1916-05-05

PRIVATE BILL INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 100, to incorporate the Mani-toba-Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Car-rick.

Sir TIIOMAS WHITE:: Probably I may be permitted at this stage to lay on the Table two copies of a deed of trust securing an issue of $16,000,000 of Grand Trunk Pa-< cific bonds, guaranteed by the Dominion Government; also two copies of a deed of trust securing $45,000,000 of Canadian Northern securities issued under the legislation of 1914.



COLLECTIONS ON HOMESTEAD PURCHASES. ,

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. REID:: An hon. member asked me to have placed on Hansard n statement with regard to the amount collected on the purchase of homesteads to the 31st March, 1916, including interest. The amount is $1,615,666.13.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Ie that the amount of cash received or is it the total amount of sales? Sales would be on the instalment plan, I suppose?


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. member will allow this to go as it is, I will take the additional

question he asks and be prepared to answer it to-morrow.



REBUILDING OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. VERVILLE:: I desire to ask the
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) if there is to be a fair-wages clause respecting hours of labour and wages, incorporated in the contracts for erecting the Parliament buildings, and, if so, whether the minister will be kind enough to lay it on the Table early next week?


Mr. ROGERS:: The committee having
charge of the proposed reconstruction of the Parliament buildings is expected to meet this afternoon. We have not given consideration to any of the details up to the present time.



SHELL CONTRACTS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.) asked for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the desirability, in the public interest, of immediately enlarging the power of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the contracts regarding fuses, etc., called the Meredith-Duff Commission, by providing for widening the scope of the inquiry into the matters referred to the commission.
And leave having been granted,
He said: I wish to present to the House certain facts as the result of the investigation of the Meredith-Duff Commission, so called. In doing so it is not my intention to in any way refer to any evidence given before the commission as indicating what has been proven or has not been proven, or anything of that kind. I realize that this is a matter which is really sub judice at the present time, and a matter to be desired by the commission, and that it would be highly improper on my part, especially as I am a counsel before the commissioners, to make any comment or reflection of any kind. Therefore, in the remarks I make, I will endeavour to confine my statements and my arguments entirely to the question of whether or not it is in the public interest to enlarge the scope of the inquiry. And in order to make the discussion as short as possible, I wish to refer to many

things generally, without quoting page and date. It is within the knowledge of every member of this House that some weeks ago the right hon. leader of the Opposition moved that a Committee of this House he appointed for the purpose of investigating matters relating to the Shell Committee, which ceased to exist some time in the latter part of November, 1015. That motion was voted down by the House,	and
two days afterwards the right	hon.
Prime Minister informed the House that the Governor General in Council had appointed a commission for the purpose of investigating three contracts specially mentioned and one other in case it should come within the purview of the commission, or words to that effect. I am not going to read that Order in Council, 'because it is on Hansard and is a matter of record. Since Wednesday of last week that commission has been proceeding under the terms of the Order in Council, witnesses have been sworn and examined and cross-examined. Perhaps it would not be anjiss if I should take this opportunity of stating publicly that I feel that counsel representing the Government is presenting the case in as fair and as able a manner as is possible- and that is saying a great deal when I am discussing Mr. I. F. Hellmuth. But, Sir, the investigation is developing a condition of affairs regarding the doings and status of the old Shell Committee which was certainly a revelation to every person who had anything to do with the commission, and which, I think, must be a revelation to a large majority of the members of this House. I refer to the fact, brought out before the commission, that at least from and after the first day of October, 1914, down to the day when the Shell Committee ceased to exist, on November 30, 1915, four members of that committee, namely Messrs. Bertram, Cantley, Watts and E. Carnegie, legally occupied the position of contractors with the British Government, as represented 'by the Minister of Militia and Defence. All of these gentlemen have not in any way claimed that they were entitled to any part of the profits which may have come out of the transaction. I want that to be particularly stated, 'because three of them have already been examined and have repudiated the idea of taking profits to themselves. But they all contend that legally they would be entitled to the profits if profits were made, and I think the converse would be true-at least, I know that this was admitted by one of them-that if

losses were made they would be responsible for theip. I think they all say that they approached the Prime Minister and brought up the question as to what their position would be in case of losses taking place. The Prime Minister was very careful, they say, not to make any promise; he told them that they would cross that bridge when they came to it. They went on; that bridge was not reached; therefore they were not called upon to discuss it. The substance of it all, however, was this: the Prime Minister said:	"We want the shells; go on,
and if there are losses we will have to discuss that later." That, I think, would be a fair way of putting it; at least, that is the way the witnesses have placed it before the commission.
I shall not go over the correspondence leading up to the first contract, because it was placed on Hansard by the Minister of Militia in an address delivered in this House on the 25th or 26th of January last. However, the sum and substance of it was that a number of cablegrams having passed between the British War Office and the Minister of Militia, we had authority-I say " we;" I mean the Dominion of Canada; I would call that the Government of Canada-had authority to supply the British Government with 100,000 empty shrapnel shells, 18-pounders, at $8.55 each, and 100,000 empty 15-pounder shrapnel shells at $8.30 each. On the first day of October a contract was entered into between the Minister of Militia and Defence, representing the British War Office, and four gentlemen of a committee of seven or eight. I want to read this agreement, as found on page 30 of the evidence taken by the commission :
[Stage Direction]
Witnesseth that the parties of the first part agree to manufacture and deliver to the party of the second pa<rt one hundred thousand shrapnel eight-pounder-
That should be eighteen.
-*Mark III shells (empty) and one hundred thousand 15-pounder Mark VII (empty) subject to the following terms and conditions, and at the following rates:
I do not want to weary the House by reading all the details of this document. I am Tending, as I say, from the official document, and if I could have the whole placed on Hansard it would expedite matters.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: What does it refer to?


Mr. CARVELL:: It proceeds to deal with the drawing of specifications, contract to be fulfilled according to the specification, and things of that kind. (Reading):
The said shells shall be made of such materials and components and in accordance with the drawings and specifications hereto annexed, and signed by the parties hereto.
The parties of the first part agree to deliver the said shell as follows, viz. 18-pounder mark III shells, delivery to be made to the party of the second part or to his authorized officers f.o.b. Montreal to the order of the party of the second part.
The shells shall be subject to inspection and such tests as may be required by the party of the second part during the process of manufacture, and shall moreover, be subject after manufacture completed to inspection and acceptance at the factory by the party of the second part; the approval and acceptance of any one lot of shells shall not be evidence of approval of acceptance of any other lot.
The prices to be paid for the said shells shall be for 18-pounder shells, $8.55 per shell.
For 15-pounder shells, $8.30 per shell, to be paid within ten days after the date of delivery, subject to certification of the invoices by the authorized officers appointed by the party of the second part.
In witness whereof the parties have hereunto set their hand the day and year first herein written.
The signatories to this document are Alexander Bertram, Thomas Cantley, G. W. Watts,. E. Carnegie, Sam Hughes, Minister of Militia and Defence for Canada; and the document is executed in the presence of D. Carnegie.
A second contract dated October 20, was entered into between the same parties for the supply of a certain number of boxes in which to transport these shells, also some cartridge eases. That will be found on page 33 of the proceedings of the commission. I do not think it is necessary to read it, because the wording is almost exactly the same as the one which I have just read, except, of course, as to the quantities, prices and specifications. Then they immediately entered into negotiations for the third lot, and in order to make myself thoroughly understood I feel that I shall have to read the negotiations with regard to this particular lot. This was for 200,000 18-pounder shrapnel, fixed ammunition, and 400,000 empty shrapnel shells. In this correspondence by cable the War Office was always addressed and signed as "Troopers " and the Militia Department of Canada was addressed as " Militia." This is a cable to " Troopers in London, the War Office, " dated November 24, 1014:
Referring to your cable 2025 A-2 and our cable No. 1811-cipher, can undertake supply 200,000 18-pounder shrapnel shells fixed ammunition including propellants but without
>
fuses and packed in ammunition cases delivered f.o.b. Montreal or Halifax by June first. Prices seventeen dollars and sixty-five cents each including boxes.
Can also supply further four hundred thousand 15 or 18-pounder shrapnel shells empty packed in ammunition boxes same delivery, price nine and a quarter dollars each, including boxes, not including cost of inspection. Can also supply fuses and will name price on receipt of specification and drawings. Early decision necessary as price raw materials advancing rapidly.
Please hasten despatch of specifications, gauges, etc., of 18-pounder cartridge cases and fuses and any other ammunition you may require manufactured in Canada will save time.
The answer to that came back on the 26th day of November, from the War Office to the Militia Department, as follows:
Regret that unless price of 18-pounder ammunition without fuse can be reduced to $15 and that of 18-pounder shells to $6, w? cannot place orders.
That was answered on the 2nd of December, 1914, from the Militia Department to the War Office, as follows:
Number 196 cipher. Referring to your cable 2287 A-2, November 30th and our cipher 191 27th November. My committee are proceeding with order, prices being fifteen and six dollars respectively not including wood boxes. Please cable confirmation.
I do not know that we have any evidence of the confirmation, but it was confirmed in some way, and they started out to make the ammunition. Those documents will be found on pages 32 and 33 of the printed report. A number of orders were given from that down to the first day of July. I shall not weary the House by going into the details; in fact, we did not have many details. But we do know that large numbers of orders were given, and that these orders were given out by the Shell Committee, sub-let as they would call it, to different people in different parts of Canada, and I believe that in some cases, when they could not get the parts in Canada, they went to the United States for them, and with that I am finding no fault. Further, they procured material to make shell boxes and things of that kind.
Finally we come to the third contract, which will be found on page 138 of the printed report. As this is a very important contract, I shall take the liberty of reading it:
This agreement made this 1st day of July, 1915.
Between
Alexander Bertram of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario, Thomas Cantley of New Glasgow, in the province of Nova Scotia, George W. Watts of Toronto, in the province of Ontario, 
and E. Carnegie of Welland, in the province of Ontario, Manufacturers,
Of the first part.
And
Major General, the Honourable Sam Hughes, His Majesty's Minister of Militia and Defence of Canada, acting for and on behalf of His Majesty's Secretary of State for war,
Of the second part.
Witnesseth that the parties of the first part agree to manufacture and deliver to the party of the second part the ammunition, and deliver to the party of the second part the ammunition specified in attached schedule, which forms parts of this contract, subject to the following terms and conditions, and at the stipulated rates;
1.	The said ammunition shall he made of such material and components, and in accordance with the drawings and specifications hereto annexed and signed by the parties hereto.
2.	The parties of the first part agree to deliver, as far as possible the said ammunition in accordance with the said schedule. Delivery to he made to the party of the second part or to his authorized officers f.o.b. Montreal or other Atlantic ports, to the order of the party of the second part.
3.	The ammunition shall he subject to inspection and such tests as may be required by the party of the second part during the process of manufacture, and shall moreover he subject after manufacture is completed to inspection and acceptance at the factory by the party of the second part; the approval and acceptance of any one lot of ammunition shall not he evidence of approval of acceptance of any other lot.
4.	The prices paid for the said ammunition shall he in accordance with the said schedule, same to be paid not later than ten days after the date of delivery, subject to certification of the invoices by the authorized officers appointed by the party of the second part.
In witness whereof the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the day and year first herein written.
Alex. Bertram,
Thos. Cantley,
Geo. W. Watts,
E. Carnegie,
Sam. Hughes.
Signed, sealed and of
delivered in the presence D. Carnegie.
Attached to this is an exhibit containing a copy of every order given by the War Office to the Militia Department of Canada, after the first 200 rounds mentioned in the first contract I have read, and also excluding the contract for the shell boxes and the few shell cases referred to in the second contract, which I have read. This schedule figuj-ed out really amounts to around $148,000,000, and according to the evidence, which I know I am stating accurately, it was a resume of all the orders given to the Militia, Department or the Shell Committee, either by cable or by letter, between, we will say, the 1st of October, 1914, and the 1st day of July, 1915. Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to have this placed on Hansard

if I could be allowed to do so without reading it. It is a long, technical schedule, but of course if it is thought necessary I shall read it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see that there is any necessity of reading it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That document is as
follows:
Ammunition Orders from W ar Office to Shell Committee.
Nature of Order.	Number Ordered.	Promised Delivery.
18 Pr. Cartridge Cases-		
Mk. II Dwg. No. 20711		100,000 at $2 55	10,000 per month commencing March, 1915.
Spec. L Cable 1718 Cipher		
	 19/10/14 3307 18 Pr. Shrap. Empty-		
Mk. Ill Dwg. No. 17072-A (1)		400,000 at $6 00	To. complete by end June,1915.
Spec. L Cable 2287 A-2		
	 Our cipher 196 3181 4/12/14. 18 Pr. Shrap. Fixed-		
Ammunition complete without Fuses. Cable 2287 A-2.	200,000 at $15		To complete by end
Our cipher 196 4/12/14		June,1915.
Dwg. 17072 A (1) Spec. L		
3181 18 Pr. Shrap. Fixed-		
Mk. II Dwg. 17072-A (1)	150,000 monthly at	Commencing May, 1915.Spec. L Ammunition complete without fuses. Cable	SI 5. Six months	Can increase from
26 Dec. 14.	certain. Three	August.3181	months notice.	18 Pr. High Explosive-	Fixed Ammunition Complete without Fuses and	100,000 monthly at	Commencing April.Explosive charge.	$15. Six months	Dwg. No. 22326 Spec. L	certain. Three	2760 Cipher 16/1/15 	
'	months notice.	3511	4	18 Pr. High Explosive-	Fixed Ammunition, without Fuses and explosive charge.	100,000 monthly at	Commencing June.Dwg. No. 22326 Spec. L Cable	S15. Six months	-	contract. Three	3511	months notice.	2371 Feb. 18th. Hanson to Carnegie. 18 Pr. Shrapnel-	Fixed ammunition without fuses	100,000 monthly at	Commencing June.Dwg. No. 17697 Spec. L	$15. Six months contract. Three	3192-C	months notice.	Cable 2371 Feb. 13th..	4'5 How. Empty-	With cases and Primers empty	100,000 monthly at	Commencing deliveriesCable 2044 8/2/15 from Army contracts 1-a.	$15. Six months	50,000 May 100,000contract. Three months notice.	June.4-5 How. Empty-	With cases and Primers empty also Fuses, 4250 Cy.	1,666,666 at $16.50	Commencing deliveriesA-7 and 4091 Cy. A-7 and Cipher 352 23/4/15 No.	$ of five million	50,000 July and com-100. Fuse without game.	contract.	plete March, 1916.4'5 Cartridge Cases Empty-	3,000 per week at	Commencing deliveriesMk. L. Dwg. No. 1794-F Spec. L	$2.10. Six months contract. Three	September.3085-A	months notice.	Cable 4586 Cipher A-7 11/5/15 our 373 Cipher.	
i

You will see by looking this over that it includes the 5,000,000 rounds of ammunition to which would be applied and of which would form a part, the 5,000,000 fuses under investigation by the Commission, under contract with the International Arms and Fuse Company and the American Ammunition Company.
I wish to refer to the examination of Mr. D. Carnegie, who from about the 24th of September, 1914, up to about April, 1915, was an employee of the Shell Committee in an advisory capacity, I think as ordnance adviser, and who some time around the first part of April, was made a member of the Shell Committee, still remaining ordnance adviser. Mr. Carnegie has stated on two or three occasions, although I have not the reference with me, that as they were contractors, it was practically their business what price they paid for any component parts of this fixed ammunition, so long as they did not exceed the prices authorized by the War Office, as in this schedule you will find prices for every different article.
Referring to the particular contracts which are being investigated by the Commission, on page 140, the first would be 4-5 Howitzers, empty, 1,666,666, at $16.50 each. Then you will find the same thing with reference to the 18-pounder high explosive, 1,666,666 at $16.50, and the 18-pounder fixed ammunition, that would be shrapnel, 1,666,666 at $18 each. Now, their contention, was that, so long as the component parts all put together did not exceed the prices mentioned in this schedule or authorized by the War Office, it was their business from whom they were purchased, where they purchased, and at what prices, although I do not mean to say that the three gentlemen examined had intimated for a moment that they had any right to retain any of this money for themselves. There again I do not want to discuss the evidence, as I said in opening. But that is the attitude which they have assumed. That attitude was assumed to-day very distinctly by Mr. Cantley and Mr. Watts, f think perhaps more positively by Mr. Watts than the others; but all made the claim that they did not intend to take profits. But they claimed that they had legal right to take profits as long as the total cost of these articles did not exceed the cost authorized by the War Office; that they were within their right, and could act as to that as they had a mind to.
That is the substance of the foundation for the request which I wish to make of
the Government. I have tried to give to the House as accurately as I could, and I only read from the official documents, the position of affairs as it stood up to yesterday morning. Y'esterday morning the cross-examination of Sir Alexander Bertram was commenced by Mr. Johnston, and I am sorry to say it did not get very far along when a very serious question arose as to the powers of the Commission under the reference. But, Mr. Speaker, before I go into that, I have omitted one important thing in the direct examination of Sir Alexander Bertram. It will be found on pages 342 and 343 of the evidence, and as it is very important I wish to read the whole page. This was on the direct examination by Mr. Hellmuth, the Government counsel, and the examination proceeds as follows:
Well, then, General, after that when did you first learn or appreciate the fact that there was going to be some difference, considerable or otherwise, between the War Office prices and the prices at which you had let these contracts to the sub-contractors. When was the earliest that you appreciated that?-A. Oh, it would be probably a week or ten days after. On the first order you mean?
Q. Yes?-A. Yes.
Q. A week or ten days after you appreciated the fact that there was going to be a profit?

 A. Yes, sir. I began to collect prices of the component parts and estimated a surplus in the first place to carry on the business of inspection and the clerical work in connection with the Committee.
Q. Well now was that probably discussed with other members of the committee at first? 

A. No, sir.
Q. Did you discuss it with any one at that time?-A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. When did you first, if at all, discuss that with anyone and with whom?-A. With General Hughes.
Q. And about when was that?-A. Oh, probably November or December.
Q. That is in November or December of 1914?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. And perhaps you will tell me what the discussion was?-A. I came up to Ottawa on some business in connection with the work and showed General Hughes a statement of the profits on the component parts of the shell, which amounted to a considerable sum.
Q. Could you give me any idea of the sum? -A. I have the original. I think on the first 200,000 shells we estimated a surplus of $52,000.
Q. It was quite a sum at all events. Will you continue then? When you told him that, what next?

A. Well, I found that our expenses in running the Shell Committee were a great deal less than I expected, and wondered what we were going to do with the surplus. I think I suggested that if we had a surplus we would turn it over to the Patriotic Fund. General Hughes said: "No, give it back to the War Office."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am certainly trying to give the House the whole story. '


Mr. BEST:: It is much milder than before.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I appreciate the position that I occupy to-day, and remarks like that coming from a farmer member of this House are very much out of place.


John Best: It is quite true.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am going to argue this matter as a lawyer, and I am not going to be drawn, away by any farmer backbenchers on the other side of the House. (Reading.)
Q. So that at that time, let me understand it, you were prepared to turn the surplus over to the Patriotic Fund. That is you were not suggesting keeping it?-A. Oh, no.
Q. That had not entered your mind then?- A. No, we were doing it as a patriotic job.
Q. And General Hughes said, "Turn it over to the War Office"?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now that is in December or November?- A. I couldn't tell. It was some time about November or December. You know at that time we had no idea of getting any future'order.
Q. Then to follow this out for the moment, you did get a number of future orders as you know?-A. Yes.
Q. And was it borne in on your mind when you got these future orders that there were going to be future surpluses?-A. Yes.
Q. What did you do in regard to that, did you communicate that to anybody?-A. No.
Q. Until when? When did you next if at all speak of a possible surplus, and to whom? Carry along from the time you spoke to General Hughes in November or December, whom next did you discuss that with, that there might be a surplus?-A. I would rather not give that for publication, unless the Commission desire it.
Q. You did discuss it did you?-A. Yes, I was asked to report to a high authority on the progress of our work, which I did,
Q. And about what date was that?-A. Some time in May or June. It was after we arrived in Ottawa.
Sir William Meredith:	When he speaks of
high authority perhaps he would not object to say, does he mean Canadian or Imperial?
Mr. Hellmuth:	My learned friend Mr. Johnston tells me that he is quite satisfied.
Q. And in May or June you say it was?

* A. I think some time about the first week in June.
Q. May I ask whether then the amount was still about $52,000 or whether it had grown into millions?-A. No, it had gone up to $14,800,000.
That was in the first week of the inquiry. Then, Sir, I think it was on Monday of this week, a statement was submitted and admitted in evidence, as of date the 30th day of November, 1915, which is the date when the old Shell Committee ceased to exist and the Imperial Munitions Board was created. This will be found on pages 345-6-7 of this report. I do not know that

it will be necessary to incorporate it in Hansard. It takes up every different item or every different contract given by the War Office. It starts in with 100,000 18-pounder shrapnel and 100,000 15-pounder shrapnel, which were included in a contract of the first day of October. It goes on and gives a statement of the value of the material ordered and the balance of the material, or labour-I think they are both called material-in each distinct contract, the total, the War Office prices, and the surpluses or deficits whichever they may be. The sum total of it is that the surplus-that is, the difference between the prices authorized by the War Office and the cost of the articles to the Shell Committee-would be. $41,350,000, or, in other words, legally speaking, the four contractors would have the right to take $41,350,000; but, as they say, morally, they never intended to do it.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Is not that $30,000,000?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am coming to that in a moment. The statement was $41,360,000, but very -shortly after the document was produced there was an error discovered in it, and that was in reference to the cost of 1,666,666 45-pounder howitzer shells, an error of -somewhere around $11,500,000 That would bring the estimated profit down to the vicinity of $30,000,000 instead of $41,000,000. These matters have not been *checked up, and of course, I do not know whether they are right or wrong; I simply take the document as it was placed before the -Commission.
When Mr. Johnston attempted to crossexamine Sir Alexander Bertram' yesterday morning, he was proceeding along a line that both he and I-I having consulted with him in regard to the matter-believed to be quite proper under the reference. In order that there may be no question as to what took place, I shall read from the record. I do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, that you or the members of the House generally have had an opportunity of seeing this. I went to the gentleman who has charge of the reporting and asked him to get me a number of typewritten copies. He told me that the printed copies would not be ready until late in the afternoon, but I urged him to get me two printed copies if he could do so, and to my surprise, just as the committee adjourned at one o'clock, he brought me two printed copies, but containing only the first hour
MAX' 5, 1916 [DOT]
or hour and a half's evidence. One of these I have given to the Premier, and the other I shall read from myself. I am sorry I was unable to get any more. I am reading from page 371, during Mr. Johnston's cross-examination:
Mr. Ewart: I wish to point out to the Commission that the contracts Mr. Johnston is referring to now are not within the scope of the Commission at all, the boxes, empty shells, and the prices for them.
Witness: I never heard of any $9.25. The four hundred thousand were taken at $6.
Mr. Ewart: I wish to press my objection, that this has nothing to do with the matters in question. If it is followed up it will lead to endless questioning and cross-questioning. If Mr. Johnston goes into these questions we will have to go into other things.
Mr. Johnston: I will read a portion of the letter so that it will call it back to your mind.
On page 32 of the. printed record, in Exhibit No. 28 this appears : " Can also supply further four hundred thousand 15- or 18-pr. shrapnel shells, empty, packed in ammunition boxes same delivery, price nine and a quarter dollars each, including boxes, not including cost of inspection."
Now, will you tell me (and I am not asking for anything further than the mere fact) were you asked $9.25, which should be $9.25 with 20 cents off for the box, when you told us that you had made up your mind that there would be a profit of $8.55?-A. I will tell you Why. $8.55 inoludes the box.
Q.	Was that the only reason?-A. I don't know, I don't remember that price of $8.55.
Q. It is in Exhibit No. 16?-A. I don't remember that.
Q. On the 18th of September General Hughes , sent to " Troopers " the following: " Reference your cipher September 17th, committee reports price of 100,000 shrapnel 18-pr. as per your cablegram specifications will be $8.55 eaoh delivered at Montreal, 20,000 by November 1st, and at least 30,000 monthly thereafter." Do you remember that?-A. Was that the first one?
Q. That is the first offer I can find as to price?-A. Yes.
Q. And that was on the 18th of September? -A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then " Committee report 100,000 shrapnel price $8.30 each."-A. 15-pr.
Mr. Ewart: Better read it, Mr. Johnston.
Mr. Johnston: Very well. " Committee report 100,000 shrapnel 15-pr. shells." Then there was an acceptance of that price under Exhibit 18 on the 18th of September, but no fuses discussed at all.
Q. That you told us was, as I took it down, you were satisfied there was a profit on that contract?.-A. Just go back now. At the time we realized we were going to get a profit was long after the 18th of September, I said several weeks.
Q. You said that in the end of November you would make up your mind that there would be a profit at $8.55, and you said to-day that long before that you had made up your mind that there would be a profit. You have sworn to it this morning?-A. Well, what about it?
Q. What do you say about it yourself-I am not giving evidence.-A. What is the question?
219J
Q. The question is, that you said yesterday that about the end of November you made up. your mind that there would be a profit at $8.55?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. This morning you said that long before that you had made up your mind that there would be a profit at $8.55?-A. I said that tentatively.
Q. Now, I am asking you how it was that you demanded for the same article $9.05, 70 cents difference on the shell, on the 24th November according to this cable; I want the reason for it?-A. I cannot remember.
Q. You cannot give me any reason for it'____
A. No.
Mr. Ewart: He gave one reason, the boxes?

A. You must recollect that the first order was without boxes, which cost us $1 each.
Q. I am allowing you 20 cents, which is more than you say it cost, and allowing that I am asking you for an explanation why this took place?-A. I cannot go back.
Q. Your counsel seems to intervene and say you have answered it?-A. I cannot remember, I have never seen the letter or cable since; we do not sit pouring over these things every day.
Hon. Mr. Duff: Perhaps, Mr. Johnston, you might draw General Bertram's attention to a sentence lower down, to be quite fair.
Mr. Johnston: "Early decision necessary as prices raw material advancing rapidlywhat do you say as to that, do you remember that? -A. That governed the situation a good deal, and probably we had in mind that at the time because we had Information that they were
giving higher prices in the United States______
nothing like being on the safe side.
Q. To whom did you consult with reference to prices in that case?-A. With my secretary.
Q. Is that all?-A. Yes.
Q. Did Col. Carnegie know about these prices from you?-A. Nothing definite.
Q. What would he know if he did not know anything definite, because there was only .the one thing, the quality of the shell and the price that you fixed?-A. At what date was that?
Q. I am speaking now about November?________
A. Yes, yes, he discussed prices.
Q. Have you any recollection of discussing this particular matter with him?-A. Oh, yes.
Q. What is your recollection about that''___
A. We discussed prices and the advance in the prices of material and a great many other things to arrive at a price on the shell.
Q. That would be before the 24th November which was the day you fixed the price I think?-A. Yes.
Q. You did fix a price on the 18th September at a lower rate, $8.55?-A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember any discussion with him, not generally you did have this or that, but did you remember any particular discussion as to price-this was the initiation you know, of the business?-A. On the 18th September.
Q. Or in September?-. I do not think he had arrived here in Canada at that time.
Q. What time did he join the Board?-A. Some time about tbe 20th.
Sir William Meredith: He was appointed inspector on the 24th September.
Mr. Hellmuth: Ordnance adviser?-A. Yes.
Q. When did he become a member of the

if it is thought expedient to do so. If anybody thinks that these matters ought to be inquired into, and we are to stay here all summer doing it, I suppose representations can be made-Mr. Carvell is a member of the House, he can bring the matter up and ask that the power of the inquiry be extended, but we must keep within the terms of our map.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps it would be better to read the next dozen lines.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Sir William Meredith: You understand, Mr. Johnston, that with regard to this five million contract, the question of profits made hy anybody is open to Inquiry.
Mr. Johnston:	I understand that.
Hon. Mr. Duff: Not merely as to the fuses, you know.
Mr. Johnston: Yes. And as to the five million, fuses, not merely as to the price of fuses hut the prices under the sub-contract, and so forth.
Hon. Mr. Duff: As to profits, as to fuse contracts, made by anybody. The fuse contracts were-speaking very roughly-an element in the transaction with regard to the five millions and what has been said with regard to other contracts does not apply to the five millions.
Mr. Johnston: I understand that the five millions is open to all Investigation and all inspection of papers and all examination that may be deemed necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that is enough.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was not going to read that part, because it is only a repetition of what had been stated earlier. To summarize the matter, you will see, Mr. Speaker, the position in which Mr. Johnston finds him-i	self in this investigation. The
3 p.m.	Government counsel, without
asking the consent or advice of any one-and, I must say, I think quite properly-placed in evidence all the correspondence leading up to the contract of the first day of October, a part of the correspondence leading up to the contract of the 20th day of October, and a very small part of the correspondence leading up to the contract of the first day of July. And the statement is made, without any substantiation, without any book, any document, any paper, or proof of any kind, that the net profits of the first contract would be about $52,000. I wish to state at once that, later on, that was reduced to $42,000, and, so that there may be no question about the actual facts, in future I will discuss this as being about $42,000. He says there is no evidence given as to the profits of the second contract, because that was for shell boxes and cartridge cases; but the amount of profit is given as about $14,800,-[Mr. Carvell. i
000. And these three documents are in evidence and they are simply bald statements made up, I presume, by bookkeepers; for when General Bertram was asked, he did not know about it, but said that that was what he was told. ' The moment Mr. Johnston attempts to crossexamine into the manner by which they arrived at the estimated profit of $42,000 in one case and $14,800,000 in the other, he is prevented from going into ^hat. It seems to me that is a violation of the most elementary rules for the conduct of legal examinations in courts; and I am assum-ing

in fact I know-that the commissioners are attempting in this matter to apply the same rules as would be applied in court.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does not it depend on the status of the committee?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The rules by which
evidence would be. received or rejected would be the ordinary rules governing the reception or rejection of evidence in a court of law. I do not know that that is so stated, but it is so elementary that I am satisfied that if the commissioners were here they would agree with me.


Mr. MORPHY:: Was the statement to which the hon. gentleman referred, relating to $42,000, sworn to by any official of the Shell Committee to be correct?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: General Bertram stated
that he admitted the profits to be $52,000 in one case, and later a document was put in, not sworn to by anybody, showing that the net profits by that contract were $42,000.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Did you have General
Bertram's oath?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I read his statement, and for the information of my hon. friend I will refer to it again.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not wish it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I read every word he said.


John Hampden Burnham: If he had a right to it, what difference would it make what the amount was?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am afraid my hon. friend is not following the argument. I stated half a dozen times that General Bertram and his associates were not claiming that they had the right to take the money. Probably it would be better to let me go on, and when I have finished I shall be glad to answer any questions hon.

gentlemen may ask me. Now, the legal position in which we find ourselves is that a number of very important statements have been made-that profits amounting in one case to $42,000, in the second case to $14,800,000, and in the third case to about, we will .say, $30,000,000, have been made in the operations of the Shell Committee. I am not saying now that they intended taking them, but that they had made them fiver and above the prices authorized by the War Office. But we do not know how these prices were arrived at except as I .have explained in the two or three different instances referred to- We thought we should have the right to show exactly how these figures were arrived at; we should have the right to know how much it cost to maintain and operate the Shell Committee; we should have the right to know whether the profits or the savings-I do not want to use the word "profit"-on the second contract, instead of being $14,800,000, should not have been $25,000,000 or possibly even $30,000,000. But we are simply met with a ba'ld statement. We are told that the amount is $14,800,000, and are not vouchsafed any of the particulars upon which that is arrived at, nor are we allowed to ask any questions in order to satisfy ourselves how they were arrived at.


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


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


John Hampden Burnham: I was there and heard the argument. The point, it seems to me -and as a member of the House I must try to understand this matter-is that, if these gentlemen were contractors, you have no right to inquire into these matters. Therefore it is the status of the committee you must inquire into first.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If this House and the Government, or if the Shell Committee themselves, want to take the ground that they were contractors, if they wish to say, " That is our business and none of yours, we can make what profits we want to, we can pay one friend $5 for a given article and another $2 for the same article-"


John Best: Did they do that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now, if that farmer over there will just keep quiet-
Mr. WilLOOX: I resent this casting of aspersions upon the farmer members of this House.


Hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Mr. WILCOX:: I want to say that if
thorp were a few more farmers in 'this House and a few less like the member for Carleton it would be a good deal better. N
Some hon. MEMBERS [DOT] Order.
Some hon.'MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Best: I may be a plain farmer, but I would not associate myself with him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Best: I firmly believe-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Best: I firmly believe that if he
was in Ireland he would be hot.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Best: He is a rebel to the Empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Best: A rebel to the Empire.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a fine specimen.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I wish to say that for
myself, I know many members of this House on both sides who are farmers-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am one myself.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: -and they have my
greatest respect; I consider them as gentlemen.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think, perhaps, I
should not have made the remark I did to the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best). I am a farmer myself.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: " This was the most
unkindest cut of all."


Oliver James Wilcox: We know what you are.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have been trying to
discuss this matter as a pure matter of legal argument, and have refrained from making any comment upon the evidence. I was trying to answer the question put by the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) as to whether or not it was anybody's business, assuming that these gentlemen were contractors. I say that if the four working members of the Shell Committee take that ground, if the House takes that ground, if the Government takes that ground, that these gentlemen have made a contract with the War Office to supply, shells at a certain price, and that is

nobody's business whether they paid to their friends higher prices than they should have paid, nobody's business what they did, nobody's business whether they made a loss or not, so long as they delivered the goods-then I do not think I should have the right to come here. But I have stated to the House that the members of the Shell Committee do not take that attitude. They say that while it is true that they took the legal attitude of being contractors, they always intended to hand this money over, and that they did hand it over, and it went to their successors, the Imperial Munitions Board. I hope I have sufficiently answered the hon. member for West Peterborough; I have tried to make it as plain as I possibly can. In order to arrive at any just conclusion as to the conduct of the members of the old Shell Committee; in order to come to any conclusion as to whether or not they conducted themselves in a proper manner, speaking from the commercial standpoint; in order to satisfy ourselves and the country as to whether these munitions which were bought on account of the British Government, and, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance some months ago, to some extent for the Government of Canada, were purchased as cheaply as they should have been purchased and whether the. transaction was as sound a business transaction as it should have been, I submit, Sir, that the scope of this inquiry should be so enlarged that we should have the Tight to go into the method by which they made up the estimate that they saved $42,000 in the one case, $14,800,000 in the second case, and $30,000,000 in the third case. That is what I want to bring before the House and especially before the Prime Minister, because, being a good lawyer, he can appreciate exactly what I am talking about. I do not go so far as to question the ruling of the commissioners; I want to keep entirely away from that phase of the case. I have tried to place these facts before the House in order that they might be treated by the House entirely as a legal matter, coupled, of course, with the public interest; in order that the matter anight be discussed from that standpoint and not in any way from the standpoint of what may have taken place or what will take place before the Royal Commission. I do not have to remind the House that in my judgment it would be entirely improper to discuss that, and I do not propose doing so, because the Royal Commission is not more than half 
or one-third through with its business. It will be time enough to discuss the doings of the commission when the witnesses have been heard and the facts are before the public.
Before I take my seat I wish publicly to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister -and I hope that I shall be allowed to do so, even though the matter is not contained in the notice which I gave to you, Mr. Speaker,-the fact that under the terms of the Inquiries Act there is no provision for taking the evidence of a witness outside the Dominion of Canada; that is, there is no provision for compelling the attendance of such witness. You are well aware, Mr. Speaker, that most of the states of the Union have provisions for compelling the attendance of witnesses before commissions issued out of our courts under certain conditions. In the state of New York the statute reads practically in this way-I think I can give it almost verbatim, although I have not the citation before me-I think it is section 915 of the Code of New York: " Any party to a suit, cause or action pending in any court may apply to have commissioners appointed, subject to the procedure afterwards given, which commissioners shall have the right to examine witnesses under oath, ask for and compel the production of documents," and generally to go on and work it out. There are decisions in the state of New York providing that a judge under the procedure granted may subpoena and' force the attendance of witnesses before the commission appointed just the same as would be done in our own courts. There is no provision of our Inquiries Act which brings us within the purview of that sort of condition. That is to say, our Inquiries Act does not recognize the existence of parties; it does not recognize a Commission under our Act to be a court. As I view it, therefore, our Commissioners would have no power to appoint a Commission to go to any state in the Union and compel the attendance of witnesses the same as they could if these were applied for out of a court or by a party to a cause in that court. I make this suggestion to the Prime Minister, with the intention at the earliest possible moment-


Mr. DOHERTY:: If the hon. gentleman will pardon me, is it not quite true that the statute that he is referring to of the State of New York, and statutes generally dealing with the subject, are limited entirely in their application to civil or criminal proceedings, and that, therefore, unless we have

a civil or criminal proceeding, it would not help the matter to call this commission a court? I may point out that when we get ready for any civil or criminal proceedings, of course we have plenty of courts before which we can proceed and on the proceedings before these courts we might invoke that statute.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am bringing this
matter to the attention of the House, and I hope that the Minister of Justice will be able to devise a scheme by which a commission of inquiry such as I refer to will come under the provisions of the New York statute.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We should have to be able to amend the New York Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have stated my object in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I had intended asking the Prime Minister if arrangements could be made by which an Act could be passed bringing our commission under the Inquiries Act within the purview of the statute of New York or other statute, in order to obtain the evidence of witnesses who cannot be brought from the United States to Canada as the law now stands.
I have tried to place this matter before the House as plainly as I can. I only hope that the House will agree that I have presented a case, and that the scope of this inquiry will be so extended that we may be enabled to give to the people of Canada not merely a certain disjointed portion referring to three or four matters out of questions involving hundreds of millions of dollars, but the whole facts in connection with the case.


Right Hon.   S@: My hon. friend has placed his position very clearly before the House. 1 should like to make an observation with regard to the concluding portion of his remarks. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House spoke of the possibility of some amendment being made to the Inquiries Act which would facilitate the summoning of witnesses and the enforcing of their attendance in another country. When that suggestion was made, early in April, I think, I wrote to the Minister of Justice, directing his attention to the suggestion and said that any legislation for that purpose might very properly be brought in if it were feasible. The difficulty that he has found-one which, I think, is very obvious to all who consider the question-is this:
The statute, as he has observed, which really requires amendment for this purpose, is that in force in New York. If that statute were so amended that commissioners atftfng under the authority of the 'Government of any other -country should have in New York power, through the medium of the courts there, of enforcing attendance in the cases mentioned by the hon. member for Carleton, there would be no difficulty. It has not been made plain to the Minister of Justice or to myself, although I have not given it the same consideration that he has, that any amendment of the Inquiries Act would affect the purpose which the hon. member for Carle-ton has in mind.
The hon. member for Carleton observed that the Government or the Shell Committee might take the ground, if they saw fit to do so, that this was not really a committee, but that these gentlemen occupied the position of contractors. We have not taken any such ground in this House, so far as the Government is concerned. The first information of an important and definite character that came to me with regard to the operations of the Shell Committee was that which I quoted in a speech delivered in this House on the 15th day of April, 1915. The members of the Shell Committee had called upon me with the Minister of Militia shortly before and described the extent of the operations of the Shell Committee and their possible development in the production of munitions in Canada. I asked them at that time to make a written statement which they afterwards prepared and which I read in the House on the 15th April, 1915. And certainly, whatever the legal forais may have been which were observed between the Shell Committee on the one hand and the War Office on the other hand, the memorandum which I then read to the House conveyed to me the most distinct impression, as I am sure it did to all members of the House, that they were acting as a committee and were not acting in a contractual relation. I will quote just a few paragraphs of that memorandum, which very probably has escaped the recollection of most of the hon. members. It was headed in this way: "Report on the Formation and Work of the Shell Committee by David Carnegie, M.I.C.E., Ordnance Adviser." One of the paragraphs in the introduction was as follows:
Details of the committee's formation, constitution and operation are given in the follow-

ing pages. Tabulated facts of the materials used in the contracts and their value are also recorded together with notes on the progress and nature of the work involved in the various contracts handled by the committee.	,
Under the heading of "Formation of the Committee," this paragraph appears:
Before actually forming the committee the Minister of Militia asked Colonel Greville Harston and Lt.-Colonel F. D. Lafferty, to get in touch with all manufacturers in Canada who they thought could make the component parts for shrapnel shells. He particularly emphasized his desire to have the steel manufactured in Canada.
On the 8th of September, 1914, at a meeting held by the minister at the Dominion Arsenal the following committee was appointed to organize the work throughout the Dominion:
Colonel A. Bertram, Chairman; Thos. Cantley, Esq., Geo. W. Watts, Esq., E. Carnegie, Esq., representing the manufacturers; Colonel T. Benson, Master General of Ordnance; Colonel Greville Harston, C. I. Arms and Ammunition; Lt.-Colonel F. D. Lafferty, K.C.A., superintendent of the Dominion Arsenal, representing the Department of Militia and Defence.
Lt.-Colonel Lafferty undertook the technical instruction of the manufacturers in shell construction, and it was decided that the examination and inspection would be carried out by the chief inspector of arms and ammunition.
About two weeks after the organization of the committee, Mr. David Carnegie, of London, Eng., was appointed by the minister as ordnance adviser to the Shell Committee.
Then, further, under the heading, "Work of the Committee:"
The work of the committee in the early stages was that of formulating definite plans of procedure. They determined that, as far as possible, all the materials employed in the shells would be made in Canada; up to that time, for instance, no Canadian steel had been used for the production of ammunition.
To Colonel Cantley the committee is under obligation for having rapidly installed and equipped plant for producing the first steel made in Canada for shell manufacture.
With the exception of the copper bands all ports of the shells now produced are made in Canada, and it is hoped that, before long, these also will be included amongst the Canadian industries.
Another important decision made by the committee was to supply to the shell assembling manufacturers, all the component parts of shells, free of charge. By this means many of the smaller manufacturers have been relieved of the financial strain of carrying a heavy stock of raw materials.
Under the heading "Executive Work," we find:	*
The executive work of the committee has been very wisely entrusted to the chairman, Colonel Bertram, who reports weekly to the Minister of Militia and also to the committee when it meets (which is usually monthly) or more often, at the call of the minister.
The work consists of controlling what might be regarded as a huge combination of factories in which various contracts are being executed to British War Office specifications, which entails constant attention and queries regarding

the selection of suitable factories, the placing of contracts, instructing manufacturers in the art, inspecting the parts made, and the payment and auditing of accounts, etc.
And further on under "Executive Work:"
A chartered accountant recommended by the general manager of the Bank of Montreal checks the accounts of the committee every month. These are then forwarded to Mr. J. W. Borden, chief accountant for the Militia Department. It might be said in passing that the committee's accountant has expressed himself in gratifying terms pf the highly efficient way in which the accounts of the committee are kept.
Then under "Shell Contracts:"
The result of his visit has been fully reported to the Minister of Militia, but it might be briefly stated here that the War Office officials did not fully understand the nature and importance of the committee's work, and had no idea that the factories - in Canada were capable of undertaking such contracts, until these facts were placed before them.
Under the head of "Miscellaneous:"
In addition to the foregoing, the Minister of Militia, through his committee, has made several investigations for the War Office in connection with the supply of propellants and high explosives. An investigation was undertaken regarding the supply of nitro-cellulose powder by a large firm in the United States. Other matters have been investigated, such as the supply of rifles and ammunition for the Russian Government.
So that, whatever forms may have been devised 'between the committee and the Minister of Militia and the War Office, the impression conveyed to my mind by that report was that the committee were really acting as a committee in organizing the industries of Canada for the production of munitions of war, and were acting in that regard for the War Office and under its direction, with the co-operation, wherever necessary, of the .Minister of Militia and Defence.
The hon. member for Carleton has gone over a considerable portion of the proceedings of the commission. I shall quote, before I conclude, some portions of what he has already quoted, in order to arrive at the exact status of the matter as it presented itself to the commission and to the counsel who are engaged. Let me call the attention of the House for a moment to the circumstances under which and to the reasons on account of which the commission was issued to the Hon. Sir William Meredith and the Hon. Mr. Justice Duff. I said in this House on the 30th day of March last:
If a member of this House desires to make a charge against any member of the Government, or any member of the House, the proper course is for him to rise In his place, make a personal statement on his responsibility as a member of

the House, and conclude the statement with a charge.
This has not been done, and thus the course *which I am about to announce is, strictly speaking, not demanded by any action which hon. gentlemen opposite have taken. No one of them has risen in his place and taken the responsibility of making a charge in the sense above set forth.
The hon. member for Richmond, N.S. (Mr. Kyte) however, made statements late on Tuesday evening the 2Sth of March, as to the connection of the Minister of Miltia with certain contracts entered into by the Shell Committee, and as to enormous profits or commisions arising out of these contracts to certain companies which he mentioned. It is alleged that Mr. J. We3ley Allison had a very large interest in those profits or commissions, and it is suggested that through his influence with the Minister of Militia the Shell Committee were induced to make the contracts in question. The Minister of Militia and Defence had previously stated to the House his close relationship to Mr. J. Wesley Allison, and his great confidence in that gentleman.
Th-en I w-ent on to say:
Having regard to these considerations, the Government propose to issue a Royal Commission.	v
And on the following Monday, the 3rd day of April, I announced that that commission had been issued on that day. There is one portion of it which I desire to read, in order to make the position of the Government absolutely clear with regard to what was then proposed. The relevant portion of the Order in Council ie as follows:
The Prime Minister, therefore, recommends that a commission for the purpose aforesaid to issue under the said Part One of the Inquiries Act directed to the Honourable Sir William Ralph Meredith, Kt., Chief Justice of Ontario, and the Honourable Lyman Poole Duff, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, authorizing and requiring them with all reasonable diligence to make full and complete inquiry into the contracts aforesaid and each of them and into the acts and proceedings of the Shell Committee, whether by themselves or by any other person or persons directly or indirectly, and of the Minister of Militia and Defence whether by himself or by any other person or persons directly or indirectly in relation thereto or in connection therewith and into the negotiations therefor, the profits or prospective .profits arising thereunder, the disposition, division or allotment of such profits or prospective profits, or of any commission or reward for procuring the said contracts or any of them and as to the persons interested in any such profits, prospective profits reward or commissions, and generally speaking into all other acts, transactions and matters of every kind relating to the said contracts and each of them and to report the result of such inquiry with the evidence taken therein. Also to inquire into such other matters relating to the acts or proceedings of the Shell Committee as may be referred to the said commissioners by Order in Council from time to time, and to report the
result of any such further inquiries with the evidence taken therein.
I did not explain to the House at the time the purpose or object of the concluding portion of what I have just read. It had been freely .stated along the 'corridors of this House that the alleged charge of the hon. member for Richmond was only an instalment of the charges, or rather insinuations, which hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House proposed to make. If any such further charges were to be made with reference to this matter, we did not propose to sit silent, tout we did propose to have them investigated. Therefore, that clause was inserted in the Order in Council. We had also in mind this: We proposed to send over to the Government of the United Kingdom the whole debate on the motion proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, with the assurance that if an inquiry into the matter were desired at this stage, we would be prepared to give every possible assistance and co-operation in such inquiry, and that as far as we were concerned the Government of Canada had absolutely no objection to such inquiry. So, the clause in the Order in Council fulfilled a double purpose in that regard.
Thereafter, on the 17th day of April, I read to the House an Order in Council which was .passed on the 15th of April, setting forth in terms the motion proposed by my right hon,. friend the leader of the Opposition with regard to this matter, and my observations in regard to it. That Order in Council concluded as follows:
Having regard to these considerations and to the statement above quoted, the Prime Minister recommends that the Hansard report of the debate upon the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier be transmitted to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the assurance that the Government of Canada is prepared to assist and co-operate, as stated by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, in any inquiry or investigation into the transactions to which reference is made in the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and that so far as the Government of Canada is concerned there is no objection whatever to the fullest investigation that may be thought desirable at any time.
It is not necessary for me to do more than allude to the reasons which were set forth as to why we declined to enter upon such an inquiry without consultation with the British Government. There were two main reasons: One was that the expenditure was not by the Government of Canada, but by the Government of the United. Kingdom, and another consideration was

this, that during the pxogress of a great war such as that in which we are now engaged, the Government of the United Kingdom might not think it desirable that an inquiry should take place at the present time. So, we sent the debate, we sent all that was alleged, to them for their consideration with the assurance that if they thought any inquiry desirable we would be prepared to co-operate in it to the fullest extent.
Now, the matter has reached a certain stage before the commissioners, and I would like to quote just a few portions of what has been already quoted to the House by my hon. friend from Carleton. At page 373 Mr. Johnston is reported as saying:
As to whether or not I should go into that matter and that point I understand was reserved ; if the Commission is of opinion that I ought not to ask questions in regard to -that I shall not put any further question.
Mr. Hellmuth: May I intervene for a moment ; anything that bears upon the question of contractual relationship or trustee relationship I would not desire to prevent, as far as I am concerned, any inquiry into that; going into the particular contracts that were made outside of the scope of this is another matter, but the questions that would lead up to that I should think in view of the dealings with these particular contracts might be asked; that is the way it occurs to me.
Mr. Johnston: I may say that the question of what took place as gathered from various witnesses may be importance from our standpoint, from my standpoint at any rate, and I so submitted at the time; in addition to that the contracts have been proved and they are before the Commission, and surely it is open to me to examine as to the contracts proved by my learned friend Mr. Hellmuth, and made part of the record. If they can be proved and nothing more said about it then of course my duty is very simple, as I should not ask if the Commissioners so rule, and I would not even attempt to lead up to that.
Mr. Hellmuth:	I am not objecting to your
asking any questions in regard to those contracts that were entered into between the Shell Committee or the four members of the Shell Committee and the Secretary of State for War through General Hughes; all I am objecting to is your going into the contracts that these parties made with others in regard to the matter, but I should think it is quite proper to find out from those contracts and from other circumstances what the relationship was; in regard to that I do not certainly interpose; I shall be glad if it were done.
It will be noted that Mt. Hellmuth distinctly stated there that he had no objection whatever to going into these contracts in so far as that might be necessary to ascertain precisely the relationship of the committee to the War Office and its exact status. Further on, after the commis-

sioners had conferred, Sir William Meredith said this:
Mr. Johnston, the Commissioners are of opinion that you can make inquiries of this or any other witness as to the relationship between the iShell Committee and the War Office, or the Minister of Militia, but you cannot enter into the particulars of any of the transactions that are not the subject of this inquiry.
The position, as far as I understand it, which Mr. Johnston took, and I am not presuming to criticise him in any way, was that the inquiry should be just as open to him as if all the contracts of the Shell Committee had been referred to the commissioners, and not merely the four contracts with respect to which the charges of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) were made. Of course, the commissioners could not acquiesce in any proposal of that kind. I would think that entirely obvious.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think my right hon. friend is stating the position exactly as it is, because, while if these contracts had not been put in in evidence and one side of the case had not been put forward, possibly my hon. friend's contention would be logically right; but Mr. Johnston's main contention was that, as these contracts had been put in evidence, and as the statement had been made about savings, he should have the Tight to crossexamine in order to test out the credibility of the witnesses and see exactly what the results ought to be.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite see the relation, because the charge made in this House was not in regard to the savings of the committee, that is, the difference between the amount which the British Government had authorized and the amount at which the committee had placed their contracts. The question was as to alleged exorbitant and inordinate profits made with respect to certain fuse contracts and other contracts, coupled with the suggestion, or the insinuation, that these contracts had been brought about through the instigation of the Minister of Militia and through some supposed influence that Mr. J. Wesley Allison had exercised upon him. That was precisely the issue which the hon. member for Richmond and other hon. members on the other side of the House proposed for investigation, and that is precisely the matter which the commissioners are proceeding to investigate, and as to which, so far as I understand, they are giving the fullest opportunities for in-

quiry. Sir William Meredith, further on, in reply to Mr. Johnston, said:
Sir William Meredith: That involves going Into eaeh one of the transactions mentioned in that agreement; only four of them are the subject of this inquiry.
And for the very good reason that in respect of only four of them was there any charge or even insinuation made in this House which affected in any way the status or honour of any member of this Government; and as to these, we promptly challenged inquiry, and have granted it. There now seems to be a disposition to raise some other question and ask for some other inquiry which is not covered by what hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House themselves suggested and asked for when this matter was brought up. Then, the Hon. Mr. Justice Duff goes on:
Hon. Mr. Duff: The particulars of the prices of particular contracts other than these four contracts-
Mr. Johnston: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Duff: That is to say, there is no question of contracts for fuses-
Mr. Johnston: No, I understand that, as far as the fuses are concerned, but the fuses are included with other matters in a contract of the 1st July, 1915, because there was a lump sum of $16.50 as to these four contracting parties, nominally or really contracting parties, and as I pointed out, and as I again point out, that in order to ascertain the exact status of these gentlemen, I ask to be allowed to go into the transaction, and let me make it as general as possible, into the whole transaction which will bear not upon the question of fuses but upon the position which these gentlemen actually occupied towards the War Office or towards anybody else with regard to these contracts or contracts for similar purposes.
Sir William Meredith: I think our ruling is plain, Mr. Johnston; you will proceed having regard to it, please.
Mr. Johnston: I do not know that I can make it clear to myself.
Sir William Meredith said further on:
Sir William Meredith: As X understand what you have said, if there is a full price, $16.50, part of it only the fuse, the ruling would not prevent you going into an inquiry as to the rest of the $16.50, whatever it is.
Hon. Mr. Duff; That is with regard to the five million.
Mr. Johnston: Yes, I understand that.
Further on Mr. Hellmuth makes these observations:
Mr. Hellmuth: In regard to the ruling the questions that are directed towards elucidating the position of the four gentlemen with the War Office, whether they were, although legally contractors, treating themselves as trustees or agents, I do not understand any questions of that kind are ruled out.
Sir William Meredith: Certainly not.
Mr. Hellmuth : Nor any inquiry in regard to any prices or any contracts that were made in
regard to the fuses with the Amerioan Ammunition Company.
Sir William Meredith: Certainly not.
Mr. Hellmuth: But if my learned friend Mr. Johnston wants to ask in regard to another contract or sub-contract made by these four gentlemen with somebody else in relation to a matter which is not covered by the terms of the Order in Council he cannot go into that.
Sir William Meredith: That is the ruling.
Hon. Mr. Duff: Or which has nothing to do with the contract of the five million.
Further on Sir William Meredith observed :
Sir William Meredith: You understand, Mr. Johnston, that with regard to this five million contract, the question of profits made by anybody is open to inquiry.
Mr. Johnston. I understand that.
Hon. Mr. Duff: Not merely, as to the fuses, you know.
Mr. Johnston: Yes. And as to the five million fuses, not merely as the price of fuses but the prices under the sub-contract and so forth.
Hon. Mr. Duff: As to profits, as to fuse contracts, made by anybody. The fuse contracts were-speaking very roughly-an element in the transaction with regard to the five millions and what has been said with regard to other contracts does not apply to the five millions.
Mr. Johnston: I understand that the five millions is open to all investigation and all inspection of papers and all examination that may be deemed necessary.
Under the circumstances, I hardly am able to appreciate the point or cogency of my hon. friend's suggestion that, by reason of anything that has transpired before the commissioners, there should be an amendment or extension of the terms of the Order in Council. The Government determined in the first instance that it could not undertake to authorize or proceed with a general inquiry into shell contracts, except after consultation with the British Government, and after submitting the whole matter to them. Later on, when a charge, or rather, a suggestion or insinuation was made on the other side of the House purporting to connect a member of the Government with contracts in respect of which it was said that inordinate and exorbitant profits had been made, although there was no. direct charge in the ordinary sense, the Government determined that an inquiry ought to be made, and we brought down and laid upon the table of the House the Order in Council authorizing the present inquiry. That is the matter now being investigated and determined before the commissioners; that is the issue which hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House themselves raised; that is the question, in so far as the status of any member of the Government is concerned, which they themselves asked to have determined; and

so far as I can -understand from a perusal of the proceedings before the commissioners, a copy of which I have under my hand, the commissioners have not only granted but are disposed to grant , in the future tlie widest latitude to those who are pressing this inquiry and endeavouring to support the allegations of the hon. member for Richmond. Under the circumstances it does not seem to me that either the Government or the members of this House are called upon to reverse a decision that was made after careful debate in this House, merely for the reason that an honourable member of the Bar, however eminent, may think it suits his purpose for the time being to pursue a particular line of crossexamination. So far as these contracts are concerned, everything is absolutely open to him.
So far as the status of the Shell Committee and its relationship to the War Office is concerned, the commissioners, if I understand their ruling correctly, will permit him to inquire, not only into the four contracts mentioned in the Order in Council, but, in a general way, into all the con tracts; he is not restricted or limited in any way whatsoever. But when he asks the commissioners to allow him the same scope of inquiry that he would have had if the whole proceedings of the Shell Committee had been referred to the commissioners for inquiry, why, naturally, no one would expect that the commissioners could acquiesce in such a course.
Under these circumstances, I can only say to my hon. friend that I do not feel there is any occasion whatever for an extension of the terms of the Order in Council authorizing the inquiry. If the British Government, after consideration of the documents which have been sent forward, should come to the conclusion that a general inquiry is desirable, we shall be most happy to refer that general inquiry to these same commissioners if they are prepared to undertake it; but, until some such desire or wish on their part is suggested to us, it does not seem to me there is any occasion for further action by the Government of Canada. The commissioners, as far as I understand-I have not had time to follow the evidence carefully-are giving, and properly giving, not only a fair but a wide interpretation to the terms of the Order in Council; they are giving a wide latitude to the inquiry. But when my hon. friend the member for Carleton suggests that there 
should be an inquiry into the estimated profits under other contracts, or as to how they were made, or how much the operations of the Shell Committee generally cost the British Government, I, for one, am unable to see how such considerations are relevant.
I for one am unable to agree that such considerations enter into this inquiry, or that they affect the particular question which was raised in this House by the hon. member for Richmond, with the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite. Therefore I must say to my hon. friend that, so far as I am concerned, there appears no reason at present for extending the scope of the Order in Council which authorised this inquiry. -


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, if my right hon. friend the Prime Minister had confined his observations to a statement that he would not consent to enlarge the scope of the commission, I do not know that I should have felt called upon to make any remarks; but the Prime Minister has said further that the Government had decided to issue a commission to investigate all the charges which in any way connected the Government or any member of the Government with mismanagement so far as the affairs of the Shell Committee were concerned, and then he has said that a perusal of the proceedings before the Royal Commission shows that they are giving the widest possible latitude and that no objection can be made against their proceedings. As to these two positions I desire to take distinct issue with my right hon. friend. I say that there was a distinct charge made against the Shell Committee with which a member of this Government was directly connected; that that charge pertained to the general conduct of the Shell Committee and was not limited to the purchase of fuses. That charge was made by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in the motion which he made for a committee of this House to investigate the conduct .of the Shell Committee; that charge was reiterated by my hon. friend the member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell); and then we had the statement of the Prime Minister that 'if any member of this House would stand in his place and make a formal charge and take the responsibility of his charge, the Government would grant an investigation. Then I, as a humble member of this Houses, and having a deep sense of the responsibility that rested upon me, did stand in my place and make a charge in

words as plain and clear and explicit as possible, and I took the responsibility of proving that charge, well knowing, if I failed to do so, the punishment that would be meted out to me as ' a member of this House. It is idle for the Prime Minister to say that no charge was made. Let me call your attention, Sir, to Hansard, page 1789, and see what was the charge and whether it was made in plain and explicit terms or not:
I, William Pugsley, a member of this House, in support of the motion now under consideration, standing in my place in this House and on my responsibility as a member of this House, declare and charge that the Shell Committee, appointed by the Minister of Militia and referred to in said motion, fixed excessive and unreasonable prices for shells and for other munitions and goods to be furnished to the British Government (which by arrangement between the British Government and the Canadian Government were to be paid for in part by Canada.)
That such prices were fixed with competition and were far in excess of what would necessarily have been paid if ordinary business methods had been pursued, thereby involving an unnecessary excessive expenditure of many millions of dollars, conservatively estimated at at least eighty millions, which will be improperly taken from the people of the United Kingdom and Canada.
That said committee gave large orders at such excessive prices and without competition to companies in which members of the committee were largely interested, and of some of which companies merfibers of the said committee were the directing heads.
There is a charge, not (Confined to the purchase of fuses, but connected with the purchase by the committee of all goods for the purposes of the British Government. Later on in the charge which I made it is expressly declared that the actions of the Shell Committee were known to and were connived at by the Minister of Militia; and yet the Prime Minister says there was no charge connecting any member of this Government with improper conduct, Are we to understand that it will not be deemed a charge against this Government that they are guilty of negligence, that they are guilty by careless business methods, of allowing money to be taken out of the treasury of Great Britain and the treasury of Canada, and that, in order to make a charge against the Administration, you must charge personal dishonesty against some member of the Government? I have never understood that to be the rule applied to men in public life. I directed a charge against this Shell Committee, created by a member of this Government and acting for a member of this Government, that they, neglecting ordinary business methods and disregarding those
ordinary rules of prudence which should guide the gentlemen who are carrying on the affairs of the country, paid excessive prices involving an unnecessary expenditure amounting to the enormous sum of $80,000,000; that that was done with the knowledge and connivance of the Minister of Militia to whom the Shell Committee reported from week to week. It astonishes me that the Prime Minister, in the face of that charge, rises to-day in his place and repeats the statement which he made some time ago in this House, that there was no charge in any way connecting any member of this Government with improper conduct so far as the Shell Committee was concerned. I charged further:
That there has been great and wholly unnecessary delay in furnishing the completed shells for use of the Canadian and British forces at the front.
That the said Shell Committee neglected and delayed for an undue period of time to provide the fuses necessary to render the shells effective, and, failing to endeavour to provide for their construction in Canada, as they might have done, proceeded to give and awarded, through J. Wesley Allison in the United States, contracts for fuses amounting to ?22,000,00o[ on which they made an advance of $3,750,OOo! That the making of the said contracts through said Allison was unwise and improvident and was entered into with the knowledge and connivance of the Minister of Militia, and the said Shell Committee failed to obtain * delivery of said fuses for an unreasonable time.
And I do also charge that the Government of Canada had, through the Minister of Militia, to whom the said Shell Committee reported weekly, knowledge of such irregular and improper methods and acts of the said Shell Committee, and while having the power at any time to put an end thereto the said minister improperly consented to such irregular and improper methods and acts and permitted the same to continue.
There was a charge directed against the Shell Committee, not limited to the purchase of fuses, but having refer-
4 p.m. emce to the various actions of that committee in the purchase of shells, shell boxes, and other materials, and charging them with improper and irregular conduct, and that such conduct upon their part was with the knowledge and connivance of the Minister of Militia.	Yet my right hon.
friend says there was no charge against the Shell Committee so far as any member of the Government being connected with it was concerned, except in reference to fuses, and that the latter charge was made by my hon. friend the member for Richmond. 1 feel constrained to make that statement in view of what my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has said in reference to there being no charge connecting any mem-

ber of this Government with improper conduct.
The Prime Minister says that they have not dealt with this matter as if this committee had any contractual relations with the Imperial Government, but as if they were a committee. Does he forget that he and the members of this Government informed this House and informed the people that this Shell Committee was in no way responsible to this Government or to any member of this Government, but that all this Government did was to name seven reputable gentlemen for selection by the British Government as their committee for the purchase of munitions of war, and that it was to the British Government, and to the British Government alone, that that committee was responsible, that it was with that Government alone that they had relations? Does the Prime Minister forget that? Does the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) forget that? Does the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) forget that? If the Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) were here, he might perhaps say something in a different way; but these gentlemen to whom I have referred, one after another,' stood in their places in the House and said that this Government had nothing in the world to do with this committee. Did my right hon, friend the Prime Minister, when he made that statement in the House, know of these contracts which had been signed by Sir Sam Hughes, Minister of Militia, on the one side, and these four gentlemen, members of the committee, on the other? I cannot believe he knew of them. I cannot believe that had he known of them he would have concealed them from the knowledge of the members of this House and of the people of Canada. Some may think it strange that he did not know of these contracts, for they had seen it reported in the newspapers that at times he was acting Minister of Militia. It may seem strange to hon. members of this House that other gentlemen did not know of them, for we have seen the statement made at one time that the President of the Council, Mr. Lougheed, was acting Minister of Militia. Other gentlemen from time to time have acted as Minister of Militia. Some may think it strange that, taking charge of the department as they did, none should know of the' existence of these contracts which, it has been said, had been so much a surprise when evidence of them was disclosed before the Royal Commission. These contracts were, as I have said, directly between these four 
gentlemen and this Government, through its Minister of Militia. Will it be said, in view of these contracts being now before the country, that this committee had nothing to do with this Government? Will it be said that they had nothing to do with the Minister of Militia? Will it be said that the Minister of Militia was not the man who took these orders from the British Government and then gave orders to these gentlemen who did so make the contracts? To-day we have the facts, we have the absolute confirmation of the statement of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made in, this House when he quoted the remarks of Lord Curzon that these orders came directly from the War Office to the Minister of Militia of Canada. When that statement was made, hon. gentlemen on the other side were disposed to question it, but to-day we have the fullest confirmation of the position which the leader of the Opposition took in proposing his motion to the House.
The Prime Minister says that it is evident that there is no necessity for enlarging the scope of the commission, that it is evident . the commission has been given the freest hand that any counsel can in reason ask to be given them. I am not disposed to agree with my right hon. friend in that. In a court of law, if the counsel for the plaintiff were to put in a document and examine the witness upon that document, whether the document was relevant or irrelevant, the counsel upon the other side would have the right to cross-examine with regard to that document. I ask any lawyer in this House if that would not be the case. That is one of the clearest and most elementary principles of daw. Yet we find that the, gentleman representing this Government and taking his instruction from this Government puts in these various documents, puts in the calculations of profits, and, with the consent of the commissioners, went fully and with very great detail into the actions of the Shell Committee so far as it pleased him to do so, but that, when Mr. Johnston proposed to crossexamine on these very documents the statement which Mr. Hellmuth, representing the Government, had placed before the Committee, he was denied the right to cross-examine, a right which would have been accorded to counsel in any court in this country. Does my Tight hon. friend the Prime Minister, as a lawyer of great

ability and large experience, say that that is fair play? Does he say that one side should be permitted to put in such documents as it pleases and that counsel representing a different interest shall not be permitted to cross-examine upon those documents? I deny that that is in accordance with the principles that govern ordinary legal proceedings; I deny that that is in accordance with the principles which should govern the Commission if they are desirous of having the fullest investigation and of the facts going to the public. If the Prime Minister does not feel like granting the request of my hon. friend from Carleton that the scope of the Commission should be enlarged, he should instruct Mr. Hellmuth, acting for the Government, to permit the fullest cross-examination upon all matters which he went into in his direct examination That would be only fair play, that would be only in accordance with justice and with the rules of procedure, which, as every lawyer knows, govern the taking of evidence in the courts of this country.
Just a word with reference to the suggestion of my hon. friend from Carleton that the Government should introduce legislation so as to give these judges, who are appointed under Royal Commission, the status of a court, in order that they may have power to issue a commission to the United States, and so be enabled to obtain evidence in that country. My hon. friend recognizes the desirability of doing that if it can be done. It is known that this very large contract was given in the United States; it is known that some of the most important witnesses reside in the United States; it is known that these witnesses cannot be compelled by any process to come to this country and that the only way in which their evidence can be secured would be by some procedure which would enable them to be brought before a representative of the commission in the United States. If the Government does not lend its aid-if that aid can be made effective towards this result-it would be putting a premium upon those acting for this Government going to the United States and there making their contracts, carrying on their business, and spending the money of this Government-or the money entrusted to the Shell Committee which is in reality the money of this Government and the money of Great Britain-because they would expect that no commission could follow them into a foreign oountry and obtain evidence which would be available if the transaction had been carried on in Canada. I hope my right hon. friend the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice will bend their energies toward giving such a constitution to this commission as will prevent it from being deprived of the opportunity of taking the testimony of witnesses in the United States. It is admitted that if these commissioners were a court they could issue a commission to the United States and witnesses would be obliged to attend. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has eaid that that can only be done in a proceeding either civil or criminal. Well, no one pretends that it is a criminal proceeding that these commissioners are carrying on; but is it not a civil proceeding?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Some very uncivil
things have been said about it.


William Pugsley: I do not think so. We on this side of the House, while we regret that. a committee of the House was not appointed to investigate this matter, and while the inquiry has not been broad so as to take in all the matters with respect to which we made these most serious charges, recognize that half a loaf is better than no bread, and that if opportunity is given for full inquiry it will be, to some extent at all events, satisfactory to the public. Why could not an Act he passed declaring that these commissioners shall be deemed to be a court of inquiry? Why should a clerk to this court not be appointed, and why should it not be provided that that court, so constituted-


Charles Joseph Doherty: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question? Can this Parliament legislate that a body shall be deemed a court, and make that effective in the state of New York if the body is not a court?


William Pugsley: Yes. The moment this Parliament, having jurisdiction to create a court for inquiry irtto public affairs, constitutes that body a court with power to take evidence under oath, to punish witnesses for contempt and to issue commissions to a foreign country, at that moment it becomes a court which will be recognized by the laws of a foreign country, the courts of which will then lend their aid to the bringing of witnesses before a commissioner appointed by our court to hear evidence. Does my hon. friend doubt the power of this Parliament to constitute a court? Only two days ago my hon. friend introduced a Bill to amend the Exchequer Court Act, in which he pro-



poe-es that the court shall carry on investigations and make inquiries even though they are not to pronounce judgment taking away property from the individual and giving it to the Crown. They are to carry on investigation and report to the Government as to the value of the property in regard to which they make the investigation. Suppose that was the whole power of the Exchequer Court; suppose it had not the power to give judgment, but were appointed simply for the purpose of making inquiry with regard to property which the Crown had expropriated and to report to the Government upon the value of the property. It would be equally a court; it could be equally given power to compel witnesses to come before it, to administer oaths, to punish for contempt. Equally could it be given the power to issue commissions to a foreign country in case it should be desirable to take evidence in such foreign country. I do not think my hon. friend will question the validity of the legislation thait he himself is proposing with regard to the Exchequer Court. If that is so, then what is the difficulty in constituting these two judges a court of inquiry under the Inquiries Act? What is to prevent this Parliament from giving to the court so constituted the power to compel witnesses to attend before them, to punish for contempt, to employ. all the powers of a court? What is to hinder this Parliament from giving that court power to issue a commission to a foreign, country? If this Government will do that, I venture to say that we shall not require any amendment to the law of New York. I venture to say that upon application to a judge of the Supreme Court of New York an order will be made for the attendance of witnesses before the commissioner which the court so -constituted may .appoint. That is all the hon. member for Carleton asks for; that is what this Parliament has the power to grant if the Government choose to take that course, and if they desire that witnesses in the United States shall tell what they know about these facts. I am told that witnesses in the United States will be able to give the most valuable evidence with regard to the charges which have been made. That, I say, is the course which this Government ought to take if they are desirous of having a full and complete and thorough investigation and of having all the facts disclosed by this Royal Commission.
[Mr. Pugsley.I


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, when my right hon.
friend the leader of the House closed his observations, I confess that I felt at that moment that there required nothing to be added to what he said in order to justify the conclusion at,which he arrived and to demonstrate that there was no basis for the demand for the enlargement of this commission. I feel that I should apologize to this House for rising now to speak, because I have had such a strong confirmation of that view in the speech of the hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Pugsley). Assuredly, if there had been something to be said that would tend to support the claim that at this stage and for the purpose suggested by the hon. member for Carleton the scope of this commission should be extended, I think we might have counted upon the hon. member for St. John to find it out. But apparently he has deemed it necessary to confine his observations almost entirely to matters which, so far as I can see, do not bear upon the question of the extension of the scope of this commission.
He made complaint that the right hon. Prime Minister had stated that no charges other than those under investigation affecting any member of this Government had been made in this House. He proceeded to read to us some extracts from a speech which he had made in the course of the debate upon the motion of the right hon. leader of the Opposition for an inquiry before a committee, and he told us that these were charges. If the use of the word " charges " made them charges in any proper sense of the word, I think it could not be disputed that they were charges, because he repeated the word " charges " in almost every paragraph. The hon. gentleman -seemed to have almost extraordinary conception of the effect of the use of the word. We have an instance of that in another portion of his argument, where he gravely represents to us that if we just call a body a court, that makes it a court and there is nothing more to be said about it-all outside states will recognize it as being a court. I do not attach the same value to words that the hon. gentleman does; in that connection I will have something to say further on.
I do' not purpose going into the question of these so-called charges. At the time that they were made, even with greater solemnity than they have been read to-day, my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) very fully and very adequately

disposed of them. I want to refer only to one paragraph of them, the one that comes nearest to accusing someone of something. It is the paragraph in which these contracts of $22,000,000 are dealt with, and I want to refer to that only to point out that these are the contracts that are now under investigation
The hon. gentleman gets up to contradict the right hon. leader of the House in his statement that no charges other than those under investigation were made, and he cites the charge that is under investigation.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend
pardon me? My information is, and I have not the shadow of a doubt about it, that the contracts put in by Mr. Hellmuth are not limited to fuses at all, but contain the contracts in regard to the shells as well as the fuses.


Charles Joseph Doherty: How does that bear on what I am stating, namely, that the charges with regard to contracts for $22,000,000 are under investigation? The hon. gentleman rises to say that not only are they under investigation, but that other matters are under investigation; and yet the gist of his complaint was that he made charges and that they were not under investigation.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend persists in misrepresenting me. What I said was that the counsel for the Government put in all those contracts, not limiting them to the fuse contracts, and then Mr. Johnson was deprived of the privilege of crossexamining upon the matters into which the Government counsel had examined in the direct examination.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We will come to that in a moment; we have not come near it yet. The hon. gentleman accuses me of misrepresenting him; but if he will keep his mind on what I am dealing with at the moment, I do not think he will venture to deny that what he describes as a charge and what approximates most nearly to a charge in his very-I may be pardoned if I say verbose and numerous statements intended to look like charges-what comes nearest to a charge and looks most like one, is actually under investigation now.


William Pugsley: My statement is only
verbose as compared with the brief speeches of the minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That may be; I do not know whether I am subject to the reproach
220i
ox too great brevity. However, that is all I have to say about his charges. The nearest approach to a charge is actually under investigation, and the hon. gentleman takes up our time complaining that the right hon. gentleman has said that no charges other than those under investigation have been made. I entirely fail to see the bearing of the fact that the hon. gentleman made what he called charges upon the question whether this commission, having been issued to inquire into an issue tendered by the hon. gentleman upon the other side of the House, should now be extended to cover all of the contracts of the Shell Committee. The hon. gentlemen who made these charges which have been subjected to investigation were exceedingly brave when they made them. Their words were many and their words were brave, and they clamoured for a body before which they ( could make the proof of those specific things that are now under investigation; they have a body before which they are given the widest possible latitude concerning those charges which they so made, and are furthermore told that they may refer to any other contract in so far as it bears upon the status of the Shell Committee, and what do they do? I have not read the evidence and I do not want to draw any conclusion from it, but it does not seem very unfair to suggest that it looks at all events like running away from the issue that they tendered. They are given the widest possible latitude on the issue they tendered, and they are here before this House complaining that they are not allowed to go into something else, and all of that because they say, if I followed the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., aright, that there is a question of the status of the committee, and, in the second place, because there is in the evidence a statement showing that large savings were effected as between the prices agreed upon by the War Office and the prices at which contracts were actually made


Mr. MACDONALD:: Does the minister
lay it down as a principle that in this tribunal or in any other court where counsel acting for a party having responsibility introduces evidence to show that there were profits or savings or whatever you choose to call them, the counsel on the other side cannot cross-examine in regard to that fact? That is the ruling here in the minutes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I venture to say so, and I say it is fortified by the ruling of the Chief Justice of Ontario and of Mr. Justice Duff,

one of the most distinguished judges on the Supreme Court Bench, which ruling is absolutely at variance with the suggestion the hon. member for Pictou has just made, and the suggestion which the hon. member for St. John made. The hon. member for St. John said he ventured to say that there was not a lawyer of any standing in this country who would question his proposition, and yet his proposition was in thie teeth of the ruling of the Chief Justice of Ontario and of Mr. Justice Duff.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am putting that
to you as a general principle. What do you say about it?


William Pugsley: What does the minister himself say?


Charles Joseph Doherty: What the minister says is that if, as has been held, these contracts are irrelevant to the matter to be inquired into, the fact that there had been introduced a statement showing the profits made by them, a statement introduced, so far as1 we know, without the slightest objection on anybody's part, does not make that statement a relevant statement pertinent to the inquiry, and consequently gives no right to cross-examine upon it. The suggestion of these two hon. gentlemen amounts to this, that if I should sue a man on a contract for $500, and I should go into the witness box and, in the course of my testimony, voluntarily observe that I made another contract and realized $10,000 profit at some other time, because that evidence had slipped in, because nobody has said anything about it going in, then the court would be called upon to investigate my statement, which has no bearing on my case at all, that I made $10,000 in some other contract at some other time.


William Pugsley: Would the minister say that in that very case there would be no right of cross-examination?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly and most absolutely I would say so.


William Pugsley: There must be something different in the Quebec code from what is in the common law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Hon. gentlemen laugh. If they were in a court I think the laughing would be at their expense.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think you had better
look for some other illustration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: For what my capacity
may be, I have not the slightest hesitation
TMr. Doherty.]
in saying and I feel somewhat fortified by the fact that this is the ruling of Chief Justice Meredith and of Mr. Justice Duff-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does not the minister's logic go to this extent, that if the decision of the Chief Justice of Ontario on this question is right, he should not have permitted the evidence in regard to shell savings or profits to go into the record before the commission?


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as contracts are concerned, the contracts between the Shell Committee and the Imperial Government were put in at the beginning, for the purpose, as I understand it,-and I am depending largely on the statements of the hon. member for Carleton which I have no doubt reproduces what happened, although there may be room for differences of impression-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think so, I
think you are pretty safe in accepting it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I take it that those
contracts were put in to show the status as towards the War Office of the Shell Committee, and I understand a statement was put in, and, so far as I am informed, without anybo'dy suggesting objection to it, that showed, in a general way, that a saving had been effected upon the prices at which the sub-contracts were let.
It dropped there. I do not know what would have been the ruling if it had been objected to; but this much is quite clear, that the two learned judges have ruled that cross-examination, going into the details of what profits were made on each one of these contracts, is not justified by the introduction of the statement, and that it is irrelevant to the matters being inquired into. I think it would not be unwise of this House to. leave that matter to be determined by these two learned judges. There will not be much gained by my quarrelling with my hon. friends on the other side of the House as to whether this is a sound judgment or not. I am quite prepared, and I think that other hon. members of this House will also be, to abide by the decision of the commissioners on that question, and that is their judgment.
If one follows the argument of Mr. Johnston, it is apparent that he claims to go into these contracts as bearing upon the status of the Shell Committee towards the War Office. The declaration of the commissioners on the subject has been read here more than once, that in so far as they may be pertinent to establish that

status they may be gone into. The other assertion is the one I have just dealt with, namely, that because there happened to be a statement that these profits were made, although these profits have absolutely nothing to do with the issue that the commission was appointed to try, we ought to extend the scope of the commission in order to enable them to go into all the contracts made by the Shell Committee. I am not going into the question whether that should be done or not. That question was threshed out in this House on the motion of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: On another suppose^
state of affairs.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In what respect?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: On the supposition that the Shell Committee were trustees instead of contractors.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not going into the question of whether they are in effect trustees or contractors. If I followed the hon. gentleman rightly, his contention was that legally, on the letter of the instrument, they were contractors.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no doubt about that at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Very well; I am not
questioning that; but they themselves say that morally they were representatives or trustees.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But with the right to pay any amount which they had a mind to for these articles so long as it did not exceed the estimated cost.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That matter might
very well be left to the commissioners to determine.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. I do not wish to discuss it here.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What their rights are
may be left to the commissioners to determine; but how does that affect the question of the scope of the commission? The commissioners have told Mr. Johnston that, as far as anything bears on the question of the status of the Shell Committee, he may go into it. There can be no dispute about that question. All that has been ruled out is the details, the particulars, of the different sub-contracts which these parties made, other than the sub-contracts referred to in, the commission, because they are all
sub-contracts in this sense, in regard to fuses. That is all that has been ruled out. All I have seen, as a vestige of ground for suggesting that all these other contracts should go in, is the mere fact of the exist-[DOT]cnce of that statement. I have dealt with that argument, and it seems to me that it requires no further observation.
The hon. member for St. John, taking up a suggestion of the hon. member for Carle-ton and harking back on something that was said by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald)-if I might be permitted to refer to something that was mentioned in a previous debate-calls upon the Government, and upon myself in a very particular manner, to legislate to make this commission of inquiry a court which will be recognized in the United States as being a court. He says that all I have to do in order to bring about that result is to give that body the powers of a court in regard to the summoning of witnesses, the examining of witnesses and compelling attendance, and to give them power to issue commissions themselves to other persons. May I point out to him that under the statute at present these are precisely the powers that this body has, and that the only modification he has suggested is that we should call this body a court. I would like to refer to the statute of the state of New York and to our own statute upon that subject. I do so simply for the purpose of making it perfectly clear that statutes of that sort are passed in order to enable courts of different countries to act in aid of each other, if I may so express it. I have here only the statute of the state of New York, but I feel fairly safe in saying that you will find the statutes of other countries on the subject are similar. They all have in contemplation a court, that is to say, a tribunal sitting for the administration of justice and holding trials between parties and carrying on proceedings either civil or criminal. The provision of the New York statute is:
A party to an action, suit, or special proceeding, civil or criminal, pending in a court without the State, either in the United States, or in a foreign country, may obtain, by the special proceeding prescribed in this article, the testimony of a witness-
And so forth. The details of the procedure are immaterial. The right is given to a party in action, suit, or special proceeding, civil or criminal, pending in a 'court; so that you must have a court, you must have a proceeding to which there are

parties, and it must be a proceeding civil or criminal. With all respect to the hon. member for St. John, when he suggests that in a legal sense, and within the well-known meaning which the words have, as distinguishing between a civil and a criminal proceeding, this is a civil proceeding, I find it impossible to follow him. This is an inquiry directed to the ascertaining of facts. Upon the results of that inquiry a civil or criminal proceeding may be based; but we are at present at the stage when we have not got the material upon which to base a proceeding, civil or criminal. Our own statute, making a similar provision in favour of outside courts, is very much in the same terms:
Whenever, upon an application for that purpose, it is made to appear to any court or judge, that any court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, in any other of His Majesty's dominions-
This one deals with His Majesty's other dominions, but there is a provision in regard to foreign countries-
__before which any civil, commercial or criminal
matter is pending, is desirous of obtaining.-
Etc. We might call this a court if we chose, but it would not alter in any sense its functions; and as long as there is instituted before it no action or proceeding, and it is not competent to entertain any action or proceeding, none of these statutes will apply. If we were in a position to proceed before any court and institute any action or proceeding, we would not need to go before this commission at all. There are ample courts in this country if anybody has charges to make. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House said there were charges to bring, said they were in possession of evidence that would convict men under the Criminal Convictions Act-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Who made that statement?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot at the moment lay my hands on it.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) came the nearest to it.
Mr. CARVELL': I think the minister should be a little more specific. If he will exclude me I shall not find so much fault.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the statement is questioned I will drop it, but I have sat here and heard appeals made to the Minister

of Justice, " Why do-n't you prosecute the man for perjury?" When I used the words "criminal convictions," I realized I was not using the right words; I should have said, under the " Secret Commissions Act."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a different proposition.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would suggest that if hon. gentlemen had that evidence and wanted a tribunal to compel the attendance of witnesses, they should have gone to the courts of this country to lay their charges, and then they would have had the assistance of courts of other countries to compel the attendance of the witnesses wanted. When they refused that remedy, what was it they asked for in the same breath? They asked for a committee of this House, which manifestly and unquestionably would have had no greater power than this commission; would not have had the powers that a constituted court would have of compelling the attendance of witnesses. I was surprised when it was first suggested by the hon. member for Pictou; but, as the suggestion had been made by a gentleman for whose professional status I have the greatest respect, I made it my business to look into the matter as carefully as I could, and I am free to confess that for the reasons I have pointed out I think it is beyond our power. But if any method can be devised to compel the attendance of witnesses before this commission-whether it is called a court of inquiry or anything else-hon. gentlemen may rest assured that that method will be resorted to. They need have no doubt about our desire to do everything that can be done to bring before the commission witnesses that it is desired to examine, on all matters that are pertinent to the investigation being carried on.


William Pugsley: If it is to be in the form of a statute, it should be passed before Parliament rises.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am free to admit that the hon. gentleman is a distinguished lawyer, and he knows or he does not know whether we can pass a statute of that kind. Personally, I know of no legislation that could be enacted. We cannot alter the real nature of the body, we cannot alter the real nature of the proceedings, by any legislation of ours that will be effective in the United States. We may legislate that a something that is not a court shall

be a court in Canada; but that would not carry in the United States, because we should only be giving the body a name. We have a body whose functions are essentially not those of a court, because the commissioners can impose no consequences upon people by reason of the findings of facts that they may make; they have no judicial function in that sense to exercise: they, therefore, are not a court or tribunal within the meaning of any of those statutes, and our calling them so will not create against people who are governed by the law of the United States rights that do not exist under the law of the United States or of the particular states in which the people may be found. We can neither make this a court that would be recognized in the United States, by merely calling it a court; nor can we make this a proceeding, civil or criminal, by merely calling it so, in such a manner as to have that recognized in the United States. If hon. gentlemen can suggest any method by which that can be done, I shall be more than happy to accept it. There is certainly an element of inconsistency in hon. gentlemen who would have nothing but a committee of Parliament to inquire into these charges complaining of the lack -of power of this commission to enforce the attendance of witnesses. This commission has already, so far as the law of Canada can give it, all the powers of a court to enforce the attendance of witnesses.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would not a committee of Parliament have the same power?


Charles Joseph Doherty: What is suggested to
me is that a court would have more power. What I say is that this commission has all the powers of a court with regard to the enforcement of the attendance of witnesses.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes; and so has a court in Canada. What power they may have outside of Canada depends upon the statutes of the country in which the power is sought to be exercised, and not upon our legislation. If the reasoning of the hon. member for St. John is correct, I would' say that the State of New York ought to. recognize this body as being a court, because it has been given, in regard to the inquiry, all the powers of a court. But I do not think that foreign (States would recognize it as being a court, and I do not think they would be any more likely to do so if we called- it a court. I am sorry to have detained the House so long, but
I wanted to explain this matter with regard to the existence of the powers attached to this commission, and the possibility of our widening those powers. If that possibility exists I shall be more than happy to avail myself of it.
But to come back to the real question that is at issue, I must confess that I can see no ground suggested for an extension of the commission other than the mere fact that this statement has been placed on the record; and the conclusion drawn from that, that we are. therefore to go into the minutiae of all those contracts, because, perhaps irrelevantly, the sum total of savings has gone on the record, seems to me a proposition absolutely untenable, and its consequences, I think, demonstrate that. If the conclusion were correct, then the accident of the going on the record of any irrelevant statement would open up in this inquiry- and would open up in any case-any number of cases that might happen to be referred to in that irrelevant statement. I think the conclusive) condemns the prop jsition. Upon the whole I entirely fail to see what case has been made for the extension of this commission. And might I add that, if there were room to suggest that we ought to take up further cases, would it not be reasonable to dispose, first of all, of the case we have? ' Why do hon. gentlemen think it so necessary to- get away from the case that is really before the commission, and with regard to which the doors are absolutely wide open, and at this stage, before that case is disposed of, want to run into an investigation of every other contract that was made by the Shell Committee? Surely, if the time ever comes when there will be occasion to do that, we shall be none the worse off for having at least dealt with and determined the one case which was put forward as the typical and the gravest case- the case upon which hon. gentlemen seemed disposed to stake their all in connection with their endeavour to cast reflection upon this Government by means of their accusations against the Shell Committee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The question involved in -the matter brought before the House by my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) is one which it seems to me ought to have met with a more favourable reception from the Government.
In the course of the proceedings had before the tribunal called under the Inquiries Act by this Government for the purpose of investigating certain matters relating to
t

fuse contracts, referred to them by the Government, the counsel appointed by this Government proceeded to put in evidence certain documents and facte relative to the constitution of the Shell Committee and to the contracts entered into by them in connection with the manufacture of shells, which were not, strictly speaking, the subject matter of the charge. In the course of tendering that evidence and bringing that matter before the commission, Mr. Hellmuth, counsel for the Government, produced certain contracts and elucidated certain facts relative to the manufacture of shells, as we see in the-report of the proceedings of the tribunal as, for instance, whether basic steel should be used, 'and so on. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice, who speaks about hon. gentlemen on this side wanting to go into the examination of the question of shells, forgets entirely that that tribunal, which is created by the Government of which my hon. friend is a member, permitted the Government counsel to raise that question. When, however, Mr. Johnston, who was also appointed by the Government, for the purpose, I presume, of cross-examining witnesses and placing before the public all the matters connected with the inquiry, following out what he deemed to be his duty, asked certain questions relative to shell contracts and to the way in which those contracts were carried out, the tribunal said: "That is not within pur reference, and therefore we will not permit you to go on." I think that is a fair statement of the matter, as I gather it from the report of the proceedings. Apprehending that the situation created might be considered a singular one, Sir William Meredith, the presiding judge of the tribunal, suggested that this House should be approached in regard to the matter. He said:
You are aware, of course, the Order in Council provides for the reference of other questions to this commission if it is thought expedient to do so. If anybody thinks that these matters ought to be inquired into, and we are to stay here all summer doing it, I suppose representations can be made. Mr. Carvell is a member of the House, he can bring the matter up and ask that the power of the inquiry be extended.
In consequence of the suggestion of Sir William Meredith, the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., came here, and I think the House will agree with me that he stated fairly the matters connected with the suggestion and the reasons why that suggestion should be accepted by the Govem-

ment. When hon. members on this side point out that an anomaly is created by virtue of documents and other evidence being admitted in relation to shells in regard to which no cross-examination is permitted, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice affects to believe that it is an astounding principle to assert that the right of cross-examination ought not to be limited in such a case. With all deference to my hon. friend's legal standing, I am bound to say that I have never heard it stated in any court that, when documents 5 p.m. are permitted to be gone into by the examining counsel, the cross-examiner must not deal with them. You may say that those facts were not relevant. If so, why was the examining counsel permitted to examine in regard to them? If the position is taken that crossexamination in regard to certain facts was not permitted because those facts were irrelevant, the proper course would have been not to have admitted those facts in the first instance. Mr. Johnston says, at page 373:
I may say that the question of what took place as gathered from various witnesses may be important from our standpoint, from my standpoint at any rate, and I so submitted at the time; in addition to that the contracts have been proved and they are before the commission, and surely it is open to me to examine as to the contracts proved by my learned friend Mr. Hellmuth, and made part of the record. If they can be proved and nothing more said about it then of course my duty is very simple, as I should not ask if the commissioners so rule, and I would not even attempt to lead up to that.
In answer to a further objection he says:
I answer that by saying that the question of relationship having been asked yesterday and emphasized with General Bertram as to whether or not they were contractors or mere trustees or agents-
The question asked by Mr. Hellmuth, counsel for the Government.
-or whatever one may choose to call them that that question depends entirely upon what was done under these contracts after they were entered into, and facts connected with the contracts themselves and with the action of this witness or any other witness, ought to be avail-[DOT]able to me for the purpose of showing what the real relationship was notwithstanding the evidence my learned friend offered yesterday in regard to the fact that they were not in reality contractors, but agents.
It was because Mr. Johnston desired to dc that which he has indicated in the statement I have read, and because it was ruled by the commission that he could not ask those questions, that the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., came to this House, in

accordance with the suggestion of Sir William Meredith whose suggestion seems to be a very reasonable one, and one which ought to be accepted by this Government.


John Hampden Burnham: Does the hon. gentleman insist that that is' a fair statement of the case?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend
does not think it a fair statement, he can answer it when I get through. My hon. friend's interjections in regard to matters about which he knows nothing have become very tiring in this House. If he wants to answer me, let him do so later. I have stated what is in the record; I have stated the facts, and the point is, is anything to be done in regard to the matter?
The position taken by the Government was this, that the Shell Committee were the trusted confidants of the British Government, their creation, their agents, and that to the British Government alone were they responsible. On that basis the matter was discussed in this House and the House voted. After the reference was had, counsel for the Government, by the production of contracts which are the very basis of this discussion, elucidated the fact that the members of the Shell Committee were not the agents of the British Government, were not their appointees, but were simply and solely contractors with them, and that the question as to what was to be done with the surplus left after paying for certain shells was a matter of doubt. It was doubtful whether the money belonged to the members of the Shell Committee or not; and a discussion was had as to whether the money should be given to the Patriotic Fund or returned to the War Office. In other words, the whole position of the Government with regard to the Shell Committee has been absolutely and totally reversed as a result of the facts elucidated by Mr. Hellmuth, as admitted by the right hon. Premier in his speech to-day. The whole point is whether the Government will, m view of those changed conditions, permit Mr.. Johnston, as counsel appointed by themselves for the purpose of elucidating the truth, to crossexamine upon the points which are set out in the proceedings here, and enable him to ask all proper questions with regard to the evidence which has been adduced by Mr. Hellmuth, counsel for the Government. Either the Government will do that or they will not do it. They can refuse, and to that extent the inquiry will be ineffectual and incomplete, and the portion of the evidence that has been adduced by Mr. Hellmuth, the whole evidence not being elucidated, the whole ground not being covered, will, to that extent, be unsatisfactory. About that there can be no doubt whatever. Apparently the Government have taken the position that they do not propose to allow that matter to be gone into, nor to allow Mr. Johnston to undertake that cross-examination which he has indicated.
In this connection, another question has arisen: whether or not the powers of this tribunal created under the Inquiries Act are sufficiently wide to enable them to deal with the taking of evidence outside of the Dominion of Canada. To the suggestion made on that subject the Minister of Justice replied that this is neither a civil proceeding nor a criminal proceeding, and that being neither it does not come within the provision of the New York statute, that being the state within whose bounds witnesses are to be sought. But it may be that the witnesses will not always be in the state of New York. It may be that some of them will cross the river into New Jersey, and there they might be reached by the long arm of a Canadian court. And we have not heard the Minister of Justice discuss what may be the law of New Jersey in regard to taking evidence before a foreign tribunal. This much the Government can do-they can create a court for this particular purpose, endowed with all the powers of a court, and there (being before that court a proceeding within the meaning of the statute cited by the Minister of Justice, you have a tribunal under which, I submit, some way would be found to secure recognition in the United States and in the several states under the Acts there in force. Power to do this, it is conceded, will be found in section 101 of the British North America Act, which is as follows:
The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, from time to time, provide for the constitution, maintenance and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada-
-that is, the Supreme Court.
-and for the establishment of any additional courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada.
" For the better administration of the laws of Canada." The Minister of Justice would be doing only that which he ought to do, if, instead of acting under this totally

inadequate Inquiries Act, he should introduce into this Parliament a statute providing for the constitution of a court with all the powers of a court, to deal with this particular matter. It could then proceed in the way indicated by my hon. friend from St. John, and could take advantage of the statutes of foreign countries, to the extent of which those statutes exist, for the procuring of evidence there.
The Minister of Justice says: "We will not appoint a court, because I find that the New York statute, which I construe in a certain way, limits the right of taking evidence." The hon. gentleman takes the responsibility for that, of course. A peculiar situation arises under the Inquiries Act, as amended by chapter 8 of the statutes olf 1912. It is provided that the commission may allow any person whose conduct is under investigation to be represented by counsel. But I can find no power here given to permit the party making the charge before that tribunal to be represented by counsel. If at any moment this tribunal,' appointed under this Act, should choose to say to Mr. Kyte, for instance, "We do not propose to permit you to go on with this matter, because, while we can appoint counsel to assist us and can appoint counsel for the defence, no particular statutory power is given for the appointment of any one to represent the party making the charge," they would have the power to do so. That is an illustration of the wholly inadequate nature of this court-no, it is not a court, this tribunal-which has been erected for this inquiry. The tribunal is without power to go beyond the borders of Canada to take evidence or to appoint a commission for that purpose. And the position of the Government in regard to this matter is that it has refused to give the tribunal this power.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The hon. gentleman states that we have refused to give this tribunal the status we ought to give them of a court within the powers of the statute of New York. Will he state what additional powers we could give them to afford them that status?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not the
statute before me and am not able to argue with the closeness I should desire	to	do. I	only heard the
statute read by the Minister of Justice. But this tribunal is not a court established under section 101 of the British

North America Act . and has not the full powers with regard to the taking of evidence of the country which a court established under that section would have. All the hon. gentleman needs to do is to create by statute a court under section 101 of the British North America Act. Ample power is given. Let the court be endo'wed with the same power that is given to the Supreme Court of Judicature of every province of the Dominion. Then you will have a body which will have the right to send commissioners to a foreign country to take evidence there. You will then have a court, and you will have a proceeding before that court, which are the essentials of the statute of the state of New York to which reference has been made. But now you have neither a court nor a proceeding' before a court, and consequently you have not a tribunal which can issue a commission to a foreign country and there command respect.
It has been disclosed before this com-misslion thalt the Governmenrt's position in regard to the Shell Committee as taken in this House is absolutely incorrect. It has been shown that this Shell Committee were not the agents of the British Government but were contractors appointed by the Minister of Militia of the Dominion of Canada to enter into a contract under which action could be brought against them individually. Their position in that matter was such that they seriously consulted the Prime Minister as to their personal liability for debts they might contract. These facts have been disclosed before this tribunal for the first time. Yet Mr. Johnston, who is conducting cross-examination, is not allowed to go into the matters which are pertinent and necessary in order to get the full facts before the country. It is for this House and the country to understand that the Government refuse to permit an enlargement of the powers of the commission for thi6 purpose.


Arthur Meighen: That this matter, or some similar matter, should come before the attention of Parliament at this time can be to none of us a matter of surprise. Those who have had the privilege of watching the proceedings before the Royal Commission whose name has often been mentioned in this discussion, and have also studied the strategy of certain hon. gentlemen opposite, could quite readily come to the conclusion that the time had about come when some



MAX' 5, 1916

[Stage Direction]
explanations of the course of events at that commission might well be sent out through the country on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite by way of excuse for what was transpiring, such explanations masquerading, of course, as grievances and complaints.
What actually is before the House, however, I find it very difficult to see. What the House is asked to do is a matter which, though the debate has proceeded for some length of time, and though we have heard from three hon. gentlemen opposite, we may well say we do not know as yet. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), came to the House yesterday, and again to-day, with a motion that this House adjourn in order that he might discuss " a definite matter of urgent public importance," that definite matter of urgent public importance being as follows:
The desirability in the public interest of immediately enlarging the powers of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the contracts regarding fuses, etc., called the Meredith-Duff Commission, by providing for widening the scope of the inquiry into the matters referred to the Commission.
We are asked to discuss, to put it briefly, the desirability of widening the scope of the inquiry into the matters referred to the commission. We are not asked to refer any other matters to the commission. So far as the motion before the House goes, there is no suggestion that the scope of the commission as regards the matters before it is not wide enough. We are asked to consider the desirability of widening the scope of the inquiry into the matters referred to the commission. If the hon. member for Carleton really knew what he wanted-
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will save my hon.
friend some difficulty when I tell him that I did not prepare that at all. The note which I handed to the Speaker yesterday asked for an enlargement of the scope of the inquiry. When I came to my place to-day the motion in its present form was sent to me from the Speaker's Chair; I accepted it and read it. I am not going to split hairs about what is in it or what is not in it; that is the way it happened. Please forget that and we will get along.


Arthur Meighen: I am not one of those, Mr. Speaker, who can forget what we are discussing when I am doing the discussing. I need to have something before me to be discussed. I must commend the discretion
of the hon. member for Carleton in renouncing the authorship of this resolution, although I think that the renunciation would have been" more becoming had it come earlier in the discussion. But how can a man renounce what he moves the House ot adopt? Notwithstanding the fact that he absolves himself from the responsibility, there is nothing before us 'for discussion except this. I do not know what there is to talk about unless it is what is before us: the desirability of widening the scope of the inquiry into the matters referred to the commission. If hon. gentlemen knew how the scope of the inquiry into the matters referred to the commission could be widened, they would have said so; the hon. member for Carleton would have come to this House with a definite statement of how the scope of that inquiry into those matters could be widened, and he would have asked the House to grant such added powers. I say to him now that if he can still come with any definite, understandable statement or resolution widening the scope of the inquiry into the matters .before that commission, it will get sympathetic consideration on the part of this Government. We thought we had given the scope the utmost wideness that the English language could give it in the Order in Council under which the commission now exists and is acting.
The course of the discussion has rambled from one thing to another. From their language, some hon. gentlemen would appear to desire that the commission be empowered to inquire into other subjects altogether. I think that actually is the desire oif hon. gentlemen opposite, though it takes the guise of this rather meaningless resolution. Others argue that what they are bringing before the House is a complaint as to the soundness of a view of law entertained by the members of the commission. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) and the hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Pugsley) assert that a decision on a point of law has been given that would be known to be wrong by any ordinary lawyer, and they ask the House of Commons of Canada to sit as a court of appeal from the judgments in law of the Chief Justice of Ontario and of Mr. Justice Duff of the Supreme Court. That is the second proposal made by hon. gentlemen opposite. Let us consider the first. They want us to widen the scope of the inquiry into these matters. The language of the commission says that everything relating to the four contracts may
34%

be inquired into: everything relating to the relation, if any, of the Minister of Militia to them; everything relating to the relations with them, if any, of any one else directly or indirectly associated with the Government or the Shell Committee; anything relating to the subcontracting under those contracts; all things relating to the profits arising or accruing directly or indirectly under the contracts, and to whom they accrue. The powers of the commission in that regard have been acknowledged as ample by the members of the commission themselves. They have been stated in the widest possible language by the counsel for the commission, Mr. Hell-muth. More than that, they have been stated as complete by Mr. Johnston, named by the leader of the Opposition. This gentleman admits-and admits more than once in the course of the very quotation read by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B.- that in relation to the four contracts, the matters referred to the commission, he has every possible liberty, and asks for no more. Why, then, should this House inquire into, the advisability of extending what already they admit is ample and complete?
Ai word more as to the second interpretation. It is said by two hon. members opposite: "We have not been treated fairly; Sir William Ralph Meredith has given a decision that is entirely unfair to us, and we want this House to review it. In the first place, even if there were any doubt as to its soundness, I must question the capacity of the House of Commons of Canada to sit in review over a commission of judges on a decision of law. In the next place, the very hon. gentleman who brings this resolution before the House admits that the decision is correct and that he has no fault to find with it. He admitted that yesterday, and he repeats his admission in still more emphatic language to-day. Here are his words:
I wish here in the most emphatic manner to state that I do not wish to he considered as casting any reflections whatever upon the decision of the commissioners.
These are the words of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., who moves this resolution; so that it is not his desire to call in question, the fairness of the treatment accorded hon. gentlemen opposite before that commission. Where then does the hon. member for Pictou stand, and the hon. member for St. John, when we compare their language and their accusations with

the words of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., who brings the matter before the House? So that so far as these two suggestions of what it is we are asked to consider are concerned, hon. gentlemen have answered themselves so clearly and so manifestly that further discussion is superfluous.
May I at this point of the discussion, say that I feel no surprise that hon. gentlemen opposite find it impossible to explain what they want in language, which, while coherent, does not at once expose its own absurdity? The counsel who is acting for them-at all events acting for the commission but named by them-himself found it impossible to state to the commission in understandable terms what he wanted and what he complained of. As soon as he finished, the Chief Justice said, " Why, that amounts to inquiring generally into all that the Shell Committee did." So that the decision of the justices is this:	"You ask
us to inquire into the details of certain contracts that have no relation at all to these four contracts under inquiry, and you say you want it because you want to get at the status of the committee. " They say:	"There is plenty before the
court to get at that status already'; what you want to do is, under cover of inquiring into the status of the committee, to divert the inquiry from what we are here to inquire into and turn it away and scatter it' off until it is lost in a wilderness where there are no charges to be found at all." That is substantially the answer which this disingenuous proposition received at the hands of the commission.
It was very plainly intimated yesterday by the hon. member for Carleton that this request had the endorsation of the justices. Here is what he said:
Mr. Johnston rather persisted in the matter, and finally the commission made the statement that it might he advisable to apply to Parliament in order that further powers might he given to them.
The impression any one would get from that was that the commission were of opinion that their powers should be extended, and suggested that application be made to Parliament to that end. I did not think that was the case, and took occasion to inquire more definitely; and the second answer of the hon. member for Carleton was, I think, fairly in accord with what the commission did say.
But the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) comes in and says this very

thing is the suggestion of the commissioners themselves; they make, he says, the suggestion to Parliament that this be done. Have they done so? Have the commissioners made the suggestion to Parliament that their powers be extended in that way? Does any hon. member say that they have done so? The commissioners * said: "If you want our powers extended, Parliament is the forum; this is not the forum; if you want it, go there and ask for it." It might be said that the commission suggested to them: " Go and ask for it." That suggestion has been fulfilled. But, so far from suggesting that it be granted, the commissioners very clearly discouraged any such idea. Here is what Sir William Meredith said, at page 374:
You have not made at all clear to me the scope of the inquiry you desire to enter into.
I quite agree with him.
Do you propose to enter upon an inquiry as to contracts, the details of contracts that were entered into with regard to other matters than the four that are referred to this commission to examine into the prices at which those contracts were let or taken from the War Office, and the prices at which they were let to those who contracted with the Shell Committee-is that what you propose to do?
I am afraid I have not the right quotation; but, as that one is somewhat pertinent, I do not regret having read it. I quote from page 376:
You are aware, of course, the Order in Council provides for the reference of other questions to this commission if it is thought expedient to do so. If anybody thinks that these matters ought to be inquired into, and we are to stay here all summer doing it, I suppose representation can be made-Mr. Carvell is a member of the House, he can bring the matter up and ask that the power of the inquiry be extended, but we must keep within the terms of our map.
Any suggestion that Parliament ehould grant the request, or should seriously consider such a suggestion as this? Clearly a discouragement of the idea in so far as the commission felt justified in going. I have disposed of all I can find in the way of a suggestion by the commission to the hon. gentlemen opposite.
Apparently under cover of this application the hon. gentlemen propose to escape, if they can, from the position in which they find themselves at this moment. Instead of having their exact position, humiliating as it may be becoming, go to the country in its true form, they make this rather ungraceful attempt to hide themselves behind the dust of a purely artificial grievance.
They say to us also: " Why do you not make this a court? Why do you not erect
this to the status of a court under section 191 of the British North America Act? If you do that, then it will have the power to issue a commission down in the United States, and that commission can summon witnesses there." What is the purpose of a suggestion like that? The purpose of that is one thing and one only: it is to have it go out to the country, if they can manage it, that there is somebody whom they want but cannot get. Who is he? Has his name appeared? We did hear names mentioned not long ago of men who, it was asserted, would not appear; but they are here. Who is this man in New York whom they have endeavoured, without success, to get, under their present powers. There is nobody, so far as I have been able to hear. We are told to erect this commission to the status of a court: a Commission of Inquiry under the Inquiries Act is not high enough. What did hon. gentlemen opposite want three weeks ago? They wanted a committee of Parliament. Would it have had the status of a court under section 191 of the British North America Act? It would have had no such status but would have had a history that would have done no credit to Parliament, if we may judge from these proceedings this afternoon. What would have been the character and volume of the complaints that would have been hurled at the doors of Parliament day after day if the decisions of a member of this House as chairman had to be taken, on a matter of law, instead of the decisions of the Chief Justice of Ontario?
They now want us to give this commission the status of a court, and they say: " If you will do that, there is a law down in New York which says that whenever there is a court in another country that has powers in relation to civil and criminal proceedings, that court may issue a commission, and if that commission sits in the State of New York witnesses may be compelled to attend." Now, they say, call this a court to-day, and put a clause in to say that this Commission of Inquiry under the Inquiries Act shall have all the status and powers of a	court	under
section 191 of the British North America Act. We have plenary powers to put that in the statute. The question comes, what will be its effect after it is put in? If its effect is anything, it will be just the same as if we were to insert: "This commission shall be considered a court by the state of New York." That is another way of legis-

lating for the state of New York. Let tne give an illustration. A town council, within the limits of its powers, has a certain power of inquiry delegated to it by the provincial authorities, whose posters are as plenary as ours. The town council appoints a committee of inqiiiry into some question in a certain ward. How would it be for that town council to solemnly enact that this committee shall have all the powers of a court under section 191 of the British North America Act, and must be so recognized by the law of the state of New York? Would it not follow that the committee would immediately be entitled to that recognition if the argument of the hon. member for St. John is correct?
A court is a court, by virtue of its functions, not by virtue of its name; and you cannot make a committee a court or a commission a court acting under a statute that authorizes inquiry simply by calling it a court. However, it will be time enough to consider this when a case arises, and I say here and now that w'hen hon. gentlemen come to this House and state that they have witnesses down in New York or in New Jersey-the hon. member for Pictou wants to discuss the laws of the state of New Jersey too-if they have a witness hiding in New York or New Jersey, and come before Parliament and say so and that they desire to get him and cannot, and bring to Parliament some means that will enable Parliament to procure his evidence, this Government will do everything in its power to meet their request to the full. All that hon. gentlemen have to do is to bring before us some means that will be effective, and if there is any means dv which it can be effected we will effect it.
I have covered the only four possible meanings there' can be to this remarkable (notion. In such form the request of the hon. gentlemen is manifestly absurd It was so denominated by the Chief Commissioner, so denominated by the counsel for the commission, Mr. Hellmuth, and so denominated by counsel acting for themselves. If they are asking us to sit in review upon a judgment in law of Chief Justice Meredith, I do not think Parliament will do itself any honour by acceding to that request. There are certain functions that, others can exercise even better than we can. Besides if they are attacking that decision on the ground that it is wrong, we have the authority of the mover of the motion himself for saying that the decision is right. If they are asking for an extension of the

scope of inquiry for a reference of other matters, or if they have intended to do so-for they have not done it-then I agree with the commissioners that all they want is to divert the course of the inquiry now proceeding in a defined field where charges of a certain attenuated character have been made and turn it into a field where there are no charges at all in order that its whole force may be dissipated and lost. If, on the other hand, they want the powers extended to get witnesses, if we have any means that will extend them, and if there are any witnesses who are not here already and will not come, we will adopt effective powers that mqy be suggested to us that will assist to bring such witnesses before this tribunal.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister appreciates the position which I take, and I must say that he handled it fairly and frankly and in a perfectly intelligent and logical manner, as he always does when discussing questions before this House. The position is simply this: We realize that the scope of the commission, in its ordinary acceptance, refers to the investigation of fouT contracts. During the investigation, as I have tried to make perfectly plain, from the evidence matters have developed that in our judgment have placed us at a great disadvantage. Statements have been made as to the alleged savings of the Shell Committee which we were not allowed to investigate, and a new position of affairs has been created, in view of the fact that the members of the Shell Committee are legally acting in a contractual relationship with this Government, or with the Minister of Militia as the representative of this Government. Therefore we consider that conditions have so changed that, acting on the suggestion of Chief Justice Meredith, we have come here, and I have presented the facts to this House as fairly, as truthfully, and as logically as I know how to present them.
I do not think I am called on to say much in reply to what has been advanced by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. I do not find much fault with the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen), nor would I expect much else from him. I have tried to treat the House with absolute fairness and to state the facts as they are. I was somewhat pained that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) should have so far frogotten himself to talk of the politi-

cal side of this question rather than the legal side of it.
Some hon. MEMBEKS: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friends may
say, "oh, oh," but I can assure them that I am not going to be drawn into that side of it no matter what the Minister of Justice may have said. I say that I was sorry that he should have suggested that we were running away from the position. I tried tp discuss this question purely as a legal matter, and perhaps, if I retorted to my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best) a little severely it was because I did not want to be drawn away from that phase of the question-


John Best: People know now that you
are trying to get away from it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: -and I thought nobody else would treat the matter in a different way from that. I was discussing the matter purely with reference to the legal end of it. I would, however, digress to the extent of reminding my hon. friend that this matter is not being tried in an ordinary court, or in the way in which matters are tried in an ordinary court.. In this case the defendant is putting in his defence first, and he has got about half way through with it. Therefore I would ask my hon. friend, before he passes final adjustment on this matter, to wait until the plaintiff, if there be such a person, or a person occupying that position, has had his turn. Then it will be time enough for the Minister of Justice to talk about running away from the position. I have nothing further to say upon that.
I hope the Solicitor General will pardon me if I do not travel over his somewhat technical discussion, because unfortunately I was compelled to take away from him the main ground of his argument by stating that the wording of the resolution was not mine. I adopted that which had been sent to me by Mr. Speaker. Of course, the Speaker's mind is broad enough to realize that we are discussing an important principle. I am not surprised that the Solicitor General attempted to get some comfort out of the actual wording of the resolution. As far as I recollect, and I have not been able to attend all the sittings of the House during the last ten days, I think the Solicitor General has had the first opportunity of exercising that fine talent for distinguishing the difference between tweedledee and
tweedledum that his mind is so admirably fitted for since he was placed in a rather unfortunate position by my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) about a month ago. Therefore it is not to be wondered at that he should seize the opportunity to rehabilitate himself amongst his friends. As to how he has succeeded I have no comment to offer. I hope he will pardon me if I do not make any further reference to his argument, because it was of such a hairsplitting character that I could not understand him and I am sure that nobody else could. I am satisfied that I have presented this matter in good faith, I am sincere about it, and I believe that the scope of the inquiry can be broadened so as to go into the matters to which I have referred. I do believe, notwithstanding the arguments of the Minister of Justice-and I always like to listen to him, because he tries to elucidate matters-that the Inquiries Act should be so amended as to give us the right to get evidence in the United States if it turns out that such a thing may be necessary. For these reasons I hope that the suggestion which I made will be adopted by the House.


William Pugsley: I -was paired with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was paired with the hon. member for York, N.B. (Mr. McLeod). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.
Mr. LEiMIEUX: I was paired with the Postmaster General (Mr. Casgrain). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. DEVLIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. G. White). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. SEGUIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Rainville). Had I voted, I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. KEMP:: I was paired with the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


William Sora Middlebro: I was paired with the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


Mr. JAMESON:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Quebec (Mr. Power). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


John Dowsley Reid: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


Mr. KYTE:: As this motion arises out of a matter before the Royal Commission with which my name is associated, I preferred not to vote.


Mr. CROTHERS:: I am paired with the hon. member for West Kent (Mr. MoCbig). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.
Motion negatived.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



THE ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Acting Minister of Railways), Bill No. 96, to aid in the construction of certain lines of railway of the St. John and Quebec Railway Company, and to confirm an agreement between the company and the Governments of Canada and New Brunswick, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
On section 1-short title:
William Pugsley: I have already expressed my views with regard to what seems to be the unsatisfactory nature of the agreement which has finally been arrived at and which makes this Valley railway have one of its termini at Andover, a station of the Canadian Pacific railway, and the other at Westfield, another station of the Canadian Pacific railway. Having expressed my

views, I will not weary the House by repeating what I said upon, a former occasion. I would like, however, to point out to my hon. friend the Acting' Minister of Railways that the agreement provides that the running rights which may be obtained by the company shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council- I would suggest that it would be desirable to make those running rights also subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province of New Brunswick. It would be very unfortunate if the company or this Government were not able to make a satisfactory arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the St. John Bridge and Railway Extension Company for running rights between Westfield and St. John. If they were not able to make such satisfactory arrangement passengers would have to change cars at Westfield and other inconveniences would arise. There should be provision for trains of the Government having running rights into the city of St. John to the station upon the eastern side and also for the Government freight trains to have running rights to their destination upon either side of the haTbour. There has been passed at the present	session a Railway Act, a
very excellent Act in some respects and the provision which gives the Board of Railway Commissioners power, in order to prevent the paralleling of lines of railway, to order the owners of an existing railway to give running rights to another company whose railway is under construction, is an exceedingly good one; but, as the St. John and Quebec Railway Company is a company incorporated by the Legislature of New Brunswick, I would not think that the Board of Railway Commissioners would have power to order, either the Canadian Pacific Raiilway Company or the St. John Bridge and Railway Extension Company to grant running righte to that company, and therefore it would have to be a matter of arrangement. The difficulty could be gotten over if the minister would consent to place in the Bill a section declaring the undertaking of the St. John and Quebec Railway Company to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. That would bring the road under the operation of the Railway Act and would give the Board of Railway Commissioners power to make the necessary arrangements for running rights. I am sure that the minister will see thait that would be desirable, and I think he will also agree with me that 221
a railway which is to be leased to the Government of Canada and operated as a part of the Intercolonial Railway system should be subject to the jurisdiction of that body, and that even upon that ground, if the other very important reason which I suggested did not exist, it would be desirable to declare the undertaking to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member mentioned those matters in the discussion the other evening. In regard to the running rights between Westfield and St. John, the Bill provides that the company shall acquire the running rights from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; but in the event of their failure to make a satisfactory arrangement that may be necessary, the Dominion Government will make the arrangement that may be necessary to operate the trains between Westfield and St. John. It ds quite true that if the company were not able to make an arrangement themselves, the position would be a difficult one; but as the Dominion Government are to operate this road, they would have power, by making application to the Board of Railway Commissioners, to have that Board act in so far as the operation on behalf of the Dominion Government is concerned. I would have no objection at all to having this work declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. The only difficulty that I am in this evening is that I feel that any changes that we might make in connection with this agreement might not be in accordance with the wishes of the Provincial Gqvernment, who of course are the owners of the road. If the Bill as it stands covers all the points raised by the hon. member for St. John I should prefer to have it go through in that way. As I stated the other evening, the arrangements were satisfactory to i,hi Provincial Government, and I have rn>
doubt whatever that a satisfactory arrangement can be made with the Canadian Pacific for running rights over that portion of their road into St. John. But, as I stated, if the Dominion Government do not consider the running arrangements satisfactory they can provide a line of their own into St. John. The hon. member raised the point that arrangements should be satisfactory to the Provincial Government. The Bill provides that the company has to make the arrangement. But the company is really the Provincial Government; they name the directors by Order in Council, and can put them



in or put them out. In addition, they have really taken over the road, as I understand it. Everything in that way is working harmoniously. We discussed the several matters in connection with the running rights, and neither party anticipated any great trouble in getting in from Westfield to St. John. But, as I have stated, I should 'have no objection to putting in the clause suggested by the hon. gentleman if I were quite sure it did not affect the Bill as a whole. Of course, he is aware that this agreement has been passed and is now law, so far as the New Brunswick Government is concerned. What I fear is that any changes made here might affect the law as passed in New Brunswick,- Perhaps we could let the Bill'go on and discuss that a little later.


William Pugsley: The remarks the hon, minister has just made would apply to an alteration in the agreement, but I do not think they would apply to the clause in the Act declaring the work to be one for the general advantage of Canada. However, I do not wish to press it if the minister thinks he would like to put that clause off in order .to consult the Provincial Government. The road will probably not be finished before another session of Parliament, and if any question arises about getting running rights additional legislation can be passed.


Robert Laird Borden: The principle
adopted, though under somewhat different condition, two or three years ago, was that Parliament delayed any declaration until after the work was completed. There is disadvantage in declaring a work to be one for the general advantage of Canada while it is still in course of construction. The reasons are so obvious that I do not need to point them out.


Mr. OLIVER:: What is the length of line from Levis to St. John by this route, and what is the length of line between the same points by the Transcontinental?
M.	REID: I have not that information just now but I can get it in a few minutes.


William Pugsley: The distance from St. John to Quebec by the Intercolonial is 576-4 miles. By the Transcontinental, the distance from Levis to Edmundston is 236 miles, from Edmundston to McGivney Junction, 134 miles; McGivney Junction to Fredericton, 34 miles; and Fredericton to St. John, I suppose about 84 miles, a total of 488 miles. So, it is nearly 100 miles shorter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-lands acquired near Fredericton :
Mr. MICHAUD:: How much land?


John Dowsley Reid: Just through the yard at
Fredericton. It is necessary to put this in because it runs over the Canadian Pacific.


Pius Michaud: Has any land been expropriated lately in connection with this Valley railway?


John Dowsley Reid: Not that I know of.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 99, amend the Exchequer Court Act-Mr. Doherty-was read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Militia and Defence-cadet services, $100,000.
Mr. TURRIFF:: May we have an explanation of this?


Robert Laird Borden: This is the same amount as was voted last year. The Estimate is as follows:
Pay and allowance of Director of Cadet
Services at headquarters	$	3,500
Pay and allowance of 14 organizers and
inspectors at $2,190 each	 30,660
Special living allowance to 6 organizers
in the West	 1,200
Transport, travelling expenses of 14 organizers and inspectors, say 200 days
at $5 per day	 14,000
Transport and travelling expenses of 15 physical training instructors R.C.
R., say $100 each,	 1,500
Subsistence allowance to same	 8,500
Allowance to Instructors of Cadet
Corps, $1 for each cadet instructed.. 40,000 Contingent expenses	 640
Total	$100,000


John Gillanders Turriff: Is it the opinon of the
Militia Department, mow that we have had almost two years of war, that this service is of any real value? In times of peace it seems to me to be a waste of money to make this expenditure on the training of young boys, many of whom when they grow up will not join the volunteer force. It may, perhaps, be of some advantage during the war. I should like to have the view of the Prime Minister on this point.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that it is the view of the department that the service which is rendered by this vote is a very important one. The boys throughout the country do take a keen interest in it, and the training is of advantage not only to the country but to the boys themselves. They are taught habits of discipline and they receive certain military training at a time when what they do learn will remain with them always. The hon. gentleman doubts whether they are likely to continue their training in the militia force as they grow older. I am informed that the experience of the department, so far as they have had any experiece, is precisely the reverse; that the boys who receive training of this kind naturally take an interest in continuing their training as they grow older.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Some years ago when this question came before the House I was rather critical: if I did not oppose the item, I criticised it. Since that time, however, I have learned to know better. I am not a militarist, and I do not approve the movement because of any belief that it would promote militarism in Canada; but I believe that the principles upon which this movement is based in Canada, in England, and in France, which has copied it from England, are most excellent. I have seen these young men in Montreal and in Ottawa doing excellent service, and from what I have read I understand that in France, at the front, and at the rear of the armies, the cadets have been most useful as helpers in hospital work and in other work connected with the management of these large armies. I vote for this item with pleasure, for I believe that the movement is a healthy one in time of war or in time of peace. It teaches the young men to be manly.


Frank Oliver: Although these Estimates do not bear directly upon the war expenditure and administration, would the Prime Minister consider it to be in order to deal with such matters under these items if in the course of the discussion it should become desirable to secure information with regard to the administration of war affairs?


Robert Laird Borden: I have not any objection, if my hon. friend thinks that would be more convenient than to take it on the Bill when it comes up in committee.


Frank Oliver: The work is all carried on by the Militia Department, and neces-
221i
sarily it interlocks to a certain extent. If satisfactory to the Prime Minister, it might be just as convenient for the committee to deal with these matters now as at some future time. In regard to this vote for cadet services, I would like to offer this for the consideration of the committee and the Government. When there was no war, it was desirable that we should prepare for war, but now that we have war, it is desirable that we should meet that condition as promptly and efficiently as	possible. I have nothing but
praise for the idea of the training of young men for military service. But at the present time we have need, not so much of boys who will be of service some years from now, as of men who will be of service in case of emergency to-day. There are many men throughout the country who are willing and anxious to be enrolled for local service, as a military protection either as enrolled active militia or in corps similar to the cadets. There seems to be no disposition to encourage such a movement as this. These organizations get no pay, no arms, no uniforms, no consideration whatever, except the privilege of enrollment and of drilling without arms. This condition may be due to the stress of circumstances; but while the country is in this condition of war, while we hope that there may be no danger of complications of any kind arising in this country, at the same time it would be well to encourage such organizations for home defence or for military service in Canada. If we are not doing that because we have not the money, I would suggest that we would better spend this money on adults who are ready for service than on the boys, who no doubt are good boys, but who will not be ready for service until a number of years have passed.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am surprised to find
that the conditions in the Northwest are different from what they are in the part of the country from which I come. The hon. gentleman has just made a plea in which he characterizes the Government's inactivity, in terms that are not very complimentary, with regard to those men who would like to join units that are not intended for overseas service. He says they do not receive good treatment when they make application to the department, that no consideration is given to them, that they have no uniforms and no rifles. Why, that is true in the case of the forces that

are going overseas. This country is pressed to the utmost limit to provide uniforms and rifles and equipment for those who are going to fight, and how the hon. gentleman can attack the Militia Department and the Government for not having this equipment for men who are not going to fight, passes all comprehension. In the neighbourhood in which I live, and I think this is generally true in western Ontario, the men who may desire to enlist for home defence are spending not only their business time but every spare moment of time in recruiting for overseas forces, going from town to town all over the district, holding meetings, urging the younger men fit for fighting service to come in and join the colours. Thus where I live the usefulness of the peace battalions has practically ceased. Officers fit for service who were in command have practically left their commands and gone into the fighting forces. So that the regimental units have been practically wiped out of existence, and practically all the men who are fit for service have gone or are going overseas to fight. The condition of which my hon. friend speaks is therefore a natural condition, and I am surprised to learn that the conditions are not the same in the West as they are with us.
As to abandoning the support of the cadet movement in favour of a movement such as the hon. gentleman has foreshadowed, or advocated, that it seems to me would be a great mistake, because the only home force to-day in western Ontario that is organized, that is available, is the cadet force, which is officered by regular officers attached to the schools of which the corps form a component part. They are composed of youths from 14 to 16 or 17 years of age. If there is any force that should be equipped for home defence, a force of energy, activity and intelligence, it is the cadet force. The hon. gentleman suggests that we substitute for them a non-existent section of the community.
Hundreds and thousands of these cadets have enrolled in the overseas forces and gone to the front not only with training but with intelligence and efficiency. Anything that would detract from, or cause deterioration in, the cadet forces would he the next thing to a national crime. I hope the committee will take the remarks I have made in the spirit in which they are offered. Whatever may be the conditions in other places, I would oppose any suggestion that would detract from the
fMr. Morphy.]
efficiency which is now being developed through the cadet movement, and which is reflected in the fighting forces of this country. I think it is the best movement that has taken place in the history of Canada.


John Gillanders Turriff: I agree very largely with the remarks of my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) in regard to the Home Guard. In one of the towns in my constituency, when the war first started, a Home Guard was formed and a lot of our young men joined it. In the early part of last summer I was in that town attending a meeting for the purpose of helping recruiting, and they reorganized their Home Guard. Out of the first hundred members who joined the Home Guard when the war broke out 80 had joined the regular forces and were either across the water serving at the front with the First Contingent or had been drafted into various battalions that were being organized. They reorganized the Home Guard and some 150 more men joined it. Their complaint was that they could not get any help as to officers for drilling or rifles from the Militia Department. They particularly asked for rifles. There were some old Ross rifles that were not supposed to be first-class that had been sent out for the Border Horse. The Home Guard applied for these rifles. I had some correspondence over it with the Militia Department, and I asked them to communicate directly with the parties out there; therefore I am not prepared to say whether they eventually got any help or not from the Militia Department. I know there has been a shortage of rifles. Possibly the acting minister could say how many Canada can produce in the arsenal at Quebec. Are 'we producing a large number?.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that it would be very prudent for me to give statistics- in regard to that. I may, however, -say that according to my information the Ross rifle factory has produced more rifles since the commencement of this war than any other establishment on this continent up to the present time. I am pretty sure, although not absolutely positive, that it is producing more to-day than any other establishment on this continent. I do not believe that will always continue, because very great preparations have been made in some of the establishments on the other side of the line; but I think I am quite within the limit when I make the statement to which I have just given ut-

terance. Might I say that while that is true, we really have not had any such supply of rifles as would enable us to meet the suggestion which the hon. member for Edmonton has thrown out. There is a certain amount of difficulty in providing uniforms and other articles of equipment for the men as fast as they are enlisted. The greatest difficulty of all is with the rifles. It is not a question of money, as my hon. friend from Edmonton seems to suggest, but it is a question of rifles. If he will tell us where we can get rifles, there is money enough on hand to purchase them; but we do not know where they can be secured except in the factory that we have at Quebec, and that has done fairly well. I appreciate very thoroughly the spirit of the mep who enlisted in the home guards in the early months of the war. I had the privilege of reviewing a great many regiments of home guards in different phrts of the country. There were men of all ages, old and young-young men, men in the prime of life, men getting on in years, fifty or sixty years of age and perhaps more. They were all drilling away, endeavouring so to train themselves as to do good service in case there were any call for it. As has been observed by my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), a great many of the younger of these men have since enlisted for overseas service in all parts of the country. The movement became so pronounced in various parts of the country that my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) concluded that the better course for him would be to organize the reserve militia, which the Governor General had power to do, if I remember the provisions of the Militia Act correctly. An Order in Council was passed for that purpose. A good many units of the reserve militia have been organized in different parts of Canada. It is suggested that the Government give these no consideration. The Government give them all the consideration that is possible consistently with providing for the needs of the men who have enlisted for overseas service, and I feel sure that all will agree that that is the need which must first be provided for; so we have provided for that first. In some cases a few rifles have been procured for training of the battalions of the reserve militia, not very many, I am sorry to say, because they were urgently needed for other purposes which were regarded as of prior importance. Subject to those considerations, I am informed by the deputy minister that the department has been disposed to give, and does give, to these units of reserve militia all the consideration that is possible.


John Gillanders Turriff: I quite agree with the Prime Minister that if rifles are short the men who are overseas naturally have to be attended to before the home guards, cadets or anybody else; but I understand that the Department of Militia, or the Government, sold a large number of old Lee-Enfield rifles prioT to the breaking out of the war.


Robert Laird Borden: I am informed by the officers of the department that no rifles have been sold since the outbreak of the war. Some time before the war a small number of old rifles were sold through the British Government to the New Zealand Government.


John Gillanders Turriff: Of course, I am aware
that those rifles were sold before August, 1914; but even before the war broke out rifle associations had a good deal of trouble in getting rifles. With regard to the Lee-Enfields, my information is that 15,000 of them were sold to the New Zealand Government at $1 apiece, and that the New Zealand troops in Flanders and France and other war zones are now using those very rifles.


Robert Laird Borden: Where did my hon. friend get that information?


John Gillanders Turriff: I could give my right
hon. friend my authority for it. If my information is not correct, the officers of the department who are here to-night can set me right. I know these rifles were sold to the New Zealand Government, because they are mentioned in the Auditor General's Report, and the New Zealand Government put a certain amount to the credit of the Canadian Government in London in payment for them. I had a letter from one of our soldiers in the trenches not
9 p.m. long ago, and he said that the Ross rifle, with which they were armed, was not considered as good a rifle as the Lee-Enfield, and that whenever our soldiers had the opportunity of picking up a Lee-Enfield, they threw the Ross rifle away. If that is true we have the anomaly of the Canadian soldier throwing away a rifle which costs $17 or $18, or $27 or $28-I am not sure which, but it is a considerable sum anyway-and picking up a rifle which our own Government sold to the New Zealand

Government for $1. I know exactly where this letter came from, and can depend on the writer when he says our soldiers are throwing away the Boss and picking up the Lee-Enfield.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Are the New Zealand
forces armed with the Lee-Enfields that my hon. friend has just referred to?


Mr.   TTJEKIFF@: That is my information.
Mr. MOEPHY': On what date were those rifles sold by the Canadian Government?


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not know whether it was in 1912 or 1913, but they were sold by this Government some time before the war began. I could not prove that these'' rifles the Government sold are now being used by the New Zealand soldiers at the front, but the Auditor General's report shows that they were sold to the New Zealand Government at all events.


Sir EOBEET BOEDEN:: I have heard stories of our men picking up the Lee-Enfield rifle, and I have ako heard stories of British soldiers picking up the Boss rifle in preference to their own. I have been told it is not an uncommon thing for a soldier, when a rifle of a different type is available, to think for the time being it is better than his own, and to favour the idea of making the change. As far as the sale of rifles is concerned, I should like my hon. friend to bear in mind that the Boss rifle was adopted by the late Administration, instead of the Lee-Enfield, as the rifle our soldiers were to be armed with. It was a model weapon that was adopted. It is perfectly true that the contract made by the late Administration with the Boss Bifle Company provided that the Government might from time to time require the production of rifles of a different model, if it saw fit, provided it would pay the cost of the neo ssary machinery, gauges and other alterations of a complex character that the change would necessitate. The Lee-Enfield rifles, ,and some of the Lee-Metfords, I think, were disposed of, as they were not required while that policy was being carried on. The policy with regard to the Boss rifle was not changed when the present Administration came into power. I deprecate the idea of endeavouring to convey * the impression, either to the House or to the country, but especially to our own troops, that the rifle with which they are armed is not a suitable weapon. Any idea of that kind, I think, would be most un-

fortunate, and do a great deal of 'harm. If we had any choice a3 to the rifle to be used there might be some obiect in it, but inasmuch as, under present conditions, we have to use the Boss rifle or nothing, I for one can see no good reason why any hon. gentleman in this House should seek to cast discredit on the rifle with which our troops are armed. There was a good deal of discussion about the Boss rifle some years ago, and there ha3 been some discussion since the war broke out. To avoid a particular difficulty that occurred at the front a change has been made in the Boss rifle. A difficulty occurred at the front, not only with the Boss rifle, but with the Lee-Enfield as well, and a change corresponding to that made in the Boss rifle has also been made, I am informed, in the Lee-Enfield, and with good results in both cases.


Mr. HUGHES:: The ammunition caused the guns to jam, I think.


Frederick William Borden: The change that was made was an enlargement of the chamber. The chamber of the Boss rifle, I understand, was slightly smaller than that of the Lee-Enfield. The Lee-Enfield chamber was slightly enlarged, and the chamber of the Boss rifle enlarged to a still greater extent, and I believe that the enlarged chamber of the Boss rifle is now somewhat larger than the enlarged chamber of the Lee-Enfield. It is said, however, by those who are in a better position to judge of these matters than I am, that the jamming to which allusion has been made was occasioned by the character of a certain quality of amunition which at one time was being served out, but which I think has since been withdrawn. I am informed that neither with the Boss nor the Lee-Enfield has any great difficulty been experienced when other ammunition was used. As a matter of fact, when our own ammunition, manufactured in this country, was used in the Boss rifle no considerable difficulty in jamming occured.


James Joseph Hughes: I saw it stated
in the newspapers quite recently in regard to the heavy fighting that took place within the last two weeks at St. Eloi and other places that some jamming occurred. Whether it was the fault of the ammunition or whether those things occur under the best * conditions or not I do not know, but I saw criticisms of that kind in the Montreal Gazette and other leading Canadian newspapers.
\


Mr. EDWARDS:: I am a little inclined
to doubt the accuracy of the information of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) in regard to the old Lee-Enfield rifles sold to New Zealand being used by the soldiers at the front. I have a very distinct recollection, when the Liberal Government was in power, of that Government handing around hundreds of those rifles throughout the country wherever any number of young men formed a rifle association. The Government would provide them with the rifles free of cost, and also with all the old ammunition which the Government were discarding and which those young men saw fit to use. I belong to one of those associations, and my recollection of that rifle is that when you fire it off it will pretty nearly kick you into the next county. While I think the Government did a proper thing in discarding those old rifles and giving out the old ammunition, thereby encouraging rifle associations, I cannot think that those rifles would be used in actual warfare, although for a person who had his shoulder well padded they might do all right to use in firing at a target.


John Gillanders Turriff: Why would the New Zealand Government buy such a large quantity as 15,000?


William Cameron Edwards: They might use those
rifles for drilling purposes or for target practice. If a person had a bag filled with sawdust up against his shoulder, and if he placed his feet very firmly on the ground, he might remain in the county in which he was when he fired off his rifle. I do not think, however, from all I can hear, that troops like those supplied by New Zealand would use a rifle that was not up to date, and I do not think the New Zealand Government would place in the hands of their men a rifle that was purchased at a dollar apiece. I think the hon. member is drawing largely on a very excellent and active imagination when he supposes anything of that kind.


Frank Oliver: The discussion
has rather switched from what we had in mind when this item was first called, and, if I might be permitted, I would like to take this opportunity of threshing out this question of policy in regard to arming and equipping and recognizing local forces throughout the Dominion. That question is an important one and one that is entirely pertinent to the subject under discussion. When we find it desirable to train
and measurably equip boys for the sake'of the service that they may'render in years to epme, and that is all very proper, we should not ignore the present need of men who can render service now, who are willing to render that service, but whom we are not willing to equip so as to enable them to render that service. There is, in parts of the Northwest, at any rate in Alberta, an organization called the' Legion of Frontiersmen, formed for the purpose of military drill. That legion was organized long before the war and had exactly the same purposes, if I understand the matter correctly, as the cadet corps, only it was composed of mature men, and possibly to some degree of elderly men, and not of boys. That legion has organizations at various points throughout the province of Alberta for the purpose of securing military efficiency in order to be able to render to the country a service which, while it was only in prospect when the war broke out, may at any moment become an imperative necessity now that war conditions exist. There is no question about the good faith of those men, nor about their loyalty of purpose, nor about the efforts that they have made in the sacrifice of time and energy in fitting themselves for military service by military drill; but military drill is only an empty thing unless it has the support of actual weapons. I know that this organization has applied repeatedly tc the Department of Militia for arms and for such recognition as is granted to the cadets, but I am informed that such recognition has been not only constantly refused, but refused with some abruptness that was perhaps not necessary under the circumstances. My contention is this, that when the country is at war, and when no man can forecast what contingency may arise, so long as we are dependent upon voluntaryism for our military service, it is the part of wisdom for the Government to encourage military organization under every possible circumstance that will measurably tend to efficiency and to good results, and that when the Government absolutely . ignores the offer of service on the part of those men who form this Legion of Frontiersmen, they discriminate against men who are able to render service to-day in favour of boys who can be expected to render service only some years hence. I do not think that is good policy; I do not think it is what the necessities of the country require at the present time. I have already spoken of the active militia being organized, tout not provided with weapons or with uni-

forms, being without pay or recognition, and only permitted to enroll themselves under the orders of the 'Government, and yet they may be called to any part of the Dominion at any time that	the
occasion may arise. The idea that is in the minds of those who are	not
prepared at the moment to enlist for overseas service, but who desire to render themselves efficient in a military sense by means of drill and organization, is that the men who enlist for overseas service will be sent . overseas and leave the country depleted of an active military force. It may not be the intention of the Government to send overseas the men who have enlisted for that service; their intention may be to keep in Canada a large proportion of those men.
If that is tfieir intention I can only say that I do not think they keep faith with the men who enlist. The man who gives up his business, gives up his prospects, believing that the country demands that sacrifice from him, will certainly not think that the country is doing fairly by him if, instead of giving him the opportunity to render the service that he has sacrificed in order to render, it keeps him doing drill and sentry-go in Canada around his own home. That is not his intention or desire, and if that is the intention of the Government in securing his enlistment, it is certainly not in conformity with the views and wishes of the men who enlist. The idea is that men who isnlist for overseas service shall be sent overseas, and that there shall be a local military organization sufficiently large and efficient, and well enough equipped, to protect the interests of the country at home. While that is the idea of the people, I take the liberty of criticising what appears to be the policy of the Militia Department, which, judging by their action, is to ignore everything except the enlistment for overseas service. The men who enlisted for overseas service being held in Canada for a longer time than they believe they ought to be held, are dissatisfied and do not recognize that they are being dealt with fairly by the Government. I say that in time of war, under a voluntary system such as we have and must depend upon, the policy should be to encourage military drill and military efficiency in every section of the population that is willin'! to take up that drill and secure that efficiency.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that it will be of any use for me to repeat [Mr. Oliver.!
again what I have already said in terms as distinct as I can make them. We have not enough rifles to train the men who are going overseas. We regard the necessity in that respect as above the- necessity for the reserve militia referred to. The hon. gentleman says we ignore them because we do not give them rifles. I tell him again we have not the rifles to give them; all the rifles we have are required for the forces training for overseas. I cannot make the matter any plainer. If the hon. gentleman would like a statement of the exact number of rifles available and the exact number of men under training, I should be very glad to give it to him for his own information, and perhaps be would then understand the situation better then than he seems to do now. So far as the defence of Canada is concerned, I think it was stated a year ago last autumn, or last December, that under the policy which the Government proposed there would probably be at all times in Canada not less than 50,000 men under training, who would be available for the defence of the country in case of attack. There are certainly more than twice that number in training in Canada at present, and as regiments go forward new regiments are formed. The total enlistments up to the present time run to about 320,000. The enlistments from the first of January to the first of May-I have not the exact figures before' me-were between 112,000 and 115,000, or at the rate of nearly a thousand a day. The troops have been going overseas just as fast as the conditions permitted: first, the adequacy of there training here, so that they can complete that training in Great Britain; second, the arrangements made by the British Government for their reception in the British Islands while that further training is being carried on; and, third, the provision of transports to take them across the Atlantic. By all these conditions we have been limited. Perhaps there might be mentioned a fourth, which is the provision of equipment and rifles-though we have not always waited for rifles, but have- sometimes sent them, across without rifles which followed them safely afterwards.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver):: I
desire first to express my appreciation of the splendid manner in which the Government is handling this stupendous problem of equipping men, training them, and sending them overseas. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the complete answer to the criticism of hon. gentlemen opposite, this

evening and at other times, is to be found in the fact that the records made by our troops who have gone overseas prove conclusively that the method used by the 'Government, the system under which these men are enrolled and trained, is a sound and good one. I do not think we could have a stronger testimony to the efficiency of the Government and of the Department of Militia than the record of our troops at the front.
There are one or two things I wish to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister. It has been brought to my attention that in the Motherland it is often very difficult to distinguish a Canadian soldier, because so many of them wear no distinct badge. On the contrary, New Zealanders and Australians wore badges that were 'quite distinct. I understand that the badge we use is a composition and that not all our soldiers wear a brass badge. The suggestion is made that we should have a common badge for all battalions which every 'Canadian soldier should wear, so that our men can be distinguished. That suggestion comes to me from a very prominent commander of a battalion at the front. Another point is this: of the men offering themselves for enlistment, probably from twenty to thirty per cent are rejected for some minor physical defect. A man may be an inch or two short in chest measurement, or he may have some defect in his teeth-though I understand that teeth defects are being remedied at the expense of the Government. Many of these minor defects for which men are rejected could he remedied by a brief course of physical training. It has been suggested to me, and I think the suggestion is worthy of consideration, that special instructors should be used to take men who are capable of being developed into suitable subjects for enlistment and give them a few weeks of special training. It is easy to see that if you can save five per cent of the men offering for enlistment it would add very materially to the forces going to the front. I know that there are men in different parts of Canada, well trained for this work and who could give special physical instruction to these recruits, and probably a few weeks would bring many of them up to efficiency.
Then, in giving commissions to officers taking troops overseas, I believe the policy should be followed at all times of bringing back from the front men who have seen service. We sent overseas in the first contingent a large number of bright, educated, clever men, highly capable of commanding
men or directing their activities in civil life, and who have proven themselves to be very efficient at the front.
I think that from now on the policy should be adopted as a definite and final one that all commissions shall be given to those men who have served at the front. I understand that the Government have already adopted t'he policy to a very large extent, and that many men are being brought back from the front who have seen active service. The whole question of commissions has become a very serious one in this country. Many men feel that they ought to have commissions, but while this is a proper and laudable ambition, it would be infinitely better if a man were compelled to have from three to six months' active service at the front before being allowed to take command of a body of men. Exception, of course, might be made in the case of those who have been in military life for many years and have undergone extensive training. I feel very strongly on the question of commissions and the type of men who should receive them. I wish to cast no reflection on men who hold commissions in Canada to-day, or in the training camps of England, but it appears to me that no one could criticise the policy of bringing non-commissioned officers and others recommended by their senior officers back from the front for that purpose. This applies particularly to commanding officers. I think it would be very desirable to bring back, say, majors or captains from the front and give them command of battalions in Canada. Knowing the entirely new and strange conditions under which the men now have to operate, they could impart very much better training than men who had not seen service at the front. I throw out these few suggestions for the consideration of the Government without wishing to add unnecessarily to their burdens, at the same time expressing my appreciation of the splendid manner in which this department has handled the gigantic task resting upon it. I can scarcely understand how the Prime Minister can carry the burden which is resting upon him, not only the responsibility of the Prime Minister's office, but also that of the Department of Militia. I think the committee should give to the Prime Minister every possible consideration in the matter of carrying out these very onerous duties.


Robert Laird Borden: Every Canadian who goes overseas has a badge

on his shoulder, , the word " Canada," and he has, as I understand, a regimental badge on his collar. The type of cap used is practically uniform with that used in the British Army. It is not eo distinctive as that used by the Australians and New Zealanders, who are more readily distinguished in that way. With regard to bringing back men from the front for the training of those in Canada, that has been done to a considerable extent. A great many of the unite which have been organized during the past six months have been eo organized by men who were brought back from the front. So far as commissions are concerned, I am informed by the deputy minister that the practice at the front is this: if, for example, a lieutenant is invalided, the next senior non-commissioned officer is promoted, and if the lieutenant does not return within thirty days to duty the position taken by the noncommissioned officer is made permanent. Promotions are made from the ranks to make good his place and that of the corporal and other non-commissioned officers; so that the department has been endeavouring to carry out that principal, giving preferment to -men who have served at the front for a certain time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The badge is a composition badge, I understand. The information I have from a very reliable source is that it does not wear well, and the suggestion is that it should be a brass badge.


Robert Laird Borden: A brass badge can be seen at a considerable distance and is very conspicuous. It is all very well in the streets of ILondbn, but not so -appropriate at the front; and for that reason the composition badge is used instead.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The idea which the h-on. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) puts forth is a very laudable one. I agree with the Prime Minister as to the difficulty of obtaining the necessary rifles for the equipping of the home forces -along the lines suggested! The problem of obtaining sufficient arms to equip the troops is one that I am sure is very serious. I understand that the difficulty of obtaining -arms on this side of the water is taxing the capacity of every factory; especially do we realize this when we consider that the Allied nations have come to the United States for the purpose of obtaining arms. As we have a factory in Canada making our own rifles, I think it

is time that this captious criticism with regard to the Ross rifle should come to an end. It has come from hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House and from newspapers throughout *the country. Formerly hon. gentlemen on the other side had the exclusive right to the criticism of the Ross rifle, but the criticism has probably come* from all quarters regardless of politics. One thing I think we all agree about is that we have in Canada a rifle factory where we manufacture an arm which is all right, which enables our people to go out and take part in this conflict and which in time of waT it is important we should have in Canada. So far as the equipping of troops is concerned, I do not know where we should have been if it had not been for the fact that we had the Ross rifle factory. I am quite sure that we should not have been able to equip 50,000 men, much less 300,0000, if we had been dependent on outside rifle supply. The demand has been so great, not only in the Mother Country, but in everyone of the Allied nations,that if we had not had this factory we should have been absolutely unable to equip any considerable number of men in Canada since the outbreak of war. Reasonable criticism was necessary and desirable, but I think that we should agree now to give up all further discussion of the matter. The problem of [DOT] maintaining forces at home is a very serious one, and I apprehend the difficulties suggested by the Prime Minister as existing in this regard while we are engaged in preparing and sending over as fast as possible these men for overseas service.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: In the course of a few months there will be in the province of Nova Scotia a provincial election. The term of the present legislature will expire shortly. There are, I am sure, over 5,000 soldiers under enlistment scattered throughout the province of Nova Scotia at the present moment. It is rumoured that all the regiments now recruited and recruiting will be sent to Aldershot for training during the summer months and until they go to the front. The question therefore naturally arises as to whether any provision can be made in a fair manner for the voting of these citizen soldiers at the forthcoming election in the province.
It does not interest one party more than another, so I should think that both parties would desire to devise some means whereby such of the enlisted men as have votes might have the opportunity of voting. It is possible to arrange this in a small prov-

ince like Nova Scotia. Has the Prime Minister, who is now Acting Minister of Militia, considered this matter, and can he work out some plan whereby these soldiers may have the privilege of casting their votes at the impending election? I do not know that this burden should be cast upon him, but probably the gentlemen representing both political parties from Nova Scotia might get together and appear before him and jointly work out some plan. There are two methods by which the soldiers might ibe enabled to vote, one by giving leave for one or more days to the men in the training camps, so that they might go to their homes and vote. That could only be done with the permission of the Department of Militia, and, of course, if this permission were granted it would have to be granted without discrimination. The other plan would be for the Provincial Legislature to provide for a system of registration and voting prior to the polling day of the election, after the manner of the Act passed by this Parliament the session before last. Of course, such action by the Legislature of Nova Scotia would not be effective without the hearty co-operation of the Department of Militia.


William Cameron Edwards: What about those who have gone overseas?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would eliminate them altogether. My suggestion is that we should make provision only for those who are within the province.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, I would not undertake to propose any method of voting. But it is perfectly obvious that the fact that a man has enlisted for the purpose of defending and fighting for the interests of the Dominion, of the whole Empire, and indeed of the world, ought not to be allowed to debar him from exercising his franchise. The fact that he has enlisted is an additional reason why he should have the opportunity of polling his vote, if it is possible to do so by any reasonable means. I understand that the subject is under consideration in the Legislature of Nova Scotia, and that a committee of that Legislature to-day considered two proposals.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think
that is correct.


Robert Laird Borden: I may be misinformed. All I can say at the moment is that, so far as we can co-operate in any
reasonable way to assist in arriving at some arrangement to enable the soldiers to poll their votes, we shall be prepared to do so. If the Legislature of Nova Scotia is formulating any method it would be inadvisable for us to take any action until that method has been placed before us in the regular way.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What does the Prime Minister think of the idea of giving a sufficient leave to the enrolled men to permit them to vote?


Robert Laird Borden: It would be inadvisable for me to express any opinion with regard to that without first consulting the Chief of the General Staff, the Adjutant General, and the other officers of the department, who would know much better than I would whether or not that would be feasible. I shall be very glad to place the observations of my hon. friend before them and ask them for a report on the subject. I do not know whether the proposals which I understood were under consideration would involve any 'question as to the men from the province w^io are* already overseas. Some of them are in Great Britain and some, doubtless, in France. In some of the provinces where provincial elections are impending arrangements have been proposed by which men who have already gone overseas might be enabled to vote. However, my hon. friend has not raised that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it would be inadvisable to do that.


John Gillanders Turriff: It seems to me that the only feasible plan in connection with provincial elections would be the granting of sufficient leave for those Vho wished to vote to get away and cast their votes, providing everybody gets leave. AM the soldiers would not want to go home to cast their votes. We all know that in any election 25 per cent of those on the voters' list do not come out and take advantage of their franchise. Among the soldiers many, if they were at home, would not vote, and while we should all like to see all the soldiers vote who wished to_vote, it seems to me that for a province to adopt the very unreasonable legislation that we adopted for soldiers to vote abroad, would be a mistake. I think they ought to be given leave so that they may go and vote if they so desire.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Might I ask the Prime Minister if to-morrow afternoon he will put himself in a position to say whether or not it would be possible, in the judgment of the officers of the department.

to grant leave to enable soldiers to vote, so that it would be known? The Legislature of Nova Scotia will not be in session very long, and if anything is to be done in the way of legislation it will have to be done very promptly.


Robert Laird Borden: Legislation here?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, or there. There will not likely be any necessity for legislation here.


Robert Laird Borden: I should not think that legislation will be necessaiy here. It would seem to be a question for the Legislature of Nova Scotia to take into consideration in the first instance. I am afraid that I shall have a pretty busy morning before me.
- Mr. MACLEAN: Monday?


Robert Laird Borden: I shall make an effort to get the information at the earliest possible moment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are two ways in which the votes of soldiers in Nova Scotia, a comparatively small province, and accessible for voting purposes at all points, might be polled, and that would be either by allowing the men to go home, or by enabling the men to cast their votes while in camp. One can see a great many difficulties that would attach to three or four battalions, representative of the whole province and many different counties, casting their ballots in camp. The difficulty of working that out on election day would tax the patience and ingenuity of the' officers in charge. I assume that in regard to this question any attitude that would be adopted by the federal authorities who have control over these men, would not be in any way partisan or inconsistent with the idea that it would be important if possible for these men to exercise the franchise. I understand that in the western provinces a large number of men have been permitted to go and work at the crops.	There is no reason why leave
should not	be given	to	those
who desire to go and cast their votes. Of course, a large number of young men whose names are not on the list, and men whose names are not on the list for some other reason would not need to go home. But those who have votes and who desire to go should be given that opportunity. It would only mean three days' leave, and being in camp it is not as if they were located in a desultory way throughout the country. All the ordinary
	,
details of the camp would be carried on in their absence. I do not profess to be a military expert, but I have been in camps several times, and for a matter of three days the disjointing of things would not be serious because there would be enough men left for ordinary purposes. It seems to me that in bur province that would be the imost feasible method of working it out.


Robert Laird Borden: Give them leave?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Give them leave.


Robert Laird Borden: And provide transportation ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, if that is thought desirable.


Robert Laird Borden: Would not we be subject to the penalties of the Election Act?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not think that my hon. friend need have any fear on that score. I am sure that the Prime Minister approves of the desire of the men to have the opportunity of casting their votes, and I also feel confident that a scheme can be worked out with the least inconvenience to the men and the least difficulty to all concerned.- It is impossible to tell anything of the political complexion of the men who are there, but it would be an anomaly if the 3,000 or 4,000 men who are in camp should not be permitted to go home for the -purpose of casting their votes. I hope the Prime Minister will be able to work it out.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, any question as to the political opinions of the men would not be taken into account at all. The only object to be arrived at would be to give the utmost possible freedom to exercise their franchise without any undue influence of any kind, and to provide every facility for that purpose so far as reasonably consistent with military considerations.
Mr. TURRIFF The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) rather gave the idea that we on this side of the House were unduly criticising, and not giving credit to, the Government for the manner in which the raising of the army had been carried out. I do not think anybody on this side of the House has any such idea in his mind. But I do not see that there is any such fulsome praise due to the Government, or the department, in connection with the sending across of an army to the Old Country. You only have to look to Australia with half of our popula-

tion and half our resources to see what she has done; Australia has sent more men to the front than we have. I would like to ask if there is any rule or system under which men are sent forward. I know of regiments that have been kept 18 months in Canada while other regiments that have not been in training half as long have been sent to the front.


Robert Laird Borden: What regiment has been here for 18 months?


John Gillanders Turriff: There was a regiment in Regina. It may have been one of the regiments that passed through here the other day, but they started organizing 17 or 18 months .ago.


William Cameron Edwards: Have there been no drafts from any of these regiments? In some cases there have been drafts of 150 or 200 men.


John Gillanders Turriff: In some cases perhaps
drafts have gone over but in other cases there have been regiments ready for over a year and they do not seem to be chosen to go while other regiments which have not been organized nearly as long have been sent to the front. Is there any rule or system under which the different regiments are sent over.


Robert Laird Borden: I am informed
by the deputy minister that there was greater delay than usual in the case of some mounted regiments organized in the West. There was no occasion for the use of mounted men on account of the kind of warfare that has been carried on during the past year or fifteen months. After a good deal of correspondence an arrangement was reached by which they could be sent forward as infantry; but for that purpose, I understand, it was necessary that they should go through a different kind of training. Further than that, the deputy minister informs me that a regiment at Regina, which is possibly the one that the hon. gentleman has in mind, has sent forward drafts of about 500 men. When these drafts were sent forward, it was necessary to enlist new men and train them, and a good deal of time was occupied in that way. However, the regiment is about to go forward, as I understand.


John Gillanders Turriff: One went forward last week from here.


Robert Laird Borden: It has either
gone forward or is about to go forward.
In the end it will go forward as one of the finest regiments in all the Canadian Expeditionary Forces.


Frank Oliver: Following the remarks of my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), I appreciate quite as much as he does the very great burden that is carried by the Prime Minister, especially since he has assumed the duties of Acting Minister of Militia, and I certainly would not wish to add to hie burden in any way. But we are here in a very responsible position, dealing with a matter that is of greater and graver import than any that has yet come before any iParliament of the Dominion of Canada, and I consider that we should be doing very much less than our duty if we did not bring into this council of Parliament the best we have, both as to constructive and, if you like, destructive criticism. We wish to secure the highest degree of efficiency in the military administration and service of this Dominion, both for our credit and for the welfare of the Empire, and I hope that neither the Prime Minister nor any other member of the Government will think that in anything said by myself or any other member on this .side of the House we have any other desire than to secure the best that can be had in the interests of the country and of the Empire. We must necessarily criticise from time to time; and in opposition to the very broad statement of commendation that my hon. friend has made, I would be compelled to make an equally broad statement of condemnation, based upon the information that has been given to the House by the Prime Minister to-night, as to the condition of the country in the matter of rifle armament.
We have been in a condition of war ever since August, 1914. When war was declared we were -supposed to have armament for a force, I think, of some 75,000 or 100,000 men. We had a contract, I believe, with a rifle factory in Canada for the purpose of providing a sufficient output to equip our forces. Now, if it is a fact that at the end of eighteen months or more of war we are not in a position to equip efficiently even the forces we have sent overseas-and we have not sent our forces overseas nearly as rapidly as the understanding on which the men were enlisted would require-I cannot' find in that condition of affairs anything for commendation of the Government, either of its activity or of its success. I am not prepared to urge culpabil-

ity against the Government for not having met the exigency more fully.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the hon. gentleman suggest where and from whom the Government can secure rifles?


Frank Oliver: That is not a fair question addressed to a private member. The Government of the country is responsible for the direction of its affairs; it is upon the shoulders of the Government that that responsibility rests, and it is not for any private membeT of Parliament to be held responsible for the direction of the country's affairs. When we faced the condition of war that we did face in the summer of 1914 we must have contemplated at that time an enormous increase in our military forces and equipment, and we surely should have taken stock then with a view to meeting the requirements as they arose.


Robert Laird Borden: At what date?


Frank Oliver: At the beginning of the war.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No one dreamed of the developments that have arisen.


Frank Oliver: I am at a loss to conceive how any person could think this war was going to be any other than it has been. With all Europe under arms, with millions of men on both sides ready to take the field, with the training and preparation of two generations, I am at a loss to conceive how anybody could expect that this war would end in a very short time, or would not become the most tremendous conflagration the world had ever seen. My hon. friend has asked what my suggestion is. My suggestion is that the Government was remiss in not making preparation for equipping our forces on a larger scale
10 p.m. than they did. We have a rifle factory in Quebec. I know of no reason why we should not have had a rifle factory in Toronto and another in Montreal. WTe have established shell factories all over Canada; we have established fuse factories in different parts of Canada; and I know of no reason why we should not have increased our output of rifles to any amount that was desired, in the interval that has taken place since the beginning of the war. There may be reasons that I am not aware of that limit the action of the Government, but that is my answer to my hon. friend's question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a very poor one.
	.


Frank Oliver: I think it is an absolute answer. The weapon that wins the war is the rifle; efficiency in the use of that weapon is the chief factor in winning the war. Any country that presumes to accept a condition of warfare, and does not make adequate preparation for equipping its troops with rifles, and give them an opportunity for acquiring efficiency in the use of that weapon, is not considering the matter seriously.


William Cameron Edwards: Does the hon. gentleman claim that the Government was remiss in not supplying these rifles previous to 1914? Or is he referring to the interval since that date?


Frank Oliver: Since that date. Remiss
in not recognizing that a state of war had occurred in which it might be expected that Canada would have to put forth her military strength to a degree that was never contemplated in time of peace; remiss in not recognizing that the exercise of that strength would necessarily involve the equipping of an enormous number of men with efficient rifles, above everything else. Yet under those conditions of world war, we depended upon exactly the same institution as supplied us with rifles, possibly a sufficient number, in times of peace. That was not a reasonable proposition on the face of it, and it has not worked out well.


Robert Laird Borden: What does the hon. gentleman say we should have done?


Frank Oliver: I have already said that
the Government when it saw the condition of war that had occurred, and it was quite evident that Canada would require to put forth military strength far beyond what she had ever dreamed of in times of peace, was remiss in continuing to depend upon the same mechanical organization- the factory at Quebec-to supply the needs of the country in time of war that had been adequate to supply its needs in time of peace.


Robert Laird Borden: Who told the
hon. gentleman that we had to depend upon the same organization?


Frank Oliver: I understand that we had only one factory when the war began and that we have only one factory yet. We could have multiplied our means for the manufacture of rifles just as we have multiplied our means for the manufacture of shells, fuses, or any other article that was required for military purposes.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Frank Oliver: It does not matter what occurred before July, 1914; what we are interested in is what is occurring now and what will occur in the immediate future. What the Prime Minister has said as to the increase in the output of rifles is very good so far as it goes; the only trouble is that it does not go far enough. If it was possible to increase the output of rifles fifteen-fold, it was just as possible to increase that output twenty-fold, that is to say, to have secured sufficient rifles to arm and equip our soldiers as they ehould be armed and equipped under the conditions as we find them to-day. Let me remind the House that exactly the same sort of talk was put up in the United Kingdom in the winter of 1914-15 as to the supply of munitions there for use in the war. The people of Great Britain and the Empire were told that everything was being done that could be done; but it turned out that everything that could be done was not being done, and under the stress of criticism, exertions were put forward that had not been put forward before, and the supply of munitions was increased and still increased until we believe that today they have an adequate supply. If, however, the Government and the people of the United Kingdom had rested, in tlje winter of 1914-15 as easily as this Government are resting now in regard

to the supply of rifles for the soldiers of Canada, the war would never have been won by the Allies; it would have been lost. This is no time for recrimination; it is no time for blaming this one or that one or the other one; this is the time to recognize the conditions that we have to face and to meet those conditions adequately, and the first thing we need in order to take our proper part in this war is a sufficient supply of efficient rifles in the hands of proficient men. Unless and until we have that, we are not taking that part that we all desire to take in the task of winning this war. I did not know the condition was as the Prime Minister has said it is; I regret that it has had to be stated that we are short of rifles; but I would be doing far less than my duty as a member of this House if I did not use this opportunity of impressing, so far as I can impress, upon the Government, the House and the country, the fact that we must have an adequate supply of efficient rifles, or else we are not doing our part in the winning of the war.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not like my hon. friend to imagine that anything he says impresses that consideration upon the mind of the Government any more than it has been impressed ever since the outbreak of the war., I cannot make that too plain to him. There is nothing that he has said here to-night that we do not know. There is no admonition that he has addressed to us that we did not have in mind fifteen months ago, and, if it had been otherwise, we would not have been able to produce in Canada today an output of rifles fifteen times as great as the output immediately before the war. If we had not takeq that precaution the conditions would not have been as satisfactory as they are to-day. For I consider it a remarkable thing that, in the stress of this war and under the difficulties experienced in getting the complicated machines, too numerous for me to name, which are necessary for the purpose of establishing now units in a rifle factory, and with the growing demand all over the United States for that machinery on account of the orders for rifles that were coming from all the Allies to the United States-I say, I consider the results obtained in Canada are wonderful results. Not only had the machines to be provided, but it was necessary to procure all the material, material of a very precise type and difficult to procure-the seasoned wood, the special descrip-

tion of steel, and all the articles which go into these rifles. These articles had to be procured in quantities fifteen or twenty times as great as any provision had been made for before the war. And, as I have said, all this had to be done in competition with the great industrial concerns in the United States that had orders for millions of rifles from all the governments in Europe. The matter for astonishment is not that more was not done, but that so much was done, and that Canada, up to the present time, has been substantially able to arm every soldier with an efficient rifle before he crossed the Atlantic, the , exceptions being, as I am informed by the deputy minister, two or three regiments whose rifles were not taken with them,	but
followed them very shortly afterwards. I repudiate any suggestion of remissmess on the part of the Government, and I say that the results that have been obtained are a credit to Canada.


Frank Oliver: This is the most important question connected with the war and with Canada's participation in that war, and the Prime Minister will pardon me if I pursue the argument a little further. I have discussed the question of the supply of rifles for the active militia and for what may be called the auxiliary militia, the home guard. We are now aware that the reason these people are not equipped with weapons is that it was not possible to supply them. But we are assured that our troops as they go overseas are supplied with efficient rifles, and the Prime Minister tells us in detail of the difficulties of supplying rifles more rapidly than they have been supplied. I quite appreciate that there are difficulties. But let me turn the other side of the question. We are sending men overseas-our men- to meet on the field of battle the most highly-trained and best equipped troops the world ever saw. We are not doing justice to our troops unless, when we send them into the field, they have the best equipment that we can furnish them and unless they are as efficient and as proficient in the handling of that equipment as it is possible for them to be. Now I am to be corrected here and now if what I state is not right. According to the best information I have, our troops, enlisted in Canada and kept in training in Canada for periods of from six months to fifteen months, have gone over to England or the Continent, as the case may be, without

ever having had efficient target practice. Not to speak too generally, my information is that at the Sarcee camp near Calgary last summer there were 8,000 men in brigade camp, and that these 8,000 men had something over sixty-odd service rifles with whioh to carry on target practice. The only target practice they received was with these sixty-odd rifles for a period of four or five months in the summer camp. I saw some of these regiments going through here the other day. And I say that if the facts are as I have stated them-and I am here to be corrected if they are not-this country did not do its duty-


William Cameron Edwards: Are you sure of the facts?


Frank Oliver: I am, but if I am wrong let me be corrected now. These men have gone to face the enemy on the battlefields of Europe, and, according to my information, they have not had fair opportunity to become proficient in the use of that weapon which is the decisive factor in modern battle, either in attack or defence. The Deputy Minister of Militia is at the elbow of the Prime Minister, and he can say whether that is right or not.


Robert Laird Borden: And he says
absolutely it is not right. I will tell the hon. gentleman why it is not right. In the first place, so far as regiments in Canada are concerned, the best provision of rifle available has been given to them for target practice, not usually Mark III Ross rifle, but Mark II Ross rifle when the other was not available. I do not say they have always had the full equipment for a battalion, but I am assured by the deputy minister that they have had a sufficient number of rifles to enable target practice to be carried on efficiently at every camp. But my hon. friend goes further and says that they have not only gone overseas to Great Britain without instruction but they have gone from Great Britain to France without instruction.


Frank Oliver: So far as we know.


Robert Laird Borden: But the hon. gentleman should not without warrant make statements which disquiet public opinion in this country and which are without foundation. I say that when these men go overseas they go through a course of musketry instruction at one of the English schools. I mv&elf, when in England last summer, saw regiment after regiment going out for instruction at the
great musketry school at Hythe. I say from my knowledge,-and I think I know as much of this matter as does the hon. gentleman-that not one regiment from Canada has gone to the war without adequate instruction in musketry. If they have not got it on this side they have got it on the other side. And I deprecate strongly statements of that kind which will appear in the public press of Canada and which tend to disquiet the parents, relatives and iriends of those who have gone overseas to fight for their country.


Mr. CURRIE:: Perhaps a person who has been there and seen can speak with knowledge. The question has been raised as to the training of these men in the use of the rifle. A number of. years ago the British Army changed its method of training. The men are now trained with dummy ammunition; they are not allowed to go on the rifle range and fire live ammunition until they have obtained a considerable degree of efficiency with dummy ammunition. The idea is that instead of going in for this long range target practice the men must he able to put twenty-five or thirty shots a minute in an 18- inch ring at 400 yards. The men are practised constantly in this aiming and rapid firing with dummy ammunition. Even at the front every man is on his honour bound to devote a certain amount of time to this practice, and each day he goes through these motions for at least ten minutes in order to acquire proficiency in rapid aiming and firing. I was at Sarcee Camp, and I know that the training there was of that kind. When the training is of that kind it is not necessary to have a great number of rifles; a few rifles will suffice. A man who fires five rounds on the rifle range after he has completed his practice in this way, is far more efficient than if he had been working for two or three weeks under the old system and costing the Government a large sum of money for cartridges. Soldiers of the old school 'appreciate the fact that the men are not firing away hundreds of dollars worth of ammunition at the targets every day. I know that the units that have gone to England get thorough training in this modern school of musketry, which, after all, is the school that stood the British Army in such good stead in the retreat from Mons, and that has made the Canadians such an efficient fighting force at the front. When I left England last summer, the number of men without rifles in tho new army regiments,



when I saw them on the march, was far greater than the number without them in Sarcee camp. They had not made any provision for the war, but they were making rifles as fast as they could. The units that went to the Dardanelles got their rifles at Malta; these rifles were sent over from India for them.
The great dearth of rifles has been one of the drawbacks of this war. I suppose that possibly one-third of Kitchener's army is not yet supplied with rifles in England. Fully one-half of the men were drilling in civilian clothes and had been doing so all winter-or in old uniforms of the blue and red type which is now obsolete. I think, therefore, that we have made fairly good progress in this respect. When I came over and found the regiments all equipped with uniforms I was very much surprised, because in England fully threetquarters of the men did not have uniforms. As to the rifle practice, if the men are given rifle practice according to the new school, they do not need any rifle at all except a rifle in form that has two sights on it. It is like the old deer shooting idea, that men mu6t be' able to raise a rifle rapidly and drop the enemy. Some of the English soldiers who are very proficient fire as many as thirty-five rounds a minute. In that kind of training it is not necessary to spend thousands of dollars on the ranges. They were indulging in the new practice at Sarcee when I inspected them last fall, and they had made fair progress in it, and were doing very well. They did not have rifles for every one there, but I do not think that is necessary; if the men get new Tifles after they are trained and go to the field, it is possibly the best way. I think we are doing very well so far as that is concerned. Of course, not 5 per cent of the people of Great Britain or the colonies and dependencies believed what Lord Kitchener said when the war broke out, that it would last two and possibly three years. The men who could get articles in the magazines and those who could hold put lie meetings and be listened to were the ones who would tell the whole world that the war was going to end in two months; that Germany would be starved by that time. In some places the same idea still prevails, but I do not think many members of this House, if I asked them when the war was going to end, would say that it will be over in two or three months. I stated in the House once before this session [Mr. Currie \
that the war would last more than another year, and in that I was very seriously brought to task by some of my associates, in the House and outside, who said that I was dreaming; that the war would be over in two or three months. I fail to see that. I think we are on the crest of the war at the present time; the situation at Verdun to-day shows the first sign that the Allies are going to win. If they make the best of progress it will take them another year or year and a half-but there is no doubt as to what the end will be.


Mir OLIVER:: There was a question of fact as between the Premier and myself in regard to the armament of the men at the Sarcee camp at Calgary. What the hon. member for North Simcoe has said substantiates my statement that the men at the Sarcee camp were not armed with the Mark III rifle; that they did not have adequate target practice with the 'Mark III rifle.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN I did not say that they were armed with the Mark III rifle.


Frank Oliver: I made an assertion as to the equipment of the troops there, and I understood the Prime Minister to say that I did not know what I was talking about.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend said that members of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces who went to the front to fight in the trenches had not adequate musketry training. I said that this, according to the information given to me by the deputy minister, was absolutely incorrect, and according to the information it is absolutely incorrect.


Frank Oliver: Is that as to musketry training in England, or as to musketry training in Canada?


Robert Laird Borden: In Canada and in Great Britain. It does not make any difference where they get it as long as they get it before they reach the front.


Frank Oliver: I was stating a condition as I believe it exists in Canada, and I want to know whether I stated what is correct or not.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman has
perhaps misconstrued what I said. For instance one company in each battalion would be armed with rifles, either Mark II or Mark III. That is the condition that obtained all over the country. The time table of training is divided up into various things -squad drill, company drill, physical train-

ing, marching; one company would be constantly exercised in the use of arms and arm drill and musketry, whilst others would he employed in something else. I think it would be impossible for the United States, for instance, with all its power, to,, arm the soldiers of Canada in as short a time as would be required to arm them all as they are enlisted.


Frank Oliver: The question is not as to what could or could not be done; the question is what was done. I repeat that what . I said has been established, that the Canadian troops did not get adequate target practice with the service rifle in Canada, that they were not supplied with service rifles with which they could engage in target practice, and that they went from Canada without having had sufficient or efficient target practice. The hon. member for North Simcoe says that they have some system for practice with dummy ammunition that is better than the practice with the efficient rifle. That may be; I do not know whether that is true or not, but my information is that in order that a man may be efficient in the use of the rifle, he must know the rifle. He must have had the opportunity of practicing with his own. rifle, so that he understands whatever peculiarity there may be in the rifle, or else he will not be efficient. It is said that the only use of rifle shooting in the field is at short range and quickfiring; but I will draw the attention of the House to this fact, that our casualty lists show a larger proportion of injuries from snipers than they do from any other cause except when an occasional great battle occurs.


John Allister Currie: There are more German
casualties from the sniping of our fellows.


Frank Oliver: I certainly hope so, but
the point is that the man that can hit the mark at long range is on the showing of the facts the most useful member of the military force, both for offence and defence, and he cannot get that expert ability except by actual practice.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to tell my hon. friend that I had the authority of the General Officer Commanding the Canadian Expeditionary Force at the front for the statement that the Canadian divisions at the front have been more successful in keeping down snipers, and more efficient in the use of rifles in the respect that my hon. friend alluded to, than any other
222*
part of the British forces that he was aware of.


Frank Oliver: I am very glad to hear
that, but again I must insist that they are not given all the opportunities that should be given them under the circumstances surrounding their training at the hands of the Militia Department.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say fur-there that I have had a letter from General Williams within the past two weeks, since our troops have been moved from one portion of the fine that they formerly held to take up another portion of the line, and I have his statement that they were moved there because of their efficiency in that way, and that since they have arrived there they have been most successful in accomplishing the purpose for which they were sent.


Frank Oliver: We are very glad to know that they have acquired efficiency; but our business was to send them over efficient, and we did not do it because we did not supply them with the rifles that would enable them to become efficient on their home training grounds.


Robert Laird Borden: All I have to say is that General Alderson's and General Williams' statements are absolutely inconsistent with that which my hon. friend has just made.


Mr. LOGGIE:: After this little tussle between my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and the right hon. Acting Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Robert Borden) I think perhaps we ought to go on in a little different strain. I endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), that under certain circumstances it is very advisable to recall efficient non-commissioned officers, give them commissions and employ them in this country in the training of men who have joined the ranks in the battalions which are now being recruited. I think that is a wise proposition. Young men have been advanced within their own ranks. I know some that have been advanced, but they have not been given commissions. Perhaps it would not be out of place for me to say here that I congratulate the Government on the good work they have done in this dreadful struggle. Not only do I congratulate the Government, but I congratulate the whole citizenship of Canada on coming to the rescue as well as they have done. I was very much pleased when the Prime Minister intimated that

his goal was that we should have 500,000 men from Canada on the fighting line. I was glad to hear him announce that there had been recruited from the first of January until the 15th April about 101,000 men-


Robert Laird Borden: No, nearly 103,-
000.


William Stewart Loggie: I was glad to hear that. You may consider me rather pessimistic, but I regret that recruiting has not been so active since that time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


William Stewart Loggie: If there is anything the Government can do to make it more active it behooves them to do it, and I am sure that in that they will have the hearty support of the people of Canada as a whole. I think I should also congratulate the Government upon the splendid help of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, who has come so boldly to the front and given his heartfelt support to the Government on this occasion.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: And his followers?


William Stewart Loggie: His followers too. It was my privilege to state in this House, during a session before this, that the Government must expect criticism in connection with their administration and the expenditure of the moneys entrusted to them; but that does not mean that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House do not support them in their undertaking in defence of home and country, and of this great Empire. The Acting Minister of Militia said to my hon. friend from Edmonton that he would like him to make a prophecy as to the extent of the war. Let me just read one line from a letter I received this morning from the front, almost from the trenches, from a soldier who was wounded last October, but who is now back fighting as a private in the First Brigade Machine Gun Company, First Canadian Division.


Pius Michaud: Would my hon. friend give us the name of that soldier?


William Stewart Loggie: This is a matter that is
private. I could give it to my hon. friend if he wants to know, but it would be considered rather personal if I were to name him. But what is in the letter is this: " I do not see how anything but the wastage of men will end the war." That does not indicate that the end of the war is near at hand. It means that it will not end in the near future, and it devolves upon us to find a way of reaching the goal that the

Prime Minister mentioned, and that is that before the New Year we should have the full total of half a million men enrolled from Canada. I do not know how this is to be overtaken, but as one member of the House I should be very glad to give every support to the Government who have this great undertaking in hand. It isi I am sure, an undertaking whose extent we did not realize even when the war was declared. There is much to be said in support of the contention of my hon. friend from Edmonton, that there was every indication that the struggle would be a long one, and certainly the indications at the present time are that the struggle will not end in the near future, and it behooves us as a people to do everything in our power to reach the goal that the Prime Minister intimated, at the opening of this new year, it was his desire to reach. I congratulate the Government and the people of Canada, and I congratulate the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who has given such splendid aid and support to the Government in their war measures.	.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would the
Prime Minister be good enough to tell us what position General Alderson occupies in regard to Canadian troops? It was stated in the press lately that he had ceased to occupy the position of command and that a Canadian had been appointed in his place.


Robert Laird Borden: We have no official information on the subject.


Frank Oliver: Now that we have decided that we do not need rifles for target practice, I think we might take up the question of the efficiency of the rifle that we use, that is the Mark III Ross rifle. I have heard some reports with regard to this rifle that have been cited by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and I would submit that, as the efficiency of this rifle is under suspicion at any rate, there might very well be a careful inquiry as to what its efficiency really is. The matter is too important to be passed over. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister resents the idea of these questions being discussed in this House of Parliament. We in this House of Parliament are charged with the responsibility, on behalf of the people of this country, of seeing that the best is done that can be done, and we are not relieved from that responsibility because of the gravity of the question that has to be considered. We have at the front a reporter, or a person who sends'

reports of what occurs there. His reports, I understand, are supposed to be official. They are given in the newspapers under the heading: " The eyewitness reports " thus and so. I have here two reports of the eyewitness as to the recent fighting in the trenches in France or Flanders, and there are certain statements in these reports which I will take the responsibility of reading to the House, which I cannot read without grave disquiet. This is one of the eyewitnesses's reports. He speaks of certain events and he says:
An insistent bombardment was continued by the enemy, and Anally, about noon, all his remaining rides being out of commission and his men exhausted, Captain Gwynne decided to retreat.
The eyewitness, reporting on another occasion, says:
Waist-deep in mud, the few survivors of our garrison could offer little resistance. Hardly one of their rifles could be got to Are.
He says again: '
The lieutenant emptied his revolver at the Germans and seized a rifle, only to find that it lammed at the first shot. The rifles of his men, again and again reclaimed from the mud, only fired a shot or two before they also jammed.
These are reports of the fighting that has occurred within the last few days. I say that these words are very disquieting to me. I do not want to emphasize the point too strongly, but I say that, in view of statements such as these appearing in the reports of the eyewitness, coupled with information which I have received from soldiers who have served in the trenches, information that is corroborated by other members of the House, I desire to urge upon the attention of the Government the desirability of making such inquiry as to the efficiency of this rifle with which we have armed our soldiers as shall absolutely settle the question as to whether it is a suitable rifle for active service, or the most suitable rifle we can get for active service. There is no doubt about its qualities as a shooting rifle, but my information is that its mechanism is in some parts so delicate that .it is more apt to get out of order than the Lee-Enfield. That is to say, owing to the difficult conditions of active warfare, where it cannot have that care and attention that it would have in an arsenal or under peace conditions, it is more apt to get out of order than is the Lee-Enfield rifle. If that is a fact, it is an unfortunate fact, and we should take steps to alter that condition. I appreciate the responsibility
of the statement I make, but it is because it is of such tremendous importance that I dare to make it.


Robert Laird Borden: An inquiry was made into the Ross rifle last year, and I believe into the Lee-Enfield as well, after the jamming to which I have alluded first occurred. As a consequence of that inquiry, the chamber of the Lee-Enfield, as I am informed, and the chamber of the Ross rifle, were enlarged. I have already given the particulars of those changes. The Ross rifle is not used at the front now except with the enlarged chamber. I suppose it might be taken into consideration in connection with the Ross rifle, if my hon. friend desires to criticise it, that 100,000 of these rifles were ordered by the British Government in the early months of the war, and complaints have been made that they have not been delivered as fast as was expected and desired. I am not aware that there is any rifle in the world that might not jam or refuse to fire after it had been imbedded in mud or had fallen, into deep mud in a trench. I should imagine, although I do not profess to be an expert in rifles, that there is nothing very extraordinary in that, nor do I imagine that the Lee-Enfield or any other rifle would be immune from difliculties of that kind. The Ross rifle may be superior in some respects-I believe it is-to the Lee-Enfield. It is quite possible that in some other respects it may not be as serviceable as that rifle. I am, prepared neither to affirm not to deny as to these matters, because I do not know about them. Very likely if you got a number of experts to give you opinions about both rifles they would not entirely agree among themselves. It is probably true that of any two types of rifle that you select, one would have certain advantages, and the other rifle in comparison with it, certain other advantages. As my hon. ' friend says, the Ross rifle, for accurate long-distance shooting, is perhaps the beet rifle in the world.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be equally true that the very qualities which gave it that pronounced advantage may be attended with a certain disadvantage under other conditions; I do not know, but one can readily see that that is possible. I believe it is true that the British soldiers who are very good shots and are employed for the purpose of long-distance shooting -sniping, as it is called-are very apt to

throw away their own rifle when they have a chance to pick up a Boss. -On the other hand, I have heard, as no doubt my hon. friend has, that'some of our own men sometimes throw away the Ross rifle when they *can pick up a Lee-Enfield. An inquiry was made into the Roes rifle last year. The difficulty about the chamber was discovered. The jamming, as I understand it, was not entirely due to the chamber, but, to a certain extent, to the character of *some ammunition that had been issued, and which I think is no longer being issued. With ammunition of a different character, and especially with that produced in Canada, I am informed that even before the chamber was enlarged there was not very much difficulty with jamming so far as the Ross rifle is concerned.


Frank Oliver: I would suggest that
means be taken, not to hold a formal court, but to have the privates who come back to Canada from the front interviewed, not by an officer, but by some person to whom they would be willing to state the facts as they believed them to be. In that way the Government could satisfy itself as to the rifle. I do not think a Military Board is a good way of getting at what the soldier actually thinks of the rifle. He would not talk as freely when he was in the position of a witness or of a criminal in the dock as he would to some reliable person to whom he could give his opinion casually as to the rifle. In the multitude of expressions of opinion the Government would have a pretty fair basis to go upon as to the worth of the rifle. This is a terribly serious matter.


William Cameron Edwards: How could the hon. gentleman depend upon the opinion of the soldier when, as he told us only a moment ago, the soldier does not know anything about the rifle? He was not trained to handle it, and did not even know one end from the other; that was his argument.


Frank Oliver: Oh, no.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman said that the soldier had not been properly >
trained in musketry, and did not understand anything about the rifle.


Frank Oliver: I did not say anything of the kind.


William Cameron Edwards: A man who does not know anything about the rifle is not the one whose opinion you should take, especially a man who does not know one

end from the other. 'The hon. gentleman is absolutely inconsistent.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman has put words into my mouth that I never used, and ideas that I never expressed and have never held. I argued that the soldier had not a fair opportunity of becoming efficient in rifle shooting. I did not argue that he did not have every opportunity of becoming acquainted with the mechanism of the rifle. Surely the man who has been to the front knows what the rifle can do, and I am suggesting that his opinion be taken rather than that of some alleged expert. The man whose life has depended on the rifle is the man whose opinion I am willing to ask and depend upon.


John Gillanders Turriff: Perhaps the Acting
Minister could give me some information, if not now the next time these Estimates are up, as to rentals of recruiting offices in the city of Ottawa. There are two recruiting offices, one on the corner of Sparks street and Elgin, and the other a little way-down on Elgin street, within a stone's throw of each other. As only a few men join daily at each of these places I think one building would be enough. There is a third building used for the same purpose a little further down Sparks street. I should like to know what rental has been paid since the war started for all recruiting offices. Also how much it has cost the department to guard the canal at Cardinal, Iroquois and Morrisburg since the war started. In my opinion the cost has been unnecessarily heavy.


Frank Oliver: Would there be any objection to giving information as to the number of machine guns provided for each battalion in the field?


Robert Laird Borden: 
Frank Oliver: Do the heavier guns use
heavier ammunition than rifle ammunition?


Robert Laird Borden: It is all the same ammunition, but the question depends upon the particular purpose for which the gun is used. One type of gun can be taken up and moved very quickly; the other is used in a different way and is usually placed where it will be in a permanent position for a certain period of time.


Frank Oliver: The Prime Minister, I see, does not desire to say how many guns are supplied to each battalion. I am going to ask the question:	Have the battalions
actually in the field been supplied with the full quota of machine guns, whatever that may be?


Robert Laird Borden: The deputy minister informs me, yes, absolutely so.


Frank Oliver: Have the battalions in
training in Great Britain been supplied with their full quota of machine guns?


Robert Laird Borden: They are supplied in Great Britain with a sufficient number for practice. Even if there should be the greatest abundance of machine guns, I am informed that they would not receive more than enough for practice while they are in training. They receive their full quota only when they go to the front.


Frank Oliver: What is the position of
the battalions organized and in training in Canada in regard to the supply of machine guns?


Robert Laird Borden: The arrangement in Canada has been the same, that they are supplied with a sufficient number to enable training to be carried on.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister be
good enough to say what number of machine guns for training were supplied to the 51st, the 63rd, and the 66th Battalions during the past winter?


John Allister Currie: I really think the hon.
member should not ask that question, because the number of guns supplied to each army corps could be figured out.


Frank Oliver: I do not think so. If the hon. gentleman will wait until I get the answer, I think he will find it has no bearing on that matter at all.


Robert Laird Borden: With regard to the battalions which the hon. gentleman has mentioned, they were all located where machine gun practice could not be carried on during the winter months.


Frank Oliver: The fact is that the three battalions were in Edmonton last winter, and when I saw them one of them had one machine gun and the other two had none. Therefore the machine gun sections of those battalions did not have a fair opportunity to become proficient in t'he use of the machine gun. Again I take the liberty of saying that I do not think that is a fair position to put our soldiers in.


Robert Laird Borden: Where were the battalions stationed?


Frank Oliver: The 51st Battalion was located in the drill hall, and the 63rd and the 66th were in the exhibition building at Edmonton.


Robert Laird Borden: I am informed that machine-gun training would not be carried on under those conditions, but that the men, when they go into camp, will receive machine-gun training.


Frank Oliver: They were at the Sarcee camp last summer, and they did not have machine guns there to train with. The fact that one battalion at Edmonton should have a machine gun and the other two none rather breaks down the idea of maChine-gun practice not being carried on in the winter.


Robert Laird Borden: Machine guns, like rifles, cannot be procured in a moment. Orders were given immediately after the war broke out, but you do not get delivery of machine guns within a few months after they are ordered, sometimes not for a year. The companies which have been manufacturing machine guns have been making pretty good deliveries. It might possibly be that during the period which my hon. friend mentioned there were not machine guns available.


Frank Oliver: There are at the present time five battalions being recruited. Some of them are Up to strength and all of them are training. How many of those bat-taliens have machine guns to train with?


Robert Laird Borden: I really could
not say at the moment; I will get the information for my hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: The battalions are the
138th, the 151st, the 202nd-the deputy minister will know the numbers. I just want to emphasize the point that I have urged to-night, that the men are not receiving the opportunity to become proficient that is an absolute necessity for their welfare and for ours.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not agree with that, if my hon. friend speaks of the period at which they go to the front. So far as I am informed, they do receive adequate training in machine gun practice before they go to the front. If they do not receive the whole of it in this country, they receive further training and instruction on the other side before they are sent to the front. I am quite confident that the system of inspection on the other side is sufficiently thorough to ensure efficiency before the men are sent to the trenches.


Frank Oliver: The 51st Battalion was
recruited at Edmonton beginning in the fall of 1914. It was recruited to full strength some time in January or February of 1915. It went overseas in March of 1915. It was there for over a year, yet all the target practice that the battalion had is what I have stated at the Sarcee camp, and that battalion in the barracks at Edmonton was the fortunate possessor of the one machine gun that was at Edmonton for training purposes. I just wish to ask in regard to machine guns, if the Prime Minister does not object, as to the pattern of the machine gun that is used.


Robert Laird Borden: The two classes that are used are the Colt machine gun and the Lewis.


Frank Oliver: The Lewis machine gun,
as I understand it, is the later and most approved pattern for military use. It is the one that is used, for instance, in aircraft. I would like to ask why the Colt is used instead of the Lewis.


Robert Laird Borden: They are used
for different purposes. The one is a heavier gun that the other. I mentioned to my hon. friend a moment ago that we had a communication on the subject requiring a certain proportion of the heavier gun and a certain proportion of the lighter gun. I am not enough of a military expert to set forth an exposition of the particular reasons which have influenced this decision; it is enough for me that the military authorities, who are supposed to be competent, have fixed a certain proportion of each, and, unless we supply our men with that proportion, they will not be allowed to go to the front.


Frank Oliver: I am not very much of a military man myself, but this question of machine guns is very important, as is also the question of the efficiency of machine guns. My information is that the
rJVlr. Oliver.]
advantage	of	the	Lewis machinegun is	that it is	air-cooled;
the Maxim is water-cooled, and the Colt is not cooled at all. The advantage of the Lewis is that it can be fired continuously without becoming too hot. In the case of the Maxim, rapid firing heats the water and causes steam which exposes the position of the gun. The Lewis can be fired continuously without exposing the position. As the Prime Minister has said, it uses the same ammunition as the Colt, that is, the ordinary rifle ammunition. It is inconceivable to me, when there are two guns using the same ammunition, and one offering a tremendous advantage over the other, why the one having the least advantage is used at all. In the Colt gun, in order to overcome the heating, the gun is provided with one or two extra barrels and when one becomes heated it is unscrewed and taken off and the cool one put in its place, when the gun is ready again to fire. It appears to me that a gun that requires that exchange of barrels is tremendously handicapped in actual use as compared with one like the Lewis that will fire as long as the ammunition lasts. There does not appear to me any good reason for the use of the Colt gun in preference to the Lewis, unless it should be that a sufficient supply of the Lewis gun cannot be secured.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon.
gentleman any idea of how long it takes to change the barrel in the Colt gun?


Frank Oliver: It does not take very long, of course, but under battle conditions, the loss even of seconds may make a great difference in the result.


Robert Laird Borden: I can console my hon. friend as to the Colt gun in one respect, that is very creditable to the ingenuity of two of our Canadian officers at the front. The Colt gun has three barrels. When one becomes hot it is removed and another put in its place, which, in its turn, is replaced by the third, and by the time that is heated the first barrel is supposed to have cooled sufficiently to be used again. It used to take a minute and ten seconds under the old system, to make the change of barrels, and the change was made without protection to the man who made it. But two of our officers at Shorncliffe invented an improvement, which is very easily made, and with which, by means of what is called an interrupted screw, a principle applied in the big guns, the barrel can be changed in eight or ten seconds, and the man is pro-

tected while making it. After a review at Shomcliffe last year, these two officers asked Sir Archibald Murray, General Hughes and myself to look at the improvement they had made. Sir Archibald Murray, who understands these matters very well,, said that the device was perfectly feasible and a great improvement. The Minister of Militia directed that all the guns should have this improvement made without delay. lit was regarded as rather a quick piece of administration to arrange it in that way. One British officer who was present said it would take weeks, if not months, to accomplish that under the regular system in vogue in military affairs in most countries. The Colt gun is regarded as a suitable gun by the authorities of the War Office. It is used for brigade formation, while the Lewis gun is for company formation. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has observed the regiments that have passed through Ottawa. Recently I had the privilege of seeing one every day for six days. Each of these regiments has a machine gun section, made up, as I recollect it, of some sixteen to twenty-four men, who are thoroughly trained in the use of the gun. Besides, there is the brigade formation which ie supplied, in respect of each brigade, with the Colt gun, a heavier gun than the other and used for more permanent positions. Whether that is right or wrong from a military standpoint I am not ,in a position to judge, but I do feel that I at least am not in a position to overrule the authorities of the War Office on that subject.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I desire to ask the Prime Minister with regard to a case I mentioned the other night, of Private Chapman of the 106th Battalion, at Trenton, Nova Scotia. I received a letter from a sergeant, wounded and invalided home, who said that the treatment accorded this man was very bad. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman, if he has the papers, will show them to me.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) made some inquiry into a similar case. He asked me to postpone the discussion of it until he was here. There is no reason, however, why I should not give certain information in the meantime. The memorandum handed to me is as follows:
As I have already informed you, the Adjutant General has given direct instructions to stop this kind of punishment. Although there is nothing in our Canadian regulations dealing
with the subject matter, the British regulations entitled " Manual of Military Law " page 721, deals with field punishment. Sub paragraph (d) of paragraph (a) reads: "When in irons a soldier may be attached for a period or periods not exceeding two hours of any one day to a fixed object, but he must not be so attached during more than three of any four consecutive days, nor during more than twenty-one days in all." Our officers commanding have applied this regulation notwithstanding the fact that it is no more applied in the British army. They have done it through ignorance and over zeal. The Adjutant General has given instructions that all kinds of field punishment, excepting detention, are not to be applied for the future. Therefore, I hope there will be no further recurrence of such cases.
There is in the memorandum some information with regard to particular cases, showing that there was very great insubordination. There are also reports of the medical officers which show that there was no physical injury.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would the Prime
Minister place the papers on the Table so that I may look at them?


Robert Laird Borden: I will do so. I agree entirely with the view expressed that punishment of that kind, which is not only unusual but might be regarded as cruel, should not be applied in our expeditionary force. I am sure the Ajutant General will see to it, as he has promised, that nothing of that kind shall occur -in the future.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think that some attention should be paid to the officers who undertake to apply that kind of punishment.


John Allister Currie: As an officer I deprecate very much the discussion of matters of this kind in the House. It is subversive to discipline. In England, according to the King's regulations, there are two kinds of field punishment: Field punishment No. 1 and field punishment No. 2. Field punishment No. 1 is the form of punishment that has been administered to this man. When a soldier is insubordinate at the front he can be tied up; that is the practice in all wars; it was the practice in South Africa. In England they have withdrawn field punishment No. 1, because they have there what they call detention prisons, like that at Gosport. When a man is insubordinate they send him to ' Cosport for a period where he is put through a course of sprouts. When he goes back to his regiment he is very much subdued and a very good soldier. We have no detention prisons in Canada. Although 99 per cent of the men that come

into our regiments are the very best in the world, sometimes magistrates or friends of criminals get them released from prison and they enter our army.


James Joseph Hughes: Not in Canada?


John Allister Currie: Yes. Very often after a man has been before a commanding officer a number of times, having been in the habit of fiercely attacking his comrades, disobeying regulations and acting like a wild beast, it is discovered, perhaps, that he has parole papers in his possession, that he has been a very vicious criminal and that his record here or in the United States is such that they do not want him in the country. The fact that only two cases of the kind referred to have been mentioned as occurring in Canada, speaks very well of the Canadian officers and the discipline that they are enforcing, especially when you consider the number of soldiers who are in training. Evidently there is the feeling that any one of them can write to a member and claim that he was vilely used, and that sort of thing. I feel satisfied that if the facts in this case were gone into it would be found that the men got a great deal less than they would have got in a civil court, and for that Teason I think that possibly the less said about those things the better. It is not so very many years since they used to have flogging in the Army. If it is at all possible to get along with a man without punishing him, I do not think that a single officer in the Canadian Militia would tie him up, but if he gets abusive and threatens to 'kill his comrades, being in a state of madness, perhaps, from drink, you must do something with him. You must tie him up in some way, and you are only allowed to tie him up to a fixed object. I have seen men break through irons four or five times in succession. I have seen men so powerfully built that they could break handcuffs as if they were made of paper. You must do something with these men. The General in command has power to deal with all these questions, and if complaint is made to the divisional officer I feel quite satisfied that if the officers have gone beyond their duty they will be cashiered or court-martialled, and there would not be necessity for bringing the matter before the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The reason why I brought this matter to the attention of the committee was a desire to prevent injury to recruiting in the locality. The incident
fMr. Currie.]
to which I refer occurred in a company which was guarding one of the munition works, where, rightly or wrongly, the men engaged in the work interfered with what they thought was excessive punishment. The reason why I mention the matter again is because I have received a letter to-day from a sergeant who had been at the front and who, after distinguishing himself there, had returned home and was engaged in work in a munition factory. This man considered the punishment as improper. While there is a good deal in what my hon. friend not captiously take up complaints of privates against their commanding officers, yet says, that members of the House should there is a phase of the question that he forgets, and it is this: nothing will stop recruiting among the men whom you want to get into the forces like a feeling in the community that the treatment of the men has been improper or unduly severe.


John Allister Currie: Was this man a soldier or a worker in the munition shops?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He was a soldier.


John Allister Currie: He may have been
smoking or something like that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Robert Laird Borden: Has my hon. friend seen the statement which the soldier made?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, I saw that I received that to-day from another source. As I have said, I received also a letter from Sergeant Grant, who has returned

from the front and who is working in the munition works, who complains about the severity of the punishment. I am aware that the claim is that the soldier had a bad record.


Robert Laird Borden: It was not with regard to the character of the punishment. According to the Eastern Chronicle, an investigation was held at which the mayor of Trenton was present, as well as the mayor of New Glasgow, and representatives of local newspapers. The report says:
The soldier was questioned regarding the nature of the punishment given him and stood up against the wall showing the way in which he was fastened. He gave the following statement which he signed:
Statement No. 715631, Private W. P. Chapman, Composite Company, 106th Battalion.
I left the barracks at Trenton without leave at 6 a.m. on the 6th April, 1916. I did not return until 10 p.m., 17th April, 1916. At the time I went absent I was under open arrest (not allowed to leave quarters). On the morning of 18th April I came before Captain Williams on these charges:	1. Absent without
leave from 6 a.m., 6th April until 10 p.m. 17th April; 2, breaking barracks while under open arrest. I was awarded twelve days' detention with No. 1 field punishment. At 11 a.m. I started my first hour's field punishment which consisted of having my wrists handcuffed to a plank five feet ten inches from the ground allowing some leeway in which to ease myself. My feet were firm on the ground. I was released in one hour. I received no bodily injury whatever, and, with the exception of the tired feeling in my arms felt none the worse for the punishment. I further state this to be my sixth offence against military discipline since coming to Trenton on the 14, 15th March, 1916. The punishment was remitted that afternoon, one hour's punishment being all that I did.


James Joseph Hughes: The other day I referred to the fact that there were in Canada officers who were over military age, and who, under no circumstances, would be accepted for service at the front, who did not themselves expect to go, and whom nobody expected to go, and I said that some of such men were members of Parliament. Needless to say, my remarks did not refer in any way to members of Parliament or others who have gone to the front, who were of military age or otherwise qualified to go, or who expected to go. I referred only to the class of men to which I have already alluded, namely, those who did not expect to go and could not, by reason of age or any other cause. The acting minister, in referring to my remarks, said that such men might do useful work in Canada by recruiting or getting battalions together, and using their influence as members or as prominent citizens for military purposes. I think the hon. member for
Renfrew (Mr. Graham) made some remarks of a somewhat similar character. My judgment is that the public man or prominent citizen who declines to do -anything he can do in the way of recruiting or anything else to help the cause unless he is appointed an officer and put on the pay-roll, is not worthy of citizenship in Canada, and I do not think that the taxpayers of this country should be called upon, to provide such men with military pay. I believe that the man who is not willing to make that sacrifice and to do anything .he can along that line is the least qualified man for such purposes, not referring in any way to some men who happen to be members of Parliament and who have the qualifications to be officers. Such men should not be debarred from being officers, and they are entitled to their pay as officers and their indemnity as members. I think that 99 per cent of the people of this country will agree with the view I have expressed.
Militia and Defence-clothing, $800,000.


Frank Oliver: There are other matters
in connection with the military service that should be discussed possibly at some length. Would the minister object to having some items stand?


Robert Laird Borden: If we allowed
one item to stand there would be no objection to discussing any matter relating to the Militia on that one item, as we have been doing all evening. Then, of course, there are supplementaries, The explanation of this item is as follows: It is to provide the Militia, both permanent and non-permanent, with clothing and necessaries. No vote was taken for 1915-16, the current year, and consequently provision for 1916-17 is all the more necessary. The Estimate of the Quartermaster General, which I have under my hand, shows a possible total of over $1,000,000 required, but we are asking for only $800,000. Possibly some of this vote . will be used for the reserve militia, to which my hon. friend from Edmonton has called attention this evening, and whom we would be very glad to furnish with uniforms if it should prove practicable to do so.


James Joseph Hughes: When the volunteers are provided with military clothing, what is done with their civilian clothing and their personal effects?


Robert Laird Borden: They remain in the ownership and at the disposition of the soidier

Royal Military College, $160,000.


James Joseph Hughes: A few days ago I referred to the fact, that the advertisement calling for students for the military college at Kingston was not given to some papers that happened to be Liberal.


Robert Laird Borden: And some that happened to be Conservative too.


James Joseph Hughes: The ^acting minister gave as the reason, that there were some Conservative papers that were not allowed to publish it either. The inference I drew was that because all the Conservative papers did not get this advertisement, no Liberal paper would get it. The only paper in the province of Prince Edward Island that desired to have publication of this notice did not receive -it, while several other papers on the Conservative side did publish it. It would appear to be an application of the party patronage system which the acting minister deprecates.


Robert Laird Borden: I gave the information as it was given to me, that the number of papers was limited and that several Conservative papers which desired to publish it were refused, and doubtless several Liberal newspapers.


James Joseph Hughes: Is the inference I draw
correct, that because the Conservative papers are not publishing it the Liberal papers will not be allowed to publish it?


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose we can all draw any inference we see fit. My hon. friends' inference is so complex in its character that I hardly grasp it.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not think it will
be difficult to grasp.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir ROBERT BORDEN, the House adjourned at 11.50 p.m. Friday.
Saturday, May 6, 1916.