1916-03-07

PRIVILEGE. .


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. CARVELL:: I find in the Orders of the day a question standing in my name, No. 15, as follows:
1.	What are the names, salaries and nationalities of those persons appointed since October 10, 1911, in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, and the nature of the work assigned to each?
2.	How many promotions have been made among those in the inside service of the said department since October 10, 1911, and what are the names of the persons so promoted?
In the Orders of the Day of yesterday the same question appeared, and three others, relating to the Printing Bureau: No. 43, in the name of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Cruise); No. 44, in the name of the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx); and No. 46, in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Cash). On inquiry, I find that the hon. member for Mackenzie was not in the city when the notice standing in his name was placed
[Mr. Hughes.!
upon the Order Paper. The other two gentlemen state that they knew nothing about the questions standing in their names. For my part, I never heard of this question, never was consulted about it, and never knew of it until I read it in the Order Paper yesterday. I cannot understand it, although I have looked into the matter. I am satisfied that a gross fraud has been practised on members on this side of the House by the placing of these questions on the Order Paper in our names. I have been informed by the Clerk of Records that the questions were simply typewritten, with our names in typewritten characters. I wish to repeat emphatically that I know nothing about this question and never was consulted about it. As I have said, some person is imposing on the privileges of this House. I wish that this question be" stricken from the Orders of the Day, and I think, Sir, it is your duty to investigate this matter and to serve out to the guilty party the punishment which he so richly deserves.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I will certainly inquire into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved the second reading of Bill No. 48, to amend an Act to incorporate The Canadian Red Cross Society. He said: As this Bill is essentially a Bill of a private nature, although introduced as a Government measure at the request of the Council of the Canadian Red Cross Society, it is desirable that it should be referred to some committee of the House. My right hon. friend has suggested that it be referred to the Committee on Standing Orders; but I would suggest that it be referred instead to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills. I do not know that there is any need to send it to the Committee on Standing Orders, because that committee could only report that the ordinary formal' procedure had not been carried out. It was introduced as a Government measure in order that there might not be expense, delay and inconvenience in publishing it. If any person connected with the Society, or any other person, desires to make any representations with regard to the Bill, he will have opportunity of doing so if it is referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills. I move that the Bill be referred to that committea.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I have not read the Bill; can my right hon. friend give an explanation of its object?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I did give an explanation upon the first reading. It simply provides for an addition to the membership of the council, and to enable the western provinces to be more effectively represented. It is really of very minor importance, and it does not affect any interest whatever.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 37, to amend the White Phosphorus Matches Act.
Mr. GRAHAM:: The object of this Bill, which the hon. Minister of Labour explained some days ago, is, I understand, to extend the time of getting rid of white phosphorus matches already manufactured, and also those on hand for sale.
Motion agreed to; Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blain in the Chair.
On section 1-extension of time within which matches may he used:


Mr. PUGSLEY:: This section seems to be worded in rather an extraordinary way. It is declared in the first place by section 13 that the Act shall come into force on 1st of January, 1915. Then, by the second section, it is declared that the provisions of the Act "shall be held to have come into force on, from, and after the 1st day of January, 1916." It would take a Philadelphia lawyer to understand that.


Mr. CROTHERS:: Section 13 of the Act as it now stands provides that as to the manufacture of matches made of white phosphorus, the Act shall come into force on the first day of January, 1915.


William Pugsley: The Bill does not say anything as to manufacturing.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Section 13 of the Act does.


William Pugsley: But that is repealed.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am showing why we want to amend that Act. It provides, as to the manufacture of matches, that the Act shall come into force on 1st January, 1915; then section 2 is as to the sale and use, and it says the Act shall come into
force on 1st January, 1916, giving the manufacturers a year from the time they have ceased to manufacture the matches to sell the matches already manufactured. They ceased manufacturing on the last day of [DOT] Deceiflber, 1914$ but during 1915 they did not sell what they had manufactured. This Bill is to enable them to do so for six months longer, and those who buy the matches to use them up to 1st January, 1917. The main object of the original Act, as the committee will remember, was the protection of the employees engaged in the making of white phosphorus matches, and that has been effected by the cessation of manufacture on the 1st January, 1915. As the law now stands, those who have sold any such matches since 1st January, 1916, would be liable to prosecution, and those having the matches in their possession for use would be liable. This Bill is simply for the purpose of giving the manufacturers six months longer to sell, and the people who are using them twelve months longer to use them.


Mr. MARCIL:: Is there any danger in the use of those matches, or is it merely in the manufacture?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The danger is chiefly but not entirely in the manufacture. The object of the original Act was to protect those engaged in the manufacture of white phosphorus matches. Some few employees had become diseased by inhaling the fumes caused by the use of white phosphorus in the matches. There have been cases in which the injurious effects of these matches have occurred. There was a prominent case in Prince Edward Inland wheTe a woman poisoned her three children by using the ends of these matches. Children playing with matches of this kind about the house are very likely to put them in their mouths. It is because* of instances of this character that the Act provided that white phosphorus matches should not be used. This proposition is simply to allow for the sale of the stocks which are on hand, and those who have purchased them are given until the first of next January to use them.


William Pugsley: A company manufacturing matches at Hampton, N.B., protested very strongly against the proposed legislation, saying that no injury had ever been known to have resulted from the use of white phosphorus in their factory. Have they withdrawn their objection? I understand that they were heard by the minister.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 
William Pugsley: I do not think that the minister quite understands the criticism that I made of the Bill. Would the minister kindly explain why it is provided that the Act shall come into force on the 1st of January, 1915, excepting section 5, while, by section 2, it is provided that " the provisions of this Act shall be held to have come into force on, from and after, the first day of January, 1916." There is a difference of a year in time when, by this Bill, th# Act is declared to come into force. Would the minister kindly explain that?


Robert Laird Borden: As far as I can understand it, the last section fixes the date at which the amendment shall take effect. The first section contains an amendment to the original Act; the second says that the amendment shall take effect on a certain date.	.


William Pugsley: Yes, but it provides
that this Bill shall only become effective from the first of January, 1915. Then, there is another section which says that this Act is not to come into force until this year or that it should not have been in force a year ago.	4


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, 1916. The Act referred to in section 2 is this present Act.


William Pugsley: Quite so.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The original Act. The idea was to prevent any prosecutions for any violation of the Act from and after the first day of this year. Otherwise, any one making, using, or selling these matches up to that time would be liable to prosecution. The Act is retroactive as to that. Any violation of the original Act, either by the .sale or the use of these matches, to the first .of January of this year, will not be an *offence, because it will be covered by this .amending Act.


William Pugsley: Does not the minister
see that this section declares that this amending Act shall not come into force until the first day of January, 1916, and another section declares that the Act shall come into force on the first day of January,
1915.	It does not say that it shall be deemed to have come into force, but that it shall come into force. Otherwise, Parliament, speaking from the first of January,
1916,	declares that, as to section 1, the Act shall come into force a year previous to this amending Act having become law.


Robert Laird Borden: [DOT] It sounds confusing, but I do not think it is. I think the real change in the Act is in the addition of the proviso. There is no change made in the Act in so fkr as manufacture is concerned. There is the right to manufacture until the first of January, 1915; but section 13, in so far as it differs from the original section, extends the right until the first of January, 1916, in order to cover the period between that date and the date when this Act shall receive the Royal Assent.


William Pugsley: But how could the
amended section be deemed to have been in force a year ago?


Robert Laird Borden: Not a year ago.


William Pugsley: Yes, on the first of January, 1915. How could it be deemed to have been in force a year ago when this Act, so declared to be in force, does not become operative until January of this year?


Robert Laird Borden: Because there
is no change made in that respect from the original section.


William Pugsley: Oh, yes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The first part of section 13 which is amended is in these words:
*This Act shall come into force on the first day of January, 1915, except section 5 thereof.
Section 5 is the one that deals with the sale and use. Then it goes on and states in substance that, as to sale, the time shall be extended to the first of July, 1916, and, as to use, it shall be extended to the first of January, 1917.


William Pugsley: But you are repealing that section. This is a new law, and you are providing that this new law shall not be operative until after the first day of January, 1916. Would it not be better to have it declared that the provisions of section 13 shall be retroactive and be deemed to have

been in operation from the first day of January, 1915; and then special provision could be made as to section 5. However, if my hon. friend is satisfied with the section and can see clearly what it means, I congratulate him.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The first clause of this section as aamended is in identically the same words as the original section.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Lieut.-Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly; the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
The Speaker informed the House that His Honour the Deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the Royal assent to the following Bills:
An Act respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Central Western Canada Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Railway Act.


Rt.   H@: That a special committee of	members of this House be appointed to inquire into all purchases of shells or other munitions or goods by the Shell Committee formed by the Minister of Militia, as stated to this House by the Prime Minister on the 15th April, 1915, together with all contracts made or orders given by the said committee for any shells or other munitions or goods, with authority to the said committee to examine witnesses under oath and to require the production of any documents, books, letters or papers; and that such special committee be directed to report from time to time to this House in such manner as it may think advisable.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reasons which have prompted this motion are well known to the House-well known, I may say, even before I state them. For months past those reasons have been set forth in ever-growing emphasis by the press oi all political shades and colours. And, speaking of the press, I may eliminate
on the present occasion the Liberal press, and confine myself, and the authority upon which I rely, entirely to the press which supports the Government, and especially those newspapers which, while strong in their devotion to the party in office, are perhaps yet stronger in their antagonism to the party out of office. I repeat-and nobody I am sure will contradict what I now say- that, the press of all shades of politics have for months past been urging that the Government should probe, and probe to the bottom, the transactions of the Shell Committee, as a duty which the Government owed not only to the country, but to itself.
It may he well at this point to inquire into the cause of this passionate, unanimous and persistent attitude of the press. Does it spring from any unworthy motives, from any prurient curiosity, from any desire to injure the Government? No, all these motives can be at once discarded. The only cause which has prompted the attitude of the press is the conviction, early forced upon the Allied nations as the first lesson of this war, that, if they are to win, they must have without any delay whatever, three things: munitions, more munitions, and still more munitions. No one can forget the agony of suspense through which we on this side of the Atlantic passed when the sound of the first shock of battle reached our ears from across the ocean, and when day after day and week after week the bulletins told us. the same sad story, that the forces of the Allies were being compelled to retreat from Belgium into France and from the borders of France far into the interior, until at last the German army had reached almost within sight of the steeples of Paris. We did not know then, but we know now that the Allied armies were forced to retreat, not so much because they had to face an enemy immeasurably superior in numbers as because they were outmatched in guns, shells, shrapnel and explosives of all kinds. And when at last the day came with the cheerful news that the Allied armies had taken the offensive; that they had thrown thetn-selve3 upon the right wing of the German army and had forced it back in confusion from the Marne to the Aisne, great was the hope entertained by every one on this side of the Atlantic that the retrograde movement of the German army would be compelled to continue from the Aisne to the Rhine. This hope, however, was doomed to disappointment, the reason-which we did not know then but which we know now

-being that the supply of munitions had failed the Allies at the critical moment. We have since learned that amongst those victorious troops there were tears of rage in thousands of eyes because they were forced, at a moment when victory was almost within their grasp, to abandon their forward movement and were not permitted to drive hack the German army from the soil of France and Belgium on to the soil of Germany. A ory arose in the armies and reverberated all through the Allied nations for munitions, more munitions, and still more munitions. With the conditions in Russia I am not familiar, but as to what took place in France and in England, I am perfectly cognisant, as is every hon. member of this House. In France the Government was reorganized and a new minister of War, Mr. Millerand, who as Minister of War in a former Government had made his mark as a man of eminent ability and great energy, was appointed, and lie at once created a special department which he placed under the control of Mr. Albert Thomas, whose duty it was to at once procure munitions of war.
We are still more familiar with what took place in England, and we know that a new department of the Government, the Department of Munitions, was created and placed under the control of Mr. Lloyd George.
In Canada what happened? We leam now that the Government of Canada undertook to supply the Imperial authorities with munitions; that the Minister of Militia was entrusted with the task, and that he called to his aid a committee known as the Shell Committee, whose especial d,uty it was to provide for the prompt manufacture and the prompt delivery of munitions of war. Sir, I place myself in the judgment of every man within the sound of my voice when I say that this committee never measured up to the expectations of the Canadian people, who followed its movements with feverish anxiety in the hope that it would promptly deliver the munitions which the Imperial authorities so much needed. The Shell Committee, however, accomplished practically nothing, and great, and keen, and universal was the disappointment amongst the people, Accusations found their way into the press representing all shades of opinions. These accusations cannot be said to have been prompted by party motives, because they were, perhaps, more vigorously pressed in the newspapers supporting the Government than in those opposed to
I.Sir "Wilfrid Laurier.]
it, and all agreed in calling upon the Government to investigate the matter at once, to see where the fault lay, and to have it promptly remedied.
When this Parliament met for this session these accusations were taken up by hon. members, who gave facts and figures, names, and dates, emphasizing the accusations which had been published in the press, and repeating the urgency for having a prompt investigation. But up to this time the Government has remained deaf to all these appeals, no matter whence they came. Up to -this date attention has been paid to this matter by only two ministers, the Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), wiho spoke in the debate on the Address, and again some days ago in regard to the matter, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). I will refer only to the first speech of the Minister of Militia, in which he simply discarded, with a lordly wave of the hand, all the . accusations brought against the Shell Committee. He ignored those charges, but to ignore charges is not to dispose of them, and although the minister has spoken, there has been no abatement' in the demand for am investigation.
The attitude of the Solicitor General was altogether different. He did not pass over the accusations which had been made; he did not ignore them altogether; but took the attitude that whether the committee had acted rightly or wrongly, it was no concern of his, nor of the Canadian Government, and that the Government were absolutely not responsible for the actions of the Shell Committee. In order not to d,o any injustice to the [DOT]Solicitor General, it is well that I should give his ipsissima verba. This is what he said:
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 iShell Committee were named by the Government of Canada, and that was at the request of the Imperial 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? Uiy>n 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.
The attitude taken by the Solicitor General here is that he and the Government wash their hands completely of responsibility for the actions of the Shell Committee. Though my hon. friend asserts that the committee was appointed by the Imperial Government, I believe we can all agree that the members of the Shell Committee, whose names I shall read, respectable though those names be, were not selected on their merits by the Imperial authorities, but upon the recommendation of the Government of Canada. I take issue with the Solicitor General upon the point raised. As this Government has given its recommendation to the Imperial authorities, then, notwithstanding his views that the members of the Shell Committee are responsible to the Imperial authorities, I say that the Government that made that recommendation, and that gave that advice, is responsible to this House and to the people of this country. The Government of Canada, having advised the Imperial authorities to select So-and-so, and Such-and-such as members of this committee, it is inconceivable that it should be pretended that, when called upon by the representatives of the peoeple to give their reasons for what they did, they should come before this House, wash their hands of the whole affair, and declare that it is no concern of theirs what these men may have done, or may not have done.
The Solicitor General went further-and, for my part, I was not surprised that he should take in this case the course that has so often been taken before, when the Government is pressed with what we consider a dereliction of duty-and he attempted to seek 'refuge behind the alleged conduct of the predecessors in office of the present Government. The summing up of this argument on that subject was: This Government is no worse than its predecessors, because it has done exactly what its predecessors did. i
Before going further, I must refer to the motion made by Mr. Monk in 1903, after the South African War, which was:
For a return showing:
1.	The total amount paid by the Government of Canada for hay and: oats, purchased for the
Imperial Government, for shipment to South Africa, during the years 1900, 1901 and 1902.
2.	The names of the parties from whom hay and oats were so purchased.
3.	The prices at which the said hay and oats were so furnished during the said periods, from each of the said parties.
4.	The total amount paid to each of the said parties, both for hay and oats.
This motion was refused by the Government of that day, it was pressed by the Opposition of that day, and it was defeated by the vote of the House. The Solicitor General now cites this as a precedent, but I say that there is no parallel between the two cases. This motion presented by Mr. Monk was <a motion merely for the production of papers, while the motion now presented to the House is for an investigation for cause shown. Even assuming that the two cases are on all fours, I contend that the denial by the Government of the motion made in 1903 forms no precedent for the present Government refusing the motion presented to-day. The party now in office and responsible to the 4 p.m. Canadian people took issue upon this question in 1903. They asserted by their votes that whenever the Government of Canada was called upon by the Imperial authorities to do some act for the Imperial authorities, even after that act had been completed, the members of this Parliament had the right to hold the Government of the day responsible. Upon this they laid down a new code of morals, which they gave to the Canadian people as an earnest of what they would do if they had the power to do it. I ask, is it honourable, is it right, for them to say now: we go back upon our record and will not do what we pressed the Government of that day to do in 1903. I do not hesitate to say that in my humble opinion-and in this I ' appeal to the judgment of the House- such an attitude would be absolutely immoral and impolitic, to say nothing more of it.
I go further and say that the case of 1903 as cited is not at all a precedent, as is contended by the Solicitor General. There is all the difference in the world between that case and this. I turn again to this motion made by Mr. Monk. It was presented as a motion for the production of papers, and it was moved without reason given, just like many others that are carried by this House every session. Mr. Monk, I say, made his motion without a word of explanation. He was answered by Hon. Mr. Fielding, then Finance Minister, who spoke for the Government in these words:

I think I am correct in stating that my hon. friend brought this matter before the House a year ago in the form of a question. And my hon. colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, said that it concerned only the Imperial Government, inasmuch as it did not affect the public moneys of Canada in any way, therefore he was unable to supply the information asked for. I think that we ought to take the same position to-day. For all expenditure of the public money of Canada, the ministers are accountable to this House and the House is entitled to every information, but this is an expenditure of Imperial money for which this Government is not accountable to this House.
I took part in the debate on that occasion, a fact of which the Solicitor General, speaking the other day, reminded the House. I then took the position that the motion presented was not within the purview of Parliament, but that	if	charges of
wrong-doing were made against the Government in connection with the purchase of hay and oats for the Imperial authorities, and if a committee of investigation were asked, that investigation would be granted. *I take that attitude to-day. Let me quote from the Solicitor General to show how he represented my attitude in that debate:
The motion, however, was pressed, and the late Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself took a part in the discussion. Here I shall quote the frords of the late Prime Minister :
" I believe that everything in this matter was done fairly and well. We have no complaint from the British Government, and I therefore see no reason why the House should inquire into the expenditure of money which does not concern it.
Mr. Borden: I would like to know whether the right hon. gentleman is willing or not to have these purchases ventilated in the Committee of Public Accounts, as they might be if they were the expenditure of this country.
The Prime Minister: Certainly not.
In the language which I am reported to have made use of on that occasion, certainly there is no justification for the statement which I made a monjent ago, that on that occasion I stated that if charges were made and an investigation asked it would be our duty to grant the investigation. But I have not quoted from the Hansard of 1903, I have quoted from the report of my observations in 1903 as given by the Solicitor General in Hansard this year; and there is quite a difference between what I said on that occasion and what I am represented by the Solicitor General as having said on that occasion, because my hon. friend the Solicitor General curtailed my remarks, I should say garbled my remarks, both at the beginning and at the end. My hon. friend shakes his head. Let us go to the authority. Here is Hansard of 1903. After the answer of the Government to the motion of Mr. [Sir Wilfrid Laurier.l
Monk had been given by Mr. Fielding, the Finance Minister of that day, I intervened in the debate, upon my hon. friend the then member for Victoria and Haliburton, the present Minister of Militia, jumping into the debate with characteristic impetuosity. This is what he said:
Mr. Hughes: The fair name of Canada is at stake. There are very serious scandals in connection with not only these oats and hay purchases but also with purchases of horses. I would like the hon. gentleman to understand that when our Government gives insi.Mccims to its officers, who are paid by the Canadian people, the Canadian people are going to inquire into the actions of these men. I hope that the right hon. the Prime Minister will come off his high horse.-not one of those horses which were bought for $40 and sold for $150-* %


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Might I suggest to the gentlemen who are laughing that this , was part of my remarks at that time?


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, yes, in
1903. It was not one of those horses which were rejected as too old in 1899 and bought in 1914. I continue the quotation:
-and give us the information asked for.
The Prime Minister (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) : My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) ought to he more careful than to use such language.
Mr. Hughes : I take the responsibility of my language, and I am prepared, if the Government will give me a committee, to prove what I have said.
The Prime Minister: If the hon. gentleman has charges to make, he knows that there are ways and means of making them. This is not the way to make a charge.
Mr. Hughes: Wou'd the hon. gentleman give a committee of the House or a commission?
The Prime Minister:	The hon. gentleman
knows how to proceed if he has any charges to make, and if he has it is his duty to make them. Although the money expended was not that of Canada but of the Imperial Government, still, if he has charges to make, if he thinks he can prove any scandal, it is his duty to make these charges, and he should not have delayed so long; but he cannot expect the Government to take notice of vain words thrown on the floor of Parliament. There has been no charges so far as' I know, made, and the hon. gentleman has no warrant to speak as he does.
Ail this I said in 1903; but all this was not quoted by my hon. friend the Solicitor General. I did say this, which was cited by the Solicitor General:
I believe that everything in this matter was done fairly and well. We have had no complaint from the British Government, and I therefore see no reason why the House should inquire into the expenditure of money which does not concern it.
Mr. Borden (Halifax) : I would like to know whether the right hon. gqntleman is willing or not to have these purchases ventilated in the

Committee of Public Accounts, as they might be if they were the expenditure of this country.
The Prime Minister: Certainly not.
There my friend the Solicitor General stopped-but I said more, and this is what I said:
The Prime Minister: Certainly not; my hon. friend has no reason to speak in that way. The Committee of Public Accounts are bound to investigate the expenditure of the money of the Canadian people, not the expenditure of money by the Imperial Government. But if my hon. friend or any one else has any charges to make that the Government has behaved in the manner suggested, he can have all the investigation he desires.	j
He could have had all the investigations which he desired. But no desire for investigation was ever expressed, no charge was made, no investigation was asked, and that is the difference between that day and this. To-day charges have been made, and I rise in my place as a member of Parliament to ask for an investigation.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Will the right hon. gentleman now make a charge half as specific as the charge he has just quoted as made' by the present Minister of Militia on that very occasion?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is an able dialectician, but he knows as well as I do that Mr. Monk's motion was not a motion making charges, but a motion for the production of papers. I said: Make a charge. No investigation was asked for. Ransack Hansard as much as you can, you will not find -a motion for an investigation of these purchases in 1903, or of anything else connected with that war. That is the difference between that day and this. I will go further. Do I understand my hon. friend to say that an investigation should have been granted on such an occasion?


Arthur Meighen: I should think that the papers would be much more likely to be brought down than that an investigation would be granted- How would one know whether there should be an investigation unless the papers were brought down?


Wilfrid Laurier: If, Sir, this motion had been based upon charges made an investigation would have been granted. But let us pass from all this. My friend insists that there was no investigation in 1903. If the motion of Mr. Monk had been granted, would he deny my motion to-day, or would he grant it? If, Sir, there was reason for having granted the motion of 1903, is there not ten times more ground
for granting the motion I now make? Let us look at the question raised to-day, and let us see whether or not there is cause that we should hold the Government responsible, and upon this I will ask the case to be judged by the language of the Solicitor General himself. In the language which I have already quoted, which he used in the debate on the Address, he stated, in conclusion, speaking of the 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 us, we would have had authority over them and would have been responsible.
Now, Sir, I take this as the basis upon wliich I proceed to-day, and I say to my hon. friend, and I say to the House, that the Shell Committee was appointed by this Government, that it was appointed as a branch of this Government, that it was acting under a member of the Government, the Minister of Militia, and therefore, according to the code laid down by my hon. friend, the Government is responsible. What is my warrant for stating this? I have my warrant in a speech delivered in this House on 15th April last by the Prime Minister himself. Speaking on this very subject, my right hon. friend on that occasion said:
I return to the question of what may be done by the Government to make it absolutely sure, that there shall be given to the people of this country every possible safeguard as to public expenditure. It is perfectly true that, so far as the investigation of the Public Accounts Committee is concerned, nothing has been disclosed-so far as I am aware and I speak subject to correction-in respect of transactions other than those which occurred during the first six or eight weeks of the war.
But, nevertheless, I realize, and I think all members of the Government realize, the Minister of Militia himself realizes, that the 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 Parlia-

raent 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. P. D. Lafferty, R.C.A., Superintendent of the Dominion Arsenal, representing the Department of Militia and Defence.
I have asked the chairman of that committee to prepare a report of their work fbtr the purpose of showing what can be done by a business organization of this character, through the co-operation of business men ini this country.
Then the Prime Minister went on to say that he desired to present that report, and he did present it. He said the report was drafted by Colonel Bertram, the Chairman of the Committee, and this was the heading:
Report on the Formation and work of the Shell Committee by David Carnegie, M.I.C.E., Ordnance Adviser.
To Sir Robert Borden,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
The report is rather long, and I will not quote it at all. I am sorry that I cannot quote it all. It is not sparing to the modesty of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, but I think he would be equal to the occasion and accept it. But I will quote some parts which refer to the very thing in issue, and which show whether this committee was part of the Government or was not part of it. The first sentences are in these words: '
Soon after the declaration of war the hon Minister of Militia, General Hughe*, was asked by the British Government, if he would place contracts on their behalf, for arms and ammunition, with the United States.
After having arranged certain contracts there for small arms, etc., he received an inquiry for 200,000 shrapnel shells, empty, in equal numbers of eighteen and flfteen-pounders.
The report goes on:
Before actually forming the committee, the Minister of Militia asked Colonel Greville Harston and Lt.-Colonel F. D. Lafferty, to get in touch with all manufacturers in Canada, who they thought could make the component parts for shrapnel shells. He particularly emphasized his desire to have the steel manufactured in Canada.
As a result, the following manufacturers were called to Ottawa to meet General Hughes, on the 2nd of September, 1914 :
Col. A. Bertram, of Messrs. J. Bertram Son & Co., Dundas, Ontario; Geo. W. Watts, Esq., of the Can. Gen. Elec. Co., Toronto, Ontario; The Ingersoll Rand Drill Co., of Sherbrooke, Que.; Goldie, McCulloch Co., of Galt, Ont.; E. Carnegie, Esq., of the Electric Steel and Metals Company, Ltd., Welland, Ont. \

At a meeting of the above, the whole question was fully discussed. Lt.-Col. Lafferty described in-detail the manufacture of the shells and their components parts, and Col. Greville Harston dealt with the system of inspection. Drawings and specifications were shown and explained, after which the meeting assured the minister that the work could be done in Canada.
On the- 8th of September, 1914, at a meeting held by the minister at the Dominion Arsenal, the following committee was appointed to organize the work throughout the Dominion:
Colonel A. Bertram, Chairman; Thos Cantley, Esq., Geo. W\ Watts, Esq., E. Carnegie, Esq., representing the manufacturers; Colonel T. Benson, Master General of Ordnance; Colonel Greville Harston, C. I. Arms and Ammunition; Lt.-Col. F. D. Lafferty, R.C.A., Superintendent" of the Dominion Arsenal, representing the Department of Militia and Defence.
Another part of the report reads:
When it is recalled that at the time in question, the Minister of Militia was engaged in the colossal task of raising, training and equipping a contingent of Canadians for the " front," it is remarkable that he should have found time to think of the many factories throughout the Dominion which were idle and to devise such an_ efficient means of helping them and the British War Office. It is somewhat flattering to find that the British Government has recently followed similar plans for utilizing the manufacturers throughout England for the manufacture of shells.
The minister in selecting manufacturers to work with officers of his own department, combined the commercial and technical ability requisite and the results of his choice have proved already eminently successful.
To Colonel Bertram belongs the praise for the harmonious and efficient work of the committee.
It seems to me that this language is quite to the point, and shows conclusively that the committee was working under the Minister of Militia. But if that is-not sufficient there is something more. The report states:
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.
Now, Sir, that is not all; there is something more to the same point. Here is an additional paragraph:
In adidtion 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.
Sir, that report is certainly conclusive evidence that the Shell Committee was simply an adjunct of the Department of Militia, working under the Department of Militia, and acting within their purview,

as laid down by my hon. friend the Solicitor General; that it was therefore part of the Government, with the Government responsible to the country.
But that is not all. Let me now see how the matter was viewed in Great Britain. I have the statement made by Lord Curzon, a member of the Imperial Government, upon this very point-upon the working of the committee and the working of the Canadian Government. These ate the words spoken by Lord Curzon on June 23 last:
In Canada the system adopted by the War Office has been this:	They have made their orders from an early date, through the Canadian Government, treating the Canadian Government, in fact, as their agents for the supply of munitions of war. Any requirements from the War Office here are communicated by letter or telegram to the Canadian Government, or rather to the Minister of Militia there. This officer constituted quite early in the day the Shells Committee to which the noble Lord referred. That is a body presided over by a gentleman whose name is mentioned, a General Bertram, and upon it are representatives of the Various manufacturing interests in the Dominion, and the function of the committee is to advise the minister as to the contracts which, on behalf of the Imperial Government, he shall conclude. All applications are made to hjm. They go before the committee, who examine and adjudicate between the claims or the different parties; then the contract is concluded over there, and finally the Canadian Government assume the responsibility of inspecting the munitions for us when they have been produced.
Is it not perfectly clear that it is an abuse of words to tell us to-day that the Shell 'Committee was responsible simply to the Imperial authorities? The Imperial authorities te11 us, by the words of 'Lord Curzon, that the Imperial authorities did not know the Shell Committee-that the only party they knew was the Minister of Militia, and it was with him that they transacted the business.
We had it the other day from the hon. Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) that, although the contracts were made by the Imperial Government, it was the Canadian people who, in the last-resort, were to pay for these munitions. If the Canadian people have to pay for them, certainly the Canadian people have the right to see how their money is expended and to look into the manner in which this committee had transacted its business and carried out its obligations. .My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) asked the hon. 'Minister of Finance, during the course of the debate on the Address, the following question:
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.
Here we have conclusive evidence that in this matter we have to look to the Canadian Government and the Canadian Government, of course, is responsible to the people. We have the facts clearly established that the Shell Committee was appointed by the Canadian Government, that it acted under the Minister of Militia, that it reported to the Department of Militia and Defence, that the Minister of Militia had the calling of it whenever he chose, and that it is the money of the Canadian people that is used to pay for the shells ordered by the committee. We have it also in evidence that the Minister of Militia was the author of the committee. He thought his department was not equal do the task imposed upon it and that he should have a committee of business men to advise him. Everybody will agree that that was a wise measure. It would have been a wise measure to have had a committee <of business men to advise the Minister of Militia, but the mistake which was made was that he appointed as members of this committee manufacturers engaged in lines of business who, from the very nature of their business, would be tempted to become manufacturers of shells and share in the fantastic profits which were looming up. It would have been the part of wisdom to have done then, what was done later on in the formation of the committee, that is, to select men who were not engaged in that line of business. But I have to charge against this Government, that every one of the members of this committee was a manufacturer actually engaged in the business of manufacturing shells for the Government. The incongruity of the thing is apparent to everybody. General Bertram was a member of the committee, Mr. Carnegie was a member of the committee, Mr. Watts was a member of the committee, and we find these gentlemen contracting with themselves both as sellers and purchasers; or rather not themselves personally but with their firms which were engaged in the making of shells. As for one of them, if he was not actually connected with the manufacture of shells, he was connected with the Nova Scotia Steel Company, which supplied steel and iron. It is, in that respect, interesting to read an interview which was given to the Toronto Globe by General Bertram. In


Samuel Hughes: 
Wilfrid Laurier: By the words of the minister himself, who said:
I may say_that I knew that the raw material for these fuses-time fuses-cost, before the war, $1.90, which included 24 cents royalty to the Krupp firm.


Samuel Hughes: That is in Britain.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is in the United States; the contract was given in
I

the United States. If it applies only in England, I have nothing to say, but I doubt very much if England in time of war would pay any royalty to the Krupp firm. What nonsense it would be to suppose that. in time of war England would do such a thing.


Samuel Hughes: My statement was distinct, that it was before the war that these fuses cost $1.90. After the war broke out, I presume the British people would not be so foolish as to pay a royalty of 24 cents to the Krupp firm.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then, why
mention it at all?


Samuel Hughes: To show the cost of the fuses. I wanted to be honest with my right hon. friend and he would not permit me.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very well, let us take the answer of my hon. friend for what it is worth. Will my hon. friend answer this question?


Samuel Hughes: Any question my
right hon. friend chooses to ask.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend states that these fuses could not be manufactured in Canada. I know for a fact that the present shell committee over which Mr. Flavelle presides has had fuses made in Canada and delivered.


Samuel Hughes: That statement is [DOT]
absolutely without foundation.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have to take the word of my hon. friend for that, and I will lay no more as to it, but I have had it on good authority-and I will refer my hon. friend's words to this authority, because the case is had enough, and I do not want to make it worse-that the committee over which Mr. Flavelle presides gave a contract to the Russell Company and that they are manufacturing fuses to-day.


Samuel Hughes: That statement is
entirely devoid of fact.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well then, my informant may be wrong. That is all I have to say. At all events, an attempt was made to make fuses in Canada.


Samuel Hughes: The old Shell Committee did, some time ago, give a contract to Mr. Russell for 500,000 fuses or more.


William Pugsley: When?


Samuel Hughes: Last June. I do not know whether they were to be made in Canada or in the United States. I know that a large portion of them were made in the United States.


William Pugsley: What was the price of
those?


Samuel Hughes: $3.50 for some and
$4 for others, all detonating fuses.


Wilfrid Laurier: At all events I say that the committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Flavelle gave a contract for the manufacture of fuses in Canada. My hon. friend tells me that the company which got the contract has not yet delivered the fuses. If that be so, that company is exactly on a par with the American manufacturers who have not up to this date delivered a single fuse. My hon. friend has told us that credit is due to the Shell Committee because through its work, there has been no money lost. I am not so sure about that; I think my hon. friend's statement is disputable, but one thing that is indisputable, and that is only too true, isr that if money has not been lost owing to the work of the Shell Committee, time has been lost, and loss of time is ten times more criminal than loss of money. We can pay for shells in money, but we have to pay for the lack of shells in blood; and I say [DOT]that, owing to dereliction of duty on the part of the Shell Committee time has been lost, and, owing to that time so lost, battles have been lost, thousands of lives nave been sacrificed, victories have not been carried to a final issue, the enemy has not been pursued as he retreated, and the war has thus been prolonged, rl is upon wiose xacts with their terrible consequences that, from my seat in Parliament, I to-day arraign the Shell Committee, that I hold the Government responsible, and that I ask for an investigation.


Rt.   H@: Mr. Speaker, my right hon.
friend, in the midst of the greatest struggle wiuii winch this "Empire nas ever been confronted, has this afternoon, upon scraps from newspapers which he has read to the House, demanded an inquiry into the operation of the committee known as the Shell Committee. I shall refer him a little later to some of his own advice to the House of Commons as to how a member who desires to make a charge should shape his course, a course which has not been taken by my right hon. friend this afternoon. It is one

thing for a newspaper to make observations with regard to public matters, and it is another thing for a gentleman holding such a position as my right hon. friend holds in this House and in this country to adopt those observations and to place them before the House of Commons upon no better foundation than that which he has submitted. Before I conclude my remarks this afternoon, I expect to be in a position to contradict every substantial allegation that he has made, out of the mouths of those who certainly know much more about these matters than he does.
Let me say in the first place that it would have been well for my right hon. friend, a gentleman holding a high position in this country, first as Prime Minister and now as leader of a great party in opposition, to have regard to what is due from public men under conditions such as those which confront the Empire at the present time. Not many weeks ago the Prime Minister of Great Britain had occasion to deal with such a case, although the person to whom his observations were directed was not one who held the position of a party leader or who had been .a Prime Minister. This is what Mr. Asquith said recently:
I am bound to add in that connection, with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Brentford, to which I also listened, about aviation, I cannot at all agree that because those statements have appeared in newspapers that he, as a member of Parliament in a responsible position of authority, should think that is sufficient justification for making those statements here. A statement made in this House goes out to the world with a very different amount of authority from anything that occurs in the press.
My right hon. friend told us that this committee has never measured up to the task which was set before it; that it has absolutely failed in its attempt to organize the industries of this country for the production of munitions; that its work has been a disgrace to the people of Canada; and that it has never given any satisfaction from first to last. Under these allegations, which are about all that my right hon. friend put forward-and, as I have already observed, he rested any charge that he made, upon mere newspaper rumour-I think it desirable to give the history of how that committee was formed and to make clear the appreciation of its work which was entertained by the British Ministry of Munitions after full consideration and examination.
It has been very glibly said by some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that the production of shells a,nd the manufacture of munitions is the easiest thing in
the world. Why, they tell us that they knew before the war broke out-though they never took the country into their confidence-that these munitions could easily be produced in this country by our ordinary commercial industries. I think it worth while to read to the House a statement which I obtained on Saturday last from a man, who, I believe, ranks second to no man on this continent in ability and experience as a mechanical engineer, a man who from the first has had to do with the production of these munitions in Canada, and whose name, if I should disclose it to the House, would, certainly command the respect and confidence of every hon. member. He gave me this statement with regard to the work accomplished by the old Shell Committee:
The Shell Committee undertook to introduce an industry that was absolutely novel to the manufacturers of the country, and one which they had all been led to believe involved great difficulties and required long experience before successful results could be expected. Many of these difficulties were real, and much careful work and investigation was necessary before they were overcome. Munitions had previously been manufactured by armament concerns, or Government arsenals, who, in the majority of cases, made every part of the work and controlled all the various processes involved therein.
The Shell Committee, in dividing up the various classes of work between a number of different concerns, each group of which was required to specialize in some particular part of the work, and only required to investigate the methods employed on that part, did more than make a convenient arrangement-it really made a far-seeing and courageous invention. No attempt at subdividing work among a large number of independent factories, and subsequently assembling the completed parts in another group of factories, has ever been attempted on anything approaching the scale on which Canadian munition work has been successfully carried out. Even with the work subdivided into a number of portions, each portion required much study and experiment before it was finally produced in a satisfactory manner and sufficient quantity.
The shrapnel shell, on which the committee originally began work, requires special steel for its construction. This steel requires special treatment in its manufacture, and the various component parts, bullets, sockets, pellet tubes and powder cups, all presented problems in their manufacture in large quantities, and in many cases are required to comply with specifications which were not drafted to obtain a commercial article, but one of specially high quality. There is little doubt that the designs and specifications of English ammunition, in common with those of other nations, were not developed with any idea of its being made in locomotive shops, bridge works or harvester factories in enormous quantities, but represented the refinement desirable for the most efficient results when carefully made by expert workmen in shops with long experience.
Fortunately the Dominion Arsenal at Que-bee, although of only a small capacity, had for


Mr. MACDONALD:: What is the date of that interview?


Robert Laird Borden: It was giver: out on the 31st of October, and published in the press on the 1st of November, the day on which Air. Thomas left Canada for New York on his way to Great Britain. Before Mr. Thomas left, Mr. Lionel Hichens had arrived, accompanied by the Hon. R. H Brand, a gentleman who is a member of a financial firm in Great Britain and of very great experience in financial matters. Mr. Hichens has had wide administrative expen ence and is at the head of the great firm or company of Cammell, Laird & Company in England. Both Mr. Hichens and Mr. Brand, as I understand, co-operated with and assisted, AIt. Thomas before he left. A11 the records of the Shell Committee were open to Mr. Hichens, to Mr. Brand, and to their assistants while they were here. After Mr. Thomas left, his full authority to represent the Alinistry of Munitions devolved upon Air. Hichens, who conferred with me respecting the re-constitution of the committee, which bad not been carried out by Mr. Thomas on account of the many duties that had pressed upon him during his visit to Canada and in connection with his work in the United States. Mr. Hichens, of course, received his authority direct from the Alinistry of Alunitions, to be exercised in Canada as soon as Mr. Thomas gave up his work here. When Mr. Thomas left, Mr. Hichens was invested with the full authority which had previously been vested in Air. Thomas. So far as the Imperial Munitions Board is concerned, I am at perfect liberty to disclose to the House what I had to do with its constitution.
Mr. Hichens came to me shortly before the Imperial Munitions Board was constituted and submitted the names of certain gentlemen who, as he understood, from a personal interview, were willing to become members of the new board. He proposed to retain, and did retain, upon the board some of the members of the Shell Commit-

tee. He told me that he proposed to appoint Mr. J. W. Flavelle, of Toronto, as chairman of the new committee, which was to be called the Imperial Munitions Board; and he came to me for the purpose of asking whether I would be willing to relieve Mr. Flavelle from his duties as a member of the Economic and Development Commission in order that he might undertake the duties of chairman of the Munitions Board. I was reluctant to have Mr. Flavelle leave the Economic and Development Commission, but at Mr. Hichens' earnest request, I consented that he should give up his duties in that capacity and undertake the duties of chairman of the new Munitions Board. The other gentlemen whom Mr. Hichens suggested were of course perfectly agreeable to me; and he only asked my assistance in one respect. He asked me to give him the name of a gentleman from the province of Quebec, of French descent, and to suggest a member of the board for the province of British Columbia. I made inquiries and gave him the name of Mr. Dawson of British Columbia, a gentleman whom I did not then personally know, but of whom I had the very best possible report. From the province of Quebec I gave him the name of Mr. Vaillancourt, whose name had been submitted to me by my colleagues from that province, and who, as I understand, is a gentleman eminently worthy to discharge the duties which would devolve upon him as a member of the board.
That is the history of the institution of the Shell Committee, and the history of the constitution of the Imperial Munitions Board. As to neither of these matters has the Government anything whatever to conceal. The facts are for the people of this country. Our duty, in so far as the Shell Committee was concerned, was to select men of good reputation, of experience, of ability, men who could efficiently discharge the duties which would devolve upon them, and we believe we did that. Having done that, we left it to them, under the direction of the British Government, to organize as best they could, the industries of Canada for the purpose of producing munitions of war. When my right hon. friend talks about deliveries amounting to only two per cent, may I inform him that I have here the written statement, dated the 14th January last, of Mr. J. W. Flavelle, chairman of the Munitions Board, who uses this language:
Of the above $300,000,000-
fSir Robert Borden.]
That was the amount of the orders at that time.
*-products to the value of $100,000,000 have already been exported and paid for.
I ask him to contrast that with the aspersions which he has cast upon the manufacturers of Canada in saying that they had produced only two per cent of the amount of the orders which they undertook to fulfil. I am informed by a gentleman in whose words I have the greatest possible confidence, a gentleman who has returned from Great Britain within the past two weeks, and who had the privilege of an interview with Mr. Lloyd George shortly before he left Great Britain, that Mr. Lloyd George told him that the shells from Canada were, in deliveries second to none, in price as low as any and in quality as good as any produced within this Empire.
Mr. Thomas made certain observations in the reported interview which I have read to the House about the wide distribution of orders. I had some discussion in regard to that matter with Mr. Thomas whilst he was here. I think it is perfectly conceivable that if Mr. Thomas, or the Shell Committee, or the Imperial Munitions Board, might select three or four of the large organizations of this country, sometimes referred to by my hon. friends on the other side of the House as trusts, and by tender or competition confine the production of munitions to them alone, these large establishments with their enormous plants, with their capacity for turning out a very great production, with their experience and with thei'r organization might be able to shut out all the smaller industries of Canada. I have no doubt the work might have been concentrated perhaps by the Shell Committee, or the Imperial Munitions Board, in the hands of three or four of the very largest concerns in this country. I told Mr. Thomas frankly that I thought it would be a mistake for him, or the Shell Committee, or the Imperial Munitions Board, to do anything of the kind, and I am perfectly prepared to defend the position which I then took either in this House or elsewhere. I thought that to have ignored the communities of this country, which, under the depression brought on by the war, or at all events, very greatly accentuated toy the war, had thousands of men out of employment, and which had sent to the front as large contingents of their gallant young men as other communities in Canada, would have

been a mistake on the part of the Shell Committee, the Imperial Munitions Board or the British Government itself. I am prepared, as far as I am concerned, to say that the Imperial Munitions Board and the Shell Committee as well, in distributing these orders throughout the country, were acting wisely and that the British Government were acting wisely in authorising them to do it.
Mr. Hichens, in disclosing to me the constitution of the Imperial Munitions Board, wrote me >a letter. It has been partly published in the press. I-shall read it to the House in view of the allegations which my right hon. friend has seen fit to make and the aspersions which he has seen fit to cast not only upon the Shell Committee itself, but uipon the manufacturing industries of Canada which were employed by this committee. The letter is as follows :
Chateau Laurier,
Ottawa, November 29, 1915.
The Right Honourable
Sir Robert L. Borden, G.C.M.G., etc.,
*	Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-I think it may be convenient if I place on record a brief narrative of the circumstances since my arrival in Canada leading up to the changes which are now to be made in the constitution of the purchasing agency for munitions of war in Canada on behalf of the British Government. These changes, which are the logical consequence of the altered conditions, have been approved by H. R. H. the Governor General and your Government, and I am therefore authorized by the Minister of Munitions to announce that they will come into force as from November 30, 1915.
Since my arrival in Canada on October 26, as representative in this country of the Minister of Munitions in succession to Mr. D. A. Thomas, my colleague Mr. R. H. Brand and myself have, * at the request of yourself and General Sir Sam Hughes, concentrated our attention upon this problem of adaptation to the changed conditions. That a re-organization was necessary to meet the altered circumstances was generally recognized by all those most intimately connected with the Shell Committee, and General Bertram was among the first to call our attention to the fact, and to suggest that the new problems of administration on a greatly increased scale required for their proper direction an expanded organization
The Shell Committee, which was appointed in September, 1914, by the Minister of Militia and Defence, to deal with the munitions orders placed in Canada by the Imperial Government has, I think, met with remarkable success in dealing with a difficult task.
It is an astonishing thing that the work of the Shell Committee was so satisfactory to both these representatives of the British Government, and yet is so unsatisfactory to my right hon, friend, who probably does not know a hundredth part of what these two men knew who personally investigated
the whole matter for several weeks. If we are to place these two opinions before the people of Capada, I wonder which they will choose: that of the men who investigated the work of the Shell Committee from day to day for weeks and even months, or the opinion of my right hon. friend, who rises in this House and bases, his aspersions on the Shell Committee upon nothing higher or stronger than newspaper rumours. (Continuing to read):
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 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 of the early efforts of firms of the highest standing.
Speaking generally, I think it may be said that the earlier difficulties have now been overcome, and the work of the administering body in Canada has entered upon a new phase. In the first place, it has been realized that shells can be successfully and profitably manufactured in Canada, and, instead of holding back, there is now a keen competition on the part of manufacturers to secure contracts. Secondly, the volume of orders placed in Canada has grown at. a very rapid rate, and the output both of shell cases and component parts has increased so largely as to require a -more highly organized department to ensure efficient co-ordination and prompt deliveries. Thus, from a small beginning, the activities of the Shell Committee have grown with startling rapidity and now embrace the administration of funds more than twice as large as the annual revenues of the Dominion Government. It is obvious, therefore, that the original organization needs amendment to conform to the actualities of to-day.
I should like to take this opportunity to point out, after a careful inquiry into the facts, that the Shell Committee has been subjected to much unfair criticism. It was, as I have said, appointed to deal with the orders of modest proportions, and from the nature of the case was intended to be educative rather than administrative. It was natural, therefore, that it should contain an infusion of steel manufacturers, whose advice and experience were necessary to the proper development of the new industry. The measure of their success can be gauged by the remarkable results achieved. The facts speak for themselves. There are now some 320 firms in Canada manufacturing shells or their component parts, and in the short space of fourteen 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. For example: copper has hitherto been produced in the form of " matte " and sent to the United States for refining. Arrangements have now been made

for the refining to be undertaken in Canada, and a new plant will shortly be in operation which will give an impetus to the copper mining industry of the country. Similarly, Canadian zinc ores which contain about equal quantities of lead and zinc, have hitherto been shipped from Canada in the raw state. Owing to the demand created by the war orders and the encouragement of the Shell Committee, the electric refining of zinc is now being developed in Canada on a commercial scale, and this, together with the derivative industries connected therewith, will, there is good reason to believe, now be established on a permanent basis in Canada. Brass will also shortly be made in the country on a considerable scale. A great impetus has likewise been given to the manufacture of explosives: nitro-cellulose powder, tri-nitrotoluol and sabulite are now being produced on a large scale and at moderate prices. Canadian competition has resulted in keeping down the price of these commodities, and has enabled the Shell Committee to effect large economies. Important fields of industry have thus been opened up in Canada as a result of the activities of the Shell Committee. It would be outside the scope of this letter to suggest that the time has come when attention should be paid to the question how these new industries and those derivative from them, which owe their origin to the great demand for munitions of war, can best be developed and encouraged so as to form a permanent part of the industrial fabric of Canada, but no doubt your Government is fully alive to the situation. As a result of the war industries set in motion under the auspices of General Sir Sam Hughes and the Shell Committee, an army of some 100,000 skilled mechanics and workmen has been maintained and trained up in Canada. They are a permanent asset to the country, and the skill which they have acquired will be of lasting benefit after the war in building up the commercial prosperity of Canada.
These far-reaching and 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 enable them to sustain. Perhaps I may be allowed to add also that these striking results owe their inception and a large measure of their development to the practical zeal 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 past fourteen months been carrying on a work of the most exacting and strenuous nature, and that they have fulfilled their task well. Tiie changes, therefore, which are now being made are the logical development of their work-the necessary superstructure upon the foundations laid by them.	1
As explained to me by yourself and General Sir Sam Hughes, it Is the wish of your Government that, since in actual practice all munitions orders for the Imperial Government are placed by the British Ministry of Munitions with the Shell Committee, there should be a direct relation between the purchasing agency and that department which, since the establishment of the Shell Committee, has been constituted to deal with munition supplies, and that this logical business connection should be given effect to now that the extended scope of the functions of the committee make a re-organization imperative. ' In order to carry out your wishes and to make it clear that the purchasing agency is administratively independent of 
the Canadian Government, the members of the existing ^ shell Committee have tendered their resignations to the Minister of Militia, by whom they were appointed, and a new board entitled the " Imperial Munitions Board " has been constituted by the British Minister of Munitions as from November 30, 1915, to deal with such purchases of munitions supplies as may from time to time be entrusted to it by the said minister. All the rights and powers heretofore vested in the Shell Committee, together with all the moneys at the committe's credit, have been transferred to and vested in the "Imperial Munitions Board," and the Shell Committee has been relieved from all liabilities, which will be assumed by the new board acting on behalf of the Minister of Munitions.
The " Imperial Munitions Board " has therefore been appointed by and is responsib e to the British Minister of Munitions. At the same time, however, it is clearly of vital importance that the support and co-operation of the Canadian Government should be maintained, and that there should be some " nexus " between the Imperial Government, the Canadian Government and the purchasing agency. The Minister of Militia will in any case, I know, use all his influence to support the development of munitions supplies in Canada. But it is very valuable that there should be a recognized continuity in the work, and that it should be clearly seen that the new hoard will receive from him the same encouragement and support that has contributed so materially to the success of the Shell Committee. At the request, therefore, of the Minister of Munitions, General the Honourable Sir Sam Hughes, K.C.B., Minister of Militia and Defence, has accepted the position of Honorary President of the Imperial Munitions Board.
The following gentlemen, with their consent, have been appointed members of the board :
J. W. Flavelle, Esq., (Chairman with executive and administrative powers).
Gen. Alex. Bertram, (Deputy Chairman).
Hon. Colonel David Carnegie.
G. H. Dawson, Esq.
C. B. Gordon. Esa.
J. A. Vaillancourt, Esq.
E. R. Wood, Esq.
Mr. J. W. Flavelle has with great public spirit undertaken to make the work of the board his primary consideration, and he has made the necessary arrangements to this end.
I am glad also to be able to tell you that Mr. C. B. Gordon, of Montreal, has kindly promised to devote a great part of his time to the work, and I am confident that his wide business experience and reputation will contribute largely to the success of the undertaking.
I take this opportunity of giving public recognition on behalf of the Minister of Munitions to the valuable services rendered by the members of the Shell Committee in developing the resources of Canada for the production of munitions of war. They have been willing to lend their services during the period of development, when their experience, which has been freely given, has been of the greatest assistance in overcoming the initial difficulties. But these have now been surmounted, and the justification no longer exists for a board of experts. At the same time it would be a great loss if the wide experience they have acquired were not made available to the new " Imperial Munitions Board," and I attach great value to the assurance they have generously given that they

will be willing to afford every assistance in their power to the new board.
I have the honour to be. sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) W. L. Hichens.
A good deal has been said about the high prices paid for shells in Canada, and hon. gentlemen in this House and journals in the country have spoken of the exactions of Canadian manufacturers from the British Government through the Shell Committee.


William Pugsley: We never put it that way; it was the folly of the Shell 'Committee we spoke of.
Sir ROiBERIT BORDEN: My hon. friend is not the only hon. member of this House. He need not take upon himself such a character of universality as he is attributing to himself at this moment. I did not make any particular allusion to him, but was speaking quite generally. I put to Mir. Hichens the same inquiry as to his appreciation of the gentlemen who constitute the Shell Committee as. that which I had put to Mr. Thomas, and I received from him precisely title same answer as to the integrity, honour, and good faith of all the members of that committee. He stated in the most unqualified terms that with regard to them he had not one word to say beyond this, that he believed them to be men of the highest honour and of perfect integrity, men who had, to the utmost of their ability, discharged what appeared to them to be a patriotic duty.
After endeavouring to get some comparisons of the prices paid for shells in Canada and elsewhere, I wrote to Mr. Hichens on the subject. Although my right hon. friend, has not said very much about this phase of the question, it is my duty to say a few words in regard to it, on account of what has been said here and elsewhere. Pn the 6th of December, 1915, I wrote to Mr. Hichens this letter:
Dear Mr. Hichens,-I enclose a copy of a letter I have received from the Minister of Finance. Is it possible to get some authoritative statement as to the comparative prices being paid for machining and forging shells in England, Canada and the United States?
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) R. L. Borden.
This is Sir Thomas White's letter addressed to myself:
Ottawa, December 4, 1915.
Dear Sir Robert,-I have a letter this morning from the President of the Dominion Steel Foundry Company, of Hamilton, who states,
among other things, that prices paid in England for machining and forging are from tep to fifty per cent greater than in Canada and that the present prices here average lower than prices being paid in United States. He states further that the cost of labour and of raw material is increasing daily, while the price of shells is going down. I think it advisable as soon as you have authentic information on the subject that a statement should be given to the press as to the comparative prices being paid for machining and forging shells, in England, Canada and United, States. Such a statement would go a long way towards meeting adverse criticism of certain of the press and in vindicating the work of the Shell Committee.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) W. T. White.
Mr. Hichens replied to my letter on the 8th day of December as follows:
Dear Sir Robert,-With reference to your letter of December 6th, I regret that I have not got the necessary figures for the purpose of making a comparison between English, Canadian and American prices for shells. I suggest that you write to Mr. Lloyd George asking him to give you a full report in regard to these comparative prices, since there has been a certain amount of criticism of the prices paid in Canada, and since you are anxious to know the real facts of the position. It would be better, I think, that this should come officially from the Ministry of Munitions at home, and I think that, speaking generally, they will be able to satisfy you that Canadian prices have not been unreasonable.
I have seen it suggested in the press that there should be a full inquiry into the doings of the Shell Committee, and I hope it will not be found necessary to give way to this demand. Personally, I am entirely satisfied that the Shell Committee have carried out their work well, and I feel that such inquiry would merely hamper the work of the new Munitions Board. They have a great deal to do, and I should be sorry if their activities were interfered with in this way. There is also perhaps something in the point that the Shell Committee was acting for the Imperial Government, and that any enquiry should be made rather on their instruction or at their request, than by the authority of the Canadian Government.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) W. D. Hichens.
As my ihon. friend smiles at that, I may say that that letter was written to me without any suggestion as to the concluding paragraph, whigh I had never discussed with Mr. Hichens.


William Pugsley: What I was smiling at was rather that Ihe should presume to advise the Prime Minister as to the desirability of holding an investigation.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose Mr. Hichens, being responsible for the establishment of the Imperial Munitions Board, was desirous, as he expressed it, that its work should not be hampered, and a little later on in the course of my remarks I

shall give in regard to that some information which will, perhaps, commend itself to my right hon. friend.
I sent the letter of the Minister of Finance to Sir George Perley, who mac^e application to the Minister of Munitions, and, as the reply which we received was marked "confidential and secret," we asked for liberty to publish it, and the letteT which we received thereupon from Sir Herbert Llewellyn Smith, Secretary of the Ministry of Munitions, is as follows: January 20, 1916.
Sir,-In reply to your letter of the 13 th January on the subject of prices paid for shells, I am directed by the Minister of Munitions to inform you that it is the general rule not to give publicity to contract prices, and that consequently Mr. Lloyd George would prefer that the letter referred to should not be published.
I am, however, to add that there would be no objection to Sir Robert Borden making use of any part of the information so furnished, if in his discretion he should think such a course desirable.
I am, etc.,
(Sgd.) H. Llewellyn Smith.
I have made some extracts from the portions of that confidential letter which do not set forth prices. I am ready to read them to the House; I am also perfectly ready to give to the House, not the prices, but an exact comparison between the prices paid in Great Britain and in the United States and those paid in Canada; doing that, not by stating the actual prices paid, but by fixing the British price at the figure 1 and the Canadian and American prices at corresponding figures.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Minister of Militia and Defence, speaking in this House on the 26th of January, gave prices of many kinds of shells and parts thereof as of the 8th day of December last. Will the Prime Minister say whether or not those prices, which will be found on page 301 of Hansard, are the same as those contained in his memorandum?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not going 'to say anything about that, because I re'ally have not compared them; but those portions of the letter which do not contain actual prices I am perfectly willing to read to the House, and I am also willing to give comparative prices paid for shells in England, Canada, and the United States. This memorandum gives a general comparison of the prices first when they were high everywhere and then at a considerably later date when they were lower. It is known here, as everywhere else, that the

prices paid for shells are very much less now in all three countries than they were at first.


William Pugsley: When I addressed the
House on a former occasion I dealt to some extent with the question of prices, and I will do so again, but I do not think that my right hon. friend can properly quote from a letter without laying it on the table. My right hon. friend purposes, not to give the prices, but to make a sort of algebraic comparison.


Robert Laird Borden: In that case I
will not read the letter; but I can at least do this: I can state that I have the best of information, that of the British Ministry of Munitions, that prices in Great Britain were very much higher in the first instance than they were afterwards. It is equally true that prices in Great Britain varied as between different firms and according to conditions on which different contracts were made.
The production of some of these shells was familiar to certain manufacturers in Great Britain, 'but unfamiliar to others, and the prices accorded to the manufacturers who were not previously familiar with t'he business of shell-making, were considerably higher than the prices accorded to those who had previous experience, and who, therefore, could make the shells at a smaller cost. I would like, also, to point out that manufacturers in Canada, besides having to equip themselves with plant, had to become familiar with the process of manufacturing. Generally speaking, the prices paid in Canada compare very favourably, indeed, with those paid in Great Britain and the United! States, according to the authoritative information which has been placed in my hands by the British Ministry of Munitions. I believe that the prices paid for shrapnel shells in the first instance were a little higher in Canada than those paid in Great Britain to firms who had no previous experience, but they were a little lower than the prices paid in the United States to firms having no previous experience. I have the same authority for my statement when I say, so far as the 18-pounder high explosive shell is concerned, which was taken up by the Canadian Shell Committee after they and the Canadian manufacturers had had some experience with the shrapnel shell, that the prices paid in Canada compared most favourably with the prices paid in Great Britain and

in tlhe United States. Further, the Canadian Shell Committee, in one of the latest contracts which it made, as I am informed on the same unimpeachable authority, succeeded in getting the 4 -5-inch high explosive shell, together with the cartridge case and primer, for about the same price that is being paid in the United Kingdom for the shell alone. That result is, of course, regarded as most satisfactory by the Imperial authorities. I say further, that if we take either the highest price paid in Canada or the lowest price paid in Canada for the shells of larger sizes-that i's to say, the 6-inch high explosive shell, the 8-inch shell, and the 9-2-inch shell-the highest price paid in Canada is lower than the highest price paid in Great Britain, and is lower than the highest price paid in the United, States in one instance, and very little higher in two other instances.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is it not true that one of the objections raised by Mr. Thomas was that the Canadian prices were too high?


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Thomas said they were too high. And Mr. Lloyd George has shown, in his address in the House of Commons, that the price of the 18-pounder shrapnel had been reduced 40 per cent in price in Great Britain and the 'howitzer shells 30 per cent. He said, also, that very high prices were paid in Great Britain in the first instance. I venture to say that if an investigation were ordered it would be found that for the 18-pounder high explosive shell, the highest price paid in Canada was 11 per cent lower than the highest price paid in Great Britain, and very much lower than the highest price paid in the United States. It will be found further that for the 4-5-inch shell the highest price paid in Canada was 17 per cent lower than the highest price paid in Great Britain, and 15 per cent lower than the highest price paid in the United States. One contract given in the United States was very much higher, but I exclude it as it was a single order and given for special delivery. For the 6-inch high explosive shell, the highest price paid in Canada was 17 per cent lower than the highest price paid in Great Britain, and 9 per cent lower than the highest price paid in the United States. For the 8-inch shell, the highest price paid in Canada was 26 per cent lower than the highest price paid in Great Britain, and 2 per cent higher than the highest price in the United States. For
the 9-2-inch shell, the highest price paid in Canada was 16 per cent lower than the highest price paid in Great Britain, and one per cent higher than the highest price paid in the United States.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am informed on
reliable authority that the position taken by Mr. Thomas was that Canadian prices were higher than those in the United States.


Robert Laird Borden: I am giving to the House information on my own responsibility as a member of the House and as a minister of the Crown-information which comes to me as authentic and which I believe to be absolutely correct.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I desire to ask a question for information; I am perfectly honest about this. Can the Prime Minister tell us when the first order was given in Canada for the 6-inch shell, the 8-inch shell, and 9 -2 inch high explosive shell?


Robert Laird Borden: I really do not know. I think it was about six months ago.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Can the right hon.
gentleman get that information?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, if it will add to the happiness of my hon. friend, I will try to get that information for him.


William Pugsley: The time of the giving of orders would be important.


Robert Laird Borden: The time of any order, of course, is important. I could go on and give figures for the lowest prices paid. For the 4.5 inch high-explosive shell, the lowest price paid in Canada was 22 per cent lower than the lowest price paid in Great Britain, while the lowest price paid in the United States was 2 per cent higher than that paid in Great Britain. For the 6-inch high-explosive shell, the lowest price paid in Canada was 4 per cent lower than the lowest price paid in Great Britain, and the same as the lowest in the United States. For the 8-inch shell, the lowest price paid in Canada was 6 per cent lower than the lowest price paid in Great Britain, while the lowest price paid in the United States was 14 per cent lower than that paid in Great Britain. For the 9.2-inch shell, the lowest price paid in Canada was 6 per cent lower than the lowest price paid in Great Britain while the lowest price paid in United States was 17 per cent lower than that paid in Great Britain.

Now, considering the industrial development of Canada, considering the absolute inexperience of our manufacturers in the production of munitions of war, I venture to say that under the organization of the Shell Committee, those manufacturers deserve every possible praise for what they have accomplished, and that the aspersions cast upon them, whether by my right hon. friend or the press of this country, are absolutely undeserved in view of the results that have been attained.. *
At six o'clock the House took recess. *
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Raymond Conliffe Savage.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Harry Lome White Cunningham.-Mr. T. J. Stewart.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, for the appointment of a special committee to inquire into purchase of shells, etc., resumed.
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I had been dealing with comparative prices in Great Britain, the United States, and Canada. Not much more remains to be said on this subject. To sum up, our prices at first for 18-pound shrapnel, with which we began in Canada, were slightly higher than the prices in Great Britain and slightly lower than those in the United States. The reason for this is perfectly simple. We had then no experience in the manufacture of shells in Canada, and there were no continuation orders allowed for. At that time it was not believed in Great Britain, here of elsewhere that the war would last so long as it has unfortunately lasted, and so continuation orders were not given. There was no assurance that there would be further orders, and the manufacturers who undertook this work and who had to equip plants with machinery for the purpose necessarily had to demand higher prices than they would have demanded if they had been assured of orders extending over a year or 18 months. Upon information given to me from the highest authoritative quarter I assert that in respect of all other shells produced in Canada such as 18-pound high explosives, 4.5's and all other 
large shells, the production of which we began last summer, the prices in Canada
have been, on the whole, lower than in either of the other two countries I have mentioned. In 90 per cent of the cases the prices in Canada have been at least as low as those paid by the British Government in any other part of the world. I also affirm, from equally authoritative information, that while here, as in Great Britain, the deliveries have not been up to what was anticipated, nevertheless they are at the present time very good indeed, and I am confident they will compare favourably with those made in the United States. I have the warrant of a very high authority, a representative of the British Government in the United States at the present time, for the assertion which I am now making. So, before we begin to belittle our own country in that regard, I think it would be just as well for us to consider what has been done by other countries. My right hon. friend forgets that Mr. Lloyd George, in his speech delivered in the British House of Commons on the 20th day of December , last, stated that last spring, when he undertook his duties as Minister of Munitions, deliveries in Great Britain were only 16 per cent of what they ought to be, and that under the Ministry of Munitions between that date and the 20th of December last deliveries had increased from 16 per cent to 80 per cent. They had not reached the high-water mark of anticipation even during the period from March, when he took charge, until December, when he made his speech. There are one or two quotations which I should like to read from that speech. In speaking of prices, Mr. Lloyd George said:
The prices were fixed for gun ammunition when the need was very urgent. There was no time to bargain, and that is true both of the War Office and of the Ministry of Munitions. New firms were also taken on, but at first the actual cost of production of unaccustomed and inexperienced firms is very considerably higher than that of experienced firms, so that for one reason or another prices were high.
Then, speaking of the effort made by the Ministry of Munitions to reduce prices, he said:	,
Therefore it has not yet come to full fruition, but I will just give the House an indication of the saving which will be effected by this means. The cost of the ammunition for 18-pounders, which is a very considerable item, running into millions, has been reduced by 40 per cent, and the cost of ammunition for 4.5 howitzers has been reduced by 30 per cent, since the report of this Committee, and all the new contracts are based on these prices.

Further on he said:
Contracts are being placed very largely through these local munitions committees. At first it was always necessary to let contracts at fairly high prices, because there were unaccustomed firms coming in, and they would not make much out of it, although the prices were high.
The condition which Mr. Lloyd George here sets out as prevailing in Great Britain at that time prevailed to a more intense degree in Canada, where we had had absolutely no experience in the production of ammunition, except a slight experience in the Dominion Arsenal at Quebec, and it ill becomes any citizen of this country to make an attack on the efforts that have been made in Canada during the past 18 months. I think the efforts have had a splendid success, one of which Canadians on the whole have every reason to be proud. I do not pretend for one moment that the Shell Committee did not make mistakes. I do not believe that any of its members would pretend that that committee did not make mistakes. To say otherwise would be to declare that they were infallible, and they know that they are fallible, as all the rest of us are; but I do say that the enlisting of the manufacturers of Canada, reluctantly at first, to undertake these great operations, and the splendid and conspicuous success which it has proved to be in the past 18 months, deserves commendation and not the condemnation of any man in this House. I have under my hand and could read the record of what one company did in about four and a half months in Canada, since some very large orders were placed with it in October or November last. The record would surprise this House. You would hardly believe that it could have been accomplished i,n Canada; and yet my right hon. friend says that the object of his motion is to probe and remddy conditions. Does he propose to attack the Imperial Munitions Board? I venture to think that that board is doing splendid service for Canada, as the Shell Committee did. How is he going to probe and remedy conditions in respect to the Shell Committee, since that committee is functus officio, and has handed over its duties to the Imperial Munitions Board, upon which some of the members of the Shell Committee still sit? Probe and remedy conditions, he says. I venture to say that if I handed in this statement of what one company has accomplished my right hon. friend would not say, nor would anyone else, that any board
could improve on the record which it contains. It is a remarkable and splendid record; and so I say that, on the yrhole, my right hon. friend has not made any case 'for investigation, except on hearsay information which he has derived from newspapers, and upon which, indeed, he does not base any charge on his own behalf.
So far as the Imperial Munitions Board is concerned, the Government of Canada proposes to co-operate with that board precisely as it co-operated with the Shell Committee. If the Imperial Munitions Board comes to the Government of Canada, and desires us to assist them or to co-operate with them, or makes any representation to us, the object of which is to increase production of munitions in Canada, or to give greater opportunities to develop the resources of this country, we shall co-operate with the Imperial Munitions Board precisely as we co-operated with the Shell Committee. In doing that, I am sure we shall be adopting a course to which my right hon. friend, or any other member of the House, can take no exception.
My right -hon. friend speaks of the Shell Committee having handed out contracts to middlemen without any effort at all to ascertain whether or not the persons to whom the contracts were handed were in a position to fulfil them. In other words, I suppose my right hon. friend is bringing a charge either of favoritism or of negligence or of political influence against the Shell Committee; his statements in that regard were so vague that I really do not know what it was he intended precisely to suggest. He spoke of a patronage list. If he desires to suggest or insinuate that there was any patronage list in a political sense, or that the members of this Government interfered with the placing of those orders, then I am in a position to give a most emphatic contradiction to my right hon. friend. Never, from first to last, was there the slightest attempt to exercise political influence over the Shell Committee; on the contrary, I have had repeated complaints from political friends throughout the country that gentlemen of the opposite political faith were going to the Shell Committee and procuring contracts for their constituents and friends, which Conservative members of Parliament and other Conservatives throughout the country could not procure. There are gentlemen on

the other side of the House within the sound of my voice who know that I am speaking the truth in that regard, and last but not least among them is my right hon. friend himself. If I am not mistaken, he went to the Shell Committee with a friend or constituent and succeeded in securing a fairly good order for him.


Wilfrid Laurier: I deny that absolutely.


Robert Laird Borden: Did my right hon. friend not visit the Shell Committee with a friend?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes I went *with a friend, a constituent from Victoria-ville, in the county of Arthabaska. I was received by General Bertram, to whom I introduced tlie gentleman. I said to General Bertram: " I ho-pe there is no favouritism; I have simply come here to introduce this gentleman, and to tell you that he is quite capable to fulfil his contract."


Robert Laird Borden: I do not suppose that any other member of Parliament, if other members of Parliament went to the Shell Committee, did anything else. I can say to my right hon. friend that, if all reports are true, he was very much more successful with the Shell Committee than some Conservative members of Parliament, because I understand-I speak subject to correction-that the gentleman who accompanied my right hon. friend on his visit to the Shell Committee did succeed in getting a very substantial order .


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not what he told me. He told me that the order was not very substantial. As to what he wanted, I do not know.


Robert Laird Borden: It might not
have heen as large as my right hon. friend and his constituent desired, but his efforts were very much more successful than those of a good many Conservative members who went to the Shell Committee and got nothing. My right hon. friend did get something, and it strikes me that, having been so courteously received, and having been so successful on behalf of his friend and constituent, it is, to say the least, a case of black ingratitude that he should cast the reflections upon the Shell Committee which we heard this afternoon. After I had returned from Great Britain, I saw, or at least I heard, that there had been paraded in the Liberal press throughout the

country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, an alleged charge by Mr. D. A. Thomas, now Lord Rhondda, that the Government of Canada were using political influence in connection with the Shell Committee. That statement was published in the Montreal Herald, over which my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) presides, and it was published I think in every Liberal newspaper from one end of the country to the other.
Mr. 'GRAHAM: Was that an interview with Mr. Thomas, or a speech by him?


Robert Laird Borden: 
George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend referred to the Peterborough Review as having published one editorial article, and in reading the next page he referred to the Peterborough Examiner. Which one was it?


Robert Laird Borden: The Peterborough Examiner is the name of the paper mentioned in the letters.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend in
reading one letter quoted the Peterborough Review as wanting an inquiry and in the next breath it was the Peterborough Examiner. Which is it?


Robert Laird Borden: It is the Peterborough Examiner.
Now I come to a question which my right hon. friend dealt with in his endeavour to make it appear that it is an entirely proper thing for the Government to Refuse to bring down papers in respect to matters transacted by a department of the Government for the United Kingdom, whereas it is a highly improper thing to take the same course and to refuse an inquiry in respect to matters transacted by a committee acting directly for the British Government and under its direction. That is the point which my right hon. friend makes. Let us see just what his position was in 1903. The question came up then as to whether or not certain papers should be brought down in
respect, to business carried on and orders fulfilled by a department of the Government, of which he was the head, for the British Government. My hon. friend says that there is a great difference between this case and that case because that was a motion foT inquiry and this is a motion for cause. It seems to be a remarkable position, that, in respect to a matter as to which the papers cannot be brought down, nevertheless an inquiry can be had. That strikes one as a remarkable distinction. If the subject is a proper one for inquiry in this Parliament, one would suppose that it would be a proper thing to have the papers brought down in order that an inquiry might be founded upon them; at least, that appeals to my sense of what is logical and reasonable, although, apparently, it does not so appeal to my right hon. friend. What was the position which my right hon. friend took in 1903? He took this position, first, through his Finance Minister, who spoke for him in that regard, and next through his own lips. Mr. Fielding said:
For all expenditure of the public money of Canada, the ministers are accountable to this House and the House is entitled to every information, but this is an expenditure of Imperial money for which this Government is not accountable to this House.
Further on:
If this were the public money of the Dominion, my hon. friend's motion would be a proper one, and we would he bound to bring down a return showing how it was expended.
Further on:
The matter would he a proper one to he brought forward in the Parliament of Great Britain but not in this House.
Why? For the reason that the money was the money of the United Kingdom for which the ministers were accountable to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and this Parliament had therefore no right to inquire into its expenditure. Further on:
As the money expended was not that of the people of Canada, there is no ground on which this Government can be called to an account here for that expenditure.
And my right hon. friend himself said:
We have had no complaint from the British Government, and I therefore see no reason why this House should inquire into the expenditure of money which does not concern it.
Not only in this case have we had no complaint from the British Government, but we have had express statements from representatives of the British Government in this country that they are entirely satisfied with the work which the Shell Committee has done on their behalf.

There is another matter which I woulfl like to bring to the attention of the House and the attention of my right hon. friend: It was not during the Boer war, nor has it been during this war, the practice of the British Government to favour or to grant inquiries into such matters during the progress of the war. The subject came up during the Boer war. An inquiry was moved for in the British House of Commons. The question which arose and which had to be determined by the leaders on that occasion was not as to whether an inquiry should be held, because all agreed that an inquiry must be held, but as to whether or not that inquiry should be interjected into the middle of the war, or whether it should form part of a general inquiry into the conduct of the war to take place at its conclusion. This is what Mr. Balfour said on that subject:
Then comes the question of the date of the inquiry. It had better begin as soon as the war, to use the phrase of my right honourable. friend, is substantially over, and as soon as the necessary witnesses are obtainable. I hope that statement is sufficiently extensive and explicit.
Mr. Asquith, speaking in the same debate, said:
The Government promise that they will form part of the general inquiry which is to take place at the close of the war, and that the facts so far as they are ascertained, will thus be brought to the light of day. On that distinct assurance I think my honourable friend may be well content with the result he has achieved in initiating the debate and that he should not in accordance with the general feelings of the House proceed to a division.
So the motion for an inquiry was withdrawn not only at the request of Mr. Balfour, the leader of the Government, but at the request of Mr. Asquith, the leader of the Opposition. That had reference to a general inquiry in regard to matters in connection with the war. But later on the question was raised as to an inquiry more like that which my right hon. friend proposes here. A member asked whether an inquiry would be held into the hiring of transports, the prices paid, the length of the passages, tfie food supplied to the troops on the transports, and the question why the fast mail steamers subsidized by the Government were not requisitioned. Mr. Balfour answered that this would form part of the general inquiry to he held at the end of the war.


Wilfrid Laurier: What date is that?


Robert Laird Borden: 

we shall reimburse the British Government for these necessary supplies to our troops at the front. In some cases, perhaps, the prices charged to us may be higher and in other cases lower than the prices which we pay in this country. Does my right hon. friend propose that we should stop in the midst of this war and conduct a Parliamentary inquiry into the cost of all these articles for the purpose of ascertaining whether the British Government is charging us too much or too little? Why, I venture to think that my right hon. friend would not for one moment make a suggestion of that kind, and yet that is the course to which his motion points, if there is really any reason at all behind his motion, and I must confess that in my opinion there is really nothing behind it.
Upon all these considerations I greatly regret that my right hon. friend has seen fit to make the motion, and accompany it with the speech he has made to-day. As far as an investigation into the work of the Shell Committee is concerned, that investigation has been made to the extent desired by the British Government, first by Mr. Thomas, and next by Mr. Hichens. They expressed themselves as perfectly satisfied with the course the Shell Committee had taken and with the work which it had done.
Now, what course does the Government propose to take with regard to the motion which my right hon. friend has proposed to this House? As far as the Shell Committee is concerned-I shall speak afterwards of another matter-our proposal is this:	We
shall direct the attention of the British Government in detail to every charge, allegation and rumour brought up in this House or elsewhere by my right hon. friend or by any of his supporters with regard to the Shell Committee. We shall further inform the British Government that if an inquiry is thought advisable, we are prepared to co-operate with them to the fullest extent, and to issue any commission, take any proceedings, pass any legislation, and do any other act for the purpose of making that inquiry as full, thorough, and complete as they deem advisable. But without their consent or approval, we da not propose to enter upon an investigation or inquire into such expenditures by the British Government, especially as such an inquiry could not fail to interfere very seriously with the work carried on by the Imperial Munitions Board, which at present conducts a business involving the payment of not less than $5,000,000 per week.
c.Sir Robert Borden. ]
Such is our position with regard to that. As a matter of fact, during the last session of Parliament, for six weeks the .staff of the Department of Militia and Defence were prevented from carrying on their ordinary duties, and the interest of this country suffered because they were employed in doing nothing but attending the Public Accounts Committee and looking up the papers demanded by hon. gentlemen opposite. The business of this country in connection with the war thus practically stopped for six weeks; and so far as I am concerned, I do not intend, without, the express approval and sanction of the British Government, to stop the business of the Imperial Munitions Board. My right hon. friend with one breath tells us that munitions, more munitions, and still more munitions, are required at the front; and with the next he proposes a resolution that, if passed, could not fail to prevent the production of munitions in this country upon as great a scale as would be both possible and desirable.
I have something else to say to my right hon. friend. On many occasions in the past he has laid down in very plain language the rule with regard to making charges. In 1897, when a certain allegation was made in the House, he said ,to the then leader of the Opposition, Sir Charles Tupper:
If he will make a charge plain and substantial that we can understand, I will meet him, but I will have no cowardly insinuations in regard to that matter.
-He said on another occasion, in 1897, in reply to the late Mr. Davin:
If the hon. gentleman wishes to make a charge against any member of the Government, or any member of this House, there is a proper way to do so, and conform to the rules of the House, viz: to make a personal statement on his responsibility as a member of the House, conclude his statement with a charge, and that charge must then be investigated.
And he has used similar language in this House on various other occasions. I have his declarations under my hand, but I do not intend to weary the House with them. If, however, he or any of his followers has a charge to make against any member of the Government with respect to the Shell Committee or with respect to anything else, let him or his follower stand up in his place, and on his responsibility as a member, make that charge, and it will be investigated thoroughly and completely. The

Shell Committee is one thing; the Government's responsibility in connection with it is another. I thoroughly admit what responsibility we had with regard to the Shell Committee, namely, to appoint men of good Tepute, of high character, of experience, of recognized ability, and to co-operate with them so far as in us lay in order that they might do their best to develop the industries of this country for the production of munitions. But there is something else to foe said, and I repeat that, if my right hon. friend, or any of his followers, has any charge to make against a member of the Government in regard to any of these matters-let him make that charge in distinct and understandable terms, and he will have the investigation as soon as he so desires.
I regret to have detained the House at such great length with regard to this subject, but it is an important one, and it has , been much misrepresented in the press of Canada, and I think in this House to a very considerable extent. I therefore thought it my duty as head of the Government to make absolutely clear to this House and to tihe people of Canada just what the connection of the Government was with the Shell Committee, and what it is with the Imperial Munitions Board, and to make it clear, also, that, as far as either the Shell Committee or the Imperial Munitions Board is concerned, we have absolutely nothing to conceal and nothing to fear. If any investigation is sanctioned or approved by the British Government in regard to either the Shell Committee or the Imperial Munitions Board, we have mot the slightest objection, and we will assist and co-operate in every way. So far as our own affairs are concerned, 'SO far as the actions of the members of the Government are concerned, these stand upon a different basis, and as to these I shall be prompt to accept any challenge that my right hon. friend or any of his followers may see fit to make in this House.
.Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.): Air. Speaker, we have all listened with a great deal of interest and attention to the very weighty and sage remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister, and there is no question whatever that he has made his present position fairly clear, and his followers seem to accept it with the very best of good grace.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: It is sound reason.
96i


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The followers of my right hon. friend can swallow with wonderful grace anything which means putting on the gag in order to prevent the people of this country from getting the information to which they are entitled. My right hon. friend's followers will gracefully swallow anything which means to put on the lid,1 and keep it shut down tight in order to prevent information from leaking out.


William Humphrey Bennett: Rot.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My right hon. friend has made it very plain that there will be no investigation and no information given to the public with regard to the Shell Committee or the Imperial Munitions Board. Well, Sir, of course, he is ruler in his own house, and he seems to have a fairly-I was going to say servile; I would not use that word-loyal following.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And then I might use another adjective and say that he has a mighty docile following, because when the right hon. gentleman says, "Put on the lid," every hon. member behind him jumps on the lid and keeps it down.


An hon. MEMBER:: Cover it up with hay.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My right hon. friend says that when the British Government asks for an investigation into the Shell Committee, he is willing to grant it. He says that when the right hon. leader of the Opposition or any other hon. member on this side makes a specific charge against a member of the Government foe will grant an investigation into that. He says that when we make specific charges against any member of the old Shell Committee or the present Munitions Board he will grant an investigation info them. .


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Am I not quoting my right hon. friend correctly?


Robert Laird Borden: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Wherein am I wrong?


Robert Laird Borden: I am sorry it my hon. friend did not understand me. I said that, so far as the Shell Committee or the Imperial Munitions Board are concerned, whenever the British Government desired our co-operation in any investigation which they approved or sanctioned, we would give them that and use the

present powers of the Government, or any further powers conferred upon us by legislation, to make that inquiry complete, ample, and thorough.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did not my right hon. friend, just before he sat down, go so far as 'to say that if any member of this House preferred any specific charge against the Shell Committee or any member thereof-


Robert Laird Borden: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will leave it to Hansard. I say that my right hon. friend did say so, and Hansard will tell which is correct.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is mistaken.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My right hon. friend has no intention of allowing any investigation. He does not appreciate the position from which this matter has been approached by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House; or, if he does appreciate it, he will not accede to our request for an investigation. We are not making charges against the members of the Government; we do not say that members of the Government made a million or two or ten million dollars out of the operations of the Shell Committee. No one makes such a charge, and no one says that any member of the Shell Committee stole anything, although I will try, before I get through, to show that they made pretty big profits. I have no criminal charge to prefer against the members of the Shell Committee; but I suppose that unless I can go that far my right hon. friend will tell me that I have not complied with his requirements, and so cannot have an investigation. We stand on our sovereign rights as representing the people and demand an investigation of the expenditure of our money.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: Name
9 p.m. a dollar that-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is wrong with my hon. friend?


William Humphrey Bennett: Name a dollar of Canadian money that has been spent. [DOT]


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend has not been here lately, and I suppose he is trying to make up for lost time. Those of us who have been here and attending to our parliamentary duties can take this discussion in a quiet, businesslike way. But I will show my hon. friend a good many Canadian dollars spent before I am through

-I'll try to anyway. My hon. friend probably was not here when, early in the session, the Minister of Finance admitted, in reply to a question by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), that we were paying our full proportion of the cost of this war. We are going to pay for supplying the Canadian troops with ammunition, just as we pay for supplying them with clothes. - The Finance Minister has stated on more than one occasion that we are paying for these supplies out of the moneys raised in Canada by the internal loan. At the end of the war there will be an accounting with the Imperial Government and whatever proportion is ours to pay will have been paid already, and whatever proportion is not ours will come back from the British Government. Therefore, Sir, we are spending our own money. We have now, in all probability, about one twenty-fifth of the British troops at the front; before the war closes we may have one-fifteenth- and I hope we shall. We have in Canada three hundred munition factories, according to all the evidence, and we are told that there are three . thousand such factories in Great Britain. On that basis, we have one-tenth the productive power in munitions that they have, but probably our factories are not so great as theirs. At any rate, we haye a fairly large proportion of the burden of supplying munitions-and that is what we are talking about, the purchase by this old Shell Committee in Canada of munitions for the use of the British and Canadian troops. That being so, we are spending our own money, and this Opposition is only asking that which is the right of any Opposition, or of any representatives of the people, to investigate how our money has been expended. When Parliament meets every year a resolution is passed in the House without quibble-it goes through as a mere matter of form-referring to the Public Accounts Committee the 'accounts of the previous fiscal year. Do we have to lay a charge against any official to have access to these accounts? No, they come to us as a matter of right. All we are asking here is that you give us the right to investigate these munitions accounts. And I submit that the Prime Minister is dodging behind a most unreasonable barrier when he says: You cannot get an investigation, you cannot investigate the expenditure of your own money to the extent of perhaps two or three hundred million dollars, until you lay a charge against some one. His followers may

consider that they are loyal to him when they applaud him in taking a stand like thait. But let them go to their constituencies and see what even their own supporters will tell them about that. There is nothing to which the people of Canada are giving so muich attention, outside the prosecution of the war, as the question whether the Prime Minister is going to give the people a chance to get to the bottom of this unsavory mess.
I addressed this House something over a month ago and went into certain phases of this matter rather exhaustively.	I will try, in my brief remarks to-night not to repeat anything I said on that occasion. It may be impossible entirely to keep away from it all. The Prime Minister waxed eloquent over the question of patronage, and wants the people of Canada to believe that there has been no party patronage in the handling of affairs by this old Shell Committee. No wonder my hon. friends opposite smile when that proposition comes before them, for they know a little better than we do just what they have done and how far they have succeeded. The Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) says there has been no patronage. I gave a few illustrations of the forming of mushroom company after mushroom company. I named about fifteen of these concerns, including some that had been formed by Conservative heelers and workers, to manufacture shells and rake in some easy money. Take the case I pointed to in New Glasgow, N.S., where the local Conservative committee organized two shell companies. Take the case of the company that sent in 500 shells which were rejected, and afterwards sent them back again-I will not go over that sordid story again. It may be possible that the lives of our men, and not only their lives but the result of a battle may turn on the use of those rejected shells. Yet, though the Prime Minister had knowledge of these facts for the last four or five months, these same people have been allowed to go on and manufacture shells. And yet these hon. gentlemen tell us that there is no patronage. Wherever you go throughout Canada you will find the same condition of affairs. But I discussed that on a former occasion, as I have said, and shall not devote further time to it.
The Prime Minister asks what would happen if we went into an investigation. Well, I can tell him a few things that would happen. He would find that this
Shell Committee, instead of buying shells of all kinds in Canada cheaper than they were bought in England, paid in most cases at least 25 per cent more than was being paid for shells of the same kind at the same time in England. I will prove this statement before I am through. And I will not do it by bringing forward documents that I am afraid to read.


Mr. ROGERS:: Who is afraid to read
documents?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Minister of Publi'c Works (Mr. Rogers) was not here, and does not know to what I refer.


Mr. REID:: The Prime Minister did not say-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He did not read them.
And I say it is pretty small business of the Prime Minister to bring a document before this House and say: The gentleman who sent this document-Mr. Lloyd George in this case-says he does not think I should read the prices. And then he starts in to read the rest of the document, and when we object to that merely gives certain deductions. I have seen a few pretty sharp tricks in this House but this comes the nearest to that kind of thing that I have ever known to be practised by a prime minister. If he wants to be fair to the House he will lay that document on the Table, and then we can make our own deductions. I have some information on this subject, and I am going to take all the time that is necessary to support the deductions I have made; and I think before I am through I shall have convinced the Minister of Militia anyhow that he had better have that document laid on the Table that we may make our own comparisons and draw our own inferences. I want to tell the Minister of Militia, and the Prime Minister also, that if they will lay that document on the Table they won't he able to substantiate the deductions which the Prime Minister has drawn from it and given to this House.
I state as a fact and I am prepared to prove, I will prove to-night by evidence that I think will satisfy even my hon. friends opposite, and I will prove to the country beyond the possibility of dispute, if my hon. friends will give us a committee, that the prices in Canada are not lower but are higher than they are in Britain and higher than they are in the United States. I will prove that from the lips of the Minister of Militia himself, and from the documents out of his department.

*The next reason put forward by the right hon. Prime Minister for not appointing this committee was that the British Government had not demanded it; the British Government say: "We are not asking for a committee." No, of course they are not'. But do my hon. friends realize that this Empire is at war? I do not think they do. I listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon for over two hours, and, apart from a slurring remark which he made to my right hon. leader at the beginning of his speech, he entirely forgot the fact that the Empire needed munitions. According to his argument, the prime object of the Shell Committee was to distribute patronage and distribute business over Canada regardless of whether we got shells this year or next year, or any year, so long as we got the money distributed among the Canadian people. I should like my hon. friends to point out any other argument or reason put forward by the Prime Minister for obtaining this business and carrying it on. It makes no difference to the Prime Minister whether the British Empire is supplied with munitions or not.


Mr. WILCOX:: Rot.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is wrong over there anyhow? A gentleman who has been in Parliament as long as the gentleman who has just said "rot" had better stand up when saying it.


Oliver James Wilcox: I will stand up, and I will say you are talking rot.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad you stand up. No, Mr. Speaker, do not call him to order. He is the last man in the world I would call to order.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: It is my duty to call the hon. member for North Essex to order, and to ask him to withdraw the expression he has just used.


Oliver James Wilcox: I will gladly withdraw the remark, but if I was talking as the hon. gentleman is, I am sure that I would believe that I was talking rot.	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is immaterial to me, because if there is a man whom I would not try to answer, or with whom I would, not enter into an altercation, it is the hon. member for North Essex. So he is at liberty to talk any way he likes, so far as I am concerned.


Oliver James Wilcox: I do not talk very often.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Prime Minister took a great deal of credit to the Government over the fact that they had been able to distribute, or rather had been able to receive, orders for $380,000,000 worth of munitions in Canada, and expected to have orders for $500,000,000 before the close of the war. He took a great deal of credit to the Government because the manufacturing establishments of Canada had been kept busy. For about an hour of his time he attempted to show that we on this side of the House were casting slurs and insinuations, and I think I could go so far as to say that we were saying disrespectful things of the manufacturers of Canada. Who has heard any member on this side of the House finding fault witih the manufacturers of Canada over the manufacture of shells? No man has- ever hear4 me find fault with them, and I have addressed the House at considerable length on this question; nor has any other Ihon. member on this side of the House found fault with them. In fact, I went so far as to say that we wanted munitions and I did not care who made them. I even said that if the Prime Minister were the owner of the only industry in Canad,a that could make munitions and make them quickly the order should be given to the Prime Minister. I say that here to-night. We do not care who gets the orders; what we do care about . is to have the business so done that we will get the munitions and get them in time and at reasonable prices. That is all we have to say about it; and our complaint about the Shell Committee is that they did not get the munitions in time and did not get them at a reasonable price.
My right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) made the statement this afternoon that - at a certain time not more than two per cent of the shells had been delivered. He did, not say that only two per cent had been delivered at the present time but that at the time of which he was speaking, that was last July, only 2 per cent had been delivered. We knew that more than that had been delivered at the present time. In fact, I can tell my friends almost to a shell how many shells have been delivered, and I can inform the House that there has been delivered about one-third of the shrapnel, a little less than that of the 18-pounder high-explosive shell's, -and around one-third

of the 18-pounders; a good deal less than that of the 4.5's. When you come to the larger shells, prac'ticaly none have been delivered. What we complain of is that the Shell Committee, instead of organizing the industries of Canada for the purpose of turning out a shell that was some good, made it their principal object in life to get business for themselves and their own companies. I complain that in order to keep up the prices for themselves and their own companies they were compelled to allow every other person manufacturing in Canada to get a bigger price than the justice of the case demanded or would allow under the conditions. That is my charge-I should not call it a charge but that is the fault I find with the old Shell Committee, and that is the reason why I want this matter investigated. I want to show how this business has been carried on, and I want to show the people of this country how their money and not British money has been squandered-because I cannot use any milder term-by the Shell Committee, squandered, not 'by the thousands or hundreds of thousands, but' by the million, in taking big contracts to themselves and then, in order to get these big contracts themselves, they were compelled to give contracts to many other people at the same exorbitant prices. I think I will come pretty near proving, before I am through, that I listened in vain to my right hon. friend for any reason other than the one I have given as to why this committee of investigation should not be granted. I am going to give the right hon. gentleman some further reasons, and I hope that I will convince him that he had not 'all the information under his hand, and that he will admit when I have finished that further light has been vouchsafed to him, sufficient to make him change his mind 'and admit that the people of Canada, in their sovereign right, have the right to demand an investigation of the expenditure of their money. That is what we are asking for. If there is gross suspicion cast around the expenditure of that money, then I think we have the right to come here and demand that the Prime Minister give us the right to investigate these matters, but not by a Royal Commission. The Parliament of Canada is not running this country by Royal Commissions; it ought not to be anyway. But, Sir, we have the right to ask an investigatioon by a committee of this House, representing the
people of Canada, who have the legal right to investigate these matters and pronounce upon them. We have had one illustration of the workings of Royal Commissions. I bad occasion to point out something of the way in which this Royal Commission conducted its affairs about six weeks ago, and I am happy to say I think that did them good. I do not think they would have got the evidence of this Mr. Stone, from New York, taken on a Sunday in the Chateau Laurier if it had not been for some things that had been said in this House. I think that did this Royal Commission a great deal of good. But, after all, that Royal Commission did not even get on the fringe of the subject. They never touched the fuses at all, the most nefarious transaction in the whole sordid story. My hon. friend shakes his head? I repeat it-the most nefarious transaction in the whole sordid story. With the fate of the Empire trembling in the balance, with uncertainty as to whether it is going to be victory or failure, and, a,s my right hon. leader pointed out, with the Allied troops pressing the Germans at the battle of the Marne and having to stop because they had not ammunition, for one long year they were in that position, fighting against horrible odds, without the munitions with which to fight, while the Shell Committee was grinding out shrapnel shells by the millions; yes, by the five, six, and seven millions, grinding out high-explosive shells by the million, grinding out 4-.5 shells by the million, and making no attempt whatever to get fuses. A high-explosive shell of any kind, without a fuse, is just about as efficacious against the enemy as if you went up to Parliament Hill and got a lot of those old round iron balls which they used a hundred years ago, and fired them. Without a fuse you cannot explode a shell, and without the explosion it practically accomplishes nothing. And yet, they dilly-dallied and fooled away the time, what for?; in order that my hon. friend's friend, Colonel Allison, of New York, might be able to make his arrangements, get his combinations together, his sub-contractors together, and arrange for his rake-off; in order that Colonel Allison, the only honest man, according to the evidence of the Minister of Militia and Defence, might be able, I repeat, to get together his combinations, to get together his sub-contractors, to arrange where the contracts were to go, to arrange thn sub -

contracts by which the shells were to be manufactured, and in order to provide for his share of the profits of the transaction in the end. And this Empire on the brink of destruction because we had not fuses with which to explode the shells that were manufactured.
These are some of the things which I charge against this Shell Committee, a committee which existed almost a year, a committee of experts, with a gentleman so expert as the lion. Minister of Militia at their head, which frittered away ten months and made no attempt whatever to get fuses; a committee which devoted its energies to machining shrapnel and high-explosive shells because it could make one hundred, two hundred, and three hundred per cent on the transaction; a -committee which forgot all about the objects for which it was appointed, which forgot the real necessities of the case; and you tell me that we are unpatriotic, that we have no right to come here and ask for an investigation into that condition of affairs. I tell you that it is insulting the intelligence of Parliament, it is insulting the intelligence of the public of Canada, for the Prime Minister and his back-bench followers to make the statement that we are not entitled to an investigation under these conditions.
My hon. friend the Minister of Militia went into a somewhat lengthy description of the constitution of the Shell Committee, and I desire to read from Hansard, pages 296-297, for I think it is necessary, in order to make my argument complete, that I should give in detail the contract which resulted in the formation of the Shell Committee. I am glad I have set my hon. friends thinking over there; it is a good sign when they get on the anxious seat, and I am very glad that they are now giving me some attention.


Samuel Hughes: I must apologize. I do not know one word my hon. friend said, hut if he has anything to say concerning me I wish he would repeat it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have so much to say that it is not necessary to repeat it. My hon. friend will he satisfied by the time I get through. The minister says that on 24th August he received a cablegram from the War Office as follows:
Can you provide or obtain from American trade shell empty shrapnel, Q.F. guns, 18-pr., without cases or fuses. If so, what rate delivery could you promise?

That meant an ordinary empty 18-pounder shrapnel shell. If any one wants a description of an ordinary 18-pounder empty shell, the minister gave it to us; he will find it on page 295 of Hansard. He gave a pretty nearly accurate description of an empty shrapnel shell and I am going to read it. You remember, Mr. Speaker, that the minister had on his desk, not only a shell but a cartridge. I have forgotten whether he had the fuse on the end of the shell or not; I think not. This is his description:
This is what we term an empty shell (showing the whole shell). This is the steel shell case (showing), with the copper driving band on it fitting into the grooves of the barrel. The brass part which fits on the top of the shell case is called the fuse-plug, and in the shell at the present time is a powder cup empty.
and so on. . That was how the minister described the empty shell. The British Government wanted to know if they could obtain a price from the American trade. There was an answer stating that they could get large quantities from their neighbours. On August 26, the War Office cabled the Militia Department again as follows:
Tour telegram August 26. Please cable quo- tation 100,000 segment shells, Q.F. guns, 18-pr. shells only. Presume you have detailed drawings and specifications. Can you arrange inspection. Am sending specifications of 15-pr. shrapnel shells, quotation required 100,000 of these.
'There was another communication on the 2nd September, but it is not important, because it does not form part of the contract, and I am only reading those portions of the correspondence which allude to the contract. On September 2, the minister wired the War Office as follows:
Have organized committee of manufacturers on shells. They guarantee 20,000 by first November and 300,000 monthly thereafter. May be able to largely increase this amount.
On the 11th of September another cablegram was sent to the War Office, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the members of this House will pay attention to this particular communication, because, to my mind, it is one of the most remarkable cablegrams in the whole correspondence: (Reads):
Regarding shells. Have discovered one firm, Canadian General Electric, which guarantees alone to manufacture by the first of January 100,000, either 18-pr. or 15pr., and 100,000 monthly thereafter. Important to know will you want more than the 200,000 already placed.
As early as the 11th of September, we had a firm of the standing, ability, and reputation of the Canadian General Electric

Company, stating that they could manufacture 100,000 shells by the 1st day of January, and 100,000 monthly after that.


Mr. TURRIFF:: What year was that:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In 1914, right after the commencement of the war. So far as my information goes, the Canadian 'General Electric Company did not get an order until they lay down in the summe; of 1915, and then it was for only 25,000 18-pounder high-explosive shells. That cablegram, I think is one of the most remarkable parts of the whole correspondence. If there is a manufacturing concern in Canada with which I am intimately acquainted, it is the Canadian. General Electric Company. I have done business with them for the last 12 years; I know that they are able to manufacture anything that any other firm in Canada can manufacture; they have the money, the organization, the ability, and the plant, and I know that, if they had been given an opportunity, they would have manufactured the shells, as they are doing now. I think, Sir, that if a committee is appointed, that is one of the things that might be inquired into: why the General Electric Company, who were willing to go into this thing, were never given a chance until they got a paltry order of 25,000 18-pounder shells. Take two other great electric companies in Canada, the Canadian Westinghouse 'Company, and the Canadian Allis-Chalmers Company, who, I think I am safe in saying, have got millions upon millions of dollars worth of orders. I cannot tell why it is. I have not a word to say against them; they are both splendid companies, well equipped, well organized, and both in a position to do business, but it is a most remarkable thing that the company, with its great equipment and organization, which made this thing possible almost, were entirely ignored while these other men were given the work. I have sometimes wondered if the fact that the same gentleman who is manager of the Canadian General Electric Company, is also, I think, vice-president of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, probably the greatest manufacturing establishment in the whole Dominion, who were anxious for the business, who were willing to devote their whole organization, machinery, plant and business facilities to the manufacture of shells, and who pleaded and begged in vain for an order, had something to do with their failure to get work from the Shell Committee. They never got a chance to do business, never got a look in, until- October,
[DOT] or November, 1915. I wonder if the fact that the great business competitor of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company happened to be the Nova Scotia Steel Company, the manager of which happened to be a member of this Shell Committee, had anything to do with it. I throw out that suggestion. It is something which hon. gentlemen opposite might think about, it is something the Minister of Militia might investigate. I make no charges, I only give my opinion. I hope the minister will tell us why the Canadian General Electric Company, the premier company in Canada in so far as the shell business is concerned, which was willing to invest its money in this industry at the beginning, was never given a chance, and in the end only got the paltry order that I have named, while other concerns were given millions of dollars worth of business. Then, the minister says that the following telegram was sent to the War Office:
Reference your cipher September 17. Committee reports price of 100,000 shrapnel 18-pr. as per your cablegrams and specifications will be $8.55 each delivered at Montreal, 20,000 by November 1, and at least 30,000 monthly thereafter. Usual inspection charges. Shall we proceed? If so, please arrange line of credit through Canadian High Commissioner and in favour of Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, Canada. Specifications 15-pr. just to hand. Price later. Please answer. Committee wait.
On the 19fch September the War Office cabled as follows:
With reference to your telegrams numbered 132 and 133, we accept the prices as offered for 100,000 each 15-pr. and 18-pr. shells Please proceed. We trust you will ensure punctual delivery.
There is the contract. Any hon. member who listened to the statement of the Prime Minister, and who had not gone into the matter himself, would have come to the conclusion that in some way the British Government had authorized us to pay out a certain amount of money and that we had saved them $15,000,000 by the transaction. You would also have believed that the British Government had cabled them and said: Go on and make shells at a cost of $8.55 apiece. I say that is not true. The British Government cabled them to see if the American trade could supply shrapnel shells and the Minister of Militia very properly said: We will make them in Canada, and they will cost you $8.55 for the empty shells. The War Office said: We will accept your offer; go on and make your shells. There is the contract. The minister says that this is a lower price than the price
153C

existing either in England or in the United States at that time. The Prime Minister said that it was a little higher than the ' price in the United States or in England. However, I am not going to discuss prices just now. I am going to discuss this Shell Committee. I made the statement some time ago that the thing we objected to in reference to the Shell Committee was that it bad given enormous orders to its own members at high prices and that, in order to get these high prices, it was compelled to give contracts to other firms at the same exorbitant prices. I am going to give you the results of my investigation. It is true that sometimes we have a lot of difficulty in getting information and possibly we might not be right exactly to a cent, but I am sufficiently assured of the facts that I am going to read to the House to stake my reputation as a member that if you will give me a committee I will prove them to the hilt or apologize to this House and to the committee and say that I did not know what I was talking about. The chairman of,the Shell Committee was General Bertram, a gentleman with whom I have no quarrel, a gentleman who has always occupied an honourable position in the business affairs of Canada and I hope he will continue to do so in the future. I am here to make no attack upon General Bertram, on his private character or business ability; I am only speaking of him here to-night as the Chairman of the Shell Committee and if he had not conducted himself as he has done I would have had no right to drag his business transaction into the limelight of publicity. I am going to give to the House a statement of the business which the Bertram Company got in connection with this whole transaction. I find in the first place that the firm of John Bertram & Sons received fairly large orders from the Shell Committee. Perhaps I had better first of all state who John Bertram & Sons are:
The John Bertram & Sons Company, Limited, Dundas Ont.
James K. Cullen, Hamilton, Ohio, president.
Alexander Bertram, Dundas, Ont., vice-president.
Henry Bertram, secretary-treasurer.
R. C. McKinney, Chairman of Board.
Directors, same and Thos. T. Gaff, Chas. L. Cornell, of Orange, N. J., and Lucius B. Morgan, of Plainfield, N.J.
This firm, of which General Bertram is vice-president and Henry Bertram, secretary-treasurer, received contracts which, [DOT]when carried out, will amount to the sum 
of $1,300,000. And here are the details of them:
J. Bertram & Sons.
1914-Oct., 15,000 *M. & A., 18-pr. shrap. at $5.15, $77,250.
1914-Dec., 5,000 *M. & A., 18-pr. shrap. at $5.15, $25,750.
1914-	Dec., 25,000 *M. & A., 18-pr. shrap. at

1915-	May, 100,000 *M. & A., 18-pr. shrap. at

1915-March, 75,000, *M. & A., 18-pr., H. Ex. at $5.70, $427,500.
1915-May, 100,000, *M. & A., 18-pr., H. Ex. at $4, $400,000.-Total, $1,339,750.
* Machining and assembling.
That is the business which the Chairman of the Shell Committee gave to himself. It was said by the Solicitor General and by the Minister of Militia that it was necessary to give the first orders at a high price in order to provide for the machinery.
In October they gave this concern a contract for 15,000 18-pounder shrapnel at $5.15, the highest price. But they were not satisfied with that, so in December they gave them a repeat order of 5,000 at the same price. I do not believe the Minister of Militia can point to another case' in the whole business where a 'company got a second order at exactly the same price as the first. The next thing was that they got a contract in March for 18,000 high explosives at the top-notch price of $5.70 each. I would point out that there is no difference whatever in machining and assembling an 18-pounder shrapnel and an 18-pounder high explosive. I am not a manufacturer, but I have some knowledge of mechanics, and I believe that you can machine an 18-pounder high explosive for less money than an 18-pounder shrapnel
We might as well go into this thing thoroughly now that we are discussing it. The Prime Minister told us this afternoon how timid capital -was, and the minister has. told us how backward the banks were, and that the manufacturers were living over an abyss and could not 'be induced to go into the business. The minister said that at Valcartier they would not take his word as it might not be worth the paper it was written on, but insisted on getting assurances from the Premier that he would ask the British Government to make good if they lost on manufacturing shrapnel ait $5.15 and high explosives at $5.70. We are told that the manufacturers went into this matter with fear and trembling. And yet the minister knows that a month before the Premier was in Valcartier-weeks before anyway-away back on the 11th of

September 'the Canadian General Electric Company, one of .the greatest manufacturing concerns in Canada and if you include the parent company in the United States, one of the greatest manufacturing concerns on the continent-of their own motion, and without wanting anything by way of advance or bonus, offered to deliver 100,000 shrapnel shells on the 1st of January, and 100,000 monthly thereafter, and the minister cabled the offer to the War Office. And now the minister comes here with this coCk-and-bull story about the timidity of capital, and the great difficulty of getting manufacturers to go into the business. What does the machining of shrapnel shells consist of anyway? . A shrapnel shell consists of what is called a blank. In the first place it is a lump of steel; it is then put through a big machine, which punches a hole in it, and it then comes out and is known as a forging; it is then pointed at the nose; the walls are Straight and are about eight or nine inches long; it is then put in a lathe, and is turned to the exact size, inside and out. You would think that a turning lathe was a new invention in the commercial history of the world, from the way these men talk-that it had not been seen in Canada before. I admit that in order to do this work economically the manufacturers had to get a different kind of turning lathe from the one ordinarily used in a machine shop. But there is not a little foundry in any small town in Canada that was not anxious to go into this business, anxious to invest $15,000 or $20,000 in additional plant in order to get a contract. I know of one plant in New Brunswick, not manufacturing 18-pounders, but 4-5, which is an altogether bigger proposition. They have an order, I think, for 40,000 rounds of 4-5, and it only cost them $12,000 to instal the necessary plant. Gentlemen opposite tell us these fanciful stories about the enormous expense in buying the necessary machinery and carrying on this business, but I am happy to	say that even	if they
can fool some of the people they cannot fool all of us. As I was saying, the shell is put in a lathe and turned to the exact size; and,, Mr. Speaker, you would think that the turning of a piece of metal to a certain size to fit a certain gauge, or caliper as it is called, was some mechanical art wlhich should be rewarded by means of a statue and a medax. Why, there is not a little foundry in the country to-day that is not turning every
day of its life shafts and bearings, and they are turning these to the one-thousandth part of an inch, doing the work so fine that nothing else has to be done to the metal. And yet gentlemen opposite tell us that these men, who have been doing such delicate work as this for hundreds of years cannot turn a shrapnel shell down to a certain gauge.
Exactly the same process is followed with regard to the inside of the slhell. It is turned on the inside until the hole is just big enough, and then a seat is threaded in which to insert a brass socket. The brass socket is threaded on the inside and outside, and on the inside of the brass socket you have simply a plug, which is taken away when the shell is filled, and a fuse put in its place. That is all there is to machining an 18-pounder shell. The work in connection with the machining of an 18-pounder high explosive i.s even less than that, because the high explosive simply consists of a bar 3 inches in diameter and 15 or 20 feet long. The bar is sawed to the proper length, and is then put in a lathe and turned to the proper size. Then a little hole is bored in the base of the shell. The idea is that as the propelling or firing charge is beibind, and as the shell itself is filled with a high explosive or gun-cotton, in case there was a pin hole or sand hole through the . base of the shell, the explosive inside the shell might explode before it left the gun and there would be trouble. So in order to make assurance doubly sure, they bore out a little place in the base of the shell about 2 inches across and f inches deep, and insert in that a piece of forged steel which is threaded on the outside. This is done in order to make sure that the shell will not explode before it leaves the gun. That is all there it to machining an 18-pounder high-explosive. They do not even have to insert a brass socket in the nose of it, A hole is drilled through the centre and a plug put into that, and when they want to load the shell they take out the plug and put in the fuse. These are the operations in which such great mechanical ingenuity has been displayed by the manufacturers of Canada!
I have here a list of companies and the contracts which they were given. The first one is the Chapman Engine & Manufacturing Company, Limited, of Dundas, Ontario. I find that it is an allied company of the John Bertram & Sons Company, Limited, of Dundas, and its directorate is as follows: Stephen H. Chapman, Toronto, president;


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: Keep that for himself.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I will keep that for himself. I come now to the third member of the committee, Mr. Carnegie, who was a director of and consulting engineer for the Electrical Steel and Metals Company, of Welland, Ontario. This, I think, is a genuine company doing a legitimate business; and if they took the business at proper prices and did not put up the price to anyone else, then I have no fault to find, because they were in the business, and what this Empire needed was shells, and these contracts should have gone to the people who were aib'le to furnish the shells. The Electric Steel and Metals Company, of Welland, Ontario, on August 1, 1914, had the following directors:	Robert Turnbull,
Welland, president; J. H. Le Fevre, Welland, vice-president; D. Carnegie, London, England, consulting engineer; W. L. Renton, works superintendent, and E. Carnegie, London, England, secretary-treasurer. On January 1, 1916, the directors had been changed. Robert Turnbull was still president; E. Carnegie was vice-president and general manager; F. Birley, secretary. D. Carnegie had retired from the board because he was a member of the Shell Committee.


William Pugsley: E. Carnegie was still a member of the Shell Committee.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I had forgotten that. He remained a director of this company, though he was a member of the Shell Committee. The directors were: Robert Turnbull, E. Carnegie, Sir Charles Ross, Bart., and W. L. Renton. And here is the business they got from the Shell Committee:
Electric Steel and Metals Co., Welland, Ont.
1914-Oct., *M. & A., 20,000 15-pr. shrapnel, $5 each f.o.b., Welland, $100,000.
1914-Dec., M. & A., 10,000 15-pr. shrapnel, $5 each f.o.b., Welland, $50,000.
1914-Dec., M. & A., 10,000 18-pr. shrapnel, cancelled.

1915-Feb., 90,000 blanks 4S, $3 each f.o.b., points del., $270,000.
1915-March, M. & A., 65,000 18-pr., high ex., $5.70 each, $370,000'.
1915-May, cancelled, 35,000 18-pr. high ex., $4 each f.o.b., Welland, $140,000 (cancelled). 1915-May, 50,000 blanks 4'5, $2.25 each f.o.b., points del., $112,500.
1915-June, M. & A., 100,000 15-pr. shrapnel, $3 each f o.b., Welland, $300,000.
1915-Nov., M. & A., 50,000 15-pr. shrapnel, $1.70 each f.o.b., points del., $85,000.
1915-Dec., 350,000 blanks 4'5, $1.70 each f.o.b., works at Welland, $595,000.
Total, $1,885,500.
Machining and assembling.
While the minister was out I was referring to a company which he knows something about, the Universal Tool and Steel Company.


Samuel Hughes: I never heard of
the name of the firm in my life until the present moment. The hon. gentleman spoke of Mr. Watt as being connected with some company. Mr. Watt is connected with Mr. Fred. Nichols' company, and I do not know of any other.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, that is the General Electric, and they got no business.


Samuel Hughes: Then, why condemn Mr. Watt?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not condemning
Mr. Watt. I do not say that he was very close to this mushroom company. The hon. minister never heard the name of this company, eh? Well, I will ask him to go back to his office and look up the telegram he sent on the 18th of February, 1915, and then pome back to-morrow and tell me if he ever heard of this company or not.


Samuel Hughes: We are not coming here to-morrow.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, then on Thursday. If the minister will not tell me then I will - read the telegram to him.


Samuel Hughes: Read it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am going to ask the
minister to look it up. Will he deny that he sent this telegram?


Samuel Hughes: I have no recollection of (anything about the company. I daresay it is a good company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Look up the telegram
of which I have spoken. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a fourth member of this committee. He is connected with one of the big concerns 
in Canada. If there is a concern that should have received orders when this war commenced it is the Nova Scotia Steel Company. I find no fault with them for getting this business. They were among the biggest-people in Canada and were in a position to do the business; and should do the business. All we want to know is whether they conduct the business at proper prices, *whether Colonel Cantley, a member of the Shell Committee, conducted its affairs in such a manner that the country got the best results from its expenditure, and whether the Empire got the shells in the quickest time possible. I am not here to attack the manufacturers or to attack Col. Cantley. I never met the gentleman in my life and know nothing of him. But I am going to give the facts in this case. As I have said, Col. Cantley got for his Company $15,000,000 of business from this Shell Committee. I think that when I state that the House will come to the conclusion that we have the right to know whether this enormous amount of business was given at the proper figures or not. It will be a little tedious, but I am going to-read the details of these transactions, SO' far as I have been able to collect them. I have not got them all. The first order I have noted is for discs for shrapnel at 20 cents. This disc is a little piece of steel, two inches in diameter, and three-eighths inches thick, with a hole in the centre. It is placed over the powder-can, and just under the leaden bullets, and the idea is that when the powder explodes this disc drives the bullets out of the top of the cartridge and causes- them to spread over the earth like a fan. The price of these was got down to 12i cents afterwards. This disc is simply a piece of forging. Will any man tell me that our existing industries cannot make this little disc three-eighths of an inch thick and with a hole in the middle.


An hon. MEMBER:: Like a shovel.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, something like a
shovel. They have been made before, and made very much in the same way.
Mr, KYTE: They say we can't make shovels in Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not with holes in them. The following are the orders given to the Nova Scotia Steel Company by the old Shell Committee:

Nova Scotia Steel Company
1914-October, 50,000 dicsc for shrapnel at 20 cents each, $10,000.
1914-October, 50,000 shell forging's for 18-pr. shrapnel at $1.30 each, $65,000.
1914-Oqtober, 25,000 steel discs for 15Hpr. shrapnel at 20 cents each, $5,000.
1914-October, 25,000 discs for 15-pr. shrapnel at 20 cents each, $5,000.
1914-October, 25,000 shell forgings for 15-pr. shrapnel .at $1.30 each, $32,500.
1914-October, 25,000 shell forgings for 15-pr. shrapnel at $1.30 each, $32,500.
1914-November, 25,000 shell forgings for 15-pr. shrapnel at $1.30 each, $32,500.
1914-November, 21,740 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrapnel at $1.30 each, $27,300.
1914-November, 25,000 shell forgings for 15-pr. shrapnel at $1.30 each, $32,500.
1914-December, 100,000 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrapnel at $1.25 each, $125,000.
1914-	December, 25,000 M. and A., 18-pr shrapnel at $3.80 each, $95,000.
1915-	January, 100,000 discs for 18-pr. shrapnel at 12J cents each, $12,500.
1915-February, 100,000 discs for 18-pr. shrapnel at 10 cents each, $10,000.
1915-February, 180,000 blanks for 4.5-pr. shrapnel at $3'each, $540,000.
1915-February, 180,000 shell forgings for 4.5-pr. shrapnel at $2 each, 360,000.
1915-February, 300,000 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrapnel at 80 cents each, $240,000.
1915-February, 300,000 ^hell blanks for 18-pr. shrapnel at 45 cents each, $135,000.
1915-March, 100,000 discs for 18-pr. 'shrapnel at 10 cents each, $10,000.
1915-March, 180 discs for 4*' Howitzer at 15 cents each, 27,000.
1915-March, 200,000 discs, for 18-pr. shrap. at 15 cents each, $30,000.
1915-March, 25,000 *M. & A., 4*5-pr. Howitzer at $6.70 each, $157,000.
1915-April, 100,000 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrap. at $1.25 each, $125,000.
1915-May, 400,000 discs for 18-pr. shrap. at 10 cents each, $40,000.
1915-May, 100,000 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrap. at $1.25 each, $125,000.
1915-May, 300,000 base plates for 4*5 at 15 cts. each, $45,000.
1915-May, 200,000 base plates for 18-pr. at 15 cts. each, $30,000.
1915-May, 50,000 M. & A., 4*5 shells at $6 each, $300,000.
1915-May, 10,000 M. & A., 60-pr. H. Ex. at $6.96 each, $69,500.
1915-May, 400,000 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrap. at $1.25 each, $500,000.
1915-May, 300,000 shell forgings for 4*5-pr. at $2 each, $600,000.
1915-May, 50,000 shell forgings for 60-pr. H. ex. at $2.25 each, $112,500.
1915-May, 350,000 shell blanks for 4*5-pr. at $2.25 each, $787,500.
1915-May, 50,000 shell blanks for 60-pr. at $3.25 each, $162,500.
1915-June, 100,000 base plates for 60-pr. at 15 cts. each, $15,000.
1915-June, 3,044 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrap. at $1.25 each, $3,750.
1915-June, 200 base plates for 18-pr. shrap. at at 10 cts. each, $20.
1915-June 25,000 M. & A., 4*5-pr. at $6.50 each, 162,500.
1915-June, 20,000 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrap. at $1.25 each, $250,000.
1915-July, 25,000 (*M. & A.) 18-pr. shrap. at $3.15 each, $78,750.
1915-July, 20,000 2-round 4*5" boxes at $1,

1915-Aug., 100,000 base plates for 18-pr. shrap. at 10 cts. each, $10,000.
1915-Sept., Weekly shipments of 10,000 shell blanks for 4*5" how. (cancellation effective Feb. 18, 1916, 5 mos.-20 weeks -200,000) at $2 each, $400,000.
1915-Sept., Weekly shipments of 10,000 shell forgings for 4*5" how. (cancellation effective Feb. 18,	1916, 5 mos.-20
weeks-200,000) at $1.75 each, $375,500.
1915-Sept., 160,000 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrap. at $1.25 each, $200,000.
1915-Sept., 100,000 base plates for 18-pr. h. ex. at 15 cts. each, $15,000.
1915-Sept., Weekly shipments of 5,000 shell forgings for 4*5" how. (cancellation effective Feb. 18,	1916,	5 mos.-20
weeks-100,000) at $1.60 each, $160,000.
1915-Sept., Weekly shipments of 5,000 shell blanks for 4*5" how. (cancellations effective Feb. 18,	1916,	5 mos.-20
weeks-100,000) at $2 each, $200,000.
1915-Oct., 400 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrap. at $1.15 each, $445.
1915-Oct., 6,000 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrap.
F.O.B. Sherbrooke at $1.25 each, $7,500.
1915-Oct., 1,200 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrap. at $1.15 each, $1,380.
1915-Oct., 100,000 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrap. at $1.15 each, $115,000.
1915-Oct., 200,000 base plates for 18-pr. shrap. at 10 cts. each, $20,000.
1915-Oct., 20,000 (*M. & A.) 18-pr. shrap. at $2.90 each, $58,000.
1915-Oct., 100 shell blanks for 4*5" (for experiment) at $2 each, $200.
1915-Oct., 2,500 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrap. at $1.15 each, $2,875.
1915-Nov., 1,280,000 shell forgings for 18-pr. shrap. at $1 each, $1,280,000.
1915-Nov., 200,000 base plates for 18-pr. h. ex. at 10c. each, $20,000.
1915-Nov., 1,250,000 base plates for 18-pr. shrap. at 8c. each, $100,000.
If 15-Nov., 25,000 (*M. & A.) 9*2-in. h. ex. shells at $27.88 each, $697,000.
1915-Jan., 25,000 (*M. & A.) 9*2-in, h. ex. shells at $27.88 each, $697,000.
1915-Jan., 100,000 shell forgings for 9*2-in. h.
ex. (including iteel billets) at $27 e oh $2,700,000.
1915-Jan., 150,000 shell forgings for 8-in. h.
ex. (including steel billets) at $17.50 each, $2,625,000.
1915-Jan., 20,000	(*M. & A.)	18-pr. shrap.
(F.A.S. St John or Montreal) at $1.85 each, $148,000.
1915-Feb., 100,000 forgings for 18-pr. shrap. (delivered) at 90 c. each, $90,000.
Total, $15,355,970.
* Machining and assembling.
15.36

I want to say, to the credit of this company, that they did [DOT] not take their first order for machining and assembling the 18-pounder shells at the highest price; they took it at a much lower price. The others all took their first orders at |5.70, while the Nova Scotia Steel Company took their first order at |3.80. Within one month from to-day the Nova Scotia Steel Company took an order for the forging of 18-pound shrapnel at 90 cents, although they charged $1.25 or $1.30 for the same work when carrying on the business themselves. I have taken a good deal of time in reading this, but I wanted to get it on the record. Before I leave it I wish to point out some things which will bear the closest scrutiny, and, I think will require some explanation on the part of the Minister of Militia if he intends explaining or condoning the acts of the Shell Committee. I have tried ito make it clear that the Nova Scotia Steel Company were the people in Canada who had a right to be asked to carry on this business, because I think they were in a position to furnish the goods. But the Dominion Iron & Steel Company had as much right to be asked as the Nova Scotia Steel Company, and were in as good a position to carry on the work. I think they were in a better position. It does seem a most unfair thing that a company which 'had its manager on the Shell Committee could get $15,000,000 of business and, a company a few miles away, with no representative on the committee, could get no business until the war had been in progress for one year. I find some remarkable inconsistencies on an analysis of this statement, and these are the things, among others, which I would like to see investigated. I find that on the 15th of May, 1915, the Nova Scotia Steel Company took an order for machining and assembling 50,000 4-5 high explosives at $6. I find by further investigation that down in the province of New Brunswick five contracts were given on the same day, May 15th, at $6 each. But, Sir, one month later, on June 11th, when the prices were supposed to be going down, and when they were going down to everybody in Canada excepting the committee themselves, this same company, the Nova Scotia Steel Company,, took	an	order for 25,0004-5 shells of exactly the same kind, but instead of	$6	they got $6.50.
Mr. Speaker, does that not require some kind of explanation from the Minister of Militia? Does that not require explanation from the Shell Committee? But that is not
all. I find that on the 28th May, 1915, to be explicit, the Nova Scotia Steel Company got an order for 300,000 shell forging for 4.5 howitzers at $2 each, and on the same day they got an order for 350,000 shell blanks, 4.5, iat $2.25 each; that is an average of $4.25 for the blanks and forgings. That was on 28th May, 1915. On 18th May, 1915, ten days previously, the Shell Committee had given a contract for 100,000 4.5 blanks and forgings combined to Drummond, McCall and Company of Montreal, at $2.95 each, or a reduction of $1.30 compared with the price of the Nova Scotia Steel Company ten days later. Drummond, McCall and Company got that order at $2.95 each, 'and they sub-let it to the William Todd Company of Toungstown, Ohio, at a big profit. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, if that does not require investigation. The Nova Scotia Steel Company received, or they will receive $400,000 more than they would have received if they had taken the order at the price accepted by Drummond, McCall and Company ten days before. Do you tell me that the members of the Shell Committee can be held blameless when we know that a responsible firm like Drummond, McCall and Company took an order on 18th May for 100,000 shells, both blanks and forgings, at $2.95 each, and that ten days later the committee gave an order to one of their own members for 300,000 shells at an average price of $4.25 each. Does that not require investigation, is that helping to win the war? No wonder that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister did not want to talk very much this* afternoon about helping to win the war; no wonder he did not want to go into the question of prices.
But I have a good deal more to say to my hon. friend the Minister of Militia about prices, and I must hurry. I find that the Shell Committee 'bought from all class and conditions of men, and I find that many of them were the proper people to buy from. I have tried Ito make it plain that so far as the Nova Scotia Steel Company were concerned, 'they were the proper people to buy from. The Steel Company of Canada were also proper people to buy from; any business, or firm, or corporation which could turn out the goods in the shortest time were people to whom the Committee had a right to apply, regardless of whether they were Liberal or Conservative, no matter who they might be, because this was a question in regard to which every day, perhaps every hour, might mean

the difference between success and defeat in the titanic struggle through which we are passing.	.
I find a most interesting account here regarding $320,000 worth of goods which were sold to the Shell Committee by a firm known as the Sheet Metal Products Company Limited, of Toronto. By investigating the financial records, I find that the president and treasurer of this company is the Hon. A. E. Kemp, and that the vicepresident and secretary is William A. Kemp. The other directors are W. Scott Waldie, Frederick S. Corrigan and Wellington Francis. I find that the Shell Committee purchased from a member of this Gov ernment $300,000 worth of goods. I do not know whether the prices were fair and reasonable or not, but I do say, Sir, that unless they were the only people in Canada who could furnish these goods, we should have a committee to investigate the matter to ascertain whether this member of the Government, through his company, sold to the Shell Committee goods at prices which were fair and reasonable. I think I can appeal to the fairness and justice of many hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, because I know that many of them are just as honourable gentlemen as we ai^e on this side, and that they want to see this war won, and to see this country do its duty to the Empire just as well as we do. After I have given them these figures, surely there will be some of them patriotic enough to go to the Prime Minister and tell him that he cannot count on their votes in order to beep the lid on any further investigation.


Mr. MORPHY:: Does the hon, gentleman mean that he does not cast suspicion on these gentlemen, and yet would have their transactions investigated?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is endowed with a fine analytical mind, but he does not know what is coming. After I have told him, probably he will not know a great pile about it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Probably.	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I had better go on and read the items, and leave him to worry over it over night, and if he comes back to-morrow or the next day, and wants further information, I will be glad to give it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: My hon. friend said there was no suspicion.
97	'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 

, than at the bottom, just big enough to let the one go d(?wn over the other, and the ripper part is made with one stamp of the die just the same as the bottom part. I do not know whether there is any actual soldering together or not-I think not. It may be sweated on in some way. But it performs no function whatever except to make a little receptacle to hold a handful of powder that bursts the cartridge in the air. If the tin cup were not used I imagine you would get exactly the same result. However, that is what it
is,	and I leave it to any hardware dealer or general storekeeper in this House to say whether 3 or 3i cents for a tin cup of that character is a reasonable price or not. I would like to have a contract for. a few million of them if I had the machinery to do the work. I think I could manage to make a fairly good summer's work out of
it.	There were 1,500,000 of tin cups purchased. There is no handle on this tin cup; it is the simplest thing you could imagine.
If there is only one person in Canada who can make tin cups, give him the contract even if it is the Premier himself. But these were not the only people in Canada who could make tin cups because they did not make them all; millions of tin cups have been delivered while this concern only turned out 1,500,000. They are certainly not the only people who can make tin cups if they could not deliver more than one-third or one-quarter of the tin cups that have been delivered to the Shell Committee. Therefore, they do not come within the category of the only people in Canada who can make tin cups in a hurry.
I find that they get an order for 1,000,000 clips for 18-pounders. Let me describe what a clip is. When the breech block is thrown open on the 18-pounder it is supposed automatically to eject the empty case just as in the case of the ordinary rifle. When you throw the breach block open the empty case is ejected. But if the case is not automatically ejected they provide each gun with what is called a clip. This consists simply of two pieces of metal f inches wide, 14 or 16 gauge thickness, and a little more than 3 inches in length. These two pieces of metal are crossed over one on the other at right angles, the ends are bent in to catch the rim of the cartridge and then if the cartridge does not come out with the opening of the breechblock, they catch the end of it with the clip and pull it out. These clips are made sometimes of brass and sometimes of steel and they are fastened to-

gether in the centre. I do not know whether 20 cents is a reasonable price for these little clips or not. I would like to make a lot of them at that price if I had the plant, and there must be lots of plants in Canada that can make them. They do not require any special machining. But this member of the Government-


John Dowsley Reid: Of the Government?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: -or I might say the
president of the company who is a member of the Government, or the company, whose president is a member of the Government- perhaps that is the more correct way of putting it-got a contract for these goods. I would like to see this investigated. I know there is no hon. gentleman within this House but would like to see it investigated as well. I make no charges as to whether it is right or wrong, I only want to have the white light thrown upon this transaction, and if it is all right, why, it is all right because I am finding no fault. I am only saying that I think the Shell Committee who were appointed by this Government, for this Government, and acting under the instructions of this Government, surely ought to exhaust every means of purchasing supplies before resorting to the members of the Government themselves.
I


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Were there tenders?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, you never heard of any such thing as a tender from the beginning, when they were organized, till the time when they were buried. They did not know the meaning Of that term.


George Perry Graham: Cremated.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend says " cremated." No, they were just buried. They just gave them ' a Christian burial. My hon. friend asks why they were buried. I will come to that later on. Mr. Lloyd George had something to do with the killing of them and Mr. Thomas attended the obsequies. The flowers were furnished and everything was done with proper decorum.


Mr. BURNHAM:: They are getting the
flowers now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, they had the flowers at that time. These are not boquets at all; these jire juist the plain facts from a country lawyer who is trying to lay before the House a statement of what did occur and who wants the House to take cognizance of it. I have a lot of information here, but I

have talked too long. I must, however, have a few words with my hon. friend the Minister of Militia before I sit down as to the question of prices and I therefore think that I will have to leave some of this material. I have pointed out that the members of this Shell Committee were taking contracts at $5.70 each for machining an enormous quantity of 18-pounder high explosives ; they were taking contracts to themselves at $5.15 for machining enormous quantities of 18-pounder shrapnel shells and they were taking contracts to themselves at $6.70 for machining enormous quantities of 4:5-inch Howitzer shells. I do not have to argue with any hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to get them to understand that when they were giving contracts to themselves at these big prices they had to give contracts to the other 300 men who were doing business with the committee. That is the trouble. Of course, I do not mean to say that there were actually 300 men making shells. There were not more than 100 other people making shells altogether. But they were taking to themselves these enormous orders at big prices and they were compelled to give the same big prices to the other people. I have given the information to the House, and I can almost give it the weight of evidence, that when Mr. Jones, of the Canada Cement Company, wanted to cut down the prices of these goods they would not allow him to do it on the plea that he could not do the work for the price that he said he could do it for. It must be in the mind of every hon. gentleman opposite that the real reason was that if they gave contracts to Mr. Jones at a lower price they would be compelled to take these contracts themselves at no higher prices.
I have another bit of information which I can prove if the Government will give me a committee. In the month of August, or September-I do not know which hut I think it was in September-a gentleman whose name I can furnish at the proper time, went to Mr. Thomas, the representative of Mr. Lloyd George in the city of Ottawa and told him that he wias going to submit a tender for machining shells- I am not sure whether it was 18-pounder high explosive or	shrapnel-at $1.40
apiece. A few days after that he saw in the office of the Shell Committee, a tender to do this work at $1.40. Mr. Thomas was called away to Montreal and was gone for three or four days. He supposed that, as a matter of 'course, the contract would be
97J
given, but when he came back, to his horror and amazement, he found that this Shell Committee, instead of giving a contract at $1.40 had given large contracts, not one, but more than one, at $2.90 eacfi-They gave these big orders to these people because they wanted to keep the price up. At all events they did, keep the price up, and I think the fair inference is that they wanted to keep the price up, or they would have given the contract to this other man, who offered to do it for $1.40, and who was an absolutely responsible party. I think I appreciate some of the rights and duties of a member of Parliament. You may call me a Radical or anything else you like, but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. gentlemen opposite,, if I have ever made a statement in this House that I was unable to back up and prove to the hilt. I make that statement here to-night, and if they will give us a committee I will prove it. The man wiho laughs at that ha's a pretty low appreciation of the rights and duties of a member of Parliament. He is so far down in the scale of honour and decency that he is not fit tp have a seat in this House; he is not fit to represent anything. I am surprised that there is a man in this House who is so far fallen in the scale of decency and honesty, and all that goes to make up the manhood of a nation that in the face of a statement such as I have made we hear nothing but the- ha, ha of the empty brain and the dishonest mind.
I have a word with my hon. friend the Minister of Militia about prices. I want to take him back to his famous speech of January 26, 1916, in this House. Early in my remarks I explained, how the contract for the first 200,000 shells was made. The minister says that the price arrived at was $8.55. I am not positive whether that was for the shrapnel or high explosive.


Samuel Hughes: It was all shrapnel.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was 18-pounder shrapnel. My hon. friend said in his speech on January 26:	.
The price of $8.55 was arrived at by the experts of the Militia Department, who made their calculations with the assistance of machinists and large steel manufacturers throughout the country.
The Prime Minister was compelled to admit this afternoon that the price for the Canadian shrapnel was somewhat higher in Canada than in England. Now I want to show my hon. friend the 'Minister of Militia what information he had in his department about the price of empty shrapnel shells. And

in order that there may be no misunderstanding about what an empty shell is I will describe it, and if I am wrong the minister can set me right. As I understand it, an empty shrapnel shell consists of a blank piece of steel; and at the beginning the Nova, Scotia Steel Company got an order for 300,000 of these blanks at 45 cents each. I do not think this price was paid for the blank's later on, but it was in the beginning. Then there is a forging; the forging of that shell cost $1.25 each. I think it is really $1.30, but the price came down after the first order. Then there is the machining and assembling at $5.55, which I have already explained. Then'there is a brass socket. I have not one here, but I can illustrate it with this tumbler. The shell is rimmed out perhaps 2J inches in diameter, and there is a piece of metal which is threaded on the outside and turns into the top of the shell. This is also threaded on the inside, in which, we find the fuse when the shell is loaded and ready for action. I do not know whether the price paid for these brass sockets was a fair price or not, but I do know from a rather lengthy and somewhat inquisitive investigation that the price which the committee paid for brass sockets was 40 cents. A brass socket, to start with, is a piece of brass about 21 inches in diameter and about 11 inches deep; this is turned and threaded on the outside, bored <out, and then threaded on the inside. 'Whether that is worth 40 cents I do not know. I should like to have a chance of investigating it, but it seems to me that a man would not have to make more than three or four million of them at that price in order to make enough money to keep him going for the summer. Next comes the plug. At the beginning of the war this was made of brass. It is a piece of metal which fits on the inside of the brass socket before the shell has been fused. When you insert the fuse, the plug is taken out and thrown away. The price of the plug was 25 cents. Later on they got the price down to 10 cents by using galvanized iron instead of brass, and I think in some cases they are now using wood. At any rate, at the present time galvanized iron is being used in large quantities at 10 cents, and I have heard that the Munitions Board has cut the price down lower than that. But that is only hearsay, and I am only making statements to-night that I can prove up to the hilt if 1 am given an opportunity of doing so, and I am making them on my responsibility as a member of this House.


John Hampden Burnham: Has the Imperial Government consented to an investigation?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What has the Imperial Government to do with the price of a plug?


John Hampden Burnham: I thought the hon.
gentleman was talking about an investigation by a committee.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am talking about
plugs. Next, there is a little tube about 8 or 9 inches long and f or perhaps I of an inch in diameter. This extends from the bottom of the brass socket down to the tin cup in the bottom. It passes through the steel disc that I have described, and which goes below the bullets. Below that again is the tin cup. The price of the brass tube is 20 cents, 10 cents for the steel disc, 3 cents for the cup, and about 2 cents for screws, washers and things of that kind. Outside of that goes a copper band, which engages the rifling of the gun and controls the direction and the speed. Altogether that makes $8.06. If there is anything else in an empty shell which I have omitted to mention, I should be glad if the hon. minister would let me know.


Samuel Hughes: The resin and the bullets.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The resin is not in an empty shell.


Samuel Hughes: Oh, yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My reading is that the resin and bullets are not in an empty shell, but I shall be delighted to add that to the cost. The resin and the bullets cost thirty cents. Am I not about right?


Samuel Hughes: I have never figured out the cost. You are making the speech; I am not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have figured that they cost thirty cents. Can my hon. friend tell m<e of anything else that goes into the empty shell?


Samuel Hughes: I was not paying very close attention to my hon. friend's remarks, but I noticed that he had not put in the shrapnel nor the resin.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That makes $8.35. I have now got pretty nearly up to my hon. friend's figures, because he says that the empty shell costs $8.55. Therefore I must have pretty nearly the correct prices.


Samuel Hughes: No one is contradicting my hon. friend.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Samuel Hughes: I did not obtain' my prices irom Lloyd George; I obtained them elsewhere.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is a close similarity in the date. I will read what my hon-friend says:
In regard to prices on December 8-
The same day.
-a cablegram came from England giving the recent prices there.
Most remarkable that the Prime Minister got a cablegram about those prices and that the minister got another cablegram about them on the same day. I wonder how many more hon. members got cablegrams about those prices on the 8th of December. Perhaps the minister will try to revive his memory and see if he did not get this information from the same source as the Prime Minister got it from. It looks awfully suspicious.


Samuel Hughes: Honi soit qui mal y pense.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: -
The price for 4'5, mark VI, (250,000) made in England 42s. 6d., that is, $10.33. In Canada the first orders were for very small quantities, and we had to pay $10.45.
The minister made the statement and it went forth to this country that at the start of the war, on orders for small quantities of 4-5 shells we paid $10.45 as against $10.33 in England. I will show what we paid in .the beginning and I want to see if we have everything that goes into a 4-5 empty high explosive shell. I have read to my hon. friend that he paid the Nova Scotia Steel Company $3 for the blanks.


Samuel Hughes: I did not pay $3.
Mr. OARVELlL: Well, the Shell Committee.


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is a friend of the Shell Committee.	-


George Perry Graham: It is his baby.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is his baby and he takes the responsibility for it.


Samuel Hughes: It is a fine baby.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is a God-send it is buried, and that is all I have to say about it.
On the same day the Shell Committee paid $2 for the forgings. To be sure that there is no question about the matter, I had better tell my hon. friend the exact date. On the 17th of February, they purchased 180,000 blanks for 4-5 high explosive shells at $3 each, and on the same day, they purchased 180,000 4-5 shell lorgings at $2 each. Then they paid $6.70 for the machining of those, because all the first orders were at that price, and in the summer, after the prices had dropped to $6, the Nova Scotia Steel Company got a contract for machining 25,000 at $6-50 At the time of which I am speaking, the highest price was $6.70. The brass socket went into the ends, and the price of that socket was 70 cents-they bought them by the million at that figure. Then there is a Plug, 10 cents. In the beginning they used the brass plug, but I am talking about the iron plugs. There was the bass plate that went into the 4.5-inch shell and the copper band around it at 70 cents. So, instead of
[Mr. Carvell.l
having the first quantity cost $10.45, this comrpission paid. $13.37 for the first three or four hundred thousand of these 4.5 shells. . I have given everything in that shell except two or three small screws that would cost two or three cents apiece. But the, bare blank of the 4.5 inch shell cost this country $13.37. Yet the minister stakes his reputation as a minister of the Crown that the first order given for these was at $10.45. Then he tells us that the price on December 8 was $7.45. Now, I have taken the very lowest prices I can find. I cannot find anything exactly on December 8, but there are some parts ordered just before and some just after. I find that on December 30 they gave a contract for 4.5-inch blanks at $1.70 to the Electric Steel and Metal Company, and on September 30 they gave a contract to the Nova Scotia Steeel Company for forgings at $1.60. And the machining at that time was $4, which is the lowest price these shells have been machined for, unless the present commission have reduced the price. Then there was the steel socket 70 cents, the plug 10 cents, and the copper band 70 cents. So, on December 8 that empty shell, instead of being produced in Canada at $7.45, cost $8.95-only $1.50 more than the minister said. These figures are accurate. All the minister has to do is to give us a committee and we will prove them, and I will stand by every figure I give you to-night. Now, let me go a little further.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I know how easy it is. There are four or five articles that may he meant in talking about a shrapnel cartridge. In the first place, you have the shell or the case itself, the steel case; then you have the primer, and then you have the driving charge, that is cordite; and then you have the shrapnel itself. You may talk about a shrapnel shell empty or filled. Then you have the fuse on top of that. You may talk about the cost of this shell complete or you may talk about the cartridge complete, and I am almost sure

that when that firm were talking about an order at $12 they meant the cartridge. Possibly I am wrong. But if I cannot -prove what the price of the cartridge complete was in the United States, I can prove what it was in England, and I will prove it by the minister's own documents too. I have not time to refer to many of the accounts on the file before me, but I am going to refer to some of them because the minister has been buying these for some years from Vickers Sons and Maxim, or Vickers Ltd.


Samuel Hughes: It is the same firm, I think.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That was back in 1910-11.


John Dowsley Reid: That was long before the
war.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Of course it was, but
it is the same article exactly.


John Dowsley Reid: But the prices are higher
now than' they were then.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The prices were not higher when the war broke out than they were then. That contract ran right on until last year, and they furnished them at the same price. I have here accounts for them at $7.70 and $7.75, the complete cartridge without the fuse. You take the fuse. They tell you about what an awful thing it is to make a fuse. I come now to what the minister called time fuses, that is time and percussion fuses, and the minister will understand that the British fuse was then call the 85. The 80 is very much the same.


Samuel Hughes: The British fuse is the 85, time and percussion. The 80 is an American fuse which they now accept. There is a little variation, but practically it is the same thing.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We will get it accurately. This bill is dated 27th February, 1911, and reads:
Fuses, T. & P., No. 80, mark III, 12,000 at 9s. 5d.	'
Figuring that out it comes to about $2.28 for a T. and P. fuse.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. member
reads my speech he will see that I said that that fuse is made for $1.90.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not found that in
his speech yet.


Samuel Hughes: It is right in the
speech.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then, it is a most wonderful thing that Col. Allison is allowed to go to the United States and make a contract for 5,000,000 at $4.50. No, what the minister said in his speech was that the raw material for the fuse cost $1.90 or $1.95.
I am not talking about raw material but about the finished article, and the minister knows that. The minister bought the finished article for $2.28, not a few but thousands of them.


Samuel Hughes: I will tell the hon. member now that the net cost of that fuse was $1.90 before the war.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister told us it was the raw materials.


Samuel Hughes: Not the raw materials.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Samuel Hughes: I bought 4-7 shells.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister did not buy them very long before the war. They were delivered on 27th January, 1914; "shells, Q.F., empty, common, 4-5 howitzers, Mark I, 100." And, Mr. Speaker, what do you 1 suppose they paid for them-10s. lid., or $2.62. This minister bought 4-5 howitzer shells in England just before the war broke

out for $2.62, not on one occasion only, but on two occasions. I ihave it here in his own documents. They were a small quantity, only 100 of them, and, yet he comes here and tells you that when he or his committee were paying $13.37 for the same article he was buying them cheaper in Canada than they could be bought in Great Britain. I have gone into these things somewhat in detail. I have shown that every statement which the minister made regarding shells and fuses, and everything else, excepting possibly the 18-pounder high explosives, was false in fact; I do not say malicious, but wrong anyway in fact, with no foundation of truth; nothing in the world to give the people of Canada any information or education, but everything in the world to deceive the people of Canada.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I think the- hon. gentleman is going too far.


Samuel Hughes: It does not make any difference; it is all right.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: It is my duty to call the hon. member to order, and I ask him to withdraw that statement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will be delighted to do so; I want to keep my remarks within the rules of the House. But I think I am justified in saying that the result of the minister's statements was that the people of Canada were deceived as to the true state of affairs, and, that they were led to believe that the 4-5 shells in England cost $13.37, and that he bought them himself for $2.62. And yet the hon. gentleman bad not fallen down and given up the ghost. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles aJbout Annanias and Sapphira must belong to ancient mythology and not to inspired Holy Writ.
The minister went on and told you about other wonderful things that this Shell Committee had done for Canada. He said:
Since the beginning of the business the Canadian Shell Committee has turned out in Canada
22.000.	000 shells.
I want to say that they have not turned out 8,000,000 shells; they have given contracts for 22,000,000, but they have not turned out half of that quantity, not more, I venture to say, than 8,000,000. The minister can figure it out, and he will find that I am away above the mark when I put it at
8.000.	000.


John Dowsley Reid: Where does my hon. friend get his authority for these statements?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am just like the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; I get some down in New Brunswick, and some in other places, and some from private individuals. You will remember that when I wanted to know where the minister had got certain information he said he had got it from private individuals. That is where I got mine, and I stand by it, and will prove every word of it if you will give me a committee. The minister spoke of:
800,000,000 pounds of steel made by Canadian workmen in Canadian shops and turned into shells by Canadian workmen, brass, zinc and copper, 45,000,000 pounds; copper, over
22,000,000 pounds.
The Prime Minister himself went almost as far to-day as to make the same statement, that 22,000,000 pounds of copper had been used by this Shell Committee. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. minister that there has not been a pound of copper bought in Canada as the result of this Shell Committee's activities. There is no copper refined in Canada. The best they can do is to get it down to what they call blister copper, which must be refined down to about 95 per cent pure. It is then sent to the United States and refined, and brought back, and we pay duty upon it. If we can establish a refinery in Canada and I understand that a company is to be established well and good; I sincerely hope we will. But I do object to the Minister of Militia and Defence telling this House and the people of Canada that as the result of the activities of this Shell Committee, they turned out 22,000,000 pounds of copper which had been used in the manufacture of munitions.


Samuel Hughes: The minister never made any such statement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have read it, and I will read it again.
Since the beginning of the business, the Canadian Shell Committee has turned out in Canada
22,000,000 shells; 800,000,000 pounds of steel made by Canadian workmen in Canadian shops and turned into shells by Canadian workmen, brass, zinc and copper, 45,000,000 pound's; copper, over 22,000,000 pounds; lead, 102,000,000 pounds; black powder for shrapnel, 4,000,000 pounds; cordite, 10,000,000 pounds; nitro-cellribose powder, 4,000,000 pounds; tri-nitro-toluene, the famous high explosive, 11,000,000 pounds, put into shells in Canada, besides several millions of pounds exported to the British Government.
Who did all this, if the Shell Committee did not do it? Do I understand the English

language; am I not interpreting it properly when I say that the minister said that? Probably he did not mean to say it.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member
said I had made the statement that we had produced and refined in Canada that amount of copper.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not say that; I said that the hon. minister made the statement that the Shell Committee had produced 22,000,000 pounds of copper-


Samuel Hughes: They put it into the
shells.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Samuel Hughes: My statement was made to-day in answer to the leader of the

Opposition, who stated that the Munition Board had let contracts, and that fuses were being made to-day in Canada under those contracts. I again repeat that not one fuse has been made under a Munitions Board contract.


George Perry Graham: Made under a Shell Committee contract.


Samuel Hughes: Not one was made under a Shell Committee contract. I made the statement this afternoon that an order was given in June for 500,000 to the firm of Russell & Co., of Toronto, but that not one of these fuses had ever been made in Canada.
w	-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am surprised at the Minister of Militia becadse he is usually a good fighter. If there was anything that I gave the minister credit for it was that he always came out in the open and never got behind a quibble of that sort. He has some colleagues who might be expected to do that but never the Minister of Militia. The minister made the statement that no fuses had ever been manufactured in Canada.


Samuel Hughes: I made the statement in answer to the leader of the Opposition, that not a single fuse had ever been made under the Munitions Board in Canada. I make the statement now that not a single fuse has ever been made in Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If I am in order, Mr. Speaker, I would say that this is the most contemptible quibble that I have ever listened to in the House of Commons. Nobody is finding any fault with the Imperial Munitions Board. We are not asking for any investigation of their affairs. We are simply asking for an investigation of the affairs of the Shell Committee. I could not tell you whether my leader used precise words indicating that fuses had been manufactured under a contract made by the Munitions Board but there is not a man who would expect the minister to try to crawl out of a hole in that way. I thought the minister was more of a sport than that. I did not believe the minister would get down to that kind of warfare and would try to get out of the hole by saying that he draws a distinction between a contract given by the Shell Committee and a contract given by the Munitions Board.


Samuel Hughes: I gave the date.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is welcome to all the credit he can get out of it. I see that it is getting along towards twelve o'clock, I have finished one phase of this case, but I have a few remarks to make on another branch. I would like to adjourn the debate.


Samuel Hughes: I want to follow
the hon. gentleman to-night.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We will have to continue sitting into Ash Wednesday if you do. I do not think the minister is serious in that. I would like to move the adjournment of the debate if the right hon. leader of the House would consent.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand it will be difficult for the minister to speak at any other time, and he desires to follow my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell). Otherwise I would not object.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. member does not object, I would like just to tackle his address for a short time. Nothing would give me greater pleasure.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am always game, you know. I never object to listening to an antagonist.


Robert Laird Borden: How long would the hon. gentleman require to finish his remarks?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Probably three-quarters of an, hour.


Robert Laird Borden: As much as that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That is terrifying.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have really just covered one or two phases, and I want to take up some other matters.


Samuel Hughes: I certainly do not object, but I would dearly love to get a clip at the hon. gentleman.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You could get it on
Thursday.
iSir ROBERT BORDEN: I think the minister, upon reflection, has come to the conclusion [DOT] that there is not yery much to

answer, and therefore he will consent to adjourn the debate.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved the adjournment of the House. He said: I intended that we should go on with this debate on Thursday, but I understand that some arrangement has been made between the whips on account of which some hon. gentlemen may not be here on Thursday. Therefore I am willing to adjourn the debate until Tuesday, and take up estimates on Thursday and Friday if that will more generally meet the convenience of hon. gentlemen. If we go into estimates, we will take up Labour, Justice and Railways.
Robert Rogers: If Railways will suit my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham).


George Perry Graham: If an arrangement has
been made, of course we will conform to it, although I understood we were going on on Thursday, with this debate.


Robert Laird Borden: So did I.


George Perry Graham: However, if the proposal suits the convenience of hon. members we will acquiesce in it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I suppose I ought not tQ ask too many favours, but on account of some personal matters that have cropped up by cable to-day, I think it will be difficult for me to be here the first of next week.
I should prefer Thursday.


Robert Laird Borden: Then we will have the continuation of the speech of my hon. friend on Thursday, one speech in reply, and then adjourn the debate and go into Estimates for the rest of Thursday and the whole of Friday.


George Perry Graham: Railway Estimates will suit me on Thursday, but I am not so sure about Friday.


Robert Laird Borden: Then we will not take them up on Friday, hut on Thursday, if at all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.38 p.m.
Thursday, March 9, 1916.