1916-01-27

THE GOVERNOR GERERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Alfred Thompson for an address to His Royal Highness the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Wednesday, January 20.
Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Minister oi Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I had just finished presenting to the House a few words in connection with matters which had been brought up during the course of this debate, and I was about to refer to some things which had been lengthily discussed by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Car-vell). That hon. member has seen fit to discuss at very great length in this House a question which, from my point of view, and I think from the point of view of a good many other people, it was not in the public interest to discuss. On that point I shall speak a little later. I shall not attempt to follow the ramifications of my hon. friend's arguments, because it would be very hard to follow them, even should I desire to do so; neither shall I attempt to follow all the reckless statements that he made in connection with the subject. I sometimes think that democracy, for whose existence we are fighting now, and coupled with democracy the love of freedom and the liberty of free speech, is not an unmixed blessing when the privilege of freedom of speech degenerates as it sometimes does into license. My hon. friend has made a good many reckless speeches in the course of his career in this House; and he has got into trouble a good many times in this House; he would have got into trouble a good many more times outside the House if he had said outside the House what he has said inside the House. I might, in that connection, direct my hon. friend's attention to the excellent editorial in the Ottawa Free Press of last night, in which the editor cordially invites my hon. friend to repeat the remarks made here in reference to the Free Press outside of this House, when he will find himseslf in the law courts.


Mr. CARVELL:: Would my hon. friend pardon me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Martin Burrell: Have I made a misstatement?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I just want-
	.


Martin Burrell: If I have made a misstatement-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to inform my
hon, friend that I have written a letter to the Free Press, and I am going to give them all the opportunity to bring all the actions they want in the courts of law.


Martin Burrell: I am perfectly sure that the House is exceedingly interested in that, and I would suggest that if my hon. friend is very hard pressed he can secure the distinguished legal services of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley).


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And he will win for me, too.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend, in the very long speech which he made the other day, started out with .a misstatement of fact. Of course that is not very surprising, although it is rather astonishing to hear a gentleman who is always so keenly desirous of' bringing down proof for every statement he makes, starting out on an argument with an absolute misstatement of fact. In starting to discuss the question of hay in New Brunswick, he made the statement that the conhnaotars in 1915, the Atlantic Hay Company, had 'a contract, for
7.000	tons of hay which was increased later to 10,000 tons. My hon. friend, if he is going to make statements of that kind, should try and get somewhere near the truth because that contract of 7,000 tons was never increased to 10,000 tons. And he makes the -statement further on in that speech, that after they -had filled the terms of this contract they immediately went after more, and he broadly intimates that they got more. I am here to s-ay that they never bad any other contract than that for 7,000 tons. A little further on, he states that the contract was given for $24 a ton for compressed hay; and then -at page 263 Hansard he says:
These men were given a contract for 7,000 tons of hay, afterwards increased to about
10.000	tons-
I have shown the inaccuracy of that.
-at 524 a ton, delivered in St. John from
press, ready to be put on board the vessel_I
am not sure; I was-
I thought my hon. friend was always so sure of the facts.
-under the impression that the contract price was $24.50. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs knows about this, because he and I talked the matter over.
Mr. J. D. Reid: When was that?

Mr. Carvell: That was one night last spring.
Mr. Reid:	You are referring to something
which took place a year ago.
Mr. Carvel1.: I am referring to something which took place a year ago.
An hon. Member: That is too deep for him.
Mr. Carvell: No, it is not too deep for him. The Minister of Customs and I will not quarrel over the matter. If he had been allowed to handle this thing there would not have been the terrible condition of affairs that exists in New Brunswick to-day. The Minister of Customs told me' that the contract price was $24.50.
There was never a contract given for $24.50. There was no mention of it, .and the Minister of Customs could never have said it. My hon. friend the member for Carleton should not have believed it, because he did not get the facts, and he could have got them if he had wanted to. I shall not go into the whole question of that contract, but I wish to touch on some features of it. It was given on January 4, 1915. I did not happen to be here at the time, because I was then recovering from pneumonia and was in the Southern States. The department, however, and those who had anything to do with the department, acted in perfectly good faith in giving that contract. My hon. friend refers in very scathing tones to the iniquities-he almost used that phrase-of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), who, he gives us to understand, is playing havoc with everything that is good and pure and righteous in New Brunswick, and whom he holds responsible for these things. Well, if a matter came up concerning the province of New Brunswick, I do not know that it would be a crime to ask the advice of, or to consult with, the minister who represents that province in the Government. If my hon. friend ever achieves the distinction- I do not think it likely that he will-of being a cabinet minister, I can easily believe that he of all men-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You know that some very ordinary men have become cabinet ministers.


Martin Burrell: If my hon. friend ever
did achieve such a distinction, he would be the first to expect to be consulted when things come up in connection with his own province. I do not think my hon. friend is ever likely to achieve that distinction; looking at his record, I certainly do not think he ever will. The hon. member for Carleton was elected in 1904 by a majority of 274. He appealed to the electors again in 1908, and he had meanwhile forfeited their confidence to the extent that he got
in by a majority of only 154. He appealed again in 1911, to find that he had forfeited nearly all the confidence of the electors because he hnly got a majority of 11; that time he got elected by the skin of his teeth, and if he continues to keep up his reputation in this House he will certainly not get elected next time. I think it would be good policy on the part of my hon. friend to support an extension of the term of the present Parliament, otherwise we may not see much more of him.
Mr- GRAHAM:	Was that the argument
used in caucus?


Martin Burrell: Now let me refer for a moment or two to the question of hay. The first offer we had of pressed hay was from Kennealy and Wetmore. I think they are Conservatives


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, Liberals; one, of
them is anyway.


Martin Burrell: I am not sure about
their politics. Anyway, on January 2, 1915, they made an offer of 10,000 tons of hay at $21.50 a ton. The condition was made that the Department of Agriculture should furnish the presses and the tender was not accepted. I think, perhaps, it would be well in that connection to put two letters on Hansard, because they will show how the thing took place.
St. John, N.B., Jan. 2, 1915.
J. A. Ruddick, Esq.,
Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, [DOT] Ottawa.
Dear sir,

At the request of Hon. J. D. Hazen we have submitted a tender for ten thousand tons compressed hay delivered West St. John for War Office account.
Hon. Mr. Hazen advises us that your department can arrange for the presses for this business. Will you advise us full particulars of the arrangements covering this item so that we may take the . necessary steps to complete arrangements providing our tender is accepted.
Awaiting your reply, we are,
Yours very truly,
Kennealy & Wetmore, Ltd.
Messrs. Kennealy & Wetmore, Ltd.,
St. John, N.B.
Dear sirs,-I have your letter of the 2nd instant, which has crossed mine of the same date. I do not know what the Honourable Mr. Hazen had in mind when he advised you that this department could arrange for compressors to handle New Brunswick hay. As a matter of fact the only presses which the department has control of at the present time are those which are in use at Montreal. There must be some, misunderstanding on that point.
Yours truly,
J. A. Ruddick,
Commissioner.



These letters explain why at that time Keunealy & Wetmore did not get that contract. The Atlantic Hay Co. was the only other tender received or considered at that time, and a gentleman came down here-I am now only speaking from memory of what Mr. Ruddick said, because I was not here at the time,-I think he was the son of a member of the firm, or at all events he was some one connected with the firm. The matter was discussed, and he asked for a contract at the price of $24, at which price they offered to supply their own presses. My hon. friend knows that the cost of . freight, and of the installation of presses and motors comes to a very considerable sum; they put it at about $20,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Thirty cents a ton will
pay for the whole thing; 1 did it.


Martin Burrell: Will my hon. friend sit down.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will keep the hon. gentleman straight.


Martin Burrell: May I speak to a point of order, Mr. Speaker; we "may as well get the air cleared before we start on this subject. I would not object to any hon. gentleman opposite asking the privilege to correct a statement of fact. I hope I would not object to that; I have never objected to it, and no man would object. But I do object to be constantly interrupted if the interruption does not relate to any question of fact. The interruption of my hon. friend had nothing to do with the statement I made. I simply referred to the cost of the presses; I am not referring to the cost of the pressing at all. I made the plain statement that this firm stated that the presses cost them nearly $20,000 to purchase, to freight, to install and to operate the motors.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I deny that; that is not true.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think my hon. friend should correct his statement. The words " not true " are certainly not parliamentary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I say it is not a correct statement of fact as to the cost of these presses; that is all.


Martin Burrell: I am amazed at my hon. friend who is a lawyer, being so absolutely out of his province, and showing such a lack of intelligence. I did not say it was a fact; I stated that the gentleman who came here claimed that the cost was $20,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Tt is a wonder they did not say $40,000.	.


Martin Burrell: Just keep quiet. Let me tell my hon. friend that he will get all he wants before I am through.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I must ask hon. members not to interrupt the hon. minister. I understand he desires to have the protection of Rule 23, which every hon. member is entitled to when addressing the House. I ask hon. members not to interrupt the hon. member.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: All right.


Martin Burrell: Now, I can elucidate this point which we were discussing perhaps a little more clearly. I made the statement that the contractors who ,came up here considered that it cost them nearly $20,000 to install those four presses, with their equipment. My hon. friend says that is not a fact, if I said it, but I did not say it. I do say that it comes pretty nearly to that sum, and I am going to give the best proof I can for that statement. It is a fact that my hon. friend himself when he had a contract with the Government in 1902 put in a certain claim for loss after finishing his contract, and in that claim he stated that the amount invested in his pressing plant, consisting of two presses, was $8,530. That comes pretty close to it.


Mr. TURRIFF:: That is not $20,000 for one press.


Martin Burrell: to be worse, I had the bales put back and re-j -ole-1 same.
I have the honour to be sir,
Tours truly,
(Sgd.) J. L Cooke.
This is a letter to Mr. Ruddiok from Thos. C. Strong:
Dear Sir,-I feel it my duty to let you know what is being done in regard to the Kennealy & Wetmore contract-
I am dealing now with the general question of the class of hay which was accepted, and with my hon. friend's charge that black, rotten hay went to the War Office, a thing which would certainly distress me as much as it would him, if it were a fact:
-I feel it my duty to let you know what is being- done in regard to the Kennealy & Wet-more contract.
These parties are buying all the cull hay that I sorted out of two thousand tons and are shipping it to St. John and having it compressed there, so you can take whatever actiop in the matter you see fit.
Tours respectfully,
(Sgd.)Thos. C. Strong.
Then here is a telegram from Mr. Rud-dick to Mr. Cooke:
Inspector Strong, Woodstock, reports Kennealy & Wetmore shipping all hay rejected by him to West St. John. Look out for it.
With respect to this transaction, I may tell the House that this hay was watched very carefully and that little, if any, hay, that should not have gone did actually go. The best proof that such is the fact is that Messrs Kennealy & Wetmore say that they could not fill their contract owing to the heavy rejections. They say:
Owing to heavy rejections it is possible we may be short about thousand tons; we have more hay on track than presses are handling; we are not delaying them; may possibly be able to complete in Montreal.
Both Kennealy & Wetmore, and Stevenson, who also shipped hay to Montreal, had a large amount rejected, and, as I have stated that Kennealy & Wetmore were absolutely unable to fill their contracts because they could not get the hay owing to the heavy rejections. I have referred to the Stevenson contract. As he could not get the amount of hay he wanted in time, he shipped to Montreal and very much of the poor hay was rejected and he was therefore put in a similar position. Certainly there were a lot of difficulties about these 1915 contracts. The point I want to make is this: It is quite possible that, looking back, it would have been better to have paid the contractors, who certainly had a very hard 
row to hoe a little more and the Atlantic Hay Company a little less. But the whole transaction was conducted in absolutely good faith by those who were here while I was absent and statements made about the exorbitant profits of the company are absolutely beside the mark. The best proof that the hay was not of the character that my hon. friend described it to be is that we had not a single complaint about the hay from the War Office when it arrived in France and they were absolutely satisfied with it. We furnished the War Office with all the accounts and details that they wanted in regard to these transactions and no complaint whatever was made. In the earlier stages of large undertakings of this kind which are suddenly thrust upon a department, it would be astonishing if mistakes and blunders were not made. Does my hon' friend think that any department of the Government in times such as these can suddenly take hold of a transaction of this kind and make no mistake whatever? I do not profess to toe infallible, neither do the officers of the department; but we all endeavour to make as 'few mistakes as possible, and in absolute good faith to rectify those mistakes which may have been made in the past. Let me point out to my hon. friend, that the War Office, having had a full account of all these transactions up to that time placed before them, not only did not say: we find no fault in you in connection with these transactions, but since that time they have placed on my shoulders increased responsibilities in connection with supplies for the armies at the front.
I come now to the transactions of this year, with which I am ;a little more familiar. This is a story which I think will interest, if it does- not weary the House, for my hon. friend has dealt with it pretty vigorously already. A contract was given to the Atlantic Hay Company this year for 15,000 tons at $23 a ton. This contract was for hay, compressed from eighty to one hundred cubic feet to the ton, and which would pass inspection at St. John. This company owned four presses. We thought that it was not at all likely-and I think my hon. friend will admit this-that there would be as much hay available in New Brunswick this year as last. We thought, and rightly so, that it would be more convenient for us to deal with the one firm owning the four presses. I think there was only one other press in the whole province able to do that work. Furthermore, we thought it would

be better for the War Office we should have our inspection at one point, and at the price of $23 a ton it would be giving the hay to the War Office at $2 less a ton than was being paid for Montreal hay, adding freight, to St. John.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is it not a fact that the four presses now used by the Atlantic Hay Company were not at that time in the province of New Brunswick but in Montreal?


Martin Burrell: I did not say they
were in New Brunswick. I said that the Atlantic Hay Company owned them, and that they were available-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. Mr. McDonald
owns them.


Martin Burrell: Mr. McDonald is, and
has been, a member of the Atlantic Hay Company. We thought that in giving this contract we should not only be ensuring to the War Office a good class of hay at a * reasonable price, but that the contractors would also be able to give a fair price to the farmers, and not make any undue profit for themselves. We believed in good faith, that it was a contract that could be entirely justified. Other offers came in soon afterwards, and I may say for the benefit of my hon. friend from Carleton, who thinks that we do everything for Conservatives and nothing for anybody else, that several of these offers came from strong Conservatives and were not considered for the reasons I have mentioned.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know it. [DOT]


Martin Burrell: Subsequently the honourable member for Carleton started in the press a great controversy on hay matters generally in the province of New Brunswick. My hon. friend cherishes a very poor opinion of the contractor, Mr- B. F. Smith. I am not very familiar with New Brunswick politics-I know they are very vigorous-but I think that Mr. Smith may have been my hon. friend's political opponent, or is going to be. Anyway, my hon. friend cherishes an exceedingly mean opinion of Mr. Smith, judging from what I have seen of the controversy, and I am quite sure Mr. Smith cherishes an equally poor opinion of my hon. friend opposite. When I was ill with the grippe a little while ago, the hon. member for Carleton came to Ottawa to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was at that time acting premier, and who, as an old citizen of New Brunswick,
knew conditions in that province fairly well, I suppose. My hon. friend from Carleton set forth a great many statements in regard to this hay controversy in New Brunswick, and produced a dazzling array of figures as to cost of pressing, freight, shrinkages, and various other things, to such an extent that he made out that an iniquitous state of affairs existed, and that the farmers were not getting a look in. He demanded, in very vigorous tones, 1 should gather, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should immediately compel those rascals down there to give to the farmer two more dollars, or whatever it was, or that another) contract should be let, or that the embargo which had been imposed should be lifted. I may say that the embargo does not affect New Brunswick to anything like the same extent that it affects Quebec, inasmuch as during the whole four months since the last hay crop and prior to the imposing of the embargo, only 400 or 420 tons were shipped from New Brunswick to the United States. My hon. friend made all these statements, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, as he naturally would under the circumstances, that if such a state of affairs existed it was deplorable, and that he would turn the matter over to the Minister of Agriculture. He said he would have Mr. Ruddick come over and discuss the matter with him, and if everything was as the hon. member for Carleton had stated, something ought to be done to remedy it- In that visit-and I am not breaking any confidence in saying this -my hon. friend from Carleton mentioned that he himself would benefit to the tune of several hundred dollars if the farmers got a bigger price; I presume he has several hundred tons of hay himself. He said to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as he has in effect said to me since in a letter: Give this extra money to the farmers, make these people pay more, or let the work out to other contractors, or lift the embargo; and if you will do one of these things I will not say a thing about it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is all true.


Martin Burrell: He -was going to get a bigger price for the farmer, for his friends and for himself. I may say for the benefit of my hon. friend that in everything connected with this hay business I have been only too glad to consult with the Minister of Trade and Commerce on every step that 1 have taken, and on the correspondence, and anything that has been done in that

matter since my hon. friend visited the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been with the entire concurrence of my colleague. Among other things that my hon. friend discussed with the Minister of Trade and Commerce at that time was that we should give to Mr. McCain, a friend of my hon. friend opposite, a contract for three, or four, or five thousand tons of hay in that part of New Brunswick where my hon. friend lives, and that this would settle it. Subsequently Mr. McCain wrote to the department; he had written once before. In one case he wrote offering to take a contract for from three to five thousand tons at $22.50 a ton. He could well do that. In any case it would not have been much better than what we were doing, even if other circumstances had been equal. We should have had to send a spe'cial inspector up there, and more expense would have been involved in pressing the hay at Woodstock. Mr. McCain subsequently made an offer of $23 a ton and pay $15 to the farmers. He could well do that. The Minister of Trade 'and Commence, who knows the fact, observed that it might 'be possible in one small district where there was a considerable quantity of hay and conditions were more favourable in regard to labour, and freights not so much -as in other parts' of the province, to get the hay for less than we could at St. John; but he pointed out that that would interfere with the general arrangement for the whole province. That point was well recognized, because as my hon. friend has stated, when Mr. McCain got a contract in 1902 there was a considerable difference in the price, viz.-$14 f.o.b. Florenceville, as against $17 St. John. We therefore did not consider it advisable to take that step, nor did I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce consider it advisable. Subsequent to the visit of my hon. friend, Mr. Smith came to Ottawa. He also went into this hay question and put up a lot of facts and figures and I think was able to show that some of the statements of the hon. member for Car-leton might be questioned as regards expenses of operation and various other details. At all events, he made the statement-and there may have been some force in it- that they were getting only a reasonable price for their hay contract and that he was willing to pay and would pay what he considered a fair price. That price might fluctuate from time to time to the farmers, and he did not expect to make an unreasonable profit; but as so much had been said about it, and as Mr. Smith 
and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) had been scrapping and fighting so [DOT] hard and filling the newspapers of St. John and other parts of New Brunswick with this controversy, Mr. Smith offered to transfer his contract to any other firm in New Brunswick, under exactly the same conditions, and allowing the department to fix a reasonable price by arbitration for the expenditure he had incurred and for the expenses of his plant. Now, that was a pretty fair offer. We did not accept that offer, nor did we accept another offer that he made, for very sufficient reasons. In the first place, it would have been inadvisable, from the department's point of view, even if the offer had been accepted, to transfer the contract, because it would have meant delay in the delivery pf hay and in the adjustment which would have been necessary under the conditions of the transfer. Mr. Smith also made another offer to which I am now going to allude. It is strange, however, during all this time that the controversy was going on and under the dismal state of affairs as pictured by the hon. member for Carleton, that neither the department nor I, myself, received a single protest from any farmer in New Brunswick in reference to this matter, and the only protest that I ever heard of at all came through one letter that was sent, I think, by the hon. member for Carleton to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), and which is not now in my possession, because I returned it, and the letter which my hon. friend read' in the House. The letter to which my hon. friend referred was from a Mr. Fawcett, whom I do not know at all. My hon. friend referred to him in most eulogistic terms, and I recall, in the opening phrase of Mr. Fawcett's letter which he addressed to Mr. Carvell at Woodstock, that he looked upon Mr. Carvell as the one man in New Brunswick who would give agriculture a square deal, and that it was a matter of great thankfulness that they had such a man in the country. It would not be very difficult to infer that he is of the same affiliation as my hon. friend.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no doubt about that at all. He is a good Grit, if there ever was one.


Martin Burrell: The point I make is
that not once had there been any protest to the department, or to myself, or any explanation or suggestion, and I am informed from other sources that on the

whole the New Brunswick farmers have been fairly well satisfied with the condition of things. However, I was not going to leave the matter there, and I did not leave it there. I went into the matter again and discussed it thoroughly. I asserted to Mr. Smith, what I have always asserted from the start and what I asserted in a letter to my hon. friend, namely: that the sole object the department has as a trustee for the British War Office in this matter is to help as far as we can to get a market for the Canadian farmer, and while getting him a fair price for his product-and he would get a much fairer price in this way throughout the country than he would have got if the War Office had not stepped in- at the same time to get the War Office a good article at a reasonable price, and to ensure that the contractors do not make an unreasonable profit. On that occasion, or subsequently, Mr. Smith wrote me this letter, which, with my reply, I wish to place upon Hansard:
Ottawa, 10th January, 1916. The Hon. Martin Burrell,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-On my return to New Brunswick from a trip to the cities of Ontario and Quebec I found that the number of reckless, absurd and indeed silly assertions which had been bandied about in the public press and otherwise, in regard to the contract of this company to supply hay to the Department of Agriculture, had been indeed larger and their character more gross than I was aware of at the time of my recent visit to your department.
On that occasion and on January 3 following, as an evidence of the good faith of this company, 1 submitted two alternative propositions. One addressed both to the department and the public was as follows:
"We, the Atlantic Hay Company of St. John, New Brunswick, are willing to transfer our hay contract with the Department of Agriculture to any firm in New Brunswick who will agree to deliver the quantity of hay to the department, and carry out the terms of the contract; provided such firm or person arranges to pay us for expenses incurred to the date of the transfer and takes over for use our plant at St. John, the figures to be paid for the use of plant and for disbursements incurred to be determined by arbitration under the direction of the Department of Agriculture."
The other was made direct to your department and reads of follows:
"We, the Atlantic Hay Company of St. John, N.B., agree to cancel our contract with the Department of Agriculture (Dominion) and buy and compress their hay in the war bale on the basis of 5 per cent for handling the entire output of the province available for that purpose during the season, all books and vouchers to be open at all times to the department and a final audit made under the direction of them. Price to be paid the farmer and for hay delivered at West St. John to be fixed from time to time by the department."
I have explained why we did not think it advisable to consider the first offer, and I thought that it was not advisable to accept the second one, because, after I had consulted with the department, it did not seem clear that there would be any induce- _ ment to keep down the expenses of operation. The letter goes on:
As a further evidence, however, of the determination of the company to deal absolutely fairly both with the farmers and the department, and to show that the contract as originally made is based on that principle, we now make this additional voluntary offer:
We are ready to submit to the Department of Agriculture all purchase vouchers, books, documents and papers relating to the carrying out of the contract. The department may determine the sum which may be fairly allowed for all expenses connected with the purchase of said hay, freight, the operation of compressing plant and otherwise incidental to the final delivery of the compressed hay, and having so determined we agree that if the' department finds there is any profit to our company beyond one dollar (51.00) per ton, such excess profit will be retained by, the department for the benefit of the Imperial Government.
I will be glad to hear from you at once as to the above.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) B. P. Smith, for the Atlantic Hay Company.
To that letter I replied:
Ottawa, Ont. Jan. 11, 1916.
B. P. Smith, Esq.,
The Atlantic Hay Company,
East Florenceville, N.B.
Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of your letter and note what you say in reference to the controversy which has taken place about your hay contract.
There was certainly no intention on the department's part when this contract was given that it would permit any exorbitant profits to be made. Our desire was that the War Office should be supplied with hay at a reasonable price, that the farmers should get an opportunity of disposing of their product at fair figures, and at the same time the contractor should not reap undue profits.
You have made several suggestions, but I think that the one contained in your letter of the 10th, namely, that you are willing to undertake that your profits shall not succeed $1 a ton, and that the department itself shall fix upon a proper basis for the expenses, is very fair and affords strong evidence of your good faith in the whole matter, and I shall therefore be glad to act upon it.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) M. Burrell.
My hon. friend might say, perhaps, that it would be very hard to determine that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Impossible. You do not know whom you are up against.


Martin Burrell: All right. We know the opinion of these people, and we also know


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mir. Speaker,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. minister knows
that I was referring to


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend is stating that the portion of the conversation I gave was the confidential portion, when it was not, and my hon. friend knows that it was not. The
portion he refers to


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not through with my point of order. The portion he referred to as confidential was the new contract-


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order, and the hon. member knows perfectly well that it is not.


Martin Burrell: I am going to discuss this episode pretty thoroughly, and I am going to keep myself within the bounds of the rules of this House, but I am going to set forth the facts so that there cannot be any mistake. My hon. friend and myself may -have some difference of view as to what was confidential and what was not. So far as the whole matter that took place is concerned, it would not hurt me very much if anybody had been there to take it all down, and reproduce it in the public press. As to the contract, I did say, perhaps, that that was confidential, hut it scarcely mattered beeasue. I had given the hon. gentleman the assurance in that very letter that I had ample safeguards. But this is what I am complaining of. I understood he did not want me to refer ,to this thing unless he took it up; but it seemed to me an extraordinary thing to try to tie my hands and rob me of any defence in this, when I had already been stabbed in the back by these other statements he had made. I want to say to my hon. friend, and nobody knows this better than he, that I never used the phrase " In God's name do not bring this up;" that I never said it would be bad in the newspapers, because there is nothing that I have ever done in this Parliament that I would be ashamed to put in every newspaper in the country. Talk about being amazed! I never was more amazed in my life than when the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) used the phrase de did. I cannot understand any man doing such a thing. To my mind it is the most deplorable incident that has ever taken place in this House, since I have known it. My hon. friend may laugh, it does not do him credit; that is all I can say about it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What did you say?


Martin Burrell: I do not know what his own view of these matters is, but if he has this interpretation of what is an honourable

course to take-I say nothing about my hon. friend's conduct or character or anything else in his private life-but if that is his interpretation of what can be done in public life, nothing can stamp him so well as being absolutely unfitted for public life as that one thing. I think I can comment on this, and show the absolute grotesqueness and absurdity of my hon. friend's contention. I went to the Prime Minister soon after I got. my hon. friend's letter telling me that he had the power of speech, and intimating, as I thought, and rightly thought, that he was going to bring all hay matters in connection with the War Office up in this House, and I stated to the Prime Minister my views on the matter, as I did to the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Poster). My views were these; that we were operating in a very large way for the War Office, on account, of the military forces, all over this country, purchasing hay, oats and flour. When the whole story comes to be written, when the war is over, it will be only too great a pleasure for me to bring down the whole details to the country, for it is a great work, a very much larger work than anybody imagines. But no business man in this House can come to any other conclusion than that it is inadvisable to bring up these matters in Parliament when the war is on and these supplies are being contracted for, and large operations are going on in all these businesses all over the country. It does not matter so much in his own newspapers down there; they would not attach the same importance to any remarks the hon. member for Carleton might make as they would to his remarks in the House where he gets a fictitious importance by virtue of being a member of this House, and to give it publicity for that reason, from my point of view, was not in the best interests of the War Office or of the public. At all events, I stated that view to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. They understood it was not in the public interest, and they will bear out what I say. I said it did not matter to me personally whether it was brought up or not, that I had, I thought, a sufficient answer to anything that might be said; but that, solely and entirely on account of the public interest and the War Office interest, I thought it not advisable to discuss this in the House. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce agreed, and I suggested, and they concurred, that I should speak to my hon. friend and put that view 
before him. In fact, the Minister oi Trade and Commerce suggested that I could appeal to my hon- friend's patriotism in this matter, and it was suggested, by either myself or the Prime Minister, that, if I liked, I could speak to the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on this broad line. I was very glad to do it for this reason also, that on the 7th of April, 1902 a gemitleman in this House, who has now passed away, the late lamented Hon. F. D. Monk, placed a question on the Order Paper asking for partiicula/rs about the purchase of ihay for the War Office during the South African war; and Mr. Speaker, the then Minister of Agriculture gave this answer, which I think was an absolutely correct and proper answer to give:
This question, relating- entirely to the business of the Imperial War Office, I am not at liberty to answer it.
I think that was a perfectly proper answer, and not a man on our side disputed its justness. In 1903 the matter came up again in the shape of an Order asked for on the floor of the House by the Hon. Mr. Monk, for all this information, because the war was then over. A long debate took place, which was referred to by the hon. Solicitor General the other night. We asked for all correspondence, documents, papers, etc., all the particulars about the transactions, of people like my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) who then had a contract with the Government for the War Office-The debate was participated in by my right hon. friend, by Mr. Fielding, by the late Postmaster General and others. We took the ground that, as the war was over, it was perfectly proper to bring down all these matters, as they did, to some extent, concern the people of Canada. I am not dis^ puting whether they were right or wrong, but the late Government took the ground, very emphatically, that, as it related to the War Office and it was Imperial money which was spent here, it was not a responsibility incurred to this House, and they did not think it right to bring the information down, and they did not bring it down. They put it to a vote and the motion was negatived and the Order was not granted. I am not disputing whether the position of the late Government in 1903 was right or not; I say it was absolutely right in 1902 but in 1903 it might be open to question; and I say right here and now, that after the war is over, speaking for myself, and I think the Prime Minister

would feel the same way, I would have absolutely no hesitation in bringing down every single record we have got in connection with these transactions.
At all events, I took the course which I have outlined, a course which was suggested or concurred in by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I do not know whether 1 am counted as a very strict party man. Sometimes I think that some of my friends who are strong party men do not so regard me.
I am a good Conservative; I think I have a right to stick up for Conservative principles and Conservative practice, however deplorable that may be to gentlemen like the hon. member for Carleton. I have a great many friends in my own constituency on the Liberal side. I have many Liberal friends in Ottawa-some of my warmest friends are Liberals in politics. I hope 1 have some friends in this House who are Liberals in politics and sit on the other side. I never held the doctrine that one should carry one's political animosities into private life, nor would I regard life as being tolerable if I had to do it. I want to say this further in regard to this matter with which we are dealing, that I would rather go out of public life forever, and walk out now, and keep such regard as I may have been fortunate enough to get from any of my friends as a public man, than remain in public life at the price of descending to the depths to which my hon. friend for Carleton, N.B., has descended. It may be said thfit that is not a matter of very great public interest; but I do appeal to you, and to the older members of this House who have sat here for many years, that this is the sort of thing that touches the finer side of life, and makes public life tolerable. And iso it is well worth touching when we are dealing with this matter. I have already spoken of the grotesqueness of my hon. friend's assertion that I said " for God's *sake don't bring the matter up in the House; the papers will get it, and how bad that will be." I have already said that there was absolutely no truth in that assertion. 'I never used such words at all; I did not refer to the newspapers, nor did I use the name of God at all in any shape or form, so that my hon. friend does not know where he is at. If I feared anything; if my hon. friend was so absurd as to. think I was afraid that there might be public exposure, why I had an easy way out; I could have done what the member for Carleton demanded, and' got out of
the mess, if mess there was. But of course I was not in any way afraid, 'because I had nothing to conceal. I was simply speaking in the public interest. Now I do not like to bring the names of other people into this matter, and I will apologise to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition for mentioning his name in connection with it. I would not have done so if it had not been for what the hon. member who sits behind him (Mr. Carvell) said. He not only made the absolutely inaccurate statement I have referred to; he intimated-he did not say so in so many words-that I had gone running to the leader of the Opposition and to the Liberal Whip for the same reason, that I was afraid of this thing coming up in the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend made the statement first; I did not.


Martin Burrell: I spoke to the hon. member for Carleton, and he refused to promise that he would not speak on it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is right.


Martin Burrell: I was actuated absolutely and solely by the view that this matter affected or might affect the War Office and the public interest. I said I did not t.bink it would be advisable in the interests of the War Office to do so, but that if he did, he must do it according to his own judgment. I met the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Pardee) in the corridor, I think a .few days afterwards. I told the Liberal Whip that I would like to speak to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition in regard to the matter, as I thought it of sufficient public importance to place my views before him, as the Prime Minister had Suggested. My right hon. friend was busy at the time, and I could not get access to him. I told Mr. Pardee, the chief Liberal Whip, the circumstances in exactly the same way, namely, that I did not think it advisable in the interests of the War Office to bring this matter up, 'but that my hon. friend from Carleton seemed determined to do so, and if he did, all. right. I said that I would reply and would be able to refute anything he might say that seemed to reflect on the department or bn myself. Subsequently I was enabled to see my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and I was treated by him with the courtesy which he has always shown to me since I came here in 1908 as a back bencher from the far western province. I am appealing

to him in a sense; it is an appeal to Caesar from one of Caesar's very insignificant legionaries. I know my right hon. friend will bear me out that it was precisely in this tone that I placed the circumstances before him. I simply said I did not think that a discussion of this matter would be in the best interests of the War Office, that we had not made any of our proceedings public, that we did not think it desirable to do so, and that I thought the contract sufficiently safeguarded the public interest.
I said, I am not in a position to implore you to insist that Mr. Carvell shall not speak; I simply put this to you, and if he does speak, well, all right I ask again, I ask any man in this House if my attitude has not been absolutely consistent throughout this whole matter, and I leave it to the judgment of the House to say whether what has been done, in order, I presume-for there could be no other object in view-to secure some little political capital by having it repeated in the press, that I begged somebody to call him off. Is this fair? I ask what sort of fighting in the House of Commons of Canada in this year of grace, 1916, that is!
I say that if ever there was in this House an exhibition of hitting below the belt that was it. My hon. friend expressed pity for me the other day. He said he was sorry , from the bottom of his heart for the poor Minister of Agriculture, who had fallen an innocent victim to the wiles and machinations of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen); that I was a very decent chap and so forth. What sort of man is this that can violate the code of ethics which is prized by those who cherish the good old name of gentleman?
Now, Sir, much as I hate the tu quoque argument; much as I dislike saying that the other fellow has been doing things, therefore pitch into him; I think it only right to ask who this man is who brings these charges and makes those wild and reckless assertions. Who is this gentleman who has such a disinterested and passionate zeal to secure better prices for the farmers in New Brunswick and for my hon. friend's friends. Who is he? Well, I noticed the other night that he was a little uneasy. He seemed to think that I would probably speak after him, and he was quite right. He used these words:
X know what kind of defence my hon. friend is going to put up; he is going to say that in 1902 when I had a small contract,
and so on. My hon. friend was beginning 
to get uneasy, and was afraid I might say something that would hurt. On page 265 of Hansard he says this:
I have had experience in this matter. During the South African war I was a member of a company that compressed hay, and I speak with knowledge. I was not then a member of the legislature or of the House of Commons,
I was a member of the New Brunswick Hay Company.
My hon. friend was secretary and treasurer, the whole body and bones of the institution; at all events he was the most prominent man in it, and the man who appeared here to do all the business with the department. He added, " We had a small contract from the Department of Agriculture, about $7,000 altogether."
Mr. CARVELL,: Seven thousand tons, not dollars.


Martin Burrell: It is $7,000 in Hansard, but I accept my hon. friend's correction. He says it was a small contract. My hon. friend had contracts altogether amounting ' to about 11,000 tons.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not filled.


Martin Burrell: Pretty nearly all filled; we have the records, and they show that they came pretty nearly to 11,000 tons, which, figured up at the price he got, which was $17, came to about $187,000; not very small. Now, my hon. friend at that time got a price of $17 a ton for compressed hay at West St. John; he will correct me if I am wrong in any of my statements. My hon. friend anticipated that I would deal with this or would say something about it. He pointed out that they were giving the farmer at that time $8 a ton, and he thought what an exceedingly good price that was, considering what hay was at that time. In fact, he went the length of saying-I could give the exact figures, and I shall come to them presently. They were giving the farmers $8 a ton.
I want to point out one or two things. My hon. friend has contended that under ' this contract, at $23 a ton, the spread between the price obtained by the farmer for his loose hay and the price that the contractor gets for his compressed hay, which passes inspection, is a tremendous one, and that the contractor is going to make the enormous profit of two or three dollars a ton-three dollars, was it?-or, at all events, a very enormous profit. Under a contract like this it would amount to some $45,000. The contractors, unquestionably, in different parts of the province of New

Brunswick, pay different prices. We have never insisted on fixing a price, but we have insisted that he shall give a fair price. He has given as high as $13.75. I have had that information in most positive terms. My hon. friend admitted that he had given $13.50. I will take my hon. friend's lower figure of $13.50, which gives a spread of $9.50 between the loose hay of the farmer and the compressed hay supplied to the Government. But my horn, friend says that at that he makes a tremendous profit. There was a spread when my hon. friend had a contract of $9. I do not think that my hon. friend will dispute that the cost of operation in 1902 was lower than it is to-day.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I dispute it.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend disputes it. When I make a statement of fact my hon. friend feels it incumbent upon himself to dispute it. He had four hours in which to speak, and I do not think he can begrudge me another half hour. I do not think any business man would doubt that the cost of operation would be heavier today than it was in 1902. My hon. friend has made the statement that it cost more because they had to compress to a limit of 70 cubic feet to the ton at that time, and we are now compressing to a limit of from 80 to 100 cubic feet to the ton. We have compressed a good deal to 80 cubic feet. My hon. friend did not compress all of this hay to 70 cubic feet; there was much of it that was compressed to a less degree than that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Have you any record of that?


Martin Burrell: At all events, this is a small matter, because I am informed by those who know what they are talking about in the department, that the difference in the cost of compression as between 70 and 80 feet would be absolutely trifling, and that they would use less wire with the tighter compression than with the other. When my hon. friend says that these people, with a contract at $23 a ton, are imposing on the farmer, and that I am filching out of the pockets of the farmer and holding up the War Office and everybody else for the sake of enabling these contractors to amass filthy lucre, how does it compare with the amount that he himse f made when he had the contract? What are the facts? So far. from his having amassed a fortune out of the business in 1902, when
the war closed, he came back on the department with a claim for $13,000. I must in fairness say that no doubt his was a harder position, because, the war having closed, it left a certain amount of hay on his hands. But that was not included within the terms of his contract. He came back upon the department with a claim for $13,435 to compensate him for loss under his contract, because the termination of the war left him with a considerable amount of hay on his hands. A Liberal Government was then in power, the department was presided over by Mr. Sydney Fisher, but he could not stand for the rapacity of my hon. friend, and he turned him down and would not give him the amount that ;he asked for.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is a patriot.


Martin Burrell: Yes, he is a kind of patriot. I do not like saying these things,
I hate saying them, but I think it is time the House should know the type of man who is making these reckless charges. In regard to the price paid, my hon. friend, at.page 272 of Hansard said this:
Among the men in that arrangement were Mr. Smith, Mr. McCain, and a dozen other hay merchants in the county and in the three or four adjoining counties. Prior to that time hay had never been worth more than $6 a ton, loose in the farmer's barns.
He qualified that by adding that it had not been worth more than $6 or $6.50 a ton. I am not a New Brunswicker, but I am informed by a New Brunswick man that for ia long time the price had been from $6 to $10 a ton for loose hay in the farmers' barns and I cannot believe that there is any province where the maximum price of loose hay to the farmer in his bam would-be only $6. I have farmed myself for a good many years and it would be a discouraging business if all that a man could get for loose hay in his bam, after paying the expensA of cultivating, seeding and harvesting, was $6 a ton. If that is my hon. friend's experience I do not wonder that he is looking like a very unhappy type of farmer. My hon. friend introduced this argument-or so it looks to me-because he evidently knew that I wis going to allude to the price which he had to pay at that time. He goes on to refer to the fact that he had to pay $8, but I have been informed that at the time my hon. friend's contract was in force, and when he was performing it, he brought hay in from Quebec which assisted in regulating the price. If my

hon. friend denies it I will accept his statement that he did not bring any hay in from Quebec.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My recollection is that we 'brought in about ten cars of hay.


Martin Burrell: I am glad to know that because it fixes the price at $8 and if my hon. friend brought in hay from Quebec it looks like a very judicious way of keeping the farmer in New Brunswick satisfied at not getting more than that. Further on my hon. friend says, in regard to this $8 a ton, that they bought hay from sub-contractors and that the sub-contractors among themselves made an arrangement by which they would pay $8 a ton to the farmer. The House will gather, and 1 think everybody will gather, from that suggestion, that $8 was a reasonable price .and that my hon. friend, who had a large contract, and who was to supply 11,000 tons to this Government, with a spread of $9 between the price that he paid for loose hay and the price which he received for compressed hay, should make something substantial out of his contract; whereas the fact is that it landed him in the hole to the extent of $13,000 according to his own showing. But, at all events, they were .paying the farmers only $8. My hon. friend made the contracts with the sub-contractors and, 'by the irony of fate, one of the sub-contractors was the very firm which has the contract mow that my hon. friend is denouncing in this House. I have a copy of the contract which my hon. friend drew up in regard to the sub-contractors. My hon. friend said, you will recall, that the sub-contractors made an arrangement amongst themselves by which they would pay the farmers $8 .a ton. I want you to listen to some of the phrases. I take it for granted that, as my hon. friend was the sec'y-treasurer of this company, a gentleman who had been very active in coming up and getting contracts made with the Government and in presenting the claims, he would have everything to do with the framing of the sub-contracts.	.
I presume that, being an astute lawyer, he would not adopt any cheap police court methods, or have any junior law students around, but would do the work himself because of his knowledge of the law and out of his born zeal for the farmer. He says we are bleeding the farmers. Inflamed with that splendid passion of patriotism, of a local kind, and sympathizing with these unfortunate men, he of course would do the 
right thing. Let us see what was put in this contract.
Memorandum of agreement >entered into this thirteenth day of December, A.D. 1901, between A. C. Smith & Company, of West St. John, commission merchants, of the one part and " The New Brunswick Hay Company, Limited," of Woodstock, in the county of Carleton, hereinafter referred to as ' The Company," on the second part.
Witnesseth, First.-Subject to the following conditions the said A. C. Smith & Co., hereby agree to sell and deliver to the said Company between this date and the first day of April next, four thousand tons of first and second qualities of Carleton county hay in carload lots.
Second.-The said Company, in consideration of the foregoing agreement hereby agree to pay the said A. C. Smith & Company the sum of ten dollars and twenty-five cents per ton, f.o.b. points in Carleton county', subject to being weighed by the Company at McAdam. Junction, provided, however, that if on such weighing the whole amount does not fall short more than twenty tons, then no deduction shall be made for shortages, and 'any shortages above that amount will be borne by the said A. C. Smith & Company. The hay to be paid for on delivery.
and so on. It continues:
The said Company, in consideration of this contract hereby agree that they will not pay any other person or persons whatsoever, a greater amount for hay, during the continuance of this contract, than the sum of ten dollars and twenty-five cents,-**
That is for baled hay.
-as aforesaid, f.o.b., nor 'will they allow Mathias Meagher, William A. Estey, Coles W. Dugan, Harris Everett, George A. Davis, H. H. McCain, Bohan B:-os., Charles E. Gallagher nor Rupert Hutchison, being the only persons from whom they are buying hay in the county of Carleton, to pay more than eight dollars to the farmers for loose hay in their barns.
The hon. member for Carleton came down here and demanded that I fix the price and fix it high, or he would expose me in this House by his power of speech; but here we see in this contract these men were not allowed to pay more than $8 to the farmer. Let us read on a little further, and my legal friends who understand legal phraseology will of course be better able to appreciate this than a simple farmer like myself:
And in case any of the said parties shall, during the continuance of this contract, pay! or offer to pay any farmer in the county of Carleton a greater sum that eight dollars, then they agree, upon satisfactory proof of such paying or offering to pay, to refuse to purchase or receive any hay from the said offending

	i
Mark the word, Mr. Speaker, " offending."
-from the said , offending party or parties, and also, that in case Bohan Bros, shall pay or offer to pay to any farmer in the counties of Carleton or Victoria, excepting that por-

t'on of the parish of Kent lying north of Bath Station and east of the River St. John, more than eight dollars for their loose hay, as aforesaid, then, upon satisfactory proof of such payment or offering of payment, the Company agree to pay the said A. C. Smith & Company for the remainder of their contract then unfulfilled, whatever amount the said Bohan Bros., shall have offered or paid above eight dollars in excess of the ten dollars and twenty-five cents.
I do not know New Brunswick geography or politics very well, but I understand that Bohan Bros, were doing business in a small section where there was a great hive of votes, all of them the right way, and therefore they could pay a little more. But I am not insisting upon that, I do not want to be unfair to my hon. friend. Here is another interesting clause:
It is also agreed that neither of the above parties shall be at liberty to pay for hay already pressed to any farmer more than nine dollars and twenty-five cents per ton, under the same penalties hereinbefore mentioned as in the case of an offer of more than eight dollars for loose hay.
It is also agreed between the parties hereto, and made a condition hereof, that in case the said A. C. Smith & Company, or any of their recognized agents or representatives in the counties of Carleton or Victoria, shall be known to have paid or offered to pay to any farmer a greater sum than eight dollars for loose hay

My hon. friend even gave credit to these notorious people for having some bowels of compassion and thought that out of the kindness of their hearts they might possibly pay a little more in some cases. So he says that if they pay more than eight dollars for loose hay-
-that for the balance of the contract then unfulfilled they shall deduct the sum of twenty-five cents per ton, excepting in the case where trades have been legally concluded prior to the date hereof, and in the case of the other parties above mentioned who are buying hay for the said Company shall bona-fide, prior to the date hereof, have made legal trades for hay in excess of eight dollars, then-
-then the punishment hereinbefore provided.
Mr. Speaker, you can hardly wonder at my asking what sort of a patriot this is. He says I am bleeding the farmers, this gentleman who binds them down hard and fast says that these contractors shall be punished if they pay the farmers more than eight dollars. It continues:
Then the punishment hereinbefore provided shall not apply in such case, and also, that in the case of any of the parties purchasing hay for the Company as aforesaid, shall be known hereafter to pay or offer to pay any farmer more than eight dollars for his hay, excepting in the case above mentioned where a bona-fide trade has previously been concluded, then upon proof of such paying or offering to pay.
there shall be the sum of twenty-five cents per ton deducted on all hay not actually paid for up to that date.
In plain language the contractor is not allowed to pay more than eight dollars to the farmer; apd if this contractor, who now is the Government contractor and upon whom I am imposing no strong conditions except that he shall not get more than $1 a ton profit, should under this agreement I have in my hands pay $8.40 to the farmers, say on two thousand tons, then he would be find $500 for doing it. All that I have to say on this matter has been said. I think it is a pretty sordid sort of tale and I do not want to touch on it any further. I have, I think, made a fair presentation of the department's point of view, and in disposing of this hay matter I repeat that the country owes a debt of gratitude to the officials of the department, who, night and day, in season and out of season, without an extra cent of pay, have for over a year tried to do the square thing by the country and by the War Office. As far as I am concerned I have been animated by no other motive. I have nothing to conceal, and I am willing to be judged on this whole matter by the speech I have made in the House here to-day. I do not want to discuss the matter further.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have not mucn more to add, and have indeed already taken up too much time; but in connection with such matters as have been discussed here during the last few days, I would like to point out that in the multifarious and complicated situations that war brings, especially to those democratic nations who are not organized for war, the constant pressure, the necessity of large and hasty industrial adjustments, place almost impossible burdens on the shoulders of governments. No government under such circumstances can avoid blunders and mistakes. The British Government is not immune, nor is it likely that the Government of a young country like this, which never had a thought of war in its heart before this outbreak occurred, could be^the millennium is not yet come.
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), who is not in his seat, referred to the heavy additional obligations that were placed on ministers. He made a graceful reference to the Prime Minister, and unquestionably this House and this country will recognize that never since Confederation has so heavy a load been placed on one man's shoulders as upon his, and they will also bear testimony that that burden has been borne and those duties discharged with unflagging devotion and conspicuous

ability. We shall agree also with the hon. membex for Pictou in his reference to the heavy additional work on the Minister of Militia, whose tremendous energy has been an inspiration in these trying days. To the Minister of Finance also such a tribute is due. Ministers holding that portfolio do not always get the full recognition that they might, possibly because the work involved does not make so obvious and forcible an appeal to the public as in other cases. But in the case of my hon. friend who now occupies that high office, (Sir Thomas White), we all abundantly recognize the tribute which the country owes to him for steering with such consummate ability the financial ship of state through the present troubled waters: The hon. member for Pictou thought other ministers did not have much to do. I suppose we can let that pass, though he probably did not intend that that should be taken very seriously. But I would like to add that not only in the case of ministers holding portfolios, but in the case of the three members of the Government without portfolios, and I refer to the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), to Senator Lougheed and to Sir George Perley, each one is doing as earnest, self-sacrificing and useful work as any of the members of the Administration.
I think it is due also to those very many departmental officers upon whom heavy burdens have been imposed, that a tribute should be paid to the spirit in which they are doing their bit, not minding much heavy and extra work and much longer hours than in times of peace.
What all countries want in such times is that their governments should earnestly strive night and day to prosecute this war to a successful conclusion, and if they do these mistakes and blunders will be forgiven, and in any case such mistakes and blunders will be judged by the people at the conclusion of the war.
There is a worse thing, however, than making mistakes, and that is to have a mind poisoned by the desire continually to criticise and carp, not for constructive but for destructive purposes. It was satirically said of the Republican party in the United States prior to the last election, that it was a party consecrated to keep in office. If it is bad to be consecrated to keep in office, it is equally bad to be consecrated to the task of trying to get into office.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has made a speech of between four and five hours in this House. He made a 
brief ten minutes' reference to the war. The whole of the rest of his time was taken up in a reckless discussion of scandals, or alleged scandals. I presume he is patriotic enough to want to win this war; but if one were to judge merely by the length of time that he has given to the respective subjects, one would be almost justified in saying that he was far more anxious to smash this Government than he was to smash the Germans. He spoke of the pain caused him by having to speak of all these dreadful things, and shed crocodile tears while suffering the acute distress of a manufactured anguish. The hon. member for Carleton has no doubt heard of Pecksniff, and I will refer him to a fresh study of his great prototype.
In view, however, of all that he has said and of my own already too long remarks, if he is inspired with any sense of manliness, he might well regret and deplore having made such reckless and baseless assertions as he did in this House on Tuesday evening last. I again apologise to the House, not only for taking the time, but for dealing with this subject as I have had to do. It is a task that I have hated and loathed. I am quite sure-and in this I am sure I shall have the concurrence of my hon. friend the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), who takes the larger view- that the country is sick of this intercalumniation at tins'time. There are bigger things and more vital things filling the thoughts and minds of the people, and I would not have touched on this subject had it not been forced upon me by the hon. member for Carleton.
My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, in his remarks in reference to the shadow of this great war in -which we are all resting, said that the shadow was even greater at the present time than when this House last met. I trust this is not so, and that, trying as the present condition of things is, there may be much behind the scenes that makes for a speedier and happier turn of events than we think. Not one of us can or must doubt the final achievement of victory, and to that event all our thoughts and energies should be turned.
There are very many other important questions that should be touched on in a time like this, some that my hon. friend from Pictou touched on in the close of his speech-questions of great importance to Canada after the war, such as land settlement, educational work, etc. It is the business of the Government, not only to

think of all these things, but to welcome the criticism and the suggestions of all our friends opposite, and of other people in the country who have helpful criticisms and suggestions to make, in order to enable us to do something more, something bigger in the way of constructive work for the country which we love.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to assure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) that 1 will not follow him upon the hay question, which apparently has been pressed and compressed and thrown into the troubled waters of this debate, and in which I might prove too poor a navigator. I will leave it to hon. members from the province of New Brunswick, to the electors of New Brunswick, and to an investigation if one is to be held, to decide.
I shall allude to one or two other points of the hon. minister's remarks, before he disobeyed a teaching of Shakespeare and tore passion to tatters. I thoroughly agree with the hon. gentleman in the patriotic utterances with which he opened his speech. I subscribe to all the sentiments of patriotism that have been given expression to by the right hon. the leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) and by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). It seems to me that the very enjoyment of our constitutional rights and of our free institutions in this autonomous country, is sufficient cause to force every citizen of Canada, no matter what may be his origin or his creed, to be loyal to the authority which makes that constitution and that freedom secure: the King of England, and the flag of the Empire. We recognize that without the security of the throne and the flag, while we are a country of great area and small population we would be wholly dependent on the good will of the greater nations, and liable at any time to have the same treatment meted out to us as Belgium suffered under at the hands of .Germany, and as Serbia received at the hands of Austria. If we are loyal to our constitution we shall aid to the utmost of our power in maintaining our status as Canadian subjects of the King. That, I conceive to be the duty of every hon. gentleman in this House and of every citizen of Canada. Therefore bearing that in mind, we. as members of the Opposition, readily asented to the war measures introduced by the hon. gentleman who leads the 'Government.
But, Sir, before I begin to discuss what I conceive to be our other duties besides those that rest upon us as members of the family of dominions which make up this Empire-our duties respecting the domestic affairs of this country to the electors of Canada-I should like to deal with one particular matter, and that is, the purchase of two submarines by tliis Government, through the good offices of the British Columbia Government, and of Sir Richard McBride. I think the Minister of Agriculture misapprehends our criticism on this transaction. Our complaint is not that he purchased vessels, but rather that he paid too much for obsolete vessels. 1 for one should feel quite disposed to congratulate the hon. gentleman upon the exercise of his judgment in saying to Sir Richard McBride-if he did say it to him- that he had done well to purchase these two vessels. He told us in this House, that at the moment this country was in critical danger, when our coasts were imperilled toy the enemy, his very first thought, and the very first thought, of the people of British Columbia, was, not to cable money over to Great Britain, but to take refuge under the Naval Service Act passed by the late Liberal Government of Canada, and purchase where they could, how they could, and for no matter what amount, the necessary submarines. Why, Sir, the hon. gentleman is one of those who, prior to 1911, denounced the Liberal party as disloyal because we ventured, ir the exercise of our judgment, to pass legislation to permit the purchase of war vessels, submarines included, for the defence of the coast of Canada, and for the help of England in the hour of her peril. You will remember, Mr- Speaker, what the attitude of the Liberal party was prior to 1911. You will remember that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition and his friends went to the province of Quebec and throughout the Dominion of Canada, and said to the people we will be ready to pay when it becomes necesary to pay; we will be ready to give our assent, as under our constitution we must, to our young men going to fight the battles of the Empire if they so desire; but at the present moment we deem it essential to inaugurate a system by which this country shall first be protected. What was the language of my hon. friend the Minister o Agriculture in referring to this point? 1 quote from Hansard:
I know what the condition of things in Victoria and Vancouver was at that time, and I know



how seriously alarmed the people were. It was a matter not only of possibility, hut of probability that the German fleet on the Pacific were liable at any time to steam in and shell the two cities of Victoria and Vancouver.
And you remember that, prior to the election of 1911, the Conservative party, having joined hands with the Nationalist party of the province of Quebec, went about this country declaring that should
5 p.m. this country be in peril they would appeal to the British navy which owed us protection. But the Minister of Agriculture told us that the very moment he saw that the province of British Columbia was in danger, he set about purchasing submarines-
Mr. Pugsley, the hon. member for St. John, then interjected:
They had a Japanese cruiser there?
I want you, -Sir, to mark these words:
Mr. Burrell:	The only thing that saved the
western coast from a possibility of the kind that I have described wasnot the British navy and not the Japanese cruiser-
-was the presence of the submarines that we purchased at that time.
What is the inference? The inference is that if this Government had not dismantled the Niobe and the Rainbow and had left them in operation, as they brought them into action later on, they would not have had to purchase those two submarines which they got from the Chilian Government, and would not have had to pay for them such an enormous price. The hon. member for. Pictou ventured this further remark:
Mr. Macdonald: There were no guns on them.
Mr. Murphy:	And no torpedoes.
Who ever heard of the purchase of submarines for immediate action, at a moment when the Empire was in danger, at a moment when Canada was in danger, without torpedoes, or the machinery necessary to fire the torpedoes? Is that the way the Pacific coast was to be protected? Is that the way our Atlantic coast would be protected? The* Minister of Agriculture gives this answer:
It was not very long before torpodoes were put on these boats.
Not very long, Sir, but it was imperative, at the very moment that the submarines were purchased, to purchase them, so as to prevent an attack by German battleships. The Minister said that the Japanese
lUr. Berlin.]
cruiser did not protect the Pacific coast, but that the twb submarines did it. Then, how did they protect the coast? Going out without armament or torpedoes, as we might send out two of the barges that lie in the Ottawa river, to protect the coast of British Columbia? He goes on to say:
But the fact that it was known that these submarines were in the possession of the authorities at Esquimalt did more to assure the safety of these two coast cities than anything else that possibly could be done.
Imagine the Kaiser's navy being afraid of two little submarines! Imagine the Minister of Agriculture asking us, in this deliberative assembly, to believe seriously that because he purchased two submarines, unfit for action, at an exorbitant price, he put the fear of the Lord into the Kaiser and his navy, and protected the Dominion of Canada ! May I leave it at that, Sir?
The Minister of Agriculture, in opening his remarks, said, and apparently rightly, that it was the duty of the Opposition to criticise, that he for one welcomed criticism, and that the Government should expect criticism. You will note, however, the tone in which he answered the criticism. I do not want to enter into any personalities, and therefore will not allude to it. But I do propose, in the discharge of my duties as a member of the Opposition, to offer some criticism of the Government before I take rriy seat. This, under ordinary circumstances, would be the last session of this Parliament. Hon. gentlemen opposite would naturally go before the electors and tell them what they have done as nation builders in laying the foundation for future wealth in this country, because wealth will not come through inertia. What has the Government done for the future prosperity, for the future wealth of this country? The Government has done absolutely nothing except to rely upon the patience of the Canadian people in increasing by every means possible their taxes; and upon the credit of the country in effecting loans to cover, in great part, their extravagant expenditure, which to-day is a by word throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion. The best service we can do to the people of Canada at the present moment is to keep the keenest watch upon the way that the people's money is spent and to watch these blunders and this extravagance that the Minister of Agriculture informed us this Government was liable to on account of the war. The people have willingly and patriotically given their

assent to. the levying of the funds necessary to carry on Canada's share in this worldwide war; but the people will hold their representatives responsible for any failure in controlling or condemning looting and speculation in the administration. Every dollar that has been voted for war purposes must reach the channels of war, or be saved to the people of Canada. The people of Canada fully realize that the members of the Opposition have gone far in supporting the Government in their war measures and will go further; but the people of Canada must also realize that in the expenditure of that money not even my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), whose whole life has been one of unselfish and unswerving devotion to Canada and to the Empire, has been consulted. What is our position in Canada? We are borrowing; we are taxing the people of Canada. The Government informs us, through the Minister of Finance, that it is absolutely necessary to raise money by way of borrowing and by way of taxation. We have been told that there are two ways to meet the Canadian financial situation. The Minister of Finance, in a very able address in the city of Toronto before the Board of Trade, dealing with that particular subject of how we shall face the financial situation, used these words:
Well, I am old-fashioned. I do not know any other way for Canada to become a lending country and to save more money than to produce more and save more. I do not know any way whereby an individual can save money and have it for investment except the old fashioned mode of living within his income and his profits to the extent that he can.
The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, when in Opposition, constantly laid down the principle that the only way that a wise and economic Government could act in dealing with the financial situation of the country was to control the public expenditures; and, he added, a second way is by seeing that the trade balance, instead of being against the country, should be favourable to it.
We believe that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce was quite serious in the advice that he gave, otherwise I might feel tempted to apply a criticism to him that has been applied to others in other places, and say,
Though fraught with all learning, yet straining his throat
To persuade Tommy Townsend to lend him a vote.
22*
What is our condition in Canada? I do not think I could put it better than it was put in the Toronto Globe some time ago, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall quote from the Globe. The article is ' entitled-I beg the Government's pardon for giving the title-" Have spent money like a drunken sailor."
As the people of Canada begin to understand that the heavy burden of the new taxation' is not imposed to pay the Dominion's war bill, but to meet a huge deficit in the ordinary expenditure of the country, a feeling of amaze ment spreads throughout all classes of the community.
The ordinary expenditure during the last four years of the Laurier government was, in 1908, $76,641,000; 1909, $84,064,000; 1910, $79,411,000 ; 1911 $87,740,000. The Borden government came in during October, 1911, and became responsible for the expenditures of the year ending March, 1912, which were $98,161,000. These expenditures were based in some measure on Mr. Fielding's figures, so that responsability may be said to rest on both parties for 1912. In 1913 the expenditure on consolidated revenue account went up $112,059,000, in 1914 to $127,384,000, and for the current year ending March 31, 1915, Mr. White says it will be $140,000,000. For the year ending March, 1916, he estimates that it will be the same amount.
Now what does this mean to the taxpayer? Setting aside all war expenditures and all expenditures on capital account, the Borden government, less than four years in office, has increased the cost of operating the ordinary services of the country and of paying interest on the country's debt from $87,774,000 to $140,000,000. Assuming that there are now eight and a half million people in Canada, this means additional expenditure of $6.14 for every man, woman and child in the Dominion.
In the year ending March, 1911, the country's revenue from taxes was $89,835,000. In 1914 it was $127,478,000. In the current year ending March 31 there will be a great falling-off in customs revenue, and as a result an enormous increase in the public debt. In the year ending March, 1916, the people of Canada will have to contribute in taxes at least $140,000,000 if they are to pay their ordinary current expenditure, apart entirely from the cost of the war.
The government of Canada has been spending money like a drunken sailor, and now the people must pay for the debauch. They will have to keep on paying long after the present generation has ceased to bother about taxes. The year the Laurier government came into power the interest on the public debt was $10,645,000. When it went out fifteen years afterwards it was $12,535,000. Mr. White tells us that in the year ending March, 1916, it will be $21,000,000. Before such figures is it to be wondered at that the country stands amazed?
Now what is the solution which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance offers in regard to that situation? He says: "borrow money and raise taxes," and I suppose he implies that our income will increase, and that we must live on that income. His

words, uttered in this House at the last session of Parliament, were:
It is therefore the intention of the Government to negotiate for a continuance of the arrangement which I have mentioned with the Imperial Government for the purpose of procuring the funds necessary to meet our spec.ul war expenditure. . .
It is not a question of raising a few millions by stamp taxes, by income tax or other minor means of supplementing revenue. We must endeavour to raise additional revenue to an amount of at least thirty million dollars, and when we have accomplished this we shall still be obliged to borrow heavily over the next fourteen months, that is to say, between now and March 31, 1916, to meet expenditure for purposes other than for war.
I have a very great respect, I may say, for the Minister of Finance, and I fully realize the difficult position in which he has been placed since the beginning of the war. I sympathize with him, perhaps, on account of the very humiliating position in which the Government placed him when they sent him to New York to borrow $45,000,000. I have not very strong feelings as to where we get the money, provided we get it; as to where we get our trade, provided we have it; as to where we sell our goods, provided we sell them. But, just prior to the election of 1911 I had almost become-how shall I put it?-I had almost become convinced after listening to the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite, and who were then in Opposition (my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was not among them at that time, that is why I presume he was chosen to go to New York) that we must have no trade or truck with the American people. Up to that time I had thought the Americans were a very fine people. I make a point of visiting the United States at least once a year, and there are some things in their institutions one cannot yet admire; yet there are many things to admire, and one is the great progress the United States has made commercially and financially. Hon. gentlemen opposite told us that it was disloyal to have any trade or truck with the American people. I did not much believe in this lip-loyalty, but in my own humble and modest way I did want to be loyal to the institutions of my country, and of the Empire. Hon. gentlemen opposite said it was disloyal to deal with the American people, but how much more disloyal must it be to go begging to the American people for money to carry on the business of this country. The day I saw the Minister of Finance starting down to the station to buy his ticket for New York, carrying that carpet handbag which had been'bequeathed to him by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce 
-the same carpet bag which my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce had used in his former trips to Washington-I felt that his position was a painful one, and I have wondered how he explained it to the American people. I suppose he said: "I was not in the House at the time they were saying it would be disloyal to trade with you; I need money now; I have become converted to other ideas;
I will pay a higher rate of interest than any one else; will you lend us a little? I congratulated him when I saw him come back with $45,000,000 in his pocket. He will be back again. I put this question to my hon. friends opposite: What are you going to say to youx loyal constituents that you deceived the people? Prior to 1911 you taught them that we must have no trade or truck with the people of the United States. What did the Finance Minister do with that $45,000,000? He told us, in his Budgot speech last year, that he required the money to fill the gap between revenue and expenditure. Here are his words:
It is obv'ous upon consideration of the figures which I have submitted that we shall not, by any reasonable supplemental taxation measures, be able to close the gap between revenue and expenditure, much less to pay a portion of the principal of our special war outlays.
But, what about those taxes imposed in the Inland Revenue Department? What about the increased postage on our letters? How did we get that deficit in the Post Office Department this year of some $3,000,000? Where has the money gone that was received for the stamps? We pointed out that the stamps would go to pay no part of the war expenditures, but the minister assured the country that not only had they to impose special taxation but they had to go and beg of the American people to loan them $45,000,000 to fill the gap between the revenue and their expenditure. Now, Sir, may I be permitted to offer a word of advice to the Government at this moment? The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) says we must live within our revenue. I can conceive the scene around the Treasury Board when my hon. friend repeated that advice to his colleagues, and when he said to them: We are practically financially bankrupt; you have been spending, according to the Toronto Globe, like a drunken sailor. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) says: We need the money, we have to give the boys the buildings they want. The Minister of

Finance says: I cannot possibly give you any more money; I have not got it. The Minister of Public Works says: We must have that money. His friends upon the other side of the House insisted upon getting the luxuries to which they were accustomed before the war. Then what did the Minister of Finance do? He appealed to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden)-he will correct me if I am wrong-and said to him: Can you not help me to control my colleagues? They are accustomed to all the luxuries; we had heaps of money when we came into office because the country was prosperous and the Liberal Government had left the coffers full, but we have spent the money and we have no more. The Prime Minister shrugged his shoulders, looked more bothered than usual and said: What can I do; I am not the Finance Minister? The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) apparently needed more money to purchase hay. These hon. gentlemen around the treasury board called out as one man: Mr. White, take up your carpet bag and go back and get more money from the American people. But he said: I cannot go back to the American people; it is too humiliating a position. Where will you go? they asked. He said: I will go to the Canadian people, and he went to the Canadian people and borrowed more money. What does Sir Edward Walker, President of the Bank of Commerce and chief financial adviser to the Borden Government, say about all this borrowing? I am not objecting to the borrowing of money for war purposes; I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am as ready as any man in this House to vote every dollar necessary to carry on this war to a successful issue, but what I do complain of is the way that the money, apparently required for war purposes, is being spent by the Cabinet to help their friends and supply them with the luxuries which they had been accustomed to since 1911. What does Sir Edmund Walker say?'
In the years to come we shall be bending our backs to a taxation, such as .in this country, Which has bem singularly free of taxation, we have never known before and so also will our children for generations to come.
It is apparent that the Minister of Finance, do what he would, work as hard as he could, and I admit that he has worked hard, has been unable to live up to the doctrines that he was advocating in the city of Toronto of living within his income. He has signally failed in that and now he is
appealing to the Minister of Trade and Commerce foT a solution which brings me to the second point of the remarks which I propose to offer to the House in that fair criticism that the Minister of Agriculture said the Government invited us to make. In fairness to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I want to quote his words from Hansard, 1910-1911, and which may be found at page 6604. I commend them most earnestly to hon. gentlemen opposite who are constantly asking for buildings in their constituencies which are absolutely of no use to the public serviee. Here are his words:
Now, ought there not to be a check on expenditure?
I appeal to my hon. friend from Rouville (Mt. Lemieux) to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfridi Laurier), to my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and to other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House-can you not almost imagine that you hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce crying out a "check upon expenditures"? Then he asks:
Here you have, for instance, millions of dollars being spent every year for the construction of public buildings, and on what principle is this money spent? There is no proper principle upon which it should he spent but one! Build a public building because the public service needs it and cannot be properly carried on without it.
Let us apply that doctrine to the history of our, hon. friends opposite since they assumed power. Erect a public building because the public service needs it and cannot be properly carried on without it! Did , the public service absolutely need, and could it not be properly carried on, without expending $50,000, as per the estimates of 1914-15-war time-at Amherst for a post office and $70,000 for a drill hall when the total population of Amherst, single, married, widowed, divorced and legally separated, was 8,973? Did the, public service at Bear river call for a public building costing $4,000 when the population, by the census of 1911, is simply 589? Did the public service demand that Bridgetown should have a post office costing $4,000 when the population was Simply 996?
Does the public service of Canada demand that at Dunnville (Haldimand county) which, according to the census of 1911 had a population of 2,861, there should be erected a public building at a cost of $20,000; or * that there should be erected at Elmira (Waterloo North), with a population of 1,782, a public building costing $37,000? In

order that the public service may be efficiently carried on, is it necessary that we should spend the sum of $5,000 at Gore Bay (Algoma), which in 1901 had a population of 723, and in 1911 a population of only 703.


Mr. SMYTHE:: When was that spent?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That amount was in the
estimates of 1914-15, and has not been withdrawn yet.


William Ross Smyth: You said it had been
spent.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will my hon. friend guarantee that it will not be spent?


William Ross Smyth: I will give no such guarantee, it should be spent.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: 
Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: When you left the Chair at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, was proceeding to show that the advice given to us by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) was that in order to make this country's affairs prosperous and to regulate its finances it was essential to prevent an adverse balance of trade. In the session of 1910-11, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking in this House, used this language:
I find in connection with the United Kingdom that our favourable balance of trade is $44,146,518. That looks good, but it is not as good as it ought to be. When we come to the United States of America, what do we find? We find that last year we imported from the United States $217,500,000 worth, that we sold to tnem $104,000,000 worth in round figures, and that there was an adverse balance against us of $113,000,000 odd.
His conclusion was that the sooner we could remedy that and the more completely we could remedy it the better. Now, I wish to call your attention to the way in which the present Government, on coming into power, proceeded to remedy this condition of affairs. Take our trade with the United States as an example. The Minister of Trade and Commerce complained that it was a bad thing for us to purchase $217,000,000 worth of goods from the United States; in fact, if my recollection is right,

that was the theory generally accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite, and apparently accepted at that time by the majority of the electors-that it was a bad thing to trade at all with the United States. The reports which we have in hand show us that in 1912, after these hon. gentlemen got into office, we imported from the United States goods to the value, not of $217,000,000, as in the previous year, but to the value of $330,000,000. In 1913, we purchased from the United States goods to the value of $435,000,000, and in 1914, of $395,000,000. At the same time our exports to the United States were:	In 1912,	$102,000,000; in 1913,
$139,000,000, and in 1914,	$163,000,000.
Now, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce was sincere in believing that an adverse balance of trade was a bad thing and should be remedied, he must have believed that when he and his friends came into power they could so control trade that this adverse balance would quickly be righted. In fairness to hon. gentlemen opposite-and I wish to be fair in my criticism-I must admit that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, following out the theories which he advocated, sought channels of commerce othefr than those which seemed to be bringing to Canada no very great wealth, and so he went off to China. Believing, as he did, that it was a bad thing to trade with the United States, and being unable to trade wholly with British countries, he felt that he had to seek other countries with which to trade. He succeeded fairly well in China, and on his return he gave this House a fair description of his travels; he told us that he had exacted of certain agents of the Government there that they should learn as much as possible of the Chinese language, and incidentally had prepared the ground for some trade with China. Being of a curious turn of mind at times, I have looked up the trade reports for this country, and I find that this has been the result of the hon. gentleman's mission to China: For the fiscal year ended 31st March, 1914, we sold to China $473,000 worth of goods and we bought from China over $1,000,000 worth. The net result of that trip to China by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was to convince the people of China that this was a great country to sell to and a poor country to buy from, and so he succeeded in establishing an adverse trade balance in our commerce with China.
1 What is our aggregate trade; how has 
that gone on under this noble theory that w7e must not have an adverse trade balance? In 1913, the total exports from Canada were $393,000,000, and the total imports, $692,000,000. There we had an adverse balance of trade under these same . hon. gentlemen of about $298,000,900. In 1914, we exported $478,000,000, and imported $650,000,000, an adverse balance of trade of $171,000,000. In 1915, our imports were $629,000,000, and we sold abroad $490,000,000, leaving a trade balance against Canada of $138,000,000. I appeal to the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), for whom I have the greatest personal regard, to take his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce into his confidence, have that hon. gentleman step aside, and assure him that when he preached that it was a bad thing to establish an adverse trade balance he was apparently preaching something that he did not know anything at all about.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance might answer me at once and say: Have you looked over the figures of this year? I presume the hon. Minister of Finance will deal with that in the Budget speech which he will deliver in a few days. But I wish to call his attention to the fact that this year is not a year that might stand out as an example in Canada. Conditions are such, because of the war, that we cannot claim that our trade has been upon a basis upon which it will rest in the future. But we have the United States alongside of us; they are not at war; and while Canada under the present Government has gone on increasing its adverse balance of trade, we find that the American people have established the greatest financial trade in the history of their country.
And what is it? The American exports increased 70 per cent in 1915 and reached a total of three and a half billions, breaking all previous records. The figures of the Department of Commerce to-day show that heavy exports and declining imports together set a new American trade balance record at $1,772,000,000. The imports were the smallest since 1912. The country's total foreign trade, exports and imports, passed the five billion dollar mark during the year, each month showing heavier exports, until December's reached $350,000,000, a trade balance of close to $2,000,000,000 was five times greater than that in 1914, when it stopped at $324,000,000.
Compare that with ours. In 1912 our adverse trade balance was $225,000,000. In 1914, when hon. gentlemen opposite had had

three years to work out their theory, the [DOT] adverse balance of trade was $180,000,000.
In the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite agriculture, which is a basic industry of Canada, has been sacrificed to manufactures. To prove this contention I desire to cite the exports of agriculture and manufacture from Canada in the years 1913, 1914, and 1915. The figures are as follows:
1913.
Agricultural produce . . Manufactures	
. .$196,134,043
52,212,592
Excess agriculture over manufactures	
1914.
Agricultural produce	
Manufactures. . . .' ..

Excess agriculture over manufactures		$ 83,212,006
1915.	'
Agricultural produce	$193,543,711
Manufactures	137,702,849
Excess agriculture over manufactures			$ 55,840,862
In 1913 the excess of our agricultural exports over exports of manufactured goods amounted to $143,000,000; whereas, for the year ending November, 1915, our exports of agricultural pro'ducts exceeded our exports of manufactured products by only $55,000,000
What conclusion can we draw from this?
I draw a conclusion which, I feel, must appeal to the people of this country, in view of the fact that the war must, of necessity, cease some time. The agriculture of this country forms two-thirds of the basic wealth of Canada. Manufactures help to a certain degree, to a very large degree, but the farmers, before everybody else, produce the wealth of which we have been so proud in this country. Hon. gentlemen opposite-and I appeal to them very seriously at the present moment should see to it that whilst the manufacturers are protected, whilst railways are protected by way of subsidies, the farmers of this country should not remain the only unprotected class of people in Canada. If we expect from the farmers the wealth that will be necessary to carry on the affairs of this country- we must, in turn, protect the farmers. This year's figures which I have just put to the House show that exports of manufactured goods have been on the increase, and that agricultural exports have slightly increased. We must not forget for one moment the fact, which is apparent to every hon. member, that, with our agricultural products, at the present moment we are helping to feed millions of men who are now fighting the battles of the Empire and
of the allied countries; and that the very moment the war ceases these exports of agricultural products ,must, of necessity, cease, because the Governments which are to-day purchasing our agricultural products will not then require them to the same degree. Whilst our exports of manufactured products have increased this also has been due entirely to the conditions brought on by the war. We have exported this year shrapnel, we have exported shells, we have exported ammunition-practically everything that is required by the armies on the other side. The moment the war ceases we will cease exporting anything in the nature of the ammunition, or at least very little.
In thus urging the Government to be careful how they face the problems of the future,
1 want to tell them that, whilst the farmers of this country have much to fear through the actions, or lack of action, of the present Government, the manufacturers of this country certainly also have very much to fear because this Government is so tiding them at the present moment to increase this output in the way of war munitions, whilst at the same time following out the main plank in the policy of the Conservative party, as I think every hon. gentleman opposite will admit, whilst following out their theory of offering every possible protection to manufacturers in the way of an increase in the customs duties. In order to prove what I have just advanced relative to the ccondition of our manufactures owing to the war, I want to quote an item which I find in the Labour Gazette, a newspaper published by this Government:
Exceptionally active conditions prevailed throughout the year in the large iron and steel works at Sydney and Sydney Mines, and also in similar industries in Quebec and Ontario. Practically all foundry and machine shops in the country were .busy in the manufacture of munitions, and large orders for cottons, woollens, clothing, leather and other goods used in military equipment kept establishments handling these lines in the main industrial centres of the Dominion very busy. The steel plant at Sault Ste. Marie was also very active during the year.
We therefore have it announced in this mouthpiece of the Government, the very reason why we have an increase in the export of manufactured goods. The Minister of Finance, I know, will agree that the increased exportation of agricultural products is entirely due to the war, so that this year is not a year upon which my hon. friends opposite can claim to have found a new system by which they have lessened this

adverse balance of trade against Canada. They must of necessity appeal to normal conditions, to the conditions which existed in this country prior to the war, in 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1914; and I claim that the Government has signally failed in that respect to meet the conditions which confront Canada. The Financial Post of Toronto, of January 22, had a very significant article entitled, " Business outlook after the war.'' I will not quote the whole of the article, but for the purposes of my argument I read:
Whether or not in the readjustment Canadian manufacturers will be able to obtain business to replace in volume that of making war materials is a problem which the future can best solve, but it would appear conclusive that Canada's best hope will be large agricultural products. Along this line the directors of the Banque d'Hochelaga emphasize the necessity for increased population to offset the lowering of prices when the war ends. The report, after advising caution on the grounds that the present war prosperity is not healthy nor likely to be permanent, continues :
The annual report of the Banque d' Hochelaga contains this statement:
" One may assume that, at the end of the war, Europe impoverished and weakened, anxious to recover and to get back its economic situation, will endeavour firstly to provision itselftin greater measure at home, and then at prices' as advantageous as possible. It will therefore be necessary for us to see to it that we regain by increased production what is lost through the lowering of prices. To this end, the increase in our population by the colonization of our vast territories, the improvement in methods of agriculture and a special attention on the part of our farmers to the raising of live stock must remain from a material point of view, our greatest natural aim."
When I say, Sir, that it is the duty of the Government to show the people of tips country that they have some policy in view by which they hope to meet conditions after the war, I am simply asking the Government, in the name of the people whom I represent, and of a good many people in this country, to give an indication of how they expect to meet the conditions the moment war ceases.
I shall refer for a moment to the Shell Committee, which has been prominently discussed during this debate, and in that connection I do not intend to make allusion to any particular person, or persons. We have heard it -said that there is a general demand for an investigation into the operations of the defunct Shell Committee. That demand has come from hon. members in this House, and apparently the feeling is general throughout Canada.
It is not confined to those of the political

. faith to which I belong; it has also come from Conservative sources. My hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy) quoted from the Electrical News in the course of his speech, and I shall cite from the same paper, an article written by a gentleman who said he preferred the Borden Government with all its fault to the Liberal Administration. The article says:
The Shell Committee was appointed by the Government, was representative of the lortrn-ment and consequently representative of Canada. In so far as our dealings with the British Munitions Board is concerned that committee was Canada. And in this great war, which Lloyd George has said is a war of munitions rather than men, shall it be said that when the Empire, called for 'aid, when the brave men in the trenches shouted for munitions, Canada rushed to their aid with $1 worth of shell in one hand while the other was held out for $5.15? Shall it be said that while we ere wont to twit the United Statesers witn their fondness for the dollar our own country has outdone them in the hour of the Empire's peril? It is unjust that Canada should be allowed to rest under any such stigna; it is unjust that the manufacturing members of the Shell Committee should be retired under suspicion of having placed such stigna on their native land. In justice to those men and to justice to Canada the shell contracts and the Shell Committee should be given the fullest and most searching investigation.
Yesterday the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick, acting upon his responsibility as a member of this House, brought very serious charges against the Shell. Committee. These charges were of such a nature that, it seems to me, the Government, for its own honour, to preserve its dignity, and for the honour and dignity of the people of Canada, should at once grant an investigation. I .am not always governed by what appears in newspapers, Grit or Tory, but the Montreal Star, which professes to be a strong adherent of this Government, and which has been a very staunch supporter of my hon. friends opposite, on the 26th of this month, editorially used this language:
It must be increasingly apparent to every well-wisher of the Government that a public and complete investigation into tn>
wc-k of the late Shell Committee and other wvr purchases cannot be denied. If the consent of the British War omce must be secured to legaliz; such an inquiry, then it should be asked for by a unanimous Canadian Parliament. Too much has been charged to enable public opinion in this country-deadly in earnest as it is in its determination to win the war-to sit down in patient ignorance as to the real facts of the case.
The charges are far too serious-cn s questions at issue far too vital. The finest young men in Canada are giving their lives to defend the Empire and the fixed principles of lib [DOT]. fy and honour for which it stands before humanity and history. If, while these noble young men

have been going out of our homes to die " somewhere in France " ghouls in human shape have emerged from homes of similar outward appearance next-door to pad their pocket books with unfair and unearned profits on the arming and equipping of these young men, then +he whole country wants to know it-and to know them- and to know what the Government proposes to do to them.
Every dollar taken unfairly from the money which this nation has to spend in self-defence, is like striking up a rifle aimed at a German. Worse still, it may even be disarming a Canadian lad in the face of a German charge. The whole business must be searched through and through with the vivid light of patriotism and publicity. If the moneys we are literally sweating out of ourselves to save freedom and the flag, are being diverted into traitorous pockets, then there are far worse Germans in Canada than those whom we have interned. .
That is very strong language, but it is not as strong as that which was used by the Right Hon. Lloyd George, who, speaking in , the British House of Commons last July, said that on account of the very high prices demanded for war munitions in some quarters, delay was caused and in consequence a great deal of sacrifice resulted on the battlefield in France. Where are those quarters? Is Canada one of the quarters to which Mr. Lloyd George referred? The Canadian people are asking that question to-day. What is the reason that is prompting the Canadian Government to refuse this investigation? The Minister of Militia, discussing this subject yesterday, spoke very bravely, according to his view, when he said:
For a double reason, therefore, I do not see that t is the function of this House specially to inquire into any of the transactions in connect o i with that committee-
That is a question that I will come to in a moment.
-although I should be more than pleased, so far as I am able, to give all the elucidation of the facts, and all the enlightenment as to them which it is possible for me to give.
Hon. gentlemen opposite will say, and I thoroughly agree with them, that the Minister of Militia is a man of such mettle as to stand up in $his House and say in effect:
I am one man in this Cabinet and I will give all the information I have. Then, I ask the other members of the Cabinet: Why is it you do not hold an investigation and give the Minister of Militia a chance to give to the people of Canada all the information which he has in his possession? The only answer given so far is the answer given by my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). The Solicitor General is a very keen reasoner; he has a very nimble political conscience, and, he satisfied himself and apparently satisfied the leader of the Government when he said: The Shell Committee is a creature of the Imperial Government; the Shell Committee is responsible to the Imperial Government; the Shell Committee communicates directly with the Imperial Government, and therefore, this Government has absolutely no jurisdiction over it. Has this Parliament no jurisdiction over the actions of the Shell Committee which was dealing with persons and property in this country? Have you ever heard of any man in Canada who could state a fallacy better than the Soiicior General and build up an argument upon it just as if it were a truism? He said he was not going to speak for the Shell Committee, although he made as able a defence of it as he knew how, but that he was going to speak in the name of the Government and give the reasons why there should be no investigation. He started out by saying:
I do not know that it is a matter that requires much elucidation that the prices should at first have been higher in Canada than in the United States. It may be that the prices were higher than the conditions warranted; I am not an expert, and I do not know.
Mr. Lloyd George, on the other hand, said in the British House of Commons that on account of the prices being higher there was some sacrifice on the part of the Allied armies. This is, of course, a matter of indifference to the Solicitor General because it has nothing to do with the legal phase of the case. He proceeds to say:
I have said that I have no knowledge that he (the Minister of Militia) was a member, and I would like my hon. friend to get the names of the respective committees and show that the Minister of Militia was a member. The committee, however constituted, and whatever its personnel, was, from the time of its institution, a committee acting under the authority of the Imperial Government.
This country is innocent, this House must be innocent, to believe that the Solicitor General did not know who were the members of the Shell Committee, and did not even know that the Minister of Militia was a member of that committee. He concludes his argument, and this is what I deem to be the best portion of it, with these words:
If we have the right to review part of the moneys that are payable to the Imperial Government we have the right to review all the expenditures in which .we are interested. We are interested in the same degree in the money paid by the Imperial Government in the United States as in the- money paid in Canada. We have to pay some part of that, and we have to pay some part of the, money that has been

spent in Japan, and in Great Britain itself, and if there is a duty upon the Parliament of Canada to investigate the expenditure of Imperial moneys for the munitions of Canada, the same duty must apply to all the moneys in which we are interested expended by the Imperial authorities.
Are we interested in the money spent in Japan? If we are, we recognize that this Government, in the exercise if its plenary powers, has no jurisdiction over Japan. Everybody knows that. The Solicitor General stiys that we would have jurisdiction over the money spent in Japan if this Government had jurisdiction over the money that has been spent in this country and given to persons under- the control of this Government.
The Minister of Finance, speaking in Toronto, gave us a further inkling into what was being done in connection with financing the contracts entered into iby the Shell Committee. Here is the language he used when speaking to the Toronto Board ,of Trade:
Now in addition to that the Finance Department has advanced to the Imperial Treasury, in order to make payment for commitments of the Shell Committee in Canada, no less a sum than 63 million dollars.
That 63 million dollars has been repaid to Canada from time to time by the Imperial Treasury. But this is the point to which I want to call your attention. How has it been paid?
I had a statement from my deputy this morning in which he states that it has been paid by gold to the extent of many millions of dollars. In fact to the extent of 15 million dollars actually shipped in to the Finance Department. That is one reason why Canada has more gold to-day than she had when the war broke out, in liquidation for advances made to the Imperial Treasury for the purpose of financing the Shell Committee.
In addition to that, payment has been made by exchange operations, on which there would be a heavy discount, running from 3 to 5 per cent, amounting to over 20 million . dollars.
And he proceeds with his very a-ble speech. However, he tells us, and this I want to lay down as one of the premises of my argument, that the money of Canada, over which this Government have absolute control, was expended in payment of contracts entered into by the Shell Committee. We have at least jurisdiction over the money that this Government expends; hon. gentlemen opposite will admit that. Whether that money is paid by way of advances, or by way of loans, or otherwise, the moment the money of Canada has been paid this Parliament has jurisdiction over the expenditure.
I think hon. gentlemen who are just will admit that. My hon. friend the member for

St. John (Mr. Pugsley), on the 13th day of April, 1915, asked a question of the Minister of Militia in regard to the following article which appeared in the Ottawa Free Press of the previous day:
Revelations of war purchases on boots, bandages, binoculars and bad horses apparently have crossed the Atlantic.
It looks as if the British Government had begun to sit up and take notice. Soon after the opening of the war the British Government entrusted the Canadian Government with the purchasing of some war supplies in Canada for the use of the British and allied forces. The British Government was to pay the bills.
It is understood that within the last few days the War Office or the British Government has cancelled the buying commissions which it gave to the Canadian Government.
This does not mean an end to the purchase of supplies in Canada by the British Government, as War Office buyers are on their way to Canada and the United States, and hereafter the British Government will deal direct with producers and manufacturers on this continent without the intervention of Ottawa.
My hon. friend from St. John based a question on that article, the purpose of which I take to be that up to date the Canadian Government alone had full control of these purchases, that they had been purchasing for the Imperial Government, if you will, but that it was the intention of the Imperial Government to deal directly with manufacturers in Canada without the intervention of Ottawa. My hon. friend from St. John proceeded to say:
I ask the Minister of Militia if the Government has received notice from the British War Office that they are sending their agents to the United States and Canada for the purpose of making purchases direct from the manufacturers, and are not to continue making them through my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and others who have been appointed by him?
Major General Hughes:	The hon. gentleman
asks me a question concerning the Department of Militia, and I am in the happy position of being able to answer him. There is not a word of truth in that article, so far as the Department of Militia is concerned. So far as the Government is concerned the Prime Minister is the proper gentleman to ask.
Sir Robert Borden:	The statements in the
article are absolutely without foundation, so far as I am aware. On the contrary, I know that within the past four or five days the British Government have asked the Canadian Government to act in respect of the procuring of a large amount of supplies in Canada for the War Office.
So that it would appear that up to this date the British Government had absolutely no agents in this country for the purchase of war supplies. I take it that the British Government had asked the 'Canadian Government to act in the matter, and that the Canadian Government would appoint

their agents to purchase any supplies that might be required by the War Office and could be got in Canada. In corroboration of my statement that the British Government had no agents in this country at that time, I refer to a question asked in the British House of Commons on the 15th of March, just exactly one month before the hon. member for St. John asked his question in this House. Mr. MacVeagh, a member of the British House, asked the Undersecretary of State for War:
Whether the contracts being placed in Canada and the United States, are being placed by special agents, and if so, what is their commercial experience; whether the remuneration is by salary or commission, and if so. how much; and whether the co-operation of the Canadian Government has been invited?
Mr. Baker, who was then Financial Secretary to the War Office, replied:
Messrs. J. P. Morgan & Company, of New York, who are in close touch with all the American markets, have been appointed commercial agents to the Government for the purpose of placing orders in the United States. Their remuneration is by commission, but it is not considered to be in the public interest to give the details of the contract.
The British Government then, had agents in the United States, and their agents were Messrs. J. P. Morgan and Company. But as regards Canada Mr. Baker proceeded to say:
No special agents have been appointed for purchasing in Canada. Close touch has been maintained with the Canadian Government in regard to orders placed in that country.
According to the War Office, then, the Canadian Government had absolute control of all purchases and over all contracts entered into in this country. Now at this time the Shell Committee had been formed by the Minister of Militia, and in the report which was laid on the table by the Prime Minister on the 15th of April last, General Bertram speaks of the Shell Committee as follows:
In addition to the foregoing, the 1 Minister of Militia, through his committee-
Through " his " committee, mark you, General Bertram was supposed to be the chairman of the committee that was supposed to be the go-between with the manufacturers of Canada and the Imperial Government, and he says that the committee was not the committee of the Imperial Government, but the committe of the Minister of Militia of Canada. The committee was formed, then, by the Minister of Militia, who was at that time and is now a member of this Government. The Shell Committee
was absolutely under his control and under the control of the Canadian Government, and reported to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Militia. The fact is, however, that the only report which has been laid upon the table as coming from the Shell Committee was made directly to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister of Canada. General Bertram, in another part of his report, uses this language:
We informed the various officials at the War Office that it was the intention of the Minister of Militia and his committee-
Again it is "his" committee. Throughout his whole report Colonel Bertram spoke of the Shell Committee as the committee of the Minister of Militia, and as the commitee of the Canadian Government. The Right Hon. Mr. Baker, the Financial Secretary of the War Office, made in the British House <5f Commons the statement that the War Office had no agents in Canada, that the Canadian Government was making the purchases. It appears from this debate, and from what papers we have in our possession, that the Canadian Government controlled every contract that was entered into with the manufacturers, that they had absolute control over the Shell Committee, over the appointment of inspectors, and over every other detail of the committee's work. The Solicitor General, speaking of the Shell Committee, said:
They conducted their business directly with the Imperial authorities. Communications passed from the Shell Committee to the Imperial Government and from the Imperial Government to the Shell Committee. Had they been in a position where we had authority over them, had they been constituted as a committee under a department of this Government-
And you must mark General Bertram's statement that the committee was a committee of the Minister of Militia.
-they would have been answerable to this Government; we would have had authority over them and we would have been reaponsible.
In view of these statements; in view of the statement of General Bertram, the chairman of the Shell Committee, that the committee was a committee under the Department of Militia; in view of the statement of the Solicitor General that the Shell Committee had direct communication with the Imperial Government when it is in proof and in evidence that this communication was directly with the Minister of Militia and the Prime Minister of this country, and in view of the fact that the Solicitor General said that if the Shell Committee had been constituted as a committee under a department of this Government, they would have

been answerable to this Government,-when we have the Minister of Militia telling us yesterday that he was the father of the committee, and when we have the evidence that it was a committee under the Department of Militia, I ask this Government and the Solicitor General, what further excuse will the Government give to the people of Canada for refusing the investigation which has been asked by the Opposition, and which is being asked by the people of this country?
I feel that I have spoken at greater length than I had intended, and as I am about to resume my seat I want to say that I believe it to be the first duty of this Government and of the people of this country to see this war brought to a successful issue; but at the same time I want to remind the Minister of Finance, before he puts on any more taxes, that his raising of duties last year has simply had the effect of adding to the burdens of the consumer and of protecting a class already protected in this country, namely, the manufacturers. I would like to recall to him the language used by the Right Hon. Mr. Asquith in the British House of Commons:
If there is one thing that is axiomatic in fiscal theory and practice, it is this, that you cannot combine in one and the same imposition a revenue and a protective duty.
So far the increase in the duty has failed to give us the revenue we require; so far the increase in the duty has borne heavily upon the consumer, and yet we are obliged, in order to meet the ordinary expenditure, to go out and borrow. I have said, and I repeat that we have in this country untold wealth, agricultural, mineral, and industrial. I want to say to the Government: You should see to it that you do not rely upon your customs duties as your source of revenue. Your greatest source of revenue is in the wealth produced by your agriculture; it is your basic wealth, protect it. You are asking the farmers to produce more. They are the only unprotected class in this country, and yet you are taxing the essentials which they require, and without which they cannot clear the additional land necessary for increased production; they cannot build the additional buildings necessary to hold the greater volume of crops; they cannot till the soil and reap the harvest. You are increasing those burdens already on their shoulders by increasing your duties without thereby increasing your rev-9 p.m. enue. Now is the time for the Government to lay down a sys-
tem for securing immediately after this war the best possible class of immigrants. Now is the time for them to lay down a system by which they will perfect the means of transportation by rail and by water- Now is the time for them to develop the mineral resources of this country, to save the forests, to lessen industrial disputes by giving due regard to the grievances of the labouring classes. In the different departments of the public service, now is the time for the Government to abolish the patronage system, and to call to their service the best class of officials obtainable, and to pay them a just wage. I have always had unbounded confidence in the future of my country. I believe that our people have awakened to the great possibilities of Canada, and whilst we are assuming tremendous financial obligations, I believe that by a judicious and economic expenditure and administration, in spite of the awful strain upon this country caused by the depression through which we have passed and by the war, we shall again be able to travel upon that road upon which we had made such headway before 1911, in building up this country and bringing it on towards nationhood.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I would like to add my congratulations to those which have already been offered to you on your elevation to the high and honourable position which you occupy with so much grace and dignity. I would like also to offer my congratulations to the mover and to the seconder of the Address on the able and eloquent manner in which they discharged their duties.
Speeches in Parliament on the Address and on the Budget may be taken as giving a fair index of the popular mind on questions of public interest. At this particular time, when the liberties of mankind are in the balance, and when the very foundations of civilization are being threatened, the utterances of public men are of more than ordinary interest. Many of the speeches which have been delivered in this debate have been free from partisanship. That does not, in my estimation, indicate by any means that the members who delivered those speeches are less party men than they formerly were, but if they have ha<J grievances, they have felt that at the present time and under existing circumstances they had better hide those grievances or grieve inwardly, so to speak, and wait for another

opportunity of attacking the Government on matters in regard to which, in their opinion, the Government should be attacked. But all the speeches which have been delivered in this House have not been free from partisanship. So far as the speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) is concerned, I have no fault to find; in fact, I most cordially agree with many of his utterances.
I do not agree with his views on some matters, and 1 will briefly refer to a few of the points on which I am at variance with him.
In his remarks on the purchase of the submarines, he stated that his complaint was that the price paid was too high for obsolete vessels. He did not question the' necessity for these vessels and therefore did not question their usefulness. We have the statement made by a responsible minister of the Crown from British Columbia, that these vessels were of the greatest use in protecting the coast cities of Victoria and Vancouver. It does seem to me that when we consider the situation of Victoria and Vancouver at the outbreak of the war, we must see that the knowledge on the part of the German Government-and I think we may assume that Germany had that knowledge-that these submarines had been purchased, would have a very strong effect in preventing Germany from sending any of her cruisers so far away from their base of supplies. Fot my part, vl am willing to leave the matter of the submarines- to the consideration and judgment of the people of this country. I do not think the Government will be blamed; on the contrary I think the greatest credit will be given to those who effected the purchase of these submarines at that time.	.
The hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) said that a few years ago hon. members on this side of the House declared that we "should not have truck or trade with the Yankees." That statement has often been made in a general way-, but it has not been attributed to any individual. That was not the position taken by the Conservative party in 1911. We have never taken a position that we did not want to "truck or trade with the Yankees," but we did take the position-and which was diametrically opposed to the position taken by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his friends-that we were not prepared to allow this country to become a mere adjunct to the United States, and we were not prepared to hand over Canada to the United States. We were prepared then, and we are prepared to-day, to trade
with the people of the United States or any other people on a fair basis, but we are not prepared to give away this country, as hon. gentlemen opposite have been disposed to do on more than one occasion.
As to my hon. friend's criticism of the expenditure of money on post offices in small towns, I would remind him that previous to the	advent to power of
the party which he supports in 1896, there was a generally understood, though unwritten, law that these buildings should not be constructed in towns of less population than about five thousand, and previous 'to the coming into power of the Laurier Government there were very few deviations from that general Tule. If that rule was departed from, and if buildings were put up in small places at enormous expense to the country, that policy was introduced by the party which my hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) supports.
The hon. gentleman made a statement with regard to the farmer, which, if I heard it correctly, I heartily endorse. He said that the farmer .should not be the only unprotected man in this country; that if the manufacturers were protected the farmers ought to be protected also.- If I am not giving correctly the substance of his words I hope he will correct me. Understanding the statement in that way, I heartily agree with it. But what was the position the hon. gentleman and Ihis friends took in 1911 with regard to the farmer when they proposed to this country their policy of reciprocity with the United States? They proposed by that policy to throw open the doors of Canada to every country of agricultural production on the face of the globe. That is the proposition they offered then and that is the policy that the country rejected. What would be the position of our farmers in Canada to-day had that policy been carried out? With the products of t'he various countries practically excluded from the markets of Europe, those markets being made very dangerous of access by the war, we may be quite certain that if there was a low price for any farm product in any part of the world, that low price would be given to the farmers- of Canada, for if our prices here at any time fell to a figure that would attract the producers of other countries, our farmers would have no protection, but the agricultural products of these other countries would be thrown into our market to the injury of our farming population.
Now, a word as to the hon. gentleman's

observations concerning the transactions of the Shell Committee, and his observations on this subject were almost in the same words as those used by other hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. I wish, first, to make one or two quotations. At the time of the South African war, the good offices of the Laurier Government then in power, were given to Britain in the purchasing of supplies in Canada for the use of the British Government. In 1902 a resolution was moved in this House asking for an investigation in regard to these transactions. The investigation was refused on the ground that the war was in progress. Next year, 1903, the same request came up, and I will quote briefly to show the grounds on which that request for an investigation was then refused. The Minister of Finance of that time, Hon. W. S. Fielding, used these words:
If we loaned the good offices of any of the officials of Canada, I cannot admit that we thereby are liable to account to this House for any expenditure of Imperial money which may happen to have been made in that connection.
And here is a brief extract from the speech made by the Prime Minister of that time, now the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier):
We have had no complaint from the British Government and I therefore see no reason why this House should inquire into the expenditure of money which does not concern it.
That was the position taken by two of the most prominent members of the Liberal Government, and that position was endorsed by every member on the Liberal side of the House at that time. I cannot see that the position to-day is any different from what it was then. 'I might use the -very words used by the present leader of the Opposition and say: We have no complaint from the British Government in regard to the whole business. And if fair consideration be given to the facts stated here yesterday by the hon. Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes)
I think it will be seen that there is no cause for hon. gentlemen opposite to make the complaint that they do. tn the course of the speech of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) I asked a question of that gentleman. He was discussing the giving of a shell contract to some firm in St. Catharines. I asked him a very proper question, simply when the order was given to this company. 1 got no direct answer to that, and I repeat-

ed my question. Then the hon. member for Carleton appealed to the Chair and refused to give me an answer. Of course it is the privilege of any member to answer or not to answer a question that is put to him. The reason the hon. member for Car-leton did not answer the question was because, if he had answered it, it would have done away with the argument he was trying to advance, in so far as that one firm was concerned, because, as a matter of fact, that firm was not given an order for shells at that time, but an order for cartridge cases, and so did not come within the line of argument the gentleman was pursuing.
My hon. friend from Carleton has told us that he does not allow the Ottawa Free Press to speak for him. The Free Press is to be congratulated in that it does not have to speak for the hon. member for Carleton, or to endorse what he says. The hon. member left out one thing in his speech this year. Last session he rang the changes on two men whom he called Bill and Dan. in future, I expect, it will be Sir William ai d Sir Dame' with the hon. member for Carleton. Why? Because during the past summer Sir William and Sir Daniel gave the hon. member for Carleton a free ride across this continent, and he came back so extremely mellowed that it is now Sir William and Sir Daniel, and he is ready to swallow one-half or two-thirds of what he said about them in this House last session. The Government has no right to complain of criticism; and although at this time, with the war in progress, they might expect that some of the harsher criticism should be postponed, yet they naturally do expect to get an occasional shot from the other side. But while they may be willing to submit to a little political sniping from some hon. gentlemen opposite, I do think, and I am sure the country will agree with me in this, that they have a right to expect that hon. gentlemen opposite should not use poison gas in their attacks. As far as the hon. member for Carleton is concerned, when his hand grenades or rather his mouth grenades, his shrapnel and high explosives and his sniping failed to make a hit, he undertook to make use of the poisonous gas of misrepresentation; and, a very short time after he had started that gas in the direction of the Government, the wind changed and it was blown back in his own face, and he has gone away now, pretty sick. So far as his very wild statements concerning shell contracts, etc., are concerned, the speech of the Minister

of Militia is the fullest and most complete answer. In so far as his equally wild and reckless statements concerning the purchase of hay are concerned, I should think that the hon. member for Oarleton, N.B., would never mention hay again. He was very much concerned about the farmers of his county. Contracts for hay had been let and the farmers had been paid $11, $12.50, $13 a ton for the hay; and he said they were being bled in the interests of favourites of the Government. He shed very copious tears for the farmers in his county. He told us that not only were they prohibited from exporting by an embargo on the export of hay but, worse than that, hay was being brought by the schooner load from the Annapolis valley of Nova Scotia in competition with the product of the farmers in his part of the country. He said:
The whole intention is to show the farmers of New Brunswick that they can get the 15,000 tons of hay without them, and make them accept the price they are willing to pay.
In other words, we see the reason for the action of the hon. member for Carleton when he was buying hay to ship over to England at the time of the Boer war, because he admitted that he brought in several carloads from Quebec for the express purpose, unquestionably, as he puts it here himself, of showing the farmers in his part of the country that it was possible for him to get the hay elsewhere, and thus forcing them to accept the seven or eight dollars a ton he was kind enough to give them-Not only that, but he himself made a binding contract with the sub-contractors, holding them down in such a way that they dare not buy hay from the poor farmers at a higher price than he wanted to, pay, or otherwise the punishment clause in the contract would be invoked, and they would be subject to a penalty. Never since I have had the honour of a seat in this House have I seen any person make such reckless statements as the hon. member for CaHeton made, statements which, if applied to his own conduct a few years ago, would meet the condemnation from his own mouth which he was trying to place on members on this side of the House. Not alone in regard to hay did the hon. member speak; he also had something to say about horses. He said:	In
regard to fifty horses which were offered, by Mr. Cox:
When Sir Adam Beck was put In charge, for some accountable reason, I do not know why, he refused this gift; he sent around other' veterinary inspectors, and they refused to accept every one of these fifty horses. Then the man who had charge of these horses-I think that perhaps Mr. Cox may have had a little finger in the pie as well-decided to test the sincerity of those who were acting for the Government in this matter. Mr. Cox said: We will see how serious these men are in their rejection of these horses.
And so on. I have in my hand the .Toronto Daily Star, of Wednesday, January 26, and, since the hon. member for Carleton introduced the name of Mr. Cox in this matter, I want to quote w'hat Mr. Cox himself says in regard to this transaction, and then leave it to the judgment of the House how far they can rely upon statements made by the hon. member for Carleton. The Toronto Daily Star is a Liberal paper. The article to which I refer is headed:
H. C. Cox Drops Thousands on Horses. Came back on his hands because Mounted Units went as Infantry.
This is what Mr. Cox has to say in regard to this matter:
If there is any insinuation that the horses were unfit, or that there was anything irregular about the transaction in regard to these horses, in all fairness to the Government and myself it ought to be cleared up, though ordinarily I do not care to add anything in debates of this kind, where politics are to some extent involved. I am honourary colonel of the 9th Mississauga Horse, of which H. D. Lockart Gordon, now at the front, is the colonel. He was very anxious to have the regiment go to the front as a mounted unit, and so I bought flfty horses for the boys to take out to camp at Long Branch for training purposes, and the city bought them fifty more. The bodyguard also were furnished with fifty horses hy the city and flfty by Mr. Aemilius Jarvis, the honorary colonel of that regiment. These horses were brought in with the regiment when they went into winter quarters at Exhibition Camp but when these troops finally were ready to leave for the front the Government decided not to send them as mounted troops, but as dismounted cavalry, or infantry, until such time as conditions at the front warranted the use of horsemen as such. Consequently I was left with fifty horses on my hands, horses which had cost on the average of $200 each. I sold some of them at Grand's stable, and some-I do not know how many; it may have been twelve,, as stated-were sold to the Government Commission's Purchasing agent for remounts, or for whatever purpose they were required. I dropped several thousand dollars over the matter from first to last, but I only mention it now to clear up any misapprehension that may he raised by the discussion in the House of Commons yesterday.
Mr. Cox, who is a well known Liberal, whose sympathies are naturally with the party on the other side of the House, makes the statement that he does not wish any insinuation to be made that the horses



were unfit, or that there was anything irregular in the transaction; and he makes it as a matter of fair play, not only to himself, but to tije Government as well. Now, Sir, that is certainly a very different attitude from that taken by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., and conveys a very different impression. Why is it that the hon. member for Carleton took the course he did? Why is it that he plainly misrepresented the facts in regard to the horses, in regard to the shells, and in regard to the hay? What is it for, if it is not for this: That he believes that by circulating such reckless statements in the press they will have some political effect.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell)* stated this afternoon that he had had certain talks with the hon. member for Carleton, who asserted that the Minister of Agriculture had requested him for God's sake not to bring up the matter of the purchase of the hay. That does not seem reasonable on the face of it. It is apparent, however, that there were some confidential talks between the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Carleton. The only explanation I can think of is to be found in the statement of the minister himself, that he had been sick for some time. He was not exactly himself, and was thrown off his guard a little; for surely the Minister of Agriculture has been long enough in this House, and has had sufficient opportunity of judging the calibre of the hon. member for Carleton to know that a man, who would have no regard for his country at a time like this, would not be persuaded even for God's sake not to bring up a matter if there was any political capital to be made out of it.
In regard to the matter of shells and the profits on shells, however, I observe that there was one -company which the hon. member for Carleton handled very lightly indeed. That was the company which bears the name of the Canada Foundry and Forgings Company, a company in which the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) is very deeply -interested. The hon. member for Carleton was not so anxious to have an inquiry regarding that company, not -so anxious to know how it was that the -stock of that -company rose within ten days from 30 to 260, unquestionably making some person very wealthy. He passed very lightly over that and went on, to make reckless statements regarding other companies.

In regard to the matter of exorbitant profits on war materials, I wish to state, Mr. Speaker, that I endorse the words of the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin); and I will endorse the words of any hon. gentleman in this House who takes the position that at this time of stress and strain no man, or firm, should make large profits out of munitions or anything else that is being furnished for the'prosecution of the war. The people of the Dominion of Canada have responded nobly to appeals in support of the Red Cross, the Patriotic Fund, the Belgian Relief and other funds, and I say that no greater shame could attach to any man in Canada after this war is over than to be pointed out as one who had made hundreds of thousands of dollars out of exorbitant profits on anything furnished for the prosecution of the war. That is the position I take; that is the position which I understand the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) took in his sp'eeeh, which statement on his part I thoroughly endorse.
At present there are millions of poor Belgians who have been driven out of their own country, refugees who are being taken care of in foreign lands; there are others in that country huddling around the ruins of their shattered villages, waiting for their turn to get a meal that will keep them alive from one day to the next; women in tattered garments, with little children hanging to their skirts, standing in the snow waiting for the free meals; and I repeat that nothing could be more shameful than for any man in the Dominion of Canada to go through this war making excessive profits while those conditions obtain.
I believe that, since this great task was thrown upon its shoulders, the present Government has done everything in its power to try to prevent profiteering, if I may use that Word. The burdens thrown upon this Government have been enormous. That fact has been recognized by many hon. gentlemen on the opposite side who have spoken. Mistakes have unquestionably been made, but I believe that if you put the question to the people in the Dominion of Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, ninety-nine per cent, would say that, in its conduct of this war, the Borden Government has been actuated by the desire to do the best that Canada could possibly do, and by a desire to prevent any grafting or exorbitant profits. They have given ample evidence of that in the past, day after day, and month after month; and

the attacks which have been made by one or two hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, especially by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley)' and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), are not to the credit of these gentlemen. It has been shown that these attacks Avere made recklessly, and without that due regard for the truth which ought to characterize the remarks of these hon. gentlemen, and of every other hon. gentleman in this House. I am quite confident that, when the proper time arrives, the people of this country will mete out to these hon. gentlemen the condemnation which they richly deserve.
The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) informed us that he had been asked to address a recruiting meeting in St. James Methodist church, Montreal. I am sure that the hon. member for Rouville has advertised that so thoroughly himself throughout the country that he will not object to a reference to it by myself. He should be very grateful to the Methodist church in general, and to St. James Methodist church in Montreal in particular for giving him the splendid opportunity of letting the "world know his breadth of vision, how broad and loyal he is and how fearless. He told us that he addressed that meeting and that he was enabled to say that all churches should be recruiting tents. A so-called religious paper took him to task for making such a statement as that. I commend the hon. member for Rouville for his splendid courage, for we must suppose that he exhibited courage. He spoke himself as though he had, anyway. But I want to tell the hon. member for Rouville that in the province of Ontario we wonder at him mentioning the thing at all, because in Ontario every Protestant church since this war started has been thrown open as a recruiting tent, and every. Protestant minister in Ontario-I do not speak for the other provinces, but I suppose it is the same- has been in the forefront of all movements for advancing the cause of Great Britain in connection with this war, as we would wish to see it, whether in connection with recruiting, getting money for patriotic funds, or for relief funds, or in connection with other such movements, and, to their honour be it said, that they have taken a very active part in this respect. The hon. member for Rouville, the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Casgrain), and the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) quoted some very noble utterances of certain of -the higher clergy of their church. I have 234
no fault to find with that; it is quite proper that they should take pride in their church and in what their church is saying, but if we were -to quote the splendid and noble words which have fallen from the lips of Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and members of other denominations in this country, I am afraid we would spend several days and take up needlessly a great many pages of Hansard. It is true that religious denominations will be judged in this war to a certain extent by what the adherents of these denominations have done in the way of recruiting; and it is true that a great deal of consideration will be given to the remarks of. bishops, archbishops, and clergymen in general at the heads of these churches. That is as it should be. We expect, not only the clergy of the Protestant denominations, but we expect the priests of the Roman Catholic faith, and we expect the Pope himself, the head of that great body, to be on our side in this war. Why it is necessary to call particular attention to their utterances I fail to see inasmuch as certainly no person has made any charge to the contrary. No person has charged them with lack of loyalty or of zeal in this House -or, as far as I have heard, in the country.
But after all, the men who are most deserving of our praise and admiration are not really the bishops and clergy who have expressed noble sentiments in Canada, but they are the hundreds of Roman Catholic priests and Protestant clergymen who today are sharing the trials and dangers of the men in the trenches in Flanders. They are the men to whom I take off my hat every time, and I ask not what denomination they belong to, but I pay them the highest tribute that it is possible to pay those men for their heroic self-sacrifice.
The Tight hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) referred briefly to conscription. He quoted from a paper published on the other side of the line to show that some of those Americans, who had come into the Northwest in hundreds of thousands, had, since this war started,, gone back to the United States, and the right hon. -gentleman deplored that. The only thing I have to say in regard to that is. " good riddance." If they left this country-beoause they w'er-e afraid that they would have to fight for the country in which they lived and went back to the United States, I say: good riddance, let them go and stay away. This country has not lost

very much if'they go there and stay there. The leader of the Opposition uttered this sentence which caught my eye: The only .complete victory which has been won during this war has been won by the British navy. I think that statement is literally and absolutely correct. This is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that the British navy has been a guarantee of the liberties of the people of Europe. It is not the first time that the British navy has prevented some powerful European monarch from realizing his ambitious ends. Phillip of Spain, Louis XIV of France, and Napoleon, all were checked in their ambitions by the navy of Britain, and, as in the days gone by, the task is forced upon Britain to-day of preventing a tyrant from grinding democracy beneath the iron heel of militarism.
The fate of the democracies of the world rests upon the British sea power. It is not England alone whose existence is at stake. I make that statement because once in a while we hear some person say that this is " England's war." This is not England's war any more than it is Canada's war. It is not only the freedom and rights of the people of the British Islands, or of the British Empire, that is at stake, but it is the freedom and rights of the democracies of the world. When the curtain falls on the last act of this great war, it will disclose the faces,-the joyful faces-of those who are sure of their freedom; or it will disclose the solemn and sad faces of people who have been bereft of everything they hold most dear.
This is not merely a fight of England against Germany ; it is a fight for supremacy between two irreconcilable principles-democracy on the one hand, as represented by England and France, and autocracy, or militarism, on the other hand, as represented by Germany and her allies. It is a struggle for freedom against slavery, and against a slavery worse than that which bound the negro to his master. This is a struggle to maintain democratic rights and true Christian principles against a country which has accepted the teachings of Treitsche and Bernhardi as being more infallible than the teachings of Christ, and which deifies and worships naval and military power as the most sublime of all religions. If it had not been for the British navy, France would, long ere this, have been crushed, Russia's power would have been broken, and the British Empire would have been shattered. The British fleet has swept the seas clear of German merchant

vessels and has driven the German war vessels behind their line of forts for safety. It has adequately protected ten billion dollars of Empire trade and $160,000,000,000 of Empire wealth; it has kept free from invasion, over 14,000,000- square miles of British territory and it has kept free of fire and sword the homes of over 400,000,000 people within the British Empire.
The British navy has preserved Canadian homes from destruction, Canadian women from outrage, and Canadian children from mutilation. Canadian commerce has been safeguarded, and Canadian liberty guaranteed by the British navy, which has been assisted by Australia, by New Zealand, by Newfoundland, and by all the overseas dominions except Canada. The fault or blame for the fact that Canada has not also assisted that navy lies not with men on this side of the House, but with hon. gentlemen opposite, and their servile and subservient Senate across the way. It has been said that Canada's first line of defence is in Flanders, but Sir, Canada's last line of defence, Canada's bulwark, Canada's guarantee, is that mighty, silent, eveT-watchful fleet in the North Sea, which hon. gentlemen opposite refused us the Tight to strengthen and make more effective. Those are the facts, and no ofie in this House can refute them. But these facts do not appeal to all men in this country. This protection of Canada's rights and of Canadian women and children does not appeal to the callous heart of Bourassa and Lavergne. It stirs their blackened blood to no quicker beat. Loyalty is not an abstract principle like truth, or honesty or charity; it depends upon the ideal, the motives by which one is actuated. The British idea of loyalty, for instance, forced King John to sign Magna Charta, took the head off Charles I, and replaced, James II with William and Mary. The people of the United' States in 1776 considered loyalty a crime and disloyalty the greatest of virtues. So it seems that loyalty is a virtue or a vice according to circumstance, and that a man may be a rebel or a patriot according as he backs a winning or a losing cause. But, by whatever standard you judge Bourassa.and Lavergne there is nothing that can be said in their defence. The right hon. leader of the Opposition had occasion to refer to them in his speech the other day. While he did not mention them by name, I think he unquestionably was alluding to these men. He said:
There has been a minority which has always protested against our attitude, and that minority

is the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec, who took the position from the start that it was a crime for the Canadian people to participate in this war. Not only did they use that strong language, but again and again in the Nationalist press they have asserted, and still assert, that we have taken our present position simply because we are subject to the imperious dictation of the British authorities.
Further on he says, and I wish to place his words on Hansard:
There may be and often is servility to a master; there may be and there is servility to passion and prejudice. And if to-day there is servility anywhere it is not with those who have taken the attitude which we have maintained, and will maintain in this House, but it is with those who, blinded by passion and prejudice, would deny us the liberty of being humane and generous, would deny us the liberty of following the instincts and promptings of our minds, and our hearts, and our consciences; would deny us the liberty, when wo see France threatened with dismantlement, when we see Belgium actually under the foot of the conqueror, of helping in the defence of France and of Belgium. It is not because they hate France, it is not because they hate Belgium, but because we cannot in this way help France or help Belgium without at the same time helping England. Sir, the case of France and the case of Belgium is the case of England. The case of England is the case of Belgium and France. Away with such sophistry. It is nothing but an attempt to conceal the hatred of empty minds. But, that is not all. These men also tell us that we may be fighting for an idea, as they say, and we may be fighting for the fate of the Empire, as they say, but that Canada has no direct or material interest in this war. And, every day we read in their press that if Germany were to triumph it would be of no material injury to Canada, that Canada would remain just in the position that Canada is in to-day.
Coming from a man who for fifteen years was prime minister of this country, a man from the province of Quebec, and who for practically his whole life has been the leader of a great party in this country, those words of his should give serious thought to every one of us in this House. He has made charges which are stronger than any that have ever been made against any party or sect in this country. A few years ago, I ventured to say from my place in this House that I believed there was ample evidence from the utterances of certain so-called leaders of the province of Quebec, to believe that there was in that province an antiBritish or anti-imperial sentiment, and I wa3 taken very severely to task for that statement. I did not charge them, nor do I charge now, nor have I ever charged, the mass of the people of Quebec with being disloyal. I made that as clear as words could make it, but I did charge that there were certain men who had assumed the positions of leaders in that province who
had been guilty of disloyal utterances and of taking a course which was inimical not only to the best interests of the people of the province of Quebec, but to the best interests of the country as a whole. Within a few months after I made that statement a by-election took place in the province of Quebec and the Government candidate was defeated. When the House met again a bitter' discussion took place between members on both sides of the House from the province of Quebec, and if I had wanted any corroboration of the charges I had made in the previous session, I got that corroboration from gentlemen on both sides of the House. The right hon. leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and the Hon. Mr. Brodeur, who was then in the House, hurled charges against men on the opposite side of the House, accusing them of using disloyal language throughout the province of Quebec. Gentlemen on this side of the House charged the supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite with using disloyal language, and quoted from their speeches in proof of it. When these hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House got through, one thing at least was clear; and that was that in the province of Quebec there was a certain number of men who .thought that the best way to win an election in that province was to pound England and everything British, that the worse the things they said about England and everything British the more likely they were to get votes. But nothing that has been said in former sessions compares in severity with the language used by the right hon. leader of the Opposition the other day in regard to what are called the Nationalists in the province of Quebec, and I commend the right hon. gentleman for speaking, out so openly in regard to these so-called leaders of a party. The right hon. gentleman stated-and he is a man whose words ought to receive more attention than mine, and that is why I quote them-that from day to day the Nationalist press in the province of Quebec is making use of language that is a disgrace to the press in general, and to the province of Quebec in particular, and, Sir, when a paper makes use of such disgraceful and disloyal language it should be suppressed. I take it that the duty of suppressing it falls upon the Postmaster General, although I may not be correct in that regard. I presume he has carefully looked over Le Devoir, which, I believe, is the most offending paper; and if what is

stated in regard to that paper is true, or if only a small portion of it is true, then it is the duty of the Postmaster General to suppress that paper. If it is right to deny the use of the mails of this country to certain publications from the other side of the line because they are pro-German, and I say it is right; then it cannot be right to allow the publication in our own country of language which should not be used here, particularly at this time. Before suppressing any paper the Postmaster General should consider the matter very carefully. We must be tolerant and very careful in taking action against any paper; but we are engaged in a struggle at the present time when every man is required, and if there is being published in the province of Quebec or elsewhere in this country, papers which tend to -prevent the recruiting of that accumulation of men on which the very life of this country and this Empire may depend, then even while we may run the risk of being regarded as intolerant, there is a time when tolerance becomes cowardice.
I have not very much to say in regard to Mr. Bourassa. I would not mention his name at all were it not for the fact that at one time he occupied a seat in this House as a follower of the right hon. gentleman who at present leads the Opposition.


Mr. PARDEE:: How was he last time?


John Wesley Edwards: Well, I was not in as close touch with him as the hon. member was, and I could not say, but I think there is pretty good evidence that he will be shaking hands with hon. gentlemen opposite in the next election.


Mr. MICHAUD:: How do you like him
now when he is supporting your party?


John Wesley Edwards: I am not aware that he is supporting our party. On the contrary, it seems to me that his opposition has been very pronounced against our party. He has [DOT]done everything a man can possibly do *against the successful conduct of this war. How, the hon. gentleman can draw on his imagination to such an extent to say that this man is a supporter of the present Government, I cannot understand.


Mr. LAMARCHE:: He will probably have a. seat in this House in the next Parliament.


John Wesley Edwards: It may be that'the gentleman to whom I refer will have a seat in this House in the next Parliament, but if that is the case, it will remain as an everlasting blot and disgrace on the constituency that gives him that seat in the next Parliament.
I'Mr. Edwards. ]


Mr. GAUVREAU:: He will not be any worse than the ministers you have got on your side now.


John Wesley Edwards: Apparently supporters
of this gentleman to whom I refer are not confined to this side of the House. My hon. friend across the way seems quite warm in his regard for this man who has published treason from one end of the country to the other.
There is another man to whom I wish to refer, who bears the name of
10 p-m. Armand Lavergne, and I would not refer to him, were it not for the fact that he had a seat in this House behind the present leader of the Opposition of whom he was a supporter. All that I have to say in regard to that gentleman is this: he holds, I understand, the rank of colonel in the militia of Canada, and I want to say, speaking for myself alone, that I regard it as a disgrace to the Dominion of Canada that a man of the stamp of Armand Lavergne should be allowed to retain his rank in the militia of Canada. I regard it not only as a disgrace to Canada, but as a distinct insult to every man who wears the King's uniform to-day, and I ask, Mr. Speaker, neither the gentlemen on this side of the House who apparently support Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Lavergne, nor the gentlemen on the other side whether they agree with me in that statement or not; but I am confident that most of the people of this country agree with me, and I would be very sorry to think that most of .the people of the province of Quebec did not agree with me, because I have talked with many people from that province who, to their eternal credit be it said, resent the conduct and language of these two men just as strongly as I do. Mr. Armand Lavgrgne's uniform should be taken from him; he should not be allowed to disgrace it. No man should be allowed to wear the King's uniform who uses the language that he has used. He has stood up in the legislature of the province of Quebec and defied his King and country. That is a disgrace to this country; it should not be tolerated in this country, and I ask the Government why it is tolerated. Why is he allowed to wear his uniform?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Ask your minister.


John Wesley Edwards: The only reason that I have thus far heard is this:	Oh, if you
take the uniform away from him, it is just what he wants; he wants to make a martyr of himself. Again I will express my

opinion-I am not presuming to express an opinion for others-that that excuse is nothing more nor less than an excuse of political cowardice. If he wants to be made a martyr of, then he should be made a martyr of- At all events he should not he allowed to disgrace the uniform which he has disgraced while holding the rank of colonel.
Although only a humble member on the Government side of the House, I will make this suggestion to the Government, that they open up negotiations with Germany through the mediation of the United States or China or some other neutral nations for an exchange. Let them propose to give Bourassa and Lavergne in exchange for Dr. Beland, and let them throw in one or two of the senators over the way, notably Senator Choquette. They can make the proposition to Germany.
But I tell you, Sir, that if the proposition were made in all seriousness to Germany to give Lavergne and Bourassa, with Choquette thrown in, in exchange for Dr. Beland, Germany, bad as she is, vile as she is, would indignantly refuse; because if there is one thing that Germany detests more than another, it is treachery to the country in which a man lives.
I wish to refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) in his speech in this debate. The hon. gentleman quoted some words of Edward Blake. They were not the words of Edward Blake in regard to the unrestricted reciprocity campaign of 1891, but they had reference to another matter. The words quoted were to the effect that a majority in dealing with a minority should give measure full, heaped up and running over-that is the measure to be given by the strong to the weak. And the hon. member for Rouville, commenting on these words says " May we not expect that there will arise another Blake to protect the Ontario minority? " I fully endorse those words of Edward Blake, but I want to tell the hon. member for Rouville that there is no necessity for an Edward Blake in Ontario for the purpose indicated by him. If there is any portion of the people of Ontario who need some person to champion their cause it is not the minority but the majority.
The hon. member for Rouville on several occasions has referred somewhat sneeringly, or slightingly-perhaps " slightingly " is better than " sneeringly," not so harsh at least-to the Orangemen of this country.
I want to say to the hon. member for Rouville that a gentleman who has occupied the position he has occupied in this country should be above such things. And I want to remind him of this fact-that there went in the first contingent from Valcartier more Orangemen than have been enlisted up to date in the province of Quebec, outside the city of Montreal.
Mr. LEMIEUX Does the hon. gentleman refer to anything in my speech in this debate, or what expression of mine concerning Orangemen is it to which he refers?


John Wesley Edwards: I did not quote the
words of the hon. gentleman.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Where did I speak in that way about the Orangemen? Where did I say anything about them at all?


John Wesley Edwards: On many occasions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let the hon. gentleman cite one.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, it was not a use of the word "Orangeman," but the other day, referring to events which took place in England on the 15th of July, when asked with regard to the date by a gentleman near him, the hon. gentleman turned, and with a queer smile, said: The Fifteenth of July, not the Twelfth of July.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that all?


John Wesley Edwards: That is all in that particular case, but there are other cases.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There arc none. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of brder. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) has stated that I have on several occasions referred in a sneering way to the Orangemen. I declare to the House that I never made any reference to the Orangemen either from my place in this House or elsewhere in this country.	.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: After that declaration on the part of the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) I think it is the duty of the hon. member for Frontenao (Mr. Edwards) to accept the explanation.


John Wesley Edwards: I cheerfully accept the hon. gentleman's explanation. I do not just know what reason he had for saying, "not the Twelfth of July" in the way he did. I have not at present under my hand words that he has used on former occasions, therefore I accept his statement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You will never find
them.


John Wesley Edwards: We will see about that later on. At all events, in view of the statements that have been made in various parts .of the [DOT] country, I think I may be excused for pointing out that one-quarter of the recruits who went overseas with the first contingent from Valcartier were members of the Orange order, and, further, the members of that order, not only through their lodges, but in many other ways, have contributed funds and have been the means of raising funds, for the relief of the Belgians and other good purposes; that thousands of them are to-day in Flanders fighting, and many of them have already laid down their lives fighting on behalf of a people whose religion is not their own.
There is another remark of the right hon. leader of the Opposition to which I wish to refer, a remark to the effect that in the matter of participation in the wars of the Empire there was a distinct line of cleavage between himself and the present Prime Minister. I am very sorry that the right hon. leader of the Opposition reiterated that statement of former years; I am sorry that he still thinks it politically advisable to occupy an equivocal position as regards the future of this country and its participation in the destinies of the Empire. I cannot refrain from asking if "the goal of independence'' to which he has sometimes referred is still his great aspiration. What does he mean when he says that there is a great line of [DOT] cleavage between himself and the Prime Minister in regard to Canada's participation in the wars of the Empire? If his words have any meaning they presuppose that Great Britain, or the Empire, may be engaged in a life and death struggle about something of which Canada might not approve. The minor troubles of Great Britain would not affect Canada, as the right hon. gentleman knows. If our assistance was required it could only be in some trouble which might pull the Empire down, and whether we wished it or not, Canada would stand or fall by the result.
The right hon. gentleman made it clear that his policy is still the policy of semidetachment. There can be no other meaning to the words he has used. He would ask Parliament for its judgment in regard to our participation in any war in which the Empire might be engaged. What position would the right hon. gentleman be in if, in an emergency such as we have at present, he had behind him men like Bourassa and Lavergne who would, unquestionably,

if they did as they have 'been doing outside of this House, do all they could to delay and prevent any measure which he might bring down providing for participation. Suppose he had in this House such men as Myers, Farrer, Goldwin Smith, and others, who formed the Continental Union Association in 1892, the object of which was to bring about continental union, union between Canada and the United States. If he had such men as those who were in this country in 1892, an association, whose representatives in the province of Quebec as the firm of Mercier, Gouin, and Lemieux, carrying on that particular propaganda at that- time, writing across the line to moneyed men there, as the head of that firm did, for funds to assist him in carrying on that work, I think he would find himself in very serious difficulty in carrying out the ideas to which he has given expression. Therefore, I say, that in this matter of cleavage between the right hon. leader of the Government and the right hon. leader of the Opposition, I range myself alongside of the Premier who has given us to understand what his position is in regard to the Empire. I quote the words of the Prime Minister: :
So long as Canada remains in the Empire, Canada is at war when the Empire is at war. So long as the English flag floats above Canada, Canada is at war when that flag is attacked. The moment a shot is fired or a blow is struck at that flag, Canada is at war with the nation or country which fires that shot or strikes that blow.
That is the position taken by the Prime Minister of this country, and I have only to say that if there is a line of cleavage, which I very greatly regret, I want it to he understood on which side of the fine I stand. I believe our destiny is inseparably connected with Hire Mother Country, that if w*e are to work out what is in-the best interests of the Dominion of Canada this country must remain a part of the British Empire.
I believe I am expressing the sentiments of the people of this country when I say that they are prepared in the future to throw in their lot and stand or fall with the Mother Country. It means a lot more to be a Canadian to-day than it did a year and a, half ago, because of the position that Canada has taken in this war. All classes of the country have done their part well.
I want, in conclusion, to place in Hansard a few figures. I find that the male citizens of Canada between the ages of 18y and 45, as shown toy the last census returns in

each province,	and the	enlistments	up to
December 31 from each		province, were as	
follows:			
Eligible	Enlisted to	per18 to 45.	Dec. 31.	cent.Ontario	565,397	81,752	14Quebec	380,827	24,257	6Maritime prov-	inces	178,497	20,765	11Manitoba & Sas-	katchewan. . .	275,577	38,955	13British Colum-	bia	153,978	21,703	13Alberta	120,264	20,136	161,674,540	207,568	
In this table it is assumed that all males between the ages mentioned are eligible tor military service, which, of course, is an exaggeration, because we have to take into account the foreign element, and the mentally or physically defective. But the figures and the percentages I have given tell their own story. I was very glad, indeed, to hear the hon. member for Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) assure this House, as he did in his speech the other day, that within a very few months, when the people of his province were thoroughly educated as to the needs and requirements of this war, at once there would be a very much larger enlistment from that province than we have had up to the present time. I believe that is correct, and I want to say that we should give very careful consideration, before expressing very strong adverse criticism, of rural conditions, especially rural conditions in the eastern provinces. For instance, in Ontario, and in fact all of the eastern provinces except Quebec, the rural population is very much smaller now than it was ten years ago, and the addition in the province of Quebec is so very slight that we might almost say there has been no gain in the rural parts of that province-The only gains have been in the western provinces. In my own county, for instance, the population in 1911, as shown, by the census, was 2,800 less than it was ten years before. There had been a loss in every township in my county, excepting one. To show you how this works out, I know, for instance, of one very small municipality so far as population goes, very rough country, where the land is very much broken. I know that at the present time eighteen men who were born in that municipality are enrolled, not one of whom enlisted from that municipality. They had joined the migration to the West, and every one of those men enlisted from the West. This
should be taken into consideration when we are sizing up the matter of enlistment throughout the country. I wish to say this also, in defence of the rural municipalities.
In my own province, and I think the same thing will apply also in Quebec and the Maritime Provinces, this migration to the Northwest and to the cities means that, at the present time, the farmers of our rural districts are exceedingly short handed. To take, for instance, the figures showing enlistment from such and such a rural municipality, and to come to the conclusion from those figures that the county or township was not as loyal as it should be, would be to make a very grave error. Again, it is quite true that in the rural districts the people have not the same opportunities of becoming posted regarding the war as the people !in the cities and towns, who every day pass to and fro along the streets, read the bulletins, and hear the war discussed. I was glad, therefore to hear the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) say that in the province of Quebec, which, according to the figures available, has not recruited in the same proportion as the other provinces, the heart of the people was with Britain and France in this war. That, I firmly believe, and endorse. I am very glad to concur in his statement that when the people in the outlying districts, who have not the same opportunities of being posted as the people in the cities and towns, become aware of what this war really means to this country, they will flock to the standard just as the men from the cities [DOT]and towns have done. There is no question, and cannot be any question, as to their bravery. Those who have gone from Quebec have demonstrated their bravery on the battlefields in Flanders just as much as those who have gone from Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario, or any other part of the country. There has been no distinction, there can be no distinction, as regards creed or race, in that respect. We have nothing to be ashamed of in the record which has been made by the men who have gone to the front, no matter what church or race they belong to; as a Canadian, I am proud indeed of that record. I never felt so much right to be proud of being a Canadian as I do to-day.
Now, Sir, I just want to say a word or two regarding the Royal Military College, and I will ask your permission to place on Hansard a list of names without reading it.
?62


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Will you allow me a question before you pass from that sub-' ject? Will the hon. gentleman send a copy of his speech to the newspapers in Ontario which are ' all the time attacking the Freneh-Canadians in reference to the war?


John Wesley Edwards: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman pays me the compliment of thinking that my feeble remarks would have some effect upon those newspapers? If so, and he gives me a list of the newspapers, I will be pleased to send them copies.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You have been fair enough to Quebec.


John Wesley Edwards: I will also undertake to send copies to the papers in Quebec if he will give me a list of them. I cannot be fairer than that. I have no apologies to make for jvhat I have -said; the words I have uttered are my own. Many hon. members in this House may not feel like endorsing what I have said; I cannot help that. They have every right to their views, and I have a right to mine; and so long as I occupy a place in this House or on this terrestrial sphere, I intend to express my own views, and in that respect I do not think I am unlike many other hon. gentlemen in this House.
Last session I put on record a list of the students at the Royal Military College who had enlisted for war service, and I may be excused if I place on Hansard another list, because the Royal Military College happens to be situated in the county of Frontenac, which I represent, though its students are drawn from all parts of the Dominion. I am sure no one will object tb my placing such a list on record.
2nd List.
Iloyal Military College of Canada.
Nominal roll of gentlemen cadets who have been granted Commissions between the period 1st January to 31st December,
1915.
Imperial Army (22).
Name -and Regiment.
George Lennox Kezar, Royal Engineers.
George Duncan McTaggart, Royal Engineers. James Reginald Stratton, Royal Engineers. Donaldson Lizars Savage, Royal Engineers. Reginald Gilbert Godson, Royal Engineers.
James Hargrave Drummond Ross, Royal Filed Artillery.
John Albon Chestnut, Royal Field Artillery. Claude Ashburn McMurtry, Royal Field Artillery.
Eric Hutchinson McCall, Royal Field Artillery. William Davenport Brown, Royal Filed Artillery.
Grainger Stewart Grant, Royal Field Artillery. John Charles Hope, Royal Field Artillery.

Main waring Cato Ensor Sharp, Cavalry.
Colin Macpherson Dobell, Infantry.
John Bucan Freeland, Infantry.
William Edward Harper Talbot, Indian Army. Herbert Vero Shaw Page, Indian Army.
Arthur Stanford Matthewman, Indian Army. Gerald Beverly Matthewman, Indian Army. Gordon Reed, Army Service Corps.
William Wallace Turnbull, Army Service Corps.
George Copland Temple Hadrill, Army Service Corps.
Canadian Permanent Force (39).
Name and Regiment.
William Fraser Hadley, Royal Canadian Engineers.
Lindsay Drummond, Royal Canadian Engineers.
Edson Louis Millard Burns, Royal Canadian Engineers.
William Wallace Davis, Royal Canadian Engineers.
Charles Edgar Tench, Royal Canadian Engineers.
Charles Ramsey Stirling Stein, Royal Canadian Engineers.
Terence St. George Maunsell, Royal Canadian Engineers.
Richard Forrest Angus, Royal Canadian Engineers.
Matthew Howard Somers Penhale, Royal Canadian Artillery.
John Carl Murchie, Royal Canadian Engineers. Ellice Alan Mackenzie, Royal Canadian Artillery.
George Power Morrison, Royal Canadian Artillery.
Herbert Downing Fripp, Royal Canadian Artillery.
William Errol Boyd Starr, Royal Canadian Artillery.
Horace Wilfred Beck, Royal Canadian [DOT] Artillery.
Carden Cousens Thackray, Royal Canadian Artillery.
William Carson Thackray, Royal Canadian Artillery.
Alan Armand Magann, Royal Canadian Artillery.
Hugh Hutchinson Lawson, Royal Canadian Artillery.	[DOT]
Robert Wallace Leslie, Royal Canadian Artillery.
Edward Lionel Dodwell, Royal Canadian Artillery.
George Arnold McCarter, Royal Canadian Artillery.
William Stewart Hogg, Royal Canadian Artillery.
Donald Stodart Gwyn, Royal Canadian Dragoons.
Geoffrey Crosier Hilliard, Royal Canadian Dragoons.	-
Morris Hayne Austin Drury, Royal Canadian Dragoons.
James Kennedy Cassels, Royal Canadian Dragoons.
John McCreary Elliott, Lord Strathcona Horse. Thomas Clemes Stewart, Lord Strathcona Horse.
Leonard Alfred Welsh, Lord Strathcona Horse. Stansfield Tunstall Blaiklock, Lord Strathcona Horse.
James Parr Clinton Atwood, Lord Strathcona Horse.	.

Joseph Alfred Pope, Royal Canadian Regiment.
William Wyvyan Winter, Canadian Permanent Army Service Corps.
George Egerton Stuart McLeod, Canadian Permanent Army Service Corps.
Hubert Everton Hughes, Canadian Permanent Army Service Corps.
Frederick George Farncomb, Canadian Permanent Army Service Corps.
Donald Forbes Angus, Canadian Permanent Army Service Corps.
Richard Nesbit Cyril Bishop, Canadian Ordnance Corps.
Canadian Overseas Contingent (26).
Name and Regiment.
Douglas Caparn Greey, Canadian Field Artillery.
Gordon Seymour Reade, Canadian Field Artillery.
James Murray Hazen, Canadian Field Artillery.
Miles Beresford Hamilton, Canadian Field Artillery.
Cyril Keith Aylen, Canadian Field Artillery. Daniel Lionel Teed, Canadian Field Artillery. Francis William Morris, Canadian Field Artillery.
Harold Percival Smith, Canadian Field Artillery.
John Leonard Whitney Harris, Canadian Field Artillery.
Elliott Dudley Stinson Thompson, Canadian Field Artillery.
Donald Graham Robertson, Canadian Field Artillery.
Frederick Garth Morse, Canadian Field Artillery.
Leslie Kirk Greene, Cavalry.
Hollis Hume Blake, Cavalry.
Eric Ian Henry Ings, Cavalry.
Donald Edward Allen Rispen, Infantry.
Ian Robert Reekie Macnaughton, Infantry. Dongall Athony Kittermaster, Infantry. William Geoffrey Hoffman Wurtele, Infantry. George Alexander Strubbe, Infantry.
James Arthur Murphy, Infantry.
Francis Irving Carpenter, Infantry.
Herbert Lae Holland, Infantry.
Wilfred Heighington, Infantry.
Percival Elliott Biggar, Canadian Army Service Corps.
Hugh Joseph Ryan, Canadian Army Service Corps.
Grand total, 87.
The'list I placed on record last year was for 1914; that which I place on record now is for 1915. Colonel C. N. Perreau, the acting Commandant of the college, writes me:
Every cadet here at present is taking a commission in the near future, so you see the fine spirit is still flourishing as much as ever.
The students of the Royal Military College have brought very great credit to that institution and to all parts of the Dominion, inasmuch as they come from all parts of Canada. In 1914 the number of commissions^ taken in the Imperial army by the gentlemen cadets of the college was 50; in 1915 it was 22. In the Canadian Permanent
Forces 29 commissions were taken in 1914, and 39 in 1915. In the Canadian Overseas contingents, 24 commissions were taken in 1914 and 26 in 1915; or a total in 1914 of 103, and in 1915 of 87; or a grand total of 190. These figures represent the totals for a period of 16 months, and the percentage of cadets taking commissions for that period works out at 98 per cent of those available.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that is a record of which this country may well he proud, for I repeat that these students are drawn from every province in the Dominion. They have brought honour to every province, and their record at the front is certainly one of which we may well be proud.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, in this debate. I am very sorry indeed if any words of mine in regard to the two men to whom I referred have hurt the feelings of any person in thi3 House. If it had not been for the fact that they occupied at one time seats in this House, that they are unquestionably prominent men in the country to-day, and men to whom the right hon. leader of the Opposition gives credit for having at least some influence, or who are trying to exert some influence in their province, I would not have referred to them at all. But I am impressed by the fact that this is a time when every nerve and sinew of the Empire is being strained, when we are up against a crisis which means either liberty or slavery; that this is a testing time for our country, not only for the men who have been recruited from the various parts of the country, but for the men who have been placed by the people in the positions which we occupy to-day. It is our business as public men to draw lessons and inferences from what we see happening around us, so that we can take our stand as public men and express our disapproval of language of an unpatriotic or disloyal character uttered in any part of this country, no matter by whom the words are uttered.
Mr. W.F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South): Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I hope that I shall be very brief in the remarks which I have to offer to the House. My hon. friend from Frontenac has made some very strong statements, with some of which, I must say, I fully agree. The burden of his speech had to do more or less with a certain group in the province of Quebec known as the Nationalist party. We were told by the hon. member that the leaders of that party-Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Lavergne-at one time had seats in this Parliament and were followers of the right hon. gentleman.

who now leads the Opposition in this House. He stopped there, however. He did not tell us where these gentlemen had been located since the summer of 1908, who their leader was, and where they were attempting to	carry	this country.
May I remind the hon. member for Fron-tenac and this House that, somewhere around 1908, these men transferred partially, if not totally, their allegiance from my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition to the right hon. gentleman who is now the Premier of this country. The first indication I had personally of the transference of that allegiance was during the Drum-mond-Arthabaska campaign. If evidences are wanting, there are many to be found in the general campaign of 1911, because these two gentlemen went up and down the province of Quebec and supported to the full the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Government and the party who are behind him in this House. May I be permitted to recall something more to the House which the hon. member for Fron-tenac forgot-I hope not willingly or purposely-that both of these gentlemen nave made the boast that when the Prime Minister was forming his Government in 1911 they were offered portfolios in the Cabinet. I have not seen the assertion of either of these gentlemen contradicted, either by the Prime Minister, or by any gentleman authoritatively for him.


Mr. BURNHAM:: The Prime Minister
contradicted it absolutely.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, nothing of the kind.


Mr. CARROLL:: I want to say that my hon. friend in the corner (Mr. Burnham) is absolutely wrong. He had a splendid opportunity only four or five days ago in this House to contradict that statement, because, the day before he rose in his place to reply to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, Mr. Lavergne proclaimed to the province of Quebec, t j the Dominion of Canada, to the world, that the Premier of this country had offered him a portfolio.


Mr. ROGERS:: I think my hon. friend
(Mr. Carroll) is incorrect in his statement.
I do not believe that Air. Lavergne ever made the statement that my hon. friend credits him with.


William F. Carroll: There are people in this country who can read and there are people who can understand as well as the Minister of Public Works can. I submit that if Mr. Lavergne was wrong in the statement he 
made in the Legislature of Quebec, a few days before the Prime Minister made his last announcement in this House, it was the duty of the Prime Minister to contradict that statement.


John Hampden Burnham: I say that the Prime
Minister did contradict it.


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend does
bob up very often. Where and when did the Prime Minister contradict the statement of Mr. Lavergne?


John Hampden Burnham: Some months ago.


William F. Carroll: Where?


John Hampden Burnham: It ill-becomes the
Prime Minister to run around contradicting all the little brats in the country, but, he has contradicted this.


William F. Carroll: Where?


John Hampden Burnham: In the press.


William F. Carroll: In what press?


John Hampden Burnham: I cannot tell that exactly.


William F. Carroll: The hon. gentleman cannot tell me in what paper that has appeared, nor can he tell me when. I read the papers of this country just as intelligently as the hon. member for Peterborough-I admire him in a good many ways and he knows it -and I have yet to see, and I believe there is no man in this House who has seen, where the Premier contradicted that state ment. If there was a time, and if' there was a place, where the right hon. i Prime Alinister should have rirade that contradiction, it was in his speech on the floor of this House some three or four days ago. I am not finding fault at present in this connection with Air. Lavergne or Mr. Bourassa although I do not see eye to ey with them. The hon. member for Front-enac has left the House, but I would like to say that there are other things he did not tell us. Does he remember the other evening, when my hon. friend from Pictou (Air. Alacdonald) was making his speech, that he read a resolution which was moved in the provincial Legislature of Quebec a few years ago protesting against Canada taking any part in the Empire's war, and is ho aware of the fact that the seconder of that resolution, and a gentleman who made a very strong speech in the legislature in favour of it, now occupies the portfolio in this Cabinet of Minister of Inland Revenue? These are some of the things that the hon. member for Frontenac failed to tell this

House in regard to the political histoiy and traditions of Lavergne and Bourassa.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Was he called to the
Cabinet after he made that speech?


William F. Carroll: He was called to the Cabinet a few months ago and this speech was delivered two years ago. It was moved by a gentleman who has since passed away, and seconded by the present Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Patenaude).	My
hon. friend from Frontenac is perfectly Tight no doubt, in calling upon the powers that be to strip this man, Armand Lavergne, of the King's uniform. I agree with him in that to a certain extent. When we have a man in Canada who will stand up in a public place, especially in one of our legislatures, and say that Canada should not participate in this war, above all wars, and that we have no right or authority to participate in it, and when that man happens to wear the King's uniform, the uniform of a colonel in the Canadian militia, I believe there should be some steps taken to remove his name from the roll of Canadian colonels and also to strip him of his uni-' form. Who gave Mr. Armand Lavergne the name of colonel? Was it one of those nasty, disreputable, disloyal Liberals? No, Mr. Speaker, I understand that Mr. Armand Lavergne was appointed a colonel in the Canadian militia by the present hon. Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes). ' I understand that he was offered a command some time ago by the same gentleman. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Armand Lavergne has gone up and down this country uttering loud protestations against Canada going into this war,_notwithstanding the fact that he has gone up and down the province of Quebec since the year 1909 hurling loud and vicious abuse against British institutions, the Minister of Militia, in this loyal Government, has decorated him. as a Canadian colonel and offered him a command to go overseas.
These are some of the things that the hon. member for Prontenac did not tell in connection with the propaganda of these two gentlemen in Quebec. He did not tell us some things that he might have told us. But he tried to insinuate in various ways, although he was rather broadminded in the winding up of his speech, that there were men on this side of the House, including our revered leader, who were not just as loyal to the cause as he considered himself to be and he mentioned some words of our leader in connection with his speech the
other day. But is it not one of the ironies of fate that the only persons who hope and believe that this man whom he was speaking about-(Bourassa)-will take a seat in this House in the next Parliament, are the friends of the hon. member for Frontenae.
It would seem to me that if there are any adherents of Bourassa and Lavergne in this House, they have seats on the other side.
Many of the followers of Bourassa and Lavergne have been gathered to the bosoms of their fathers, or, should I say, to the bosoms of their friends, and the friends to whose bosoms they have been taken are the friends of the hon. member for Fron-tenac.
1 do not find fault with them for that. I am glad to see them converted, even if it brings them within the Conservative fold. So much for the Nationalists, Bourassa and Lavergne.
I am one of those who believe that the manhood and womanhood of Canada have their hearts in this struggle, hoping and praying for the success of the allied arms. The other day the Postmaster General made a very nice and loyal speech in this House, but it struck me that it contained an apologetic note for the French race in this country. As the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has said, I believe the heart of Quebec is sound in this cause. I do not make that statement because of anything that has transpired in this war. As a student of Canadian history, I am bound to say that the French people of this country have time and again given every indication, every proof, if proof were needed, that their hearts are British, that they love the British flag, British traditions, British institutions, and the justice they get under the Union Jack. If proof were necessary, I should only have to turn back the pages of history to the American Revolution. In those days a standing offer was made to the French people along the St. Lawrence in the province of Quebec to join the American revolutionists. The Freiich people spurned that offer. They remained true to the British flag, under which they have received more freedom than they could ever get under the flag of old France. If further proof were necessary, I could recall the other wars in which Canada has been engaged. I might refer to the war of 1812. Where, during that war, could you find throughout the length and breadth of Canada men more loyal to the cause of Britain than those French people who inhabited the banks of the St. Lawrence, Quebec. It is unneces-



UUMMONS

[Stage Direction]
sary for me to mention any names or regiments. I am not here championing the cause of Quebec, or apologizing for the French-Canadian people; for they need no apologists.
It is not necessary to prove that they are loyal either to this war or in any other. Their hearts are sound, as are the hearts of all English-speaking Canadians, and they are for the cause of the Allies and will stay with that cause. And people of all creeds, people of all denominations, and of' all classes in this country are giving and will give this Government every reason to believe that it will get all the support that is necessary in so far as Canada's participation in this world war is concerned.
I admit freely that this Government is doing well as regards recruiting in this country. They are doing well because the hearts of young and old Canadians are with the Government in sending overseas every available man and every man who will be necessary in order to win this war. Canadians, young and old, are with this Government in voting every cent and every dollar which is necessary for this purpose. While that is a fact, I deem it the duty of this Opposition to find fault with the Government if they think the Government has erred, or made mistakes in judgment, or anything else. I do not believe in abusing, or in criticising from personal motives, any hon. gentleman who occupies a portfolio in this Government, but I do say, in all sincerity, as a man who represents one of the largest * constituencies of working men in this country, that it is incumbent on hon. members of this House, whether they sit behind the Premier, or behind the leader of the Opposition, to criticise where criticism is necessary. We are engaged in a world struggle. We are engaged in a war that has caused more devastation in the few months it has been going on than any other war in history. We are engaged in a stiuggle the end of which no man knows, and in which every available man and every available dollar may haye to be used to bring it to a successful completion. That being the case, I say that we should conserve in all possible ways not only the health of the recruits we are sending overseas and those stationed in Canada, .but every possible dollar as well; and we should see that every dollar that is voted in this House finds its way into the proper channel. If members of the Opposition have reason to believe that the 
people's money is being diverted from the proper channels, if they believe that some of the $150,000,000 which this Parliament voted in the last two sessions is not being properly expended, if they believe they have some proof that the Government of this country is placing the expenditure of money in the hands of improper parties, if they believe that this money which was voted for the war is being given to contractors as rewards for political allegiance, then I say it is the duty of this Opposition to criticise and bring this state of affars to the attention of Parliament and the-country.
In the course of his speech the other day the Solicitor General dealt somewhat severely with members on this side of the House who dared to rise in their place and say that the Shell Committee in this country had in their opinion done wrong, that certain of its transactions would not stand the light of day, and who demanded an investigation into its dealings. I take it that the Shell Committee spent the money which they had in their hands honestly or dishonestly, whether the money belonged to the Imperial Government or, as was pointed out by the Minister of Finance the other day, to the Government of this country. If the shell Committee spent that money honestly, * what fear has this Government of an investigation into the transactions of the Committee? If the Government does not wish the Shell Committee to be investigated, am I to believe that that committee spent the money dishonestly?
Hon. gentlemen opposite have protested loud and long against the charges which have been made Ejgainst the Shell Committee. If the Government has no connection with the Shell Committee, if the Shell Committee is not responsible to this Government, not being its creature, if the committee was not bound to report to the Minister of Militia holding a portfolio in this Government, why then does the Government attempt to defend them? On the other hand, I think it has been fully demonstrated that the Shell Committee-I am not speaking of the Imperial Munitions Commission which is at present doing business in this country-was appointed by a member'of this Government; that three of its members are in the Militia Department and representing that department, and that before the Imperial authorities knew there was such .a thing as the Canadian Shell Committee, one of the members of that

committee went over to England in order to show to the English people what we were capable of doing in this country. If my hon. friend the Solicitor General is right in his contention that the Shell Committee has done no wrong, it is a fair proposition for the Government, to show to Parliament and to the country that this committee is all right. But what are the facts? Hon. gentlemen opposite. protest loud and long that the Shell Committee has been honest in its administration of public funds. Last year charges were made by hon. members on this side of the House alleging that there was corruption and jobbery in connection with military purchases in this country. Then we heard protestations of honesty as loud and as long from the hon, gentlemen opposite who were interested, shall I say, in those transactions, as we hear to-day. The Government appointed an investigating committee, and the men who made those charges followed them up in the Public Accounts Committee. I do not want to be personal nor to mention the name of any man who had a seat in this House and who was unfortunate enough not to know to the full what his duties were as a member of this House, but hon. members know the result. Now, to-day is it or is it not the duty of this Government to investigate the charges that have been made? -I do not say they are true; but, surely, hon. gentlemen who not only occupy prominent positions in the Liberal [DOT] party but who -have occupied prominent positions in the government of this country, are not going to make charges in Parliament without having some foundation for them, and it is a duty that the Government owe to themselves to grant a	commission, and to
show either that the Shell Committee has handled its funds properly or that it has not done so, and if the members of that committee have not administered properly the public funds of this coun-_ try and those of the Imperial authorities that were placed in their hands, then it is the duty of this Government to investigate further and to prosecute them if there was wrong doing-I do not care who the members of the Shell Committee were. I have not the proof that the Shell Committee did wrong nor that there was corruption or jobbery in connection with it, but it strikes me as.strangely peculiar that after Mr. Thomas, representing Lloyd G'eorge, the Minister of Munitions, had come over to this country and had spent a few weeks here, the members of that committee were removed from
office. If they were spending properly the money entrusted to them to spend for England and for Canada, why should they have been removed at that time? I hope, Sir, for the honour of Canada, for the honour of this Parliament, and for the honour of these gentlemen who occupy these positions in the Government of to-day, that an investigation will be granted. If there
11 p.m. was no wrong doing, no harm is done; if there was wrong doing, it will be corrected and righted, and the people of this country will see that the public men on both sides of this House are willing to do right and not to shield the wrongdoer, be he Conservative or be he Liberal.
I have said that this Government has done well in the matter of getting our young Canadians to join the standard and to go overseas to fight the battles of the Empire.
If we take the words of the hon. Minister of Militia-and he should know-we have enlisted 250,000 men in this country to join the military forces of Great Britain; that 60,000 of those men are in or near the trenches in Flanders; that 60,000 are making preparations in England, and that the balance of 130,000 are in Canada training. A call has gone forth for an additional 250,000 men, making in all 500,000. I believe that our young Canadians will be recruited and that in less than a year that call for 500,000 men will be filled. Credit is due to the Government for having recruited these 250,000 men, and more credit will be given them if they succeed in recruiting the other 250,000 men. Let the Government be sure that they have the fullest co-operation of the Liberal party-at least of Liberals in the portion of the country from which I come, and that is the only part for which I desire to speak-in getting those recruits, as they have had ever since this war began. But while I am willing to make that statement, I am not willing to admit that the ministers of the Crown in this Government have done all that could be done in the matter of giving aid to the Mother Land and our Allies in this life and death struggle in which she is engaged. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) the other evening pointed out that all the other overseas dominions, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa had contributed to the military forces of England not only as many men proportionately as Canada had done, but that they had also contributed thousands upon thousands of their young and best manhood to fill up the gaps in the British navy. My hon. friend the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) this evening commented on this fact, and by some curious device, by some .
[Stage Direction]
sort of devilish sophistry, may I say, or by some sort of magnificent logic, came to the conclusion that the fact that this country was not represented by young Canadians in the navy of Great Britain, was to be placed at the door of the Liberal party. Let us follow that up.
This Government had a policy in naval affairs a few years ago. It was a policy of contribution-they proposed to contribute $35,000,000 to build three dreadnoughts for Great Britain. But has any member of the Government or any of its supporters ever said that the Canadian people were to contribute men as well as money to that navy? Such a policy was never enunciated. But the Liberal policy-we need not go into that in detail at this time-was to contribute ships for home defence and to participate in the wars of the Empire when necessary-These were not to be empty ships, but were to be commanded, manned and maintained by young Canadians. What has the Government done to contribute to the naval defence of Canada since this war began? Much was said a few years ago about the Niobe and the Rainbow; they were described as a " tinpot navy " by hon. gentlemen of Conservative persuasion. There was on the statute book of this country an Act known as a Naval Service Act, commonly known as the Laurier Navy Act. That Act, contrary to the views expressed by hon. gentleman opposite and contrary to the policy propounded by this Government, is still on the statute book and is still in full force and effect. Under that Act we had when the war broke out, and had had for some time previously, two war ships, one on the Pacific and one on the Atlantic. Those ships were allowed to go into disuse and disrepair. But immediately on the outbreak of the war the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) undertook to put these ships into commission, and we had it from him last session, that these ships, the Rainbow and the Niobe, were doing splendid work in coastal defence and in the transportation of soldiers and supplies. I would like to ask the Minister of the Naval Service (Mr. Hazen), if he was right last year in so expressing his opinion of the Niobe and the Rainbow, why it is that the Niobe is dismantled and lying idle to-day in Halifax harbour? Why has not the minister sent out a call to the men of our seacoasts to fill up the gaps that have been caused in the British navy? I think the answer is that members of the Cabinet and their supporters told us a few 
years ago in this House that we could not get any such recruits in this country, and they do	not want	to	be	given	thelie. Because we can get such recruits in this	country	if	we call	for
them. We can certainly get a>-many in Nova Scotia as were contributed by the little colony of Newfoundland; we can get as many on the Pacific coast as were contributed by Cape Colony in South Africa. But it was not the policy of these hon. gentlemen opposite, and they do not want it to be thought that they knew nothing of the temper of the people in Canada who go down to the sea in ships, whether for fishing or for other purposes, on the Atlantic seaboard or on the Pacific coast. Much discredit, I am sorry to say, might be thrown upon the hon. gentleman who has charge of naval affairs, but I am not going into that just now. In our part of the country the state of affairs is rather too disgraceful to be dwelt upon in this House. But when the Minister of the Naval Service brings down his estimates we shall have something to say with regard to the vessels he sent out from certain ports in Nova Scotia to do patrol service along our coast-motor boats from ten to fifteen feet long sent down to the island of Newfoundland at a cost to this country of some $75 a day, to scare off German invaders who might come across in their armoured ships or submarines. For the present, we will let that matter rest.
The Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) yesterday tried to make this House believe that his department was absolutely divorced, since the war began, from any political affiiliation and would so remain during the war. Perhaps the hon. minister does not know all that is going on in his own department. He may be able, I will not say to mislead the House, but to make the House believe this, but he is certainly not going to make the people in the county and province from which I come believe it, for they have too much evidence to the contrary. I will submit that perhaps most of the plums in this crisis-if there are plums to give-under our system of Government -would naturally go to the friends of the party in power-
John Hampden Burnham: Not during war time.


William F. Carroll: -that is, when conditions are equal and the applicants on either side of politics are equally qualified to fill the positions-perhaps that will suit my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham). But when the Minister of Militia says that there are no

politics in the Department of Militia, I believe that every person in the province of Nova-Scotia who reads that statement, both his own political friends and those who are not his political friends, will blush for very shame. They will smile at the ignorance-if I may be permitted that word -of the Minister of Militia in connection with the doings in his department, I do not say there were not.some eminent acts of independence by the Minister of Militia.
I do not say that some Grits did not find their way into commissions and into fairly good positions in the Militia; but whqt I do say that in the county from which I come the Militia Department is being used by the Conservative party as an addition to the party, as a caucus room, and that wherever recruiting stations are held in the county of Cape Breton there appears the agent of the Conservative candidate in that county. There was a time-
I am glad to say it has gone by now-when recruits were not accepted in that county until they had received the imprimatur of certain Conservative politicians in that county.


Robert Rogers: Give us some names.


William F. Carroll: Yes, I shall give names. The Minister of Public Works is strong on names, I shall give him names. Mr. Speaker, there is in our town a gentleman named Wm. McKinley. The very first man who enlisted from that county, and who is now in the trenches in Flanders, and has been since the first Canadian expeditionary force went overseas, was the only son of this gentleman, Wm. McKinley. There is in the town of Glace Bay what is known as the Marconi tower. Around that tower, since the outbreak of war there have been congregated 120 or 150 of Canada's militia. This man, Wm. McKinley, had a contract for supplying the Canadian militia at Marconi tower in Glace Bay with' certain refreshments, mineral waters, tobacco, cigars and cigarettes. For some time he supplied these as cheaply as any other man in the town of Glace Bay could. You will be surprised to know that within a few weeks the captain in charge at Marconi tower was approached by a gentleman who holds a lucrative position in the Customs Department at Glace Bay, and told that if he did not cease to purchase from Wm. McKinley he would hear more about it; with the result'that Mr. Wm. McKinley, whose only son is fighting and has been fighting in the trenches of Flanders ever 24
since the first Canadian expeditionary force went across, was deprived of that simple, small way of helping to earn a livelihood. Does the minister want some more names?


Robert Rogers: You have not answered me at all yet. My hon. friend perhaps misunderstood what he isaid himself. He siaid that applicants would not be accepted unless they were Conservatives.


William F. Carroll: If there is any way of misunderstanding, you would misunderstand.


Robert Rogers: The hon. member made a statement and said he would prove it.
Mr. CA'RROLL: Yes, I have made a statement,and I can prove it to the full.


Robert Rogers: Give us some names?


William F. Carroll: If my hon. friend wishes names I will give them to him but I will not give them to him here.	,


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I would like to get them now.


William F. Carroll: You will not. I may reply as the Minister of Militia replied to a question I asked yesterday. I asked for the regiment from Nova Scotia which was captained and officered wholly by Liberals. He said: I will give them personally, but they are not the same regiment to which my hon. friend belongs. I will make the same answer to my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Davidson).
In the town of Louisburg there is also a Marconi cable station, and around this station there are 100 or 150 soldiers. That town is some 14 miles from Glace bay. It happens that the only men engaged in the meat business in Lewisburg are Liberals, Peters Bros., I think the name is. They wanted to sell meat to the soldiers but they could not sell to the militia because they were Liberals; and all the meat eaten by the Canadian militia at Louisburg is carried all the way from Glace bay, some 14 miles distant, and the contract was not obtained by tender. In every little house that was made for the accommodation of the soldiers in the town of Glace bay and the surrounding districts there was not a nail driven, not a door put up, by any man who was ever suspected of voting Liberal. Yet the Minister of Militia tells me there is no politics in his department! Perhaps the minister does not know it. I take this opportunity of bringing it to his attention and



telling him that it is time he did know it and that it is time this sort of thing was remedied. I believe that the Minister of Militia would remedy it, and that he is the kind of man who would abolish such methods if he knew the facts of the case.


Avard Longley Davidson: Is my hon. friend not aware that the contract for supplying the troops quartered in Sydney was awarded to a very staunch Liberal, and that all supplies of food, meat, etc., are supplied by that Liberal contractor?


William F. Carroll: I do not know that such is the fact; I do know that the very contrary is the fact.


Avard Longley Davidson: I can assure him that it is a fact and I can give the name.


William F. Carroll: The hon. member does not know as much about Sydney as I do, and I want to assure him that that is not the case in Sydney or elsewhere in the riding of South Cape Breton.
I believe that those things should be remedied. I bring to -the attention of the Minister of Militia also the case of a young man who has been a lieutenant in our county in the Canadian militia for some nine years. When war broke out he wanted to enlist, and desired, of course, to keep the rank to which he was entitled. Notwithstanding the fact that since the war broke out until, I think, October, at least fifty men from Cape Breton were given commissions (men who had never carried a gun or donned the uniform of a Canadian militia man), after having taken some course in Halifax, and perhaps they are good men, but this young man was unlaible to obtain a commission. Why? I do not know of any other reason except that he would not bow down to the Conservative nabob in politics in Glace Bay and go and make his application through him. Hundreds of such cases exist, but I hope the time has come when the Militia Department will do away with this method of doing business and use better judgment and tactics.
There will come a time when the present European conflict will be declared ended. There" will come a time when this war of blood and murder will be followed by a treaty of peace, which we all hope will be as enduring iais any human institution is enduring, and our loftiest hope and , highest ambition is that the end will be satisfactory to the Allies, -and in accordance with the principles for which we battle. But this will be followed by another war, not of blood, not of murder, but a waT of com-[Mr. Carroll. 1
merce, a war to capture some, at least, of the business of the countries against which we are fighting, a war for commercial supremacy. Business will be diverted to new channels, the fields of trade which Germany and her allies have been exploiting will be opened to the allied countries. What preparation is Canada making, what is the Canadian Ministry doing, in order to capture some of this business?' It is true that the time of many of the hon. gentlemen -who occupy cabinet positions is taken up toy the war, but surely the Minister of Labour, for example, who tells us, through the medium of his paper, that there is nothing to do in his department, that there are practically no strikes to settle, and no labour difficulties, can give some little time to a question of this kind. This trade will not he captured by the Government putting up high tariff walls around Canada north, south, east and west.
I helieve it will toe captured toy the country whose resources are best fitted for the work, by the people whose technical training has not been overlooked in this time of stress. In the past German supremacy in *certain trades, and in the manufacture of certain goods was due to the fact that the national revenues had been abundantly used in the establishment and maintenance of technical institutes, trade schools, and other institutions whose chief object was to keep the national industries supplied with an army of skilled artisans. Other countries did the same to a lesser extent; England did the same, and so did the United States and Switzerland.
Some years ago there was appointed in this country a commission . to investigate technical education. This commission did splendid work, they investigated the conditions, not only in this country, but in the United States 'and Europe as well. Some two years ago they made a very voluminous report recommending certain things. For one thing they recommended that this Government and this Parliament should spend some three or four million dollars annually in assisting technical education in this country. During the session of 1914, in answer to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) the Minister of Labour said in connection with what the Government intended to do with that report:
The Government while having given the matter some consideration have not reached a conclusion as to what course we shall take and will not be in a position to reach Such a con-

elusion until we have heard from all the local
governments In Canada.
That was in 1914. In 1915, on page 494 of Hansard, I asked a question about technical education. The answer of the Minister of Labour was:
When the skies are clear we can make satisfactory arrangements with the provincial governments to render material assistance in respect to technical education.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that when the skies are clear, it may ibe too late in this country to give the required assistance to technical education. When the skies are dark is the time to prepare, and if we wish to capture some of the trade which comes from the hands of expert artisans and labourers, it is absolutely necessary that this Government should at the very earliest possible moment take up the question of technical education and contribute towards the training of expert artisans in the various provinces.
Last year my hon. friend the Minister of Labour replied to a question concerning the i jurisdiction of this Parliament in that matter. I do not see how the question of jurisdiction affects the matter at all. The Provincial Legislatures have, of course, control of education in the various provinces, but let me point .out that they also have ' control of agriculture. Two years ago this Government granted a sum of $10,000,000 to be spent in encouraging agriculture in the various provinces, 'and if they had jurisdiction to do that-and I think they had; there is no doubt about the matter-if they had jurisdiction to contribute that sum of $10,000,000 to be used in agricultural colleges and schools, which are maintained out of the provincial revenues, they have the same authority to contribute to technical colleges in the various provinces. I bring this matter in all seriousness to the attention of the Government.	They may tell us that our
revenue is not very buoyant owing to the war, that they have not very much money to spare because we are giving millions of dollars to the cause of the Empire. May I point	out,	however, that of the
$150,000,000 that have been voted for the cause of the Empire, not one dollar comes from the ordinary revenues of the country. Surely, therefore, the Government must be in a position, and is in a position now, to give the required assistance to technical education.
Then there is the question of the report of the commission-I think it was also a creature of the Minister of Labour-which 24*
was appointed some three years ago, I think, or two years ago at least, to investigate the high cost of living in this country. Last year I asked the Minister of Labour t
Has the Commission on the High Cost of
Living made a report?
Before giving the minister's answer I wish to say that the stress and strain and hunger which prevail to-day in Canada, owing to the high cost of living, are more severe than they have ever been since the war began, and if ever there was a time in the history of this country when the Government, or somebody else, should investigate and try to ameliorate the conditions of the labour people, as regards the high cost of living, it is to-day. What did the minister say? He said:
They promised me a couple of weeks ago that their report would be ready before the end of the month, I think it is about ready now, and I think my hon. friend and other, hon. gentlemen will find it a very able report, and a very satisfactory one, especially the work in connection with it, which was done in my department, and of which I am very proud.
That was over a year ago, and would it surprise the House to know that that report has not yet come down, that it is not, even ready, notwithstanding the fact that if there is any department of this Government whose time is not occupied by the-duties of this war it is the Department of Labour, controlled by the Minister of Play, Last year, when tihe people of British Columbia were shivering with fright at the possibility of German warships approaching the coast, our Minister of Naval Affairs and his department were concerned" in issuing a pamphlet to the people of this [DOT] country showing them how to cook fish' properly. Perhaps the Minister of Labour and , his department have been busy for the past year or so, trying to prove to the-people of Canada that three of the fish which the Naval Department taught us to cook properly would be sufficient to feed, forty people. I do not see what else they could have been doing during that time, I think it is time that tlhe Minister of Labour should exert himself and do something in regard to the matter of technical education, and also in regard to the report otai the high cast of living, which he promised a year ago.
Now, Sir, the Ihour is getting late, and in conclusion I wish to say that while there-are some pessimists in this country, as there are in England, who believe that the war is not being properly carried on; while ' there are some pessimists in this country

who are afraid of every 'little obstacle that comes in the way of our armies, and think that they mean disaster and obliteration, I believe that the grand old Union Jack; which has floated over this country for well nigh two centuries, the flag which has "braved a- thousand years the battle and the breeze," will continue when the final issue has been settled in this war to wave over not only this country, but a larger Empire for a thousand more years to come.
On motion of Mr. Burnham, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.	'
Friday, January 28, 1918.