1916-01-20

WRECK OF THE PILOT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr; GAUVREAU:	I would ask the attention of the Postmaster General and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to a telegram which I received last night. The matter will be more interesting to the Postmaster General perhaps, as he was a party to changing the -ships that cross the fit. Lawrence between Riviere du -Loup and Tadousac. The Telegram is as follows:
Rivi&re du Loup, Jan. 19, 1916.
C. A. Gauvreau, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont,
The pilot grounded on Red Island last night and the Mahone has gone to her rescue.
Dr. Parrot.
I should like to know if the Postmaster General has liny information on this subject, and especially whether the Mahone has been successful in her mission.
Hon. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Postmaster General):: Up to the time I left my office, to-day my attention bad not been called to any news having been received in the De-

partmeiit on this subject, but I have just had placed in my hands a despatch from Mr. Thom, one of* the members of the Quebec Ferry Company, the owners of the Pilot, as follows:
Quebec, 20th January, 1916. Hon. T. Chase Casgrain,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Pilot wrecked Tuesday, Red Island. Very important immediate action. See telegram to Mr. Johnson, Deputy Marine, for particulars. Please hurry them. Passengers and crew in danger. Forced to hire Mahone as they did nothing and she was dismantled.
John S. Thom.
Immediate action will be taken, of course, to afford every aid that is possible.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: I hope the Postmaster General will give us the facts later, especially as to whether there has been any loss of life.
SUPPLY OF MUNITIONS FROM CANADA. On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: I desire to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Among the press despatches in yesterday's Canadian . newspapers there appeared the following:
New York, January 19.-A cable to the New York Sun from London under yesterday's date says that in reply to a Question in the House of Commons this afternoon, Lloyd George, Minister of Munitions, said that American munitions were still coming to England. He added that the fact that American munitions were still coming to us is a triumph for the Morgans and not for Canada.
In view of the very meagre nature of the despatch, and because it seems to carry with it some reflection upon Canada, I would ask my right hon. friend if he is in a position to amplify it, or to give the House any information in regard to it.?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: I have not seen the despatch and do not know anything about it. I should greatly doubt the accuracy of the report. It is not m consonance with what Mr. Lloyd George said to me during my visit last summer.



REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Minister of Agriculture for the Year Ended 31st March, 1915.-Hon. Martin Burrell.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Alfred Thompson for an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Wednesday, January 19.
Mr. iMiEIGHEN: I observe in Hansard that at your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pug§l'ey) retracted an expression he had used. It was suggested by you that I make a similar retraction and I take pleasure in doing so.
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: When the House adjourned la=t evening I was discussing the measures mentioned in the speech from the Throne to be brought forward by the Government in relation to the prosecution of the war. I presume, of course, that these measures will have reference to the increase of Canada's war contributions to half a million men. I desire to place before the House to the best of my ability the views I hold in regard to the best means to be followed to assure that increase of our overseas forces. I am bound to take for granted, and the House is bound to take for granted, that when the Prime Minister made the announcement that Canada's overseas forces would be increased to half a million men, and made that announcement only twelve days before the opening of Parliament, - he did so because of the recognized urgency of the proposed action. We must all recognize the propriety of the increase of Canada's overseas forces, and the immediate and urgent need of that increase. These things also we must recognize: that if increase is to be effective, it must be made for the coming summer,' and that the rate of enlistment and of preparation must be greatly accelerated throughout this Dominion or that expectation cannot be realized.
I hope that the conditions of last winter will not be repeated. At the beginning of last winter in Canada, and I am afraid throughout the allied countries, the impression was that we were winning, and the winter passed without adequate preparation for the spring campaign. On the other hand, the alliance of the central powers spent the winter in active organization and preparation, so that when they took the field in the spring the condition was absolutely changed. In the fall there was a disrupted and defeated Austria; in the spring, there was a thoroughly reorganized and effective Austria, and the combatant
forces of the central powers had been in- [DOT] creased to that extent. With the beginning of the present winter direct communication has been established between the Germanic and the Turkish allies, and we may be very sure that, as last winter was spent in reorganizing Austria, so this winter will be spent in reorganizing Turkey; and we must expect that with the spring the allied powers will have to face an enormously augmented and comparatively efficient array. It is in the last degree necessary that, we and our allies should meet that contingency, which we are certainly assured of, by adequate preparation, in the increase in the numbers of our men, in the supply of their munitions, and in the efficiency of their arms. When we recall the speeches made by 'the Minister 'Of Munitions in Britain, Lloyd George; when we recall the urgent utterances of Lord Kitchener, Minister of War, and, above all, when we refer to the apeal of the King himself to his subjects throughout the Dominions, we must realize that this is a case of the utmost urgency, and that if Canada's aid is to be effective it must be promptly rendered. I am bound to assume, therefore, that it is not the intention of the Government to continue warlike preparations at the rate that has been followed during the past months. As I said yesterday, if we'are to have this increase in our forces, we must go deep into the body of our people; we must arouse their souls as they have not yet been aroused. The campaign that has been made in the past will, in some way or other, have to be increased in effectiveness, or the promise made by the Prime Minister of Canada, without the responsibility of Parliament, will not be implemented at the time when it must he to be effective. So, Mr. Speaker, as it appears to me, it is desirable, in the discharge of the duty that every member of this House owes to his country and to the Empire, that we should freely and fully state the conditions that seem to tend against a more rapid enlistment, and, at the same time, speak on behalf of conditions that would tend towards that more rapid enlistment.
In order that my own position may be clear, I may say that I took occasion yesterday to speak of the proportion of enlistment in the province from which I come. May I be permitted to go further, and to say that, so far as my information goes, the constituency that I have the honour to-represent has sent into the overseas forces of Canada a larger number, and a larger

. number in proportion to its population, than any other in the Dominion. I spoke yesterday of some of the reasons foi this being the case so far as our new set-lers were concerned, and, for fear that I be misunderstood, may I also make mention -of the fact that whatever may be the case in other parts of the Dominion, in that constituency and vicinity the native-born population have not been behind any other section of the community in their lesponse to the call for service. Twenty and twenty-five years ago there was only a small resident population in Edmonton and vicinity, and, as is natural in the development of a new country, there have been many changes in that resident population. That part of the resident population, therefore, that was there twenty and twenty-five years ago is necessarily very limited, and of that small population I recall that six families have sent three sons each, that fifteen families have sent two sons each, and that of the handful of native-born people who are there, at least one hundred have up to date given their' services to the Empire overseas^ So that, Mr. Speaker, the House will understand that any remarks I make are not made because there has been any lack of response to the call up to the present time in that part of the country from which I come. But that response has been of such a cnara'cter that perhaps I may claim to realize more thoroughly than some other members how deep the cutting will have to be in our remaining population in order to meet the demand for another quarter of a million men.	'
I was speaking yesterday of the hindrances, as I understood them, to recruiting that arose 'because of the inadequate pension list that was provided in the case of maimed or disabled soldiers. I brought to the attention of the House the opinion of a committee of very responsible men in the city of Toronto. There could be nothing more clear or distinct than their expression of opinion-an opinion that must be coincided in by every man who gives the matter fair attention. While we may use patriotic language and flamboyant expressions, we must recognize that if we call on the young man to give his prospects, his limb, possibly his life, to the cause of the country, it is only right and fair, that the country should acknowledge its share of the obligation and deal with that man liberally, fairly and ungrudgingly. I spoke of cases where maimed men had been discharged at Quebec, cut off the pay-list, not 
put on the pension-list, given a discharge, a railway ticket and a few dollars to take them home, and made a charge on their friends and relatives for the time being. I hope that that condition has been remedied. It was not fair to allow that condition to exist and to have- the slur thrown upon the young men of our, country that they are not doing their duty, when,this Parliament or this Government has not done its duty by them. Let us have fair play on both sides.
In this connection let me say that I saw in the newspapers a short time ago something that was very discouraging to me. It is a fact that in a war waged as this present war is being waged, by. new means and new methods such as never were used before, there have come into existence new conditions of disablement;' and among those conditions is what is called shock, physical or mental shock, resulting in a greater or less degree of insanity. It mast be assumed that if a thoroughly robust man, as these men are thoroughly robust before they enter the service, has, by reason of temperament or special conditions suffered from mental or physical shock so that his mind is to some extent deranged, there ought surely to be every reason that under proper treatment, with fair, consideration he will in time make a complete recovery. I was astonished to read in a newspaper just the other day that it was contemplated that these men should be consigned to lunatic asylums. I hope that the Government will realize their responsibility in this, and will see that other arrangements are made than to simply treat these men as ordinary lunatics. They should not be placed in a position that, in the first place, is degrading and not warranted, and in the next olace, would in all probability prevent the ultimate recovery that under fair circumstances, may reasonably be expected.
There is no doubt that whatever pension list may be provided, in the case of helpless men who have no relatives- and we are appealing for his services to the young man who has no relatives-the country should assume the responsibility of' absolutely caring for those men in institutions properly equipped -and properly conducted. We knew nearly eighteen months ago that we were at war. It is more than a year since our men began to be maimed and killed. We have had a session of this Parliament since that time, and although at the last session of Parliament, at the suggestion of the Govern-

ment, we voted many many millions for public works in this country, so far as I am aware there was not one dollar voted for the establishment of institutions of the character I have mentioned, and which it is certain are a first necessity to meet the conditions that must arise out of war, and in some measure discharge the obligations of this country to these men who render such public service at such awful cost. The erection of such institutions would show to our young men, to whom we look for military defence, that the country recognizes sacrifice made and is prepared to deal with them honourably and generously in consideration of their sacrifice, doing the best that can be done-and even that best is but a poor return-for the sacrifice they have been called upon to make.
There is another branch of this subject with which I propose to deal, and in relation to which I may find myself not in accord with a majority of the members of the House. But I am here, on my conscience, to deal as best I can with the conditions that surround us, and I propose to. deal with that question as well. There is something that is dearer to a man than his own life or limb, dearer to him than his country, and that is his wife and children. If we were able to secure our military requirements from, amongst those of our people who have not either wife, or children, or other dependents, that would be well. We have not been able to do that in the past, and much less will we be able to do it in the future. We have had to accept the services of married men in very large proportion in order to secure the requisite number of enlistments. If we are going to call for another quarter of a million men we must certainly depend more and more greatly orr those who have the ties of wife or child. If we are asking a man who has dependents to give his services, his limb, or his life, for his country, then his country, in fairness and in common sense, is called upon to make reasonably adequate provision for those dependents. That the country has not done up to the present time. A scale of separation allowance and assigned pay has been made out, which, from the. day it was made out, was admitted to be inadequate for the purpose that was intended to be met. It never was considered to be adequate to the proper support of the dependents of the soldiers who had enlisted. From the beginning it was intended that this sum supplied by the country should be supplemented by what is called the Patriotic Fund, that is to say,
sums of money raised by public subscription. I am quite aware that the demands of the Patriotic Fund have been generously, even enthusiastically met. All credit to those who have contributed to that fund. That is not the point. It is not the individual citizen who owes the soldier the maintenance of his .dependents, but the country, and the country should discharge that debt. It should not be left to the individual citizen, his benevolence, his generosity, his patriotism, or whatever other word you may see fit to use.
I am quite aware that no matter what amount of separation allowance had been fixed, there -would always arise incidents in which there would be room for the exercise of benevolence and patriotism in assisting dependents of the soldiers who might be specially unfortunate. In cases of sickness, in cases of fire, in cases of many accidents, there would always be a call for the benevolent and patriotic to go to the assistance of dependents of the soldiers. There is, therefore, good reason why there should be a patriotic fund, but there is no good reason why the patriotic fund should have had from the very beginning to bear a definite portion of that burden which properly rests on the shoulders of the country. It is not creditable to this country that we should take that position. I have heard the hon. gentleman who is the president of the patriotic fund give reasons for that fund, stating that the scale of living was different in different provinces, and that the patriotic fund, under non-Governmental administration, permitted an elasticity that was to the benefit of all concerned. I do not agree at all that it is necessary to take the matter out of the hands of the Government in order that the allowances for dependents may be fitted to the conditions of the province in which they live. It is surely a well-known fact that the cost of living is greater in some provinces than in others. The Government is as well aware of that as any body else, because to-day in the scale of pay allowed by the Government to many of their employees, a difference is made to meet that very condition. Now, what can be done in the case of the employees of the Government can be done just as well in the distribution of maintenance allowances for dependents now undertaken by the patriotic fund.
There is a feature of this case which is difficult to deal with without possibly giving offence. I wish to be understood as not de-

siring to give any offence, but as desiring to get at the very bottom of the motives that govern men when they ^are offering their services to their country. I say, and it cannot be contradicted, that the man who leaves a wife and family is not as well satisfied to leave that wife and family partially dependent upon the benevolence, the generosity or the patriotism of the individual citizens of the country as he would be to leave them to benefit by a fixed allowance coming directly from the treasury of the country. Perhaps you think that that makes no difference; that if they get the money it makes no difference where it comes from. That is the very point, Mr. Speaker; they are not getting the money. The allowances that were fixed when the first contingent was enlisted, the allowances from the patriotic fund, and the method of distribution that was adopted when the first contingent was enlisted having, for good reason or bad, I know not, been changed, so that the man who enlisted and was told that his dependents would get a certain separation allowance from the Patriotic Fund, finds to-day that they are . not getting that amount, and that they are not getting it on the same conditions which obtained in the first place. I can only call that a breach of faith with the soldier, who, when he gave his services and signed the book, had no string attached to his service. His service had to be to death if he were called upon, and I say that the needs of his dependents should he "met according to the terms arranged at the beginning, and that there should be no withdrawal for any reason whatever. This country has the money to pay for munitions and arm's, and surely it has' the money to pay for the support of the dependents of the men who use these arms and munitions. If it has not the money, or if it has not the generosity to employ the money in that way, then we in this Parliament of Canada are not the men who should call in question the loyalty of our citizens because they do not volunteer in larger numbers.
I am suggesting, and suggesting very strongly to this House and to the Government, without desiring to make charges of any kind against the Government, or to hold them responsible particularly for what has taken place-I am pointing out to them the desirability of revising, and revising at once, the conditions in regard to allowances for the disablement of soldiers, the conditions in regard to soldiers when

they have returned from the front, and the conditions and allowances in regard to the support of the dependents of those soldiers. When they are calling for another quarter of a million of men, my suggestion to them is that the first thing they should do is to establish beyond any question the attitude of the people of this country at large as represented by the Government and by Parliament; to establish their appreciation of, and gratitude to the men they are calling upon to serve. It is not fair, Mr. Speaker, that such a large proportion of the support of dependents should rest upon benevolence, because it comes to this, that the benevolent or patriotic citizens carry the burden, and those who are not benevolent and who are less patriotic do not carry the burden. That is not fair, and that should be adjusted so that whether they will, or whether they will not, the population of Canada generally will bear their share of that burden according to their means under our system of taxation.
I have here a most illuminating document on that point. It is bulletin issued by the Canadian Patriotic Fund on October 15, and it gives a list of places in the province of Ontario that have contributed to the fund. It gives the name, the population, the amount of the contribution, and the amount per head. .1 think nothing could make it more clear that the support of the Patriotic Fund does not rest equally upon the shoulders of our people, as it should. Collingwood contributed $1.12 per head; Barrie contributed 28 cents per head; Oshawa contributed $2.63 per head, while Walkerville contributed $11.18 per head. Not to weary the House, I need only say that the variation in these contributions per head at the different points establishes beyond question the point that I make, that this is a levy absolutely unfair by which the unwilling gain, and the willing pay the cost. When we are increasing our enlistment of men so enormously as we are proposing to do, in the first place, we must change the conditions in regard 'to the Patriotic Fund or we will not get the enlistment and, in the second place, I am afraid that those who have been bearing the burden so far will become weary in well doing, and that the Patriotic Fund will, actually fail of its purpose when it is called upon to meet the enormous charge that it must necessarily be called upon to meet if this enlistment is successful.
There is another feature of the case that I think should be drawn to attention, and

it is that while nominally these contribu-tiQns are contributions of patriotism and good will, in a very large proportion of cases they are forced contributions. In a number of cases, the city or the county levies a tax upon -the people in order to raise the whole or a portion of the money that is expected from that town or county. That is fair as far' as it goes, but if it is fair for the county or the city to levy a general tax for its contribution to the Patriotic Fund, why is it not just as fair and just as right for the Parliament or the Government of Canada to levy the necessary amount by the ordinary process of taxation? There is another way in which money is raised and it is this: An employer of labour will call his men together and will say: We are called upon to make a contribution to the Patriotic Fund. The men are expected to contribute so much out of their pay. Of course, they do not have to contribute, but they can lose their positions if they do not contribute; and I am under the impression -that if this contribution from the town of Walkerville were looked into barefully it would be found to be identically, or in a large measure, of that class. Certainly there are many other cases in which this is the fact. It is not, as it is represented to be, a free contribution, the evidence of patriotism or benevolence; it is in large measure, a forced contribution and certainly it should not be levied in that way.
There is something besides the maintenance of the soldier himself or the maintenance of his dependents. There is the question of the efficiency of the soldier and of his weapons. We may enlist 500,000 men before the spring, but unless these men are adequately armed and unless they are trained in the use of the arms put into their hands, their assistance in the struggle during the coming summer will be of little value. This is a matter of the highest and greatest importance. It may be that what I desire to say will be resented and it will be said that I am giving information to the enemy. At this period of time and in this condition of affairs, it is important that we should know- what our position is. That we should see that optimism is replaced by efficiency and if there is no other way to arrive at it then inefficiency must be exposed. We have 50,000 men on the battlefield in France and Flanders, we have 60,000 men training in England, I believe, to take their places on the battlefield, and we have
120,000	men in Canada also preparing to take their places on the battlefield. Unless these men are armed and equipped and
trained in the use of their equipment and weapons they are not of value in deciding the conflict that is now in progress. It was not long after the first great battle had been fought that it became known to Canada that their men went into that battle inefficiently and insufficiently equipped as compared with their opponents. We lost an enormous number of men in the early battles in Flanders and we lost these men in large measure because they had not an adequate equipment of machine guns. The battle of Langemarck took place in April. I read in October the statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) in the city of St. John, in which he said that machine guns which had been ordered at the beginning of the war were then being delivered, and I read shortly afterwards a statement by the hon. Minister of Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) in which he said that they were about to be delivered. Have these machine guns been delivered yet? Are our 50,000 men in the trenches in Flanders properly equipped ' with machine guns, are our 60,000 men in Britain because they have not "got machine guns to enable them to take their places in Flanders? Why is it that we have 120,000 men in Canada instead of over in Britain or Flanders?	.
I spoke a little while ago of the difficulties of recruiting. Let'me say that when you appeal to the young man and you tell him that1 the fate of the Empire, in a measure, rests upon his shoulders, and you urge him to leave his employment, to enlist, to train for service, and when he sees a hundred thousand of his fellow-citizens who have left their employment, who have cut themselves off from their ordinary avocations, who are under arms, who are under orders, but who are not, as a matter of fact, doing anything for the effective decision of tha contest, he will say: I will go when you need me, and you do not need me as long as you do not need these men whom you already have under arms. There is no question about the conditions being as I have said; we have it on the statement of the Prime Minister that that is the condition. And I say that such a condition does not tend to inspire our young men with the idea of the urgent need that exists for their services and their sacrifices, and that when we call for these men to leave their avocations, to give up their prospects, to risk life and limb in our service, it is surely necessary that they should understand that they are wanted and wanted immediately. Just let me mention an occurrence in my

own constituency. Some time in the month of August last, if I remember aright, authority was issued for the raising of two battalions at Edmonton. Recruiting officers were sent to Peace river, and on the Grand prairie of Peace river, while the harvest was ripening, young men, homesteaders there,. , obeying what they believed to be the urgent call of their country, left their harvest in the field, arranged with their neighbours as best they could to take it off, and came down to Edmonton and joined the 66th Battalion. That battalion is in Edmonton yet. What occurred in the case of these men has occurred in the case of hundreds of others. It is evident, on the face of it, that when representations were made to these men, if such representations were made, and I take it that they must have been made, that they were urgently and immediately wanted, because that was the reason why they left their harvests in the field, there was no reason why these men should have been called away at that particular time, why they should not have finished- their harvesting, arranged their business, and left when the business of the season had been concluded. Now, we have the spectacle of these men, who have left their belongings, doing military drill in the city of Edmonton, putting in barrack life under conditions which are necessarily irksome to men who have be-efi taking the part of pioneers, and we cannot consider that such a method of handling the recruiting of our regiments tends to the enthusiasm necessary to secure success. There surely should be more judgment exercised in the enlistment of men to make sure that they are not called from their proper avocations unless and until they are needed, and when they are needed, then they certainly should be made use of.
I am going to make a statement now that appears to me to be a very serious one. I have spoken of the need of machine guns, but it must be admitted after all that in the wars of the present day the rifle is the weapon that finally wins. The ability to use the rifle effectively is the first necessity of the infantry soldier, and is the decisive factor in any war. This summer there were 8,000 men in camp at Calgary for brigade manoeuvres 4 p.m. and target practice. I am credibly informed that for the use of those 8,000 men at target practice there was a matter of sixty service rifle's, and that those men did not get target practice to any extent that would 
reasonably tend to their efficiency in rifle shooting; that those men were armed with rifles which have not been considered suitable for active service, but which are used merely for drilling purposes, and that, as a matter of fact, those men had not at that time, and -so far as I know, they have not yet been provided with rifles suitable for active service and for target practice. There are three regiments in barracks at Edmonton to-day, and there is a rifle range at Edmonton within the limits of the corporation. I discussed with the Minister of Militia last session the use of that rifle range. There is no good reason why it should not be used; but it has not been used, and although three regiments have been there since the beginning of the winter, they have not fired a shot for the improvement of their rifle practice. Is that fair to the country? Is it fair to the soldiers that when the call does come, they are sent across the ocean and into the trenches without having had that opportunity to improve themselves in that part of their military service which is of the greatest necessity, not only to protect their own lives, but to destroy those of the enemy, which after all is the purpose of war.
I have heard it said that we are getting men as fast as we can equip them. If .that is the case, if we have not the rifles with which to arm those men, surely we ought to be busy making them or getting them made somewhere and somehow. We have had a rifle factory in Canada for many years. I do not know whether that is the only factory that is turning out rifles now or -not. I do not know what the conditions in that respect are, but I do know this: that when we enlist a man for overseas . service we should be prepared to put on his back a uniform, t.o put in his hands an effective rifle, and we should not lose a minute or an opportunity, from the day he enlists until the day he goes into the trenches, to render him proficient in the use of that rifle as well as in drill and in all military requirements. But We are not doing that, and I cannot consider it anything less than a crime against our soldiers, against our country and against our Empire, that the present condition exists.
If I am mistaken in what I have said, we are here in Parliament, and it is for those who know better to put me right and to put the country right. I shall be glad to know that what I have stated-is not correct. But, Mr. Speaker, it is correct,



J916

[Stage Direction]
and I very much regret that it is so. We have to-day, as I have said, three battalions at Edmonton. It is surely a part of the business of these men, not only to become expert in the use of the rifle, but also certain sections should be expert in the use of the machine gun. But, up to the time I left Edmonton, there was only one machine gun upon which these men could drill in the use of that weapon. -The 5lst Regiment had a Colt machine gun, but the other two regiments, I am credibly informed, were drilling their machine gun squads with dummies-as effective, somebody has suggested, as if they were working a mouse-trap without bait. These are conditions that are terrible, and they should be remedied and remedied now. It is necessary that they should be remedied now if we are to meet- the demand that is being made upon the Dominion of Canada for this largely increased force of men. We have now three battalions in barracks in Edmonton, and we are enlisting two more. I fancy that the enlistment will be made. When I left, the 138th Battalion was up to over six hundred strong, and the 151st Battalion was recruiting rapidly.
There is one thing I wish to say with regard to the system of recruiting that is being followed in many parts of the country this year, as I have seen it stated in the newspapers. A town is told that if they will recruit twenty-five or more men, the men will be billetted in the town during the winter, and the town will get the benefit of their expenditure during the time they are so billetted. This may appeal to those who are military men. I am not a military man, I never was, and it certainly does not appeal to me as being the means of building up as rapidly as the urgency of the ease demands-and there never was so urgent a case in the history of the world-an effective army to do credit to Canada and to defend the Empire during the coming summer. How much further ahead will these twenty-five men be in military efficiency after having been billetted at Government expense for six months of the present winter? Will they have gained anything in military experience, anything that will be of advantage to them when spring comes? I should hesitate to characterize such a proposition in the terms in which it appeals to me. It does not appeal to me as being a serious attempt to actually increase the numbers and efficiency of our overseas forces within a reasonable time. If it is a matter of getting so many more names on 8
the rolls; no doubt it is a good way, but names on the rolls are not good'enough at this time and under present circumstances; nothing is good enough except a man whose heart is in his work, who is prepared to make the supreme sacrifice, who has a weapon in his hands and knows how to use it, and is where he can use it effectively.
Is it because we have not enough money that we have not armed and equipped our men, or is it because we do not want to arm and equip them? What is the reason? It is past the understanding of man that those who claim such a superabundance of loyalty to the Empire, and express such a strong appreciation of the obligations of our country, should permit, on their responsibility, the existence of such conditions. I believe that if the Government will take hold of this matter of sending men overseas as they should, and as their announcement on New Year's Day was intended to indicate, if they will properly provide for the men in case of disablement, if they will adequately provide for their dependents, if they will -supply the men with arms and equipment promptly and efficiently, and if they will use the men when they get them, I believe we can get the men. But I do not believe that we can get them, under the conditions that have prevailed up to the present time, within the time that we need to get them if they are going to be of actual service. We may get them two or three years from now, but two or three years from now is not soon enough. We want them now, or certainly when the campaign opens in the spring. That is when they are needed, and anything short of that is a dereliction of duty on the part of those who are charged with the responsibility of the government of our country at this time.
When war was declared, we were a country at peace. We boasted that we had enjoyed peace for a hundred years. We knew nothing of war; we cared nothing about war, and we did not want to know anything about it. So, when we wanted to raise an expeditionary force we certainly had difficulties in finding experienced officers; and when we raised our second force the condition was much the same. We have been at war for eighteen months; we have been represented on the battlefields by
many	thousands	of our men, and	Iwould	think, Mr. Speaker,	, that	itwould	be the	part of	wisdom	ifto-day	we made	use, in	very much	
larger measure than we are doing, of
[Stage Direction]


the experience that has been gained by those men in the terrible ordeal of war itself. Surely a man who has gone through the crisis of an engagement has learned more of war in ten minutes than he could learn in ten years in ordinary civilian life. Surely the thousands of men that we now have in France and Flanders, rendering noble service to their country and to the Empire, men who answered the very first call of duty, surely these are the men to whom we may very well look to raise the battalions that we are now raising or are going to raise for the conflict of the future. I withdraw no credit from the man who, although he may have been in civilian life, desires to serve his country; who receives a commission, makes enlistment, and by reason of his position is able to secure the adhesion of other men to the cause.	L have no fault to find
with that man; I give him all credit. But at the same time we must recognize that what is wanted in this war is experience and efficiency, and when we have the men of experience and efficiency we are not doing justice to ourselves if we do not use those men, and use them to the limit. It certainly would be a graceful recognition of patriotism and merit if that were done. I respectfully urge upon the Government that they take this into the.r consideration, and that in the efforts they are to put forward in the future they take cognizance of the men of experience on the battlefield and use them here for the purpose of enlistment and the training of the new battalions.
I gathered from a statement made by the Prime Minister last session that it was the intention to keep in Canada as many men enlisted for overseas service as were on service across the ocean; that is to say, if we had 30,000 men across the ocean, we were to have 30,000 in Canada. I do not know what led the Prime Minister to that decision, but I want to say, first, that when a man enlists for overseas service he expects to go overseas; in all probability he Would not have enlisted if he did not expect to go overseas. If it is a part of the policy of the Government to keep on this side of the water a portion of the men who have enlisted for overseas service they are not meeting the desires and hopes and intentions of the men who have enlisted, and, further, they are discrediting that spirit of sacrifice which was in the hearts of the men when they made their enlistment. It may be that it is considered advisable that there

should be kept in Canada, while the Empire is in a state of war, a large proportion of the military force. I agree that it is desirable that while the Empire is at war there should be at all times a military force of considerable size in the Dominion of Canada, but I maintain that that force can be provided adequately and efficiently by the active militia, and that it is not necessary to,keep on this side of the water a single man who has enlisted for overseas service. Every man who has enlisted for overeas service should, in due course, be sent overseas, and the active militia of the country should be given a status, both as to conditions and arms, sthat they have been deprived of since this war began. It has appeared to me that in the opinion of the Department of Militia, or of the Government, the men who formed the active militia were in some way shirking their duty, or preventing the enlistment of other men for overseas service. It is my view that that is an entirely mistaken apprehension; it is absolutely the opposite of the fact. When war broke out we had in Edmonton an infantry battalion and a mounted squadron. Those two' bodies of active militia were the basis, first, of an infantry battalion and of a cavalry unit enlisted for overseas service, and, afterwards, of three or four other battalions enlisted for overseas service. We did not have less enlistment for overseas service because of these active militia regiments in Edmonton; we had more, because when the time came for the young man- who had acquired some little military spirit by reason of his association with the active militia-to enlist in another battalion for overseas service, he was ready to go into it, and we got another man in the local battalion. But the Government, instead of recognizing the service that these local battalions render, has taken away from them their arms; has taken away from them any recognition in the way of pay. They are there without uniforms; they are there without recognition of any kind; yet they have sufficient military spirit to meet for such drill as they can carry out without weapons. I say that when the Empire is at war, in the first place it is the duty of Canada to send every man to the theatre of war that it can send; and, in the next place, it is no less its duty to maintain on an active and efficient footing a sufficient body of voluntary militia in the country itself, properly armed, properly, equipped, and ready for service in case service should be required. I take it that in a case such

as we are in, every man that can be depended upon for his loyalty and is ready to handle a gun should ihave a gun to handle, so that whatever may come-and no man can tell what may occur-we shall be prepared as well as we can be for that eventuality. As I see it, our military business is conducted as though we had no interest except what is across the sea. Of course, that is our paramount interest and our most -. urgent interest, but that interest does not in any degree detract from the necessity of having an active militia force in the Dominion of Canada on a proper war footing, with encouragement to rifle associations or other organizations that will accustom our people to the use of weapons and to the idea of self-defence. I say that our condition should be recognized as a country at war, and that it should be recognized that we need a military force in the country; -that that force should be composed of active militia men, who, for the time being, or by reason of circumstances, are not desirous of going overseas, so that, although every man we have who can and will go overseas may be in the fighting line, we will still have a sufficient military force within the country to hold our country against any eventualities that may arise. We never know what may occur. To be unprepared is to invite injury, to be prepared is the best possible defence.
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has been for most of his parliamentary career one of the most uncompromising fighters on the floor of this House; at all events, from the time he ceased to be a sturdy, independent pioneer from the West and became a member of the late Government, and extending, I think, to a period as far advanced as the time when the clouds of this war appeared in Europe. Uncompromising though he has been as a party warrior, and forceful though he has been as such, I say, and I say cheerfully, that his speech in the House yesterday and to-day did no discredit to his sense of duty now. It is either a fact or it is not a fact, that the character and tone of parliamentary discussion and of public discussion in general should be modified by the dangers and disasters that enthral us, and hang above us from Europe. I am glad that the hon. gentleman from Edmonton has ranged himself among those members of the Liberal party who agree that these considerations should have an effect,
81 .
and he has demonstrated this by the character of the speech he has just delivered.
I noted with interest his closing sentence. He stated that to be unprepared was to invite attack, and that to be prepared was itself one-half the battle. May I be forgiven if I express regret that that sentiment did not seem to animate him more forcibly eighteen months ago.
I remember, however, a speech that the hon. member delivered on the 18th of November, 1912, shortly after his return from Europe. He then stood in his place in parliament and, in words of singular force and significance, warned this country and warned the Empire against the day of German aggression. The language he used on that occasion is language ot which he need not be ashamed. He pictured the peril under which our country lay as comparable only with the old Napoleonic days when Europe trembled under the rod of a colossus and when Bonaparte was encamped at Boulogne. I think he would have been a prouder man now if he had adhered to the convictions that animated him on that day, and if he had guided his conduct in conformity with those convictions, and had stood behind the preparations he urged on the 18th of November, had stood behind the character of preparations endorsed by both the Government of his own country, and the Government of the Empire.
However that may be, those days are' , passed and I am prepared to remember now that, behind the errors and the vagaries that we think have characterized his public life, there has ahvaj's appeared a firm foundation or background of British fidelity, exemplified, confirmed, and emphasized now by the fact, of which we are all proud, that two of his sons stand to-day enrolled as combatants under their country's flag.
I shall not undertake to comment as a member of the Government, on much of what the hon. member has said with regard to the conduct and equipment of the forces of Canada. An answer, in so far as an answer ca'n be given to the specific complaint he makes, having regard to Imperial interests, can be better made by some member of the Administration more closely in touch with our military forces. I am aware that there are regiments in Canada whose men and officers feel that they have been unwarrantably delayed. I have in mind the very regiment mentioned by the hon. member, the 66th of Edmonton, which I had the honour to see myself only a few weeks ago, and which, so far as I could judge, appeared

to be a regiment excellently well prepared. I know that they themselves would like, as many another, to be hurried more rapidly to the scene of conflict. But, we cannot forget tnat though complaint hds been laid against the Canadian authorities in thjs rega'rd, complaint in vastly greater volume has also been laid against the British authorities for the same thing, and we observe across the water men by the thousand, yes by the million, delayed month after month in England for one reason or _ another. I think it can be shown in Canada, as there, that the reasons that are behind.that delay are good and sufficient, -and, under the circumstances, unavoidable.
The hon. gentleman stated that the scale of pensions and the scale of allowances in Canada were inadequate, -and he urged upon the Government, not only the enlargement of that scale, dealing more liberally with the dependents of the soldiers who fight our battles, but also that the funds from which that support is given should be afforded by the Canadian Government, and that we ' should not rely on public subscriptions for that purpose. Now as to the first phase of his complaint, that the scale of pensions and allowances is too small for this country, I, have only to observe, as my information is, that the scale is the largest of all the twelve belligerent nations, that it is the most generous of them all. I observe this also, that the scale as fixed was laid on the table of this House some time before the close of last session, so that it was open to the observation and criticism of hon. gentlemen opposite, and the pages of Hansard will be searched in vain for a single question or a single criticism offered then. If hon. gentlemen thought that the scale whs too small, ' that was the time to say so. Of course, if they now feel that it should be enlarged, it is only their duty to point it out; it is a matter that should engage the attention of the Government, and doubtless will, ait the request of hon. gentlemen.
I was not present when the hon member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) referred yesterday to certain matters that particularly concern our part of the Dominion. However, I have had an opportunity of reading his remarks, and it may be worth while that I should make a little comment upon them. The hon. gentleman, in the opening part of his speech yesterday, called attention to the high ocean rates, which seem also to have disturbed the soul of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-

ley). The hon. member for Edmonton complained that although provision had been made, through the joint action of this Government and the Imperial Government, for the carriage of munitions of war in commandeered vessels to. the Motherland, we had not pushed through the matter of procuring from the Imperial authorities the commandeering of vessels for the carriage of our wheat. It would doubtless be a considerable advantage-yes, an advantage amounting to millions of dollars

if by any action on our part, or by any action on the part of the Imperial authorities, we could have succeeded in reducing the rates on Canadian grain, and also on Canadian imports over the North Atlantic. But when the hon. gentleman complains that we should have insisted jupon the British Government commandeering vessels under their control for the purpose of carrying grain, so as to be consistent with our design in getting them to commandeer vessels for the carrying of munitions, he fails to observe that there is a very clear distinction betwe.en. the carriage of Canadian grain and the carriage of British Government munitions. It has been the policy of the Imperial Government, as 1 understand it-and I think the records throughout this war and previous to [DOT] this war will confirm what I state-to commandeer British vessels for the carriage of British Government supplies, for the carriage of Government property, and Government property only. They have never commandeered vessels for the carriage of private property. Whether they are right in taking that position, or whether they are wrong, it is, at all events, a matter over which we have no control. But il we are disposed to criticise, I venture to offer these observations to hon. gentlemen opposite, and, indeed, to members on troth sides of the House. I do not offer them as having been advanced directly by the Imperial authorities, for I would not be the one to receive them, but as observations that will appear clear to any one who desires to understand the situation. Were the British Government to commandeer their vessels for the carriage of Canadian grain, to be consistent, they would have to commandeer them also for the carriage of all other Canadian commodities-that would be only just to the Canadian people -and they would also be compelled to commandeer them for the carriage of all the commodities of all the dominions of the Empire. They could not deny to one what

they granted to another, and to undertake that would be a- very vast undertaking indeed. Ad all events, so far, it has not appeared to them to be their duty to do so. Furthermore, were they to undertake on, behalf of the dominions of the Empire to commandeer vessels of British register, would it be any more than consistent to commandeer them for the carriage of private property belonging to or addressed to the-British people. What would apply to one portion of the Empire would apply to all portions. I might go beyond that. Were the British Government constrained to utilize the sea power which has given them control of the waters of the globe and enabled them to protect shipping the world over, and enabled them also to commandeer vesels at their will-were they to utilize that sea power for the benefit of their own commerce, as opposed to the commerce of their Allies, it is not inconceivable that just complaint might arise. I shall proceed no further along that line, but I think I have suggested considerations which every one must think out for himself if he feels in any way constrained1 to complain of the treatment accorded to Canadian commodities in their passage over the Atlantic. It is of course too obvious to require expression that it is beyond the power, of the Government of Canada to exercise a commandeering power over vessels bn the North Atlantic.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask a question. I do not ask it in a partisan sense, but will the hon. member kindly tell us what the right hon. the Prime (Minister accomplished along the lines of getting our wheat transported?	.


Arthur Meighen: and have them right-Canadian grain this year-the year of the greatest production in our country-has been transported from the harvest fields over the railways to our ports, and through the ports of entry to the south, more expeditiously than in any previous year in our history. Thus the Government has secured transport to the markets of the world, resulting in a very considerable increase in the prosperity of this country.
While we complain oj ocean rates, and while doubtless it is our duty to do everything in our power -to have these rates reduced and to bring about conditions that alone will reduce them, it is only by the multiplication of vessels available that they can be reduced, until the time comes when it may be possible by the concerted action of the several countries to gain control of them. And while it is our duty to secure that reduction to the greatest possible extent, we must remember that it is impossible to say that the rate upon wheat means so much of a reduction in the price to the Canadian farmer. It is impossible to shut our eyes to the truth, that doubtless a part of the increased rate is paid b the cohsumer himself. The conditions that obtain in the trade are complicated, they vary from day to day, and it is only putting it moderately to say that without any question whatever a large share is paid by the consumer in European countries. I observed, during a period of two weeks the progress of prices in this country, and I noted in that two weeks that while the increase in the price in Great Britain was 15 cents a bushel the increase in ocean rate^ during the same time was 5 cents per bushel and the increase in the price in Canada was 10 cents a bushel. At all events, this evidence would clearly indicate that a very considerable portion of those high ocean rates are borne by the consumers of Great Britain. Doubtless a proportion of the extra cost of freight on traffic coming from Great Britain. to Canada is also paid by us. They know that as well as we do, and in the face of that they adhere to their policy of leaving this matter to the general play of competition.
There is this consideration also that it is worth while for the people of Canada to bear in mind. Great Britain is supplied from Canada, the United States, Argentina and Australia. These are the chief sources of supply now because of the prevailing conditions as to Russian wheat. Canada and the United States are the near-f Mr. Meighen.]	.
est to the consuming markets; the Argentine and Australia are much farther away. Under ordinary conditions we have an advantage in ocean rates over our competitors of three, four, or five cents a bushel. Under the conditions that obtain to-day we have an advantage over these competitors of not three, four, or five cents a bushel, but of twenty, thirty or forty cents, per bushel. We are not the only ones to suffer. We have no desire to procure an undue advantage at the expense particularly of our sister colony of Australia, but we are not the only ones to suffer, and we suffer in far less degree than do these competing countries. It is no more than the truth to say that the very fact that these rates have been so high, and that we have had such an advantage over other countries that compete in the British market, that fact has been a factor not inconsiderable in enabling this country to secure the sale of a, large part of its surplus in good time in the British market. It has not been an unmixed evil by any means. But let me be not misunderstood. I do not argue that high ocean rates in themselves are good, nor do I argue for a moment that it is not the duty of this Government in these times and at all times to exert the utmost of its power to secure a reduction. This is a year, however, when the world's crop of wheat transcends the records of the past, and when, consequently, the problem of securing an early market for the tremendous Canadian surplus is an aggravated problem, and therefore the advantage that we have secured by reason, indeed, of the high ocean rates is an advantage that we should appreciate and not minimize.
Having said that, I pass to make a few comments on the speech delivered yesterday and the day before by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I regret that he is not in his place in the House. I was present throughout his address, except during a very few minutes when I was called out of the chamber, and in the course of it I came into collision with the hon. gentleman on several matters of importance. I am afraid it would be impossible, with any deference to truth at all-, to -say that the hon. member for St. John had conducted himself in Parliament with any regard whatever to the tremendous and appalling character of the events that overhang this country. He has delivered in this House not only the most bitterly partisan speech that we have heard in it since the war began, but he has

delivered a speech that, proportionate to its length, has less foundation in fact than any speech that I have ever heard in this chamber. I am going to endeavour to expose to the House the artifices to which the hon. gentleman descended, and the devices which he adopted in order to secure what he thought was a party advantage, and I shall ask the House whether, in the exercise of these arts and devices, he conducted himself in a manner befitting an hon. member of this House in these times.
The hon. gentleman, in^the course of his speech, made an attack on what is called the Shell Committee of Canada. He made a bitter personal attack upon the members of that committee, particularly upon the chairman of it, and upon Mr. Carnegie. I want it to be distinctly understood before I enter upon this subject, that I do not stand here as a sponsor of, or as one responsible for, the conduct of this Shell Committee. I am not here to attack the Shell Committee; I am not here to defend the Shell Committee; I am here to offer some remarks in regard to what they have done, in regard to their status and character, in regard to their responsibility, and in regard to our duty towards them. The members of the Shell Committee were named by the Government of Canada, and that was at the request of the JmDerial authorities. It was done for the purpose of securing the manufacture of shells in this country for the Imperial authorities. The naming of them was done by this Government. They were constituted, on being so named, and having been constituted, they were placed at the disposal of the Imperial authorities and became a committee answerable to the Imperial authorities alone. Now, have I stated that emphatically and clearly? Upon their being named by us at the request of the Imperial Government, they became an Imperial Government committee, responsible to and answerable to the Government of this Empire. . 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, they would have been answerable to this Government; we would have had authority over them and we would have been responsible.
When the matter of contracts for shells
in Canada came up, and when at the initiative of the hon. Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), the manufacture of shells was undertaken by this country, two courses of procedure were plainly -available to the Government. One was to proceed directly under governmental authority or under agents of the Government in one way or the other, by a commission or otherwise, but directly under Canadian governmental authority, and take control of the shell manufacturing in this country and take the responsibility therefor. The other was to appoint a commission independent of this Government and to constitute that - commission a British commission for the manufacture of shells in Canada independent of the Canadian Government. I apprehend from the *speech of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) that he thinks, when the parting of the ways confronted us, that we took the wrong course; that we made a false election, and that we should have taken in hand and made it our business to control the manufacture of shells in Canada, and that we should have made the commission, or department which undertook that control, responsible to the Government of this country. Well, if we had done so, if we had made that election "and taken that course, then we doubtless would have been responsible. Then if errors were committed, we would have been the ones to answer for them; but at the same time we would have had control, and we would have been in the position to prevent errors from taking place. But had we taken that course, I think I can hear the speech that would have been made by the hon. member for St. John. I think I can hear the scraps that he would have read from the Liberal newspapers of Canada. I could write myself the article for the Liberal Monthly, that would be very appropriate if we had made such an election. Oh, they would have said, here is a Government that utilizes the war' and the manufacture of munitions for its own advertisement; here is a government that takes under its own control the disposition of con, tracts, that has kept under its own arm the power to dispose of a contract here and a contract there at prices fixed by itself, that utilizes its power as a government to aggrandize itself politically to the disadvantage of the people, and with the purpose, at all events with the result, of splitting in twain the unity of this country in the cause of the Empire. Why, they would have said,

any government that had the slightest regard for Imperial interests, any government that wanted to be fair between the two parties of this country, would have done what? Why, they would have selected experts; they would have selected business men; they would not have'taken this thing under the eye and under the hand of politicians; they would have put business men into control and made them independent of. government, and given them the disposition .of the shell contracts. Would not that have been the speech of the hon. member for St. John? I have heard that speech from him time and again on other subjects. I have heard the Liberal press of Canada over and over again call for the very course that we took in regard to the manufacture of shells. We divorced the shell committee from the .Canadian Government in the matter of responsibility; we made them a committee of the Imperial authority. I am not here to say whether they did wrong throughout or whether they did right throughout; they are answerable to the Imperial authorities for what they did. The Imperial authorities have so recognized; they have acted upon it; they have conducted investigations;
they have made reports; they have
5 p.m. exercised their sovereignty over that committee; they have given their verdict. But the hon. member for St. ' John is not satisfied with the verdict. Why? Because it does not satisfy his own partisan ends for advantage in the politics of Canada.


Mr. PROULX:: Does the hon. gentleman believe that the Shell Committee was divorced from the Minister of Militia?


Arthur Meighen: I have stated so. Why does the hon. gentleman doubt my belief?


Edmond Proulx: I am informed that the
Minister of Militia procured a contract of $700,000 for the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Hepburn).


Arthur Meighen: Was it the hon. Minister. of Militia who procured a contract for the firm of which the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) is a director? The evidence on these matters is too plain for any man, however dull, I may say, however stupid, to mistake. Whatever may be said about the conduct of the Shell Committee, this at all events can be said, that they have not conducted the distribution of contracts on any partisan basis. I repeat that; I invite a challenge. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) shakes his head. Now I make this challenge. For every company or
[Mr. Meighen.J
every man he names belonging to the Conservative party who has got a contract, 1 will name him another belonging to the Liberal party. My offer stands good just as long as there is a shell committee. Now we will wait for my hon. friend'3 answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Come on.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Speak loud.


Arthur Meighen: The day before yesterday the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) said that in the very city from -which the hon. member for St. John comes, 75 per cent, of the contracts went to the Liberals. When the hon. member for St. John asked for an instance, he gave the instance of McAvity Brothers and of the Phoenix Company. What was the answer of the hon. member for St. John? Oh, he says, you are out,' the McAvity's got their contract from the Canada Car ^and Foundry Company, and, consequently, the Shell Committee had nothing to do with it at all; it was a Russian contract which they got from the Canada Car Company. Was that an honest statement to this House? The McAvitys got a contract; they got contracts aggregating over half a million dollars from the Shell Committee,
, and it was the same with the Phoenix Company. Was the hon. gentleman fair with Parliament? Was he fair with the country? Was he behaving himself in a manner befitting a member of Parliament at this time? I do not think the hon. member for St. John was unaware 6f the facts. There is no one who has lived through the last Parliament who does not know the close relationship that existed between that hon. member and the McAvity family. I have nothing to say against their getting contracts; but I have something to say against an hon. member who, from his seat in this House, tells us that an hon. member is wrong in stating that the McAvity Bros, got contracts of over, half a million dollars but that the contract came from the Canada Car Company, when the fact is that they got contracts of over half a million dollars from the Shell Committee. Whether or not they got a contract from the Canada Car Company I do riot know, and I have no way of finding out, but I do know that they had a contract of over half a million dollars from the Shell Committee. '	[DOT]
The hon. member' made another very interesting reference, too, in the course of his speech, and I am sorry that the hon. member for South Renfrew

(Mr. Graham) is not here to hear what I am about to say. This is really one of the most fascinating by-plays I have ever seen in ^Parliament. The hon. member for St. John quotes the Toronto Telegram. He has suddenly come to the opinion that the Toronto Telegram is a newspaper to be absolutely relied upon with regard to its political advice, and he presses that advice upon the Government. Here is the quotation he made:
Exploiting of war orders-Doings of middlemen

one of the worst terms of contempt in the whole vocabulary of hon. gentlemen opposite.	,
-Proposition is up to Premier Borden, declares the Contract Record of Toronto.
Down in New York way they're still sending out circulars that tell of desirable investments created by filling war orders in Canada, says tlie Contract Record in this week's issue. One of the latest comes from Gilbert Elliott and Company. It advises clients to invest in Canada Foundries and Forgings Company, which has shops at Brockviile and Welland.
I quote from yesterday's debate:
Mr. Pugsley:	If I atn not mistaken, Sir
Henry Pellatt is president of that company.
Mr. Graham : No.
Mr. Pugsley : I may be mistaken as to that.
Mr. Graham : Yes.
Mr. Pugsley: I saw that there had been some denial of a statement of profits which had been put forth by a company with which he was connected.
Did you ever see hedging more skilful than that when he found he had been chasing the wrong animal? The _hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) continued:
I will read the article from the Telegram, not knowing, of course, whether there was any contradiction of it or not:
' We a"O advised from sources upon which we can re'y, that earnings for the past ten months ending ' November 1, 1915, ai-e over $900,000, and that the monthly earnings are now running at the rate of $150,000, or equal to $1,860,000 per year, which after taking care of fixed charges, will amount to over 150 per cent per annum on the outstanding common stock.
This is the instance selected by the hon. member for St. John as the greatest with which to denounce the iniquities of the middlemen, believing, as he thought, that Sir Henry Pellatt was president 'of that company, or at least as he stated he thought. But the hon. member who interrupted him, the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), could not let that go, because a director of the company is the hon. member for South Renfrew himself. The president of the company is a gentleman by the name of Weir, of whom I know nothing.
But this is a company of which Hon. George P. Graham is a director, and it is the company which the hon. member for St. John cited as a hideous example of the conduct of middlemen, and as an example to demonstrate that the work of the Shell Com- . mittee brought shame to the cheeks of all Canadians.
I stated that I would have something to say about the devices adopted by the hon. member for St. John. I made a statement in opening this speech that the British Government had recognized from the beginning that this was their committee, and had dealt with it as such, and that at no time and in no sense was it an agency of the Canadian Government; that they had made investigations, that they had exercised superintendence, and that they were furnished with reports as a part of that superintendence. One of the men who came over representing the British Government, the personal representative of the Minister oi Munitions himself, was Mr. Thomas, who was formerly a member of the Imperial House. Another representative since has been Mr. Hichems. Both of these gentlemen have made their reports. The hon. member for St. John referred to the verdict given by Mr. Thomas, and how did he do it? He stood in his place in this House and stated that Mr. Thomas had said that there were too much politics in the Shell Committee. Now, I affirm here-and the hon. gentleman has all this session to prove me wrong- that he cannot show that Mr. Thomas made any such statement. Then he went on to say that Mr. Thomas had said, "If I could lift the veil just a little." It is well to quote Hansard in these matters to get things right. Here is what he "said, and I do not think that anything could better illustrate the parliamentary methods of the hon. member for St. John:


Mr. WILCOX:: How did the Canadian- price compare with the price that was paid in the United.States at the same time?
Mr, Pugsley: I take the statement of Mr. Thomas, who says that the price was higher in Canada. Mr, Thomas is a gentleman who was sent out from England in consequence, I take it-
"in consequence. I take it."
-of the dissatisfaction which existed.
Mr. Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman take all of Mr. Thomas's statement?
Mr. Pugsley: I am quite willing to take all of Mr. Thomas's statement. Let my hon. friend take particularly Mr. Thomas's statement when he says that if he could raise the veil just a little-
There are no two inferences to he drawn from that-Mr. Thomas, the hon. gentle-

man said, had expressed the desire that he might be permitted to raise the veil just a little. I knew that Mr. Thomas had made no such statement, and so I said:
Mr. Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman quote that from Mr. Thomas's statement?
Mr. Pugsley: Yes.
Mr. Meighen: All right, bring it out.
Mr. Pugsley: I will do so.
And we all remember how he stood in his place so long trying to find it. I do not know whether he found it then or not. He went on:
I should like to oblige my hon. friend. 1 think it was in Montreal that Mr. Thomas made the statement; if my hon. friend will allow me, I will give it to him before I get through with my remarks. In that statement Mr. Thomas says also that he is a politician himself, and he rather conveys the impression that he^found a great deal of politics in Canada in connection with the shell committee.
Making it clearer still that Mr. Thomas, the representative of the Government of Great Britain, had said in this country that he desired to, but could not, lift the veil, the lifting of which would show that there were a lot of politics in the Shell Committee, and that the result would be disastrous to the committee. No other inference is possible. Now a day passed, a day in which to forget the exact language that he attributed to Mr. Thomas. The next day the faori. member for St. John stands in his place and endeavours to fulfil his undertaking to quote these words from Mr. Thomas. I will read what he said on this subject on the 19th of this month:
I regret for another reason that my hon. friend the Solicitor General is not present_
That is just at the opening; I came in just as he got through with this paragraph:
-because last evening, when I called attention to the fact that Mr. Thomas had come out to Canada as the personal representative of Mr. Lloyd George to look into the question of the furnishing of shrapnel and high explosive shells in Canada, he made a careful investigation into conditions, and upon one occasion, in making a speech in the city of Montreal, I think-
There was no " think " to it before.
I. think he used the words: ' If I raise the veil a little.'
Why did he leave out the word " could," after the twenty-four hours that intervened? He stated yesterday that the day before he had made the statement that Mr. Thomas had said," if I raise the veil a little." He did not say that Mr. Thomas had said, " if I could raise the veil just a little." It is just the difference between 
black and white. Mr. Thomas was explaining that he was raising the veil just a little, and was going to tell what he saw. And he did tell what he saw under the veil; he told it to the people of the Canadian Club, and quoting from the Montreal Gazette, I am going to read what he told them:
If I raise the veil a little, said Mr. Thomas, it will be on my own personal responsibility, and do not take it as coming from the Minister of Munitions. But, naturally, from my official position, I must have considerable inside knowledge of what is going on in Canada in the manufacture of munitions.
Then he proceeds to raise the veil a little, not to regret that he could not raise it at all. He proceeds to raise it; he tells what is under the veil, and I am going to read what he tells, and all of it, on this subject of the manufacture of shells. I will read it from the very paper from which the hon. member for St. John city himselt read. I wonder why it did not occur to the hon. member for St. John, when he spoke about Mr. Thomas raising the veil, to tell what Mr. Thomas said when he did raise the veil. It would not suit him to do that.
Mr. Thomas goes on at some length without referring in any way to the manufacture of shells or to the Shell Committee. Then the report says:
With regard to munitions, Mr. Thomas said:
I am in a position to tell you the Government desiresthat is, the Imperial Government-
-to place further orders for the smaller shells, and also desires to place orders for larger shells, provided prices and conditions are satisfactory. The British Government was anxious to give Canada every preference, but had to consider three conditions: efficiency of ammunition, expedition in manufacture, and economy. As to delivery, Canadian manufacturers up to last June had been far behind, but had made great improvement since then, but even yet they were not always up to time.
A condition of affairs which the hon. member for St. John would doubtless attribute to the Canadian Government, and in respect of which he would entirely absolve the manufacturers.
As to efficiency of the shells, those which had passed inspection had turned out well. In this connection Mr. Thomas paid a warm tribute to the shell committeehere is the veil lifted, and this is the verdict:
-a warm tribute to the shell committee, and particularly General Bertramthe maligned of the hon. member for St. John-	'

-who, he declared, had placed the whole Empire in his debt for the manner in which he had devoted himself to the work. The committee had been criticised because manufacturers of shells sat on it, but he pointed out that if these were cut off it would be impossible to get experts on it at all.
The very feature of the Shell Committee which the hon. member for St. John denounced as corrupt and scandalous is the feature commended by the British representative, Mr. Thomas:	[DOT]
The shell committee is now about a year old, said Mr. Thomas, a*nd I think the time has come when its work might well be revised. At my suggestion Sir Frederick Donaldson, perhaps the most distinguished expert on munitions in the Empire, is coming to Canada. He was chief superintendent of ordnance at Woolwich, but resigned to become Lloyd George's adviser. He will be here in a few days, and, I think, will be able to render a good deal of assistance in the manufacture of shells, and also in the manufacture of big guns.
Then, further, the report says:
With regard to economy, continued Mr. Thomas, that must be considered, and X may tell you the cost of shells in Canada has been higher than in competitive countries. It is complained that fat orders have gone to the United States, but I can assure you a big slice will be reserved to Canada as long as the price is fairly satisfactory. But prices so far have been higher here than in the United States or Great Britain, ^ where any extra profits have been commandeered by the Government.
I want that sentence noted; this is from the Montreal Gazette, the paper from which the hon. gentleman quoted:
Prices so far have been higher here than in the United States or Great Britain, where any extra profits have been commandeered by the Government.
As a sample of the patriotic impulses of Canadian manufacturers, Mr. Thomas stated that recently Messrs. Baillie & Wood, of Hamilton, had undertaken to manufacture a million IS-pounder eatridge shells at absolute cost. In the same spirit Hon. Prank Cochrane, Minister of Railways, had placed the Transcontinental railway shops at the disposal of the Imperial Government for the manufacture of munitions. They have done that, he said, without provision for profit to any one, and I thank the Canadian Government for the splendid spirit they have shown.
Mr. Thomas himself took the responsibility of raising the veil a little, and having raised the veil, in that speech he exposed to the people of Canada what was behind it-and I have read all that he said on the question of the Shell Committee.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell us-I assume he knows-whether the Government's offer was accepted, and what was done in regard to these Transcona shops
so far as the making of shells was concerned?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it was
accepted at the time. As far as the Canadian Government was concerned, the statement of Mr. Thomas shows that it was made.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What was done
about it?


Mr. J. D. REID:: There is a question on the Order Paper in regard to that; you will get the answer there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He might tell us
now.


John Dowsley Reid: You will get it when the
question is answered.


Arthur Meighen: I understand that it is a rule of order

the hon. member for Pictou likely knows this that one shall not refer to questions and motions on the Order Paper. However, I would tell the hon. gentleman myself if I were in a position to give the particulars, but I am not. That, however, will be answered; the hon. gentleman need not fear at all.
I turn from that to another quotation which the hon. member for St. John made. The House has heard me read from the address of Mr. Thomas before the -Canadian Glub at Montreal, as reported in the Montreal Gazette. I have read in the clearest language from that address that Mr. Thomas stated that the price in Canada was higher than the price in the United States and in England. That is exactly the- way it reads. How did the hon. member for St. John place that upon Hansard? I am not going to say that the variation to which I am about to refer was deliberate on the part of the hon. member for St. John; I do not know whether it was or not, hut the character of the error is remarkable. Here is the way it is put upon Hansard, doubtless for distribution throughout the length and breadth of Canada:	-
That must be considered, and I may tell you that the cost of shells in Canada has been Higher than in competitive countries. It is complained that fat orders have gone to the United States, but I can assure you that a big slice will be reserved for Canada as long as the price is fairly satisfactory. The prices so far have been far higher than in the United States or in Great, Britain.
Strange that that should be the way that it appears in Hansard in the speech of the hon. member for St. John, when the word in the quotation from which he

miserable quibble tut the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) himself.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Was it not stated yesterday, or the day before, by the Minister of Finance that the Government of this country was paying part of the cost of the shells manufactured in Canada?-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Arthur Meighen: That is a phase of the subject which I shall come to. I understand the point to ,which the hon. member refers, and I intend to comment upon it. Before I do so, however, let me press upon his mind this distinction, that those moneys were in 1902 expended by officers of the Grown, by a minister of the Crown or his subordinates in the department;, that the work of expending it was work performed while such minister and the officers utilized were themselves in the pay of the Government of Canada. In the present case the Shell Committee, from its inception, has been answerable for its work to and has conducted its work under the guidance, jurisdiction, and superintendence and financial sustenance of the Imperial Government. There is that distinction.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Arthur Meighen: Not at all. The hon. member for Pictou seems to have a knowledge of the Minister of Militia that I do not possess. The Minister of Militia is a member of the Government of Canada, and in that capacity bears the same relation to the Shell Committee as any other member of the Government.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Was he not a member of both committees, the committee that was retired at the request of this Government, and the new committee, which was named by this Government to take its placer


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Militia was at two meetings, the first one and the one at which the committee disbanded, and he was at no meeting between.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He was a member of both committees; it was so stated in the press.


Arthur Meighen: Will my hon. friend send out and get the names of that committee?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I can discuss my hon friend's remarks at a later stage.


Arthur Meighen: I have said that I have no knowledge that he was a member, and 1 
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.
Now I come to the point raised by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), and a point which came just at the last minute to the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I could see clearly that the debate and division of 1903 had been called to his attention in the interval, and he set about to dig out from his ingenuity some way in which he could possibly distinguish the Imperial moneys of 1902 from the Imperial moneys of 1915. So he asked the Minister of Finance whether it was not the case that we were paying our share of the cost of maintaining our troops at the front to the Imperial treasury. The Minister of Finance answered in the affirmative. It is our intention, it is our policy to pay our share of the cost of maintaining the men at the front which the Imperial Government is paying on bdhalf of our men. It is true that the Imperial Government is to be recouped for the share of expenditure, as nearly as can be estimated, that is being paid for the maintenance of the Canadian forces at the front. " Oh, then," they say, " we ought to review this expenditure which we have to meet." Well, that is either true or it is not. 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 expeditures 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 any money that miay have been spent in Japan and in Great Britain itself, and if there is a duty upon the Parliament of Cam ada 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. Furthermore, this Government has assumed a position not only consistent with, but strictly in conformity with its policy 'initiated long before the war: that in matters of defence we and the Imperial Parliament are on common ground;

that in matters of defence-until the time comes when this country shall have a seat in the Imperial councils-we trust to the Imperial Government for advice and for the disposition of our forces; we place the forces under their control, and we trust them in the expenditure of money for the common purpose. I do not think that if the Imperial Government is looking for examples as to how best to deal with the moneys of the British people, or if they are looking for improvements in the methods of handling that money, they are going to take the advice of, or look for inspiration to, the hon. member for St. John. I have parted with the question of the control of the Shell Committee; I am through with it, and I propose to deal with just one other matter that came up during the debate when the hon. member for St. John was speaking. He had occasion to refer to the question of ' submarines.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before my hon. friend
passes from that point might I give him the answer of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to the question put to him as to our share of the expenditure of moneys on munitions. On page 42 of Hansard,
I find this: '
Hon. Wm. Pugsley:	I desire to ask my hon.
friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) if he will kindly lay on the table of the House, or if he can give now, information in a concise manner as to the arrangement between the Government of Canada and the , British Government as to what proportion of the expense in connection with the carrying on of the war, in so far as Canadian soldiers are concerned, is to be borne by the Government of Canada. I desire to know whether all the expense of ammunition, guns, equipment, etc., is to be borne by the Government of Canada, or what the arrangement is.
Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) : The matter will be dealt with probably by my right hon. [DOT] friend the Prime Minister in introducing the war Appropriation Bill, which will provide means for continuing our participation in the war, or, if not, by myself in the Budget Speech, which will be brought down at a later date. In a general way, I may say to my hon. friend that the Government of Canada is bearing the entire expense of Canada's participation in the war. There will necessarily be certain accounts which cannot be adjusted until the war is over, or until a later date.
Then he gives the conversation he had with Col. Ward. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) then puts another question :
Mr. Pugsley: That means, of course, all the ammunition, all the guns, all the boots and shoes, and all the clothing used by the Canadian soldiers at the front?
Sir Thomas White : Our understanding is that the Canadian Government will pay all, but that an adjustment is necessary and will have to take place later.
I desire to ask my. hon. friend in a friendly spirit, because I want to be right in this matter: whether he claims that, in view of that understanding that we are to pay our share of the cost of munitions and guns, no investigation can take place regarding the charges made. I quite understand his answer as regards the Imperial part of it, but as regards what is being paid by Canada, does he deny any investigation?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that I
am certain of the object of the hon. member for Rouville in rising. In so far as his quotation from the Minister of Finance's answer is concerned, it is exactly as I stated to the House. His object could not have been to correct me in that regard. It is exactly as I stated; we pay in a general way our share of the. expense of maintenance. Then, he says: Now, do you say that because of that there should be no investigation? I never said any such thing. I have only argued that the fact that we pay our share of the maintenance is no argument whatever why we should investigate any more than we should have investigated in 1903. It adds no point whatever to the contention of hon. gentlemen opposite. If they have charges to make as to the conduct of any member of this Government in relation to the Shell Committee, or otherwise these charges will be investigated as they always have been investigated under this Administration. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) tried to get the benefit of making charges, but carefully refrained from making any in this House, shielding himself always behind a closing sentence that he was making no charge himself, but that he was only saying what was reported, or stated here, there, or somewhere else.
By the way, the hon. gentleman made one remarkable assertion which I think disclosed the whole purpose of his speech. He emphasized with tremendous force that no commission was going to satisfy his ambition. He did not want any judge invest! gating these things; he has lost confidence in judges. He did not want any judge but he wanted a committee of Parliament. That is the only thing that would satisfy him. He not only said, that but he made the solemn-statement that from the Atlantic to the Pacific they were crying for an investigation by a committee of Parliament.

Then he proceeded to wade through every newspaper that he could get from one end of Canada to the other, especially every Liberal paper, and he hoped by calling his own witnesses for opinions to make a case against the Government, I say now, having read them of every sort and character, that be cannot find in a single quotation from a single paper, Grit or Tory, that he quoted one -demand that there should be an investigation by a committee of Parliament. He has raked the country with a fine tooth comb to support his assertion that he is voicing the indignation of the great Canadian people, and having made his quotations after doing all the raking, he cannot produce a single opinion concurring with his own.
He says that these papers reflect public opinion. We have quite as much respect as the hon. member for St. John for the opinions of the editors of this country, and for, on the whole, their exceedingly patriotic conduct during this struggle; still, it is a notable fact that ajter he got through with each quotation, which almost invariably laid the blame on the manufacturers, he was careful to say that this opinion did not agree with his own at all because in his judgment the manufacturers were all right and the Government all wrong. I do not know whether he was taking a sort of side dig at his rival for supremacy as the ' chief lieutenant of the Liberal party or not, but he was careful to lay bare to the House that the Canada Forging and something Company were ambng the arch middlemen, but when he was chided by the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Graham) he became very appreciative indeed of the manufacturers of this country.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. .


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the House will bear with me while I make just another brief reference to the attack of the hon. member for. St. John on the Shell Committee. I observe in the body of his address a reference by way of insinuation to an alleged visit of two men, whose names and identity are unknown, to some company whose name and identity is also unknown, representing somebody whose name and identity is also unknown, and asking for a commission of one and a half per cent, on some contracts they hoped to get from the Shell Committee. I observe also that in reference to that very specific and daring

charge of the hon. member for St. John, he comments as follows:
I said a commission of one and a half per cent on the contract price. I do not pretend for a single moment that any of this was to go to the Shell Committee. I do not pretend for a single moment to say that anything was given to any one associated in any way with the Government, or with this House.
In the first place it mystifies me what influence two men, who do not represent the Shell Committee or the Government or any one connected with either, could have in asking for a commission from any firm of contractors. * Upon what ground would they expect their request to be granted? The insinuation answers itself on the face of it. But the reason I refer to it at this moment is this: the hon. member for St. John is asking for an investigation; he would like to get men like this exposed. His regard for purity is so high that he is not satisfied until these men are properly punished. Well, the method of punishing them is open to him. We have on the Statute books of Canada at the present time a law that will come directly down on the heads of men who ask for a secret commission from any firm of contractors. What is our Secret Commissions Act for? It has been on our Statute, books for some time; and if any man claiming to represent any one wants a commission of that kind, he is liable to punishment and imprisonment, and all the hon. member for St. John has to do is to go to this firm of contractors that hopes to get the job, and either do so himself or get one of them to lay a charge against these two individuals, and the prosecution is bound to follow. If then he wants an investigation or punishment, why does he not take this step? I will tell you why he does not. That is not what he wants at all. He wants a select committee of Parliament-presumably selected by himself; at all events if it is not, he will not be satisfied with it-in order that he may have a chance for political pyrotechnics in the House of Commons. That is what animates him in making that reference, the same as in every other.
In the course of his observations he referred to a speech said to have been delivered by myself at Port Arthur or Fort William, in which I made the statement that I knew that excessive prices were being paid for shells. - In the first place, I made no speech at Port Arthur or Fort William.
I do not suppose there was any intention at all on his part to be incorrect there; I think he refers to a speech I made at Portage la

Praiiie; 'but in my speech at Portage la Prairie I made no statement that I knew excessive prices were being paid. What I stated was in answer to a request to speak on a proposition as to war taxes, and I said that I believed there had been some cases of large profits. That is a very different thing from stating that I knew that excessive prices were being paid. It would be utterly inconsistent, upon the principle upon which the Commission acted, namely, that they were compelled to include in the initial prices the cost of machinery, that there would not be cases of large profits. Perhaps the matter was scarcely worth referring to. I want, however, just in closing this phase of the subject, to place upon Hansard the report that men and experts, who were representing the British Government, to which this committee was responsible, have made with regard to that committee. I have already read the verdict of Mr. Thomas. I now propose to put upon Hansard what the second man says. His investigation, of the work of- the committee is a very recent one; his report has been made, and the substance of ,it is embodied in a letter written by the gentleman in question to the Prime Minister of this country. The contents of that letter have been made public. I only make quotations. Mr. Hitchens writes as follows:
The Shell Committee which was appointed in September, 1914, by the Minister of Militia and Defence to deal with the munition orders placed in Canada by the Imperial Government has, I think, met with remarkable success in dealing with a difficult task. In the early days the problem was to persuade manufacturers to undertake the work of making shells, which was quite new to them, and presented formidable difficulties that caused many of the leading firms to hold back. The orders at that time destined -for this country were on a small .scale; there was naturally no assurance of continuity in the work, and the prospects of success were doubtful. The readiness with which the Canadian manufacturers adapted themselves to a new industry is, I think, remarkable, and although, as in England, they have often been unable to live up to their original promises, yet they have nothing to fear from a comparison with the early efforts of firms of the highest standing in England.
Then later on he says:
I should like to take this opportunity to point out, after a careful inquiry into the facts that the Shell Committee has been submitted to much unfair criticism. It was, as I have said, appointed to deal with orders of modest proportions, and from the nature of the case was intended to be educative rather tha'n administrative. It was natural therefore that it should contain an infusion of steel manufacturers whose advice and experience was necessary to the proper development of the new industry. The measure of their success can be gauged
by 4he. remarkable results achieved. The facts speak for themselves. There are now some 320 firms in Canada manufacturing shells of their component parts and in the short space of 14 months the Shell Committee with the active encouragement and support of General Sir Sam Hughes have developed the largest industry in the whole of the Dominion. They have been the means also of bringing into being certain important industries subsidiary to shell-making which will have a permanent effect in developing the resources of the country.
Then he goes on elaborating on the work of the committee, and in closing these are his words:	[DOT]
These far reaching arid important results have not been achieved without the most exacting and strenuous labour, which has fallen more particularly upon General Bertram and Colonel Carnegie, and which a single minded enthusiasm for the cause has enabled them to sustain. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that these striking results owe their inception and a large measure of their development to the practical zoaJl and the active encouragement of General Sir Sam Hughes. To conceive a big idea_is hard, but to give effect to it in action demands qualities of a rarer kind. I wish, therefore, to place on record that the shell committee have for the first fourteen months been carrying on a work of the most exacting and strenuous nature, and that they have fulfilled their task well. The changes therefore which are now being made are the logical development of their work-the necessary superstructure upon the foundations laid .by them.
1 wish now, Sir, to refer to another subject, and one with which I am confident I can deal without long engaging the attention of the House. Certain references were made by the hon. member for St. John to what is now popularly named the Davidson Commission, a commission appointed under the Inquiries Act to investigate the letting of war contracts. It will be remembered that the hon. member for St. John made what cannot be described otherwise than as a slighting slur or a savage attack, whichever he intended it, on that commission. It is known to every one that that commission is still in existence, 'and that it has not reported. Neither the evidence nor the report referring to the'purchase of submarines, therefore, has been handed in. It is not desirable, therefore, that I should say anything anticipatory of that report. But it is worth while to bring the attention to the fact that before this commission-constituted of a retired chief justice of the province of Quebec, a man whose reputation from one end of Canada to the other, is not only unblemished but distinguished-has made its report, the hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr. Carvell) in his place in this House denounces it as a whitewashing report.


Mr. CARVELL:: I stand by that.

:30


Arthur Meighen: He stands by that,
before he knows what the report is. It will be remembered that about a year ago the people were startled-if indeed it is possible any more to startle this country by speeches of the hon. member for St. John-startled by a speech made by that gentleman referring to purchase of submarines immediately before the outbreak of the war on the 4th of August, 1914. At that time, as every one knows, the Government of this country was able to purchase two. submarines completely constructed at Seattle by the Seattle Construction Co., and previously under contract for purchase by the Chilian Government, the price being $1,150,000. It pleased the hon. member for St. John to rise in his place in this House and, in a speech that showed many of the characteristics of the tirade delivered yesterday, to try to embed in the minds of the people of this country the insinuation that there was some graft or something crooked in connection with that purchase. He asked that the matter be investigated. The investigation was put under way, the matter being included in the subjects within the purview of the Davidson Commission. That commission sat in Montreal, it sat in Victoria, and in at least one city south of the line. These sittings, I believe, were held during several months. But from the commencement of those sittings to the end the man who was responsible for the charges that were made and who, if he had been the man that he should have been, would have made it his duty to prove the charges if he could', never showed his face within the walls when the commission was sitting, and never brought a tittle of evidence to prove his charges. He gave no assistance to the commission in any way whatever. And he excuses himself now in Parliament on the ground that in the city of Victoria, some time after this investigation had begun, a solicitor of that city named Taylor had applied to His Lordship Chief Justice Davidson for permission to appear and cross-examine witnesses on behalf of the Provincial Liberal party of British Columbia, which permission, as I stated in the midst of the speech of the hon. member for St. John yesterday, was denied.
In the first place, every one knows that under the constitution of that commission, under the Inquiries Act, the commissioner is himself representative of the people of this country. It is his business to make an investigation on behalf not of the Conservative party but of all the people of Canada. In that duty he was assisted by Mr. John Thompson, K.C., of the city of

Ottawa, a son of a former Prime Minister of this country. The duty of Mr. Thompson, as the duty of the Commissioner, was, not to represent a mere political party, but to investigate anything within the purview of the. commission brought before its attention for investigation, and investigate it to the bottom, on behalf of the Canadian people. Mr. Thompson represented the Liberal party as he represented the Conservative party-or rather he represented neither but represented the whole people of Canada apart from all political parties. Therefore, the commissioner took the view that if Mr. Taylor were allowed to represent the Liberal party before the Commission he would infringe upon the duties assigned to Mr. Thompson. Let me draw the attention of the House to the clause of the Act referring to this matter. I should not have to do that, for the wording of the Act is as well known to the hon. member for St. John as it is to me. The hon. member knows well that under that Act it was no part of fhe duty of the Commission to allow, any attorney to take part in its proceedings except- the attorney representing the people, as Mr. Thompson did, or the attorney representing any person charged with an offence. The Act is clear and precise in its terms in that regard. Here is the clause:
The commissioners may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this Act, and shall' allow any person against whom any charge is made in the course of such investigation, to be represented by counsel.
These are the limits of the powers of'the Commission, and acting within these limits His Lordship Chief Justice Davidson felt that he was bound to refuse the application of Mr. Taylor.
Now, is Commissioner Sir Charles Davidson to be subjected to attack in this House because he acted within the limits of- his powers? Is he, because he gave effect to the law, to be attacked in this House? We remember that the conduct of Sir Charles Davidson in this inquiry has met the approval not only of Conservative^ but of Liberals as well. Sir Charles Davidson has not been criticised by any responsible Liberal paper in Canada, but on the contrary they have commended his non-partisan impartiality.
The hon. member for St. John chooses to characterize that investigation as shallow; he chooses to attack not only the commissioner, but Mr. Thompson, K.C., as well. He says of that honoured counsel-who has


given his services free to the people of Canada-that he did not know enough to ask questions that would have 'appealed to a mere student-at-law. Those are the references of the hon. member for St. John to these two gentlemen. Let me, on the other hand, point the hon. member for St. John to the opinion expressed not by the Conservative journals but by tha Liberal journals of this country. I refer particularly to that journal which, at all events outside the city of Ottawa, is the most outstanding Liberal organ in Canada, the Toronto Globe. Here is what the Toronto Globe says of the work of Sir Charles Davidson, who is denounced by the hon. member for Carleton as a whitewasher, and who is blackwashed-in the words of the Free Press-hy the hon. member for St. John. I quote from .an editorial in the issue of the Globe of Nov. 30 last:
To-morrow morning, at the Toronto City Hall, Sir Charles Davidson, as Commissioner by appointment of the Dominion Government, will continue his investigation of such charges of wrongdoing in the procuring of military supplies as may be brought to his attention. There can be no fault found with the way in which Sir Charles has discharged his by no means pleasant duty for several months past. He has been fair to leniency with every accused vendor or go-between brought before him, but he has also displayed the keen insight of a trained jurist and the moral courage of a stern judge in exposing actual wrong-doing and reprobating deliberately fraudulent conspirators.
If he has done that, wherein has he offended?
That none of those so condemned have yet been sent to jail is not his fault. In his work he has had valuable professional aid from the Government counsel, Mr. Thompson-
The gentleman who, in the opinion of the hon. member for St. John, has not the knowledge of a schoolboy in law.
-Mr. Thompson, whose duties are just as onerous and as important as those of the Commissioner.
And they proceed to urge that certain war contracts should be investigated by that commission. Those who were present at the investigation were quite sure that they were sifted to the bottom, much to the discomfiture of the men who made the charge.
In a later issue, that of December 4 last, after the investigation at Toronto bad been concluded, the Globe comes forward with words of approbation for Sir Charles Davidson. They have evidently been reading some journals which, in language as indefinite and vague as in many cases it was meaningless, complained about the country reeking with scandal, and about the blush of shame being on this man and on that, just as did the hon. member for Sts John. Here is what the Glebe says-and I commend this very good advice to the hon. member for St. John himself. The Globe makes reference not to the Shell Committee, but to other war contracts made out of the money of the Canadian people 5
There should be, and we have no doubt there will be, Government investigation of the matter, and there should be retroactive legislation which will enable the Government to confiscate any proven undue profits. Meanwhile, to a number of Liberal newspapers which harp on the subject and claim to have exact knowledge, we may point out that the Davidson Commission exists for the purpose of investigating all war contracts, and that any private individual can place charges before the Commission and have them examined without cost to himself. There will probably be Government investigation; but if any of our newspaper friends are impatient or dubious, and know what they say they do, they don't need to wait for Government action.
In substantiation, or in supposed substantiation, of his attack upon the Davidson Commission, the hon. member for St. John made use of the following language in his speech of the 18th instant and I am compelled to put practically all of it on Hansard. He passes from one subject to another, expressing at first his surprise and then his amazement that there had been no inquiry into this subject and into that subject, naming them one after the othej. I am going to name these subjects, and I am going to refer to the evidence and to ask the House to come to a conclusion as to whether the hon. member for St. John is now the only one who should express amazement. The hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) said:
I watched with considerable interest the newspapers in Vancouver when I happened to be there for a day or two, to see whether it would occur to the gentleman who represented this Conservative Government, the Government with which Sir Richard McBride is, or was, so closely allied before a certain event took place; I watched to see whether any question would be asked of Mr. Logan as to how it was that he had carried on the negotiation for the purchase of submarines for a fortnight and yet did not know what the price was to be, and why he simply whistled over the telephone when he found that the enormous price of $1,150,000 was named.
Will it surprise the House first to learn that the evidence clearly shows that Mr. Logan did not carry on any negotiations for a fortnight, or anything of the kind? Will it surprise the House, in the next place to find from the evidence that Mr. Logan had been asked, and asked repeated-

ly, the very question which the hon. member for St. John complains that he had never been asked? I am sorry to have to delay the House with what must be a rather dull proceeding, but I cannot make the reply that should be made to the hon. member without doing so. I quote from the evidence. I am informed that the evidence has been handed to the Opposition'- at all events to the leader of the Opposition-and, consequently should be at the disposal of his followers in the same way as it was at mine, which was only yesterday.. Mr. Logan tells about sitting in a club in the city of Victoria when there were some gentlemen present, including Mr. Paterson, who had been the engineer or president of the Seattle Construction Company, which had been engaged in the actual work of constructing the submarines. Mr. Logan was asked:
Q. Try to recollect, please, who else was present?-A. I cannot say, I think H. B. Thompson was there, the Lieutenant Governor J. V. Paterson, I. W. Paterson, Mr. Harry Bullen, and myself. Paterson mentioned incidentally that he had a pair of submarines that we could get if we wanted, but there was not much said about it. Then later on

Q. Did you ask him the price?-A. No, I did not say anything at all about it.
Q. Did anybody ask him the price?-A. No.
Q. Are you quite sure?-A. Yes.
Q. Paterson said somebody asked him the price and he did not know?-A. I did not ask him; somebody may have said something about it, but i did not hear.
Q. Were you not curious to know the price? -A. No.
Q. Not in any way?-A. No.
Q. Although you had been talking about submarines?-A. We were only talking generally on these vessels, they are out of my line. X am in the merchant service.
Q. Yes, but you had a conversation with Paterson, when we were evidently on the break of war, and as I understand it you were discussing submarines?-A. We were discussing the probability of the war, not the submarines.
Q. And Paterson said he had two submarines? -A. He said he had a couple of submarines which Canada could have if they wanted to.
Q. You do not recollect anybody asking what the price was?-A. No, I do not recollect that at all. On the Sunday, just preceding the fourth of August, I think it was the second of August,
I was sitting in my house when I got a telephone message from a man named Kay.
Now it is clear that all he had known of the matter up to this point was that some time before, in a club in Victoria, he had heard Mr. Paterson say to a number of friends around the table that there were two submarines there that ' the country could secure, and that, not being an expert in this line or knowing anything about it, he had made no inquiry about the price.

He was asked repeatedly about it, and in every case the answer was that as he knew nothing about the price he made no inquiry. The next thing he knew about it was on the Sunday before the declaration of war, when he was called upon at his house by a telephone message from Mr. Kay. Hfe states that he did not know Kay, but that Kay had been in the court room, and he was asked to say what took place.
Q. Is he here to-day?-A. I do not know, there will be some one present in the Court who knows him.
Q. Well proceed.-A That man telephoned to me and asked me if I didn't think we should form a citizens' committee to wait upon Sir Richard McBride and urge on him to buy a battleship in Valparaiso from Chile, and I told him I thought the idea was absurd. When I got down to my office the next morning, I telephoned over to Sir Richard McBride and tol'd him about these two submarines.
That was on the Sunday before the declaration of war. All that had occurred before that was simply a club conversation, at which Paterson suggested that there were these submarines down there which might be obtained. Then he goes on and tells about the proceedings that followed:
Q. With whom did you return?-A. With Mr. Barnard and the Hon. Mr. Burrell. We had a meeting in the Premier's office just about lunch time, and Mr. Bowser was there and I think Mr. Ross.
Q. What Mr. Ross?-A. The Hon. Mr. Ross, one of the provincial ministers. At that meeting I was asked if I knew the price of these submarines, and I told them I did not, and I was urged to give an idea of the cost of these boats and I said: as to cost I would say $375,000 each, but I had absolutely no knowledge of the cost of submarines, and I made that very clear at the time.
But still the hon. gentleman says that no reason at all was given why this man did not know the cost of submarines until he was later told by Mr. Paterson over the telephone:
Q. Why did you talk of $375,000 apiece?- A. Because I knew that was about the cost of a destroyer, but I had no knowledge at all of the cost of a submarine.
What better reason a man could give, 1 am at a loss to understand. Then he tells about going down to the naval yard at Esquimalt with Mr. Burrell and Lieut. Pilcher:
We discussed the question of submarines being required. It became apparent that they were required and the question of price again cropped up.
Q. How did it crop up?-A. I think Mr. Burrell or Lieut. Pilcher, I am not sure which asked me, but anyway I know it did crop up, and I telephoned from that office to Mr. Paterson to ask him the price of these boats.

and that is when Patterson replied and stated the price at just the price which was paid, which was adhered to from beginning to end, $1,150,000. That does appear to be something of an answer to the allegation of the hon. member for St. John, that no questions were asked as to why this man, who, he said, had been conducting negotiations for two weeks, did not know what the price was until the last.
Then what is the next complaint?
I was struck with amazement to find that when Mr. Paterson, the man who had been in Seattle when the submarines were tested, and when the experts of the Chilian Government refused to accept them-I was struck with amazement to find that he was not asked as to the nature of the test, or as to how the submarines acted under the test.
It will be no surprise to the House to learn, and I will substantiate it from the evidence, that Paterson was asked as to the test and gave his evidence as to the test and how the submarines acted under it. Inquiry was made, most prolonged inquiry. This thing was investigated from place to place, and witness after witness, every witness I should think the wit of man could call to mind, was examined fully on all these points. I quote from the evidence.
Q. Had any asserted inefficiency of these vessels anything to do with the non-possessioii of them by Chili?
Perhaps, to make this clear, I had better review this phase of the subject. The Chilian Government had defaulted in their contract to purchase the submarines at $818,000, and the commissioner was trying to ascertain the reason of the default. It was shown that they were about $150,000 behind and had made some complaint, through their engineers, that the vessels were deficient in buoyancy which, if I understand rightly from the evidence, is * the power of the vessel to speedily come to the surface after being submerged; and the commissioner was endeavouring, and endeavoured through page after page, to ascertain whether or not there was ground of complaint on the part of the Chilian Government as to this buoyancy, and whether or not that was the real cause of their not taking up their contract and, therefore, whether or not they were willingly relieved of the contract and glad to get their money back. Mr. Paterson, in that connection, gave this evidence.
Q. Had any asserted inefficiency of these vessels anything to do with their non-possession by Chili?-A. No.
Sir Charles Davidson: In no sense whatever? -A. I do not know what you mean by " in no
sense." What I mean is this. It is the same thing as if you were to take the Princess Charlotte there on a draft of water* to carry 1,000 tons and the owners came to a clause in the contract which said they were to carry stores for two months, and they said stores for two months amount to five thousand tons, and you will have to put on five thousand tons. The Chilian Government said that stores for two months amounted to so many tons.
Sir Charles Davidson: Do you mean actually that number of tons?
The Witness: No, that is merely by way of illustration, they put the weight on corresponding to that amount and they said: " Run your trial trips," and they ran their trial trips and they dived and performed it, but they did not come up with the speed that they should have come up and they did not perform their function with the speed that they would have performed it in had they been in a fighting condition.
Sir Charles Davidson: Was it in consequence of that that they refused them?
The Witness: No. They would have taken them anyway, they would gladly have taken them if they could pay them. But that was their official protection against our enforcing the contract which would have made them pay, and by the by, with regard to the price of these boats-
And so on. He goes on talking about the price and how cheap they were. So he was there stating what the real kernel of the difficulty appeared to be, namely that the Chilian Government interpreted the contract as involving enough stores to run the boats for two months, and that with such stores on board, as he explained more fully later on, the boats did not come to the surface with the buoyancy desired; but that no such stores as that would be loaded on for the purposes of battle for which they were intended. There was no difficulty or complaint as to the buoyancy at all.


Mr. PARDEE:: As I understand they had paid for the boats to within $130,000 of the purchase price. [DOT]


Arthur Meighen: Approximately.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Progress estimates had been paid up to $130,000, so that was all that the Chilian Government defaulted upon.


Arthur Meighen: It is stated in the
evidence $150,000, but it was in that neighbourhood. Just in that connection it is remarkable that the hon. member for Lamb-ton knows just how much the Chilian Government had paid.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: You said so.


Arthur Meighen: Not yet; why does he
know? Because the evidence was given. If the hon. member for Lambton had heard the hon. member for St. John yesterday he

would have known that that hon. member said that nothing was asked as to what the Chilian Government paid.
Then the examination of Paterson goes on:
Mr. Thompson: There is a letter from J. W. Paterson addressed to Sir Richard McBride, and printed at pages 21, 22 and 23 of this blue book. This is what Mr. Paterson says:
It is untrue that the boats are in any way less efficient than their design provided for. It is true the Chilian commission reported the boats as not satisfactory, but that does net mean what Mr. Pugsley tried to show. It really means that the boats, loaded with a quantity of stores and provisions far beyond what they were designed for or could reasonably be expected to carry in war service, did not function so rapidly as in the fighting condition -for which they were designed.
It is true that the contract with the contractors gave the Chilians the right to load the vessels in this way, but that is the fault of the terms of the contract and not the defect of the boats as fighting submarines, and it was for fighting that I sold the vessels and you bought them to fight, and not to carry cargoes of provisions.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: In other words, they were no good.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend poses as an expert on submarines. I do not suppose he knows that experts were called upon to examine the submarines and that every expert, without a single exception, pronounced them to be efficient in every respect.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Except that they would not rise.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman will have a chance to speak, but 1 say that there was not a witness whose evidence I have read but says-	'


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That they would not come up.


Arthur Meighen: There was not a witness who complained .of the buoyancy of those submarines. Admiral Kingsmill's evidence will show that. Who is the gentleman to whose evidence my hon. friend refers?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: You have read it. They would not rise.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly they would not rise if loaded with too many tons of mere freight and neither would the hon. gentleman if he were so loaded. For the purposes for which they were purchased by this Government the submarines were pronounced by every expert to be efficient in every particular. But the point I am meeting is this-and the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Pardee) had better keep it in mind- the hon. member for St. John asserted, on

his responsibility as a member of Parliament, that no question was asked as to what test the submarines were put to, or as to how they came through the test. The evidence shows that such questions were asked. The hon. member for Lambton says they would not rise. He is in conflict with the hon. member for St. John, but the important thing for Parliament to remember is that a member of this House, on his responsibility as a member, affects to give information to this House when the record shows that that information is entirely incorrect, and on the basis of that information, on the basis of the facts embodied in that information he undertakes to level a charge against an honoured member of the Bench of Canada, Sir Charles Piers Davidson.	[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: Go on.


Arthur Meighen: I am willing to go on as far as my hon. friend wants me to go. What was the next complaint of the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley)?
I was amazed to find that no question had been asked of Sir Richard McBride, or of Mr. Paterson as to the grounds on which the latter had represented that the Chilian Government were not able to pay for the submarines.
Well, now, the amazement of my hon. friend the member for St. John must really have been appalling. Here was Mr. Paterson, the president of a construction company, an engineer I think who had to do with the work of constructing submarines, and the hon. member for St. John is dumb with amazement because that gentleman was not asked as to the financial capabilities of the Government of Chili. Does the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Pardee )share his amazement? Would he expect Mr. Paterson to be an expert on the financial capabilities of the Chilian government?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Does the hon. gentlemen expect us in this House, or the people of Canada, to believe that when there was only 1150,000 left to be paid on those submarines, the Chilian Government was so bankrupt that they would default on that amount of money after paying the rest?


Arthur Meighen: It all depends on
whether they wanted the submarines or not. They may have been very anxious and very glad to get the money back; the evidence indicates that they were. But how are we concerned with that? The question is, was it advisable for the Government of Canada to buy those submarines, and were they bought in a clean and honest way? As a matter of fact, the president of the

[DOT]construction company did undertake to give evidence on that point, but he was not asked regarding it, because it would have been foolish for anyone to think that the evidence he would give would be anything but hearsay. At all events he undertook to give evidence as to the desire of the Chilian Government to get away from their contract on some technical difficulty, and to get their money back. But with that we have no concern, except in so far as it flatly contradicts the assertion of the hon. member for St. John. That hon. gentleman was amazed a little more.
I was amazed to find that the Corfimissioner had not asked him whether or not the Chilian Government had practically paid the whole amount of the contract price before the inspection and rejection took place.
The hon. member for Lanfbton now refutes the hon. member for St. John and asserts that there is evidence to show that the Chilian Government had paid $700,000.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I did not refute it.


Arthur Meighen: He asserts that they
got $700,000 back and some $14,000 of interest as well.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I did not refute that
charge at all. I simply asked the hon. gentleman a question as to whether or not, after paying the amount on progress estimates, the Chilian Government would default for $150,000. I did not refute the -charge.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend just a
few minutes ago-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The hon. member admitted it himself.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member
stated that the Chilian Government (who had agreed to pay $818,000) were only about $150,000 behind. Where did lie get that information except from the evidence? '


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: From my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: No, it was before I
said a word about it that my hon. friend mentioned that.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: My hon. friend read it.


Arthur Meighen: - Not at all. Before I reached the subject, and I appeal to Hansard for confirmation, and my memory is pretty accurate-	.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is it true?


Arthur Meighen: It is true, and the hon. member knew from the evidence that it was true that they had paid all but $150,000,
What they had paid they got back. But the hon. member for St. John is filled with unutterable amazement and asserts that they were never asked the question at all. The hon. member for St. John went on:
But further, I was surprised to find that none of these gentlemen were asked to explain why three - cheques were given, why a draft on a Seattle bank was given, and why the amount was divided into two sums, one of which was a note amounting to $500,000 and the other was for the balance out of which the bank charges and exchange were taken.
Well, this is on a par with the rest. In the first place, his facts are incorrect. There were two drafts signed, and subsequently a cheque for some $29,000 that had been in dispute between Mr. Paterson and the Boat Company. But Mr. Paterson was asked the question, and he gave the reason. Does my hon. friend want me to quote it; I have it here in the evidence. Mr. Paterson explained that it was entirely a private matter with himself; that he did not know at the time how much was owing to the Company in respect of the building of the submarines; that he remitted the first draft for $500,000; that he discussed the matter with the bank manager before remitting; that one cheque was given him for the submarines, and that out of it he paid the first draft, not knowing what was owing by the Electric Boat Company in Seattle; that subsequently there was a dispute as to whether the commission should be $40,000 or $70,000, that he remitted the $29,000 odd which was	the sum in dispute as
to commission, less the exchange, and that that ended the whole matter. But what is to be thought of an hon. member of this House who, in the face of that evidence of Mr. Paterson, solemnly states to Parliament that no question was asked as to why this money was divided.
Furthermore, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) goes on to say:
Not on4 single question was asked in regard to that. All that was asked of these witnesses was: did you pay any graft in Canada? did you pay any graft or commission to anybody in Canada? Well, possibly my hon. friend is satisfied.
Now, I undertake that in at least ten places in the evidence I can show that, not only Mr. Paterson, but witness after witness, was asked as to the disposition of every dollar of that money, that every dollar of it was traced to its ultimate destination, and each witness in the most absolute and unreserved terms stated that

not a cent of commission was paid to anybody in Canada or elsewhere, except the *$40,000 which Mir. Paterson got; every dollar of which he says he kept to himself, except what he paid for expenses.
The evidence is complete, the evidence of Mr. Frost, vice-president of the Electric Boat Company, the evidence of Mr. Taylor, the auditor of the company, the evidence of Mr. Paterson, the evidence of the president of the * Electric Boat Company, and all agree, in response to repeated questions by the commissioner and Mr. Thompson, that not a cent of commission or anything else was paid to any person in this country or anywhere else, or to any association in this country or anyhere else, and that everything in connection with the purchase was regular in every particular. In the face of that, the hon. member states that all they were asked was simply the question: Was any graft paid in Canada?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What was the contract
price that was to be paid by the Chilian Government for these submarines?


Arthur Meighen: I gave that.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: And what was the price we paid for them?


Arthur Meighen: I also gave that, but I know the hurry that the hon. gentleman is in to get'away from the reckless charges of his associate from the city of St. John. I have already told the House that the Chilian Government's price was $818,000, that the price paid by the Government of Canada was $1,150,000, and I will read the hon. gentleman the evidence if he wants it. The evidence, not only of the Seattle Construction Company, which built these boats, but the evidence of the' officials of the Electric Boat Company, who were the owners and who engaged the Seattle company to build them, is that at the price they were selling them for to the Chilian' Government there was a loss to them of approximately $100,000 apiece; that is to say, that the cost of construction to the Electric Boat Company was approximately $818,000. They gave an explanation to the Commission, and it was that they had quoted this price below the actual value of the submarines, for the definite and business-like purpose, namely this:-The Chilian Government were only then undertaking the purchase of submarines on a large scale, a Commission had been appointed by the Chilian Government which had only got under way, and they were anxious that their type of submarines should be the type accepted by that Commission, and in

the words of a witness, this price. was-fixed by them as a bait, as it were, in order to induce the Chilian Government to adopt their submarines. Furthermore, it was said, that the Chilian Government, in the course of the construction, adhered so rigidly, and, as they considered, so unreasonably, to the terms of the contract in regard to the tonnage that the submarines were to carry, that the cost had reached a figure that was unnecessary and one that was higher than a 9 p.m. more reasonable interpretation of the terms of the contract would.have entailed.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: And this was from a bankrupt government?


Arthur Meighen: I never said they were bankrupt.	.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: ' Does the hon. gentleman claim that they were?


An hon. MEMBER:: He said so.


Arthur Meighen: No, I never said so at all-.	1


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: You said that they could not pay for them.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. GEORGE W. KYTE (Richmond. N.S.): Mr. Speaker, I was very much interested, and I am sure every member of this House was interested in hearing the statement made by the right hon. the First Minister when he rose to reply to the leader of the Opposition in this debate. I have reference to the observations made by the Prime Minister as to his visit to the battlefront during the past year. We were all interested in hearing what was being done in Canada for the purpose of furthering the interest of the Alllies in this great war, as we were interested in hearing from the lips of the Prime Minister the plans which he has for further advancing the interest of the Allies. *
I was very proud to reflect that, coming from the province of Nova Scotia, I could bear testimony to the fact that Nova Scotia has been bearing her full share in contributing men and money towards the great needs set forth by the various organizations in the interest of the entente belligerents. The province of Nova Scotia up to the present time has contributed over 12,000 men to the armies of the Allies. That represents more than two and a quarter per cent of the total population of Nova Scotia,
. and fully ten per cent of those of military age, and the work of enlistment is still going on. If the right hon. the Prime Minister makes a call to the people of Canada for another quarter of a million men, I have no doubt that the province of Nova Scotia will be found equally ready to contribute its share.
As I speak of the province of- Nova Scotia, my thoughts naturally revert to that section of the province from which I come 

I refer to the island of Cape Breton. I believe there is no section of Canada-and I do not desire to make any invidious comparisons-that _ has contributed more men to the allied forces than the island of Cape Breton, and the supply of men who are willing to place themselves under the colours and to assist the other armies of the Allies in the future is not by any means exhausted. Not only have the men of Nova Scotia contributed towards the success of the Allies, but the women are contributing as well. In every city, town, hamlet and village, aye, in every farmhouse and in the abode of every fisherman and mine worker in the province, there is work going on for the purpose of relieving the inconveniences and of adding to the comforts of the soldiers at the front. Red cross work is going on in every section of the province. Early in |Mr. Meighen.]	*
the war the Hon. Mr. Murray, Premier of Nova Scotia, sent out a call to the people of he province to contribute to the Belgian relief fund. That call was handsomely responded to, and the province of Nova Scotia takes its place in the front rank* of those sections of Canada that have listened to and heeded the voice of those who are in need as the result of the war which is now being waged. Nova Scotia is not a rich province, and the contributions made by its inhabitants are in many instances being felt. Sacrifices are being made on every hand by the people of the province, and the watchword of economy sent forth to the people of Canada by the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) is practised in the greatest degree in Nova Scotia. We know that the cost of living is going up by leaps and bounds, while the earpings of a large proportion of our people are decreasing in the same ratio. It is extremely difficult for many of our people who are engaged in day labour to make ends meet, and they are under all these circumstances, considering the members of the families which this class of people have contributed to the war, perhaps making greater sacrifices than those more happily circumstanced. But if economy is to be the watchword, and if it is only by the practice of the most rigid economy that we can hope that the people of this country will be able to bear their reasonable proportion of the expense resultant from this war, the example is not being set for us by the Government of Canada. The Government of which the Minister of Finance is such a distinguished member is not doing its .share in the practice of economy and thus Telieve as far as possible the burdens of the, people. I take the record of the Post Office Department, recently published. The expenditure of the department from 1912 up to 1915 has increased enormously. During the last fiscal year the expenses of the department have gone to $15,961,191, an increase of some $4,000,000 over and above that which was spent a few years ago. In 1912, there was a surplus of $1,310,219. On the 31st of March, 1915, there was a deficit of $2,914,.541. In 1913, there was a surplus of $1,177,000. In 1914, there was a surplus of $134,137. In 1911-12, the net revenue of the Post Office Department was $10,482,255. In 1915, the net revenue was $13,046,000, so that the enormous deficit of the Post Office Department during the last fiscal year is not due to any decrease in the revenue of

that department, but to the unwarranted expenditure embarked upon by the late Postmaster General. The revenue increased by 30 per cent while the expenditure increased by 75 per cent. We have some explanation tor the extraordinary increase that has taken place in this department in the fact that during the past four years, while there were 1,507 employees dismissed and 3,860 who tendered their resignations- which I am bound to say in this connection is a euphemism, as the resignations were compelled-or a total of those who resigned and who were dismissed of 5,357, there were appointed in their places no less a number than 9,903 officials. Therefore there are now 4,546 employees in the Post Office Department in this year more than there were four years ago. Therefore if economy is so essential to the welfare of the country in the present crisis, the Post Office Department has not set a good example to the people of Canada.
The expenditure in the Department of Public Works for the last five years is as follows:
1910-	11	
$11,807,0351911-	12	
13,928,6661912-	13	
18,844,2211913-	14	
27,991,4361914-	15	
29,283,316
That is to say, in a year after the war had broken out, and while economy is preached by the Finance Minister to the common people in Canada, " economy " was practised toy his colleague of the Department of Public Works in such a way that the expenditure was about two millions of dollars more than for the previous year. I understand that a small reduction is made in the fiscal year 1915-16, but that it amounts only to about three million dollars. So I think there is great scope for the exercise of economy on the part of these two important departments of government.
There is another Tespect in which, 1 think, this Government might exercise economy and thus lighten the burdens that the tax-payer will be called upon to bear. At this session of Parliament we shall be called upon to provide another enormous sum of money, by either direct or indirect taxation. The subject of the economy to which I refer is the Hudson Bay railway and terminals. These were estimated to cost $17,000,000, and I understand that up to the present time the expenditure on this head has amounted to about $7,000,000. I am bound to say, there is a very wide divergence of opinion as to the advisability of carrying on that undertaking. I do not know upon what data the construction of the Hudson Bay railway took form in the mind of the late ministry. The plan was conceived, I understand, some years ago, and it was urged upon the ground that it was necessary to complete the road, not only in order to open up a large and fertile section of Canada, but also to afford another outlet for the export of Canadian grain. A great many things have happened in Canada since the inception of this work. For one thing, the Government of the United States has offered to give free access to the markets of that country for the farmers of the Canadian West. It is not now necessary to expend vast sums of money in order to secure an outlet for the products of the Canadian farmers. The Government can very readily provide another outlet by simply agreeing to take down the barriers in this respect that exist between the two countries. And, as to the Hudson Bay railway as a colonization road, the same necessity does not exist for it as existed some years ago. We know that up to 1911 a great stream of immigration flowed into Canada from all the countries of Europe, and not only did Europeans come, but some of the very best citizens of the United States found it to their advantage to take up their household goods and move across the boundary into the Canadian West. Unfortunately, for reasons which I shall not discuss at this time, immigration has fallen off to such a degree that it has reached the vanishing point. There is no expectation that in the near future there will be a very large influx of' imigrants into this country. Therefore, the necessity for a colonization road is not urgent at this time. I would * appeal to hon. gentlemen sitting upon the Treasury benches to spend no more money upon the Hudson Bay railway until the conditions in Canada are more favourable and the people are better able to bear the burden of extra taxation than they are at this time.
But I have another reason to urge why the expenditure on the Hudson Bay railway should cease. I have before me the report made by Mr. Anderson, who, I understand, was in charge of. the Hudson bay survey during the past year. From the report I read:
When the Acadia arrived oil Cape Chidley, on the 19th of July, open water was visible from aloft, and the steamer Bonaventure, some miles to the northward, reported similar conditions. The ice, for the most part, appeared to be win-

ter ice, probably from Hudson and Ungava bays. Although occasional bergs and arctic ice were seen, the main pack of arctic ice had passed to the southward. "Winter ice" means ice one year old, but "Arctic" or "polar" ice may be two or many years old, and consequently much heavier and harder.
The constant easterly winds held the field ice packed, making further progress impossible until 31st July, when the wind veered to the westward and finally blew a full gale from the N.N.West, opening up the pack. Conditions were not so severe after this date, but until the latter part of August great fields were continually passing out, part of which returned with the flood tide, partially obstructing the passage.
It was specially noticed that the greater portion of this heavy pack ice drifted towards the south side of the entrance about Cape Chidley and the Button islands, rather than to Resolution island, and, with the strong tidal currents, making it a dangerous locality for any steamer attempting a passage. During the ebb tide the ice pack may become well opened, affording good leads, but on the change of tide it would close up with great pressure in places.
A couple of years ago a powerful Newfoundland steel sealing steamer was caught and received a very bad nip.
During July, 1913, a small auxiliary schooner, being caught in this locality, received such pressure that oil tanks in her hold were burst. The crew abandoned the ship and took refuge on the ice, but on the change of tide, when the pressure slackened, the ice opened up again, and as the ship appeared still seaworthy, owing to her staunch construction, the crew returned on board and managed to clear the ice pack before the next tide.
On the other hand, towards the north side of the entrance, about Resolution island, although the tidal currents were found just as strong, the ice appeared lighter and much honeycombed, probably some that had been carried out on the south side by one tide and returned by the next.
Entering with much ice, about the best passage has generally been found close to Hatton headland and along the north shore. Careful note should be taken of the direction of the wind. A fresh south wind would drive the ice to the northward when a mid-channel course would be the better one to take.
As already mentioned, navigation would have been greatly impeded by ice until the end of August for vessels entering the strait from the east, and from early in October entering from the west, because Pox channel ice began to appear at the west entrance about the latter date, greatly interfering with vessels.
The Acadia,, leaving Hudson bay on October 15th, found the passage between Diggs and Nottingham islands about closed, and was forced to pass the night in the ice pack. On the following morning the change of tide opened the pack sufficiently to allow passage, and all ice was cleared about ten miles past Eric cove. Cape Chidley was cleared for the season on the 2nd of November with no ice in sight.
During the past season, after the middle of September, snow storms were the order of the day, and this, taken in conjunction with the ice condition detailed above, rendered the period during which ordinary tramp steamers could have navigated the strait with safety very limited.

Owing to the great masses of ice to be encountered and the difficulty of finding the best lead, hydroplanes operated in connection with the wireless stations might be used with good results, to inform captains concerning the disposition of the ice and where they may find open leads. These would be particularly useful in the autumn at the passage between Diggs and Nottingham islands. It is submitted that they might be more useful than the seagoing tugs hitherto suggested. The information would be obtained much more quickly, with no danger of being caught in the ice. On the other hand, there would be the danger of an accident occurring and the crew of the machine being cast away on an ice flow. In the autumn frequent snow storms and heavy winds might ham pet" the operation of these machines, and in the spring fogs caused by the sun on ice fields would certainly be a drawback.
Ice conditions in James Bay.
The prevailing northerly winds in Hudson bay during the early summer drive all the field ice to the south end of, the bay, very effectually closing up the entrance to James bay until the latter part of August or first of September. This ice consists chiefly of winter ice, although icebergs and Fox channel ice have been found. During the season of 1912 the powerful steel sealing steamer Beothic reported having encountered heavy Fox channel ice and many bergs in this locality' about the middle of August, and a period of 8 days was spent in forcing a passage. Strong northerly currents were also reported when abreast Cape Henrietta Maria, making considerable motion in the ice fields that greatly increased the danger. It is quite unusual to find strong currents in this locality, but they were probably caused by a constant northerly wind forcing the water into James bay.
An ordinary tramp steamer would stand a poor chance of escaping injury under similar circumstances, and it would not be well to attempt this region until the latter part of August or early in September. The closing of James bay, for the season, may be taken about the middle of November, as weather conditions are much similar to Hudson bay.
Here we have the report made by an officer of the department sent out specially to investigate the matter, and he reported the fact that Hudson bay is safe for navigation only for a period of about two months in the year. I ask:	Is the need
for another outlet for our wheat so urgent, or the need for opening up more territory for the settler so pressing, tha,t in the face of the enormous burden we are called upon to bear, we should be expected to continue the operations that have been carried on on the Hudson Bay railway and terminals for the last two years? I spoke to a young man in my own constituency who worked on Hudson bay last year. He told me that in the latter part of August he went on board a steamer to return to his home, and that when they were two days out they were held up for nine days in the ice.
I am bound to say that from all the evidence which I have been able to gather, this

country, under the present circumstances, would not be justified in embarking upon any further expenditure in respect of the Hudson Bay railway or terminals. I trust "that the Government will heed the criticism that is being made in many parts of the country, and will, for the present at least, eliminate from the estimates to be submitted to Parliament by the Finance Minister, any item of further expenditure in that direction.
We have had a very interesting discussion during the last two or three days on the subject of shells and the manufacture of shells in Canada. This war has given rise to many new industries in Canada, and the manufacture of shells is one of the largest and most important of them. I was very much interested in the address delivered by the Solicitor General (Hon. Arthur Meighen) this afternoon, in which he endeavoured to defend the actions of the *Shell Committee in respect of certain contracts which were let for the manufacture of shells during the last year and a half. While the Solicitor General admitted that the price of shells was in some respects somewhat high, he excused the exorbitance [DOT]of the price by saying that new plants had to be established, and that, for the purpose of defraying the cost of these new plants, it was necessary that the prices in the first contracts awarded should be somewhat high. I have here a statement which I will quote from a New York despatch dated November 15 last:
A letter written by Sir Henry M. Pellatt, president of the Steel and Radiation Company, Limited, of Canada, has been received in the financial district naming prices being paid for certain classes of shells in Canada. A contract for 100,000 eighteen pound shrapnel shells was mentioned as obtained by that company at a price of $3.80 per shell, and this order was renewed at the same figure. Another contract also renewed called for 100,000 eighteen-pound explosive shells at $4 each.
The first and second contracts will be completed about January 31, 1916, after which renewals of the first contract will be completed every four months and renewals of the second contract about every three months.
On each of the .first two contracts and on the renewals, the letter said, the profits were estimated at $200,000. The third contract should turn in profits, the letter stated, of $250,000.
Further renewals of the contract, said the letter, will probably be at gradually shaded prices, but as against this we are gradually reducing costs month by month. Our rejected shells are now less than | of 1 per cent of our output.
Here we have a statement made through Sir Henry Pellatt, the president of this large and important manufacturing company, that the profits upon these shells amounted
to $2 each, not only in respect of the first contract, but in respect of first renewals and all subsequent renewals as well, upon which he avers that the profits amounted to at least $200,000, and in one case to $250,000. I think it would be well for the lion. Solicitor General to get close to his friend, Sir Henry Pellatt, and tell him that the only justification or defence that he could think of for the exorbitance and greed of shell contractors was that it was necessary to pay the first cost of erecting their plant, and say to him that that is no longer a justification for continuing to manufacture shells at that price, inasmuch as the original cost must long since have been paid.
The Solicitor General has endeavoured to get the Government away from the responsibility for the conduct of the .Shell Committee upon the ground that it is a creation of the Imperial Government.- In a few moments I shall refer to that subject, but for the moment I desire to say that on the 20th day of December, 1915, referring to orders of shells from the United States, Mr. David Lloyd George said:
David A. Thomas comes back speaking in the highest possible terms of the service rendered this country by J. P. Morgan and Company, not merely in the selection of firms for contracts, as in fact they saved us many millions of pounds by their efforts to reduce the inflated prices prevailing before they took the matter in hand.
It just struck me, on reading that paragraph, that it'is most unfortunate that the Shell Committee -of Canada came in for no encomiums from Mr. Lloyd 'George in the language that he addressed to the Morgan Company. I am quite sure that Mr. Lloyd George would have been glad to pay a similar compliment to the Shell Committee in Canada, were they deserving of it. But it is well known all over this country that the Shell Committee, as constituted here in Canada, instead of endeavouring to reduce the price of shells to the Government of Great Britain, were actually a party to enhancing the price of shells so that certain particular friends might reap the benefit. The Solicitor-General stated that the Shell Committee was a creature .of the British Government, and that this Government have nothing to do with it, and that, therefore, this Parliament has no right to investigate their actions or inquire into the disposition of any moneys that passed through their hands. I have here Hap-sard of last session for the moiith of April, and turning to page 2614 I find a state-

ment made to this House by the Tight hon. Prime Minister. After referring to certain investigations which took place in the Public Accounts Committee during the last session., he said:
But, nevertheless, I realize, and I think all members of the Government realize, the Minister of Militia himself realizes, that that department was not organized to perform the enormous amount of work that is imposed upon it at present. What has been the course taken by the Mother Country under similar conditions? In respect of such matters, the course taken by the Government of the Mother Country has been to call to the aid of the Government the best business ability of the country. The business men of that country have responded and splendid results have been thus obtained. The Minister of Militia himself, it is only just to say, at least two or three months ago brought this question before Council and urged upon Council the advisability of having his department assisted in this regard by a committee of three business men. In respect of some other matters, the Minister of Militia has taken a course along that line which has brought about most excellent results.
If the House will pardon me-my remarks have been extended beyond what I had at first contemplated-I wish to place before Parliament the record of what has been accomplished by the committee appointed in this country to fill orders which the British Government desired to place here, if they could be placed in Canada, for the supply of munitions. A committee was formed by the Minister of Militia in the early stages of the war, consisting at that time of Col. A. Bertram, Chairman; Thos. Cantley, Esq.; Geo. W. Watts, Esq.; E. Carnegie, Esq., representing the manufacturers; Col. T. Benson, Master General of Ordnance, Col. Greville Hars-ton, Chief Inspector of Arms and Ammunition; and Lt.-Col. F. D. Lafferty, R.C.A., Superintendent of the Dominion Arsenal, representing the Department of Militia and Defence.
Here we have the history of the formation of the Sheil Committee which the Solicitor-General was ungracious enough to repudiate this afternoon. The right hon. Prime Minister at the same time stated that he had asked the Chairman of that committee to prepare a report of their work for the purpose of showing what was being done by a business organization of that character, and he placed upon Hansard the report of the committee. I shall not read it alii, but from the opening to the closing sentences of that report there is evidence, which cannot be controverted for a single moment, that this committee was brought into being by the present Government and by the Minister of Militia 'and Defence. It [DOT] says:
On the 8th of September, 1914, at a meeting held by the Minister at the Dominion Arsenal, the .following committee was appointed to organize the work throughout the Dominion.
This is the committee in respect of which

the Solicitor General read a letter written by Mr. Hitchens some time ago.
Another paragraph of this report says:
Perhaps an equally important decision was; the appointment of an inspection company to deal with ail shell components; this has taken the entire responsibility of inspection from the shell assembling manufacturers, and has also given the shell committee the opportunity of satisfying themselves beyond any doubt that the component parts of shells are correct before the finished shell passes into the hands of the Government inspector.
Many other minor details regarding insurance, shipping, financing, etc., were decided, which have proved to be of great help in carrying on the work of the committee.
4.-Executive Work.
The executive work of the committee has been very wisely entrusted to the chairman. Colonel Bertram, who reports weekly to the Minister of Militia and also to the committee when it meets (which is usually monthly) or more often, at the call of the minister.
The work consists of controlling what might be regarded as a huge combination of factories, in which various 'contracts are being executed to British War Office specifications, which entails constant attention and queries regarding, the selection of suitable factories, the placing of contracts, instructing manufacturers in the art, inspecting the parts made, and the payment and auditing of accounts, etc.
Before contracts are placed, the ability of the firm to carry out the work is fully investigated. If there is any question as to their plant being unsuitable, a competent inspector is sent to report upon the state of the factory.
To safeguard the interests of the committee and to insure the work being carried out in accordance to promise, contracts are placed subject to concellation, if not carried out promptly.
Each manufacturer is supplied with a set ot inspection gauges as a guide in making the manufacturing gauges required. They are kept to check the working gauges, and are the property of the committee.	,
The preparation of drawings of the gauges for the varipus component parts of the different shells manufactured and the preparation of gauges and their distribution and use, involve a considerable amount of labour.
The inspection of the various component parts, including the analyses of material, various physical tests calling for the employment of over 146 inspectors, besides four chief inspectors, show in some measure the nature and extent of this part of the work. Most of the inspectors employed are experienced machinists and tool makers, who can he trusted to carry out the work thoroughly.
The final Inspection of the finished shell is carried out by an army of nearly 200 examiners and district inspectors, under the direction of the chief inspector of arms and ammunition.
On receipt of a certificate that the shells have passed examination and have been packed ready for shipment, payment is made to the manufacturer.
A chartered accountant recommended by the general manager of the Bank of Montreal, checks the accounts of the committee every month. These are then forwarded to Mr. J. . W. Borden, chief accountant for the Militia Department. It might be said in passing that

the committee's accountant has expressed himself in gratifying terms of the highly efficient way in which the accounts of the committee are kept.
5.-Shell Contracts.
When it became generally known that shells were being manufactured successfully, the demands for contracts from all classes of manufacturers were very numerous, and it became necessary to inspect the factories to decide which were suitable for undertaking the work. Visits were made to them, and it was found that a large number of additional factories could be usefully employed.
The ordnance advisor reported this matter and indicated how many more shells could be undertaken. The Minister of Militia called a meeting of the committee at Ottawa, and, after discussing the matter, cabled to Lord Kitch-ner, pointing out that much larger contracts could be undertaken by the manufacturers in C%nada. He emphasized the fact that many works were standing idle in the Dominion, while contracts were being placed in the United States for shells by the British War Office. This resulted in additional contracts for 18-pr. fixed ammunition, complete without fuses and empty 18-pr. shrapnel shells.
It was proposed by several of the manufacturers that a deputation from the committee should be sent to the War Office, London, to put their claims before the Secretary of State for War. The Minister of Militia decided, on the recommendation of the committee, to send Mr. David Carnegie, as he was familiar with the whole situation. It was also decided that he should visit Woolwich Arsenal and obtain the latest information on the various details in the manufacture of complete ammunition.
The result of his visit has been fully reported to the Minister of Militia, but it might be briefly stated here that the War Office officials did not fully understand the nature and importance of the committee's work, and had no idea that the factories in Canada were capable of undertaking such contracts, until these facts were placed before them.
Mr. Carnegie presented to the Master General of the Ordnance, General Sir Von-Donop, K.C.B., one of the first shrapnel shells made entirely of Canadian materials, excepting the copper band. He also informed the various officials at the War Office that it was the intention of the Minister of Militia and his committee to make ultimately the copper bands in Canada. As a result of this visit, several additional large contracts have been placed with the committee.
The only material not made in Canada is copper, which, however, is mined and smelted in the Dominion and subsequently sent to the United States for refining.
Miscellaneous.
In addition to the foregoing, the Minister of Militia, through his committee, has made several investigations for the War Office in connection with the supply of propellants and high explosives. An investigation was undertaken regarding the supply of nitro-cellulose powder by a large firm in the United States. Other matters have been investigated, such as the supply of rifles and ammunition for the Russian Government.
. I should like to know by what process this committee, over night, had its authority transferred from the Canadian Government to the War Office in England. The only defence the Solicitor General attempted to make, by way of answer to the hon. member for St. John that a committee be appointed to investigate the transactions carried on by this committee, was that the committee was appointed by the British Government, it was a committee over which this Government had no control. And he went further-and here I am at a loss to understand how an agile mind like that of the Solicitor General sometimes lapses-and he made the admission that if it were shown that any member of the Government was responsible for this committee in any way, an inquiry would have to be granted. I trust that the Solicitor General will not require further coaxing or cajoling on the part of hon. member for St. John or any other member of this House, but that he will advise his colleagues in the Cabinet that it is up to them to grant a committee to inquire into the purchases by -this commission because I, by reading these remarks made by the Prime Minister in his place in the House a year ago, have brought the appointment and control of this committee directly home to the Minister of Militia. Do we want any further proof that the Shell Committee is an adjunct to the patronage dispensing department of this Government? Is it not well known all over Canada that it has been absolutely impossible to get a contract for shells from the committee unless the applicants had the endorsation of certain Conservatives in the sections of country from which they came? It is well known that-


Mr. ROGERS:: That is a very strong
statement and I beg to take objection to it because it is absolutely incorrect.


Mr. KYTE:: I have so often seen the
virtuous indignation depicted on the face of the hon. Minister of Public Works in respect to wrong-doings in the party of which -he is such an ornament, that I am not impressed with his interruption to-night. It is well known that in eastern Canada one of the largest steel manufacturing companies of this country was obliged to go around, week after week and month after month, beseeching the privilege of manufacturing shells, and it was not until officials of that company were able to enlist the sympathy of certain prominent Conservatives in Toronto that that concern succeeded in getting a contract.
Then what about the question of the appointment of shell inspectors? I have

just read, from the report of the shell committee which was read to this House during the last session of Parliament by the Prime Minister, that they appointed a special committee for shell inspection. Let us see how these shell inspectors were appointed. The Solicitor General seems to be very much surprised that the appointment of shell inspectors was a part of the party patronage of this Government throughout this country. I have in my hand certain correspondence which passed between the Conservative candidate in my riding at the last election and the Conservative candidate in my riding at the next election, relative to the appointment of an inspector of shells. The first letter is as follows:
Glace Bay, C.B., July 29, 1915. Joseph A. Gillies, Esq., Barrister, etc.,
Sydney, C.B.
Dear Mr. Gillies,-I have your favour under date of June 28th, with reference to the application of the above-noted for a position as inspection of shell steel. I have to-day written
Mr. 
, as you suggest, and am also placing
the case before the Borden Club, through whose hands all Sydney recommendations must be made.
Thanking you for your interest in the matter, Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) John C. Douglas.
I am sure it comes as a shock to the Minister of Public Works to learn that the appointment of shell inspectors is a matter of party patronage in the province of Nova Scotia. Mr. Douglas is the Conservative candidate in South Cape Breton for the next election, and is at present a. member of the local legislature for Cape Breton.
The second letter which I have is as follows:
Glace Bay, C.B.,
June 29, 1915.
Sydney, N.S.
Dear Mr.	:-
Mr. J. A. Gillies has written me recommending that you be given an appointment as Inspector of Shell Steel at Sydney. As I have advised Mr. Gillies, I have also to advise you that all recommendations for Sydney positions must be made through the Borden Club.
I have referred your application to that body, and will be pleased to act on their advices at any time such a vacancy occurs.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) John C. Douglas.
Here under this Shell Committee, which was appointed by the Minister of Militia hut which has just been repudiated by the Solicitor General and said by him to have been appointed by the War Office in England for the purpose of having shells [Mr. Kyte.l
manufactured in Canada at the lowest pi ice and under the best conditions, we have the spectacle of the inspectors being recommended by the Borden Club, which club has made this Shell Committee an adjunct to the political patronage of the county of Cape Breton. And I have another letter


John Dowsley Reid: Give us the name of a man who- was appointed on the recommendation of that club.


George William Kyte: If I were to give a name I would expect the man would be dismissed 'fr-om' his position inside of forty-eight hours.
Mr. REII): I say that the hon. member cannot give a name.


George William Kyte: Inasmuch as the Minister of Customs does not know whether I can or not, his statement is not of very much value. (Reads.)
Sydney, C.B., June 30, 1915.
Mr. 
 .
Sydney, N.S.	,
Dear Sir,-I am to-day in receipt of the enclosed letter received from Mr. Douglas in reply to mine of the 28th, written in your behalf, making application for the position of Inspector of shell steel. Brom the enclosed you will see that Mr. Douglas has acted upon suggestion, namely, that he should write yourself so that you might see that he was interesting himself in the matter.
I hope to see you get the position. I will see the president of the Borden Club and will urge upon him to have you strongly recommended for the appointment.
Trusting that you may get this position, and wishing to see you from time to time, I remain. Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) J. A. Gillies.
Now, I would like to know what position the president of the Borden Club in Sydney is in to judge of the efficiency or capacity of a man to discharge the duties of shell inspector. I cannot recall at this moment wtho the president of the Borden Club is, but I do know that that very honourable and respectable position has been held in the past by a lawyer, by a doctor, and by a merchant. I have no doubt that the position is filled at the present time by one or other of the classes I have mentioned. But is it not a most humiliating spectacle, if the statement of the Solicitor-General is true, to find that a committee appointed by the Imperial Government upon the recommendation of the Minister of Militia and Defence to discharge the important and serious duties of purchasing and manufacturing shells in Canada must depend for the inspection of those shdlls upon recommen-

dations made by the Barden Club? And that is the 'situation 'all through. Do we need any other evidence of partisanship in the administration of the Department Oif Militia and .Defence? Why, it was only yesterday that I read in an Ottawa paper that the privilege of shaving the chins of volunteers in Lansdowne Park last summer could not be awarded to a barber in Ottawa unless he had a certificate from the dispenser of political patronage.
I also know that in a small town in the province of Nova Scotia, the privilege oi washing the soiled linen of the soldiers in a small encampment of volunteers was awarded to the man jvho now enjoys that important bit of patronage by the Con-servate candidate in the riding. The captain in charge did not think it of very much consequence what particular laundryman washed the soiled linen of the company under his command, and he sent the laundry to a laundryman who was a Liberal. Immediately afterwards the captain was sent for by the dispenser of political patronage, the Conservative candidate, and was asked to immediately transfer the laundry to another laundryman. The captain of the company asked why it was necessary to make a change, and the patronage dispenser said,
" it is not for you to ask; it is for you to obey."
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have other instances to show that so far as the Militia Department is concerned, the whole province of Nova Scotia is reeking with partisanship. Take for instance the recruiting officers. I stated a moment ago that Nova Scotia was nobly doing her duty in the matter of sending recruits to the front. I know that there is only one privilege practically allowed to Liberals in the province of Nova Scotia, and that is to fight in the trenches. But the commissions are very rigidly guarded by the dispensers of Government patronage in the province. I cannot recall at the present moment the name of one Liberal in the province who is a recruiting officer. There may be, I would not say absolutely that there are no Liberal recruiting officers in Nova Scotia, but at the present moment I cannot recall the name of one.
I do know, however, a gentleman in the province of Nova Scotia whose only son was among the first to enlist, and who has been fighting in the trenches for the last eighteen months, bearing all the fatigues and all the discomforts and all the dangers that pertain to life in the trenches-that man was sincerely and honestly interested
10	REVISED
in the Allies' cause and desirous that Nova Scotia should give the best of her men to the great cause. He attended several recruiting meetings in the province of Nova Scotia, and I say that without exception he is the most effective recruiting officer that I have ever heard in my life. After a meeting that I attended was over, I asked him if he was employed or commissioned by the Department of Militia and Defence to act as a recruiting officer. Hq said: "No, I am not." He added, "I am doing this becauee my heart is in the work. I was told that the department would appoint me if I got a recommendation from a certain man responsible for the patronage in that part of the country, but I said I would not do so." And he was not appointed.
Take thq. question of medical officers in Nova Scotia. There may be some Liberal medical men in that province who have received commissions from the Department of Militia and Defence but at the present moment I cannot recall the name of one. I speak of course of those who have joined the service since war broke out. I do know of one who belonged to the militia of Nova Scotia for many years as a medical officer to a particular regiment, and whose position has not been taken from him. He is still a medical officer under the Department of Militia and Defence, but apart from that case, I cannot recall a single Liberal medical officer in the Province of Nova Scotia who is attached to the forces at the present time. I do know, however, several Liberal medical men who are anxious to do their bit in the great war that is now going on, but they were refused commissions in the Canadian forces, and were obliged to apply to the War Office in London and became attached to units of the Imperial aramy. That is absolutely true. I could name half a dozen Liberal medical men who axe attached to the Imperial forces under these circumstances. The right hon the Prime Minister realizes as every hon. member of this House realizes the importance of this country being united in this war. Why, Sir, so impressed has this Government become upon the subject of unity among our people that they have 'swallowed themselves on the question of holding an election. Instead of being in favour of an election now, as certain prominent members of the ministry were in favour of an election in June last, we have this paragraph placed in the speech with which His Royal Highness the Gover-



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
nor- General opened this session of Parliament :
The life of the present Parliament expires in the autumn of this year, and, under existing legislation a dissolution and election would- be necessary in the early future. My advisors, however, are of the opinion that the wishes of the Canadian people and the present requirements of the war would be best met by avoiding the distraction and confusion consequent upon a general election at so critical a time.
Keep our people united; have no divisions and no distractions such as would follow in the wake of a general election. That is the cry at the present moment. Mr. Speaker, I question very much the sincerity of certain hon. gentlemen when they speak of the advisability of halving a united country. Do they realize that they have divided the Liberals and Conservatives if not all over Canada, certainly in the province of Nova Scotia, on the question oi the war. Why is it that none but young Conservatives are recommended for positions in the army? Why is it that none but Conservatives are appointed as recruiting officers? Why is it that none but Conservatives are appointed as medical officers? If the Government desires to keep the people .united, I would suggest to the Minister of Militia and Defence that he appoint a few Liberal officers before he gets very much older or carries on the work of the department very much longer.
These are only a few instances that I might recite of the manner in which the administration of the Militia Department is carried on in the province of Nova Scotia. The whole fabric is reeking with shameless and inexcusable partisanship from the one end of the province to the other. It is up to the Minister of Militia to remedy that condition, and I think I am able to say, and say with confidence, that if we have not had more recruits in Nova Scotia it may be because of the unfortunate' divisions that have been made amongst the people in that province in respect to the appointments that I have mentioned.
There are several other matters that I intended to refer to, but I have already exceeded the limit of my time. Now, th(r5 is one more subject that I am going to deal with and then I am done. Last session we had an investigation in the Public Accounts Committee which resulted in the disclosure of scandals that were absolutely unheard of, taking into account the circumstances under which these scandals were fostered in this country. We do know that 
two hon. members of this House, when it was suggested that they had been implicated in dealing in supplies for the Militia Department, stood up and indignantly denied the accusation. We know what happened, we know the investigation that took place in the Public Accounts Committee, and we know that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) found it incumbent upon himself to read both of these hon .gentlemen out of the party and out of this House. Here is the language used by the right hon. gentleman on that occasion:
An delt me say now, for the benefit of Parliament, and particularly for the Information of persons throughout this country who may be concerned in selling supplies or materials to the Government account, if any man in Canada, be he Conservative or Liberal, purposes to commit any fraud or imposition upon the Government and people of this country, or to be concerned in any attempt for that purpose, especially in connection with the war vote, he should remember that there are courts of justice in this country and that the doors of the penitentiary are opening for every person who commits such an offense.
I think the Prime Minister stated when he addressed the House the other day that there had been some three prosecutions and one conviction for frauds committed upon the Government'. I was not aware that there were three prosecutions. I am aware that there was one prosecution in Regina a few months ago and that a conviction resulted from that prosecution. If v others have taken place in the criminal courts, I am not aware of it. Further, the Prime Minister said, speaking of the case of the late member for Kings, Nova Scotia.
But I am hound to say that his (Mr. Foster's) explanation to me of his undertaking the duty and his explanation-if it could be called an explanation-of his failure to supervise in the most careful manner the expenditure of that money and to bring back to the Government an exact account, with vouchers of every dollar that has been expended must he regarded as far-from satisfactory.
Therefore, in respect of the honourable members for Carleton, and in respect to the honourable member for Kings, N.S., I feel that I owe , it as a duty to the Government of which I am the head of the party, of which in Federal affairs I am the leader, and to this House, and to this county, to express, as I do here express, my firm disapproval of their conduct in respect of the matters which have been under investigation by the Public Accounts Committee.
That is the declaration which, I believe, resulted in these two hon. gentlemen sending in their -resignationis to your predecessor, Mr. Speaker. It is well known that the counties of Carleton, Ont., and Kings, N.S., are unrepresented at the present time

in the House of Commons. But the Con

servative party in Kings, N.S., met in annual meeting a few weeks ago, and I will read for the information of this House wliat the Conservative party in Kings County thinks of the repudiation of their member by the Prime Minister:
Kentville, January 6-The annual meeting of the Kings county Liberal-Conservative association was held this afternoon at the court house. After the usual routine business was finished, the president invited DeWitt Foster to address the meeting. At the close of a powerful address on the war and Canada's participation in it, the following resolution was moved by Councillor C. R. Nichols, seconded by .Councillor W. A. Reid, and carried amid three cheers and a tiger:
'* Resolved that the Liberal-Conservative Association of Kings county, in annual meeting assembled, take this opportunity to express its appreciation of the untiring efforts put forth by A. DeWitt Faster, in the interests of the county and to record its unbounded confidence in his integrity and ability to successfully and creditably represent Kings county in federal affairs."
Now we have the pot fairly bristling over. The Prime Minister, in indignant tones, read the member for Kings out of the party last year and the Conservative press of this country claimed great credit for him for his sturdy manliness, in determining to rid the Conservative party of all grafters and wrong-doers and for having actually read Mr. Foster out ol the party. There has been no election held in Kings but I understand that if an election is called the Conservative party in Kings, living' up to their resolution, will name Mr. A. DeWitt Foster as their candidate because they consider him good enough to support this Government in Parliament. What ground have I for making that assumption? There is a precedent foj it. We know what happened in the province of New Brunswick a fe v years ago. We know that Mr. J. K. Flemming, the Premier of New Brunswick, was the subject of accusations in regard to certain peculations in which he indulged in respect to the owners of timber limits of that province. He was deposed from the leadership of his party in provincial affairs, he was driven out of the public life of the province, but the Conservative party in federal affairs, a very short time afterwards, named him their candidate in Car-leton county for the House of Commons because they thought that, although he was not good enough for provincial politics, he was good enough to associate with the ministers who form this Government. 1 cite this instance to show the insincerity
10*
of certain elements supporting the Conservative party in this Dominion. Recalling the professions made by the First Minister and his promise to prosecute until he had landed in the penitentiary those who had been guilty of wrong-doing, I would not say that the situation of this country was so critical, but in view of what has taken place in the past, in view of what we are sure will take place in the future, the only safety, the only assurance that the people can possibly have that, this Government will carry on more economically, more honestly and more in the public interest the affairs with which they have been entrusted is in the appointment of a committee of this House for the purpose of investigating every dollar of public expenditure, not only in respect to shells, but in respect to supplies of every kind and description purchased by the Government during the last eighteen months. Not until this report is presented to Parliament and the Government prove by their actions that they mean what they say, will suspicion be allayed and confidence be restored.
On motion of Mr. Murphy, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.05 p.m.
Friday, January 21, 1916.
The House -met at Three o'clock, the Speaker in the Chair.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 3, respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.-Air. Stevens.
Bill No. 4, respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Bradbury.
Bill No. 5, respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.

Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 6, to confirm certain agreements made between the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway Company and -the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 7, respecting the Farnham and Granby Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 8, respecting the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company. -Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 9, respecting the Peace River Tramway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Douglas.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 10, to incorporate "Les Soeurs de rAsisonrption de la Sainte-Vierge.-Mr. Lemieux.

[Stage Direction]
Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) presented the following report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists ot members to compose the Select Standing Committees of the House during the present session:
No. 1.
ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS. Messieurs:
Barnard,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Bliondiln,
Borden (Sir Robert), Boys,
Bristol,
Bureau,
Carvell,
Charlton,
Chisholm (Antigonish) Cr others,
Demers,
Descarrieg,
Devlin,
Doherty,
Pripp,
German,
Kay,
Lafortune,
Lamarche,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska),
Lemieux,
Maclean (Halifax), Marcile (Bagot), Munson,
Niickle,
Northrup,
.Patenaude,
Porter,
Rainville,
Robidoux,
Ross,
Thomson
(Qu'Appelle), Tremain, and Wilson (Laval).-36
Knowles,
Lachance,
Lalor,
Lamarche,
Lanctdt,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska), Lapointe
(Montreal, St. J.), Law,
Lemieux,
L'Esp§rance,
Macdonald,
Macdonell,
Maclean (York, O.), MacNutt,
McCraney,
McCrea,
McCurdy,
McKenzie,
McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), McLean (Sunbury), McLeod,
Marshall,
Martin (Regina), Middlebro,
Molloy,
Morphy,
Murphy,
Neely,
Nesbitt,
Nickle,
Northrup,
Oliver,
Paquet,
Pardee,
Porter,
Pugsley,
Rhodes,
Rochon,
Schaffner,
Sharpe,
Smith,
Smyth,
Stanfield,
Stevens,
Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Thornton,
Tobin,
Tremain,
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Wallace,
Weichel,
White (Renfrew), White
(Victoria, Alta.), Wilson (Laval),
Wilson
(Wentworth), and Wright.-119.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-five members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 3. ON MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS.
Messieurs:
			Ames (Sir Herbert),	Lalor,
ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND GRAPH LINES.	TELE-	Armstrong (York, O.), Ball.	Lamarche, Lavall6e,Messieurs :	Blondin,	Macdonell,Achim,	Cruise,	Boulay,	McLean (Sunbury),Bourassa,	McLeod,Armstrong (Lambton),	, Currie,	Boyce.	McMillan.Arthurs,	Davidson,	Boyer,	Marcil (Bonaventure),Baker,	Delisle,	Boys,	MartinBarnard,	Descarries,	Broder,	(Montreal, S.te. M.),Barrette,	Devlin,	Bureau.	Mondou,BSland,	Donaldson,	Burnham,	Morris.Bellemare,	Douglas,	Carrick,	Morrison. *Bennett (Calgary ),	Edwards,	Carvell,	Murphy,Bennett (Simcoe),	Elliot,	Chisholm (Antigonish)	, Pacaud,Bickerdike,	Ethier,	Clarke (Wellington),	Papineau,Blain,	Fisher,	Davidson,	Paul,Boivin,	Forget (Sir	Rodolphe),	Devlin,	Perley (Sir George),Boyce,	Fowler,	Ethier,	Porter,Boyer, *	Fripp,	Forget (Sir Rodolphe),	Proulx,Boys,	Gauthier (Gaspfi),	Fripp,	Reid.Brabazon,	Gauvreau,	Gauthier	Robb,Bradbury,	German,	(St. Hyacinthe),	Ross,Bristol,	Girard,	Gauvreau,	Scott,Buchanan,	Gordon,	Girard.	Sharpe,Bureau,	Graham,	Glass.	Shepherd,Carroll,	Green,	Gordon,	Steele,Cash,	Guilbault,	Guthrie,	Stewart (Hamilton),Chabot,	Guthrie,	Hepburn,	Thoburn,Charlton,	Hartt,	Hughes (Sir Sam),	Tobin.Clark (Red Deer),	Henderson,	Jameson,	Turriff,Clements,	Hepburn,	Knowles,	Walker, andCochrane,	Jameson,	Lachance,	White (Renfrew).-64.Cockshutt,	Kay,	And that the quorum of the said committee	Copp,	Kemp,	do consist of ten members.	
[Stage Direction]
No. 4.
ON STANDING ORDERS. Messieurs:
Achim,
Alguire.
Armstrong (Lambton), Barrette,
Best,
Boulay,
Burrell,
Chabot.
Cromwell,
Doherty.
Fortier,
Hazen,
Knowles.
Kyte,
Maclean (York, O.), MacNutt,
McCoig.
McCraney,
Marcile (Bagot), Michaud,
Morris,
Paquet,
Paul,
Rhodes,
Roche,
Scott.
Seguin,
Stanfield,
Turgeon,
Verville, and White
(§ir Thomas).-31.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of seven members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 5. ON PRINTING.
Messieurs:
Bickerdike,
Bowman,
Brabazon,
Brouillard,
Cardin,
Chabot,
Clark (Bruce), Clark (Wellington), Currie,
Douglas,
Elliott,
Graham,
Gray,
Lavall£e,
L'Esp£rance,
Martin
(Montreal, St. M.), Middlebro,
Murphy?
Nicholson,
Roche,
Rochon,
Stevens,
Verville,
White (Victoria, Alta), and
Wilson
(Wentworth).-25.
No. 5.
ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. Messieurs:
Barnard,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Blain,
Boyce,
Boys,
Carvell,
Casgrain,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Invernes), Clarke (Essex)," Clarke (Wellington), Clements,
Crothers,
Davidson,
Edwards,
Fisher,
Fripp,
German,
Green,
Hughes (Kings, P.E.I.), Kay,
Kemp,
Kyte,
Macdonell,
Maclean (Halifax), McCoig,
McCrea,
McCraney,
McCurdy,
McKenzie,
Marshall,
Martin
(Montreal, Ste. M.), Martin (Regina), Meighen,
Merner,
Michaud,
Middlebro,
Molloy,
Mondou,
Morphy,
Morrison,
Murphy,
Neely,
Nicholson,
Nickle,
Northrup,
Pardee,	,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Reid,
Robidoux,
Rogers,
Scott,
Sinclair,
Smyth,
Stanfield,
Stewart (Lunenburg), White (Sir Thomas), Tobin,	and
Tremain,	Wilcox.-63.
Truax,
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-one members.
No. 7.
ON BANKING AND COMMERCE. Messieurs:
Ames (Sir Herbert),	Loggie,
Armstrong (Lambton)	, Macdonald,
Armstrong (York, O.),	Macdonell,
Baker,	Maclean (Halifax),
Ball,	Maclean (York, O.),
Barnard,	McCraney,
Bellemare,	McCurdy,
Bennett (Calgary),	McLean (Sunbury),
Best,	McLeod,
Bickerdike,	McMillan,
Boivin,	Marshall,
Boyce,	Martin (Regina),
Bristol,	Meighen,
Broder,	Middlebro,
Buchanan,	Nesbitt,
Burnham,	Nickle,
Cardin,	Northrup,
Carrick,	Osier (Sir Edmund),
Carvell,	Pacaud,
Charlton,	Papineau,
Clark (Bruce),	Pardee,
Clark (Red Deer),	Per ley (Sir George),
Cockshutt, .	Porter,
Copp,	Power,
Currie,	Pugsley,
Demers,	Rainville,
Edwards,	Rhodes,
Fisher,	Robb,
Forget (Sir Rodolphe),Roche,	
Fortier,	Rochon,
Foster (Sir George),	Ross,
Fowler,	Sexsmith,
Gauthier	Sharpe,
(St. Hyacinthe),	Sinclair,
Glass,	Steele,
Graham,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Gray,	Stewart (Lunenburg),
Guthrie,	Sutherland,
Hanna,	Thompson (Yukon ),
Henderson,	Thomson (Qu'Appelle),
Hughes	Thornton, '
(Kings, P.E.I.),	Tobin,
Hughes (Sir Sam),	Turriff,
Jameson,	Verville,
Kay,	Warnock,
Kemp,	Webster,
Knowles,	Weichel, and
Law,	White
Lemieux,	(Sir Thomas)-96
L'EspSranee,	
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-one members.
. No. 8.
ON AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION. Messieurs:
Achim,	Bourassa,
Alguire,	Bowman,
Armstrong (Lambton), Broder,
Armstrong (York, O.) Brouillard Arthurs,	Buchanan,
Ball,	Burrell,
Best,	Cash,
Boivin,	Champagne,
[Stage Direction]
Chisholm (Antigonish), Morrison, Chisholm (Inverness), Munson,
Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Wellington), Cromwell,
Cruise,
Currie,
Delisle,
Donaldson,
Douglas,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Fortier,
Gauthier (Gasp£), G^uvreau,
Girard,
Glass,
Gordon,
# Graham,
Guilbault,
Hanna,	-
Hartt,
Henderson,
Hughes (Sir Sam), Kay,
Lanctot,
Lewis,
Lovell,
McCoig,
McCrea,
McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), MacNutt,
McMillan,
Marcile (Bagot), Marshall,
Meighen,
Merner,
Molloy, .
Morphy,
Morris,
Neely,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Paquet,
Paul,
Proulx,
Robb,
Roche,
Ross,	[DOT]
Schaffner,
Scott,
Seguin,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe,
Sinclair,
Smith, -#
Steele,
Stewart (Lunenburg) , Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thoburn,
Thompson (Yukon), Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Thornton,
Tremain,
Truax,
Turriff,
Walker*
' Wallace,
Warnock,
Webster,
Weichel,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox,
Wilson (Laval),
Wilson (Wentworth), and
Wright-95.
Cockshutt.	McMillan,
Devlin.	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Douglas.	Merner,
Green.	Mondou,
Guilbault,	Nesbitt,
Hartt,	Osier (Sir Edmund),
Hepburn,	Sexsmith,
Lalor,	Shepherd,
Law.	Smith,
Lemieux,	Smyth,
Lewis.	Thompson (Yukon),
Loggie,	Turriff, and
Lovell,	Walker.-33.
Macdonald, And that the quorum of the said committee	
do consist of ten	members.
No. 11.	,

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Ames (Sir Herbert, Barette,
Boland,
Bellemare,
Blain,
Bourassa,
Bowman,
Brabazon,
Champagne,
Charlton,
Cochrane,
Cromwell, '
Cruise,
Davidson,
Donaldson,
Ethier,
Green,
Henderson,
Michaud,
Munson,
Osier (Sir Edmund), Patenaude,
Perley (Sir George), Rogers,
Stewart (Hamilton), Thoburn,
Warnock,
Webster,
White
(Victoria, Alta.), Wilson (Laval), and Wright.-31.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twelve members.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.
[Stage Direction]
No. 9. ON MARINE ANEK FISHERIES.
Messieurs
Alguire,
Barnard,
Boulay,
Bradbury,
Cardin,
Casgrain.
Chisholm (Inverness) Clarke (Essex), Clements,
Copp,
Fowler.
Gauthier (GaspS), Hazen, [DOT]
Hughes (Kings, P.E.I.) Jameson,
Kyte,
Lafortune,
Lapointe
(Montreal, St. J.),
Loggie,
McCurdy.
McKenzie,
McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), Morrison,
Nicholson,
Pardee,
Power,
Robidoux,
Shepherd,
Sinclair,
Stevens.
, Stewart (Lunenburg), Taylor,
Truax,
Turgeon,
Wallace, and Wilcox.-36.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.
. No. 10.
ON MINES AND MINERALS. Messieurs
Arthurs,	Carroll.
Blondin,	Chisholm	(Antigonish),
Carrick,	Cochrane.

No. 12.
OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES. Messieurs
Burnham,
Descarries,
Devlin,
Foster (Sir George),
Gray,
Hanna,
Lapointe
(Montreal, St. J.),
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of five members.
Lavall6e,,
Lemieux,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Perley (Sir George), Rainville,
Schaffner, and Taylor.-14.
No. 13.
ON THE LIBRARY. Messieurs
Boland,
Borden (Sir Robert), Boyer, *
Broder,
Casgrain,
Clark (Bruce),
Copp, ^
Crothers,
On mot. on of Sir port was concurred
Doherty,
Foster (Sir George), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Lemieux,
Lewis,
Meighen,
Pardee, and Pugsley.-16.
Robert Borden, the rein.
Robert Laird Borden: That the Select Standing Committees of this House shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House, and to report from time to time their -observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records, with the exception of the Committee on Debates and that on the Library of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both Houses on the subject of the Printing of Parliament, and that the members of the Select Standing Committee on ' Printing, viz. :	Messrs. Bickerdike, Bowman,
Brabazon, Brouillard, Cardin, Chabot, Clark (Bruce), Clarke (Wellington), Currie, Douglas, Elliot, Graham, Gray, LavallSe, L'Espfi-rance, Martin (Montreal, Ste. Marie), Middle-boro, Murphy, Nicholson, Roche, Rochon,
. Stevens, Verville, White (Victoria, Alta.), and Wilson (Wentworth), will act as members on the part of this House, on the said Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: That a message be sent to the Senate to inform their Honours that this House has appointed Messrs. Bdland, Borden (Sir Robert), Boyer, Broder, Casgrain, Clark (Bruce), Copp, Crothers, Doherty, Poster (iSir George), Lau-rier( Sir Wilfrid), Lemieux, Lewis, Meiglien, Pardee and Puigsley, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a. Joint Committee of both Houses on the Library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
THE PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT. Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved:
That Messrs. Fripp, Pardee, Ross and Stanfield be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the Restaurant, as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the Restaurant, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.
Motion agreed to-.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY:: I desire to speak on a question of privilege. I had not the pleasure of being in the House yesterday when my hon. friend the Solicitor General spoke, but I observe that he regretted rry absence, and pointed out that he had been present while I spoke. I can assure my hon. friend that my absence was not caused by any want of desire to hear him. I had understood that my hon. friend was to follow me, 'but the distinguished and able debater from North Essex (Mr. Wilcox) was put up so as to give my hon. friend breathing time. If I had known my hon. friend was going to speak yesterday I should have made my engagements to suit. My hon. friend made an extraordinary statement yesterday with reference to the shell matter, which I think it is my duty to call to the attention of the House. It appears on page 129 of Hansard, as follows:
Here is the way it is put upon Hansard, doubtless for distribution throughout the length and breadth of Canada:
I was quoting from the speech of Mr. Thomas:
" That must be considered, and I may tell you that the cost of shells in Canada has been higher than in competitive countries. It is complained that fat orders have gone to the United States, but I can assure you that a big slice will be reserved for Canada as long as [DOT] the price is fairly satisfactory. The prices so far have been far higher than in the United States or in Great Britain."
Then, the Solicitor General proceeds to say:
Strange that that should be the way that it appears in Hansard in the speech of the hon. member for St. John, when the words in the quotation from which he read distinctly say " that the prices have been higher than in the United States."
The fair inference from that is that I read an extract-to this House which was altered in Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Pugsley: -at my instance, I presume, for the purpose of being circulated broadcast throughout Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Pugsley: The fair inference from
the words of the Solicitor General is that I read what purported to be an extract from the speech of Mr. Thomas, and that it was altered in Hansard for distribution throughout the length and breadth of Canada, so as to give a faulty impression of what Mr. Thomas had said. The extract as I read it to the House was seot to Hansard word for word, without lamy alteration. I did not see any member of the

Hansard staff upon the subject; I had no communication directly or indirectly with any member of the staff, and the error which occurred occurred in Hansard and without any fault of mine. As I read the extract, so I sent it out to Hansard with other memoranda for which the Han,-sard reporter asked. I noticed the mistake when I read over my speech in the Unrevised Hansard, and I immediately corrected it, striking out the word " far," and sent the correction for the Revised Hansard, before my attention wlals called to the remarks of the Solicitor General.
With regard to the matter of the purchase of submarines, my. hon. friend, veTy unfairly I thought, sought to convey the impression that when I made the statement to the House that to my surprise certain matters had been left uninvestigated, that certain questions had been left unanswered, I at that time had in my possession a copy of the evidence taken by the commission; because my hon. friend is reported to have made this statement, which appears on page 137 of Hansard;
I quote from the evidence. I am informed that the evidence has been handed to the Opposition-at all events to the leader of the Opposition-and, consequently should be at the disposal of his followers in the same way as it was at mine, which was only yesterday.
Now, Sir, the day when I spoke on the subject of submarines was the day before my hon. friend had himself obtained the evidence.


Arthur Meighen: What I said was that 1 had received it yesterday.


William Pugsley: I had not seen the evidence; I had not heard of it, and I presumed it w-o-ulH not be (available for anybody until the official report was brought down and submitted to the House. That is the time when we have a right to expect the evidence and when I expected that it would be brought down, and I very much suspect that, after I had made my remarks with regard to the submarines, my hon. friend took pains to get the evidence, and in all probability he had a copy of it sent to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, but it was done after I had made my remarks.
Mr. hon. friend did me an injustice in another respect when he sought to convey the impression that I had been guilty of very great unfairness in not .quoting correctly the examination by Mr. Thompson before the commissioner with regard to the test.


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a point of order. This is no question of privilege whatever. The hon. gentleman is endeavouring to make a reply to my speech. He is distinctly out of order.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: Not at all. The hon. gentleman went on to attack me. He stated that I had been guilty of conduct which in truth he could not describe as* the conduct of a gentleman. Before he closed, it is true, he said he had made remarks which he had not intended to make,, and which were unparliamentary or might be unparliamentary.


Arthur Meighen: 
William Pugsley: I am addressing His
Honour now.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I, understand
that the hon. member for St. John-is speaking in order to correct some remarks which were made by the hon. Solicitor General, and, according to the practice followed in this House, as can be seen in Bourinot, I think that the hon. member for St." John can proceed with his remarks.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend sought
to convey the impression that I knew when I made those remarks that the commissioner had inquired very carefully into the test which had been made of the submarines, and he quoted from the evidence, as reported on page 139 of Hansard. My hon. friend sought to convey the impression that Mr. Paterson had stated what the test was. An examination of the evidence as submitted by my hon. friend shows that no such test as the hon. member speaks of was-made, and therefore it shows that his attack on me as misrepresenting the test is entirely unfounded. My hon. friend proceeded to-say that there was evidence that there were tests, and one would infer from his remarks-that the test required the submarines to be weighted down to the extent of 5,000 tons. If we read the evidence, we find that Mr. Paterson only mentions 5,000 tons as an illustration of what the contract might require. When I call the attention of the House to the fact that the total displacement of the submarines is only 313 tons each, lion, members will see how unfair my hon. friend was when he said that there had been a full examination as to the actual tests that had been made, and that I was-unfair in my remarks.
I am only going to speak of these few matters, because from one you may judge all. My hon. friend says that I was entirely

15A
wrong and unfair to this House when I stated that Mr. Logan had not been thoroughly interrogates as to his connection with this matter. Just a word as to that. When Mr. Thompson entered upon that examination, he must have had-presumably he would have, he ought to have had-that return.	j


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Order. I think the hon. member for St. John is trespassing beyond the question of privilege.


William Pugsley: If, Sir, you will just
allow me to reply. I based my remarks upon the return which was made to Parliament, and I said I had been amazed to find that there had been no inquiry into Mr. Logan's connection with the matter. Do you not remember, Sir, that I mentioned the fact that I watched to see whether any question would be asked of Mr. Logan as to why he whistled over the telephone when the price of $1,150,000 was named?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is not a personal explanation.


William Pugsley: I am addressing the
House on a point of order.


George Eulas Foster: I would rise to
a point of order also. This is the queerest personal explanation I have ever listened to.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I trust the hon'. member for St. John will keep to the question of privilege.
Mr. PUGSLEY":	What I said with regard to the perfunctory examination of Captain Logan was said with the knowledge that the Order in Council passed by the British Columbia Government, which you will find at page 9 of the correspondence relating to the purchase of two submarines for the Canadian Government, contained these words:
Victoria, 'August 21, 1914.
In pursuance of negotiations conducted for some time previously. Captain W. H. Logan, of Lloyds, made arrangements with Mr. J. V. Paterson, general manager of the Electric Boat Company, Seattle, for the purchase of two submarines.
There is also the fact that Captain Logan had put in a bill to this Government which they paid, I believe, and which hon. gentlemen will find at page 32, as follows:
To personal fees, 15 days at $25	$375
Hotel expenses, 15 days at $10	 150
Transportation from Victoria to Seattle and Tacoma, five trips	 22
Wires, long-distance telephone, stenographer and other incidental expenses	 $ 5 0
Having knowledge of these things, I think I had a right to express amazement that Captain Logan was not questioned as to how it happened that, though he was negotiating for a period of fifteen days in relation to this matter, he had never heard of the price. That is the reason I made the statement I did, and that is the reason why I think I am right in saying that the hon. gentleman misrepresented the matter.


Arthur Meighen: I quite understand the hon. gentleman's explanation that he had not read the evidence-


William Pugsley: Order.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I understand that the hon gentleman is speaking to a question of privilege.


Arthur Meighen: I just wish to accept the explanation-


William Pugsley: Let him rise to a question of privilege.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: The Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) says he wishes to make a personal explanation.


William Pugsley: No objection.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I think it according to the rules and practice of the House that an Ron. member is entitled to make a personal explanation before the Orders of the Day are called.


Arthur Meighen: I accept the explanation of the hon. gentleman that he had not read the evidence. I assumed, of course, that before he complained of the evidence and based an attack on the integrity of a judge upon it, he would have read it. I now quite accept his explanation, and understand better than ever why he made that attack.


William Pugsley: I wish to make a personal explanation in answer to my hon. friend. Let me say that while I had not read the evidence in official form, I did read it in the press as it came out, and the newspapers contained very full reports of w.hat occurred from day to day.


Arthur Meighen: Liberal Monthly.


William Pugsley: No, but newspapers published in Victoria, where the examination took place. And let me say that an examination of such of the evidence as the hon .gentleman has read confirms me in

that opinion and justifies the remark 1 made.



WRECK OF THE PILOT.

[Stage Direction]
✓
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I desire to read to the House telegrams received this morning concerning the total wreck of the steamer Pilot on Red Island. In reading the first of these telegrams, I wish it to be a correction of the telegram read yesterday by the Postmaster General (Mr. Oasgrain) from Mr. Thom. Mr. Thom says in this telegram:
Forced to hire Mahone as they did nothing and she was dismantled.
I wired down to Dr. Parrot, president of the Trans-St. Laurent Navigation Co., and here is the telegram received from him this morning. In justice to the company, I think I should be allowed to read it:
Riviere du Roup Station, Que.,
January 21.
C. A. Gauvreau, M.P.,
Ottawa.
Mahone ready twenty-four hours after accident. Arrangements made with Thompson for the rescue of passengers now safe on Red Island. An attempt to reach them failed yesterday on account of the strong wind. Will try again to-day with calm seas. Lots ot ice. Mahone will live up to her reputation and will save the passengers.
This was received early this morning, and coming into this House at three O'clock to-day I was handed a telegram from Dr. Parrot, which I translate as follows:
Passengers and crew of pilot have been all saved this morning by the Mahone.
I hope the Postmaster General will be pleased to hear that news. And, if permitted, now that the Pilot is a total wreck,
I would ask the Postmaster General if he is going to give back to the Mahone-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order:


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: These last remarks of
the hon. gentleman are certainly out of order.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: It is only a question I wish to put, and I think that at this stage of the proceedings I have the right to ask a question.
Mr.'SPEAKER: Order.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I am denied the right to ask a question?


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: The hon. member is
not denied the right to ask a question; that is his right and is conceded.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I beg you to allow me to ask a question of the Postmaster General.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I understand that the
hon. member has already put his question to the Postmaster General, and the case is closed.	'


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I have no right to
ask another question, then?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Then, I will come back to this question another day.



PRIVILEGE-MR. HEPBURN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. BERNARD R. HEPBURN (Prince Edward):	Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On the 18th instant, the * hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) made certain observations in this House regarding my connection with shell contracts. On that particular evening I was not present in the Chamber, and I regret very much that the hon. gentleman did not tell me he was going to speak in regard to myself, or I would have made an extra effort to be present. On the following day I was out of the city and had not had an opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the House until to-day. On page 78 of Hansard the hon. member for St. John is reported as saying:
People came here from all parts of Canada, politicians, canvassing agents, committee men, influential people from different sections of the country, all clamouring for orders for shells, and among others my good friend the gentleman to whom I have referred, the member fo-r Prince Edward County, obtained for his company a- large order. His company is not engaged in the manufacture of steel. He owns a.plaiyng mill, I understand, and is engaged in the manufacture of wooden ware. I could understand if he had limited his application to shell boxes that would have been a worthy ambition which could have been fulfilled by the utilizing of his machinery. But he got an order for shells, and the people of Picton naturally supposed it would mean the creation of a local industry which might have justified him in pressing upon the Shell Committee and the Minister of Militia that he was right in using his influence to secure this order so as to enable a steel plant to be erected in my hon. friend's home town.
It is quite true that the firm of Hepburn Brothers, Limited, obtained an order for the forging and machining of shells. My brothers and myself, and my father before me, operated steamboats on the Great Lakes and river St. Lawrence for many years. In connection with that busi-
.! \XUAHY 21, 1916
ness we 'maintained aind operated a machine shop at Picton. We have known General Bertram, formerly chairman of the Shell Committee, for many, many years, and have transacted to our mutual satisfaction no inconsiderable amount of business with his firm. We applied to the Shell Committee for a contract for the forging and machining of shells. We were awarded a contract, not because I was a member of Parliament, but because General Bertram and the committee knew that we had a plant and could complete any contract we undertook. We believed at that time that, with certain modifications and additions, we could utilize our plant at Picton. After having obtained the order-at a price in the fixing of which we had no part, hut which was at the uniform rate given to all producers of shells for the same work at that time in Eastern Canada-we discovered, on the report of a competent engineer from Montreal, that our plant at Picton could not economically be utilized in fulfilling the contract. I then obtained further expert advice, as a result of which, having regard to the point at .which billets were being manufactured, and having regard also to the fact that .Montreal was the labour market of Eastern Canada, we located the plant at Montreal, where we have since forged and machined shells to the satisfaction of the committee and its inspectors. 1 regret to say that we were unsuccessful in securing a box order, though from time to time we waited upon the Shell Commitee. I sincerely trust that when other orders are to be placed, it will not be forgotten that the firm of Hepburn Brothers have a planing mill in Picton, and that some orders will be turned our way.
The hon. member for St. John continued:
But he .got an order for shells and took it to Montreal, antf the shells are being made there now in the east end of Montreal by another concern, the member for Prince Edward County being the go-between or the. middleman in connection with the transaction.
These statements are absolutely incorrect. I am a new member in this Parliament. The hon. gentleman who made that statement is an old parliamentarian, and 1 resent very strongly the imputation that there was anything dishonest or dishonourable in connection with my relation to this contract.
William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend pardon me a moment?	y


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Pugsley: I wish to say right
here that I made no suggestion-and would he sorry to say I made any suggestion- of fraud on the part of my hon. friend. I should like to disabuse his mind in that respect.


Mr. HEPBURN:: I understood that the
Shell Committee was letting contracts for the Imperial Government. A firm of which I am a member and a director has obtained an order for the forging and machining of shells. That work is being done by that firm, and 1 have been and am giving to the business of the company as careful attention as it is possible for me to do. I have made inquiry, and I have been unable to ascertain that there is any rule or custom in this House or in the Senate that prevents a member of either body from being a shareholder or director or officer of a company or corporation holding contracts with the Imperial Government. If I violated any rule or custom, I at least, have the satisfaction of knowing that others are* similarly situated. It must be known to the hon. member for St. John, as it is to most members of this House, that no inconsiderable number of the members of both parties, in the Commons as well as in the Senate, are interested in companies of that, kind, as shareholders, directors, and officers. I trust that one with the long parliamentary experience of the hon. member for St. John will at least do me the justice of withdrawing the imputation which he has made against me on the floor of this House.


William Pugsley: I have too much
respect and too much regard for my hon.' friend to be willing even to appear to do him an injustice. I was not finding any fault with him-not at all. The Minister of Labour may laugh, but it was with gentlemen occupying positions similar to that occupied by him-members of this Government-that I was finding fault, and with the Shell Committee. I dealt with my hon. friend's firm as a firm that was not engaged in the manufacture of steel, my point being' that tlie Shell Committee had given orders to many people who had no plant, no machinery, and no experience in steel-manufacturing work. I made a statement also which my hon. friend says is true: that the work was not established in Picton, but in the east end of Montreal. As I explained, my hon. friend denies only the statement that I made that he was a go-between or middleman. If my hon. friend says that that is not the position he

occupied, I cheerfully accept his statement, and withdraw the statement which I made to the effect that he was a go-between or middleman. But that does not at all interfere with the argument which I was making: that the Government and the Shell Committee were to be condemned for the practice that they pursued of letting out shell contracts to people who had no plant capable of manufacturing such munitions.
THE COMMANDEERING OF WHEAT. On the Orders of the Day:


William Erskine Knowles: I should like to ask
the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce as to whether there will or will not be .any more commandeering of wheat this winter.


George Eulas Foster: I should like to fill that remarkable large receptacle for information that my hon. friend carries about with him, but, in respect to the question winch he has just put, I am sorry that I cannot yet find a small donation to make to that end.



INQUIRY FOR PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Militia and Defence to the fact that on March 17 last I obtained an order of the House for a copy of the correspondence in connection with an order given by the Militia Department for some 30,000 shovels from the Midvale Steel Company, of Philadelphia. Although that was ten months ago, I have not yet received the papers in connection with that matter. They should not be voluminous, and I presume that if we had them they would supply information that would be useful in connection with the matters that are now before the House.. I should like to know if I may expect to receive them shortly.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: I do not know anything about the matter; I will look into it apd bring down a return.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH. ADDRESS IN REPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Alfred Thompson for an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Thursday, January 20.
Charles Murphy: And here I may interrupt the reading of this article to say that, within the last few days, that view has been strongly supported by Lord Derby. The article proceeds:
If that be so, what motive will the self-governing dominions have to draw closer their relations with the Mother Country? While they had to count with a war with so aggressive and so powerful a country as Germany it was natural that they should desire not only to give assistance to the Mother Country, but also to secure the protection of the British fleet for their overseas communications. But what need will they have for the protection of the British fleet if they can reasonably count upon peace for half a century? Similarly, we ourselves will come out of the war loaded with debt. Our main thought will be to reduce that debt as rapidly as possible, to find means of keeping up our revenue, and especially of pushing our trade in every direction, so that we may pay off at least 100 millions of debt per annum. If that is to be our main preoccupation, is it likely that either the public or ministers will trouble much about drawing closer the relations with the daughter countries? We shall retain for them the same affection as now. But we shall -comfort ourselves that if the day of distress comes they will prove to us as they are proving . now, " that blood is thicker than water," and we shall put off to a time of greater leisure the reorganization of the Epipire.
*On second thought, and perhaps after reading that article of Sir George Paish, the Toronto News in a further discussion of the subject was not so cocksure of the position which it had taken in the first instance, and in a quotation from an editorial of the News, reproduced in the Ottawa Citizen of October 14, 1915, I read this:
On crossing the Atlantic he-
That is the right hon. the Prime Minister

	.
[DOT]-was invited to take his seat in the Imperial Cabinet-an honour never before enjoyed by a Dominion statesman. The incident was full of meaning for the future. Sir Robert Borden's demand on the part of the Dominion for a voice in Imperial affairs is in the way of being realized.
The first article in the News said it had been realized.
Now, the right hon. the Prime Minister, so far as I know, has not given the public of this country any information on the subject. The only incidental reference that has fallen from his lips on the subject since his return from England, that has come under my notice in any event, is contained in a speech which he delivered some time last month -before the Canadian Club in New York. In the course of that
4 p.m. speech, The Farmers Sun of Toronto represents the right hon. gentleman in its issue of December 29 last, as having said this:

It is realized that the great policies and questions which concern and govern the issues of peace and war cannot in future be assumed by the people of the British Islands alone.
And commenting on that somewhat delphic utterance, The Farmers Sun said:
The proposal implies of course either distrust of British diplomacy in the past or a crusader's impulse to bear arms against the world. While it is doubtful whether the colonies can by any arrangement whatever or by any menace of arms become influential in European politics, it is not doubtful that to make the attempt, however feebly, they must permanently commit themselves to share the burdens of European militarism. They will never be able to speak again of voluntary participation in Europe's wars.
About the same time as the right hon. the Prime Minister spoke before the Canadian Club in New York, the matter was practically given its quietus in the British House of Commons. On December 22, 1915, the Ottawa Citizen published this cable despatch :
London, December 21.-The Premier in the House of Commons to-night was asked whether, in view of the share taken by the dominions in various theatres of war, he would include representatives of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, in the British Cabinet without increasing its size.
Mr. Asquith :	I don't think the proposal is
practicable. The Colonial Secretary has already intimated to the dominions that they will be consulted in connection with terms of peace, and that the Government will warmly welcome any Prime Minister who finds it convenient to come here to discuss fully and frankly questions of Imperial policy.
This would show, according to Mr. Asquith, that a warm welcome awaits any Prime Minister of the overseas dominions, but no seat in the Cabinet. Thai, Mr. Speaker, makes it quite evident that so far as our Imperial relations are concerned, they were not changed by the attendance of the right hon. the Prime Minister at the British Cabinet meeting last summer. It further makes plain that the original dictum of Mr. Asquith still stands, namely, that the. British Government cannot share its responsibilities for the issues of peace and war with any of the overseas dominions.
In his speech yesterday, my hon. friend who sits beside me to the right (Hon. Frank Oliver) urged upon the Government the necessity of new and larger action in the care of wounded and disabled soldiers. My hon. friend was listened to, with profound attention, and in my judgment he never was more convincing than he was in that speech of yesterday. He fully deserved the compliment that was paid him by my

hon. friend the Solicitor General. In speaking as he did, the hon. member for Edmonton spoke not at all from a sense of the parental sacrifices that he has had the privilege and the pride of making, but rather from that sturdy sense of public duty which has always distinguished him as one of the people's representatives. Naturally, in my case his words fell upon receptive ears and if any word of mine can add force to what the hon. gentleman said yesterday I would appeal to the Government to lose not one minute in applying themselves to the task of revising the schedule upon which allotments are to be made in the future to wounded and disabled soldiers.
I say, further, that while we have voted hundreds of millions, this House and this country are quite willing to vote hundreds of millions more in order that a proud, willing and generous people may discharge its full duty towards the men who have faced the Grim Reaper and have given the best that was in them in defence of their native land and the British Empire. The Government cannot act too quickly in this matter, and in acting they may be assured of the unanimous and hearty support of the gentlemen on this side of the House. As my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has said, all these expenses, no matter of what character, should be borne by the Government, and if the Government, in performing the task which my hon. friend has suggested, and which I also urge-upon them, could do something to stop the mad rage that has seized upon a certain portion of the community for soliciting subscriptions for -this, that and the other thing, they would confer a Very real and lasting benefit upon a worried and harassed portion of the business and professional community. Parliament, I repeat, should provide all these funds, and I am sure that both sides of the House will combine to support the Government in whatever new measures they may propose.
In his criticism of war expenditures my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) urged upon the Government the necessity of holding a speedy enquiry into all these expenditures. A similar request has been made by every hon. gentleman who has spoken from this side of the House, and all these gentlemen wer6 merely voicing a demand that has become general on the part of the public. Let me illustrate, Mr. Speaker, how general that demand is, and perhaps I can best do that by citing certain facts connected with the correspondence that took place in the fall of 1914 between the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the right hon. the Prime Minister. It will be recalled that my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) made an inquiry in this House on the 29th of March last regarding the receipt of that correspondence by the Prime Minister or by any member of the Government. On that occasion the Prime Minister was not in his seat, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was leading the House, said that he had no knowledge of the correspondence, but would bring the enquiry to the attention of the Prime Minister, when a decision would be reached as to whether it could be brought down to the House. That was on the 29th of March. On the 8th of April last the matter again came up in the House, upon a motion by my hon. friend from South Renfrew, which was adopted by the House. The motion read as follows:
For a copy of all correspondence that has taken place since August 4 last between any official of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and the Prime Minister, the Acting Prime Minister or any member of the Government or any department thereof.
On that date, April 8, a short discussion ensued. The Prime Minister stated that he had received a communication from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, but that he understood the Canadian Manufacturers' Association regarded it as of a confidential character. Later on he added that after communicating with the association he would bring the correspondence down if they had no objection. Another inquiry was made in regard to this correspondence-on April 13, 1915, by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) on behalf of the-hon. member for South Renfrew, who was absent at the time, and in reply to that inquiry the Prime Minister said that he had communicated with the gentleman who had written him the letter but had not yet received a reply.	.
Now, Sir, there is something extraordinary about all this. As I have stated, the-first inquiry about this matter was made in the House on March 29. On the following day, March 30, 1915, an interview with Mr. G. M. Murray, Secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, was published in the Toronto Star; and, speaking with reference to this correspondence, Mr. Murray said that it was not confidential and that the Prime Minister could bring it down if he pleased. About a week later the Toronto Globe appended to its report of



'60 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
* a. further discussion in this House about the matter a foot-note in these terms:
Mr. G. M. Murray, secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, in an interview on March 30, while not admitting that any letters of protest had been written to the Government in regard to the above, was quoted as saying, " Any letters that were written were to the Premier, and he can make them public if he chooses."	'
As you will observe, Mr. Speaker, there is a very sharp conflict between the statement of the Prime Minister and that oi Mr. Murray. I make no comment on that. I do not want to introduce anything harsh or controversial into the discussion. It is not necessary for me to make any comment at all; the facts speak for themselves. The matter was further dealt with in an editorial in the Toronto Globe on April 17 last, two days after this House prorogued. I will quote some paragraphs from that editorial :
Why did the Prime Minister arrange for the prorogation of Parliament without first bringing down the war-graft correspondence between himself and the executive of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association? That correspondence was called for again and again, and yet again, within the past four weeks. Parliament had a right to it. It is of intense public interest. Its interest is measured not only by its intrinsic merits, but also by the studied and persistent efforts of the Government to keep it secret. Why is it kept secret by the Prime Minister?
That correspondence, as known to other members of the Cabinet, deals very plainly and in interesting detail with important lines of war-graft not investigated and not even mentioned 'in the committees or before the House. A series of typical graft cases in several provinces, and covering various types of exploitation by different orders of favoured " middlemen," are described. Names and places and dates are given. Circumstances are recited. Evidence both illuminating and condemnatory is outlined. It is all in the hands of the Prime Minister. Why was it not submitted to Parliament?
That correspondence dates back to the early days of the war-contract scandals. It presents facts. It appeals for Investigation. It warns against delay. Why was it unheeded?
Later on in the same article, referring to the Prime Minister's attitude in the House, the editorial goes on:
He talked about the correspondence being "confidential.'' He professed willingness to lay it before Parliament if granted "Permission." He needed no man's permission. Why did he not do it?
The correspondence was public, not private. It was between a public body and the Prime Minister. It dealt solely with matters of high and serious public moment. Weeks ago the Executive of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association declared publicly that " the Premier .may publish it if he chooses." Why did Sir 
Robert Borden not choose to lay that very important correspondence before Parliament?
Is it true that the publication of that correspondence might clash very harshly with the Prime Minister's grave-toned condemnation of Garland and Foster, and might contradict very emphatically, and utterly discount, all his own protestations about war-grafters and middlemen? Why was not his zeal for Governmental honesty, his condemnation of barefaced robbery, his respect for the doors of the penitentiary, and his enthusiasm for political purity as professed solemnly on Thursday-why did all these fine qualities slumber through September and October? Had he heeded the warnings of his friends In the Manufacturers' Association then would two of his supporters in Parliament be accursed as war-graft scapegoats now ? Why did he mock at those warnings ? That is the people's question to the Premier.
WTiy ?
This matter was regarded so seriously by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association that special reference was made to it in the report presented at the annual meeting of the executive committee of that association held in the city of Toronto on the 9th of June last. So seriously did the association Tegard this matter that it took [DOT]the trouble to -hand out official reports of the proceedings of the annual meeting to the several newspapers. In these reports so handed out by the executive, special attention was drawn to one important paragraph in the executive committee's report. That paragraph, as reproduced in the Citizen of June last, reads as follows:
Less than a month later, on October 23-
That is, in the year 1914
[Stage Direction]
Less than a month later, on October 23, a letter was addressed to the Premier, pointing out that the method of handling war orders was giving rise to ,a good deal of dissatisfaction. He was informed that, making all due allowance for the fact that some manufacturers might not have had the necessary equipment, and that others might not have been able to guarantee satisfactory deliveries, it was apparently true that some had more than their share of business, while others had gone without. In some quarters the impression seemed to prevail that war material could not be sold to the Government on its merits, but only through influence, and it was accordingly suggested to the Premier that the business should be thrown wider open, and placed as far as possible with manufacturers or producers direct, instead of through middlemen, thus insuring competitive prices, and at the same time giving the Government the satisfaction of dealing with responsible parties.
Then, Sir, in order to emphasize the warning that they had sent out to the Prime Minister, the executive committee go on in their report to explain why they did that, and they furnish by their explanation a key to practically thev whole

of the correspondence. I quote again from the Citizen report of the 10th of June last:
The words of the executive committee's report, showing the motive behind the explanation of the association's position in the matter of war contracts were: " Tour committee consider it important, however, in view of certain facts that have been elicited by public inquiry in Ottawa, to offer this statement, so that no stigma can attach to the association for any alleged inaction or indifference."
The report enumerates a number of constructive suggestions which were submitted to the Premier as a practical means of throwing the business "wide open." They were as follows :
1.	That all the requirements of the various departments of the Government, whether for ordinary or special war purposes, should be advertised, and interested manufacturers invited to tender on their supply.
2.	That a permanent Government sample room should be opened at Ottawa, with possibly branch sample-rooms in other points, such as Montreal, Toronto, etc., where, as far as practicable, samples of all goods required would be available for the inspection of contractors.
3.	That in charge of each sample-room there should be an officer to supply inquirers with full particulars as to any kind of Government requirements.
4.	That in the awarding of contracts it should be a standing rule that preference be given in every case, other things being equal, to Canadian products.
5.	That generally speaking, the policy pursued should be frank and open so as to induce Canadian contractors to quote on any lines they might be capable of producing.
The letter concluded with an offer to give free insertion in Industrial Canada to all advertisements calling for tenders from manufacturers, and even to bring out special issues supplementing the regular monthly issue, should such a course be deemed necessary or advisable from the Government's standpoint.
I	do not propose to make any comment on that report. 1 need only say, the facts speak for themselves. Although this correspondence with the 'Canadian Manufacturers' Association has not been brought down, although more than nine months have elapsed since its production was ordered by this House, what has been revealed with regard to it proves conclusively that several duties have been cast upon the Government. In the first place, it is their immediate duty to bring that correspondence down to this House. In the next place, it is their duty to grant a committee of inquiry before which the legitimate manufacturers belonging to that association may appear and justify the warning that they sent to the Prime. Minister in October, 1914. Another duty is incumbent upon them viz-to grant that committee so that these manufacturers may repel the insinuation, as they desire to repel it, that they have in any way been
[Stage Direction]
mixed up in the game of war profiteering. Further, it is the duty of the Government to appoint that committee so that these legitimate manufacturers may make plain who are bona fide manufacturers and who are the mushroom manufacturers that have grown up under the aegis of the Shell Committee and of the Government.
I started on this branch of my subject by stating that there was a general demand for the appointment of a committee of inquiry. The Solicitor General yesterday took exception to the quotations from Liberal newspapers on this subject. Well, I will meet him on that point-in fact, he has already been met on that point. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) read from the Ottawa Evening Journal a demand for that investigation. Now, the significance of that demand lies not so much in the fact that that newspaper is an out-and-out supporter of this Government as in the fact that its editor is a warm personal friend of the Prime Minister. It is not likely that that gentleman would make a demand for an inquiry unless he was very strongly impressed by the absolute necessity fqr investigation. My hon. friend from St. John also read the demand for an investigation from the Montreal Daily Mail in its criticism and ridicule of the valedictory of General Bertram. Again the significance of that demand from the Daily Mail lies not so much in the fact that it also is an out-and-out supporter of this Government as in the fact, that the editor of that paper is a half-brother of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). So that, with regard to the Daily Mail, we may say that the demand for an investigation comes from within the bosom of the family itself.
The demand has also been made by such staunch Tory papers as the trade journals published by the MacLean Publishing Co., of Toronto, including the Contract Record, the Electrical News, and, I think the Lumberman's Record. In order to satisfy my hon. friend the Solicitor General that I am not quoting from a source friendly to the Liberal party, I will read, first, a declaration of the political faith of the editor of the Electrical News, whose opinion on the subject of investigation I intend to quote. In his issue of the 1st of January, 1916, the editor refers to his criticism of the Government, and says:
Right here at the start let me say that this criticising of the Government is no pleasant task. I am well aware that the publishers of this paper will get little credit for honesty of
[Stage Direction]


purpose. So accustomed is the public to the harpings of the party and corporation press that it has became case-hardened. It has learned to look through the printed articles for the self, party or corporation interest that prompted it. iLet it be known then, once for all, that I prefer the Borden Administration, with all its sins, to a government controlled by a party that sought to tie us up to the United States with a reciprocity treaty. But this paper represents a constituency of business men. It realizes that they are tired of seeing politics practised where business methods should be applied. They know that honest criticism is the best medicine for any government-even if you have to hold its nose while you administer the dose.
We do not propose, anything so drastic as that. The editor goes on:
As I have said before, the publishers are not in a position to handle a war contract and do not care to farm one out.
A little further on in this same article is the following :
We simply want to show that petty politics are no satisfactory substitute, for patriotism, and that party machines cannot do the work of factory lathes.
Surely the Solicitor General could not be supplied with better authority than that. I have gone to a good deal of trouble to get it for him, and I hope he will be satisfied with it. In this same issue of the 1st of January the Electrical News has this further to say on the subject of an investigation :
The public demand an investigation. They look not to the Conservative political machine but to Sir Robert Borden for that investigation. They feel that the Premier who is a gentleman rather than a politician, has been sinned against. They know that when next Sir Robart Borden visits England he will not want to ba pointed out as the sponsor for a committee that scattered its contracts like so much political graft, while our soldiers cried from the trenches for the munitions they so sorely needed. Sir Robert Borden may be deluded by the men he has trusted but he is not the man likely to stand idly by while the good name of the Dominion is dragged through the dirt and grime of a war scandal. Sir Robert Borden will act. Sir Robert Borden must act to save the reputation of the' country he represents and his own political honour.
Further on the same issue the Electrical News discusses this subject of an investigation in this fashion:
The Government has everything to gain and nothing to lose by being open and above-board in the matter. So many stories have been whiskered, so many charges have been flung broadcast that to remain silent must simply be taken as an admission of guilt-an admission that the worst has not been told. Never since Confederation have so many stories of trickery, trafficking and grafting been afloat. They come to this office by the score. All cannot be given because all cannot be investigated.
{Mr. Murphy.]
It would take a big staff working overtime to get into them all. But they pass from mouth to mouth, growing with each telling. Probably most of them have not yet reached Sir Robert Borden. His " machine men " probably see that such as do reach him are fumigated, sugar-coated and otherwise specially prepared for his consumption. But even his own party organs are hinting that makers of munitions " have striven to get large profits out of their contracts." The Toronto News (Conservative) charges it all to " stock market booming," but closes its article with the rather ominous sentences:	" As in previous
crazes a reckoning is coming. It may he close at hand and some very prominent men may be involved in the inevitable disclosures."
That last sentence is quoted by the Electrical News from an editorial in the Toronto Daily News, which, as every one knows, is one of the strongest supporters of this Administration. In view of the opinions of these newspapers which support the Conservative Government of the day, surely it will not be pretended that the demand for investigation is not as strong from the members of the Conservative party as it is from the members of the Liberal party.
The story of how the contracts for the shell boxes were let is also told by the Electrical News in its issue of December 1, 1915. That paper said this:
The purchase of shell boxes was another of the duties of this now famous Shell Committee. Naturally you would expect them to follow the same policy in regard to the boxes. And you won't be disappointed. There was the same secrecy' the same spreading out of contracts to cover commercial or political depression, and the same awarding of contracts to the little fellows regardless of their equipment or financial capacity. That one of the largest box factories in Canada received a contract for 25,000 boxes and manufactured on a sub-contract 50,000 boxes more is eloquent evidence of the business acumen exercised in carrying on this branch of the business. That a Montreal firm not in the box making trade was awarded a contract which it sublet to a box manufacturer in the same city is further evidence that if the committee was honest it was incompetent. That a company of low financial standing was able to secure a large contract, even though it had to construct a new plant for the work, would indicate that the government-for this shell committee stood for the government-had poor relations whose exigencies gave it greater concern than the exigencies of the Empire.
And then, Sir, returning to the subject on January 1, 1916, the Electrical News said:
Just one more instance of how the Shell Committee handled contracts. This story has been investigated and can be vouched for, as can the others that have from time to time found place in this column. The owner of a planing mill in an Ontario town went out after a shell-box contract. His application brought the usual answer that all contracts had been let. Imagine his surprise when a shipping clerk in a dry goods

house in his own town secured a contract, put up a building, completed his contract and got a renewal. The shipping clerk had no plant, no experience and no business rating. But he knew a man who knew something about how contracts were got. Pretty wise man, wasn't he? Thrifty, too. For he still retains Iris job as shipping clerk, though he occasionally finds a few moments to run over to the shell-box plant and figure his profits.
Here is a friend saying to the Government : All the stories that we have published in these columns have been investigated and can be vouched for; grant a committee, and they will be proved before that committee. That, in effect, is what is said by these gentlemen, who prefer the Borden Government, with all their sins, to the Liberal Administration. I ask, Mr. Speaker, how can a Government refuse a friend such a demand as that? Surely the challenge of the Tory editor of the Electrical News will, in any event, not be ignored.
James Joseph Hughes: Where is the Electrical News published?


Charles Murphy: It is one of the publications of the MacLean Publishing Company, of Toronto.
In the course of his speech the hon. member for St. John cited the experience that Mr. F. P. Jones had had with the Shell Committee as a further reason why an investigation should be granted. It seems to me that that incident was so important that the full details of it should be put upon Hansard; it is because I am impressed with a sense of its great importance that I shall venture to do that. The Contract Record, in its issue of November 9, 1915, thus refers to Mr. Jones' experience:
Mr. Jones, like many another, went to Ottawa with a tender for shells. When the contracts were let they went as usual to the favoured few and Mr. Jones was not of them. Those contracts were let at prices^ lower than previous contracts but higher than Mr. Jones' tender. Unlike many another Mr. Jones did not throw up his hands and go home. Instead he went straight to Sir Robert Borden. The Premier was not inclined to listen to a disappointed tenderer, but when Mr. Jones turned to the door with a decisive " Very well, I'll give my statement to the press," he was invited to call again in a couple of days.
Here T interrupt the reading'to say that a little later I shall read a letter written by. Mr. Jones, giving effect to the explanation which the Prime Minister interjected the other day when the hon. member for St. John was referring to the same subject. The article continues:
" On the second visit he found Mr. Thomas with the Premier. Mr. Jones sat down at the
m
typewriter and made three copies of his statement, one for the Premier, one for Mr. Thomas, and the third he kept. That statement showed that the contracts let by the committee were just $21,000,000 higher titan if awarded at the rate of Mr. Jones' tender. A cable to England stopped the contracts before they had been approved by Lloyd George. And in future all contracts for munitions will be open to competitive bids.
"Of course explanations were in order and they were made. It was pointed out that certain concerns had taken risks when shell making was an experiment that might prove costly to the makers and these concerns were entitled to consideration. And probably they were. The [DOT] earlier price charged the Empire was $5.15 for machining a dollar's worth of shell. This was later reduced to $2.90 for doing the same dollar's worth of work. At these figures one would naturally conclude that it was the Empire and not the experimenter, or rather contractor which was entitled to any consideration that was going. Again it was pointed out that policy demanded that the contracts be spread around so as to help relieve commercial depression brought on by the war. And it is only fair to add that this policy has been more or less successful.
There has been no noticeable commercial depression at or near the concern of which Mr. Thomas Cantley is the head and which is said to be making more profits in a month than it ever did before in a year. Neither is the company of which Mr. G. W. Watts is representative making any complaint of hard times. Of course, it is merely a coincidence that Mr. Cantley and Mr. Watts are both members of the Canadian Shell Committee.
It is clearly understood that the manufacturing members of this committee are there in a purely advisory capacity and it is probably to clear them of unjust suspicions that their names are not expected to appear when the new Munitions Committee is appointed.
That article from the Contract Record was widely copied in the Canadian papers. At the request of the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Jones wrote a letter explaining what occurred in connection with his interview with the right hon. gentleman. That letter, as reproduced in the Toronto Globe of November 13, 1915, reads as follows:	[DOT]
I called at your house by appointment in regard to the manufacture of shells. After hearing what I had to say you informed me that I should place my representations before Mr. D. A. Thomas, who was acting for the British Government, and who was then in Canada. To this I agreed, and accordingly you then consulted by telephone with Mr. Thomas, who was then in Montreal, and arranged that I should interview him for that purpose in the immediate future. The interview as arranged took place within forty-eight hours. I never saw you and Mr. Thomas together, and I never said or in any way intimated that I would give any statement to the press, nor had I any intention of doing so. The statement which has appeared in the press with regard to my interview with you is utterly unfounded. You received me most courteously, and listened attentively to everything I had to say, after which the interview was arranged as above stated with Mr. Thomas.

That letter, Mr. Speaker, is all very well so far as it goes; but, as you will not have failed to notice, it leaves the serious charges quite untouched. For instance, it says nothing about the prices previously allowed to manufacturers by the Shell Committee being very considerably higher than the prices at which Mr. Jones was prepared to make the same class of shells. It also leaves untouched the published statement of the Contract Record that Mr. Jones had shown the Premier that a saving of $21,000,000 could have been effected on the previous shell orders had the Shell Committee awarded them at the rate of Mr. Jones' tender.
It further leaves untouched the other statement that the contracts already let at t'he higher figure and sent to Mr. Lloyd George for approval had been stopped by cable. These rather important details being overlooked in Mr. Jones' letter, you will not be surprised that the letter did not satisfy the Contract Record. An editorial from that paper on the subject of Mr. Jones' letter was reproduced in the Ottawa Citizen of November 26, 1915, and is in these terms.-
At the request of Sir Robert Borden, Mr. F. P. Jones, of the Canada Cement Corporation, has oome forward with a sort of blanket denial of the story of his interview with the Premier re the shell game. According to . Mr. Jones' statement, Mr. Thomas was not present at that interview, nor did he threaten to make a statement to the press if his tenders were not given proper consideration. He admits, however, that Sir Robert sent him to Mr. Thomas, and 'to ensure him due consideration in that quarter, called up Lloyd George's representative and an anged the interview. Mr. Jones further states that at the interview arranged by the Premier, Mr. Thomas warned him that tenders would be called for.
It would appear from the above that Mr. Jones is not taking the public entirely into his confidence. He neglects to mention why it was necessary to call on the Premier and later attend a premier-arranged interview with Mr. Thomas in order to acquire the valuable information that tenders for shells would be called for.
He also neglects to mention whether he had first been to the shell committee with his proposition. Of course, if he had, it might be necessary to go to either Sir Robert Borden or Mr. Thomas in search of such valuable infor-' mation as he received. Were not the shell committee representing Canada in regard to the purchase of shells? Were they not giving out information in regard to the asking for tenders? Were they not using their every endeavour and undoubted business ability to secure for the Empire the munitions she needed and in the cheapest market? Apparently not, for Mr. Jones, according to his own statement, had to go first to the Premier and then to Mr. Thomas before he could discover that tenders we e to be. asked for. But please note the
[Mr. Murphy. J
grateful sequel:	" Our company again tendered and I am pleased to say got business at the prices tendered by us." These little words 41 again tendered " are an indication that previous to his interviews with Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Thomas, his company had been in the field for shell contracts. Why doesn't Mr. Jones go further and tell the public why his other tenders had been turned down, and why he found it necessary to go over the heads of the shell committee before his tenders received the consideration they merited and his factories the orders subsequent events show they were entitled to?
Blanket denials are not explanations, and it is explanations that are in order at the present time. Mr. Thomas has stated that i>rofits of the manufacturers have been higher than they were entitled to ; the shell committee has been allowed to drift into oblivion, and evidently requested to do its drifting with the least possible noise; it has been replaced by a Munitions Committee, which is in the hands, and evidently under the complete control of Mr. Lionel Hichens, who has come out from England as the personal representative of Mr. Lloyd George. What does this all mean? Why, if the story told here is ndt true, was the shell committee abolished?
This column admitted on the start that it was impossible to get sworn statements. It is so still. Consequently, it is impossible to be exact as to details. But the essentials of the story of the breaking up of the shell game have yet to be denied. The interviews be* tween Mr. Jones, Sir Robert Borden, and Mr. Thomas took place. They were followed by the disappearance of the shell committee. A report was senj: out from Ottawa that all munition contracts had been cancelled. A competitive system of tendering replaced the old haphazard system. And big firms got contracts who had not been able to get even information concerning them before.
Just why it is impossible to get exact details is perhaps shown by several letters addressed to this column. They come from contract holders in Toronto, and, in each case the writer complains that his firm cannot get any more contracts because it is accused of giving things away.
As you are aware, this Government appointed what is colloquially referred to as' the War Purchasing Committee. That committee, I understand, is under the chairmanship of the member of the Government without portfolio, the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp). Public attention was directed to that committee by a charge published in a Toronto paper called Men's Wear, to the effect that a clothing contract had been awarded to a Toronto real estate agent, one Carl F. Hopkins. In course of time that charge was taken up by the Davidson Commission, and, not to trouble the House with too many details, it was found by that Commission that the particular contract referred to in Men's Wear was a contract for clothing for the British Government, and therefore did not come within the scope of the Commission. But, in the

course of the inquiry it was revealed that this Toronto real estate dealer, Mr. Carl F. Hopkins, had, as the Empire Clothing Company,, got another contract, and this other contract he obtained from the Militia Department of this Government. Some of the facts brought out with reference to that Militia Department contract before the Davidson Commission are illuminating. In the Toronto Globe of December 30, 1915, I find this report of the proceedings of the day previous at the sitting of the Davidson Commission in Ottawa:
Ottawa, December 29.-The " Men's Wear " charges as to the granting of Canadian military clothing contracts were again before the Davidson War Contracts Commission this morning.
Mr. J. V. Reid, secretary of the Contracts Branch of the Militia Department, was the first witness. He produced a letter written on March 29 last by C. F. Hopkins of Toronto, to the Director of Contracts, stating that it was immaterial whether a contract was given to C. F. Hopkins and Company or the Empire Clothing Company-whose name was on the patronage list-so long as one was secured. A contract was actually given in August to the Empire Clothing Company for 12,000 pairs of trousers, being secured by tender. Hopkins himself had received no contract.
The letter referred to, which was produced from the files of the Militia Department, was headed:
" C. F. Hopkins & Co., clothing manufacturers, factories 150-160 John street, office 30 Adelaide street, Toronto; cable address; Hoco." The letter was addressed to P. W. Brown, director of contracts, Militia Department, Ottawa, and was as follows:
" Dear Sir,-Following my phone conversation with you this afternoon, I sent you views showing some of the interior of our plant and also a letter from one of my partners which will explain itself.
" It does not matter whether we receive the orders for clothing in the name of the Empire Clothing Co or of C F Hopkins and Co., clothing manufacturers, so long as we receive them.
" According to your letter of December 18, 1914, our name has been on the patronage list for the supply of clothing since that date. We have received no word or contract, although several of the members have spoken on our behalf.
" Since I spoke to you last, I understand that the clothing for the third contingent has practically all been ordered, and I trust we may secure a portion of the next clothing order."
It, is peculiar that, in this investigation before the Davidson Commission, this Toronto real estate clothing dealer, Mr. Hopkins, was not called as a witness.
Mr. Acton, the man responsible for the publication of the article in Men's Wear, was called as a witness, and if one can judge by newspaper reports of the proceedings, he was dealt with rather severely by the commissioner. In point of fact, he was handled in such a fashion that you would think that he, and not Hopkins, was the
guilty party. Eventually he was induced to hand in a sort of half apology for having dared to make the statements that he had made in Men's Wear. Now, these somewhat peculiar happenings before the Davidson Commission led the editor of the Electrical News-you remember him, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who said that with all its sins he preferred the Borden Government to the Liberal administration-in the issue of January 15, 1916, to say this:
We are informed from Ottawa that the work of the Davidson investigation commission is almost finished. To criticise that work would probably be considered contempt of court and I would hate to be the only one to receive punishment at its hands. But I fain would ask a question or two. Surely one may venture that far. And my first query would naturally be: "In the Hopkins investigation was it Mr. Hopkins or Mr. Acton who was being investigated?" And following this would it be unwise or unkindly to ask why Mr. Hopkins was not called to the stand? Mr. Hopkins' home is in Toronto, but he is taking most of his meals at the Biltmore Hotel in New York city. I believe he prefers the New York climate and if he does spend an occasional Sunday in Toronto it is because his family still resides in the Queen city. Of course he might have gone to Ottawa as a witness but those attorneys have a way of talking to mere witnesses that does not make their position* in the box an attractive one.
Further light on the work of this Davidson Commission is thrown by an editorial of the Toronto Globe of December 15, 1915, in which the editor of that paper discusses the distribution of an order for 188,000 pairs of trousers. I will read a few paragraphs from the editorial in question:
The only cure for the suspicion that army contracts are being awarded by favour at excessive prices is publicity. When the names of successuful tenderers, the prices quoted by them, and the quantity of goods ordered from them are published in the Press unsuccessful bidders can at once learn why they did not obtain the order or a share of it. In the case of the trousers contract, whidh is the subject of judicial inquiry, the commission did not award the contract to the lowest tenderer, 5 p.m. but split it up among a considerable number of bidders, all of whom were paid the price at which they tendered. This, Mr. Kemp explains, was done because there was urgent need for the clothing and because there would inevitably have been delay had the lowest tenderer been given the entire contract. An order for 188,000 pairs of trousers was distributed among ten eastern Canadian firms and several in the west, the units averaging about 12,500 pairs. The eastern companies participating and the prices per pair at which they tendered and at which each company did the work were as follows:
Price per pair.
T. Eaton Co., Toronto	$320
A. Kilbert & Co., Montreal	 3 28
Crown Pants Co., Montreal	 3 43
Copley, Noyes & Randall, Hamilton. 3 43

Price per pair.
Cohen & Sons, Montreal	$3 50
Punchard, Burril & Co., Toronto ..	3 58
Canada Clothing Co., Montreal....	3 64
Empire Clothing Co., Toronto. .	. .	3 69
W. E. Sanford Mfg. Co., Hamilton. 3 72
Capital Brand Trousers, Toronto ..	3 73
Had the contract gone to the lowest tenderer -the T. Eaton Co.-the total cost to the country would have been exactly $40,000 less than it was under the system of " divvying up " and giving each firm the price it asked for. Was the need for haste served by this extra price? It is stated by Mr. Kemp that the Eaton Co. had half a million dollars' worth of government work on hand when the trousers contract was awarded. Was that work of such a nature as to stand in the way of the speedy carrying out of the trousers contract? Had the "Capital Brand " company, for example- which is unknown to the most important houses in the clothing trade in this city, and which got $6,625 more for making 12,500 pairs of trousers than the Eaton Co. would have charged for the same work-greater facilities for turning out this clothing in a hurry than the Eaton Co.?


John Dowsley Reid: Would you have liked them to go without trousers?


Charles Murphy: I must ask my hon. friend the Minister of Customs to solve his own conundrums. My hon. friend the Solicitor General quoted from an article which had appeared in the Toronto' Globe in approval of the Davidson commission. May I be permitted to say that that article was written prior to the hearing of this case by the Davidson Commission, and that after that case was heard the Globe was not exactly of the same opinion. Here is what the Globe said after the Men's Wear charges had been gone into:
Is Mr. Kemp playing politics with army orders instead of awarding them to the lowest tenderer irrespective of politics as Sir Robert Borden promised? It looks very much like it. That apology of Brother Acton was distinctly premature. The Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons should spend an hour or two in the company of Mr. Carl F. Hopkins real estate dealer in the main and clothing manufacturer on the side and learn who the members were who spoke " on our behalf " before the Kemp Purchasing Commission was appointed and whose influence was so potent that after the .commission took charge the Empire Clothing Co. was given 49 cents per pair more fq_r making army trousers than the lowest tenderer.


Arthur Meighen: There is nothing said against the commissioner in that Globe article.


Mr MURPHY:: No, there is nothing said against him, but may I point out to the Solicitor General, that there is nothing said in his favour? Of the methods pursued by this War Purchasing Committee the Electrical News offers pointed criticism.

In its issue of December 1 last, after referring to the fact that this War Purchasing Committee was staggering along under a sharp fusilade of criticism, it stated:
But here again that scattering of contracts to cover that same commercial depression creeps in and brings forth the usual criticism. The segregation of tenders thus rendered necessary often practically wipes out competition and the net result is that the big concerns are often neglected while may a sweat shop with a machine hastily stuck in a cellar is working night and day to turn out materials that do not keep the equipment up to the requirements of enlistment. Some of the big concerns are prepared to take this work at actual cost in order to keep their factories running and their staffs together. But the system in vogue does not give them a chance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of these disclosures, taken from responsible public journals in this country, I submit that the public will not be satisfied unless the work of this War Purchasing Committee is included in the scope of whatever investigating committee may be appointed by Parliament to go into the subject of war contracts generally.
You recall, Mr. Speaker, that throughout a large part of last session a special committee of this House sat to investigate the contracts that were awarded 'by the Militia Department for boots and shoes. You will further recall that, in connection with that investigation, it was disclosed that in one case a middleman had received over $15,000 for securing contracts for an old and well-known boot and shoe manufacturing concern in the city of Quebec. You would naturally have expected, Mr. Speaker, that, in view of the disclosures before that special committee of this House, war graft in boots, in any event, would have stopped. Well, Sir, I am sorry to inform you that it has not. I have under my hand a copy of the court record of a suit entered in the Superior Court in the City of Quebec. The plaintiff is a gentleman of the name of Frank W. Belmer. The defendant is the John Ritchie Company, a long-established and highly respected firm in the city of Quebec. The plaintiff, Belmer, produced a contract in writing whereby he was appointed to act as middleman between the John Ritchie Company and the Government for the purpose of securing contracts for boots and contracts for canvas shoes.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Who were the parties to the contract?


Charles Murphy: The contract is contained in two letters, dated respectively

October 13 and October 28, 1914, signed by Mr. Warrington, secretary of the John Ritchie Company, and addressed to Frank W. Relmer, Quebec. Belmer alleges that under this written contract he secured orders for boots and shoes for the John Ritchie Company from the Militia Department. The contract stipulates that Belmer is to be paid a commission of fifty cents a pair on every contract for boots he secures for the John Ritchie Company from the Militia Department, and a commission of thirty cents a pair on every pair .of canvas shoes. It is not alleged in court that Belmer makes any claim for any commission in connection with the boot contract, but apart from the record I am informed that lie was paid a very considerable sum of money for the boot contracts he obtained. Belmer claims, and in fact this constitutes his whole claim, that through his agency the John Ritchie Company o'b-tained from the Department of Militia and Defence between October, 1914, and November, 1915, contracts for 150,000 pairs of canvas shoes, and he accordingly claims the sum of $45,000 commission, which is at the rate of thirty cents a pair on the 150,000 pairs. It is only fair to say that the defendant company does not admit that the plaintiff is entitled to any commission with respect to the canvas shoes. But the written contract-and this is tne most immoral part of the whole proceeding-this written contract by which Belmer is appointed as middleman or go-between for the John Ritchie Company the defendants do not dispute. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a case that ought to be investigated, this case of Bel-mer is the one.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: What was the result of the action?


Charles Murphy: It has not been tried yet. The defendant .disputes the plaintiff's claim, and the action is still in court.


John Dowsley Reid: It could be investigated by the Public Accounts Committee.


Charles Murphy: Parliament is the High Court of the nation, and any investigation that is held should be held under the direc- [DOT] tion of Parliament.


John Dowsley Reid: I said it could he investigated by the Public Accounts Committee.


Charles Murphy: Certainly. I was proceeding to say that instances could be multiplied of middlemen acting in other
capacities, with a loss to the Government in each case; but I have already taken up a great deal of the time of the House, and I feel it would be loading up Hansard unnecessarily if I were to enumerate these cases. I submit that I have made it clear that a demand for an investigation is general on the part of the public, and the necessity for it is such that without it the honour of this Government, the honour of this Parliament, and the honour of this country, can never be vindicated.
Let me now refer somewhat briefly to the speech made by my hon. friend the Solicitor General yesterday. Considered in the large, that speech may be divided into two parts; that part in which he laboured to prove that his colleague the Minister of Finance, did not say what he meant, or did not mean what he said, when he answered the inquiry of the hon. member for St. John as to whether this Government was paying the whole cost of the Canadian overseas expeditionary forces, and that part in. which he laboured an attack against the hon. member for St. John, and sought to minimize the effect of that hon. gentleman's speech by showing that here and there he had been mistaken as to a name, or a date, or a place, as, for instance, when he said that the Solicitor General had delivered a speech at Fort William when it should have been Portage la Prairie. The hon. member for St. John exposed this afternoon some of these mental acrobatics on the part of the Solicitor General, and' it is therefore unnecessary for me to Tefer to these particular things. I have just this to say, that, listening as I did yesterday, and as I always do, with great interest to what the Solicitor General had to say, I was more than ever impressed with the strikingly strong resemblance between the hon. gentleman and the famous knight, Sir Hudihras, immortalized by Butler. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, Sir Hudibras as Butler depicted him? Perhaps you have forgotten, so for your benefit and the benefit of the House I will just quote his description:
He was in logic a great critic Profoundly skilled in analytic;
He could distinguish and divide A hair 'twixt south and southwest side; On either which he would dispute, Confute, change hands, and ' still confute.
That is a perfect picture of the Solicitor General, and the resemblance between him and the worthy knight was never so striking as it was yesterday. He laboured long and valiantly to extricate his col-

league the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) from the difficulty into which it was evident he feared the Minister of Finance had got by the answers he made to the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) on Tuesday last. It was somewhat amusing to us on this side of the House to see the agitation that broke out on the benches opposite immediately after the Minister of Finance had made those answers to the hon. member for St. John. The Minister of Finance himself was obviously disturbed. He moved uneasily in his seat; he moved out of his seat; be went around the opposite side of the House talking to his friends; he was obviously ill at ease. Now, why should he be ill at ease, and why should the Solicitor General labour to prove that his words did not mean exactly what he said and what he intended them to mean? The Minister of Finance was asked an ordinary and a proper question. Like an honest man he gave that question an honest answer. Yesterday my hon. friend the member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) emphasized the honesty and the point of that answer. The matter has evidently become one of such agitation in Government circles that I propose to put upon Hansard again question and answer as they fell from the lips of the two hon. gentlemen on Monday last. On page 42 of Hansard I find the following, referring to the previous answer given by the Minister of Finance:
Mr. Pugsley: That means, of course, all the ammunition, all the guns, all the boots and shoes, and all the clothing used by the Canadian soldiers at the front?
Sir Thomas White: Our understanding is that the Canadian Government will pay all, but that an adjustment is necessary and will have to take .place later.
Mr. F. W. Maclean: Does that include transportation?
Sir Thomas White: I speak subject to correction by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, but I believe that the Canadian Government has agreed to pay all the cost of transportation also; in other words, we desire to pay the entire cost of the Canadian Expeditionary Force abroad.
It cannot have been many minutes aftei the Minister of Finance had made that perfectly honest and frank statement that somebody whispered in his ear:	" Why,
you have, given the whole case away; when you admit that we are paying for tnese things, then we cannot dispute the right of Parliament to investigate them." That explains the disturbance on the opposite side of the House. Now, I submit that my hon. friend the Solicitor General did not make the matter any better by his hand-

ling of it yesterday. He spent a good deal of his time in an attack upon the hon. member for St. John; but as part of that attack was lepelled by that hon. member this afternoon, it is unnecessary for me to refer to it at any length.
I want, however, to refer to one matter in regard to which the Solicitor General waxed warm and indignant. He accused the hon. member for St. John of misrepresenting what he, the Solicitor General, had said in a speech at Portage la Prairie about taxing war profits. Quoting from Hansard of yesterday, page 134, I find that my hon. friend the Solicitor General spoke thus:
I said that I believed there had been some **ases of large profits
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want you to pay particular attention to this, because in a moment I am going to appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober, and I want these words remembered.
I said that I believed there had been some cases of large profits.
Why was he so specific? He was repelling the charge of the hon. member for St. John, that he had knowledge that there were large profits. Well, it so happens that I have in my hand the report published in the Ottawa Citizen of December 20, 1915, of the speech delivered by my hon. friend at Portage la Prairie.


Arthur Meighen: Don't you think I
ought to know what I said better than the Ottawa Citizen?


Charles Murphy: I am willing to concede that my hon. friend ought to know better than the Ottawa Citizen, but my hon. friend will consider this, that the people can judge of what my hon. friend said only by the reports of his speech that appear in the newspapers. I am going to read the report, and it will be open to my hon. friend to say that it is wrong. It must have been some such report as'this read by the hon. member for St. John that led him to make the statement which he did yesterday. The Citizen report of the speech of my hon. friend the Solicitor General at Portage la Prairie was, in part, as follows:
Touching on the question of the war tax, Mr. Meighen referred to the necessity of raising funds for relief purposes, and expressed the opinion that it was the function of the Government to raise such moneys by way of taxation, and in this manner all would be forced to assist. The Federal Government said Mr. Meighen, cannot get past the British North America Act in connection with taxation, but can assist by increasing the tariff.

" We have no power to tax lands," continued Mr. Meighen, " and have not got the one hundred and one methods that the provincial' government has for this purpose. A great deal has been said about taxing the munition makers, and I for one am in accord with the scheme."
Upon that pronouncement I heartily congratulate my hon. friend. The report goes on:	-	.
There is no doubt that there have been great war profits-


Arthur Meighen: That is quite different
from what the hon. member for St. John said.


Charles Murphy: Yes, but how could a
man without knowledge have made such a specific and pointed statement as that?
There is no doubt that there have been great war profits, and if they can be gotten at fairly to get a share of the money for the public treasury, then they should be gotten at, but it is up to the Minister of Finance to look after that, and if it can be done he will no doubt do it.
And this very patriotic annoujncement on the part of my hon. friend the Solicitor General, based on what everybody concluded was his knowledge of large war profits, so appealed to the Ottawa Citizen that with the report it published a portrait of my hon. friend so that people might recognize their benefactor when they met him on the street. If that report is not true, my hon. friend can contradict it.


Arthur Meighen: The report contains just the ordinary inaccuracies that appear in reports that travel over thousands of miles. In regard to the point in question as to what I said in regard to there being large war profits, it is exactly as I said, and as I said yesterday in the House that large profits were paid out at first. But I pointed out the reason: it was that the price of machinery was included in the price first paid to the contractors. But at this time that is not being done.


Charles Murphy: I .have listened to the Solicitor-General very often, and I would remind him of the old proverb about the net being spread in the sight. of the bird. The hon. gentleman does not deny the accuracy of this report in the Ottawa Citizen.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I do.


Charles Murphy: Then, the hon. gentleman does deny it?


Arthur Meighen: Not as to the point of there being large profits. But in other respects there are inaccuracies.


Charles Murphy: Then, we are in agreement on that. Very well. Now, this is what he said yesterday:
I believe there have been some cases of large profits.
We will leave it at that. But let me point out that there was a great omission in his speech of yesterday, an omission that must have sadly disappointed hon. members from the West. He forgot all about the commandeering of the wheat.


Arthur Meighen: That is coming.


Charles Murphy: Oh, that is coming. But a part of it did come. That part was in the shape of an official statement handed out by my hon. friend, with his name at' tached, to the press.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Charles Murphy: The press said so. Here it is: "Government statement handed out by the Solicitor General, Hon. . Arthur Meighen." And in that appeared the statement that the wheat had been commandeered at the request of the British Government.	.


Arthur Meighen: Read that statement.


Charles Murphy: The hon. gentleman
will find it in last Monday's Hansard, quoted in the speech of the right hon. leader of the Opposition.


Arthur Meighen: I can tell the hon.
gentleman he will find nothing of the kind in the statement.


Charles Murphy: Just for the sake of
accuracy, let me quote it. I will not be Sir Hudibrased. Here is the speecn of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, reported in Hansard of the l!7th January:
Official Government Statement.
Ottawa, November 28.-The following official statement was issued by the Government tonight :


Arthur Meighen: Go ahead.


Charles Murphy: Then, my right hon.
leader said:
The official press bureau made the following statement yesterday-[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: Let the hon. gentleman read the statement which he says was made by me that the wheat had been commandeered at the request of the British Government.


Charles Murphy: The statement handed
out by the Solicitor General, as quoted by the leader of the Opposition, contained that, statement.


Arthur Meighen: Let the hon. gentleman read it. We will decide this point.


Charles Murphy: The Solicitor General
wants the statement read rather than the quotation of it. I have here the Toronto World of the 29th November, 1915-


George Eulas Foster: It is quite sufficient to quote Hansard.


Charles Murphy: I have this official
statement of the Government:
The phenomenal crop of wheat in the Canadian west has brought upon the government the duty of assisting to the farthest extent possible in its marketing. The supply of wheat the world over is known to have been abundant, and the importance of taking advantage of every opportunity to provide for the disposing of our grain is on that account the greater. For many months^the government has been in toueh with the British authorities with a view to procuring orders from the United Kingdom and the allied governments in order that the utmost share of the consuming demand in those countries may be turned towards our Canadian surplus. As a consequence of this, the British Government has requested the Canadian Government to provide within a short time a very large supply of No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 Canadian northern wheat.


Arthur Meighen: Does that say that the British Government said to commandeer the wheat?


Charles Murphy: It says: "The British
Government has requested the Canadian Government; " and that is the reason hon. gentlemen opposite advanced to the people of this country for commandeering the wheat. What is the use of hair-splitting? Whiat is the <uise of taking uip time unnee-essa/rdlly?


Arthur Meighen: The British Government asked us to provide the wheat. Does that mean that they told us how to provide it? That was our affair. If the hon. gentleman calls this hair-splitting, I am afraid there is something wrong with his mind.


Charles Murphy: No, what is wrong is
with my hon. friend and his colleagues. This statement was contradicted by the British Government the next morning. And what followed? Immediately after the contradiction, another statement was put out, that the request for the commandeering of the wheat came from-


Arthur Meighen: I must take the hon.
gentleman to task again. There is no - statement in the official statement contradicted by the British Government nor by any press report from the British Government.


Charles Murphy: What the British Government said, as quoted by my right hon. leader, was:
With reference to the announcement from Ottawa on November 28, that the Canadian Government had commandeered 16,000,000 bushels of wheat' at the request of the British Government, the Board of Agriculture state that the British Government have made no such request, and that at present they have no information on the subject.


Arthur Meighen: That is exactly what I have been telling him.


Charles Murphy: That is the whole point. Surely it is idle to discuss these trivialities raised by the Solicitor General. What was this statement handed out for? 'To explain why the Government had commandeered the wheat; there could be no meaning in it tout that.
Now, another position taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Meigben) yesterday "was that he would not 'attack or defend the Shell Committee. Then he went on to put up what looked to us on this side like something intended to be a strong defence of that eommitee. I must say he damned them with faint praise; and I can well imagine each of the dismissed members of that committee, after reading the hon. gentleman's speech this morning, expressing his own feelings in a paraphrase of a famous couplet:
'Twas all very well to dissemole your love,
But why did you kick me down stairs?
As a last word to my hon. friend the Solicitor 'General, who yesterday so strongly objected to our quoting from' Liberal newspapers and animadverted very severely upon the speech of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) let me show him how that .speech impressed one of the strongest and most consistent 'Conservative newspapers in this Dominion. In its issue of yesterday, the' Montreal Star has an editorial in these terms:
The Shell Committee Charges.
Charges of the gravity of those which Dr. Pugsley has made against the late Shell Committee should not be allowed to remain as the mere casual remarks of a debater on the speech from the Throne. So old a Parliamentarian as Dr. Pugsley knows that there is a proper way to bring statements of this sort before the House. And doubtless he will make good his accusations by some such formal step before the session is very much older.
In any case, the Government cannot permit these shocking and humiliating charges to remain uninvestigated. We are confident that no Canadian Government will hide behind the technicality that the money, said to be worse than wasted, was British money, entrusted to us to he carefully spent amidst the strain of a great

war, and not our own money. That would he to confess and proclaim that we would be less honest in dealing with sacred trust funds than in handling our personal property.
If a pound of British money, entrusted to a Canadian committee to buy the greatest possible amount of war material, was allowed to be diverted to Canadian private purses in inordinate profits, then the men guilty of this sordid and despicable treason were guilty of weakening by just so much the fighting forces of the Empire in the face of an appalling peril. They might as well have gone to the trenches and taken the rifles out of the hands of our boys, fronting a German attack, and then sold these rifles for their personal profit to the first second-hand dealer whom they met. If this has been done, the country wants to know it, regardless of legal technicalities or partisan politics.
A thorough investigation into this whole shell game should be set on foot at once.
In contrast with the sordid greed of the war profiteers, and to show the brighter side of human nature, I want to pay a tribute, before I conclude, to an American gentleman resident in Philadelphia, who has set an example that we may well follow. The name of this gentleman is Albert C. Middleton. He was virtually the proprietor of the Victor Talking Machine Company, in conducting the business of which he made several millions of dollars; now, though under fifty years of age, he is practically retired from business. His American company had an English connection, the 'Gramaphone 'Company, of England. This English company lias a large contract for supplying war munitions. One of the [DOT] managers of the English company requested this Philadelphia gentleman to purchase munitions in the United States. Mr. Middleton agreed. Up to May last he had sent to England about $30,000,000 worth of munitions, and he had placed orders in the United States for as many millions more. The bills for all these munitions were sent to this American gentleman of high repute, and were paid on his personal voucher. For doing all this, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Middleton not only made no charge, but he actually paid the expenses of the office staff necessary to look after these war munition orders. And, Sir, when he was asked why he gave gratuitously the services of 'himself and his staff, the only reply that he made was: "I am deeply interested in the Allies' cause." I think that I would be correctly interpreting the feeling of this House and of the people of Canada if I should thank that man in the name of the people of this Dominion for the unselfish service that he has rendered gratuitously to the cause in which we are all so deeply
interested. I am satisfied that there are many men in Canada who would do as Mr. Middleton has done if they were but given the chance, and I appeal to my hon. friends in the Government to give every man who is willing to bear a man's part in this great struggle the chance to play his part.
One word more in conclusion, and by way of pointing the moral that I want to bring home to the members of this Government. There has been laid before you, Sir, a portion only of the black record of the . war profiteers. But even that portion is so bad that, not unnaturally, you ask yourself:	by what process of
reasoning could these men justify what they have done? Let me, Sir, suggest an answer to that question. If the war profiteers reasoned at all, it occurs to me that they must have followed a course of reasoning similar to that which, it is said, a former generation of medical men used to employ in dealing with certain desperate cases. You are aware, Sir, that in the crisis of a serious malady the bleeding of a patient was often said to turn the scale towards healthy life. Possibly with that in mind, and, in any event, looking at Canada in the crisis of this war, the profiteers must have reasoned thus: as with individuals, so with nations, so even with empires; therefore, at this critical stage in Canada's life, financial phlebotomy on a national scale has become necessary as a desperate remedy. And to work they went, with knife and tomahawk, all the time loudly proclaiming:
True patriots we; for, be it understood,
We bleed our country for our country's good.
Mr. Speaker, the first and paramount duty of this Parliament is to provide a ligature that will stop the country's bleeding. That ligature can take only the form of an investigating committee, and, as one of the representatives of the people of this country, I now ask this Government to appoint such a committee without one moment's further delay.


Mr. F. STEWART SCOTT (South Waterloo) :: Mr. Speaker, permit me to add my congratulations to the many which you have received upon the honour which has been conferred upon you in the position to which you have just been appointed.
The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Hon. Chas. Murphy) will pardon me, I am sure, if I do not attempt to follow him in some of the questions which he has raised. Speaking for myself, I must

say that I have nothing but admiration for the tone and spirit of the many magnificent speeches which we have heard during the course of this debate, and the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, has especially in his opening remarks, kept up the high standard of the speeches which we have heard during the last few days.
The hon. gentleman raised the question as to what was the true meaning of the visit of the Prime Minister of Canada to the councils of the Empire. I confess that I am unable at this time to give an answer to that question; I do not know what the answer will in the course of time be. Twenty years ago the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, speaking on the subject of imperial federation, said that he was almost afraid to speak on that subject for fear he might lose his reputation as a practical statesman. He said, too, that imperial federation was described by many as a dream, but that somehow or other, it was one of those dreams that seemed to fasten themselves upon the public imagination, and dreams that impress the public in that way somehow or other had a way of coming true. Our Empire has travelled far since Mr. Joseph Chamberlain gave expression to that opinion. At the time of the South African war, owing to the part played by the people of Canada, the relations which existed between the Motherland and the colonies were vastly changed. I do not know what may be the true significance of the visit of the Canadian Premier to the councils of the Empire, but I do know that when it was cabled to Canada and to the different parts of the Empire throughout the world it kindled fires of Imperial patriotism that, when we associate with it the great sacrifices of treasure and blood that have been made by the colonies in this great struggle, will, it seems to me, have a tremendous influence on the future development of the Empire. We may not know at the present time what may be the future position of the colonies and their relation to the iMotiherllanid but we do know that never again will the people of this Empire be satisfied with the relations that have existed in the past.
The last speaker said that in the investigation which took place under sanction of this Parliament in the last session it was shown that a certain middleman named Charles Slater had- received a commission of $15,000 on a contract which he had secured from the Dominion Government for

the supply of army boots. What were the true circumstances in connection with that incident? This man was associated with a company located in Quebec called the Gauthier Company, which was at that time conducted by the widow of the man Gauthier, who founded it. She had assumed that business, and was carrying it on as a limited liability company. There was associated with her as a commercial traveller a man named Charles Slater. He had been in the past, owing to his experience in the shoe business, as was brought out in the investigation, the shoe expert of the late Government. That shows the estimation in which they held his ability. This man represented to this lady, who was conducting this business, that, through the influence which tin possessed with the Government at Ottawa, if she would pay him a commission of 5 per cent, on any orders which she might receive from the Government, he would use his influence in getting those orders. What are the facts? The Gauthier Company, in common with many other shoe manufacturing concerns throughout the Dominion of Canada, were awarded contracts for shoes. They filled those contracts. They received their contract at exactly the same price as was paid to other manufacturers. This man represented to this woman that it was through his own influence that he had secured this order.
I submit that an arrangement of that kind, entered into in that way, in so far as this Government or any other Government might be concerned, involved nothing discreditable or disreputable. I may say further that this same firm, owing to just such careless, such unbusinesslike methods, have since gone into insolvency, very largely as the result of their operations in these war contracts, and have been able to pay their creditors only a small percentage of their liabilities.	,
I have no knowledge of the other contract to which the hon. gentleman referred. If I heard the names correctly, he referred to one Belm-er and the John Ritchie Company; and I believe the case, as he makes it out, narrows down to this, that Belmer, having a contract with the Ritchie 'Company is now suing them for a -commission on orders which the John Ritchie Company received. The right hon. leader of the Opposition asked the hon. gentleman a question which it -seemed to me was pertinent. The first impression which I gained was that the contract to which he referred was a contract between the Government, or some

representative of the Government, and this firm; bnt we find that the contract- was an ordinary contract between a commercial man and the firm; and I have only this to say, that if the John Ritchie Company, after the knowledge that has gone throughout the length and breadth of this country after the investigations we have had, knowledge which has been heralded broadcast throughout the press, that no middleman can secure orders for boots or for other commodities from the Militia Department, that if any business firm enters into a contract of that kind with a middleman, they have only themselves to blame. And I submit further that it will be found that if the John Ritchie Company did. secure that order they received it at the same price that was paid to other manufacturers at the same time. I submit further that if they are foolish enough, under those circumstances, to enter into a contract of that kind, certainly this Government is not to be blamed or to be held responsible.
As I said before, I have enjoyed very much indeed the speeches which we have had during the past few days. I listened, as I always listen, with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). He is always so clear cut and so emphatic in his statements that I am sure the whole House joins with me in saying that we all listen to him with a great deal of pleasure. I want, for a moment, ask the consideration of the House to a point that was brought up by the hon. member for Red Deer in his speech of the other day. He was speaking about the amendment which was submitted to this House upon which the House divided in the session of last year. He said:
Now, for my part I have no regret about the criticism or about the amendment, especially that portion of it which referred to the raising of additional obstacles against trade from Great Britain at this particular crisis of the Empire's history. I would appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, to whom I have never appealed without receiving careful attention, whether our criticism of that particular part of the Budget of last year has not' been justified in the event.	.
It cannot be pleasant to him-I am sure it is not.-that at this moment the imports from Great Britain to this country should be disappearing almost to the vanishing point. This decrease in British imports into Canada comes at a moment when we know that Great Britain needs for the particular purposes of exchange to be sending more goods into Canada.
He was supporting an amendment that
was submitted to the House. I will read the amendment once again:
This House is ready to provide for the exigencies of the present situation and to vote all necessary ways and means to that end, but it regrets that in the measure under consideration duties are imposed which must be oppressive upon the people whilst yielding little or no revenue, and that the said measure is particularly objectionable in the fact that instead of favouring it, it is placing extra barriers against Great Britain's trade with Canada, at a moment when the Mother Country is under a war strain unparalleled in history.
There were two points raised in that amendment, the first being that the budget of one year ago would yield little or no revenue. The hon. member for Red Deer the other day said that he had no regrets for the stand he had taken upon that occasion. I have here the figures furnished by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech a year ago. He stated that to meet the requirements of this country there would be needed $150,000,000 or $30,000,000 over and above his estimate of what would have been raised under the old method and system of taxation. Now, we have had some months' experience of the working of that budget, and what is the result? I am informed that the estimate of $f50,000,000, which the Minister of Finance had reason to expect would flow into the coffers of this country, was altogether too small, and that the receipts will be very considerably in excess of that figure.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Stewart Scott: When the House rose at
six o'clock I was referring to the argument of the hon, member foT Red Deer as to the effect of the budget increase of five per cent last year upon goods imported from Great Britain. The argument of my hon. friend was that it must be a matter for regret to the Finance Minister to-day to find that as -a result of that action upon the part of the Government imports from Great Britain to 'Canada had fallen to isuch a low point. For the consideration of the House I should like to submit some figures from the trade returns which it seems to *me hardly Ibear out the argument of the hon. member for Red Deer. In August, 1914, the month in which the war broke out, there was a decrease in oor imports from Great Britain of 26.3 pex cent as compared with August, 1913; in September the decrease amounted to 40.3 per cent; in October to 31.8 per cent; in November to 42.3 per cent; in December to 35.2 per cent;

in January, 1915, to 26.8 per cent. Taking the average percentage of decrease during those months we find' that from July, 1914, to January, 1915, there "was an average decrease of 335 per cent. In February, 1915, the tariff proposals of the budget of 1915 came into effect, and in that month we find a decrease in the imports from Great Britain of 21.7 per cent; in March a decrease of 38.1 per cent; in April of 28.1 per cent; in May of 40.2 per cent; in June of 38.4 per cent; and in August a decrease of 33.6 per cent. We find, then, that the average rate of decrease for the months during which the new budget proposals were in operation was 29 per cent. So that the situation resolves itself into this. The decrease in imports from Great Britain during the months of the war previous to the imposition of the extra five per cent imposed by the Budget of 1915 was greater than the decrease during the months the Budget has been in operation. It does not seem to me a matter for wonder, however, that there has been a continued decrease in imports from Great Britain to Canada. I think that decrease can be attributed to other reasons than the tariff. For instance, the importation of steel from Great Britain to Canada has decreased. Steel is a very important industry in Great Britain, but at the present time Great Britain is so absorbed in carrying on the war, and her industries are so much engaged in turning out munitions, that she has no steel to spare for Canada and the other countries of the world. The same thing applies to woollens. The woollen mills of Canada are busier at the present time, perhaps, than they have ever been before. The reason for the decrease in our imports from Great Britain is not because the people of Canada are not prepared to buy owing to the imposition of the additional five per cent war tax, but simply because . Great Britain has not goods to sell; and at the present time we see Canada not only supplying her own market but exporting large quantities of goods to Great Britain.
If we examine the imports of the United States from Great Britain, dividing them into the two periods I have described, we shall find that the situation there is largely the same. In December, 1914, the imports from Great Britain to the United States decreased 47-8 per cent; in January, 1915, 38-4 per cent; in February, 27-7 per cent; in March, 20:5 per cent. In the United States we have no additional tax placed upon imports from Great Britain. Their

imports from that country decreased just the pame as our imports did. If we take the world-wide trade of Great Britain we shall find just the same thing. I have the figures here, and I find that in the month of August, 1914, the decrease as compared with the same month in 1913 was 45 1 per cent; in September, 37T per cent;' and so on. The export trade of Great Britain has steadily declined.
During the course of this debate we have heard the Government criticised for the manner in which it has carried on the business of this country-that they did not use economy enough, that they were not careful enough in the expenditure of public funds, and that as a result the best interests of the country were suffering. I have before me a statement prepared by the Finance Department of the receipts up to January ilO, 1916, and I find that the receipts pp to that diate are $25,205,634.51 in excess of last year. On ordinary account the expenditure is $10,743,393.76 less than last year. Capital expenditure during the same period is $6,257,400.82 less than last year.
So that if we take the total additional revenue that this country has received up to the present time as>
a result of the Budget of 1915, and if we add to that the economies that have been effected in the administration of the affairs of this country as compared with the previous year, we shall find that the financial position of Canada at the present time is better by $42,206,429 than it was one year ago. Therefore I do pot think that the charge can be successfully substantiated that the ministers of the Crown of this Administration have not been alive to the necessities of the occasion,- and have not practised economical methods wherever possible. When the war broke out the Minister of Finance, in his Budget speech at the war session of Parliament, said that until the conclusion of the war no new work on capital account would be begun, and I believe that that has been the policy, and that it can be said that no new work has been undertaken by the present Ad- [DOT] ministration since the outbreak of war.
I have followed the various gentlemen who have taken part in this debate, and it seems to me that the situation in this Parliament at the present time hinges, to a very large extent, upon the charges that have been made against the Shell Committee. As I thought of this feature of the situation, history seemed to be once again repeating itself. Just as last year we had a great deal of discussion about other

charges' that !bad been spread broadcast throughout the land, so at this time we have charges of a. somewhat similar nature lodged against a very large and important industry. The bon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) this afternoon referred to the so-called shell scandal, and demanded an investigation. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that last year the right hon. leader of the Opposition brought to the attention of the House and of the Government the fact that there had been very widely discussed throughout the country certain charges against a few manufacturers of having supplied a poor quality of boots. The Liberal press throughout Canada had many references to that matter, just as we find many references at the present time to the so-called shell scandal. Newspaper references to the boot question could have been quoted quite extensively last year just as there have been quoted in this debate references to the so-called shell scandal the Toronto Globe said:
The punk boot men are still at large. The boot scandal will stand as a discouraging warning until it is cleared away by the adequate punishment of the guilty.
Again it said:
Shavings of wood and pieces of cork do not appear to be good material out of which to make the soles of soldiers' hoots.
The Government at that time decided, rightly or wrongly, that that question should be investigated, and for weeks throughout the entire session a special parliamentary committee investigated every possible detail, every tittle of evidence that could be submitted for its consideration, to prove that there had been scandal in connection with the purchase of boots. As a result of that investigation, a majority report and a minority report were submitted to the House. I will not weaTy the House by going over the ground further than to say this, that the bon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), who was a member of the committee of investigation, said from his place in the House, after the matter had been given the fullest and most careful investigation, that the manufacturers had supplied to the Militia Department boots which were well up to the sample, and that there was absolutely no evidence of any fraud upon their part. The reports came down for the consideration of this House. The matter was fully discussed by the members of the committee;
yet it was so clear that there was nothing to justify the charges that had been made that, when the matter came to a division, there were only five members among hon. gentlemen opposite who thought that it was of sufficient consequence to record their vote. Therefore, from that time to the present, alarmed and excited although I will admit the public mind was, just as it is alarmed at the present time, we have not had a single complaint about the way in which those boot manufacturers have fulfilled their contracts. I said there was a similarity between the conditions that existed at that time and the conditions that exist at present. I have listened to the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite; I have heard their references to the way in which this business has been conducted by the Shell Committee; but up to the present I have not seen brought to the attention oi the House any charge that would justify an investigation. As an example, let us take what the hon. member for St. John the other night said:
Then, again, I am told that another gentleman, a gentleman of my own profession, a lawyer in the city of Montreal, who contested . the constituency of Richelieu at the last election, Mr. Morgan,

Mr. Lemieux. Not Pierpont?
Mr. Pugsley:	No, Mr. E. D. Morgan.
Mr. Rogers :	Pierpont's brother.
Mr. Pugsley:	Pierpont's brother? If he
keeps on manufacturing shells he will be Pierpont's partner and it will not be long before he can laugh at Pierpont Morgan.
And so the fact of this Mr. Morgan having received a contract was held up to contempt and ridicule. I have in my hand a letter from this Mr. Morgan, setting out the situation in so far as his shell contract is concerned, and I would like to submit his statement of the situation to the. consideration of this House, with this exception: there are certain references of a personal nature made to the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), which I would very much prefer not to be the medium of bringing to public attention. If the House will permit me, I will read this letter of Mr. E. A. D. Morgan, with the extracts to which I have referred left out:
Montreal, January 20, 1916. Hon. Mr. William Pugsley,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-My attention has been called to a statement made by you, on the floor of the House, that a contract had been given to E. A. D. Morgan, barrister, of Montreal, former candidate for Richelieu, at a higher price than given to others. I, however, wish to state, to show you how uncalled-for were your remarks-

I leave out a paragraph.

the only facts in this connection with which you were unacquainted.
There is in Sorel a very large machine shop, the property of a bank, who had to take it over when the former owners found themselves in difficulties, it is splendidly equipped and very well disposed for the manufacture of shells, and it was only running at about one-third capacity.
Another factory, the property of another bank, was idle
Ever since the question of manufacturing shells was broached, in order to obtain employment for the great number of men in Sorel, who found work hard to get owing to war conditions, and more particularly the cutting down of the number of men in the Government shipyard at Sorel, and the absence of large steamers coming to the port of Montreal having done away with lightering, I worried the former Shell Committee to get a shell contract, and at any price.
I had induced my two sons to invest $10,000 each and had obtained the promise of several thousand dollars from friends as well as about $25,000 in $100 subscriptions from the workingmen in Sorel.
Once again I omit a reference of a per sonal nature.
To return to shells. Getting no results from the Shell Committee, I even went to Mr. Thomas, and when he suggested our making shells at cost price, I told him we were prepared to do so, but, like my Irish forbears at Fontenoy, I wanted "the English to begin first," and the Welsh mine owners to show the same disinterestedness, by agreeing to give the miners the same wages for three years after the war, as they were giving them at present, so as to prevent strikes at a time when France was in such dire need of coal.
I also agitated very strongly with the members of the Federal Cabinet the importance of having a French-Canadian on the Shell Committee, as a measure of justice to them.
Possibly, for those reasons, I got no shell contract, but when tenders were called for, my sons and I tendered for two contracts, one for
60.0	0 4*5 and another for 40,000 60-pounders These tenders were put in at the price suggested in the circular, which I had been lucky enough to get hold of.
We obtained a contract for only 25,000 shells and not at a higher price than given to others.
This contract was too small to allow of the purchase of the large plant at Sorel, as the bank refused to sell. I then asked for an increase in the number of shells, at least up to 40,000.
Upon the statement of the new board that they could not increase the number of shells, but that they expected to get further orders, and we would have an opportunity to tender, I offered to renounce our contract and to take a
100.000	shell order at the lowest price that any one would ask for tenders. This was also refused.
I then asked the bank to start work at their factory on the order given to my sons and myself, transferring them the contract without any consideration whatsoever except that the work be carried on at Sorel. This was declined.
I thereupon endeavoured to organize a company and succeeded, as a matter of fact the building is now under construction and the machinery under purchase, for delivery in time to carry out the contract. As the three brothers

who became interested in the matter had already bound themselves to purchase the machinery, and insisted that they should have the entire say in the matter, my sons (one of whom, seeing thp delay in obtaining a shell contract, had decided to " do his bit " otherwise, and enlisted for overseas service, which, by the way, is more than any of yours have done), instead of putting money in the new company, took one-fifth of the stock for their interest in the contract and I agreed to transfer 2\ per cent of the stock which I was to get to the manufacturers of the machinery, the sole consideration being the quick delivery of the machinery.
Once again I omit a part.
As I know you will not rectify your statement and that I cannot, until after the next election, refute it on the floor of the House, I am sending this letter to your colleagues, who heard your accusations against me.
Yours truly,
E. A. D. Morgan.
This is one of the cases cited as showing that there has been wrongdoing in the letting of shell contracts. It seems to me that if something of a more substantial nature than this cannot be charged against the Shell Committee, there surely is not at the present time any gropnd for an investigation.
There have been other rumours. Last night there was brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) something that went further than, mere rumour, a quotation from* the columns of a New York financial paper. It referred to a letter written by Sir Henry M. Pellatt, president of the Steel and Radiation Company of Canada, naming prices being paid for certain classes of shells in Canada. I do not wish to take up the time of the House by going over this entire lartidle. In effect, the situation is this: Sir Henry Pellatt writes to New York financial interests that the company of which he is the president had received contracts for the manufacture of shells, and that on this first contract his profit is going to be $250,000, and that he has another contract that will show a profit of $200,000. Now,
I submit to the judgment of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that if they were legitimate manufacturers engaged in the production of shells and had their own business to carry on, would it be reasonable to suppose that they would write a letter of that kind giving to the public the profit they were going to make. Who is Sir Henry Pellatt? Is he a great captain of industry? I have never heard him so described. He is a member of the firm of Pellatt & Pellatt, stockbrokers, of the city of Toronto. Sir Henry Pellatt, when he

wrote that letter, wrote it as one form of advertising. He is not concerned about the profits that are going to be made out of the shell industry in Canada. He is playing for bigger game. He wants the impression to go abroad in Wall street, in the stock exchanges of Toronto and Montreal, that he is getting big, fat, round contracts for war munitions, and he has got a war stock that he is going to sell to the unsuspecting public.
X come from a place where shells are being manufactured as successfully as in any part of this Dominion of Canada- and the work is carried on not -Jor stooK-jobbing purposes, but as a legitimate manufacturing enterprise. In connection with the shell orders that have been given in my constituency-and many have been given up to the present time-I may say that 75 per cent of the profits are represented to-day in the capital cost of new machinery and equipment. I know nothing of the operations of the stock market, but I will guarantee that Steel and Radiation stock, simultaneously with the announcement to which I haye referred, was placed upon the market in the stock exchanges of Canada and the United States. I will guarantee also that that stock had a phenomenal rise, and that when this war is over, Sir Henry Pellatt will not hold that stock and will not be in a position to receive those war dividends-the unsuspecting public will once again have been taken in. I believe that the case of the Steel and Radiation Company may be taken as a fair sample of where this agitation has come from with regard to the abnormal profits that are being made in the production of shells.
I do not wish to enter into any discussion as to what might have happened if hon. gentlemen opposite had held the reins of power in August, 1914. I myself am persuaded that if Sir Wilfrid Lauriei had been Prime Minister of this country at the time war broke out, he would have given to the service of 'his country all the earnestness and zeal that patriotic enthusiasm could command. But I desire to say that the people of Canada have followed the record of the Borden Administration since the war began. They have observed the way in which the Prime Minister of this country has assumed and discharged the duties of that difficult position; the way in which the Minister of Militia has fulfilled his arduous task; the way in which the Minister of Finance has guided our financial course during a
most difficult and trying period; the way in which the other members of the Cabinet have measured up to the situation. And I may add-when all this passion that is being aroused has passed away, hon. gentlemen will agree with me-that I would include the Shell Committee amongst those who have given magnificent service to their country. When I think of what the 'Government has done during these trying times; when I think of the way in which they have represented the genius and the aspirations of the Canadian people, as a humble member of the party which I represent, I am indeed proud.
I feel that I must not too long transgress upon the time of this House. As I said before, I have taken a great deal of pleasure in listening to the speeches that have been delivered in this debate, and I think that the tone of them has been splendid, and creditable indeed to this House of Commons. I am not one of those who think that the Opposition should sit still and say nothing. I think that if there is anything, even in the present situation, that demands criticism, hon. gentlemen opposite would be derelict in their duty if they hesitated to criticise it. But it seems to me that when we think of what has been accomplished in this country, when we think of what the country has passed through, and of the opportunities that there have been for irregularities-, when we consider that nothing more substantial has been brought against the record of this Administration, our affairs have indeed been conducted in an honourable and creditable manner.
Reference has been made to certain agitators in the province of Quebec, of whom we as Canadian people do not feel proud. In this respect I am prepared to gncept the view of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), who said the other day that we must look not to the Bourassas and the Lavergnes for an expression of the feelings and sentiments of the French-Canadian people, but that we may find those sentiments properly expressed in the speeches that have been delivered by the Lauriers and the Casgrains. I believe implicitly that that is a proper summing-up of the situation. In regard to the statements that have been made recently in the Quebec legislature, I believe such is the benign influence of British institutions, that these men will live to regret the day that they ever gave expression to such sentiments, and that their children, whatever thffir fathers may



have advocated, will be loyal and patriotic Canadians.
As I endeavoured to catch the spririt underlying the opinions of hon. gentlemen of this House, and as I tried to think of what I might appropriately say on this occasion, it seemed to me that in concluding the remarks that I was to make to-night, I could not do better than quote to the House an extract from a spech delivered more than fifty years ago by a distinguished member of Parliament. .He was speaking for unity; for the removal of race and class prejudices. The late Thomas D'Arcy McGee, in the course of an address in which he was speaking of the future of Canada-and with these words I shall conclude-said:
All we have to do is, each for himself, to keep down dissensions which can only weaken, impoverish, and keep hack the country; each for himself, to do all he can to increase its wealth, its strength, and its reputation; each for himself-you and you, gentlemen, and all of us-to welcome every talent, to hail every invention, to cherish every gem of art, to foster every gleam of authorship, to honour every acquirement and every natural gift; to lift ourselves to the level of our destinies, to rise above all low limitations and narrow conscriptions ; to cultivate that true catholicity of spirit which embraces all creeds, all classes and all races in order to make of our boundless Canada, so rich in known and unknown resources, a great new northern nation.


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester) :: Mr. Speaker, before I enter upon the subject of my remarks on this occasion, I deem it my duty to offer you my congratulations on your elevation to the seat which you now occupy, knowing that in that [DOT]position you will display the dignity which you have shown in an inferior seat, and that impartiality will at all times characterize your actions, as we have seen even during the few days you have presided over this House.
I have listened with great attention to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the Throne. It has been my pleasure in other sessions to listen with gratification and admiration to the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Alfred Thompson). On this occasion he has again been equal to the task imposed on him, and his speech will remain among the cherished records of Canada for many years to come. The seconder of the address has recalled to this House many of. the deeds of the French Canadian people from the province of Quebec in the present war. I need not mention the speeches of the right hon. Prime Minister and the right hon.
fMr. Scott.]
leader of the Opposition, who have both been equal to the task of the day. It was my pleasure again to listen to the eloquent
address of the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Casgrain), who also reminded this Parliament and the country of the deeds which have been acomplished in the field of battle by French Canadians from the province of Quebec. He gave us some information as to the number of soldiers who have gone to the front from that province, many of whom have already come back with glory, while others have given their lives and died the death of heroes, in defence of the sacred cause of liberty, -justice and right. I join with these gentlemen in paying honour to the members of the French-Canadian race from the province of Quebec and from Western Canada for the part they have taken in this great war. ~
But I rise to say that far to the east of Quebec,' along the coast of the Atlantic and the gulf of iSt. Lawrence, there is also an element of the French race, in the land of Evangeline, the forest primeval so poetically described by Longfellow, now converted into prosperous towns and villages, and happy homes, blessed with large families, educated to the forgiveness of the harshness of conquest in the present enjoyment of the glorious faculties of British citizenship, the Acadians of the Maritime provinces, who, in this present crisis, have given testimony of their love of country and their appreciation of the benefits of British citizenship equal to that given by any other section of the Canadian people. As senior member for the Acadian people in this House, representing the largest number of Acadian'S in the Maritime Provinces, who opened to me the gate of this sanctuary some sixteen years ago and have kept it open for me on. every occasion since that time, I deem it my duty to make you acquainted with what has been- going on among the Acadian people in the Maritime Provinces. Let me tell you that the efforts of the French race in the province of Quebec have been equalled -I say it with pride-by those of the Maritime Provinces. Not only the common citizens among the Acadians have given their attention to the position in which Canada has been placed through this turmoil of European war, but every man of intelligence of every position, every Acadian pHest in the Maritime Provinces, has devoted his time, his efforts, his eloquence, to calling upon the young men of his place to enlist with others and go and

defend their country by defending the rule of Britannia. It h>as been my pleasure on many occasions during the last year to address recruiting meetings in my county. There is not one district which I have not visited, and in many of them, especially in the larger places such as Bathurst, where the population is mixed, we have always had the ministers of the nonCatholic denominations side by side; with the Catholic priest; and in every other district, the French districts more particularly, every meeting was presided oveT by the parish priest; and as my hon. friend Mr. Lemieux said of the Province of Quebec, in any place where no hall or schoolhouse afforded sufficient accommodation for the multitude, the vestry of the church of the locality was open to the recruiting meetings, presided over, as I say, by the parish priest.
The hon. the Postmaster General, as well as the seconder of the Address, in order to ishow to the country at large, as welll as to this House, the unanimity of action of the whole people, more particularly among the ecclesiastical authorities, has read to this House the noble words that have fallen from the lips of the Archbishop of Quebec and the Archbishop of Montreal.
I am sure that every one in this House will be edified by his words, and that they will be read by future generations, Will you permit me, Mr. Speaker, to read a few more passages to the House. I am sure you will agree that no more patriotic, no more eloquent and fervid appeal has been made during the war than that made by the only Acadian Bishop in the Maritime Provinces, Bishop Leblanc, of St. John, at a public meeting held in the city of iSt. John on the 1st November, 1014. This is what he said:
As Canadians our cause is bound up with the cause of Britain her interests are ours; if England falls we are going to fall with her, and we are going to lose all the glorious privileges we enjoy as citizens of the British Empire. Canada now so free and so happy, so blessed by God with such great resources, Canada that has such a brilliant future before her, will be reduced to a condition of vassalage and crushed under the iron heel of a foreign 'and unsympathetic ruler.
Failure for England in this war will mean England's destruction and even success will have to be dearly paid for; but, let us thank God, the age of chivalry is not passed; there is still enough patriotism and heroism in the young men of this province to make a supreme effort now for England's cause. Our hope is in our young men, to them we look to uphold the honour and the glory of the British Empire,
of that empire which, rather than break its plighted word to gallant little Belgium, has been willing to sacrifice the best and noblest of her sons
Coming from such a high dignitary, these words could not fail to have a beneficent effect, and I may say that since then, on more than one occasion, Bishop Leblanc has given expression to similar sentiments at French gatherings, more particularly at Moncton and Shediac. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that a great number of Aca-dians have enlisted in the military forces. They have enlisted in every county of the Maritime Provinces. I know whereof I speak, so far 'as the counties of New Brunswick are concerned, and I think the hon. members from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, who represent consituenoies containing French elements, can testify to the fact that in their constitu-9 p.m. encies also the Acadian peqple have risen to the occasion. Hundreds and thousands of them have already gone to the front, and only recently, just before the Christmas holidays, it was decided to form an Acadian, battalion.
I desire' to extend to my hon. friend the Minister of Militia my congratulations upon his prompt response to the request of the Acadian people. At present they are engaged throughout the counties of New Brunswick and other parts of the Maritime Provinces in forming a battalion of their own, with their own officers, and, let me add, with their own chaplain. Only a few days ago, just as I was about to leave my home to come here to attend to my duties in Parliament, we received a report in Bathurst that two brave young men from the county of Gloucester had been killed in action. One, Cyril Vigot, though born on the island of Jersey, had been a resident at Caraquet, in the county of Gloucester for many years. He bad left one of the best positions open to young men in the county of Gloucester, having been manager of one of the branches of the Loggie Company in Caraquet. The other young man, Henry Bertin, before leaving to join the colours, appealed to his mother not to refuse him permission to go, saying, "I feel I have to go for my country." The action of these brave fellows showed what the young men of Acadia are prepared to do to play their part in the struggle for liberty, right and justice.
The people of Canada have always shown themselves willing and ready to respond to the call of duty. Many outside observers have remarked that the plane of Canadian

patriotism wag the loftiest ever offered to human contemplation by reason of the 'foamy virtues of the different races embraced in the Dominion, races inspired by the highest ideals of Christianity. In the present crisis they have exhibited to the world their readiness to bear the greatest sacrifices for the preservation of those ideals. The fact has 'been dwelt upon that Canada) engaged voluntarily in this war. She went with all the speed possible to the assistance of the Motherland, and of the small nations which were threatened by Piussian militarism. But Canada has not been alone in showing such a fine example. We have seen the same response on the part of our sister dominions. We have seen Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, and other portions of the Empire moving with the harmony which has been the admiration of the world and the consternation of the Kaiser of 'Germany. How is it that Great Britain has been able to evoke the patriotism of all her possessions at the moment of trial? How has she been able to link together her distant possessions, and to present such solidarity in the face of the enemy? All this was accomplished, not by .any threat or menace such as the Kaiser of Germany would use, not by the blood-andiron policy of Bismarck, not by conscription, but through love beaming across the seas and drawing from every British shore ithe affection of Britain's millions of subjects blended inito one common) soull under the ^enevolienit smile of Providence. From Ireland, which has suffered persecution for centuries, we have seen thousands of soldiers instantly respond to the call and take their place in the trenches alongside the Belgian soldiers. The Irish soldier in the battlefield, mindful of the noble words of Gladstone his protector, does not merely look on while the fight for freedom progresses hut rushes into the fray and willingly sacrifices his life. His valour and fearlessness is excelled only by the heroism of the Belgian soldier. Such, Mr. Speaker, is the position in which we are to-day, and which is likely to continue for some time to come. The people of Canada will continue to make any sacrifices that may be needed, sacrifices in men and sacrifices in money.
As I said a moment ago, Britain accomplished all these marvels without conscription, and I wish to say how much I appreciated the declaration of the right hon. the Prime Minister the other day, and the declaration of the leader of the Opposition, 	-
that there shall be no conscription in Canada. Why, Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in this war for the very purpose of effacing, if we can, conscription from the face of the earth. The conscription of the Prussian people has been the cause of all the bloodshed during the last eighty years. It is against this Prussian militarism, which has made a whole nation of seventy million people merely the tools of military officers, that we are sending our young men to-day. The Prussian soldier is fighting today not because he is exercising his own intelligence, nor from any motives of freedom, but to give vent to his passions,-amid patriotism takes second place in his heart.
Canada is to raise five hundred thousand troops. In speaking to the young men of my county I have always said that we wanted them to go voluntarily, that we wanted them to go because we did not want conscription applied to Canada if Germany should unfortunately win this war, and the more deeply our young men have been impressed with this idea the more eagerly have they come forward. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), who knows conditions in New Brunswick, is aware that in the early months of the war recruits in that part of the country came forward rather slowly, for the reason that like nearly every one in Canada and in Great Britain too they made the mistake of thinking the war would be a short one. Many young men have said to me, What is the use oi going? Why, after we have had six months training at Valcartier the war will be over. But now, when the necessity for sacrifice has been made clear to them, they are coming forward in thousands where a year ago they came forward in hundreds. I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that if conscription is absolutely necessary in Canada we shall have to resort to it, but I maintain that if we adopt the proper measures it will not be necessary to have conscription in order to raise the 250,000 men who are required. The people of Canada will willingly give them. I wish to place myself emphatically on record against conscription. I do not wish to say anything offensive in regard to what has happened in England lately. One of the glories of Britain is that she has never had to resort to conscription. It is cf course only a mild sort of conscription they are proposing there now and merely a temporary measure, because the leading men of Great Britain no doubt feel that they

owe it to the Allies to do all they possibly can to help secure victory. It is to be regretted that a year ago the labour element in Great Britain was not really educated to the necessities of the occasion. We have seen that Welsh statesman, Mr. Lloyd George, appealing to the labour element, and the labour element once it was educated to the necessities of the occasion responded with a patriotism that could not be excelled by any other class of British subjects.
I agree also with the opinion of my hon. friend from Edmonton, that-, our wounded soldiers who return to Canada must receive a larger pension. If you satisfy our young men that if they become incapacitated through the war they will be treated by the nation according to their sacrifice, if you convince them that they are fighting for a nation which is worthy of the sacrifice, and that when they come back incapacitated they will not be at the mercy of any municipality or even a province, but that the Government of the nation itself will give them an adequate pension-and they have a right to it having sacrificed the'ir future and exposed their life

then I say, we shall get all the recruits we need.
The duty of providing for our wounded soldiers ought not to be left to the provinces nor to the Patriotic Fund. Our soldiers must feel their security before they go. The provinces should not have such a burden imposed upon them, because some of our provinces have certainly no great wealth at theiir disposal. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) will agree with me, I am sure, when I say that the revenues of the province of New Brunswick are small compared with all its necessities, and if we were to impose to-day upon the Government of that province the responsibility, or a part of the responsibility, for the maintenance of our returned soldiers, some of them might not get the comforts which they have a right to expect. The Dominion Government and the nation at large should undertake this duty. The same thing has been done in the United States. The Government )of the United States after the war of the Revolution did not distribute the cost of the pensions to her returned soldiers amongst the different States nor leave it to the devotion of her people, but established a pension board and gave the soldier what was needed for his comfort and that of his family when he got back from the front.
Another question which I wish to bring
to the attention of the House is a paragraph in the speech from the Throne which reads as follows:
The life of the present Parliament expires in the autumn of this year, and, under existing legislation, a dissolution and election would be necessary in the early future. My advisers, however, are of the opinion that the wishes of the Canadian people and the present requirements of the war would he best met my avoiding the distraction and confusion consequent upon a general election at so critical a time.
That purpose can only be effected through the medium of legislation by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. A resolution authorizing and requesting the enactment of such legislation as will extend the life of this Parliament for the period of one year will he presented to you.
No one appreciates more deeply than I do the position in which Canada is at present on account of this war. It has been said by the Liberal party at least that the Government of the day should carry on the prosecution of the war. Now, the war has lasted eighteen months, and is not yet ended, and while the end may come within a short time, the war may, unfortunately, last a very long time. The proposal in the speech from the Throne means an amendment to the British North America Act under which we live to-day, and I view it with all sincerity and seriousness. My views upon the constitution of Canada have been well known to this House. I believe, since I have been a member of it, and also to the people of my constituency, either through my addresses to the public or through the press, for many years before I became a member of this House. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows that I always view with apprehension any suggestion of a change in the constitution of Canada. While the minority in New Brunswick have suffered on account of the constitution, we have been educated to suffer for the sake of the constitution, in order that changes in it and in the methods of applying its principles may not endanger privileges conferred upon some classes of the people by it. Our constitution is not exactly the same as that of Great Britain: it is the depository of the privileges of the minorities throughout the whole Dominion. Majorities of to-day may be minorities of to-morrow, and the constitution is for the happiness of all the people of Canada and of the minorities, whichever they may be. I do not yet say definitely what position I may have to take on this question; but you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues from the Maritime Provinces, as well as the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, know

Monday, January 24, 1916.