1916-01-19

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Sergeant-at-Arms has, with my approval, appointed Louis Charles Panet as Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms for the present session.



REPORTS AND PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police for the year 1915.-Sir Robert Borden.
Report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1915.- Hon. W. J. Roche.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Alfred Thompson for an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Tuesday, January 18.
Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: Before the House proceeds with this debate, I want to refer to an incident which happened last night between the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). Rule 19 of the House of Commons says that " no member shall use offensive words against any member." I see in Hansard, on page 79, that last night the hon. Solicitor General used the following words:
Mr. Meighen: I am satisfied of one thing only, and that is that the hon. gentleman is absolutely unfair and has deliberately misstated the facts.
Some hon. Members: Order, order.
Mr. Speaker: I-
Mr. Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, do not ask the hon. gentleman to take it back.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. gentleman is satisfied-*
Mr. Pugsley:	Perfectly [DOT] satisfied. If the
hon. gentleman forgets himself and ceases to act as a gentleman, I forgive him.
According to the rule which I have just read, every member of this House - will understand that the words used last night by the hon. Solicitor General were offensive, and at the same time I must say that the words used by the hon. member for St. John were also offensive. I see that the hon. Solicitor General is not in his seat; otherwise I would ask him to withdraw the words used, and I would ask the same thing of the hon. member for St. John. Both these two hon. gentlemen have the respect of this House, and no doubt in the future no such words will be used by them, nor by any other member.
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (St. John City); Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that you have called the attention of the House to what was said last evening. I regret it very much myself, but I thought my hon. friend the Solicitor General had used the words which he did in the excitement of the moment, tho' I think he is not quite correctly reported in Hansard. I think he used the words, " and I fear that the hon. gentleman has done it deliberately." His language was not quite as strong as it appeared in Hansard. I thought that the Solicitor General was very much excited, greatly worried, and I was disposed to forgive him for what I thought was a lapse on his part. However, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say most sincerely that I regret the incident. So far as I am concerned, I am very desirous that all discussions in Parliament should be carried on with due regard to that courtesy which members are always anxious to show to each other, and I shall be glad to act upon your suggestion, Sir, and withdraw the words which I used.
I regret for another reason that my hon. friend the Solicitor General is not present because last evening, when I called attention to the fact that Mr. Thomas had come out to Canada as the personal representative of Mr. Lloyd George to look into the question of the furnishing of shrapnel and high explosive shells in 'Canada, he made a careful investigation into conditions, and upon one occasion, in making a speech in the city of Montreal, he used the words, "If I raise the veil a little." The Solicitor General at once challenged me to produce a newspaper report of that remark of Mr. Thomas. I now, Sir, produce the newspaper, which is the Montreal Gazette [Mr. Speaker.)
of, I think, October 9, 1915, and those are the very words Mr. Thomas used as a preliminary to some other observations he made. I will read the whole of the paragraph containing those words. He said:
If I raise the veil a little, It will be on my own personal responsibility, and do not take It as coming from the Minister of Munitions ; but naturally from my official position I must have considerable inside knowledge of what is going on in Canada in the manufacture of munitions.
Those words are very significant as coming from a gentleman in the position of Mr. Thomas. You will bear in mind that he came to Canada at a critical time, when there were vast orders being placed. He came to consider a question of enormous importance to Canada and to the Empire. He would necessarily be very diplomatic, very careful; he would take his time to look into matters, and it is significant that when he made his speech at Montreal he used those words, " If I raise the veil a little, it will b.e on my own personal responsibility." Mr. Thomas said more than that. In the same paper he is reported to have made the statement to wliich I called the attention of the House last night with regard to economy. He said:
That must be considered, and I may tell you that the cost of shells ip Canada has been higher than in competitive countries. It is complained that fat orders have gone to the United States, but I can assure you that a big slice will be reserved for Canada as long as the price is fairly satisfactory. The prices so far have been higher than in the United States or in Great Britain, where any extra profits have been commandeered by the Government.
In another place Mr. Thomas is reported to have said that up to the preceding June the deliveries from Canada were behind, and that only about two per cent of the orders had been filled.


Mr. HAZEN:: What is the date of the
Montreal Gazette?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: October 9, 1915, as near as I can tell you. It is covered with a rubber stamp which is not very plain. While iMr. Thomas was, of course, very careful, very diplomatic, very desirous of not offending anybody, he was still very firm in his determiniationi to get nid of the old Shell Committee. I have here the report of an interview with Mr. Thomas in the Montreal Herald-and of this also I cannot give the exact date because vae record made with a rubber stamp upon the clipping is not clear. The report states <as follows :

He believes that there is more " politics " in Canada at the present time than there is in England, and that it is a had thing for Canada.
Big political interests here, at the present juncture, who are intimately connected with manufacturing concerns, are out after orders. Orders come first-the making of munitions being a secondary outcome. Mr. Thomas repeated that it was a bad thing; but added that, in so far as he was able, the British taxpayer came first, and that much as he liked to see the golden stream pouring into Canada, to the benefit of her industries and individuals, that he was guided by no other thought.
That the matter was one of very great importance will 'be apparent from the fact that up to December 16 last, the total contracts for shells and shell boxes-and I suppose the contracts include also fuses^- amounted to the enormous sum of $265,000,000, or about $80,000,000 more than the total! expenditures by the Government of Canada for ordinary purposes. It ie important .to the British Government, as 'Mr. Thomas well knew, thiat shells should be supplied (art the lowest ipos stole cost. To the people of Canada also, this is .an important matter. It appears from the .statement made by the Prime Minister on the day of the opening of this debate, that this Government is advancing a share of the cost of the munitions on the basis of the forces sent from Canada. I take it from the statement which the Minister of Finance ('Sir Thomlais White) has made thiat this is merely a temporary advance to be adjusted with the British Government when they come to determine Canada's proper proportion of the expenditure. 'If we take the forces that Canada has at the front relatively to those thiat Great Britain has latt the front, this would mean that Canada would be bearing one-thirteenth part of the expenditure for shells. If I am right in my figures, then, in addition to the vast sums which Canada is expending in other directions, she twill have to bear an expense of more than $20,000,000 for shells. If there has been paid out, as I am informed is the case, millions upon millions of dollars more for shrapnel and high explosives than these munitions could have been produced for, had business methods been pursued, Canada must bear her share of this loss. My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen), to whom I am obliged to refer again for a moment, is reported to have made a speech recently in which this subject was referred to. I
speak of that hon. gentleman because he is a prominent member of the Government, and I refer to his speech because it particularly attracted my attention. That speech, if I remember correctly, was made either at Port Arthur or at Fort William. He stated that excessive amounts were being paid for munitions of war. And what was the remedy that he suggested? He suggested that Parliament should impose a war tax upon these excessive profits. In my judgment that is fio adequate remedy. While it would bring into the Canadian treasury a part of the excessive profits, the whole amount of these profits would he taken out of the Imperial and Canadian treasuries respectively in the proportion of about thirteen dollars to one. If the Solicitor General knew as a member of this Government that excessive profits were being taken, that unreasonable profits were being paid for shells and other munitions of war, it was his duty to inform his colleagues and to take the necessary steps to compel the Shell Committee-which, as I have said, was a creature of this Government, a body with whose appointment the British Government had nothing to do except in a nominal way-to cease allowing excessive profits to be made. There are some who hlame the manufacturers of Canada. I do not blame them at all. Under the Shell Committee they were not asked to tender; they were only asked if they could manufacture shells at the prices fixed. They would be more than human if they refused to take the profits which this Government, through its Shell Committee, offered them.
I think I yesterday called attention to the fact, and I desire to repeat it to-day, that the constitution of this Shell Committee was entirely contrary to the public interest, and this Government ought to have known it. This Shell Committee fixed the prices which one company, of which the Shell Committee's chairman was vicepresident, and another company of which Mr. Carnegie, another member of the committee, was manager, were to receive for shells. In other words, the Shell Committee fixed the prices in the benefits of which some of its members were to share. This was clearly not in accordance with business principles, because to that extent incentive was taken away from these .men to make the prices fair and reasonable. A portion of every extra dollar paid for shells went into the pockets of these gentlemen who were directing heads of the Shell Committee. What did General Bertram say

on that subject? This was after he had received the honour of knighthood, which, as I said yesterday, was a very good way to get rid of General Bertram, and to afford opportunity to change the constitution of the committee. He gave an interview in which he said that the other members of the committee had nothing to do with the fixing of prices or giving of orders, that he took upon himself all these things and never consulted his fellow-members regarding such matters. Did the Government know that General Bertram, the vicepresident of John Bertram & Sons, Ltd., which, besides manufacturing, is the selling agent of shell making machinery made in the United States, was carrying on the business of this Shell Committee without consulting his fellow members ?
Although this country,was supposed to have guarding its interests a committee of eight members, four of-them civilians and four of them military men, General Bertram says that really nobody but himself was looking after those important interests. Well, Sir, I am told that General Bertram has not entirely stated the facts, or the whole facts. I am told that Mr. Carnegie, whose company was receiving a large number of orders, was the only member of the committee who was acting with General Bertram; that it was these gentlemen who, in large measure, distributed these favours and, as I have said, to the amount of a vast sum of money, distributed them among themselves. Surely the House will see at once that that was entirely irregular. These gentlemen, who were directing the contracts; who were selling these munitions to the British Government, which was the partner of the Canadian Government in connection with the procuring of them, weTe both sellers and purchasers. As the vendors they fixed the prices; as the purchasers they took the prices which they themselves fixed. As I have said, my information is that millions upon millions of dollars have been taken out of the British taxpayers and out of the people of Canada by reason of the payment of these excessive prices, and by reason of the lack of ordinary business methods in connection with the appointment of the Shell Committee and its operations.
I stated in the House yesterday that there was an insistent demand from the people of Canada that an investigation should be had into these matters. There is no doubt that Mr. Thomas did investigate. There is no doubt that he came to the conclusion

that this Shell Committee, the creation of the Government through my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, should go. He took his own time to have them go, but he made up his mind that go they should, and go they did. A new committee was appointed, with Mr. Flavelle at its head. Let me now read to you, Sir, and to this House, some extracts from leading newspapers bearing upon thi-s subject. I do this because 1 think the House will agree with me that, speaking generally, the newspapers oi Canada may be relied upon to give a fail-idea of public opinion, and to express also the honest views of the editors, based upon the information which they have the opportunity of obtaining with regard to the matters of which they write. But before I proceed to.that I should like to call attention to another remark which Mr. Thomas is reported to have made. I am now quoting from his public statement in both the Montreal Star and the Montreal Gazette. After stating that the cost in Canada had been greater than in the United States oi Great Britain, Mr. Thomas is reported in these two newspapers to have further said:
In June last Canada was, frankly, rather behind in making good in point of time on the orders that had been placed-only two per cent of the orders had made good. Public sentiment would not be met by retirement of the manufacturing members of the shell committee.
Mr. Thomas must have discovered facts of very great importance to have induced him, coming to this country as a stranger, to make these observations. And his remarks are evidence, I think, that he found the conditions very serious, and that the only way in which the interests of Canada and of the Empire could be served; the only way in which the public sentiment could be-satisfied, was by completely disorganizing that Shell Committee and appointing a new committee, which should be directly under the control of the Imperial Government. Mr. Thomas made an important change in another respect. He did not approve the conduct of the Canadian Shell Committee in themselves fixing the prices and giving the contracts at those prices; he believed in and adopted the principle of competition.
Let me read, first, from the Toronto Saturday Night, a journal which has devoted a good deal of attention to this subject, and which, I believe, recently expressed some dissatisfaction with the new committee as well. There are some people who almost believe that my hon. friend the Minister of Militia shares the views of the Toronto

Saturday Night as to the new (Commission. In its issue of October 23, 19115, that journal said:	[DOT]
The shell committee was no place for a gentleman directly connected with the shellmaking 'plants-corporations, he it noted, with directorates having wide ramifications.
I iam sorry that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is not in his place, because I am going to quote from a newspaper with whose views I think he is very thoroughly in accord. He will, perhaps, be able to impress upon his colleagues the desirability of giving attention to those views. I quote from the Winnipeg Telegram of November 1, 1915:
The greatest of Welsh humorists is D. A. Thomas.	No one suspected that the hardheaded Welsh coal magnate had as strong a sense of humour as the author of Sam Slick. His farewell announcement has convulsed Ottawa with laughter. He spanked General Sir [DOT]Sam, told him he was a good, active little hoy, hut to keep his fingers out of the jampot ; gave General Bertram a fine dish of soft soap, hut warned him that business was not his forte; praised the Canadian manufacturers for their energy and enterprise, but suggested that smaller profits would show greater patriotism; and kicked out Colonel Cantley, general manager of the Nova Scotia shell game, with such a grace, that this gentleman thinks he has been promoted.
A quotation appealed in the Ottawa Citizen from the Grain Growers' Guide of November 24-I assume that it is a correct quotation. The Grain Growers' Guide says:
There certainly should be a thorough public investigation of this matter. If it is true that Canadian shell manufacturers have been robbing the British treasury of millions of dollars in these ways, they are guilty of assisting the enemy, and no punishment would he too severe for them. They belong to the plutocratic class that has always claimed for itself a monopoly of patriotic sentiment, and if they are guilty of what is charged against them their disgrace is all the deeper. Perhaps these charges are not true, and if so the manufacturers should be given an opportunity to prove their honesty. Let the public have the facts and let all concerned take the consequences.
As I have already said, I disagree with anybody who says that the manufacturers of this country are to blame. I say, if there is any blame; if there is any offence against the public, or any impropriety which'ought to be condemned, it is upon the part of the gentlemen who were created a shell committee by this Government, and who themselves fixed the prices which they were willing to pay to the manufacturers.
The Ottawa Citizen, under date of November 29, makes reference to an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Telegram. It says: 6
The. Telegram publishes the followng editorial demand for Investigation of the late shell committee by the Davidson Royal Commission :
Is Sir Charles Davidson to squander all the time and energy on his inquisition upon drug clerks, vendors of aged and spavined equines or thrifty gentlemen who short change the country in the supply of oats for war horses?
The work of the shell committee in the purchase of munitions for the British government should he lit up with all the illuminating power of Sir Charles Davidson's lanterns of truth.
The worst sort of quibble travels in the suggestion that the shell committee was spending the money of the British taxpayers, and the work of that committee is therefore none of Sir Robert Borden's business.
The shell committee was acting on behalf of Sir Robert Borden just as Sir Robert Borden was acting on behalf of the Canadian people. The shell committee was not the steward of Canada's money. The shell committee was the steward of Canada's honour. The procedure that keeps the work of the shell committee outside the zone of the Davidson inquiry is not worthy of Sir Robert Borden. That procedure is no fulfilment of Sir Robert Borden's promise to institute and prosecute a full and searching and impartial inquiry into all war expenditures.
That article appeared in a newspaper which is owned and controlled by a very prominent member of the Conservative party, who formerly sat in this House. It is one of the most influential papers in the city of Toronto, and I shall ask hon. gentlemen whether the argument which is made in favour of an investigation is not a sound bne. He calls- attention to the fact that the Prime Minister promised a full and complete investigation into the *war expenditures. But here is a matter of expenditure running far and away beyond any expenditure in connection with [DOT]ordinary war supplies. He asks why the work of the Davidson Commission should be confined to an inquiry into purchases of horses, drugs, and matters of that kind when these vast expenditures made in Canada by a commission appointed by this Government go uninvestigated. When the editor of the Toronto Telegram wrote that article he did not know what we in this House know to-day, from the statement which the Minister of Finance has made, that in the final accounting Canada is to pay her proportion of the cost of all these war munitions, including shrapnel, high explgsive shells, and all kinds of equipment. If the editor of the Toronto Telegram had known that, he would have said that in these purchases of war material Canada and Great Britain are in partnership; Canada is to pay her share of all these expenditures relatively to the number of men she will have at the front; that, when the Shell Committee was pur-



chasing shells for the British Government, it was purchasing shells lor the Canadian Government as well, and, therefore, that for every million dollars of _ excessive prices which have been paid through the unbusinesslike and improper methods adopted by this Shell Committee, Canada is paying her share. When this Government advanced'during the summer a good many millions of dollars to the British Government to enable payment to be made for these war munitions, she was giving to the British Government her own share of these expenditures, the amount of which has to be determined "When the account comes to be finally adjusted. Therefore it is absolutely clear that if this Government is going to allow Parliament to investigate any war expenditures made by Canada, this is one subject of the very greatest possible importance which demands investigation at the hands of this Parliament; and in submitting the matter to Parliament I claim that the hon. gentlemen who occupy seats behind the Treasury Benches and those of us who sit on this side of the House have a duty to perform as trustees foT the people of Canada, just as much as those who sit on the Treasury Benches; and we would not be doing our duty if we did not, by every possible, every legitimate means within our power, insist upon the fullest! the most complete investigation of these vast expenditures.
Why, what took place during the Boer war? While the then Minister of Agriculture refused to answer some questions with regard to purchases of hay in the province of Quebec, this House adopted a resolution requiring the Government to bring before the House all correspondence which had taken place with the Imperial Government in reference to the purchase of hay and other military supplies which were going to South Africa; and when there was some delay in the bringing down of the return, tne present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who was then a leading member of the Opposition, rose in his place and informed the then Minister of Agriculture that he must understand that his estimates could not be passed until those documents were laid before the House. That is the attitude which the Minister of Trade and Commerce took even in reference to the bringing down of correspondence regarding the purchase of hay. But, Sir, how different were the circumstances then from what they are to-day! At that time all that Canada was doing was to. send to the front

the Canadian boys who volunteered for service in South Africa, and all the equipment, all the supplies, alfi this hay about which inquiries were being made, were being paid for by the British Government, and Canada had nothing to do with the expenditure. How different it is to-day with regard to the shells and other war munitions for which this Government has entered into a solemn obligation with the Imperial Government to pay its proper proportion, so that Canada's proportion of this expenditure is disbursed through the Shell Committee appointed by this Government, just as is the money of the Imperial Government.
The Ottawa Citizen of November 16, 1915, says:
Britain has been charged $5.15 for machining 18-pounder shells, though they could be machined profitably at $1. By steps the British authorities succeeded in getting the price down to $2.90. Even though a responsible contractor offered to machine the shells at $1.40, the Dominion Shell Committee ordered the shellmachining at $2.90. Certain Canadian shells have been costing more than United States shells to the Motherland.
Again, on December 4, the Toronto Saturday Night says:
If Canadian manufacturers will get down to brass tacks, eliminate the stock ticker from their considerations, and if the "profiteers" will bend their energies to shell the German trenches instead of shelling the public with stock at ridiculously artificial prices, Canada as a nation will keep all its idle and semi-idle plants busy for as long as the war lasts, and will come out bettered financially.
Then, the Montreal Daily Mail, a papei which has the sympathy and enjoys the confidence of prominent members of this Administration, is quoted in" the Toronto Globe of December 24 as making the following statement:
It is with real reluctance that the Daily Mail suggests the incompleteness-of what is termed General Bertram's "valedictory." A public duty, however, cannot be evaded, and it is a public duty to remind General Bertram that his statement, utterly lacking in detail and definiteness as affecting the criticism of the work of his committee, does not allay suspicion but tends to strengthen it. Major-General Bertram has-been accused of enriching his private interests from business placed by the shell committee under his direction. He has been .accused of' showing favoritism in the distribution of shell orders, and of allowing prices to the manufacturers (including his own concerns) out of all proportion to the cost. Not one of these charges did he deal with in his valedictory, except in relation to the price of shells, and in this particular matter he witholds from the public the very information it desires.
Major-General Bertram would have been well advised to say more or say nothing. His latest statement, padded with information which is

of no material interest to the public, would appear to be a crude pretext for putting the public off the scent in regard to the operations of the late shell committee. The public is ready to be convinced that General Bertram can justify every transaction consummated under his official auspices. While it will not jump to any half-baked conclusions, it will accept definite answers to definite accusations. General Bertram. in his utter lack of frankness in defending the work of the committee, has done poor service to himself, and has very materially strengthened the demand for a public investigation of his direction of the shell committee.
That is a strong editorial, the editorial of a newspaper not only friendly but zealously friendly to this Government. Surely that is a statement which this Government, and this Parliament, cannot afford to throw lightly lasiide.
Then, the Hamilton 'Spectator-I do not know whether that paper supports the Government, or whether it opposes it.


Mr. MURPHY:: It supports it.


William Pugsley: 

'84 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Kingdom munition manufacturers must contribute to the state 50 per cent of the profits they make in excess of an amount of £100 above their average annual profits for the last three years. While prices are still up, as Mr. Bonar Law says, so much of the excess over a reasonable margin above cost comes back to the state. In Canada, manufacturing industry is far from being in the closely-organized state of British industry. Strong pressure has been needed to work down prices of munitions to a fair-profit level, and in some cases they are yet far from meeting the requirements of economy set forth by the British colonial secretary. As we begin to bear our own financial war burdens we must necessarily see that far from being in the position of mere vendors of war wares to an outside government-with a vendor's privileges-our manufacturers are a part of the Canadian war economy, as well as of the 'imperial, and that patriotism requires munition contracts to be figured, not to make the greatest stroke for profits, but to give most benefit to the state.
Then the Vancouver Sun comments:
When the Mail realizes that it can not defend, much less acclaim the proceedings ot the shell committee and the manufacturers, the News-Advertiser should understand that thick and thin support of its party under such circumstances is clear indecency.
Now, Sir, I am not sure that I am correctly informed as to the manufacturer in Hamilton who offered to Mr. Thomas to place his factory at the disposal of the Government so as to make shells free of charge; but I am told-probably it is the same gentleman-that there is a manufacturer in Ontario who, under the prices which had been fixed by the Shell Committee, and to which, as I have said, the manufacturers were not a party,, made a profit of half a million dollars, and who, thinking he had got enough, then offered h.is factory to the Government to turn out munitions of war free of charge. He had been surfeited with the enormous profits which the Shell Committee had enabled him to make.
Mr. CARVELL:: Did they accept his offer?


William Pugsley: They did not accept his offer. And why, Mr. Speaker? What I told you yesterday showed that this Government, through its Shell Committee, did not take hold of this business with a view to supplying munitions of war for the armies of the Allies at the lowest possible cost. They took hold of it rather with the view of relieving industrial depression in this country, and they were guided by the thought that, as the result of the demand for army supplies, including munitions of war, they would be able to start small in-

dustries all over this country; that they would be able, I Tegret to say, to give much encouragement to political favourites and turn much money into their pockets. Probably my hon. friend the Minister of Militia will resent that istatement. Still, Sir, I say that if that was their motive, they could not have gone about carrying it out in a more direct fashion than the way they did. Therefore, if they had started a factory themselves and turned out these munitions of war at actual cost, they would have had to reduce the price to these other factories throughout the country, many of which were merely the creations of mushroom companies which had started by reason of the giving of these war orders.
Then, the Manitoba Free Press in an article on Dec. 28, said:
It is beyond all question that the people ot Canada will be more than glad to have it proved that the shell contracts have been honestly awarded and are being carried out with reasonable efficiency. There is not a Canadian worth discussing who would not prefer to believe that Canadian manufacturers are innocent of exploiting the unbottomed misery into which * this war has plunged practically the whole human race. And, although much less important, because merely material, there is not a Canadian who would not prefer to believe that Canada's industrial capacity was equal to present war emergencies.
There is, however, a fundamental thing upon which decent Canadians of every stripe and colour are adamant. This fundamental thing is that beyond ordinary and reasonable profits on the supply of necessary and honestly manufactured war materials, private parties shall not derive advantage and that family fortunes shall not be founded, to be spent no doubt after the war in easeful and luxurious living.
With all respect to General Bertram his Toronto interview, reported in yesterday's Free Press, is just as weak as the uplifted hands of the Canadian weekly published in the same city. Mere assertions of virtue are entirely out of court. Whatever a full and fearless inquiry may disclose, grave suspicion as to extortion, and even graft, in regard to the shell contracts is at this present warranted.
The Montreal Herald, on November 30, said:
The humiliating thing is that this is the work
of a " Dominion " Shell Committee-
Let that never be forgotten. I say that this was not the work of a committee appointed by the British Government; this was the work of a committee appointed by this Government, and for whose actions this Government must be held responsible to the people of Canada. The Herald says:
The humiliating thing is, that this is the work of a " Dominion " Shell Committee, and therefore represents the national policy regarding the .manufacture of munitions. This is how our industrial resources have been ' mobilized ' to

meet the supreme need of the Empire and of civilization itself! Compare this with the policy in force with the rest of the Allied nations. Compare it with a statement for instance, of the chairman of the Steel Company of Scotland, in an address at the annual meeting of the stockholders in October:
Then follows the address, which I will read:
" You are aware that on more than one occasion I have in this place denounced government legislation as it affected the country's industries, and I may be permitted to say how heartily I approve of the principle (the special taxation of war profits) which has now been set forth in Mr. McKenna's budget, although I am not at all sure that its application is adequate. To my mind, there is something absolutely revolting in the idea of anybody making profits out of the natiori's agony-and especially so in the case of a man or company who had no extra labour or anxiety, but whose -opportunity has come solely because of an artificial scarcity created by the Government on account of the nation's need. The ideal principle of taxation is, of course, equality of sacrifice. . . . When we think of those splen- . did men of ours in Belgium, France, the Dardanelles, and elsewhere. . . who have sacrificed home, kindred, health, comfort and ease.
. . . we must feel how paltry and Insignificant is any monetary sacrifice which we, who must remain at home, can lay on the altar of patriotism. . . It may be, indeed, that before the war is ended, the Government may find it necessary to take not 50 but 100 per cent of those extra profits, and if they do, I hope none of us will complain."
In Canada some of the favoured companies are counting profits by the millions; they are gloating over prices that will run, it is declared, all the way up to 150 per cent profit on their entire capitalization. They see nothing revolting, apparently, in profiteering to the full out of the British nation's agony.
I want to pause for a moment to repeat here that the taxation of extra profits will avail nothing in so far as the relief of the British Treasury is concerned. It will present the anomalous spectacle of the members of this committee having fixed the excessive prices which will be paid to the manufacturers, including those companies of which they were the directing heads, and then by the imposition of taxes, taking the money back again, not giving it to the Imperial Treasury, but putting it into the treasury of Canada. That would be no remedy. The remedy was for this Government to have watched the work of the Shell Committee from the beginning, and have seen that they discharged their duty to the country, that they did not pay excessive prices, and that they did their duty by Canada and the Empire.
There is another very important article in the Toronto Telegram of December 22, which I trust I may be pardoned for reading. I do it because of what I conceive to be the vast importance of the subject, and because of the necessity of placing before the House the views of the public of Canada as represented by its leading newspapers. The Toronto Telegram published an article on this subject on December 22, 1915, which I will read-in full:
Exploiting War Orders-Doings of Middlemen
-Proposition is up to Premier Borden,
Declares the Contract Record of Toronto.
Down New York way they're still sending out circulars that tell of desirable investments created by filling, war orders in Canada, says the Contract Record in this week's issue. One of the latest comes from .Gilbert Elliott and Company. It advises clients to invest in Canada Foundries and Forgings Company, which has shops at Brockville and Welland.
Then there is a quotation of the figures. If I am not mistaken, Sir Henry Pellatt is
president of that company.


Mr. GRAHAM:: No.
3	p.m. Mr. PUGSLEY: I may be mistaken as to that.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


William Pugsley: I saw that there had been some denial of a statement of profits which had been put forth by a company with which he was connected. I will read the article from the Telegram, not knowing, of course, whether there was any contradiction of it or not:	[DOT]
"We a>re advised from sources upon which we can rely, that earnings for the past ten months ending November 1, 1915, are over $900,000, and that the monthly earnings are now running at the rate of $150,000, or equal to $1,860,000 per year, which after taking care of fixed charges, will amount to over 150 per cent per annum on the outstanding common stock."
That is prefaced by the statement of Gilbert Elliott & Co., who, I assume, were brokers endeavouring to dispose of the stock of the company. Their information may or may not be correct. I cannot vouch for it, and I do not expect that the paper vouches for it either. It would not know, but the editor, or whoever wrote this article, saw it in the financial circular which was sent out by these brokers.
Sir Sam's Speech.	.
The circular also stated that the company has within the past year filled large orders for shells for the British government, in addition to its commercial business.
Right on top of this comes Sir Sam Hughes with a speech to Ward 4 Conservatives, Toronto. From a newspaper report of that speech the following is clipped:
" Sir Sam related how, when the first order for 200,000 shells came to Canada, there were

only four men In the whole of the Dominion who had tshe courage to tackle * that little twopenny ha'penny order.' It had taken a week arid a half to even get them to face the issue.
" Since then we have delivered four million shells," declared Sir Sam. " Upwards of $350,000,000 from shells alone has been placed in the pockets of the workmen."
Who are the "Workmen?"
Now, taking the circular from Now York with the story told by Sir Sam, who would you take " workmen " to mean-the men who " worked " the Shell Committee or the men who work in munition factories? If Sir Sam means the latter he is evidently talking arrant nonsense. If the workmen have got-$350,000,000 in wages Canada must have shipped at least a billion dollars' worth of shells, for the cost of material and even reasonable profits would' make the difference between the sums mentioned. Every body'knows that Canada has not shipped either a billion or half a billion dollars' worth of shells. Cabinet ministers should be required to know some little thing about what they are talking.
Real Plants Ready.
Anothe'r excerpt from the report of Sir Sam's furious speech reads as follows:-
"S r S m said that men had gone to him with a white sheet of paper, in some cases with their sisters tagging on behind, and not a cent of capital, asking to get orders.
"An-1 these are the men who are making the complaints. I threw them out of my office as fast as they came in and some of them were good friends of mine. Some of them were Tories, too."
That is the condition which Mr. Thomas found when he arrived in Ottawa; he found that politics and munition orders were mixed very thoroughly together. Then the Telegram proceeds:
And within a block of where Sir Sam spoke was a foundry capable of turning out thousands of shells daily, lying almost idle.
That is typical of the condition of affairs throughout the country, that there were scores and hundreds of shops which were not utilized. The Telegram proceeds:
And I can furnish Sir Sam with a list of men who have the factories and who could not get orders. If they are not complaining too loudly it is because they still have hopes of securing orders.
A Pet Organization.
These attempts to belittle the manufacturers who have been wronged by the shell committee are unworthy of men of cabinet size. Bufthe shell committee was a pet organization of Sir Sam and he is only following the policy of his party to minimize those mistakes which lost to the manufacturers of Canada the greatest opportunity of a century.
Why did the Government lease the Transcona car shops to a private company for the manufacture of shells? Well, perhaps you had better ask D. A. Thomas. The shell committee was the part of the Dominion Government with which he came in contact. So when the Government proposed to start in to manufacture shells 
without saying anything about price you can imagine him throwing up his hands and exclaiming " Heaven forbid!" However, what he said to the Government was, " put in a tender." Well, you know that shell committee never did care for tenders, anyway. It just shied off and the Government with it.
Now, I need not read the whole of the article, but I come down to the last part of it in which a positive statement is made with regard to a clerk getting a contract, which is an instance of, the newspaper says, how the shell committee handled contracts. The Telegram says:
Clerk got Contract.
This story has been investigated and can he vouched for, as can the others that have from time to time found place in this column. The owner of a planing mill in an Ontario town went out after a shell-box contract. His application brought the usual answer that all contracts had been let. Imagine his surprise when a shipping clerk in a dry goods house in his own town secured a contract, put up a building, completed his contract and got a renewal. The ' shipping clerk had no plant, no experience and no business rating. - But lie knew a man who knew something about bow contracts were got. Pretty wise man, wasn't he? Thrifty, too. For he still retains his job as shipping clerk, though he occasionally finds a few moments to run over to the shell-box plant and figure his profits.
How did he do it? Ask the average box manufacturer and his answer will be: "Search me." For, strartge to say, this shell game does not appear to have run along purely political lines. There are instances given where Liberals secured contracts and Conservatives could not get within hailing distance of them. Truly that shell committee moved in- a mysterious way its wonders-to perform. It might he put on .as a. movie mystery with a contract as a prize for the nearest guesser of its methods.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: 
Sir ROBERT BORDEN :: The hon. gentleman is mistaken. I never had anything to do with fixing the prices. Mr. Jones did come to see me. I thought my

i
duty was fulfilled by at once arranging over the telephone an interview between Mr. Jones and Mr. Thomas who represented the British Minister of Munitions, and that interview took place at once.


William Pugsley: Then, I was giving to my right hon. friend a little too much credit. What I sought to do was to co'nvey the impression I had, that the Prime Minister did assist Mr. Jones by getting the Shell Committee to give him a contract at a reduced price.


Robert Laird Borden: I wiieto to make the matter plain. Mr. Thomas was here fully representing the British Minister of Munitions. I thought that information on the subject should !be conveyed at once to him. During the time that he was here, as 'I understood the matter, he regulated the price.


William Pugsley: tions of war. It may therefore come as a surprise to many, to learn that, despite many natural difficulties not known in Great Britain nor in Canada, the Federal Government of Australia has grappled energetically and successfully with the problem and that the resources of the Island Continent are being worked to their utmost in order to .render the maximum of aid to the Mother Country. When the call for shells cam'e from Great Britain in the early summer of 1915, the Federal Government immediately appointed a Federal Munitions Committee, and co-operation with the different states of the Commonwealth resulted in each of these forming State Munitions Committees which at once got actively to work. Munition Bills were passed by the Federal Parliament, giving the Government the power to manufacture and contract for the manufacture of munitions, and the different states also passed similar regulations giving them similar powers. The work was thus entered upon in a public anil official and thoroughly systematic manner.
Serious Difficulties Overcome.
The great difficulty encountered from the first lay in the fact that Australia, unlike Canada and unlike the United Kingdom, is not a mechanical manufacturing country. The necessary tools and machinery did not exist in that country and the tremendous distances from countries where these necessary supplies could be secured caused much vexatious delay. While this problem was being solved, however, active preparatory steps were taken in all other possible directions.
The leading engineers of the Commonwealth were called into conference to canvass the situation and supply all possible information on which actual progress could be based.
A Metal Exchange was established by the Federal Government to arrange for the control of metals produced In the country, so that all supplies would be readily available as required.
The Munitions Committee was instructed and proceeded with the formation and enrollment of a Munitions Workers Corps, to include all men of military age who are indispensable for the manufacture of munitions, and these men were given certificates to indicate that they have performed their full share of work in defence of their country. *
Steel Supply Quickly Found.
The Federal Defence Department early made arrangements for the first supplies of steel for shells, contracting for the necessary quantity at the lowest price from the Broken Hill Proprietary at its Newcastle works.
Early in November, 1915, the first steel, after exhaustive Government tests, was shipped to the different states. Samples were also sent to England with a view to supplying Great Britain and her Allies, and arrangements were also -made for shipment to New Zealand, where there is no steel available.
After due inquiry and consultation with the British War Office, the Federal Munitions Committee decided that the Dominion of Australia could best serve the needs of the Empire by the manufacture of 18-pound high-explosive shell bodies. A price of $5.05 per shell. Including the cost of the steel, was set, and all contractors willing to accept this price were given open contracts to supply all the shells they could manufacture up to June 30, 1916, with the provision, that this price might he revised, if so decided by the Government, on or after March 31,

1916. It was also undertaken that the British Government should give three months' notice when no more shells were required.
I pause to ask why this Government did not, at the very outset, make an arrangement of that kind with the manufacturers of Canada? Why is it that my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, when he is seeking to excuse these high prices, says that the orders from the British Government were spasmodic, and that they acted as if they thought-and some of their officials did think-that the war would end in three months; and that it was that which caused these enormously high prices to be paid. If this Government had gone about the matter in the right way why could they not have made the same arrangement as was made by the Australian Government? That arangement was that these contracts should run until March of the present year, and that while the Australian Government had the right to revise the figures at any time, still the contract would run, and if the British Government decided to terminate the contract the contractors must receive three months' notice.
Let me speak also of the price. Large quantities of these 18-pound high explosives have been manufactured in Canada. That was the shell which the Australian Government decided it would be best to manufacture. I believe it was regarded as about the most useful all-round munition which could be produced. What was the price that they paid? It was $5.05 per shell, and that was away off in Australia where the manufacturing industries are not at all in the advanced stage that they are in Canada; in Australia where the difficulty of obtaining steel is very much greater than in Canada. Australia is not like Canada, situated side by side with a great manufacturing country like the United States, where all the materials which could not be obtained in Canada might very easily be obtained. And yet, Sir, the Australian Government fixed the price for these 18-pound high explosives at 21 shillings sterling, which is equal to $5.05. That included the machining of the shell and the steel billets which would be used for the shell. What was the price fixed by this Shell Committee in Canada? It was $5.70 for the mere machining, and the steel billets were supplied by the Shell Committee free of cost to the manufacturer; and the steel for . those shells would cost an average of pretty close to $2 apiece or perbaips $1.40 or $1.50, or somewhere between $1 and $2. At all

events, it made the price of these 18-pound high explosives nearly $2 apiece greater in Canada than in Australia. That was the price fixed, as I said, by the Shell Committee, and fixed, evidently, out of all proportion to the cost of manufacture. Sir,' no man who looks at this subject dis^-passionately can come to any other conclusion than that some of the gentlemen on the Shell iCommittee, engaged as they were in large manufacturing concerns themselves, being directing heads of largo manufacturing concerns to which they themselves gave the making of vast quantities of steel shells, were quite content that the 'country (Should pay these enormous prices (and that they made no honest effort to get low prices because- and this is a hard thing to say of any gentleman who wias considered of sufficient importance to he appointed on this committee-because, of every excess dollar paid for the shells, a certain portion was going into their own pockets and into the treasuries of the companies of which they were the executive heads. A pretty situation for this Government to place the people of Great Britain and of Canada in, that this Commission, whom they appointed,-this Commission whose work they should have kept under their eyes from day to day, because the Imperial Government were trusting this Government to safeguard their interests as the people of Canada have trusted them to safeguard their interests-a pretty situa-. tion this, that these sixteen gentlemen who sit upon the Treasury Benches and whose duty it was under those circumstances to guard the interests of the Empire, including the interests of Canada, should have allowed this thing to go on from month to month, knowing that these gentlemen on the Shell Committee were buying shells from themselves and buying them at these exorbitant prices. I say it is a lamentable situation that they should allow this to go on for months and months, and that it was only after dissatisfaction had reached, apparently, to the Mother Country and after Mr. Lloyd George's representative, Mr. Thomas, had been sent out to this country to investigate, that these things were discovered, which nearly all men in Canada knew, and of which every honest Canadian was ashamed; and that it should have remained to Mr. Thomas to put an end to these scandals which ought long before that to have been put an end to by this Government.
Then this article proceeds as follows:
On this basis 31 tenders had been received-[DOT]
That is, at the price of $5.06.
-up to November 1, of which 19 had been formally accepted, the balance being- still under consideration.
Shell-making at actual cost.
These tenders revealed one very significant difference between shell-making in Canada, which is apparently inseparable from huge and unreasonable profit-making, and shell-making in Australia, where national service and the good of the Empire is apparently the first consideration.
Four of the tenders were from the State Governments of New South Wales, South Australia, .Victoria and Queensland, the contract for the latter state being undertaken by the State Government Railways Department. In each of these cases the larger part of the work was to be done at actual cost in Government owned and Government operated shops, most of which are pert of the equipment of the Railways Departments and other government departments. As all the railways of Australia are owned and operated by the state, the extent of the work undertaken in government shops can be readily understood.
I shall not trouble the House with the remainder of the. article, hut I may mention this very important matter: that the Government of Australia also undertook, early in the history of this war, the making of machine guns for the use of its soldiers at the front. And I would like to say just a word with regard to machine guns. I believe that this Government sent its boys to the front supplied with machine guns to a very small proportion as compared with the number in the hands of the Germans who stood in front of them upon the battlefield. I have been told that men have written from the front, that by reason of the want of machine guns they were mowed down as wheat is mowed down by the harvesting machines. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia went across to Europe and was said to have gone to the front, and when he came back he reported that all was well upon	the front,
when he ought to have known, and this Government ought to have known from week to week, from the reports o-f their 'officers at the front, that the equipment of the Canadian troops was lamentably deficient, so far as machine guns were concerned.- No word of that came to the public's ears, and apparently the Government itself took no action to remedy the defect; and it was not until Col. Currie and Col. Meighen returned from France and addressed public meetings, and called attention to this lamentable state of affairs, that there appeared to be any waking np on the part of the Government to the'neces-sity for properly equipping with machine guns ouir soldiers who are fighting the

battles of the Empire. Then what happened, Sir? Whan the people of Canada were confronted wiith the fact thiat although this Parliament voted $100,000,000 tor the proper equipment of bur soldiers this Government had failed in their duty, all over the country there arose a wave of indignation, as well ias a wave of intense patroitiism, and from almost every hamlet and town, from allmost every municipality and every city, from almost every mam and every woman, came contributions for machine guns dim order that our soldiers might be properly equipped. My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Militia (Hon. J. A. Lougheed) made an announcement through the press that the Government would be glad to receive these contributions, and would see to it that the money was devoted to the proper purpose. Sir, I think that every thousand dollars which ' was contributed by the people of this country for machine guns constitutes a strong indictment against this Government for its neglect to provide proper equipment for the soldiers. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence may say that the officials of the British War Office did not think that any more machine guns were necessary. But, Sir, for what do we have such an experienced soldier as the hon. Minister of Militia, for what purpose has he been selected, for what purpose did he go to the front, if not to see to the equipment of our soldiers? Surely he knows as much as the ordinary official of the British War Office; surely it is no answer to the people of Canada, no answer to the mothers and fathers of the boys whose lives have been sacrificed on the European battlefields, to say that the Minister of Militia did not know, and that 'he ought to be excused for not knowing, because the officials of the War Office in England did not realize the necessity for greater equipment. I say it is no excuse. The Minister of Militia must have known, or he ought to have known, of that great deficiency, and steps ought to have been taken earlier in the war to provide the necessary equipment in the matter of machine guns. The people of Canada want to know what has been done ' with the $2,000,000 which they subscribed-whether it is not to be used for machine guns, whether the assurance of Hon. Mr. Lougheed that the Government would be glad to receive contributions for machine guns and would apply the money received to that purpose, is to be [Mr. Pugsley.J
carried out'. If the money is not to be used for that purpose, then some explanation should be given to the public and more especially to the donors. The only explanation I have seen was in a letter written by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister a few days ago, in which he said that the money could not be returned because several machine guns had already been purchased. I am told that the total subscriptions were $2,000,000, and that that ,sum would purchase 2,000 machine guns. The Prime Minister says that several guns have been purchased up to this time, and that consequently the money cannot be returned. Sir, I think we ought to know why that money was not devoted to its proper purpose; we ought to know how much of it is on hand; we ought to know what is intended to be done with what is on hand; and we ought to know whether our soldiers -are now properly equipped so far ias machine guns are concerned. We ought to be informed as to how they were equipped when they first went dnto the trenches. The people' of Canada, let me tell my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, are terribly keen to know that when our boys go to the front -they have every possible protection which men can have, that they are well equipped, and well armed, and that they are fully supplied with big guns, machine guns, high explosive shells, and other munitions of war.
I api not going to detain the House any longer. I have already taken up longer time than I ought to have done, and I desire to express my thanks to the House for listening so patiently to what I have said. The subject seemed to me to be of the greatest possible importance. It seemed to me to be.a question affecting the honour of our country and the honour of this Parliament, and to be of the very greatest possible importance to the people, not only of Canada, but of Great Britain.
I have been careful to make no charge against the manufacturers of this country. Before I take my seat I desire to bear testimony to the fact that they stand in the very front rank of the manufacturers of the world. I believe that there is nothing which is turned out in any part of the world that cannot be turned out by the Canadian people. Hive them the contracts and they will supply the money, and the material, and the brains necessary to fill these contracts. But the Canadian manufacturers were not asked to fix prices for the shells, shrapnel, or high explosive, or any other munitions

of war which were under the control of the Canadian Shell Committee. Prices were fixed entirely by that committee, and if anybody is responsible for any wrong-doing which may have taken place it is the Shell Committee, it is this Government through the She1! Committee, which they appointed, and for whose actions they are responsible.
All that I ask, Sir, is that there be a full and complete investigation by a committee of this Parliament in order to determine whether excessive prices have been paid, and if they have been paid to fix the blame upon the right shoulders. I have been careful not to say anything because I do not know as to the extent of the responsibility; but I do say, and I repeat it most emphatically, that, so far as my information goes, that blame does not rest upon the shoulders of the manufacturers, but upon the shoulders of those who fixed the prices. It rests upon the shoulders of the members of the Shell Committee, who were paying themselves these excessive prices, who stood in the position of both buyers and sellers, and who could not reduce the prices to outside manufacturers without reducing the prices to themselves. The whole business was of the most objectionable character, and one that demands the fullest and most complete investigation by a committee of this Parliament.
Mr. OLIVER J. WILCOX (North Essex): Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to extend to you, Sir, my congratulations upon your promotion to the dignified position which you now occupy. If I toad been guilty of the tirade of unwarranted accusations, insinuations, and statements which have been made by my hon. friend the member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) I would have at least convinced myself that I was more anxious to undermine the Government of this country than to undermine the Kaiser. I cannot conceive of a speech that has been delivered in this House since the great world crisis has faced the people of Canada that has been so unbecoming, so out of place, as that which has been delivered by the hon, member for St. John. It had for its basis purely political motives and its object was to weaken the position of the Government which is to-day sustaining a responsibility the like of which no government has had to bear before in. Canada. I regret the attempt of the hon. gentleman to lay a charge where there is no charge, bolstered and Backed up by a lot of old newspaper clippings which are not admitted within the confines of Parliament
as proof in support of any contention, in an effort to make out a case against a government whose skirts are clear and who are recognized by the people of Canada as being worthy of the position which they occupy.
It does seem to me to be a peculiar thing -yes, a wonderful thing-in this young country in which we live, and which has made such vast strides along all avenues of human activity in the past forty years, that in every great crisis the country has seen it has been guided by the representatives of the great political party with which I am to-day affiliated.
We are always delighted to hear from my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). Oh, how I wish that the sentiments which animated the hon. member for St. John this afternoon had been as high and as noble as the sentiments that animated the hon. member for Red Deer the other evening, a man who has the proper idea of what it means to be a British subject and to live under British institutions, whose son is at the front doing his duty-


Sir SAM HUGHES:: And doing it well.


Mr. WILCOX:: -and who has another
son, I am informed, going to the front. Contrast that speech of the hon. member for Red Deer with the heckling, with the wanderings, with the meanderings of the hon. member for St. John. He landed once or twice in Vancouver, jumped from there to an elevator in Halifax, got over into St. John and landed in the Shell Committee in Montreal.	-


An hon. MEMBER:: High explosives.


Oliver James Wilcox: All high explosives and the biggest explosion that has taken place in this House is the speech of the hon. member for St. John. This was all done with the object of trying to figure out if he could not by some hook or crook convince the people that this Government are not worthy of the trust that has been committed to their care in this time of stress and trial. I have commended the hon. member for Red Deer and from my place -in this House I want to say, because I believe it, that a proper spirit animates my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). If I take his words to mean that which they appear to mean, I believe that I can put him, whatever transgressions he may have committed in past years in regard to loyalty and adhesion to

the policy of Imperial defence, amongst those Canadians who desire to pursue a patriotic course in this great crisis. I trust that the principles contained in the speech which he delivered here the other day will be acceptable to patriotic Canadians. But the party of hon. gentlemen opposite at this moment is at the parting of the ways on this question. Who is going to be the leader-the hon. member for St. John with his measley politics and who is .always playing the game? You would think we were living in times of the most glorious peace and not in times of war. We do not mind that from the hon. member from St. John; we expect it; we know that politics permeate his very being. I hope my hon. friend from St. John will not imagine I am casting any reflections upon the great ability
4	p.m. which we all recognize he possesses. But in this time of stress and trial it might have been expected that he would have employed that great ability in proper channels and that he would have given to the country that assistance which I believe every patriotic Canadian desires it should receive, thereby strengthening the hands of those who are endeavouring to uphold the British cause.
After the outbreak of war, when Sir Robert Borden, the distinguished Canadian who leads the destinies of this country at this hour, called the war session of Parliament, my right hpn. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made a speech from his place in this House, and in clear and distinct terms laid down the policy of the party which he leads. On page 8 of Hansard of the special session of Parliament of 1914, my right hon. friend had this to say:
This session has been called for the purpose of giving the authority of Parliament and the sanction of law to such measures as have already been taken by the Government, and any further measures that may be needed, to insure the defence of Canada and to give what aid may be in our power to the mother country in the stupendous struggle which now confronts her. Speaking for those who sit around me, speaking for the wide constituencies which we represent in this House, I hasten to say that to all these measures we are prepared to give immediate ' assent. If in what has been done or in what remains to be done there may be anything which in our judgment should not be done-


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


Oliver James Wilcox: -or should be differently done.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.
FMr. Wilcox.]


Oliver James Wilcox: -We raise no question.
Let my hon. friend say "hear, hear," now.


William Pugsley: That is- all right.


Oliver James Wilcox: We take no exception, we offer no criticism. Let him say it now.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


Oliver James Wilcox: And we shall not offer any criticism as long as there is danger at the front.
We took those 'words as coming from the leader of a great party, and we believed what he said.


William Pugsley: Not in regard to wrongdoing.


Oliver James Wilcox: My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has not transgressed to any great extent; but, Sir, there is an hon. gentleman on his right whom I would advise my right hon. friend, if he would take my advice, to take into his inner counsel, into that private office where he has put up so many political games in the past, where he devises those schemes to put it over us bad Tories. Let him take him in there and have a talk with him; and in the interest of the cause, and of the liberty and freedom of our institutions of which my right hon. friend spoke the other day, let us cut out this haggling and making political capital, which is nothing but political buncombe for the back concessions of the country.
In my constituency, when a man gets up and speaks a lot of what I eall "hot air," we call it up our way "bull talk." Some ingenious business institution up there has got out a barometer as an advertising scheme. I have one in my hand. It has an indicator, and the first point on it is "blarney." Then, as the indicator rises a few degrees higher, the next point is called "hot air." If it reaches up a few degrees higher, it is called "stable talk," and if it goes to the top it is called "bull talk"; and I am inclined to think that if I had applied this test to my hon.' friend, the indicator would have been at the top now.
As I listened to the words of the hon. gentleman, I thought of the words of Richard the Second:
Of comfort no man speak:
Let's talk of graves, and worms, and epitaphs ; Make dust our paper, and with rainy eyes Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth.

My hon. friend quoted papers ad nauseam. I hold in my hand the Ottawa Free Press of to-day, January 19, which is the leading Liberal paper in the capital and one of the leading Liberal organs of the Dominion of Canada, and it laughs at the hon. gentleman and puts him in his proper place. 1 desire to place this editorial on Hansard. I do not usually read from newspapers, but I am sure that my hon. friends will bear with me on this occasion, because it . is such a complete answer to the arguments which my hon. friend tried to make in his speech of one hour last night and two hours to-day. The Free Press says:
The " Shame " that Mr. Pugsley Sees.
The Dominion Shell Commission, appointed by General Sam Hughes within six weeks of the outbreak of the war under the chairmanship of General Alex Bertram, practical mechanic, manufacturer and soldier, established in Canada an entirely new industry that has brought to and distributed throughout the Dominion, hundreds of millions of dollars.
Six weeks after the opening of the war, and six months before Britain compelled by her necessities decided to do the same thing, Canada proceeded to organize its privately-owned industrial resources for the manufacture of the shells that General Sam Hughes correctly predicted would be demanded in appalling quantities.
It was a tremendous task-one for which there was no precedent, one which meant generally and largely a groping in the dark. It was a task for practical men, for captains of industry particularly connected with the metal trades, for those familiar with the manufactories of the country and their equipment, for tactful and essentially honest leaders.
In Messrs. Bertram and his associates General Sam Hughes found men of extraordinary suitability. They were practical machinists and inventors, had captained huge industries, and wide knowledge of Canadian manufacturing conditions, and had the confidence and respect of all who knew them.
Remember this is what a Liberal newspaper says.
These men accepted what from the first seemed a thankless, if not impossible task; they served continuously night and day without a cent of remuneration ; they achieved against tremendous obstacles a wonderful thing-the organization, on a gigantic scale, of an industry entirely new to Canada, that has kept thousands of Canadians in employment, and that has driven away the distress that threatened our cities and towns.

That is the record which Hon. William Pugs-ley, from his place in the House of Commons, declares "will bring shame to the people of Canada," and which, he asserts, has "produced scandals which were reeking from the Atlantic to the Pacific." His condemnation will be printed in a hundred Canadian newspapers to-day, and in brief telegrams and cables people in the United States and Britain will be told of this horror that has come to the Dominion.

Why does Hon. William Pugsley make this startling statement?
The Commission had given large orders to firms in which its members were interested, for instance John Bertram and Sons, of which Sir Alex. Bertram was vice-president, and to a concern with which Mr. Carnegie was connected.
The Commission had fixed an unduly high price to be paid for shells.
A Canadian had quoted $4 for fuses that had been bought in the United States for from $4 to $4.50.
The Commission had been animated by a desire to distribute orders to friends of the Government.
Bernard Hepburn, M.P., had been given a contract which had been turned over to a Montreal firm.
E. A. D. Morgan, a Conservative candidate in Richelieu, had got an order at higher than an Ontario manufacturer, as having been told the rates recently paid, that he might expect to get an order, spent $15,000 in installing additional lathes, but was subsequently waited upon "by two gentlemen, one of them closely connected with the Chairman of the Shell Committee, who told him that he could not obtain a contract unless he paid a commission of 1J per cent to them;" declining to pay, he got no order.
Men without plants got orders for shell boxes, while others with plants did not.
We believe this is a fair summary of /Mr. Pugsley's charges, as reported in the newspapers.
.
Hon. Mr. Pugsley, so far as we can see, provides no evidence other than rumours that have been circulated by disappointed manufacturers, or distorted statements and half truths that have appeared in certain newspapers. But, supposing all his assertions are true, are they of a nature to make Canadians forget the real and wonderful achievements of the Shell Commission and bring shame, instead of pride, to the Canadian people?
Firms with which the Commissioners were connected were given orders at the outset because they were included among the few willing to try the experiment of making shells; Sir Alex. Bertram has denied that he has any but a nominal connection with John Bertram and Sons; comparatively high prices had to be fixed in order to tempt Canadian manufacturers into the new industry, and at that the total we are assured, was $15,000,000 less than the amount allowed by the War Office; oftentimes date of delivery offset a lower offer in price; many Liberal firms have handled contracts from the Commission; it was not such a heinous offence for a member of Parliament, or for a candidate for Parliament, to bring the war facilities of certain firms to the attention of the Shell Committee ; many scores of firms who at first refused to have anything to do with the experiment flocked to Ottawa when they discovered that others had tried it and had succeeded .well.
How trivial is all this compared with the essential fact that the Shell Commission established in Canada an industry that has brought hundreds of millions of dollars to the Dominion, besides materially helping in the prosecution of the war.

The assertion that there are in the country men, politicians possibly, mean enough to sponge on manufacturers who have received

orders from the Shell Commission and hold enough to pretend that only upon payments to them could future orders he obtained, is quite believable after some of the revelations in connection with the horse purchases; but that men of the stamp of General Bertram, who, despite the rumours which Mr. Pugsley now gives voice to, was created a Sir Knight by his King a few weeks ago, would be a party to such contemptible tricks is unthinkable.
And. the editorial goes on all the way through condemning the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) for the attitude he has taken in this House with regard to this matter.
Owing to the extraordinary growth of the munitions business in Canada, which started with so small an order that the difficulties of its inception were added to, the work of the original shell commission may not have been conducted with the complete system that the great task demanded; but the fact remains that results have shown that the Bertram Commission was one of the most efficient that has ever been appointed by a government of this country.

The Free Press regrets to And itself in opposition to so clever and distinguished a member of the Liberal party as Hon. William Pugsley, but we cannot help thinking that he has been led astray by the atmosphere of the chamber which has been the scene of so many gallant party fights in which he has been a leading antagonist.
From the speeches of the men on both sides who had preceded him, from the speeches ol Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Dr. Clark, and Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, we had been led to expect that the element of petty partisanship was to be eliminated from this war session, and we had obtained visions of a real drawing together of the two political parties for the prosimt'on of the war, beside which everything pales into insignificance.
If Mr. Pugsley's lead is followed by other Liberals, our hopes are shattered and Canada, we believe, will suffer.
So I make allusion to the fact that to-day is the parting of the ways. Will hon. gentlemen opposite follow the lead of the hon. member for St. John city, or will they follow the lead of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, who said that there would be no criticism of the conduct of this Government so long as the war lasted, because the interests at the front were too great?
In connection with the development of an industry on the scale to which the munitions output has attained, it is too much to expect that there has been nothing deserving of condemnation, but to, deliberately and in a wholesale way, blackwash men like Bertram and his associates who have accomplished so much that counts in the successful carrying on of the war does not seem patriotic.
The. fishing expedition upon which Mr Pugsley would have Parliament embark might result in the exposure of some grafters; but it would probably be more prolific in valuable information for the enemy.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the view of the leading Liberal newspaper of the city ol

Ottawa with regard to the statements made by my hon. friend this afternoon. There is, however, one satisfaction:	my hon.
friend, session after session, has brought charges against this Administration which have been proved to be absolutely groundless; consequently the people are beginning to know my hon. friend. Oh, they say, that is Pugsley-and there is a great deal in that. I want to say to my hon. friend- though in best of spirit, because I am in just - a good a temper as he was when he spoke-that he should consider the words which I have quoted. I think he has made a great- mistake, and I want to put him on the right path, if I can. Mr. Blaine a great statesman in the United States-


An hon. MEMBER:: Here, too.


Oliver James Wilcox: Yes Mr. Blaine, the
American statesman, said in one of his books:
It never pays to be a blue-ruin man in the United States. The people are not influenced by that sort of tactics. They have an abiding confidence in the future, and when dismal accounts are spread broadcast, they simply lose confidence in the authority thereof.
I think that throughout the Dominion of CanadaTthese words are beginning to apply fairly well to the hon. member for St. John city, because the hon. gentleman has said so many things in the past that the people have found to be untrue that they do not pay any attention to him now. For that reason, therefore, we do not look upon the matter as seriously as we would if conditions in that regard were different.
The hon. gentleman last evening tried to make a case against the Government by asserting that enough had not been done for the farmers of Canada. Why, he said the Government sent out a pamphlet telling the farmers to produce more, with the result that the farmers dragged the ground three times where, if they had not received the pamphlet, they would only have dragged it twice. Providence smiled on them and they got a great crop. You have neglected the question of transportation, he says. You ought to have built shipyards; you ought to have built a fleet of ships to carry this grain across the Atlantic. You ought, he says, to build elevators at St. John and Halifax-though I understand that there is an elevator at Halifax and that it is not half-full at the present time. I understand, *also that through the actions of this Administration in safeguarding the interests of the farmers of Western Canada, greater progress has been made in the movement of

the crop to its destination than was made in any previous year.
Look at the freight rates, said my hon. friend; they are too high. Well, what makes the freight rates high? Is it the Government? The Government has been doing everything in their power to adjust the freight rates, but it should be remembered that conditions exist to-day upon the high seas over which no government has control. When the war broke out and the enemy's ships made their appearance upon the Seven Seas, it became risky for the great transports ,to carry their cargoes through the arteries of trade to the distant markets of the world, and' no company in the world would insure that cargo at the rate at which they would insure it in times of peace. Is the Government responsible for that? If my hon. friend had not made so vigorous an opposition we might to-day have three dreadnoughts upon the great trade routes of the world, and probably the freight rates would not now be so high.


William Pugsley: Who ever thought of doing that on your side?


Oliver James Wilcox: The next point to which my hon. friend referred was the extension of the life of Parliament. I tell you, he said it is a serious thing-you know how he draws it out; I cannot do it like he can- I am practising. It is a serious thing to change the British constitution! You would think it was the rock of ages he was going to change. But it is not. It would be done just as simply as the King approved letting the soldiers vote, which my hon. friend said His Majesty would not do. It is only a matter of form, and if it is approved by the Parliament of Canada it will be done. This Government will directly urge it, we hope, hon. gentlemen opposite, with your assistance. We want it. We do ' not believe that we can use our best energies in this great conflict, and bring the force of this state to bear to the fullest possible extent without your assistance, and we plead for it. But if you, hon. gentlemen, are to take the course which is directed by the hon. member from St. John, then it means a weakening of the character of the citizenship of this country, and the ability of our citizens to uphold those principles of liberty and of freedom which have been handed down to us by the glorious ancestry from'whose loins we have sprung.
But, Sir, speaking a few months ago, my hon. friend thought there was going to be an election. He thought that, but he 7
thought wrong. You know I am inclined to think that although my hon. friend is clever and astute, polite, smart, all the rest of it; although he possesses all those essential qualities, he pays too much attention to newspaper scraps. Perhaps he is trying to keep in with the press. It may be that it would pay us all to do that. I have no charge to make against the press or against young men who grace the dignity of the position which they occupy. But, you know, in recess time they have got to write up editorials, and the hon. member for St. John seems to believe them all; he brings them back to this House and reads them. But he was in Winnipeg when there was talk of an election in that great city, which is the home of his friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), and he gave out an interview. He says, now, it is a serious thing to extend the life of Parliament, a -serious thing to change the constitution. But it is only paper, it is not -rock or -stone. You -simply go to the House of -Commons in England and ask for -an amendment of our British -North America A-ct, and it will be passed just as any -piece of legislation would be passed here. It is not so serious as -my hon. friend would -like to make the country think i-t is. I have here the interview which he gave out in Winnipeg. It is as follows:
Charges of Liberals.
Hon. Wm. Pugsley, Liberal member for St. John, N.B., and for years Minister of Public Works in the Laurier Oa'binet, in the course of an interview given to the Manitoba Free Press, Winnipeg, on, September 15, declared as follows :
Her-e is what he -says, but he has had a new vision since then:
The present circumstances are so grave from the standpoint of Canada and the Empire that it would be deplorable, in my opinion, to have the people divided upon party questions.
The first paragraph is all right.
Another of the reasons why I favour putting off an election until after the war is because I think it would he a great pity to hold one just when the energies of all the people of Canada, especially the members of the Government who are primarily charged with the duty of attending to the recruiting and equipment of the soldiers, should be devoted to this one end.
That is the way ih-e talked a few months ago. I have watched the course of my hon. friend ever since I have been in this Parliament, and upon many occasions I have admired him for his cleverness and his shrewdness; but since this Government came into power he seems to think that they have no right to govern the destinies of this country,



and that he is the dictator and the allpowerful of us all. Why the change in his position to-day? The extension of the life of Parliament is not serious, and the Government has taken that position. If hon. gentlemen opposite wish to take another course, in my judgment they are not taking a course which is in the interest of our country, or of the Empire to which we belong.
My hon. friend said: Why, when this war broke out we all knew it was going to be a long war. But only a little while before that he did not know that there was going to be a war at all, notwithstanding the fact that he had the advice and counsel of the chief executive of the Imperial forces, and the knowledge of the conditions that existed in our own Empire, and of the history of other states and peoples that have been predominant in the world. The British Empire is not very old. Our history, since the British Empire, has become pre-eminent and predominant in the world, does not date back very many centuries. But, 'Sir, in the past there have been other empires, the Phoenician Empire, Carthage, Rome; and the history of three thousand years points to the fact that all the good things of this life, home, land, commerce, trade, belong, not to the feeble or to the weak, but belong to the energetic and the strong. What did my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) say? Was he inclined to accept the advice and counsel of the chief lords of the Admiralty, who knew what they were talking about? Here is what he said on March 12, 1913, speaking in this House:
I can say that the ignorance displayed in that memorandum of Canadian conditions and of Canadian people is enough to make a horse laugh.
My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Le-mieux) also said something. He fwas a transgressor too, but be made a very fine speech the other day, a speech -true and loyal to British institutions, and because of that speech I am not going to criticise him now. I would a hundred tipies rather raise the member of St. John to the elevated plane which my hon friend (Mr. Lemieux) has now reached.
I have some more quotations here, but they- are a matter of past history. There were also many other points to which I intended to allude, but I must not weary the House. This great struggle in which we are now engaged, is recognized by all within the confines of this House and of this country to have been due 
to the moslj titanic crime ever committed against humanity' and .civilization. It has been written that our civilization, as we have it to-day, is based on the law of Moses, and since Moses handed down the law upon the flags of stone, and men forsook the worship of the golden calf and took to worshipping God "who created them 'in his own image-since that primitive period in the history of the world, the unpeopled plains have become hives of industry, and hives of industry have become unpeopled plains as we see in Belgium, France, Poland and in other countries ravaged toy the war, which has wrought such wonderful historic and geographical changes. To-day we are confronted with a doctrine, with a system that is absolutely opposed to that under which we have lived. We have toeen permitted to live, Sir, in a century of great achievement, and we boast of all we have accomplished. Wealth has been piled up in every avenue of our industrial and national life. But who accomplished all that? I ask you, [Sir, was it not our forefathers who left the distant shores of France and England and Scotland and other countries and came and settled upon the rock-bound coasts of this country. They were men who endured untold hardships, who made great sacrifices, and who wrought many days that they might hand down to us the great heritage which we possess to-day. Mr. Speaker, the great races living under British institutions have toeen the torch bearers of civilization in past centuries. Other empires in the past in their day and generation made advances in civilization, but not since the world began has any empire been recognized as a, more beneficent, humane, uplifting agency than the great British Empire to which you and I belong. The races who live under British institutions were the torch bearers of civilization 'because they enjoyed liberty and freedom and because they possessed the character to uphold these principles.
I have this to say as my last word to the House this afternoon.: in my humble opinion, anything that tends to weaken the character of the citizens of this country at this time is unpatriotic. In my judgment nothing will have a more unfortunate effect than the stirring up of strife over a few horses and a few shells. Let me remind my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) that wealth after all does not constitute the power of the state; it is the individuality and character of the citizens. If we are to have wrangles in this House upon political is-

sues; if this Government is to he attacked for reasons which are no reasons at all, and which are only a repetition of the old political game over which our hearts were sore in times of peace; if that is what we are going to have, I say that when these speeches are read in the constituencies by the Liberals and the Conservatives they will declare that we want to be one. What effect will the speech delivered this afternoon and last night by the hon. member for St. John have? He tells the country that the Government are a bunch of grafters and bunglers. What effect wiU it have upon the honest citizen of the country who desires to see honest work done during this great crisis? I say to my hon. friends opposite and I plead with them-I mean it; it comes from the bottom of my heart- I say let us for goodness sake throw this old political game into the ditch. It is rotten. Let us remember that the country and the institutions under which we live are at stake, and that everything that was won for us by our forefathers must go if Germany wins. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the success of the German doctrine that the life of the citizen is measured only by its value to the state.
That is to be spread over Canada, accompanied by the hatred that has been implanted in the breast of the German race with, I am sorry to say, the wrongful assertion that we are their natural enemy. Statements have appeared in the German press to the effect that the German people in Canada are serfs, that they are downtrodden, that they have no rights here. Why? To stir up a spirit of enthusiasm in their own country and to carry out the wishes of the high military caste. Imagine a German race with such ideas as those in their minds. What would you expect if they became predominant over us? That system involves making such a hell of the country that the Allies, that every citizen, will accept anything in order, to get away from its baneful influence. Let us, regardless of politics, be brothers for once in this game. Let us act all together and we will proceed to do our duty as God gives us to see our duty. Then we will proceed to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him that has borne the brunt of the battle, his widow, and his orphans, and to do all possible to achieve a just and lasting peace. ,


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Government are to be congratulated on the choice they have made of a champion of their cause 7i
on this, occasion. We 'have certainly been entertained by the expressions of my hon.. friend from North Essex (Mr. Wilcox), and we are bound to assume that he speaks with authority as representing the' ideas of the Government in regard to the important matters that have been brought to the attention of the House by my hon.. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), as well as by other hon. members on this side. We are at one with him in desiring unity of action in this great world crisis, but the people of Canada who must pay the price in money and in blood, ask at:, the hands of those who for the moment have the administration of our affairs, that the handling of our money, and shall I say, the direction of our blood',, shall be characterized by honesty and efficiency, to the end that the cause in which we are engaged shall triumph. Are we to understand that, the policy of the' Government is that their friends-their party friends-shall profit unduly out of the supply of the necessary requirements for this war, and that their champions shall stand up and say to the House and the country, that they are not to be criticised, that to criticise them is disloyalty?
In my humble judgment this is the parting of the ways. If the Government propose, instead of honestly meeting an honest statement of fact, and placing before the House and the country such reasonable explanation of that condition of fact as may be possible, to declare in the most imflammatory style that they are to have the divine right to do as, they please, and that those who question them in the ,doing of that are guilty of treason against the state and the Empire, then I, for one, vill certainly take issue with them, and I think that a large majority of the people of Canada will do the same. My hon. friend (Mr. Wilcox) was anxious to include all of us in this House and in the country in an. embrace of brotherhood' from which party politics would be altogether eliminated. May I ask how my hon. friend arrived in this House, may I ask in what interest he has oast every vote-that he has ever cast in this House, may I ask in what interest he ipade the speech' which he did to-day, if it were not in the-interest of party politics? Is he to declare that there shall be no party politics in 'this Parliament, when, if there were no differences of opinion and if those differences were not crystallized into the forms of party allegiance, this Parliament would

in effect have no reason for existence? That a member of the House of Commons should declaim against partyism in the discussion of public affairs can only be considered as an evidence of insincerity. Instead of, the address of my hon. friend having been of a character tending to the elimination of party discussion in this Chamber, and from the platforms and press of the country, I cannot recall a more deliberate, a more unqualifiedly partisan utterance ever having been made in this House.
I did not desire to deal with the question of the supply of munitions to the British Government - by the manufac-
5	p.m. turers of Canada. It was not my purpose in rising to address the House to deal with that question, and I do not go any further now than merely to say, that accusations of disloyalty against those who are sent here for the purpose of guarding the interests of the public because they ask in a most respectful way for information for the benefit of the public in regard to the expenditure of the moneys of the public, cannot be maintained. If there is disloyalty, the disloyalty is on the part of those who either have their hands in the public treasury themselves or are desirous of protecting those who have their hands in that treasury. This is a time when I see in the newspapers the motto "save and serve"-a good motto necessary to be observed in this country as in every part of the British Empire as a means to success. But we have heard in this House that- not tens, of thousands, not hundreds of thousands but tens of millions of money have been improperly expended in the production of munitions for the actual prosecution of the war, a'nd when my hon. friend says " he who criticises is disloyal. " the disloyalty is on his side, not o.n ours.
May I deal now with a matter which was alluded to by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), by the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Wilcox), and also by the Prime Minister. It is something that has a very important bearing upon the interests of the West, and I think the conditions should be thoroughly understood. The House is no doubt aware that, notwithstanding the bountiful crop of the West and the high prices that prevail in Great Britain for foodstuffs, the prices to the producer in the West this year are little, if any, higher than the average prices of the

past number of years, and in some cases much lower. The reason of that is not because the railroad charges are higher, not because the elevator charges are higher, but because the cost of ocean carriage is so much higher, as my hon. friend from St. John says, 1,000 per cent higher, than it was a few years ago. The ocean carrier is to-day receiving for the transportation of Canadian wheat across the Altan-tic fifty per cent as much as the farmer receives for producing that wheat and putting it into the elevators. This has arisen no doubt in large measure because of war conditions. It is a matter which was brought to the attention of the Government during the past session. While the crop was in process of being harvested and before it was put upon the market, attention was drawn to the fact that the ocean rates were abnormally high, and the Government was urged to take some action towards bringing them down. The Premier and his party of friends spent some time in the old country last year, and if I remember .aright, it was announced in the newspapers on behalf of the Prime Minister, that he wiais there for the express purpose of securing a reduction in those ocean transportation rates. When he came back he appointed a committee, of which the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) was chairman, for the purpose of dealing with this question with a view of securing for the western farmer a fairer share of the Liverpool price for his product. At the time of the return of the Prime Minister the ocean rate was quoted at 33 cents per bushel. After the appointment of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works and his committee, I noticed that the ocean rate increased to 34 cents, to 35 cents, to 36 cents per bushel. Recently 1 saw in the newspapers that the ocean rate at that time was approximately 42 cents per bushel. I am not able to establish the connection between the Minister of Public Works and his committee and that increase in the ocean rates, but I will suggest this, that in view of the fact that the rates have continued to increase ever since his appointment, he would do himself a great deal of credit if he would resign and then he could not at any rate be blamed for that increase in the rate.
The Prime Minister dealt with this matter of rates in his speech the other day, and he showed 'that the Government had been able to' secure ocean transportation on favourable terms for the munitions

made, in Canada. He informed the House that the Government had been fortunate in being able to secure the services of Mr. A. H. Harris, formerly connected with the Canadian Pacific railway, and he gave a statement of what Mr. Harris had been able to do. I will reiad the last paragraph in regard to that :	*
The Overseas Department is now being called upon to provide for about 125,000 gross tons of munitions, war material, and supplies per month, or approximately one and a half million tons per annum and the tonnage is still growing.
As the Premier pointed out, there is now at the disposal, as I understand it, of this Mr. Harris, on behalf of the Canadian Government, forty transports which have been commandeered by the British Government, and which have been placed at the disposal of the Canadian Government for the transportation of Canadian munitions to England. Twenty of these transports sail from St. John and twenty from Halifax, and the Prime Minister says they will be able to transport one and one-half million tons of munitions in a year. Now, one and one-half million tons is equivalent, if I figure it correctly, to about fifty million bushels of wheat. Of course, we are glad to know that the Government have been able to make such a satisfactory arrangement for the transport of munitions made in Canada. But the question naturally arises: if they were able to' do so well for munitions, why were they unable to do approximately as well for wheat? Why should it be that it is possible to get munitions taken across the ocean at a fair rate and with fair convenience and not possible to get wheat taken over under the same conditions? - That is a matter that was brought to the attention of the Government, as I have said, by their own newspapers last fall, and so far the response has been of the character indicated by tins statement from the Prime Minister:
We have continually been in communication with the Admiralty, both during my visit in the past summer and by correspondence as well, in regard to the necessity of releasing as far as possible tonnage for the North Atlantic service ; and we did secure, by the efforts I made during the past summer, and by the correspondence which has taken place from time to time, the release of several ships for that service.
My understanding of this is that the British Admiralty had commandeered a large proportion of the North Atlantic merchant fleet for the purposes of that Government, and that this Mr. Harris
and the Canadian Government were able to secure from the British Government forty transports for the carrying of munitions. But, instead of going on to secure forty more transports for the carriage of wheat, what I understand the Prime Minister to say here is that they were able to induce the British Government to release from the condition of being commandeered certain of these vessels usually employed in the North Atlantic service, so that they could go back to their old employment. That is to say, while vessels commandeered by the British Government were held to carry these munitions, when it came to the carriage of wheat, instead of similar action being taken, the vessels that had been commandeered by the British Government were asked to be released so that they might carry wheat on their own terms; these terms being a thousand per cent over what was a fair rate two or three years ago. Mr. Speaker, I make this statement, I hope, without prejudice. I hope I have interpreted incorrectly the statement of the Prime Minister, but if I have interpreted it correctly-and I do not see in what other way it can Jse read-then certainly it is for the Government to give to ' this House and the country very definite information as to why the same consideration was not given to the farmers of Canada who have produced that which is even more necessary than munitions for the carrying on of this war, as has been given to the producers of munitions by this Government, as stated by the Prime Minister.
I may say, I was not one of those who clamoured for the Government to take control of the North Atlantic transport situation last fall. I was satisfied that we should take our difficulties as they came, the difficulties that naturally arose out of war conditions. I did not wish to urge upon the Government action that would be embarrassing in any way. But when . I find in the statement of the Prime Minister himself that he took the action on behalf of munitions, that his own supporters asked him to take on behalf of wheat, which action he did not take on behalf of wheat, I certainly would be doing less than my duty if P did not bring to the attention of the House, and as far as possible of the country, what appears to me to he an absolutely unfair discrimination.
Dealing with the Address, I find, two paragraphs referring to proposed action. We are promised " a resolution authorizing and requesting the enactment of such legislation as will extend the life of this Parliament

for the period of one year," and also " measures will be submitted for your consideration to further the effective co-operation of Canada in the defence of the Empire and in the maintenance of this war waged for liberty and lasting peace."
These two suggestions	are of the
liighest	importance and are entitled
to the fullest and most careful consideration of this House. When we consider the urgency of the eonditipns in which our country and the Empire is placed at this time, I must say I am somewhat surprised to find these suggestions in the sequence in which they appear. The proposal to extend the life of Parliament comes first, and the proposal to take measures for the further effective co-operation of Canada in the defence of the Empire comes second. It would seem to me that the first duty of Parliament would be to provide, under [DOT]direction of the Government, for the effective co-operation of Canada in the defence of the Empire and'then, when that had been done, if it were thought wise and necessary, to bring forward legislation to secure the extension of the life of Parliament. However, the Government has seen fit to put the extension of the life of Parliament first, and co-operation in the defence of the Empire second. I assume that that is the relative position that these two matters occupy in the mind of the Government. I -hope I am not unfair in making that suggestion.
Dealing with the proposal to extend the life of Parliament, I am quite aware that in conditions such as we have at this time, the mere fact that it is unusual and unprecedented does not seriously militate against its favourable consideration or against its being given effect to. We must understand that we are in the midst, as my hon. friend, the member for Essex, said [DOT]of world-shaking conditions, and that we must be prepared to take extraordinary measures from time to time, as the circumstances require. So that merely on that point there is no reason for refusing the suggestion that is placed in the Address. While I put the matter .before the House in that form there is another side of the question, however, that stiirlces me, and I will take the liberty of placing it before the House. There is no doubt th at the extension of the term of Parliament and the avoidance of the turmoil of a general election for another year, is something that will naturally appeal to the minds of those who sit in this House; at least it would be very un-
[Mr. Oliver.!
natural if it did not do so. We are here; we are clothed with a certain measure of authority, and naturally we cannot look with direct disfavour upon the proposal to continue that authority in us for another -twelve months' period, not only without expense to ourselves, but also in some cases with actual profit. And when that can be done in the name of loyalty to and in the defence of the Empire, there is not very much to be said; the proposal is naturally a winner. I am not so sure that the country at large will look on it quite as favourably, but we only hope that it will. After all, I will follow the lead of the hon. member for St. John City, and I will take the liberty of disagreeing with the hon. member for Essex in intimating that the constitution is merely a scrap of paper, to be disregarded whenever Parliament sees fit. The constitution, it seems to me, should not he lightly amended; should not be amended without good reason. No doubt when the Government comes forward with their measure for extending the life of Parliament, they will be able to show good reasons. They certainly can scarcely contemplate following the idea of the hon. member for Essex, whom they have chosen as their champion, and treat the constitution of the country simply as a scrap of paper. They will, no doubt, have good reasons, and we shall be prepared to consider them when they are brought forward. The vastly more important question is in tlie words of the address;
The question of the effective co-operation of Canada in the defence of the Empire and in the maintenance of this war, waged for liberty and lasting peace.
I am sure that we can support both the idea and the words in which the idea is expressed. But there may be difference oi opinion as to what are the best measures, or as to what is the best method of carrying out those measures. As it appears to me, the members of this House, gathered from all parts of this Dominion, met here in Parliament at this time for the express purpose of giving their best advice and knowledge as to these measures, would be doing far less than their duty if they did not point out wherein-if such be the case-measures taken in the past have not been as effective as they should have been, in the hope that measures taken in the future will be more thoroughly effective.
The first consideration in connection with the carrying on of the war is naturally the question of finance, the question of money.

Without money munitions cannot be purchased, food cannot be supplied, men cannot be paid, transportation cannot be secured. Therefore, if we are effectively to take part in the prosecution of this war, it is necessary that our expenditure of money shall be economical as well as effective. We have not a dollar to waste in connection with this war. We need every dollar we have, and we shall need every dollar we can raise in order to carry on our share in the war to a successful conclusion. There may have been a time when members of this House, as well as people throughout the country, looked lightly upon the responsibilities of this war. I judge from the utterances of the Prime Minister, as well as from those of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, that that condition of mind does not now exist; that it is thoroughly understood in this House and out of it that have to meet a tremendous responsibility and that it will need the best that we have -in money, in men, in judgment and in efficiency if we are to come out of this struggle victorious. I am compelled to say, Mr. Speaker, that having regard to what has been placed before the country as the result of parliamentary investigation, as well as of judicial inquiry, we have not had that economy or even honesty in the administration of bur funds in connection with this war that we were entitled to, that we ought to have had, and that, speaking of the future, we must have or we cannot expect to succeed. When the last session closed-I think it was on the day on which the session dosed, or the day before-the Prime Minister made a statement bearing on the transactions that had been made public before the Public Accounts and other Committees of the House, and he reached the conclusion, as set down -in Hansard, that as the results of these transactions, the country had lost a matter of $12,000. 'That was an insignificant loss, and if I could agree with him that that was the limit of the loss it would not be desirable or necessary to take the time of Parliament to refer to it. But, having gone into the matter somewhat carefully, it seems,to me that the utterance of the Prime Minister was so far wide of the mark that it was unfair to the country, and it is not right that that utterance should go unchallenged.
Let me put the ease as shortly as I can and in words that, I hope, will be understood. When war broke out the Government of Canada borrowed from the Government of Britain-they did not borrow it on the money market, but borrowed it from the Government of Great Britain-a sum of $50,000,000 for the purpose of equipping an expedition of 33,000 men. This money, you will remember, was not an ordinary loan, it was an extraordinary loan for an extraordinary purpose. It was, in fact, a loan in trust for one purpose and one purpose only. The investigations of the Committee on Public Accounts and other investigating committees which have already been published in blue-book form, convey the information, as I read them, that of all the purchases made out of that $50,000,000 for the equipment of that expeditionary force of 33,000 men, in no case was the article bought direct by the Government from the manufacturers or from the wholesale dealers, and in every case the price paid was from 25 per cent to 100 per cent higher than the fair wholesale or manufacturer's price. Of the sum of $50,000,000, at least one-half or $25,000,000 must have been used for the purchase of munitions and supplies; and if we can place the average overcharge at not more than 25 per cent, we find that the people of this country paid $6,000,000 out of that $50,000,000 of trust funds in undue profits distributed amongst the political friends of the Government in power; that Government on whose behalf the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Wilcox) demands, with all the eloquence of which he is capable, that they be not criticised for their conduct of affairs since war began, on pain of the accusation of disloyalty against whoever ventures such criticism. I hope, that what occurred in those early days of 1914 has not occurred since, that it is not occurring now, that it will not occur in the future, because I say that this country of Canada, with the backing of the credit of Great Britain, cannot successfully prosecute its part in this war to a conclusion and stand such an enormous strain of improper expenditure which, after all, are the moneys of the people, upon which they must pay interest and principal to the last cent.
There is a matter that is even more directly important than that of money, and that is men. We are proposing to put in the field 500,000 men. It is not a man too many. Every man is needed, and he is needed now. We have already enlisted something less than one-half that number. The country has responded marvellously, when we consider the pacificist principles under which many of us were reared. It is marvellous

that our people have responded as they have to the call to war. But when we have taken one-quarter of a million of our men we have cut fairly deep, and to get another quarter of a million we will have to cut to the bone. I assume from what has been said here that there is no intention on the part of the -Government to introduce the principle of conscription. I am not going to discuss that point seriously. I do not intend to find fault with the Government on that ground, because I realize that in the situation in which Canada is there would no doubt be serious difficulties in introducing that principle. But I hope I may be permitted to express my own individual opinion as to the matter of national military service, and I wish to say that in my humble opinion, with the world in arms and with the world having adopted the principle of universal military service, for a single nation to refuse to adopt,^ or to fail to adopt that principle, is to leave itself at a very serious disadvantage. My own opinion is that when world conditions are as they are -and we have the evidence that it does require the last man and the last dollar- it is the part of wisdom to make preparation for that condition in good time. And while I do not' suggest at the moment that it would be advisable for the Government of the day to undertake that policy, for it is a dangerous business to swap horses while crossing a stream, this condition miist be kept in mind.- We entered this war on the voluntary principle, and, as I see it at present, we had better see it through on the voluntary system. But my opinion is that if we are successful in seeing it through we then ought to adopt the principle of national military service.
My own opinions and views are not, however, the important question at the present time. The important point is that we have undertaken to find half a million men for active service in this war, and' that as I said, we will have to cut to the bone in order to get them. There have been complaints about difficulties :n recruiting. There certainly have been difficulties in securing that measure of enlistment in certain parts of the country that is absolutely necessary. I have seen in the newspapers aj-guments, speeches, editorials, hi which those who did not enlist *were held up to abuse and discredit. Recruiting meetings have been held, and recruiting compaigns carried on in various parts of the country. It is not for me to criticise what has been done by other

people. I will just say this: that that part of the country from which I come is I believe conceded to have given the largest number of enlistments in proportion to the population, of the Dominion, and in that part of the country, so far as I am aware, there has never yet been a recruiting meeting held; there has never been any abuse of men who do not enlist; there has been none of those extraordinary efforts which I see are being put forth in other parts of the country. May I say this: at such a time as this when men are being asked to engage in a war such as the world never saw before, it is necessary that they should feel and realize the tremendous issues that are at stake, and their personal responsibility in regard to these issues. We. have had a very gratifying response I say, to the demand for enlistment in our part of the country. That, I believe, is because those who have gone west, who have separated themselves from their families at home are, first of all, away from family ties; next they are men who have a'sense of individual responsibility, otherwise they would not have struck out for themselves. The pioneer, necessarily, has a greater sense of individual responsibility than the man who is not a>
pioneer; and because of that fact, because of that sentiment, we have ibeen able to get the response that has been made in our part of the country. What I think is necessary throughout the country-if I may be pardoned for saying so- is to impress upon the minds of the young men that sense of personal responsibility, to impress them with the tremendous character of the issues, and to secure their appreciation of the fact that it is upon the shoulders of the young men that the burden of war must necessarily rest.
Besides that, there are material considerations which.affect the case. When you say to a young man who has no ties, and is free to go as a soldier, " it is your duty to enlist," he -may say "1 am willing to go, but first of all I sacrifice my present employment or expectations and next, if anything happens to me .and I survive, to what extent will this country sjhow its gratitude to me for the sacrifices I have *made."
I hold in my hand a pamphlet issued by certain people- in Toronto, Frank Darling, chairman; Hume Blake, C.A. Bogert, Ven. Archdeacon Cody, Pres. R. A. Falconer, U. of T.; J. J. Gibbons, Col. Gooderham, W P. Gundy, Col. W. C Macdonald, Most Rev. N. McNeil, Alexander McPhedran, M.D., Hon. Mr. Justice Masten and E. R.

Wood. This document is issued for the purpose of arousing public interest in the matter of securing adequate provision for disabled soldiers. The title is: "A plea for just provisions in the Pension Act for totally or partially disabled Canadian soldiers, more especially those in the lower ranks." I shall not weary the House by going into details more than to point out that here 'is a committee of most responsible men in the chief city of the province of Ontario who feel so strongly on this subject that they have issued this pamphlet at their own expense calling for the assistance of members of the House of Commons or of anybody else who may have influence in securing more adequate consideration for the soldiers who have gone to the front and have been disabled. They say:
The scale of pensions as now fixed by- the Government is too low for the rank and file, particularly in regard to those totally incapacitated from earning a living.,. . . The case of the single man is much less satisfactory than that of the married man.
Then they go into details with which I will not trouble the House. But there is one feature to which they draw attention, and to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. They say:
Another plan, which some have had in mind, is that the inadequate pension now contributed by the .Government should he augmented by means of public subscriptions. Such action, however, would be a mistake in every way. It would be an admission that the Government of Canada is" unwilling properly to maintain the wounded and disabled soldiers who have made the utmost sacrifices to serve and defend the Empire. It would, besides, place upon a portion of the community a burden which should be borne by the whole. There would arise, moreover, a tendency to regard it as a chai -'ity, whereas the payment of a pension honourably earned is a matter of public justice. It is therefore, necessary to state with emphasis, that the duty of supporting the disabled men should, and must, be undertaken solely by the Government, and that whatever is necessary for this purpose must be paid out of the revenues of the country.	,
We should at once face the fact, that while the burden will be cheerfully undertaken by a grateful country it will not be a light one. It could not be left to the chances of public appeals Trom time to time on behalf of men who have established a permanent right to public support. For twenty, thirty, forty, and in some cases, even for fifty years, this support must he given, and it must be drawn from a source absolutely stable and secure. We owe our defenders no less than this. We must save them from both the humiliation and the uncertainty of public charity, and give them permanent and adequate security from want, paid them not as a favour, but as a right, for it would be an unpardonable insult to a body of brave men if the payment of a pension carried with it the faintest trace of charity or the least suspicion of patronage.
Now, Sir, I regret that the Government should have issued a scale of pensions for disabled soldiers that calls for such comment as is here made by the Toronto Co n-rnittee. I endorse every word that I have read, and I wish to point out that, if we are to deal fairly with our young men, before we call them slackers or shirkers, we should convince them that we are prepared to do what is right and fair by them in case they suffer the terrible sacrifices that must necessarily come to many of them under the conditions of modern war. We have a duty to perform here as well as they have there.- Ours is just as important as theirs.
There is at the present time the matter of dealing with the disabled men as they come from the front. X am prepared to question the,Government's policy in regard to that. They have seen fit to call together representatives of the different provincial governments and to make some sort of an arrangement that certainly does not appeal to me, evidencing as it does a disinclination to take that responsibility on the shoulders of the National Government that should be taken in the case of national service. There seems to foe an attempt to shoulder the responsibility off on to the provinces', on to the municipalities, on to somebody or something else than this Federal Government. Canada is a nation. These men have served and sacrificed for the nation as well as for the Empire and the Government of this nation has no right, and should under no circumstances attempt, to shoulder off any part of their responsibility to these men. It is not fair and it is not in the interest of securing that enormously greater enlistment that we must get if the proposals of the Government are really made in seriousness.
I have one or two cases that I will mention that have appealed to me very strongly, A. private of the Tenth Battalion named Fox, it was reported to me, had arrived at Stettler. He had lost an arm. He had been given transportation from Quebec to Stettler. He was discharged at Quebec, and at the time I was informed in regard to him he was not in receipt of any pension, and foe was an object of charity to the people of the town of Stettler. Another man named 'St. Pierre who had volun-rteered from the town of Vermilion, or some town east of Edmonton, was given his ticket from Quebec and $7. He had a brother resident at Vermilion, or at the town to which I have referred. He was

able to reach his brother, and at the time I heard of him that was all the consideration he had received at the hands of -the Government. I saw a boy, not more than twenty years of age, a great big fine-looking fellow, who was blinded. He was at Lloydminster. He told me that he had begun to study the Braille system for the blind in the old country and that he had been given $100 and shipped home to his father. That was his position when I saw him. Probably these things are being remedied now-I hope they are-but there are such cases to be found all over this country. This is a condition that is inexcusable, that is not to the credit of the Government, and that must militate seriously against recruiting for the contingents that are required.
On motion of Mr. Oliver, the debate was adjourned.
At. six o'clock the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, January 20, 1916.