Minister of Agriculture gets his bill from the Atlantic Hay Company he will find many items that he did not expect. Surely the Minister of Agriculture has been in this House and has been allied with his friends long enough not to be so innocent as to expect the House and the country to believe that with a contract entered into with the Atlantic Hay Company, that contract being signed, sealed and delivered, he is going to be able to compel these people to come forth with. their books of account and cheque stubs and make a settlement, and at the same time give a fair deal to the farmers of the 'country. It is absolutely impossible.
There was an altercation between the Minister of Agriculture and my hon. friend from Carleton with regard to the conditions of a contract for the supply of hay in which my hon. friend from Carleton was interested some years ago. I know nothing about that. I was not a member of the House at that time, nor was my hon. friend from Carleton. But there was one mistake that the minister did make, and that was where he claimed the spread between the purchase price of the hay from the farmer and the amount paid by the Government was $9.50 under the present contract, whereas the spread between the price paid the farmer by the company with which my hon. friend was associated and that paid by the Government was $9. There was a mistake of $1 per ton, and $1 makes a grea* deal of difference when you come to consider the question of the profit on a ton of hay. But, in so far as this present company is concerned, $1 is neither here nor there when it is making a profit of $4 or $5 a ton. It seems to me that my hon. friend the minister did not get very far in the defence of his actions in regard to the hay question. May I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will not reconsider this matter. I care not about Mr. Smith's contract; it does not affect us very much, although he has been driven from his own county and has come down to our county. But, I ask the minister to consider well and carefully whether it is necessary, with the amount of hay required about secured, to continue the embargo on hay to the United States.


An hon. MEMBER:: He does.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He does? Then he should lift the embargo, and give us entrance to the United States markets at a fair competitive price, or else he should say to this man: You must show that so much has been paid for this hay, so much for freight and so much for expenses, and we will give you so much per ton. I would request you hot to leave this contract in the hands of this man in the slipshod way in which it now is. Reduce the price, because there are no ifs and ands about it. If the man is getting $2 or $3 per ton too much under his contract, cut it down to a fair price and give the people of the province of New Brunswick a fair show in regard to their hay.
There is just one other matter that I will refer to, and it is one which is dealt with in the gracious speech that His Royal Highness delivered at the opening of this House.
I refer to the question as to the extension of the life of this Parliament. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) made some reference to that paragraph in the Speech from the Throne. My hon. friend discussed the question in a serious manner. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries rather replied in a strain of levity, saying that my hon. friend from St. John had given an interview out West to the effect that it would be a deplorable thing to have an election, but, now that the scene had changed, it was a serious thing to extend the life of Parliament. I think it is a most serious thing. That does not mean that I am opposed to an extension of the life of this Parliament by any means. I think it is a serious thing at any time to' change the Constitution of this country under which the people have lived and of which they are very jealous indeed. The question is:	Is the situation of so serious a nature
that it is a proper thing to do? When the measure comes before this House I think the Government will find that every mem, ber on this side at least is prepared to give it that consideration that it deserves. But, to say that it is a serious matter is not going too far. It is a matter between ourselves and our constituents. The Constitution gives those who happened to be elected at the beginning of a parliamentary term the privilege of retaining their seats for five years if the Government choose to continue the life of Parliament for that time. This is a delicate matter for every member of this House to consider as between himself and his constituents; he must ask himself
the question whether or not he should vote himself another year in Parliament. If the wishes of a member, in his personal capacity as the representative of his county, only had to be consulted, I do not think there would be any question in his mind, because I do not know of any man who is anxious to run an election when he has a seat in Parliament if he can retain that seat another year. Therefore, I repeat that it is a serious matter that every member in this House must decide for himself, and when the resolution comes before the House I am sure that it will be given the very best consideration of hon. gentlemen, at any rate upon this side of the House.
I realize that I am a young member of . this House so far as experience goes, and I must apologize for having detained the House so long, but when one is gathering facts for a speech one's notes are increasing all the time, and sometimes become too voluminous. I have felt it my duty to bring these matters to the attention of Parliament. I believe the people of this country desire more information in regard to these matters. My hon. friend has been accused of making insinuations based on newspaper 'clippings. In regard to that I would say that a man who reads the . newspapers must be more or less influenced by what he reads. A man reads the newspapers to get the view of the public on these matters, and in regard to the charges which have been made against the Shell Committee I am bound to say that practically all the large and influential newspapers in the country, both Liberal and Conservative, have for some months been criticising the Shell Committee, if they have not actually made charges against it. One can hardly attend church without hearing the subject treated from the pulpit. Surely that is evidence enough that the public is keenly interested in this matter. I sincerely trust that whatever may be the outcome of the charges that have been made, every member of this House will see to it that his best thought and best endeavour is given to the proper carrying on of the war to a successful conclusion; and that, we trust, will not be very long delayed.
On motion of Mr. Sinclair, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Robert Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.37 p.m.

Monday, January 31, 1916.