1916-04-04

REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of Railway Statistics for the Dominion of Canada for the year ended June 30, 1915.-Mr. Reid.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 80, to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Explain.


Mr. ROCHE:: This Bill is purely technical in its character. Where patents have been issued for lands situated within a

forest reserve and where an incorrect description has been given of the individual, his occupation, or even of the lands themselves, the Minister of the Interior is authorized to cancel the letters patent and issue letters patent with the necesary corrections or alterations. Under the Dominion Lands Act as at present he has that authority in respect of lands outside the forest reserves, but there is a doubt as to whether the Dominion Lands Act applies to lands within the forest reserves. This is intended to clear up that doubt and to confer upon the Minister of the Interior the same power within the reserves that he has without.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
iPRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Hope Fother-gill Baily,-Mr. Thoburn.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Wilfrid Laurier: By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I want to correct-I think I should-a press despatch which has appeared in several newspapers to the effect that His Royal Highness the iGovernor General sent for me to advise me as to the course that I should follow with regard to a certain investigation now before the House. As His Royal Highness in my estimation is a model constitutional representative of the 'Sovereign, perhaps it is needless for me to -make any statement in connection with the matter. As these things are printed, however, it is better that I should say that there is not any foundation for such a rumour.
(CANADA SHIPPING ACT, AMENDMENT BIEL.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House proceeded to the consideration of Public Bills and Orders.


Hon. J. D. IIAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved:: That order 24 for the House again in committee on Bill No. 21, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Mr. Sinclair) be now discharged, and that said Bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries.
He said: This is done, I may say, after consultation with the hon., member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
IMr. Roche. 1


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion oi Sir Wilfrid Laurier for a committee to inquire into purchases of shells or other munitions or goods by the Shell Committee, resumed from Tuesday, March 28.
Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Speaker, before resuming my
argument at the point at which I moved the adjournment of the debate on Tuesday night last, I desire to refer to a previous portion of the speech of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. G. W. Kyte) and to certain allegations made by him and by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. F. B. Carvell), respecting contracts let by the Shell Committee, in which it was argued that discrimination had been exercised for political considerations against the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. As I have stated, the Government is not in any way responsible for the contracts let by the Shell Committee. The Government of Canada has had no authority over the Shell Committee in the letting of its contracts; but the statements made by the hon. member for Richmond and by the hon. member for Carleton with respect to the matter with which I now purpose dealing appear to me to be so much beside the facts that I deem it my duty not to leave the record in its present condition.
The hon. member for Carleton, speaking on March 7, and alleging discrimination for political reasons against the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, called attention to the fact that the Shell Committee, while awarding large contracts to the Nova Scotia Steel Company, had passed over the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. His words were as follows:
The Dominion Iron and Steel Company, probably the greatest manufacturing establishment in the whole Dominion, who were anxious for the business, who were willing to devote their whole organization, machinery, plant and business facilities to the manufacture of shells, and who pleaded and begged in vain for an order.
He alleges that the fact that Mr. Frederick Nicholls was connected with the Dominion Iron and Steel Company had something to do with the fact that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company got no work from the Shell Committee. He says:
They never got a chance to do business, never got a look in until October or November, 1915.
The hon. member for Richmond, coming, as I have stated, to the rescue of the hon.

member for Carleton afteT his argument had been met by the hon. Solicitor General, used the following language:
The Dominion Iron and Steel Company is located in my new constituency which was bestowed upon me by the Government in the late distribution of seats.
He says further:
I knew that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company had no contracts for shells, and when I heard the Solicitor General speak with all the authority which such a statement should possess coming from him as a member of this Government, and with all the access he had to the sources of correct information, I was, to say the least astonished. I knew that for five or six months during 1915 the officials of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company travelled from Toronto to Ottawa, from Ottawa to Toronto, and from Toronto to Sydney, to get a contract to make shells, but they never got a contract for a single shell.
And then further on, at page 2368 of Hansard, he used the following language:
There is another circumstance in connection with that which perhaps hon. gentlemen do not realize, but which they will realize when I call their attention to it. Here was a contract given by the Shell Committee, not for shells, but for steel for shells. The Shell Committee bought that steel at Sydney, and instead of having it manufactured into shells there, as the Dominion Iron and Steel Company wanted them to do, they distributed it among shell factories all over Canada as far west as Vancouver, and paid freight on all these shipments; and then when the steel ingots were made into shells, the Shell Committee paid the freight on all these shells from Vancouver and the- other factories to the point of shipment.
My hon. friend was referring to the steel bought from the Dominion Iron and Steel Company by the Shell Committee, as he stated, on the 15th of May and the 2nd of April. I hold in my hand the report of the last annual meeting of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, which was held at Montreal on Thursday, the 24th day of June,. 1915; and I desire to call the attention of the House to the statement therein of the president of Dominion Iron and Steel Company, Mr. J. H. Plummer. He is speaking of the export business of the company, and this is his language:
Akin to this export 'business, and due to the same primary cause, is the business we are doing in the manufacture of shell steel. Many of you, no doubt, think we should long ago have been making shells, but that is out of our line. We can make excellent shell steel, and we have large orders for this, but its conversion into the finished shells is work for machine shops, of which there are plenty in the country.	-


Mr. KYTE:: What is the date of that?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: OrdeT.


George William Kyte: I know that the cackling of geese saved Rome from being destroyed, but the cadkling of geese -will not help this thing through.


William Thomas White: It is the report of the annual meeting, -held at Montreal on Thursday, the 24th day of June, 1915.


George William Kyte: Exactly.


William Thomas White: He said further:
We have, of course, good machine shops, but when we are running the plant fully, as we are now, they are barely sufficient for the maintenance and repair and replacement of the thousand and one mechanical parts which make up our very complex works. If we were to undertake the manufacture of shells-
He is speaking in June, 1915.

it would necessitate construction of entirely new shops, which would take a long time and much money. Of course, if it become necessary we must do our duty with the rest, but there are to my knowledge a great many shops now available, or in condition to be made available quickly, which have not yet received shell orders.
I call attention in this connection to the fact that the hon. member was speaking of the time the orders for shell steel were given to the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, on the 15th of May, 1915, when they got, he says, an order for 1,000,000 pieces of steel " to make shells out of," and, speaking also of the 2nd of April, 1915, when they got an order for 460,000 more pieces of steel "to make shells out of." He is speaking with regard to those transactions; yet the argument of my hon. friend is that they should have had orders not for steel for making shells, but for shells. He says:
The Shell Committee bought that steel at Sydney, and instead of having it manufactured into shells there, as the Dominion Iron and Steel Company wanted them to do.
Let me ask the House if, in the face of the statement of the President of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company on the 21th day of June, 1915, the hon. member for Richmond is within the facts in stating that the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, in April and May, wanted to manufacture shells.
I come now to the latter and the more important part of the speech of the hon. member for Richmond on Tuesday evening last. He referred, among other things, to contracts for the manufacture of fuses, two contracts entered into by the Shell Committee-with the American Ammunition Company in the one case and with the International Arms and Fuse Company in the other case. He stated that he would read from the contract with the American Ammunition Company because-and I do



not dissent from his statement-the two contracts were practically on all fours. Now, I desire to say again that as the Shell Committee was a committee acting as agents for the Imperial Government, the Government of Canada had not and could not have any responsibility for those two contracts so entered into by the Shell Committee. I have taken the trouble to obtain copies of the contracts, however, as the matter has been under discussion in this House, and there are certain features of them to which I desire to direct the attention of the House in order that there may be no misunderstanding as to the facts. The contract with the American Ammunition Company, which is substantially in the same form as the contract with the International Arms and Fuse Company, is dated the 19th day of June, 1915. It is made between the American Ammunition Company and the Shell Committee, a body appointed by the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence of Canada.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: 
William Pugsley: If that is so, that this Government had nothing at all to do with it, how is it that a Royal Commission has been issued to investigate it under Paragraph One of the Inquiries Act, which relates to investigations in respect to the good government of Canada?


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend will exercise patience, we shall come to that in due course. I am sorry to see that my hon. friend is losing that patience and urbanity which used to characterize him.
There is another feature of this contract to which I desire to draw the attention of the House, and, in that connection, I shall read the remarks of my hon. friend from Richmond on page 2374 of Hansard, in which he refers to the section of the agreement, in which power is given to the Shell Committee to cancel a contract in the event of default. My hon. friend had stated that' a large .advance payment of $1,000,000, or thereabouts, had been made, and after reading section 14 which gave, as I have stated, the right to the Shell Committee to cancel the contract in default of delivery, in accordance with its terms, my hon. friend from Richmond proceeded as follows:
That means that In default of delivery of the fuses they shall cancel parts of the contract and recover the amount back from the company. But how are they to do it? The company got one and one-half million dollars from the Shell Committee immediately on the execution of the contract and half a million more four months afterwards. Then, if the Shell Committee cancelled the contract, they lost the one and one-half-million dollars. Thus all they could do was to accept delivery when it suited the company to

make it, or they would lose all the money advanced to the company; and all they could do was to plead with the company to make deliveries.
I asked at the time he made that statement, or immediately laJterwards, if he had the guarantee which was referred to in the contract, and I understood him to state that he had not. For the information of the House only-because, as this matter is sub judice, I do not propose to discuss the merits of these contracts-and in order that the complete transaction may be before it, including the guarantee, I propose to read the form of guarantee which was given to the Shell Committee by .the Guaranty Trust Company of New York. The Guaranty Trust Company is' one of the most responsible financial institutions in New York. I think its total assets are in the neighbourhood of $350,000,000 or $360,000,000. I am informed by an hon. member beside me that $500,000,000 would be nearer the figure. However, there is no question as to the financial responsibility of the Guaranty Trust Company. I propose, as I stated, to read the . form of guarantee which was given by the Guaranty Trust Company in connection with this agreement, and in connection, also, with the agreement with the International Arms and Fuse Company. There is a guar-[DOT] antee covering the 10 per cent, which was to be at once advanced, and there are individual guarantees cowering the several other advances, which were to be made over a period of the first four months. The form of guarantee is as follows:
Guaranty Trust Company of New York hereby guarantee to the Shell Committee, of Ottawa, Canada, a body appointed by the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence of Canada, the repayment to the said the Shell Committee by American Ammunition Company, Incorporated, of the city of New York, of the sum of one million and forty thousand ($1,040,000) dollars being an advance payment of ten per cent (10%) under the provisions of the agreement hereinafter mentioned, or such part or parts thereof from time to time, which, in the event of cancellation by said Shell Committee for non-deliveries, shall become repayable by said Ammunition Company to said the Shell Committee, under the provisions of paragraph 14 of an agreement in writing dated June 19th, 1915 between the American Ammunition Company, Incorporated, and said the Shell Committee for the purchase and sale of two and one half million (2,500,000) of fuses. The liability of this guarantee shall he reduced in amount from time to time as the' advance payments covered thereunder are applied in accordance with the terms of said contract of June 19th, 1915.
A guarantee, similar in form, covers the several payments aggregating 5 per cent
1571 '
of the amount of contract, which was to be made during the period of the first four months of the contract. Attached to the sevetral guarantees, to which I have referred, is an opinion by John F. Orde, Esq., K.C., of the city of Ottawa, of the firm of Orde, Powell & Lyle, addressed to the Shell Committee. It is in the following terms:
Re American Contract.
I have to-day examined the original guarantee dated the 8th day of July, 1915, of the Guaranty Trust Company, of New York, in the hands of the manager of the Bank of Montreal here, which guarantees to you the re-payment of the sum of $1,040,000 to be advanced by you in paragraph nine of the agreement with the American Ammunition Company of the 19tl>
of June, 1915, in the event of the company's making default thereunder. This guarantee has been executed under the corporate seal of the Guaranty Trust Company, of New York, and sufficiently guarantees to the Shell Committee the re-payment of the above-mentioned sum under the terms of the said agreement, and it is now in order for the committee to make the advance to the company of the above sum.


Mr. TURRIFF:: What is the date of that letter of Mr. J. F. Orde?


William Thomas White: July 13, 1915. I am placing these facts upon Hansard in order that the House may understand the nature of the contracts which were referred to by the hon. member for Richmond. In view of the fact that the hon. member read certain sections bearing on the matters to which he specially referred, I do not think it necessary that the entire contract should be placed upon Hansard. Apart from these contracts, my hon. friend did not place upon Hansard, and did not exhibit to the House, the other agreements with which he dealt. He referred to an agreement between Yoakum, Bassick, and E. B. Cadwell & Company, dealing with a commission of $1,000,000 for procuring a contract from the Shell Committee, and he Slated that tnat commission was at the rate of 40 cents per fuse, or about ten per cent of the contract. I have no knowledge whatever as to that contract, and as my hon. friend has not exhibited it to the House, and furthermore, as the matter is sub judice by reason of the determination of the Prime Minister to refer these transactions to a Royal Commission, I do not propose to deal with it any further, except to this extent.
After my hon. friend had recited the contract under which he alleges the parties in question agreed to divide a commission of $1,000,000 among themselves, he referred to

allegations, or suggestions, relating to any member of this Government in connection with contracts let by the Shell Committee of Canada.
Let us consider for a moment the personnel of this iCommission. The Commissioners chosen are two of the outstanding figures in the Canadian judiciary, Sir William Ralph Meredith, Chief Justice of Ontario, and Honourable Lyman P. Duff, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not believe that any member of this House, or any man in Canada, could take exception to these two eminent judges. I believe that these commissioners are acceptable to the people of Canada as men who will make a thorough, a fair, an unbiassed, an unprejudice judicial investigation into all the facts relating to these contracts and to any other that may be referred to them. Further than that, the leader of the Government has stated that as the Shell Committee is acting for "the Imperial Government, and as charges and allegations have been made in this House against the administration of the Shell Committee, he will direct the attention of the Imperial Government to every statement and assertion that may !be made in this House with respect to the conduct of the Shell Committee in carrying out its duty to the Imperial Government; and that if the Imperial Government desire an investigation into the expenditure of their money-for it is their money that has been expended-this Government will cooperate in any way possible, will create any commission, will appoint counsel, and will take all steps that may be necessary in order that such investigation may (be had at the instance of the Imperial Government. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has covered fully every contingency that can possibly arise in connection with the administration of the Shell Committee.
I was surprised, I confess, at the attitude of my right hon, friend the leader of the Opposition when the names of this commission were announced to the House. It is not often that the right hon. gentleman loses his poise, and it was to me a matter of supreme surprise that he should give away so manifestly to irritation at the announcement of these names. When the Prime Minister announced the personnel of the commission, the right hon. gentleman said:
Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to say to my right hon. friend and to the House that the proposal which he makes is absolutely unacfSir Thomas White.]	.
ceptable. If there is to be an inquiry, as he admits there bught to be an inquiry, that inquiry is to be made in this high court of Parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, (hear.


William Thomas White: I hope my hon. friend will say " Hear, hear " a little later on-
When Parliament is sitting no other court is acceptable. Therefore I ask for the resumption of the discussion upon my motion.
Again the right hon. leader of the Opposition said:
There is a way, and that is to grant a committee. That is all I ask; nothing less and nothing more. I again ask to have the discussion on my motion resumed.
One might question why my right hon. friend decided that this investigation by a judicial commission, consisting of two of the most eminent, the most outstanding figures in the judicial life of Canada, was not acceptable to him. One would naturally ask: Does my right hon. friend desire to get at the very facts of the case-


William Pugsley: All the facts.


William Thomas White: Yes, the facts, and all the facts of the case-or does he not?


John Gillanders Turriff: We have had experience.


William Thomas White: Personal experience, does the hon. gentleman mean? If the right hon. leader of the Opposition does desire to get at the facts-


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: The right hon.
gentleman says "Hear, hear,"
4 p.m. and I repeat: If he desires to get at the facts,' what objection can he have to a commission empowered to inquire fully into all the facts?


Wilfrid Laurier: Not all, by far.


William Thomas White: Into all the facts -and a commission consisting, as I have said, of two men whose names will carry the confidence of every man in this country. My right hon. friend says that the proposal is entirely unacceptable.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: The right hon. gentleman, from his attitude here to-day, and from his attitude when the personnel of the commission was announced, would have preferred to have a committee consisting of members of both sides of this House, a committee which, when constituted, would be divided on party lines, a committee

before which assertion, rumour, hearsay, insinuation, would be regarded as evidence; in which it would not be possible, as has been shown conclusively by the history of the past, that a fair, unprejudiced, unbiassed decision could be given, on an issue involving, as it does, the standing and reputation of a minister of the Crown. I assume that he would say that it would be fair that suggestions of this kind should be tried before a tribunal subject to delay from day to day and from week to week, and in which, as I have said, hearsay and innuendo would take the place of evidence. Or, is the truth more likely to be established before two judges of the eminence of the men who have been named, whose daily duty it is to sift evidence, to weigh evidence, to reach sound conclusions, and to mete out justice? Before which tribunal are we likely to establish the facts?
Mr. Speaker, in adopting the course which has been followed, and in appointing a commission for the purpose of thoroughly investigating these charges, the Government has been following sound precedent. All Governments have recognized that in questions of party controversy in which .partisan feeling runs high, adjudication should be by commission and not by committee.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Is there to be any adjudication in this case?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
is a lawyer; I have mentioned the names of the distinguished jurists who are to act as members of this commission.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: To gather the evidence;
but is there to be any adjudication?


William Thomas White: If I understand
the word adjudication, it is making a finding upon evidence. To show the absolute fairness of the Government and its desiTe to 1 obtain the truth and establish the facts, the Prime Minister has offered to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition the privilege of appointing a Counsel before the commission.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That is to gather the
evidence,- but will this commission make any decision?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend,
as I say, is a lawyer, and I have read the scope of the commission. The commission is to adjudicate upon the evidence; to make its finding upon the evidence before it. As I have stated, a Royal Commission can have no other purpose and object than the
ascertainment of the facts. On the other hand, members of a committee of the House, especially on a party question, are bound to be actuated more or less by political considerations. There is also some aiming at political effect, and above all, there is delay, which may be of the greatest injustice to the parties whose honour may be concerned. I would call the attention of the hon. member for Wright to the following words which I quote from the Order in Council appointing the commission:
Also to inquire into such other matters relating to the acts or proceedings of the Shell Committee as may be referred to the said comissioners by Order in Council from time to time, and to report the result of any such further inquiries with the evidence taken therein.
The Commission is to investigate and of course to report. There, is precedent, I think, in the case of all Governments for the appointment of Royal Commissions, but I desire to call the attention of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition to the course of procedure which has been followed by Government representing the Liberal party; I shall refer only to these. In Saskatchewan at the present time three Royal Commissions are engaged in investigating charges against members of the Administration and members of the House. In Manitoba the Morris Government, I am told, has appointed two Royal Commissions. Sir Oliver Mowat was looked upon as one of the foremost statesmen of Ontario, and, later, in Dominion politics. In 1884, he gave a Royal Commission to investigate an alleged attempt to corrupt certain members of the Legislature. The late Sir George Ross, at that time Hon. G. W. Ross, Premier of Ontario, appointed two judges-Mr. Chancellor Boyd, if my memory serves me correctly, and Mr. Justice Falconbridge-to investigate the so-called Gainey charges. I desire to read the remarks which were made by Hon. G. W. Ross in connection with appointment of that commission. He expressed his preference for this method over that of a committee of the Legislature. He said:
The Commitee of Privileges and Elections is necessarily a committee composed of a majority of supporters of the Government and any special committee that would be given would be similarly composed. The investigation, of course, would be open. The committee have the power to swear witnesses, send for persons papers and so forth. They have large powers, but not larger powers than the statute enables us to give a commission. No matter what their finding be, if they exculpated the Provincial Secretary it would be said to be a partisan finding. A royal commission was better, in his


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: Hon. gentlemen recall the investigation? During the session of 1899, on motion of Mr. Borden, an investigation was opened by the Committee on Privileges and Elections into the West Huron and Brockville elections. The result was that only the West Huron election was looked into by Parliament, and that only in a partial manner; it was dragged along as one would expect. When Mr. Borden moved for a scrutiny again in 1900, the Government, under the leadership of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, changed its mind and refused to send the question to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking on the motion of Mr. Borden, said in part (Hansard, 1900, page 5672):
If I understand aright the language of the hon. member for York, N.B. (Mr. Foster), he is disposed to agree with us in this that there should be an inquiry full and complete.
Not partial-(full and complete.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: Hear, hear-not. partial.


William Thomas White: Not partial. Now, let us see how my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition was going to get a full inquiry:
Taking West Huron if need be, taking Brockville if need be, taking every other place in which these offences have been committed. If we agree on this it is settled ; the Government is ready to do its part. Now, a tribunal must

do this work. What shall it be? Do you think that this work can be adequately performed by the Committee of Privileges and Elections? No one believes that. Do you think that this work can be adequately performed by any committee of'this House? Nobody believes that.
This is a Daniel come to judgment.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: A belated Daniel.


William Thomas White: Nobody believes that. What body other than a tribunal-
Not a committee.
-or a court should do that? It must be a judicial court, a judicial inquiry of the fullest character, and this is the policy which I have to offer to friends of the Government and to opponents of the Government as well.


An hon. MEMBER:: Which he never carried out.


William Thomas White: Which he never carried out? That only goes to show how little I knew about my right hon. friend and the course which he followed with regard to matters of this kind. Here he states that this is the way and the only way. Now he says this is not the way, and I am told that when he said this was the way and the only way, he did not adopt that way. Well, my right hon. friend has an interesting personality. Custom cannot stale his infinite variety. But I think he will have some difficulty in making to this House and this country an excuse and a justification for his refusal to accept this Royal Commission, composed of the Chief Justices of Ontario, and one of the most eminent of the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, clothed with complete power to investigate and report upon the matter at issue, with the privilege or the opportunity afforded to him of naming his own counsel, so that his party may be represented and anything they desire to be laid before the tribunal may be laid before them and there judicially and impartially considered.
So much for the precedents for the employment of a judicial committee to investigate charges or suggestions such as have been put forward by my hon. friend from Richmond. As I have said, my right hon. friend will have some difficulty in convincing this House and the country that he had good reason to adopt the attitude that the proposal of the right hon. the Prime Minister was unacceptable. The only alternative is that my right hon. friend for some reason objects to the personnel of the commission. As to that, he will be able to state his views if he so desires ; but certainly, in the minds of the people of this country, no more capable, no more eminent, no more trustworthy judges could1 be selected by this Government for the purpose of making an inquiry regarding these contracts, sifting the evidence, establishing the facts, and rendering the true finding. I hesitate to say that my right hon. friend is actuated in any way by a desire to make political capital at this time out of charges or suggestions made respecting the administration by this Shell Committee. But if my right hon. friend did so desire, and if he followed the course which has been adopted recently by his party in sending out tons of literature containing erroneous and misleading statements, insinuations, rumours, hearsays, I should imagine that he would obtain a fair amount of additional ammunition by an inquiry before a committee of this House, in which the laws of evidence would be entiiely disregarded, and in which, as I have stated, assertion would take the place of fact. I believe that the House and the country have been surprised at the attitude of the right hon. leader of the Opposition with regard to the announcement of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has met the -I will not say charges-the suggestions, the insinuations of the hon. member for Richmond, and he has met them promptly, he has met them decisively, and he has met them in such a way as has appealed to the judgment of the people of this country.
So far as concerns the remarks of the hon. member for Richmond, with respect to these fuse contracts, and the other allegations which he has made respecting profits or commissions, I do not propose to say anything further. I have dealt with them only as showing the ground upon which the Government has acted in the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate all the facts. I have stated that the hon. member for Richmond, in making the suggestions or insinuations which he did, introduced a new element into the debate. Neither the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), nor the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), nor the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), nor the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), until he touched upon the question of these contracts, made any charges or insinuations against the honour or integrity of any member of this House or any member of the Shell Committee.
Resuming the argument upon the motion of my right hon. friend the leader of the

Opposition, upon the question as to whether or not a general inquiry, shall be held by a committee of this House upon the administration of the Shell Committee, the position of the Government is as has been indicated by the right hon, the leader of the Government and by the speakers who followed him on this side. Let me repeat, the Shell Committee was not an agent of the Dominion Government. The Shell Committee was not, as has been stated, a branch of any department of the Dominion Government.


Mr. LEMIETJX:: Does my hon. friend
say that it was a trustee of the Imperial Government?


William Thomas White: The Shell Committee was an agent of the Imperial Government, not of the Government of Canada. The Canadian Pacific railway, I believe, has been an agent of the Imperial Government in the purchase of supplies in Canada. Would it be a proper course for this Government, apart from a request on the part of the Imperial Government, to investigate the purchases made by the Canadian Pacific railway for the Imperial Government? The Hudson Bay Company is, I believe, an agent for the French Government. Would it be proper for this Government, apart from a request by the French Government, to investigate the purchases made by the Hudson Bay Company for the French Government, and paid for by money provided by the French Government? Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, that not one cent of the public moneys of the Dominion of Canada has been expended by the Shell Committee. The Dominion Government has paid no accounts of the Shell Committee. The Shell Committee has never been in privity with the Dominion Government. The Shell Committee was named by the Minister of Militia and, as the Prime Minister has stated, the Government Of Canada is' responsible for the character of the men, or at least for its action in naming, through the Minister of Militia, the personnel of the Shell Committee.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is a trust fund not as sacred as an ordinary fund?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend has missed the point. Trust funds are more sacred than ordinary funds. An agency is a form of trust, but the agency in this case was an agency of the Imperial Government, and the trust in this case was a trust for the Imperial Government.

Let me summarize again. The Shell Committee was the agent of the Imperial Government, taking its instructions from the Imperial Government, reporting to the Imperial Government, and spending the money of the Imperial Government. The Shell Committee did not act for the Dominion Government; it took no step on the authorization of the Dominion Government. The Dominion Government bad no authority to interfere in any manner, shape or form with the discretion exercised by the Shell Committee,, and where there is ho authority, I contend that there can be no responsibility. If the Government had had authority to say to the Shell Committee, you must place this order here, and you must place that order there; you must not pay more than a certain price for this article, or more than a certain price for that article; you must buy at this price, or not at all, then the Shell Committee would have been the agent of this Government, but that was precisely not the case. The Shell Committee derived no authority from this Government; the Shell Committee did not act under instructions from this Government; the Shell Committee paid out none of the moneys of this country. I am aware that my hon. friend from St. John, in lawyer fashion-he always introduced the subtlety of the lawyer into his speeches in this House-


William Pugsley: The minister himself is a lawyer.


William Thomas White: No, I was reduced. My hon. friend from St. John says: "Oh, 'but is Canada not going to pay her full share in this war." Undoubtedly, and I regret very much that in 1899 Canada did not pay her full share of the war; it is a pity that we did not. Canada is going to pay her full share of the war, and Canada is paying to-day all the accounts that can be paid by Canada to-day. But with regard to the men at the front, with regard to the munitions they use on the firing line, with regard to the equipment which they may require, and with regard to the hospital and transportation services, it is perfectly obvious that Canada is not in a position to pay because the accounts can not yet be adjusted.	[DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: Canada owes them.


William Thomas White: Canada does not owe them until, the accounts are adjusted, but Canada is going to pay for them. The payments will prqbably have to be made

t
on an estimate, 'because I do not believe that it would be possible to say that so much should be paid in respect to shells, so much in respect to rifles, so much in respect to clothing and equipment, and so much in respect to transportation. It seems to me that an estimate would have to be arrived at aJfter the war is over, and then Canada would pay the amount which up to the (present- time she .is not able to pay until an adjustment has been made between the Imperial Government and Canada. My hon. friend says that the public moneys are being expended for these shells.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: That is a pretty far-fetched argument for a leading lawyer to make. Fancy him arguing that way in court. Let us see where it leads him to. These shells are supplied to the British troops; and the shells purchased in the United States and in Australia are supplied to the British troops. There is no apportionment of shells supplied toy the Shell Committee to the Canadian troops as distinct from shells supplied to the British troops, using the word " British " in the sense of troops from the United Kingdom. To carry my hon. friend's argument to its logical conclusion, this would be the result: If the Shell Committee here is spending the public moneys of Canada, by reason of the fact that Canada will ultimately pay a share of the cost of munitions used by the British troops in France, and if Parliament, therefore, is entitled to inquire into the expenditures of the Shell Committee, then it must follow that the public moneys of Canada are toeing expended by the Imperial Government in purchasing in the United States and in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the argument of my hon. friend from St. John is that this Parliament would be within its competence in appointing a committee of this House to investigate the purchases made by the Imperial Government in the United States and in the United Kingdom. There is no escape from that.


William Pugsley: These very fuses were purchased in the United States.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What did the minister say in Toronto?


William Thomas White: I have said so much in Toronto that I do not recall precisely what my hon. friend has in mind.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: When the minister referred, to $45,000,000 invested in plants.


William Thomas White: I do not recall dealing with the matter in Toronto at all.


Mr. BURNHAM:: May I ask if, strictly speaking, the British Government will not account to the Canadian Government?


William Thomas White: After the war is over, in order to determine the amount which Canada will pay, and which can not be determined during the progress of the war, accounts will have to toe submitted showing the amount of munitions and equipment supplied to the troops at the front, and an apportionment will have to be made of the amount which Canada should fairly pay. That at alj events is what I have in mind as to thb mode which might properly be adapted for the adjustment of the accounts between the Imperial Government and the Canadian Government.
The further question arises, as I stated in the earlier portion of my remarks on Tuesday last With regard to making public at this time confidential communications passing between the War Office and the Shell Committee relating to orders for shells, to difficulties of financing, etc. Personally I can hardly conceive that the British Government would toe willing that confidential communications, letters and telegrams disclosing the urgency of their needs, the shells which they intend to use, and their other requirements'-information which would, in a sense, disclose their future strategy in the field-I can hardly conceive that the British Government would be willing to have that information made public by .an inquiry such as my right hon. friend suggests in his motion.


Wilfrid Laurier: They can investigate fuses, but not shells.
.Sir THOMAS WHITE: My right hon. friend is still unwilling to make the distinction I made some time ago. A suggestion involving the standing of a minister is one thing, and an investigation into the ordinary administration of the Shell Committee is another, and a very different thing. What position did my right hon. friend take when an inquiry was asked for at the time of the Boer War, when the Department of Agriculture, not an outside committee, was engaged as agent toy the British Government to purchase hay and oats? Did my right hon. friend consent to an investigation into the purchases and

expenditures made by the Department of Agriculture on behalf of the British Government? No. He took the ground that no such investigation should be held, contending that while it was competent for Parliament to investigate the expenditure of the public money of Canada, it was not competent for Parliament to investigate the expenditure of money of the Imperial Parliament. That was the position he took in 1903, when the war h^d been, over for a year. There was then no question of disclosing information which might 'be of advantage to the enemy, yet my right hon. friend squarely took the position that although the Department of Agriculture had purchased for the Imperial Government, and had spent the money of the Imperial Government, no investigation should be held because it was not the money of Canada that had been spent. In the face of the position he took then, how can he demand, while the war is raging, an investigation into the administration of the Shell Committee, involving as it does the disclosure of all confidential communications passing between the War Office and its agent, the Shell Committee. That will be for him to explain. It is true that in the midst of the Crimean War there was an investigation, and how did it result? It resulted precisely as was foreseen by statesmen of that time, The inquiry was wholly abortive and wholly without result. For reasons of state, evidence could not 'be produced, and when the committee finally made its report it was absolutely valueless. The case is different when the honour of a member of the Government is at issue. If a charge, an accusation, or an insinuation is made with respect to the conduct of a member of this Government, it is for this Government to protect its honour by ordering an, investigation, whether it touches the transactions of the Shell Committee, or .any other transactions taking place in Canada, or by parties in Canada. The Government, has nothing to hide, nothing to conceal. We desire that the facts shall be established. We desire that the truth shall prevail. We have appointed a tribunal in which the people of this country have implicit confidence, and we have empowered that tribunal to inquire into every fact and circumstance touching the transactions in which the hon. member for Richmond sought to connect Col. Allison and his commissions with the Minister of Militia. I say that for the administration of the Shell 
Committee we are not responsible. But the Government would be responsible if it allowed suggestions, accusations, or charges to he made against a minister without taking effectual steps to enable them to be either proved or disproved.
I have dealt at greater length than I intended with the speech of my hon. friend from Richmond, in which he made the accusations to which I have referred, and I have dealt in a- general way with the motion moved by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition for an inquiry. I have stated the position of the Government with regard to the ordinary business transactions of the Shell Committee. Our position is that they are not our agents; we have no authority over them whatsoever, as we have no authority whatsoever over the Imperial Munitions Board; and having no authority over the Shell Committee, there cannot be on the part of this Government any responsibility for its action,. The Prime Minister has stated that as the Shell Committee is the agent of the Imperial Governr ment, he will direct the attention of that Government to every statement made in this House against their administration, and it will then be for the Imperial Government to say whether it desires an investigation into the administration of its agent, the Shell Committee-an investigation into the prices at which it authorized the Shell Committee to purchase shells, and into the question of the distribution of orders. But that is a question for the Imperial Government and not for this Government. If in the course of this debate a charge, an accusation, an insinuation or a suggestion, is made which by implication would appear to involve the conduct of a minister, the Prime Minister has taken the position tnat in such a case the Government will say: We have constituted a tribunal of eminent jurists, and we shall refer the whole matter to them; we will give them authority to inquire into all the facts, and will ask them to make an impartial, an unfair-an impartial,' a fair and unbiassed finding.	,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Thomas White: My hon. friends smile at a slip. I am somewhat surprised that my hon. friends should smile at the suggestion in their own mind that two such jurists as have been appointed would make a prejudiced, biassed or uhfair finding in a case of such importance as this. Is that the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite?

As I have stated, the Government desires to establish the facts; we have nothing to hide; we desire everything to be disclosed; we desire that the truth shall prevail. That is the position of the Government. But for the reasons I have given, and which also have been given by the leader of the Government and other members on this side of the House before me, I say that the motion of my right horn. friend for an inquiry into all the transactions of the Shell Committee by a committee of this House should be refused.	.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, the House has listened with a great deal of patience to the address delivered by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). On such an occasion as this, when speaking for the Government for the first time, after grave accusations involving the administration of the public affairs of this country have been presented to the House, my hon. friend, I am quite satisfied, has not made such a deliverance as the House and the country have looked for. Satisfied as my hon. friend usually is with his discussions of public questions, I am sure that he is not satisfied with himself to-day, and I am quite sure that the House and the country will not be satisfied with his statement nor with the position which he has taken. One cannot summarize my hon. friend's position better than by stating, first, that he declared that there was nothing to investigate; secondly, that he argued that it was impossible to investigate; and, thirdly, that he announced that the Government were going to investigate. That is my hon. friend's case put in a nutshell. By declaring and reiterating time after time, in the course of his laboured utterance, that the Government are not responsible for the Shell Committee, he leaves the House and the country to infer the fact, that the Government are not xe-sponsible for J. W. Allison and his doings. J. W. Allison was part of the Shell Committee; he was the direct agent of this Government and of the Shell iCommitttee in negotiating the contracts fox fuses in the United (States. My hon. friend cannot evade the responsibility for the position taken by iCol. J. Wesley Allison. I am reminded by my ho.n. friend's position to-day of a little remark which he made when he closed the debate on Tuesday night. He told us that my hon. friend from Carle-ton (Mr. Carvell) had sent out an S.O.S. call to the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte). If he did he received a splendid
response. Well, my hon. friend has been sending out S.O.S. calls to all parts of the country, and the responses which he has been receiving have not been in the way of assistance or approval of the course which he and the Government have taken in regard to this matter.
My hon. friend on Tuesday night, in a laboured argument, declared that there was nothing to investigate, that this Government should not investigate, that the Imperial Government and its interests were paramount, and that this Government could not move in the matter. His leader, the Prime Minister, within forty-eight hours, absolutely swept away all those petty arguments by proceeding to appoint a commission without consulting the Imperial Government in the matter at all. If the Prime Minister can, in regard to one phase of this subject, appoint a commission to investigate certain facts, the argument is absolutely indisputable that he has the same right and power to provide for an investigation such as is asked for by the leader of the Opposition in regard, to every phase of the subject. My hon. friend says: "We are not responsible for the Shell Commission." It is true that they appointed the Shell Committee, that they selected the members out of all the eligible men in the Dominion, and that they committed to them the task of finding shells in Canada to sell to the British Government. We have heard many statements as to the Shell Committee submitting all its contracts to the Imperial authorities. I do not know whether my hon. friend has made any investigation into that question; but, if he had, he would have found that what was done by the Shell Committee was this: that they entered into a solemn contract with the Imperial Government by which they became, not the agents of the Imperial Government, but the agents appointed by this Government of the Dominion of Canada, and contractors with the Imperial Government.


William Thomas White: Does my hon. friend mean to say that they became the agents of this Government in a contract?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend and his Government selected the members of the Shell Committee and appointed them a body to deal with this question of providing shells and other munitions to aid in the war. This Government became responsible for them and they were its representatives and creation.
(Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And as its representatives they entered into a contract with the Imperial Government. My hon. friend will not deny that there is on .record a contract with the Imperial Government signed by every member of the old Shell Committee, by which they contracted to make and deliver certain shells at certain prices-that they were not the agents, in any .sense of the word, of the Imperial Government, but contractors with them. Yet my hon. friend disclaims responsibility for the members of the Shell Committee. He told us the other night, in regard to the allegations which were made and which he was unable to. controvert, that the Shell Committee had made mistakes. If they have made mistakes, why should my hon. friend not grant the committee moved for by the right hon. leader of the Opposition in order to find out what the mistakes are and how in the interest of the country they can be corrected in the future?
My hon. friend admits that the fuse contracts entered into by Allison should he a matter of investigation. Why should it not be equally a matter of investigation to find out how the other parts of the shells were made and the contracts in regard to them entered into? My hon. friend cannot logically differentiate between the propriety of investigating into contracts to make fuses, which are an essential part of a shell, and the propriety of investigating into contracts to make the steel part of a shell or to provide the boxes into which the shells are put after the fuses are attached; but that is what my hon. friend endeavours to do. The people, of this country will not permit such a fine distinction to be drawn in regard to this question. They realize that the whole question has reached such a stage that it should be investigated, and we hear from all parts of Canada in tones of thunder the demand that the whole question should be investigated to the fullest possible extent.
My hon. friend the other night, while he was lumbering along in very deep water, finding the going very hard, digressed for a moment to chastise my hon. friend from Richmond because he referred to a contract made by the Minister of Militia with J. W. Allison for Colts revolvers and pistols. He asked my hon. friend why, if Allison had committed perjhry, he did not proceed to lay an information against him, and stated that in that case the Minister of Justice would see that proceedings were taken at once. He said:

My hon. friend has referred to perjury before the Davidson Commission. I think it might be well to await the report of that commission.
This wonderful Davidson Commission has been floating around this country for about a year and has not yet found time to make a report upon any one subject that has been entrusted to it. My hon. friend, like his colleague, the Minister of Militia, wants Sir Charles Davidson to investigate these questions and to make a report. He said:
But if my hon. friend is too impatient to await that report, I think he owes it to himself and to this House, if he desires prosecution, to lay an information against the party complained of.
And he went on to tell us that, the Minister of Justice would proceed upon that plea. Let us see whether John Wesley Allison has committed perjury or not. Upon the public records of this country, in the evidence taken before the Davidson Commission which is available to the Minister of Finance as it is to everybody else, in answer to Mr. Thompson, a gentleman connected with the Militia Department said:
Q. What orders were given for automatic pistols?-A. The first order is one for 1,000 automatic pistols given on the 5th September to Col. J. W. Allison, by authority of an Order in Council pf that date. I have the Order in Council here before me.
The Minister of Finance took the point that J. Wesley Allison's name was not mentioned in the Order in Council. But, on the very day upon which this Order in Council was passed, the Militia Department proceeded to give J. Wesley Allison an order for these 1,000 pistols. Who wias Acting Minister of Militia at that time? For, let us remember, the present Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) has not been in his department continuously since this war began; he has been in England twice , since then, and there have been sitting in his position and acting as Minister of Militia certain members of this Government. Do they mean to tell us and the country that these men who were acting ministers in the absence of the Minister of Militia knew nothing about J. Wesley Allison and his contracts with the department? Were they attending to their business, or were they not? Did not they know this man who, according to the colleague of these hon. gentlemen, 'as declared .in tins House only one short month ago, had saved to the people of Great Britain and Canada no less than fifty million dollars. Do hon. gentlemen opposite mean to tell us that the men who have been directing the

affairs of the department since the 4th of August, 1914, when the department was spending these tremendous sums of money, did not know J. Wesley Allison and all about him? They certainly have known about him since the 26th of January last, when, .shortly after the opening of Parliament, the Minister of Militia,
0	p.m. in the presence of his colleagues,
told the House who John Wesley Allison was and what services he was rendering to the country.
It is all very well for the Minister of Finance to say that he does not know John Wesley Allison. A nice guardian of the treasury he is. With contracts involving millions upon millions of dollars upon which, according to his own colleague, this man had saved fifty million dollars, this Minister of Finance says that he does not know the gentleman who is effecting these tremendous economies. The hon. gentleman comes from a part of Canada very close to that from which J. W. Allison comes. Did the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) ever warn the Minister oi Militia against J. Wesley Allison? Did the member for Dundas ever whisper in the ear of my hon. friend that he had better keep an eye on the expenditures of the Militia Department?


William Thomas White: No.
Mr. MACD.ONALD:	He is on record as
having warned his leader to take care in this matter. I apprehend that the Minister of Finance does not represent a constituency on the St. Lawrence river, and almost in juxtaposition to that of the hon. member for Dundas, where J. Wesley Allison lived and has lived, without knowing something about that gentleman and his record. Otherwise, he stands before the Canadian people as the greatest living example of an obtuse mind.
1	digressed from the point I was making to show that when the hon. member talks of perjury having been proved, the record of the Sir Charles Davidson inquiry shows that perjury was committed by J. W. Allison. Here is the statement:
Q. Did you profit by way of commission on any revolvers or pistols that were sold to the Canadian Government or to the Department of Militia and Defence?-A. No, sir.
Then we have the evidence of Mr. Stone, who is connected with ' the Colts Arms Company who sold the revolvers, in which he went on to speak about money having been given to those who procured the Canadian Government and other government contracts.
Mr. Stone: Col. Allison it is to whom I have referred, that the company has presented money to, for his general service to us.
And in the course of the evidence he went on to state what these services were, and they were the obtaining of contracts. So you have J. Wesley Allison swearing to one thing one day, and Mr. Stone swearing to the contrary another day. If the Government want to convince the people of Canada that they mean what they say about an investigation, the minister should at once cause proper parties to lay information for perjury against John Wesley Allison, have him extradited and brought back to Canada to face the tribunal that is to investigate this matter. Nothing short of that will satisfy the people of Canada. We have the investigation under Sir Charles Davidson in regard to the horse matters in Nova Scotia. But Mr. Keever, whom all these gentlemen who were mixed up in the deals made responsible for these crying evils, has not yet been found. He is somewhere in the South. He has never been examined by Sir Charles Davidson. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance may make his argument about the glowing intentions of this Government, but until J. W. Allison is extradited, being a defaulter from a committee of this House since February last, his protestations will be regarded as a hollow mockery by the people of Canada.


John Hampden Burnham: Would not the hon. gentleman himself lay the information against him?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How would it do for the great philanthropist from West Peterborough to lay the information?


John Hampden Burnham: I am asking you.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And I, speaking from my place in Parliament, call upon the law officers of the Crown, whose duty it is to administer the law, to do their duty. The Minister of Justice, the keeper of the King's conscience, according to the old tradition- he is the one whose business it is to prosecute men who have mulcted the public moneys of Canada.
Now, we have to consider the question whether the man responsible for this Shell Committee business is General Sir Sam Hughes, the Minister of Militia, now in England, or whether the Government as a whole are responsible. We had the statement of the Minister of Militia in this House on the 26th of January, in which he quoted to

the House a letter written by J. Wesley Allison, which showed conclusively to the colleagues of the Minister of Militia that in January of this year J. Wesley Alli|on was claiming to be the agent of the Canadian Government. This is what the Minister of Militia said:
I may say further concerning Col. Allison
__X shall refer to the matter of fuses in a very
short time-that in all his dealings with business firms in the United States he has in each instance, so I am informed and believe, given those with whom he dealt the following letter, or one similar:
"May 14, 1915.
" Confirming my verbal statements to you of yesterday and in order that there can not be any room for misunderstanding, I now reaffirm in writing my position in connection with the fuse question.
"I have been and am doing my very best to secure the lowest prices possible for t}ie Government, and above all things wish to do whatever X can to aid them in procuring the best workmanship, lowest prices, and largest deliveries possible; and if you are bidding for the manufacture of this fuse for the Shell Committee or the Canadian Government "-
Or the Canadian Government.
-" I want it distinctly understood that I do not want any profit added to the price under any conditions, with the intention of providing a commission for me, as I would not under any circumstances accept a commission of any kind from anybody, in connection with this matter.
"Very truly yours,
" (Sgd.) J. Wesley Allison."
Reading between the lines we see that this gentleman, who undertakes to speak for the Shell Committee and for the Canadian Government, who is the guide, philosopher, and friend <yf the Minister of Militia, says this to the men in the United States from whom business might be had: "On account of my position, in connection with any .business you do with the Shell Committee or with the Government of Canada, do not think of me; do not put in any extra charges which would include any commission for me." On January 26, when the Minister of Militia made reference in this House to J. Wesley Allison, every one of his colleagues, if they never knew it before, knew then who J. Wesley Allison was; knew that he was the man whom the Minister of Militia was sending out to make contracts. Yet they said nothing. They knew these things, just as the men who sat in the minister's ,seat when he was in England knew that J. Wesley Allison was connected with the department; just as the Prime Minister knew when he was warned by the member for Dundas (Mr. Broder). Hon. gentlemen opposite knew, if they paid any attention

to the expenditures of the Militia Department, that J. Wesley Allison, who was announced as having been created an honorary colonel, was connected with expenditures and purchases in the Militia Depart-meht. It is idle for hon. gentlemen opposite to disclaim responsibility in this regard. On March 2, speaking of J. Wesley Allison, the Minister of Militia said:
I have, been associated for twenty-flve or thirty years with Colonel J. Wesley Allison in various matters.
Further, referring to the discussion in connection with the St. Lawrence river, the minister said:
I found Colonel Allison on that occasion an-absolutely disinterested and straightforward business man. That is why I chose him to act as my adviser, ccuncellor and guide in connection with the various matters that would come before us in connection with this war. I spoke to him about getting these goods out of the United States and into Canada.
He went on to explain how that was arranged:
I may as well be frank about it, and tell the House that, by arrangement with the Customs Department, these goods came right straight in and were passed on to their destination in England or to our own Canadian camps.
Do you mean to tell me that the Minister of Customs did not know that J. Wesley Allison was agent of the Minister of Militia and was making large purchases in the United States? Do you mean to tell me that this Government * did' not know J. Wesley Allison, to whom the ports of Can

ada were thrown open in order that these goods might be brought in? Knowing these things, the Government cannot ito-day wash their hands clear of the whole matter by saying: Oh, Major General Hushes is over on the otheT side; he is the only one affected by J. Wesley Allison. That is the position hon. gentlemen are attempting to take; that is the position that the hon. gentleman who has jus't -sat down has attempted to take in regard to this matter. My hon. friend says that the certificate on this contract did not indicate that the Minister of Militia was acting for the Government of Canada. My hen. friend is very technical in regard to that. Because in the certificate the Minister of Militia is described as acting in accordance with authority duly conferred upon him by His Britannic Majesty's Government, my hon. friend says that this Government cannot he held responsible. If my hon. friend had gone further he would have seen that when Major-General Hughes came to sign

the certificate he signed it not as acting under the authority of the British Government in any way, but simply as "Major General Hughes, Minister of Militia and Defence."


William Thomas White: Did my hon.
friend read the statement indicating the capacity in which the Minister of Militia acted?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did. I want to tell my hon. friend that although he disclaims a knowledge of the law, he has had too much to do with the signing of documents not to know that the test of the thing is the way in which the signature appears on the document.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Not at all. That is heresy.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, whatever it may be according to the civil law, I would dispute the matter with my hon. friend so far as the common law is concerned. At any rate, Major General Hughes describes himself here by his signature as Minister of Militia and Defence of the Dominion, not as agent of the British Government.
The Government are in a peculiar position with regard to this matter. They purport to create a commission by virtue of an Act known as the Inquiries Act, which empowers them in the following language:
The Governor In Council may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be mn into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.
The issue of this commission of inquiry is either connected with the good Government of Canada and the business thereof, or it is not. My hon. friend will have to take one horn of the dilemma or the other. Either the matters involved in the charges of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car-vell) and the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) relate to the good Government of Canada and its public business, or they do not. If they do, then my hon. friends have jurisdiction to create this commission. If they do not, the commission is absolutely nugatory and of no effect.
I have shown, Mr. Speaker, that J. Wesley Allison was the accredited agent of this Government, known to be such since 1914, declared to be such in the House of Commons by the Minister of Militia; that he issued circulars in which he referred to the relations of the contractors with the Shell
Committee and with the Government. The Minister of Finance does not dispute the authenticity of any of the documents put before this House by the hon. member for Richmond in regard to J. Wesley Allison and this question of the Shell Committee.


William Thomas White: I stated that only two contracts had been placed before the House: that of the American Ammunition Company and that of the International Arms and Fuse Company. I said that I had no knowledge whatever of the other contracts to which he referred.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then my statement is correct. My hon. friend does not dispute the authenticity of any document read by the hon.. member for Richmond. That is what my hon. friend says.


William Thomas White: Not quite. My hon. friend did read from other alleged agreements; he stated in answer to the Prime Minister, who interrogated him about the matter, that he was reading from a statement.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend does not dispute the accuracy of the statements with regard to the agreement, for instance, made between Yoakum and Cadwell. Does he dispute the division of spoils that was made by Yoakum and Lignanti and Allison?


William Thomas White: Neither myself nor any member of the Government, so far as I am aware, has any knowledge whatever of the agreement between Yoakum, Bassick, and Lignanti, which has been referred to, or of the other transactions mentioned by the hon. member for Richmond.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has my hon. friend during the past week made any effort to ascertain their authenticity?


William Thomas White: I have made no effort to deal with the agreements referred to by the hon. member for Richmond, because I understood him to say the other night that he did not have them in his possession. He was reading from a statement. He did not lay the agreement before the House, but I have inquired from the Shell Committee as to the two agreements between the committee and the International Arms and Fuse Company and the American Ammunition Company, and those I have dealt with to-day.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then the position is that my original statement is correct, and



that my hon. friend is not in a position to dispute the truth of the arguments of the hon. member for Richmond. But my hon. friend did produce a guarantee from a viery well known trust company in New York, and the information was given that the effect of this guarantee was that the Shell Committee and the country would get back the money in the event of the contract being cancelled. I should like to call my hon. friend's attention to one peculiar clause in this contract, which shows that this guarantee may or may not be worth very much. After providing for the condition that shall exist if the company is in arrears, this clause is inserted:
But the company shall not be held responsible otherwise for the non-performance of this agreement due to any cause beyond Its reasonable control.	,
* The result of that is that this agreement, which my hon. friend produces, does not guarantee in any way to the Shell Committee, or to the Government interested, the payment of any damages in the event of the company failing to perform its contract. The gentlemen who negotiated this contract on behalf of the Shell Committee were General Bertram and Mr. David Carnegie, in conjunction with Colonel Allison. Colonel Allison was acting both ways; he was acting for the Shell Committee, and he was acting with Mr. Yoakum, his side partner. Allison and Yoakum made an agreement with the Shell Committee by which they were to supply 2,500,000 fuses at an average price of $4.25, the total value of that contract being $10,416,667, and they were to receive an advance of ten per cent immediately, or $1,141,000. They weire to receive one-half of that amount, some $525,000 odd, within four months after that date. The effect of the arrangements that were made in regard to the matter, was that the Shell Committee went into partnership with Allison and Yoakum and those two munition companies, and .agreed to find them the money with which to begin business, advancing to each of them, according to the proportion of the amount of the contract they held, a sum of money, in the case of the American- Ammunition Company amounting to $1,400,000 to begin with, and half a million more after three months. They -said: "You go out and make the fuses and we will always provide $1,000,000 for you in the treasury; if by any possibility you fall down, there will be no action of damages against you, we will not try to recover anything from you for breach of con-
tract in any way; our only recourse is that, according to the method worked out in clauses 13 and 15 of this contract, a certain proportion of this advance must come back to us." Is that a wise or a businesslike proposition? And here we have the evidence as to the result of the proposition in the agreement which was made between Yoabum and Bassick and Cadwell, wherein it is recited1 that:
Whereas, the said K. B. Cadwell and Company Incorporated, and said Yoakum, and said Bassick, are together entitled to receive as their total and aggregate commission for negotiating and effecting said contract the sum of $1,000,000 in- the whole, being at the rate of 40 cents per fuse.
The result, putting it in a comprehensive form, was that this Shell Committee went down, to New York; they found these irres-ponsibles whom nobody knows anything about; they made this contract of partnership with them by which they were .able to make a profit of 40 cents upon every one of the two and a half, million fuses included in the contract; and they proceeded to divide the spoils. Colonel Bertram and Mr. Carnegie were in New York at that time, and the minister himself tells us all about that. We are not left to .any conjecture in regard to that matter. The Minister of Militia tells us what went on about fuses, how this contract was let:
I come to the question of fuses, and I doubt not that what I have to say on that subject will be startling to some hon. gentlemen. I do not wish to indulge in personal criticism, or to say anything to make any hon. gentlemen opposite feel aggrieved; but I have here the facts and figures, and I challenge the freest and fullest inquiry into them all.
The hon. gentlemen heard that. The minister's colleagues sat around him and heard him say that. He went on to tell us how he had made the contract:
Imagine our surprise when Col. Bertram told me that they were asking $6 apiece for these fuses. I sent for Col. Allison and said to him that this price was absurd, that we should get them for easily half that, and so fire two shots instead of one at these gentlemen who are seeking to overthrow the liberties of the British Empire and of the French nation. Col. Allison brought the price down to $5.10; later, to $4.90, which is the lowest price for which I have heard of any company in the United States, the Morgans or any other, making fuses for the British Government. Later Col. Allison brought the price down to $4.50, and, by still further organization to $4.25. Contracts were made at this price of $4.25 for these time fuses. But, owing at least in part to the fact that a number of firms in the United States had been blown up, and there was more or less of the "German peril " idea abroad, they refused to take tile contract, and it remained at $4.50.: Thus there

was a saving of 40 cents on each fuse, or a total saving to the British Government of $1,600,000 in that one deal alone.
Then my hon. friend went on to say that
A contract was let in the United States at $4 -and I may say that Colonel Allison never heard of that contract until it had been let.
I wonder what happened that the colonel did not know about it. That was something strange.
Subsequently, a month later, a contract was let at $3.50, with the price of $4 to a firm in Canada, who, I believe got their fuses largely made in the United States.
I will deal with the question of the Canadian contract a little later on. But I want to call the attention of the House and the country to this fact, that standing in his place in Parliament, in the presence of his colleagues, the Minister of Militia, knowing that they knew that Col. Allison was his guide, philosopher, and friend, and had been since August, 1914, told this story -of this fuse contract on account of which hon. gentlemen to-day are appointing a commission of investigation. Hon. gentlemen cannot saddle the responsibility of this question upon General Hughes alone. Each and every one of them, from the Prime Minister down, stands with General Hughes on account of these facts, responsible for everything that has been done in regard to these fuse contracts in the United States.
Let me give another fact. I am informed on reliable information from gentlemen oi standing who I believe will substantiate this statement before a proper tribunal, that at the time General Bertram and Carnegie were in the United States a responsible person came to them and offered to com struct and deliver the fuses which were dedesired by them upon the basis of being paid for their cost of production, plus 5 per cent. While this matter was under consideration, John Wesley Allison arrived. So this gentleman asked him to add 75 cents to the price of each fuse for the purpose of dividing that amount of money into four different parts, of which one was to be kept by the contractor, he was to have one, and the others were to be given to parties unknown. General Bertram and Mr. Carnegie declined to do business with this man, who was willing to deliver those fuses for their cost price, plus 5 per cent; and they proceeded to make this contract with Yoakum, Cadwell and this crowd of speculators who are trafficking with Canadian money, and, as my right hon. leader pointed out, on account of their failure to perform that contract, have been trafficking in the lives of our boys who nave been fighting for this Empire on the other side of the Atlantic.
This contract was made with those people on June 19. On May 26, 1915, a responsible Canadian organization offered in writing to make delivery of fuses to the Shell Committee for $4.20 per fuse. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, that was on May 26. On July 25, the Shell Committee, after they had made the arrangement with the United States people, offered to these Canadians an order for
250.000	fuses at $4 each, and an order for
250.000	at $3, or a net price of $3.50 per fuse, or 75 cents per fuse less than the price at which contracts had been let to the companies in the United States. That is very significant, Mr. 'Speaker, in view of Allison's position in regard to the amount that was to be divided. Nothing was done by the Shell Committee until August 17, when a contract was made with the Canadians. When the contract was made, on August 17, the Canadian gentlemen asked Mr. Carnegie whether or not he would give them an advance to assist them in carrying out their contract. Mr. Carnegie said: no, that the Shell Commitee had never made advances. Later on, these Canadian gentlemen, having ascertained about the contracts in the United States, asked in a letter that they be allowed 15 per cent by way of an advance.


John Hampden Burnham: Who were those men?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If a committee oi this House is granted my hon. friend will get the names. The money was not advanced to these Canadian gentlemen as it was advanced,to the people in the United States; it was deposited in a bank in Toronto, under certain limited conditions. I have given the situation on May .26, before this contract was entered into in the United States. Responsible Canadians offered to make shells at a price less than that at which the Shell Committee gave the contract in the United States. Why was this? The Minister of Militia told us of the wonderful performances- of John Wesley Allison; of how this and that was arranged; and of how different contracts had been made at prices from $6 to $4.25. But before the prices were driven down, here were Canadian gentlemen willing and able to enter into a contract, and they were disregarded. On what principle was that done? The Government is responsible, because the Minister of Militia knew all about it. This Minister of Militia is not a Dr. Jekyll and

a Mr. Hyde. He is not a minister one day when he sits in 'Council, and some other kind of person when not in Council. Collective responsibility on the part of a Government for the actions of its individual members has not yet departed under the constitutional practices of this country. That has been well settled by many known precedents, and our constitution has been built up on precedent upon precedent. No Government can say we do not know of the actions of a colleague when there is evidence which shows that they must have known if they had exercised ordinary common sense and prudence in regard to such an important matter as the tremendous expenditures which have been made by this country in connection with the war.
In Canada we have a responsible company which on March 5, 1916, shipped 50,000 fuses, which, from March 5 to March 31. shipped1 100,000, amd which delivered 25,000 more than they had agreed to do in their contract. On April 6 they will ship 25,000 more, and they are in a position to make
30,000	fuses per week. If this Government, or the Shell Committee, had made the slightest effort, or had been animated by any desire to secure the making of these fuses in Canada, they could have made the contract with Canadians on May 26 instead of becoming involved in disgraceful arrangements with a group of speculators in the city of New York. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia said with regard to these matters, that the Government have constituted a tribunal, and that nobody must say anything about it.. It is true, he said that the Shell Committee had made mistakes, and he went on to make the surprising statement that if the Shell Committee had placed the orders with Canadian manufacturers, they would not have been responsible if there had been delay. In the case under consideration, they declined to place the orders with Canadian manufacturers, and they deliberately placed them with American manufacturers, and they are responsible for the delay. This Government permitted them to place those orders, and the Government are responsible for the delay. If the Shell Committee made mistakes, as the Government admits, on what possible ground, without traversing the facts that have been placed before the House, can hon. gentlemen opposite refuse an investigation wide enough to take within its purview the actions of the Shell Commit-

tee which have been complained of not merely by the press supporting hon. gentlemen on this side, but as my hon. friends opposite know, by some of the leading journals supporting them. These journals have demanded an investigation of the widest character.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance asks what purpose there would toe in holding an investigation. He was something like my hon. friend from Calgary who will now imagine I presume, that he is inspired by some holy fire and has a divine right to be a prophet when he recalls that a few weeks ago he predicted that when the war was over some reputations would suffer. He told the House of the awful catastrophe that he was sure was going to happen after the war was over and of the reputations that were to be shattered, but he wanted to postpone the evil day. My hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) has well pointed out the evil of delay in regard to such matters. Records will toe lost, and where will the men who constitute t'he brood of speculators in New York toe when the war is over? Where will the men who have been trafficking in the people's money toe then? Will they toe within the jurisdiction of this House, or of this country, when the war is over? My hon. friend from Richmond made that point very effectively, and there is no answer to it. Yet, the Minister of Finance' asks: What purpose is to be served in holding an investigation, and have we a right to investigate without the Imperial Government's consent. Yes, we have a right, because the Prime Minister has proceeded to investigate. He did not ask the Colonial Secretary or the War Office whether he would issue this commission. He read the other day the correspondence he had had with the home authorities. Was there anything to indicate that he had asked for permission to issue this commission. On the contrary, he announced the commission, and sent word to Sir George Perley to intimate to the Colonial Office that he had issued a commission. So the arguments of the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) of my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett); and of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), go for nought in face of the fact that without asking permission, and absolutely on its own authority, for the good government of Canada, and in the interests of the public business of this country, the Government has issued a commission.

The question is, will this Commission cover the case? I venture to say that hon. gentlemen who are familiar with the doings of the Davidson Commission will not think that this Royal Commission is of a character that will satisfy the country. What is the situation? Under the Act which provides for public inquiries, we appoint two eminent judges. These two judges have powers in so far as the investigation is concerned, only to the extent to which this Parliament gives them power. The history of investigations into public matters shows that Parliament, composed as it is of the representatives of a free people, has reserved to itself the right to investigate matters of public business. Why have we a Public Accounts Committee empowered to summon witnesses and take evidence, unless it is for the purpose of enabling the representatives of the people through that committee to investigate to the fullest extent, if they desire, the expenditures that have been made on Consolidated Account, but, apparently, according to hon. gentlemen opposite, we should get some outside body to make that investigation year after year.
This Royal Commission is appointed under the Inquiries Act. I see by the American papers that J. Wesley Allison is at Seabreeze in Florida. Let us suppose that the commission sent an officer down there to serve Col. Allison with a subpoena. In the first place, the writ would not run beyond the confines of Canada. Col. Allison need not pay the slightest attention to a writ of that kind; and he would not come. The best evidence that he would not come is the fact that he has not already come. He has been in contempt of the Parliament of Canada since February last. This Government knew, when it appointed this commission, that it would have no authority whatever for getting hold of Allison or Yoakum or any other of the men who were concerned in these shell transactions in New York or some other part of the United States. Hon. gentlemen opposite knew that this commission from its very inception will be absolutely nugatory. It will no more get Allison or Yoakum before it than the Davidson Commission could get Keever. Its powers in that particular are absolutely nugatory. If this Government was in earnest in regard to the appointment of a tribunal of a judicial character, they would not be satisfied with appointing a commission merely with the bald powers given in the Inquiries Act, but would introduce and pass a measure constituting a
court with the widest possible powers that a federal court can have. I challenge the Minister of Justice to say that any writ issued by this commission under the Inquiries Act will be of the slightest value beyond the boundary of Canada. He knows very well that it will not. He knows that legislation could be introduced constituting a court on broader lines and with wider powers-a court that would be respected by the comity of nations, where one nation assists another in enforcing the law. I say, therefore, that the investigation proposed by the Government is of no value and of no effect, and they know it. Do hon. gentlemen realize how grave a matter this is? ' The people of this country, in this the moment of her peril, are not pardoning, and will not pardon, the men who traffic in munitions of war at the cost of the lives of our sons who have gone to fight the battles of the Empire. This Parliament would be justified in sitting continuously and exercising through a special committee the widest possible powers in order to have the fullest investigation into every phase of this matter. A Committee of Parliament such as we ought to have could continue its investigations until Allison and the other men had been brought back and the whole matter cleared up. Why does not the Minister of Justice cause proceedings to be taken against Allison and have him extradited? Hon. gentlemen opposite hope that Parliament will prorogue in a short time, perhaps, before the Minister of Militia gets back from the other side, and that the whole matter will be hung up in the limbo of uncertainty and forgetfulness through the tedious and wearisome proceedings of a commission, whose decrees will not be respected by a single one of the men who ought to be brought before it. They hope that with the forgetfulness that time brings public interest in the matter will wane, and the conscience of Canada go to sleep. That is their theory, and that is why they have appointed this tribunal, which will be absolutely nugatory, and which is known to foe so by every lawyer in the country. Hon. gentlemen can not escape responsibility by declaring, as the Minister of Finance did this afternoon, that they do not know this man Allison. The Minister of Finance said that hardly any of his colleagues knew him. What a strange combination of men we have in the Cabinet of this country! Why, the name of Allison has been in everybody's mouth for the last year and a half. Beyond a shadow of doubt.

as I have already pointed out, there must have 'been knowledge of Allison on the part of some members of the Government. When the Minister of Militia told the Minister of Customs that Allison was acting as his agent in the purchase of war supplies in the United States, and was arranging for the free entry of these supplies into Canada, how can any one say that the Minister of Customs did not know anything about Allison? He knew, before he permitted the goods to come in, that he was employed by the Minister of Militia. The very statement of the proposition is evidence of the fact. Other members of the Cabinet must 'have known about him too. The Minister of Militia is no more responsible for J. Wesley Allison than any other man who sits in the Cabinet, and the country ought to know it. The occasion is one that demands drastic action by the Government. The hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder), if he is correctly reported, said:
I am getting too near the end of my life to be expected to object to holding an investigation into the work of the Shell Committee. I went to the Premier and told him that if investigation were decided against I would have to vote against him. He said that if I voted against him it would do him more harm than if almost any other member of the party did so. I replied that I could not alter my view at my time of life, that I would have to go straight to the end. I would have to vote for an inquiry. I don't believe the Premier quite realizes what is going on. These are not the days of the Marlborough wars. The people of Canada are on trial for their honesty. I told the Premier it was no use suggesting to the Imperial Government that they should ask for an investigation. They can't ask the Canadian Government for an investigation. We are the people to deal with this.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The hon. member for Dundas has written me a letter stating that he gave no such interview.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It would be interesting to know just what the hon. member for Dundas did say. He certainly said something; the House and the country know that. We all have the greatest respect for him, and we all know that he will not deny that he said he had no confidence in Allison when he was employed as the agent of this Government in the purchase of war supplies. Why is it that papers that are strong supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite discuss in the frankest way the seriousness of the situation? Here is one which says:	.
Manufacturers who have been Conservatives all their lives are so stricken by the reign of

terror established under the auspices of Sir Robert Borden that they dare not come out in the open and proclaim the truth that ought to be proclaimed in the interests of Canadian industry and Britain's safety. The Shell Committee is the work of Sir Robert Borden's hands. Nobody's head seems to have had any share in the origination of the small piffling Shell Committee, whose waste of money may have been inevitable, and was far less ruinous to the British taxpayer than its waste of time was to the Canadian manufacturer.
It goes on to say that my right hon. friend should grant the fullest and most complete investigation. Hon. gentlemen opposite know that that is the situation in which they stand before this country and before their friends. Therefore, Sir, when they say, in the apologetic and halting manner of the Minister of Finance this afternoon, first, that there is nothing to investigate, and, second, that they have no power to investigate, and then when they endeavour to justify the appointment of a body which, as every hon. member knows, will have no power whatever to reach those men who are across the border in the United States, I say that the Government are not proposing a solution with which this country will be satisfied. It is therefore the duty of this House to support the motion of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. Let us, as the representatives of a free people in this Parliament, decide to have a committee appointed- to make the widest kind of investigation in .accordance with the resolution proposed by my right hon. friend. Let us asik the assistance of the Minister of Justice to 'bring here the men that can be brought here. Let this Parliament sit until this wrong is uprooted and until all this scandal is laid bare before the Canadian people; and in that way we shall show to the whole Empire that we Canadians will not accept responsibility for such doings by John Wesley Allison and others, as have been exposed, and that we want those high standards of public life, for which our boys are fighting in the old land, which will not permit the continuance of such doings as have been exposed before the Canadian people.


Wilfrid Laurier: If no one else wishes to take part in the debate, I would ask that you call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Christopher Sinclair.-Mr. Douglas.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, for the appointment of a special committee to inquire into the purchase of shells, etc., resumed.
Hon. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas):: With the permission of the House, I would like to speak for a few moments. I do not wish to intervene before the right hon. leader of the Opposition addresses the House, but, as my name has been made a subject of controversy, I think I should say a few words now. I do not seek any great publicity, and I desire to say that I never gave any authority for an interview which has recently appeared in the newspapers, nor did I make any statement to anybody to be made public. While I am on my feet, I wish to state how I intend to vote, for I do not wish to give a silent vote on this occasion. A good deal has been said of the wisdom or unwisdom of investigating the Shell Committee's business. The argument largely used is that the money spent was British money. Now, Sir, I look upon this war as a partnership between Great Britain and her colonies, and I think we are just as much interested in the outlay of British money as in the outlay of our own money. I do not think the people of this country will be satisfied unless they feel assurance that there is to be pretty thorough investigation. I am glad to see the right hon. leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) go as far as he has gone; but I wish he would go further. I do not think that anything short of the fullest investigation will satisfy the public feeling of this country to-day. I do not think that grafters should be allowed to hide in the shadow of this great war, to plot against the interest of the country, and to feed on her revenues. I think the people of Canada are alive to the situation; and, while we believe it is not wise to say too much or criticise too much during the war, we have but to look across the water to see that public opinion, which is always acute and sensitive in Great Britain, was so aroused by the public pres- that it became irresistible, and the Premier of England was obliged to. cross the floor of the House and change the personnel of his Government. These are things that the people notice. While I have no fault to find with the fact that judges are to be appointed to make investigation, and while I am satisfied that they are as competent and as thorough, and better judges of evidence than any committee that this House could appoint, yet the people cannot distinguish between these fine technicalities. I have no fault to find with the fact that judges are appointed, and those who have been appointed have such a standing in the country that the people will be satisfied with their work. But I wish to say further, while I am on my feet, that the people of this country, who are working night and day, who are subscribing money to help the army-the willing sacrifice of an earnest people-feel, as I am sure this House feels, that the money for this war should be properly spent. I intend to vote for the motion of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, after the very powerful address which was delivered this afternoon by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mt. Macdonald), I should have been quite willing to allow the vote to be immediately taken but for the fact that the partial investigation which has been promised by the Government introduced new features that require some observations from me as the mover of the resolution before the House.
In view of the resistance that has been offered by the Government to this motion, in view especially of the arguments that have been adduced in support of that resistance, it may not be amiss that we should refer to the duties and responsibilities both of the Government and of the Opposition in these war times. I took an early opportunity-the earliest at my command, in the special session of 1914'-to define our conception of the duties and responsibilities of His Majesty's loyal Opposition in this House. To what I then said I have nothing to add, nor from it have I anything to detract. As on the previous occasion ao on this, I have to, protest against the interpretation given by the other side of the House to our attitude, an attitude which, if accepted by us, would have reduced constitutional government simply to a mockery; which would have made of this free Parliament a Chinese pagoda where the representatives of the people would have had to sit like statues of Buddha, mute and motionless, never to utter a word, never to lift a

finger, unless it were to approve the action and the words of the Government. Sir, here is a motion made in the exercise of the rights of a British Parliament, asking for an investigation into matters of the greatest possible concern-matters which, above all others, we hold sacred [DOT]at this moment. Yet, as soon as I had sat down, we were met by taunts that we were departing from our pledges, that we were animated by party motives, that we were simply seeking for political advantage. If this demand for inquiry had come exclusively from those within the ranks of the Liberal party, whether in this House or outside of it, there might have been some semblance of reason for such an imputation; because, in a country like this, where party feeling runs high, party motives are too often attributed to opponents in party conflicts. But-must I remind the House-the demand for inquiry never was confined exclusively to the Liberal party; but this demand for a committee came with as much insistence from the ranks of the Conservative party as from the ranks of the Liberal party-and we have just had in the attitude of the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) the latest and most significant example of it. We cannot claim the hon. member for Dundas as a member of the Opposition. No man in this House at any time has commanded greater respect from both sides of this House. The Toronto World, the Montreal Star, and the Toronto Telegram are not supporting the cause of the Liberal party. They have been and are still deeply associated with the Conservative cause, but they have been even more insistent than any one in the Liberal party upon an investigation into these matters. I commend this consideration especially to the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. B. B. Bennett) whom I do not see in the House. If he were here I would tell him, without offence, that he was the most virulent of those who denounced our action. He knows well that for a man, who honestly and honourably belongs to a party to take issue with that party, even for a day only and upon one question only, requires a great deal of courage, and that no man who belongs to a party honourably and [DOT]honestly will take such a course unless he js moved and impelled to do so by the highest possible sense of public duty. The hon. member for Calgary had that courage; he gave an example of it on the floor of this House. He was impelled to it, I have 
no doubt-nay, everybody knows it-by a high sense of public duty. What he did then, others in this country are doing at the present time and in the most sacred of all causes. In view of the fact that men of different parties, men whose views differ widely, agree that this investigation should be had, these taunts and insinuations as to political motives fail to reach their intended mark and only return to confound those who uttered them. If political motives underlie the action of any persons in this country to-day, they are not to be found with those who have asked that the light of day be thrown upon the operations of the Shell Committee. If motives of that kind exist, they are to be found in those who resolutely refused an investigation until public opinion compelled them to take a different course, and even then what they gave they gave grudgingly and scantily. There are men in this country, like the hon. member for Dundas, to whom the one consideration at this time is the success of the war. These men have cheerfully made all the .sacrifices which were demanded of them, and they have the right,
I contend-and this is the basis of the motion which I present to the House-to have an account for every dollar taken out of the treasury and for every drop o'f blood shed on the battlefield. This is the motive of the motion which has been placed, Sir, in your hands, and for this motive there was ample justification. Facts percolated from the sanctum of the Shell Committee which, although they did not give positive evidence, carried with them the irresistible conclusion, that extra prices were paid, that fatal delays were occurring, and tha't sinister adventurers were levying toll upon the blood of our soldiers and upon the money of our treasury. This is the reason why I have become in this House the medium of expressing what I believe to he the general wish of the community. And how are <we met? We were met, first, by taunts that we were actuated by political prejudice. Then we were met by a positive and resolute non possumus: we were told, that it was impossible to have an investigation into the operations of the Shell Committee. We were met by an array of blatant sophisms. We were told that it was ' not possible to have an .investigation, because, forsooth, the Shell Committee was no longer in existence. We were told that we could not have an investigation, because, forsooth, the Shell Committee was an Imperial organization over which this

Government had no control. We were told that it was impossible to have an investigation, because, in the public interest and according to the principles of British constitutional government, no investigation of war matters should take place while the war lasted. The Prime Minister, the member for Calgary, the Solicitor General, the member for South Simcoe, and, last but not least, the Minister of Finance, rose in their places one after another to heap up these sophisms in opposition to an investigation.
But, Sir, an incident occurred in the course of the debate-that was the speech of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), in consequence of which the whole sophistical structure came down, and it was possible to have an investigation. The hon. member for Richmond, in the powerful speech which he delivered some days ago, was able to give facts which went deep into the operations of the Shell Committee and deep into the conscience of the people. He was able to show that on two contracts given to those American adventurers who had been hovering around the Shell Cbmmittee for 5,000,000 fuses at a price of $4.50 each, an advance of an amount something like $3,750,000, was given to those men out of the money of the country. Whether it was Imperial money or Canadian money is of no material consideration, as the hon. member for Dundas has said. These adventurers were given out of the treasury something like $3,750,000 under the pretence of having fuses manufactured in the United States. That would have been bad enough, but we know also that, at the very moment when the Shell Committee were giving these orders for fuses to be manufactured in the United States, an offer was in hand from a reputable Canadian firm to manufacture fuses at $2.40 each. But, Sir, there was something more. At the time the contract was given there had been in existence for two weeks another contract, whereby the adventurers who were the contractors had already divided among themselves the spoils of war. When the hon. member for Richmond brought these facts to the attention of the House he asked hon. gentlemen on the other side if they were impressed by them, and from them there came a unanimous "No"-well, not unanimous, but there came from the majority of the supporters of the Government the cry .that they were not at all impressed. But on the following day, after the wires had been spread the news to the four quarters of the country and the wires became hot in protest from all sides, the Prime Minister rose in his seat as soon as he could to announce that the Government would have an investigation into certain matters connected with the Shell Committee. That is to say, the Government would allow a commission of judges to investigate, not the whole operations of the Shell Committee, but only four American contracts.
Sir, this is the position to-day, -and naturally, being the mover of the resolution now before the House, I am asked what should be our attitude-should we accept or should we not accept the offer of the Government? There are two observations to be made in that respect. There is, first, the character of the tribunal, and then there is the scope of the commission.
As to the character of the tribunal, I have ar word to say to the Minister of Finance. What authority had he to insinuate this afternoon that I had said anything as to the reputation or the character of the members of the commission? Did I say a word which in any way could be taken as impugning the character of Sir Ralph Meredith or of Mr. Justice Duff? Did I refer to them by name or otherwise? What I said was that I would not be satisfied with a Royal Commission as against a Parliamentary Committee. This I said and I said no more, and I resent that my hon. friend or anybody else should insinuate that I had said a word as to the character of the commissioners chosen by the Government. Sir, it would be foolish on my part, I hope I know my station too well, to be guilty of anything of the kind. The standing of Sir Ralph Meredith and Mr. Justice Duff in their profession are of the highest. Nobody will dispute that, and if a Royal Commission were to me as satisfactory as a Parliamentary committee, I would have not a word to say as to the members of ithat commission. But if I take the position I do, it is not on account of the personnel of the commission; it is on account of the commission itself, as against a Parliamentary Committee. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance to-day referred to me especially; he said that in 1900 I had substituted a judicial commission for a parliamentary inquiry, and he quoted my words. Why did he not quote my right hon. friend the leader of the Government? Why did he not quote Sir Charles Thpper?

Why did he not quote my friend the present Minister of Trade and Commerce? Why did he not quote all the leaders of his party at that time who opposed my motion for a judicial commission and insisted upon a Parliamentary Committee? I will go further; I will be more candid than my hon. friend: I will say that there was very much to be said for the view taken at that time by my friend the Prime Minister of to-day, and by my friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce of to-day, in favour of a Parliamentary Committee instead of a judicial commission, because we have had many judicial commissions during the last 20 years, and will any one say that they have been as effective as parliamentary inquiries? Sir, I should be glad, upon some future occasion, to take the views of some of the men whom I see before me on the other side of the House, and ask them to tell me candidly which they prefer, a parliamentary inquiry or a judical commission. But for to-day it is sufficient to say that if I have been in favour of inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee, I knew very well what would be the character of that committee. I knew very well that it would have a majority composed of members of the Conservative party. I was well aware that the Liberals would be in a minority on that committee. I knew very well that the majority would be partisan, as I would be partisan. I make no claim to be better than my fellowman. I am a partisan, although I believe that my partisanship would not go to the extent of wronging my conscience. Still I am a partisan. Gentlemen opposite are also partisans. And yet I would prefer such a committee to the commission which my right hon. friend has proposed. And why? Because, Sir, experience has taught us that if you want to probe offences, if you want to go to the bottom of things, a parliamentary committee is always preferable to a judicial inquiry. I know very well that on that committee members on the other side of the House would be in a majority; but I know also that anove us all there is a tribunal superior to all, and that is public opinion; and we would take the finding of that committee to the bar of public opinion, which is the last tribunal to decide upon all these questions. This is the reason I have preferred a parliamentary inquiry to a judicial inquiry. But, Sir, let me say this: I am not wedded to that form of in-
quiry, I prefer a parliamentary inquiry; yet I am ready to give way if need be.
But the one thing upon which I am irreducible in my opposition is the limited character of the inquiry. Why is it, Sir, that we have this limited inquiry which is proposed by the Government? Why is it? It is because the Shell Committee, headed and presided over by the Minister of Militia, have been found delinquent in two contracts; because in two contracts the Shell Committee, headed and presided over by the Minister of Militia, have misappropriated-I use the word advisedly-have misappropriated the funds entrusted to them. This is the reason we have this limited inquiry. Now, Sir, I see before me on the other side of the House men of large business experience, men of eminent respectability. I see one, two,- three, four, and even more men of eminent respectability and of large business experience.


George Eulas Foster: Is that all?


Wilfrid Laurier: I was sparing the modesty of the others. Four is a greater number of righteous men than there were in Sodom and Gomorrah. I repeat I see opposite to me men of eminent respectability and large business experience. If, in the course of their business, any one of them had a clerk whom he found misappropriating the funds entrusted to him, what would he do? The first thing he would do would be to hire an accountant to investigate- what? Would it be only the transaction in which the delinquency was found? No, it would be to investigate the whole of the operations of that clerk; and I say this now to these respectable men who are before me -four, and more than four-that if there had been such a transaction and such delinquency on the part of one of their employees as we now find on the part of the Shell Committee, they would act just as we now propose; they would order an investigation into the whole of the operations of the delinquent officer. We are told that we must accept this restricted inquiry as satisfactory to the Canadian public. Need I say that the verdict and the answer has been given a moment ago by my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder), when he said: "We must have a complete investigation." That is what I ask, and I ask for no more. Sir, there is a great voice of public opinion to be heard upon this matter. Here is the Toronto World-I see its editor here

before me. In capital letters the World says: " Sweeping Inquiry into Shell Contracts is Now Assured." Everybody, he says, both Grits and Tories, is satisfied on account of that assurance. Sir, the conscience of my friend the editor of the World has been relieved by the assurance which has not yet been received. Have we the assurance that we are to have a complete investigation? Do I understand the editor of the World properly to convey the assurance and the decision of the Government, that we are to have a complete investigation?
I need not emphasize the point further. I put that to my hon. friend the editor of the World: all the assurance that he has of a complete investigation is the hope that we should have it.
The Minister of Finance told us the other day that General Bertram, the Chairman of the Shell Committee, was an honest man. Heaven is my witness that I do not desire to believe otherwise. I want to believe that General Bertram is an honest man. I want to believe that he has acted honestly in all these transactions. I am told that he is a good business man; but, Sir, if General Bertram is the honest man he is represented to be, if he is the capable man he is represented to be, I cannot conceive how he signed those contracts which were denounced by my hon. friend from Richmond, unless he did it under the spell of a superior influence. It is impossible to conceive that anybody in possession of his senses would have given such a contract to men whom he did not know, without making inquiry, and without ascertaining whether or not they were able to fulfil their engagements. I say nothing about advancing this huge sum of money to strangers, but I repeat that, under such circumstances, there is no possibility of explaining these contracts unless the explanation is that the Chairman of the Shell Committee was under the spell of a superior influence. I need not dwell any further upon this point.
The Minister of Finance repeated this afternoon all the arguments which were adduced the oth^r day against the granting of an inquiry. First of all, we were told that there should not be an inquiry for the peremptory reason that the Shell Committee had ceased to exist. It is true that the Shell Committee no longer exists. It ceased to exist under circumstances to which I need not refer; suffice it to say that it is to-day no more. But is that a reason why there should be no inquiry? Since when has it been decided that the responsibility of a minister, of a functionary, of a public body, entrusted with the administration of public affairs, ceased to exist after they vacated office? Does not the responsibility of a minister or oj: a functionary or of an agent, whoever he may be, who has been entrusted with the administration of public affairs or even of private affairs, follow him until he has given an account of his operations? Is it not a fact that any man, whether he be in public or in private life, must give an account of his administration? I am more than surprised that such an argument should have come from the mouth of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. When he came into office my right hon. friend found that the commission for the construe-tion of the Transcontinental railway, which had been in existence, was no longer in existence. The chairman had resigned, and the other members of the commission had, I think, been dismissed. It was functus . officio, in the learned phrase which we heard the other day. But my right hon. friend appointed a commission to investigate that defunct commission. According to his argument, he had no right to do so; it was functus officio, and there was nothing more to say. That action of my right hon. friend shows the fallacy of his present argument, that we should not investigate the Shell Committee because it no longer holds office. It is no more in office, it is true, but it is responsible for its acts for the time it was in office. A cause must be desperate indeed when it has to be defended by such an argument as that.
Then it is said that we have no power to investigate the Shell Committee because it was an Imperial committee, over which the Canadian Government had no control whatever. This argument was used largely by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. Here ,is a contract which was signed by the Shell Committee, and upon which is the sign manual of the Minister of Militia:
I, Major General the Honourable S. Hughes, Minister of Militia and Defence of the Dominion of Canada, in accordance with authority duly conferred upon me by His Britannic Majesty's Government, hereby ratify and confirm on its behalf the foregoing agreement between the American Ammunition Company, incorporated, and the Shell Committee.
Dated at Ottawa, Canada, this 19th day of June A.D., 3 915.
Sam Hughes,
Major General,
Minister of Militia and Defence.
I put ithis question to my hon. friend: where did the Minister of Militia get his

authority from His Britannic Majesty's Government? Was it because he was Sir Sam Hughes, or Major General Sam Hughes, or was it (because he was a member of the Canadian Government? If Major General Sir Sam Hughes was a party to this agreement, if he had the authority of the British Government, it was because he was a member of the Canadian Government, Major General though he was, Sir Sam Hughes though he was, he would not have been selected by the British Government to act for them but for the fact that at the same time he was Minister of Militia. That is the answer to my hon. friend.
But that is not all. In contradiction to the statement which the Minister of Finance made repeatedly this afternoon that the Shell Committee was no branch of the Canadian Government, I say, and I will prove it by and by from the words of the Prime Minister himself, that the Shell Committee was a branch of the Canadian Government, just as much as if the Shell Committee 'had, been composed of officials of the Minister of Militia. The Minister of Finance has forgotten what was said by his leader the Prime Minister on the 15th of April last. On that date the Prime Minister gave us a review of what had been done during the war by the Department of Militia. He first spoke of the manufacture of shells in Great Britain, and then he continued in these words:
In respect of such matters, the course taken by the Government of the Mother Country has been to call to the aid of the Government the best business ability of the country. The business men of that Country have responded and splendid results have been thus obtained. The Minister of Militia himself, it is only just to say, at least two or three months ago brought this question before Council and urged upon Council the advisability-
Mark the words-	,
-of having his department assisted in this regard by a committee of three business men. In respect of some other matters the Minister of Militia has taken a course along that line which has brought about most excellent results. If the House will pardon me-my remarks have been extended beyond what I had at first contemplated-I wish to place before Parliament the record of what has been accomplished by the committee appointed in this country to fill orders which the British Government desired to place here, if they could be placed in Canada, for the supply of munitions.
Sir, you have there the statement of the Prime Minister that the Department of Militia, at the instance of the Minister of Militia, was reinforced, by three business men who were to assist him in carrying

out the orders of the British Government for the manufacture of shells. Is it not- what shall I say?-is it not plain to the common sense of this intelligent assembly that when he was thus authorized the Minister of Militia was acting for the Canadian Government But there is more than that. The Minister of Militia himself took hold of the matter. He told us that the Shell Committee was his baby, that it was his own work, that he was proud of it. We know to what extent he has reason to be proud of it to-day. Had the Shell Committee proved to be what had been expected of it my hon. friends on the other side would all have been proud of it to-day, but now that it has proved to be what it was nobody will take responsibility for it. Good or bad, the Shell Committee was a creature of the Government; and, as was said by my hon. friend from Dundas a few moments ago, the Canadian Government is responsible for it to the Canadian people.
Now for the third reason which was given by the Government for refusing this inquiry. They took the ground that they were not responsible for the doings of the Shell Committee. It was stated by the Prime Minister, repeated by the Solicitor General, by the hon. member for Simcoe, and again to-day by the Minister of Finance, that it would not be in the public interest to investigate these matters in war-time. They went further and stated that it was not in accordance with the view of the British authorities to investigate war matters in war-time-that it was against the principles of the British constitution. As regards the public interest, I have no observation to make, except that it is impossible to conceive upon what ground immunity from investigation can be claimed for the Shell Committee. As far as the theory of constitutional government is concerned. I affirm, on the contrary, that at all times the British Parliament has insisted upon the investigation of war matters. Secrecy and concealment in the administration of public affairs are repugnant to the very . spirit of British constitutional government;' repugnant at all times, in war times as well as peace times. Full and searching light has always been deemed, under the British constitution, to be the very essence of good government. Experience has shown, not only in Britain but outside, that secrecy and concealment lead to fraud, to abuses, to peculation and to corruption. I repeat that at all times the British Parliament has insisted upon having full and most search-

ing light upon all operations with which the Government was connected.
To this rule there is but one exception, and it is this: that no investigation should take place if it would lead to the divulging ' of military secrets which would be of use to the' enemy. My hon. friend the Solicitor General insisted very much the other day on that feature as a reason for not granting this inquiry. He pleaded the possibility oi military secrets being divulged. With all respect to the Solicitor General, I say there is something ludicrous in his telling us that an investigation of the operations of the Shell Committee might lead to the divulging of some great military secret which would imperil the fate of the Allied armies. If there is an investigation of the Shell Committee, these things will be investigated: whether there was diligence or no diligence, whether there was favouritism or no favouritism; whether there were delays or no delays; whether there were peculations or no peculations; and in all these inquiries would there be nothing to endanger the fate of the armies in the field; 'England herself did not hesitate to proclaim to the world as loudly as she could that her system of manufacturing munitions of war was deficient and ineffective, and must be re-cast; and re-cast it was. In Russia they have been doing more.	For months there has
been a commission there entrusted with the work of searching out the Russian John Wesley Allisons, who have been speculating at the expense of the Russian armies, depriving them of munitions, and exposing them to disaster. The Russian Government gives to my right hon. friend and his friends an example which ought to be followed on this occasion. It was ruthless in its searching out and punishing of offenders. It is on record that man after man was dismissed from the Service; the whole Service was purged1; and as a consequence the reorganized Russian armies have already taken the offensive, have planted themselves on the road between Berlin and Bagdad which the German 'General staff had calculated would be open to them during the coming summer. That was the result of their investigations.
The Prime Minister upon this point made a very strong argument upon a British precedent. British precedents always carry weight in a British assembly. Great Britain is the mother of parliaments, and parliamentary institutions are better understood there than anywhere else. A British
precedent, in support of a cause, carries weight wherever it is cited. My right hon. friend stated that during the Boer War, in 1900 I think it was, a motion, had been made ' in the British House of Commons for an inquiry, but had been withdrawn at the request of the leaders of both sides of the House, the assertion being made that it was against the public interest to have an investigation during the war. My right hon. friend quoted some authorities upon that occasion. He quoted from the language of Mr. Balfour and that of Mr. Asquith, and he was no more happy in his quotations than my hon. friend the Solicitor General, for he quoted from the wrong paragraph. His theory was that it was agreed by all parties that an inquiry should be held, but that it should be held *only when the war was over. My contention is that the theory then agreed to by the leaders on both sides,' was that whilst an investigation on the whole conduct of the war must be had after the conclusion of peace, there might be an investigation during the war, if public interest demanded it, according to circumstances. In order not to do him any injustice, I will quote his very words, and then quote my justification. He said (Hansard, page 1589):
There is another matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the attention of my right hon. friend. It was * not during the Boer war, nor has it been during this war, the practice of the British Government to favour or to grant inquiries into such matters during the progress of the war. The subject came up during the Boer war. An inquiry was moved for in the British House of Commons. The question which arose and which had to be determined by the leaders on that occasion was not as to whether an inquiry should he held, because all agreed that an inquiry must be held, but as to whether or not that inquiry should be interjected into the middle of the war, or whether it should form part of a general inquiry into the conduct of the war to take place at its conclusion. This is what Mr. Balfour said on that subject:
" Then comes the question of the date of the Inquiry. It had better begin as soon as the war, to use the phrase of my right honourable friend, is substantially over, and as soon as the necessary witnesses are obtainable. I hope that statement Is sufficiently extensive and explicit."
Mr. Asquith, speaking in the same debate, said:
" The Government promise that they will form part of the general inquiry which is to take place at the close of the war, and that the facts so far as they are ascertained, will thus be brought to the light of day. On that distinct assurance I think my honourable friend may be well content with the result he has achieved in initiating the debate and that he should not in acordance with the general feelings of the House proceed to a division. "

So the motion for an inquiry was withdrawn not only at the request of Mr. Balfour, the leader of 'the Government, but at the request of Mr. Asquith, the leader of the Opposition.
Here are the facts as I understand them. In 1901 an amendment was moved to the Address in reply to the King'-s Speech. It was not for a committee of investigation, but was as follows:
At- the end of the question, to add these words: " But we humbly suggest to Your Majesty that. there should be published as early as practicable the proceedings of full inquiries into the circumstances that have occasioned the surrender of considerable bodies of Your Majesty's troops in South Africa."
Every one remembers that during the South African war there were some occasions on which reports were received by cable of the surrender of troops in the field. Such occurrences were so contrary to all the traditions of the British army that a great commotion was caused in England, and rightly so; because if there is one thing which the British soldier and the British officer knows how to do, it is to die rather than surrender. That has proved to be the case in this war; it was also the case in the South African war; but some surrenders took place which had to be explained. A debate took place, not a motion for an investigation, but on the request for certain information, and, after some gentlemen had participated in the debate, it was taken up by [DOT] Mr. Balfour, the then leader of the House. And I will quote the greater part of his speech, which is to be found in the English Hansard of 1901, at page 1096:
Mr. A. J. Balfour: I do not mean to speak at any length; but I think from one or two observations which have fallen from the right hon. gentleman he would like me, I will not say to answer, but to touch upon the one or two points to which he referred and clear up any doubts there may he.
Mr. Balfour was referring to iSir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
My opinion is that courts-martial have not been much used in the past in regard to surrenders in the Held and he desires to approximate the War Office practice to the naval practice of dealing by courts-martial with disasters of that character. . But in the nature of the case every court-martial will be held and so far the desire of the hon. member will he met; but there may be cases of inquiries which are ' not courts-martial, and all that my right hon. friend has laid down is this-that he does not think it desirable to make it an invariable practice or even the ordinary practice to make public the results of the military inquiries. Those military inquiries may not have to do with eases of surrender, but these in the main are to he handed over to courts-martial. My right hon. friend and the Government, who agree with

him, do not hold that we ought for a moment to lay down the proposition that inquiries are in the nature of the case to be brought before this House and the country. Sometimes they may be and sometimes they may not be. It depends upon the circumstances of the case, and whatever it is desirable in the public interest. I hope that this is a clear statement of the matter.
Sir William Harcourt: But inquiries into all cases of surrender will he made public?
Mr. A. J. Balfour: I-do not think that t!he view of the War Office is that they should voluntarily, apart from the general inquiry which is promised, make all those inquiries public.
Sir Charles Dilke (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean) :	But they were promised?
Mr. A. J. Balfour: When?
Sir Charles Dilke: In February of last year.
Mr. Brodrick:	No. I beg your pardon; I
did not say so.
Sir Charles Dilke:	No; the present Chief
Secretary for Ireland last year said so. I understood it to he a promise. I asked the question whether they would he made public, and he said, " of course they will." I took that to be a promise.
Mr. A. J. Balfour: Of course, that was not within my knowledge, or my right hon. friend's knowledge, hut any statement publicly made shall he carried out.
Therefore there was a promise that the inquiries by courts-martial would be made (public, and that after the war there would be a general inquiry. Thereupon the debate was resumed and was concluded by Mir. Asquith, who advised that the motion be withdrawn for these reasons: '
But what I desire to make perfectly clear is this. We all understand the Government to have made two promises. In the first place, that wherever it is still practicable to do so they will bring the cases of persons who are prima facie responsible for any of these surrenders before a court-martial, which is an open court, where the evidence is taken on oath, and where you have all the responsibility attaching to persons who are acting in the light of day, subject to public criticism. Secondly, that as regards those cases-I hope they are1 very few-where, from the lack of a prima facie case against any specific individual it is impossible in accordance with the practice of military law to hold a court-martial, the Government promise they will form part of the general inquiry which is to take place at the close of the war, and that the facts, so far as they are ascertainable, will thus he brought to the light of day. On that distinct assurance I think my hon. friend may he well content with the result he has achieved in initiating the debate, and that he should not, in accordance with the general feelings of the House proceed to a division.
The British Government made two promises. one that there would be a public inquiry by court-martial during the war if it was found to be in the public interest, and the other that at the end of the war there would be a general inquiry. I ask no more than that. The theory I maintain is, not

as stated by my right hon. friend, that there should not be an inquiry during the war, but that there may or may not be an inquiry during the war just as public interest and the circumstances demand. I say further that the British Government has at all times insisted upon investigation into matters concerning the war while the war is in progress, and that against such investigations nothing prevails, not even the most illustrious or glorious name nor the most brilliant achievements in the field.
At the commencement of the eighteenth century England was at war with France on the question of the succession to the Spanish Throne. The British army was in Flanders, very near if not exactly upon the spot which it now occupies, not as the enemy but as the ally of France. Under the command of that great general, the Duke of Marlborough, the British army achieved in that war some of the greatest victories recorded in history. Marlborough, however, as is well known, was a great general, but his character was not on a par with his intellect. He was accessible to corrupt considerations, and in the year 1712, on the 1st of January, he was relieved of the command of the army, and on the 24th of that month a motion was made upon a report of the Commissioners of Public Accounts, charging him with having received commissions from contractors furnishing war supplies. The motion was in these terms:
That the taking- of several sums of money annually by the Duke of Marlborough from the contractors for furnishing the bread and bread-wagons for the army in the Low Countries was [DOT]unwarrantable and illegal.
This happened during the war. The armies were still in the field, still facing the French armies. The motion was a direct vote of censure upon him for having accepted commissions from contractors for army supplies. An amendment was immediately proposed :
That after the words " Low Countries " the following words should be inserted: " being a usual and customary payment, made by the contractors for bread and bread-wagons to the Commander-in-Chief in the Low Countries.'*
There was evidence before the House at that time that this practice of receiving commissions from army contractors had not been confined to Marlborough, but had been carried on by the generals commanding the army before him and by many
9 p.m. high officers. The British House ,of Commons, however, would not admit that the guilt of one should be an
excuse for the guilt of the other. It brushed aside the amendment, and the main motion was carried by the overwhelming majority of 265 to 155.
Now, all historians agree-or, if not all, a great majority-that the fault of Marlborough was more the fault of the age in which he lived, an age noted for its low morals, and it was known that among the majority of the House he had a great many personal enemies. But, while this may be true, it undoubtedly is true, and is greatly to the credit of the strong nation of that day, that even a victorious general like the Duke of Marlborough was brought before the Bar of the House of Commons and made to answer for his delinquincies. In British public life at that time corruption was rampant, and if it has since been purged of that curse it is because the British Parliament always, when the occasion arose for action, dealt mercilessly with such offences. And that is an example that I .commend to the Canadian House of Commons.
The next war was the Seven Years' War. And in 1756, as the French were besieging Port Mahon in the Island of Minorca, Admiral Byng was sent with the fleet to relieve the city. He engaged the French fleet, 'but the engagement was unsuccessful; he could not pierce the French lines, and, instead of renewing the attack, he withdrew to his base. There was great indignation all through England. Admiral Byng, although a leading officer, and though he belonged to a great family, and . was the son of a good soldier, was tried by court-martial and found guilty-of what? Of not having done all that he should have done. And, in accordance with the letter, the strict stern letter, of the British code, he suffered the supreme penalty. There are many who believe that the judgment against him was harsh and the sentence unjust, by reason of its gravity. If I recall this tragedy, it is only to show, in contradistinction to what was said by my right hon. friend, that the British Parliament, if it has erred, has erred on the side of severity and not on the side of leniency.
The next war was the American War, but I found nothing in it that could be of interest in this debate. The next following war was the war of the Revolution and the wars of Napoleon. In 1805, Lord Melville was First Lord of the Navy in William Pitt's second administration. In that year he was charged, upon the report

of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, with having misappropriated money when he was Secretary of the Navy. The matter came before Parliament, and a motion was made inculpating him. There was a very strong debate, and at the end of it, the House was equally divided, and the motion was carried by the casting vote of the Speaker. But the matter was carried to the House of Lords, and he was impeached in that House. The result of the trial was his acquittal. If I bring this case to the attention of the House, it is to show that the British Parliament always insisted in requiring strict justice to be done to those who were accused before it. In this case the verdict was the acquittal of Lord Melville. But he was charged, and because he was charged he was tried. In this matter, I do not charge anything; I simply ask for an investigation.
Now I come to the Crimean War, an example which my right hon. friend also quoted. A motion was made by Mr. Roebuck, which after another discussion was granted. My right hon. friend stated that the motion ended in a fiasco, and this was repeated by the Minister of Finance. But, Sir, the very motion made by Mr. Roebuck, which was carried in the House of Commons, caused a change in the War Office and a reconstruction of the Aberdeen Government of that day. Those who, like myself, were children at the time of the Crimean War, can recollect what was said at that time. If ever there was a fatal page in the military history of Great Britain, it was the Crimean War. The soldiers before Sebastopol, in the severe winter weather, were suffering from want-not of munitions as they have suffered in this war-but of food and clothing, and of all the comforts to which civilized men are accustomed. The commissariat had broken down; there was a complete breakdown in the land transport. The Duke of Newcastle was Secretary for War, but there were complaints against him and he was called to task. The complaints went so far that Lord John Russell, leader of the House of Commons, wrote to Lord Aberdeen, the Prime Minister, suggesting to him, and urging upon him, the withdrawal of the Duke of Newcastle from the War Office, Lord Palmerston to be put in his place. Here I can d.o nothing better than to quote the historian on this subject. I shall read a few words from Justin McCarthy's History of Our Own Times:

Lord John Russell became impressed with the conviction that the Duke of Newcastle was not strong enough for the post of w ar Minister, and he wrote to Lord Aberdeen urging that the War Department should be given to Lord Palmerston. Lord Aberdeen replied that although another person might have been a better choice when the appointments were made in the first instance, yet in the absence of any proved defect or alleged incapacity there was no sufficient ground for making a kind of speculative change.
I am sorry that my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) is not in his place at this time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He is here.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is he there?
I beg bis pardon. I hope that some day his correspondence with -the Prime Minister will be given to the public, and then we shall know how far history repeats itself. This motion was made, but Lord Aberdeen was adamant against all change. He kept the Duke of Newcastle in the War Office. The motion was carried. We were told that the motion ended in a fiasco. But, Sir, there was a change in the War Office immediately afterwards. Lord Panmure replaced the Duke of Newcastle and a change was made at the front, where reforms were introduced to the great benefit of the British troops. In the face of this, I ask my right hon. friend what he meant, when he said the investigation had been a fiasco? The point be made was that the committee's report was not important, but there was good reason for it in the fact that the change had been made, the Duke of Newcastle being withdrawn and replaced by Lord Panmure, while Lord Aberdeen resigned and Lord Palmerston took office as Prime Minister. The result was that there was vigour in the prosecution of the war. All we want is that there should be vigour -and honesty in the carrying out of our part in this war.
In the face of these examples, taken from British history, how is it possible to contend that the doctrine of the British Parliament and Government is that there should be no investigation during the war? The truth is, as indicated by Mr. Balfour, that there may be or may not be an investigation, according as circumstances demand.
In view of all these facts; in view of the declarations which were made the other day by the hon. member for Richmond; in view of the indefensible acts of the Shell Committee, is there any reason why we should

have only a partial investigation, or why we should not have a thorough, complete and immediate investigation? What circumstances are there to justify the Government in giving us light upon one part of the operations of the Shell Committee and leaving the rest in darkness? What circumstances justify more concealment and more secrecy? If it is true, as we know, that extra and excessive prices have been paid, that injurious delays have occurred, that sinister adventurers have been levying infamous tolls upon the treasury of the land and upon the blood of our soldiers, who will suffer but those who should suffer-the guilty parties? Will there be humiliation for the Government? Sir, if wrong-doing is to be prevented, every matter of wrong-doing should be exposed without fear, without favour, without affection, wherever found. Is there any one in this country greater than the great Duke of Marlborough? Even all the services which he gave to England did not prevent his condemnation by the House of Commons when he had been found guilty. Sir, why should there be any consideration of persons? There must not be any consideration of persons; there is only one consideration, and that is the war, the success of the war in which w'e are engaged.
The nation is giving ungrudgingly everything that we ask of her. Men, women and children, all have given generously out of their means, whether they be abundant or scanty. Our soldiers have given, generously and cheerfully, life, limb and health. And, Sir, if in the midst of that universal sacrifice, there be one or there be several who, in the discharge of the duties entrusted to them, have not done all that they should have done, have done what they should not have done, have given a thought to themselves and not to the cause, have laid their hands upon the unholy profits of war- Sir, these are criminals. They are guilty of crimes, and to shield them, to accept the proposal of my right hon. friend not to have a thorough investigation, would be adding our crime to their crimes.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: The right hon. gentleman referred to me in. his speech; he directed attention to certain comments, or, rather, certain items in the Toronto World. Had he chosen to look further into the editorial opinion of that paper he would have found views nearer to those I hold, but in the House and on my responsibility as a member, I desire him to judge of me by my vote in this House on the question now raised.



QUEBEC AND SAGUENAY RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Thomas White for Committee of Supply:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a rumour about the acquiring by the Government of the Quebec and Saguenay railway, or a guarantee of bonds of that railway by the Government. My right hon. friend answered a question the other day by saying that the Government would make known in due time their position. But it seems to me that in a 
matter of that importance the right hon. gentleman might perhaps tell the House whether or not it is the intention of the Government to acquire that railway as part of the National Transcontinental railway or to guarantee the bonds.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon.
gentleman is referring to, the road which is almost completed along the banks of the St. Lawrence-the Quebec and Saguenay railway. Representations have been made to the Government from time to time with regard to the desirability of completing the road, because a very large part of the expenditure which would make it serviceable has already been made. There is no announcement, however, to be made at the present time, and no decision has been reached with regard to it.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Steamship service between Annapolis and London or Hull, England, or both, $5,000.
William Pugsley: I think the Minister
of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) should give us a general statement with regard to the steamship subsidies. Even at the risk of being nauseating in my remarks to yourself, although you are possessed of most extraordinary patience, and perhaps even at the risk of tiring hon. gentlemen on the Government benches, I wish to say, and to say With all the emphasis that I can command-and I wish I could command a great deal more-that the time has arrived when, before asking for another dollar of money to be voted by this House, the Government ought to tell us what of these Estimates compose the $28,000,000 or the $29,000,000 which the Minister of Finance told us early in the session would not be required for the public service during the present year, and which therefore have been put in the Estimates simply for the purpose of pleasing confiding supporters from different parts of Canada, and to give them the means of pleasing their confiding supporters among the constituencies of this country. I do not hesitate to say that never in the history of Parliamentary Government has there been such a spectacle presented to the people as is presented by the Government in these Estimates. They come before us, and ask us to go through the farce of voting $29,000,000 which they admit will not be required, and yet they will not be honest

enough, if that is a /parliamentary ex-pressiom-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Anything is parliamentary now.


William Pugsley: If we were outside of this House I would1 say that gentlemen would not be regarded as treating others honestly if they acted as the Government is treating the members of this House.


The CHAIRMAN:: I think the hon. gentleman must be fully aware, as he is an old parliamentarian, that he is not permitted to do in an indirect way what the rules of the House strictly say he cannot do. I think the remark that the Government is not honest in dealing with the people of the country is not in order, and, it not being in order, it is not competent for the hon. gentleman to say the same thing in effect, by innuendo or otherwise.


William Pugsley: I bow readily to your ruling, but I would ask you if you think it is the part of honesty in these hon. gentlemen to treat Parliament in the manner in which they are treating the members of this House. I would appeal to your good judgment as to this, and I am satisfied that if you were at liberty to speak you would tell us that you do not believe any more than I do that it is the part of honesty in the Government to pad the Estimates simply to please their supporters, and to enable their supporters to deceive and to delude the people of this country by putting in the large sum of 529,000,000 which they have no intention of using, and which they know will not be required for the public service. I appeal to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I know that there are gentlemen in this House, young men for the most part, who are influenced more by ideas of extravagance than of economy, and who do not have that respect for the views of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that I have, and who therefore would not appreciate' or applaud his doing just what I ask him to do to-night. But we have now reached the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who gave us a very eloquent speech early in the session upon the desirability of exercising the utmost economy; and I would ask my hon. friend to tell us which of these items, amongst the several millions, are to be used and which are not to be used. I have faith in the honesty of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and
159*
Commerce-and that is not unparliamentary I am sure. I have faith in his honesty. I have faith in his frankness, and I would expect him to tell us which of these amounts are to be used during the coming year and which are not. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows, or probably I should say, ought to know, we are engaged in war. There are many matters in connection with the carrying on of the war of which gentlemen on the Treasury benches profess to be entirely ignorant, yet I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce ought to have a realization of the fact that the war is on. He knows that a great many of the steamships for which these subsidies have been voted in previous years have been requisitioned by the British Government and are no longer in the service. The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows that in consequence of the scarcity of shipping, in consequence of the steamships of the Canadian Pacific railway, of the Allan Line and other steamship lines having been commandeered or requisitioned to the service of the Empire the carrying trade of Canada is suffering most severely. He must know that during the coming year there will not be in the Canadian service and earning Canadian subsidies, the large number of vessels that have been so engaged in previous years. Therefore it is impossible to suppose that there would be the need of all these large subsidies -which have been given in previous years. My hon. friend will pardon the indignation which I cannot help showing now that we have got down1 so late in the session without getting that information. I think I have a right to appeal to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He is an old parliamentarian, and one who must be astonished at the enormous estimates, amounting to $189,000,000, which are simply frightful in these times of stress and trial. I am sure he will deem it his duty to tell us whether or not all these Estimates for steamship subsidies are required for the coming year, and, if they are not required, I would like him to indicate the items which will not be required, and whether he will consent to have these items struck out and not ask this committee to go through the farce of voting money which it is not intended to spend, and which it is not necessary to spend in the public interest.


George Eulas Foster: From my long acquaintance with my hon. friend, I feel that it would be impossible to resist the appeal whibh he has made to me to-night,

especially the latter part of it. At first I was afraid we were in for a night of it. My hon. friend commenced as if he intended to be very severe and very exigent, but his natural good nature got the better of him, and in the latter part of his request he was not at all unreasonable. I am quite sure that I will satisfy all 'his reasonable demands with reference to this vote. I am going to ask the committee to take up these items one by one, and on each I will answer the inquiry of my hon. friend as to whether the money is expected to be used or not. Speaking generally, I do not know of a single vote in these subsidies to mail steamships which will not be actually used. There may be one or two, but we will speak of them as we come to them. They are nearly all services which are und,er contract, which have been under contract from year to year for a number of years, and which are more or less important in their way; and the most of them are services upon which, as a rule, no levy is made by the British Government in the way of commandeering for purposes of their own. In the main the vessels are not of the kind which would be useful for such purposes. Two of the mail services have been very much cut up during the last year, the interruption commencing almost immediately after the outbreak of war. One is the -service upon the Pacific coast, the Canadian Pacific Railway service to China and Japan, and the other the large Atlantic service between our ports and the ports of Great Britain. They are the two lines which have -been particularly drawn upon toy the British Government in commandeering, and which have been the most broken up. On the Pacific
10 p.m. coast, the Canadian Pacific vessels were practically out of service for the larger part of the year, having been commandeered by the British Government. Three of itheir best vessels are' now in their own hands again, and they are now, or will be about the middle of April, enabled to go on with their regular service with good vessels. With reference to the Atlantic mail service, that is still in a rather tattered condition. We are doing with fewer vessels and with a poorer type of vessel, because the better ones have been taken, as , I have said, by the British Government for their purposes.


William Pugsley: How much of last year's vote of $1,000,000 was paid for the Atlantic service?


George Eulas Foster: Perhaps it will be better to take the items up in their order. The first is for a service between Annapolis and London. This is a tentative service, that is, it may be taken up, or it may not. It is for the purpose of getting rid of the surplus apples grown in Nova Scotia. It was used, in part, in 1908, 1909, 1910, and 1911. In 1912 the subsidy was not used, the regular lines being sufficient to carry the produce, and it was the same in 1913. In 1914, 35,125 barrels were taken from Nova Scotia under this service, and $4,000 was paid, which was at the rate of $1,000 per trip. In 1915 the service was not used. Whether it will be used this year I do not know, tout if the crop of apples is large, and the tonnage is as scarce on the regular lines, as it will likely toe if the war continues, it is very probable that there will be need of this amount to carry the produce of the Nova Scotia orchards.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: What is the special benefit of this service? Does it give the apple growers cheaper transportation than by the regular service from Halifax? What is it good for?


George Eulas Foster: It is good for what any subsidy is good for. The apple growers themselves procure the boats, and we pay them $1,000 per trip up to the limit of the subsidy which is granted.


John Howard Sinclair: They control the rates themselves?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, absolutely.


John Gillanders Turriff: In addition to the 90 cents per barrel of duty now put on apples, which is from 75 to 100 per cent on the ad valorem value of the apples, apparently the western farmer has to pay, has to put his hand in his pocket to pay a subsidy to the apple growers to enable then! to export their apples.


Mr. BLAIN:: Will my hon. friend move to have it struck off?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, I move that it be cut in two.


George Eulas Foster: You will not have much left.
Motion of Mr. Turriff negatived.
Steam service between Canadian Atlantic ports and Australia and New Zealand, $140,000.


Mr. NESBITT:: Are these subsidized ships under the control of the department? I wrote a letter to the minister on this sub-

ject to-day. It appears that previous to the war these subsidized ships carried a certain commodity from Canada at $5.75 a ton. After the war broke out they asked $40, but competition from New York forced them to come down to $30 a ton. The same class of goods is carried from England at $17 a ton. We are competing with England in this commodity, and the minister will see that we are at a great disadvantage owing to having to pay $13 more a ton freight. A rise from $5.75 to $30 is very large. Could not the minister get these ships to carry freight from St. John or Halifax at a competitive rate with the ships from England?


George Eulas Foster: The department has a contract with this company, as with all other subsidized lines, and a clause in that contract makes the minister the arbiter of the rates. These steamship companies have to submit their schedule of rates to the department and get the department's approval before they can put any increased rates in operation. That is the control we have. It is absolute in itself, but yet the minister of the department can only exercise a reasonable control in practice. This line of vessels has been continually involved in difficulties during the past year, on account of the trouble they have had in getting vessels to keep the service going. At any one moment they have hardly been able to say what vessels they would have two months hence. Their ships have been commandeered, and it has been difficult to charter others in their place. The matter of increased rates has been before me on several occasions. At last the increase became so marked that I appealed to the patrons of the vessels themselves, and the question resolved itself into the patrons either paying the advanced nates, or! the services being discontinued altogether. Although they did not want to- pay the advanced rates if they could help it, when it came to a show-down, so to speak, the patrons said: We have to get our goods shipped; so give us the vessels, and we will pay the nates. Now that in indicative of the state of freights all over the world. Those who want to get freight carried have to pay the rates that are asked; in the end I suppose they reimburse themselves out of the price to the consumer.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In the case I mentioned, the contracts were made last summer, when the rates were not half what they are now,
and the contract having been made, the consumer cannot be charged more.


George Eulas Foster: 
John Howard Sinclair: Do these ships call at American ports?


George Eulas Foster: No. They sail from Montreal in the summer, and from St. John in the winter.


John Howard Sinclair: How many trips a year?


George Eulas Foster: One a month.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Regularly?


George Eulas Foster: That is one of the difficulties I have detailed to the committee. They sometimes find it impossible to get a boat, but they get the monthly subsidy for every service they give. Unfortunately their last boat, after it had been almost completely loaded, took fire in the city of St. John and burned down to the water's edge. They are now trying to get another boat. This line took from Canada last year $5,420,000 worth of stuff, as compared with $3,800,000 worth in 1912. They also took a certain amount of cargo from the United States, but no cargo goes from the United States until the requirements of -Canadian consumers have been filled as far as possible. This year I have been very strict in that respect, as the figures will show. Goods of Canadian origin were carried amounting to $4,600,000, as compared with just about the same last year, and goods of United States origin amounting to

$600,000 this year, as compared with nearly $1,000,000 the year before.


John Howard Sinclair: I understood the minister to say that these boats did not call at United States ports.


George Eulas Foster: These goods are taken on at New York.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will the minister take into consideration the point I raised, as to bringing the rates of this line into competition with the rates from England?


George Eulas Foster: I do not see how we can do that. This service' runs to Australia, and it is dimcult to compare rates to- Australia with rates across the Atlantic.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did not mean that. I meant the competition between the rates from England to Australia and the rates from Canada to Australia.


George Eulas Foster: I know. The
British vessel, I think, gets the advantage in that respect, in this way, that Australia takes a very large amount of manufactured goods from Great Britain, and so gets a large carriage outward, and the British boat may get a very full cargo hack from Australia. I think that makes a difference between the two rates.
Steam service between Canada and Cuba, $25,000.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Was this service performed last year?


George Eulas Foster: This vote was
kept in last year for this reason. For certain products of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and other provinces nearby there is a market in Cuba at certain seasons of the year, for example in the autumn after the crops are brought in. Potatoes are one of the chief articles that figure in the goods which offer for Cuba. This 'Service was carried out for many years by the Elder-Dempster Company, which carried on a service between Canada and Mexico and called at Cuba. I have kept the vote in since then and it has been used partially, but not altogether, in the autumn of the year when potatoes and such produce, as are needed in Mexico and for which Nova Scotia and New Brunswick want a market, offer. Last year only a very small amount of that vote was used.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the steamer sail from Halifax?


George Eulas Foster: Either Halifax
or St. John, according to the requirements.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Or both?


George Eulas Foster: Yes. Last year only one trip was made.


Mr TURRIFF:: In the case of a service such as this, where the British Government has not commandeered any of the vessels that would be engaged in that trade, and where Ithe freight rates that such a * company as this is able to charge are now probaly double or treble the freight rates that were in force previous to the war, does the Government still pay the usual subsidy?


George Eulas Foster: This service can hardly be said to be a company service, because it is an occasional service. It may be running for a month, or two months, or three months with one trip per month, but it is not a regular service. You have to get a special vessel for that purpose, and it is therefore not a question of giving a subsidy to a regular line which is carrying on its services to and fro; you simply have to pick up a boat if you possibly can and make an arrangement for a small subsidy for it to enable it to make the trip. My hon. friend, if he had made inquiry, would know that very few services have been so badly interfered with as has the service to the West Indian islands. We are suffering from congestion at both ends of the services and the impossibility of getting extra vessels for doing the work.


Mr. McCREA:: Would the minister tell us if this subsidy is for carrying the mail, or simply for carrying general marchan-d.ise ?


George Eulas Foster: This is not a mail subsidy; this is just a subsidy for general merchandise.


Francis N. McCrea: In view of the fact that freight rates have gone up, and that steamers of all classes are charging from five to fifteen times the normal rates, should the Government not cease subsidizing a service that is charging unreasonable rates? There are at the present time many vessels sailing from Canadian ports to the Old Country that are getting enough freight in one cargo to pay the value of the vessel.


George Eulas Foster: I quite agree with my hon. friend that, if you take the normal value of vessels that can carry three or four or five thousand tons across the Atlantic to-d,ay, at present freight rates they would pay for themselves once or twice over in one voyage; but.

as I explained a moment .ago, this is not a regular route for vessels. If you want to get freight which is gathered from the agricultural products of the provinces out to market, you have to hunt around for an occasional vessel to do the work and you have to give some inducement for the owners to take her off her regular route if she is on one where she can get better rates and larger freights.


Francis N. McCrea: There would be a reason for paying subsidies if the owners of the vessels would charge reasonable freight rates; but, notwithstanding the subsidies which the Government grants, the owners still charge unreasonable and unwarranted rates. I do not think the subsidies which the Government grants for these services count very much; I know some lines of freight on which shipowners are charging at least fifteen times the rate that existed prior to the war. I do not think there is any justification for such rates being charged and I think that the shipowners are simply taking advantage of circumstances.
Steam service or services between Canada and Newfoundland, $70,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was this service performed last year?


George Eulas Foster: Yes. The contract, I think, ends in the spring of this year. The service was not carried out with the same vessels that performed the service when the contract was made. The two vessels, the Bruce and the Lintrose were both sold to the Russian Government for ice-breaking purposes and went off the route. The Kyle and the Sagona were put on in their stead. They are not quite so good vessels, and in addition to them the contractors had to put on two other vessels in order to carry the freight which offered between Canada and Newfoundland.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The seivice is
between Canada and North Sydney.


George Eulas Foster: Sydney and Port aux Basques.


John Howard Sinclair: Is there much freight?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, more
freight than the boats could carry and they had to put on two extra vessels to try to relieve the congestion of freight.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This subsidy is
partially for carrying the mails?


George Eulas Foster: This service
carries mail as well as freight, but it is a connection between the Intercolonial railway system and the Newfoundland system of railways, and is the line by which our produce goes to Newfoundland.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the Newfoundland Government contribute anything to this service?


George Eulas Foster: Whether it contributes anything to this steamship service or not, I thinik it contributes to the land part of the service to Port aux Basques, carried on by the same company. The value of the freight carried last year was $1,752,000, as compared with $1,445,000 the year before, and $1,212,000 in 1912. The tonnage increased from 13,000 tons the year before last to 16,510 tons last year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose a schedule of rates is agreed to?


Sir GEORGE  POSTER@: Yes, by both railways. The rates are under the supervision of the department, and cannot be put in force unless ratified by the department.
Steam service between Canada and the West Indies or South America or both, $340,666.66.


George Eulas Foster: This is under contract for a 'series of years. The service is performed by three large, powerful vessels. It is the best service we have ever had between Canada and the West Indian islands. The vessels are, and have been for months, more than filled. They belong to the Royal Mail Steamship Company, with whom the contract is made. The same company had vessels plying between the islands of the West Indies, on what they call the Inter-Insular service, but all the vessels of that .service have been commandeered, and the vessels on the service covered by this subsidy now make calls at the smaller islands on both inward and outward trips. At present, there \3 great congestion of freight at both ends of the line, and space in the vessels is pretty well taken up for mree months to come. The company is trying to get an extra vessel, but has been unsuccessful so far. Eighty per cent of the vessels of this company, which is one of the largest in the world, have been commandeered and are working for the allied Governments in war service, which makes it pretty difficult for the company to get extra vessels to relieve the congestion. I

persuaded the Department of Railways and Canals to put a vessel that they had on the service, and she will make a round trip, running out about the middle of April, which will relieve the situation somewhat, but will not solve the whole problem of congestion.
Mr. NiESBITT: Can the minister tell us what tonnage is carried? This is an enormous subsidy.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend had lived with this West Indian island service as long as I have, he would understand the difficulties connected with it. In the first place, ithe voyage is one of about three thousand miles each way, making a round trip of nearly 6,000 miles. In all the ports but two, they have to lay off and lighter their cargo backward and forward. They are subject to seasonal difficulties. Both in the freights from the West Indies afid in the freights from Canada, there are times when a great deal of freight is offered, while the quantity falls off at other [DOT] times. But the service has been, as I have said, satisfactory. The total value of the goods carried in 1915 was $3,507,835, which was nearly one million dollars greater than for the previous year. The increase in Canadian freights carried out was a little more than the decrease in the' freights formerly obtained from the United States. This service is really doing what we wanted it to do. Owing to the preferential rate and the regularity of the service, it is increasing Canadian exports year by year, while less and less comes from the United States. I do not want to praise the service too highly, but it is a service that actually runs on schedule time. The vessels are powerful, land they reach the different ports in the islands on the trips to and fro much the same as a well-regulated railway would run. That regularity and uniformity has greatly contributed to increase the trade between the two countries.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister gave us the value of the goods carried, but did not distinguish between exports and imports.


George Eulas Foster: Those I gave were exports from Canada. I have not the figures of the imports. The goods carried are fish, canned salmon, flour, hay, oats, cheese, butter, eggs, apples, potatoes, split peas, vegetables, live stock, mineral water, fertilizer, lumber, furniture, brooms, brushes,

stoves, nails, papers, and other kinds of general merchandise.


John Howard Sinclair: What South American ports do these steamers call at?


George Eulas Foster: They have connection with four South American ports. These vessels do not call there, but there is an interchange of freight with vessels owned by the same company which runs to these ports.
Steam service between Canada and South Africa, $146,000.


George Eulas Foster: This service is carried on by the Elder-Dempster line, and is a very satisfactory service. No line of steamers with which we have had to deal has been more considerate of the interests of its patrons in Canada in the matter of freight rates than this line. They have accommodated themselves to the wants of Canada in that respect.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the leaving port in Canada?


George Eulas Foster: Montreal, calling at Quebec, in the summer season; Halifax and St. John during the months of September, October and November. The distances in connection with this service are tremendously long-about 7,800 miles in one voyage. The vessels have cold storage and are well equipped. What they carried last year was the largest that they have carried since the service was instituted; of Canadian origin, 46,981 tons weight, 23,591 tons measurement, of a value of $3,889,000; of United States origin, $1,331,000 worth. The value of the total amount carried was $5,220,000. The articles carried included flour, agricultural machinery, calcium carbide, binder twine, automobiles, paper, cattle, lumber, cereal foods, woodenware, wheat, furniture, and the like.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The firm that I spoke oi were shipping also to South Africa, but the increase in freights last year shut them up entirely.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Did the minister authorize these increases to which the member for North Oxford refers?


George Eulas Foster: Yes,any increases that were made were authorized by the minister. It has happened over and over again with all our foreign steamship services. It is not the fault of the steamer, so to speak. Certain articles of produce or of manufacture-mainly manufacture-which formerly could be marketed under a certain rate of

freight, cannot be marketed if the freight is very much higher, and shipments simply have to subside for the time being.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The member for
North Oxford refers to a case where the increase was from $5.75 to $30 per ton. One can see that such an increase would destroy any trade, and I would hardly think that the minister would be justified in assenting to it. Of course, the cost of coal, wages, maintenance and operation of ships to-day is much greater than it was two or three years ago; consequently the service might fairly be entitled to a small increase. Any increase made, however, should be within reason, and should not be such as to destroy the traffic altogether.


George Eulas Foster: If such a condition could be avoided, it ought to be. I have no recollection of any complaint from the shipper in reference to this case; perhaps my hon. friend could give me information in connection with the matter.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have sent information
to the minister; I hope he will take the matter up.


George Eulas Foster: I will take it up.


John Howard Sinclair: I assume that the minister receives a statement each year showing the profits that these companies make. If they are charging exorbitant rates and are making sufficient profits without the subsidy, that would be a reason why we should cut the subsidy down, or dispense with it altogether. Has the minister any hope that the company that we are now dealing with will be able to work up a self-sustaining trade without calling on this Government for assistance?


George Eulas Foster: We always have the hope in regard to every one of these subsidized lines that the time will come when they can get along with smaller subsidies, or, in the end, carry on the business without any subsidy at all. With reference to the South African service, however, that time has not arrived. You must take the distance into account. The increase in freight rates so far as this company is concerned has been the smallest of any of these long distance subsidized lines. Under the contract it is provided that reports shall be submitted to us as to the amount of freight carried, the amount they get for it, the amount spent for coal, wages, and everything else; and this statement is always given. In connection with all subsidies that go through, I look carefully at .the accounts to see how they stand. I dp not think that any one who would look ovier these accounts would find that these vessels have made an inordinate amount of profit.
Steam service between Halifax, St. John's, Newfoundland, and Liverpool, $20,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Is that the Furness-Withy service?


George Eulas Foster: Yes. It runs between Halifax and Liverpool, calling at St. John's, Newfoundland. Last year they carried freight to the value of $4,231,681, as compared with $1,638,000 in 1912, and $2,206,000 in 1914. Last year they carried the largest amount of freight carried in any of the preceding years.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister is giving us the value of the freight. Perhaps there may not be any increase in the weight.


George Eulas Foster: The quantity carried was 13,832 tons weight as compared with 9,900 tons the preceding year. The tonnage, taking weight and measurement, was largely in excess of the preceding year.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister investigated this case? I have been informed that it is not a justifiable subsidy. This company is one of the old annuals, the subsidy has been voted every year since I have been in the House and long before that. It looks as if it was to go on for ever. I am quite well aware that this company is carrying freight in competition with vessels that are not subsidized, and I do not think they carry any mail.


George Eulas Foster: They carried last year 2,875 packages of mail through to England.


John Howard Sinclair: That is unusual.


George Eulas Foster: Yes. This has been the only year that they carried any large amount of mail, but our mail arrangements have been greatly broken up.


John Howard Sinclair: For many years that
was the condition with this subsidy. I was informed tljat the company was engaged part of the year in carrying timber and part of the year in carrying apples td Liverpool from Nova Scotia in competition with vessels that are not subsidized, charging the highest rate of freight. Unless the carrying of the mails is an excuse for giving them

the $20,000, I do not think there is any other.


George Eulas Foster: We paid them
last year $14,500. They made fewer trips.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend from Guysborough has never been very sympathetic towards this vote, but I think there is something to be said in favour of the subsidizing of this service. This steamship company provide a regular service. It is quite possible that at some seasons of the year exporters from Nova Scotia may find shipping facilities, but there would be no certainty about it. In the ease of the apple export trad.e, the apple growers and exporters have the certain knowledge that at a definite time there will be sailings from Halifax to the British market, and that same thing applies to a great many other shippers and exporters. There is that advantage in the subsidizing of this service. I appreciate the objection of the hon. member for Guysborough, namely, that this steamship company is engaged in carrying freight merely and is in competition with shipping owned by private individuals. But private individuals, of course, are always at liberty to receive freight at any port in the world, wherever they can get the best terms, and I fear it would be almost necessary to have a regular freight service from some port in Nova Scotia. Therefore I think the vote is .hardly open to quite the strong objection that my hon. friend always makes to it.
Steamship service between Montreal, Quebec and Manchester, England, during the summer season; and between .St. John, Halifax and Manchester during the winter season, $35,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What line runs that service?


George Eulas Foster: That is the Manchester line-the Manchester Mariner, the Manchester Shipper, and so on.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Those boats have not been taken?


George Eulas Foster: These boats have been regular.
Winter steamship service between St. John, Dublin and Belfast, $7,500.


George Eulas Foster: This is an old and long-established service.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What line is engaged in it?


George Eulas Foster: This is the Ulster Steamship Company.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A good Irish name.


Mr. MORPHY:: Carried.


George Eulas Foster: The name appeals to my hOn. friend.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A New Brunswick company or a British company?


George Eulas Foster: A British company.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How is it that some lines are able to run without their vessels being commandeered?


George Eulas Foster: I do not know, except that their vessels may not be of the kind that would be advantageous for the British Government; yet they are vessels of good capacity, from 3,000 to 6,000 tons. I do not remember any of these vessels having been commandeered.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I see a great complaint in the Newfoundland newspapers in regard to the discrimination which it is alleged is shown in England in regard to the taking and commandeering of certain vessels. I am not particularly anxious to see the vessels in this particular service taken away, but we in Nova Scotia recognize that during the coming summer there will be a shortage of at least half a million tons of coal shipments up the St. Lawrence on account of coal-carrying boats having been taken by the British Government; and, of course, that will have its reactionary effect upon the industry. The position taken by Mr. Cocker, the leader of the Opposition in Newfoundland, in his newspaper during the last few days, is one of indignant protest at the way in which the interests of Newfoundland have suffered from this discrimination. I presume the Government are alive to this situation. My hon. friend says that these British boats of 3,000 to 5,000 tons have not been interfered with. It is rather strange that vessels that are essential to the carrying trade of Canada should be taken off.
Sir GEORGiE FOSTER: In the first place, the British Government does the commandeering. The British Government is at the centre of affairs and knows the necessity, as we in Newfoundland and Canada cannot. I have had a great deal to do with this matter during the past year, and I understand the process; and the more I see of the difficulties of the British Government, the more sympathy I have with them in the enormous task that is

put upon them. Not only has the British Government to commandeer vessels from commercial tonnage for the purpose of British Government transport, but upon the British Government comes the main weight of providing commercial transport for the Allies. Hundreds and hundreds of times these questions have come uip and have been very acute. At first you think it is a mighty shame to take a vessel from this route and put people about, it may be for coal, or for flour, or for something else.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Newfoundlanders claim that it is flour and provisions.


George Eulas Foster: But when you get to the bottom of it, and learn, as I learned, the necessities, you realize that we have to do some sacrificing as well as as others. Maybe during the present year, if the war goes on, we will see more strenuous times as regards Canada, with reference to our tonnage, than we have ever seen, and we may have to do many things perforce which we would not like to do, and which will interfere with certain channels of trade and cause losses. But the war must go on, and the transportation services must be put through, no matter who suffers. That is attended to by a very competent committee on the other side.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has the minister seen any evidence of discrimination?


George Eulas Foster: No, I do not think so. In several cases, it looked as if there might have been discrimination, but, when we followed them up, it did not appear that there was. We are in close contact with the Admiralty Committee by cable, and we are also in close contact with them through the High Commissioner, who knows our needs and our necessities. He is a business man, and is well acquainted with what we need, and he has been very assiduous in this matter. Constantly in communication with us, he has also been constantly in communication with the Admiralty Committee which makes the requisitions. I think I am not violating any confidence when I say that, in his reports to us, our High Commissioner carries out the idea I have just expressed of the fairness with which the work is carried on, as against any idea of undue discrimination.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like to ask the minister if he is taking into consideration the matter of the apple export trade of Nova Scotia, which comes after the month
of September. The hon. minister knows that the export trade is entirely to Great Britain, and I think we have always been accorded sufficient facilities. I understand, however, that at the end
II p.m. of the present year there is a possibility of insufficient tonnage to carry the apple export trade to Great Britain, and, if the apple producers are unable to export, it will be a very serious matter for Nova Scotia, because the western portion of Nova Scotia is very vitally interested in that particular trade. We are subsidizing, for instance, several lines from the ports of St. John and Halifax to Great Britain, and, giving them a subsidy, we should be in a position to control the char. acter of the traffic which they engage in, if we think that at certain periods of the year we should exercise that power of compelling the steamship owners to discriminate. For instance, if in the month of October it appears desirable that tonnage should be secured for the export of millions of barrels of apples, I submit it would be fair for the Department of Trade and Commerce to insist that the steamers subsidized by that department should disregard other traffic offering at the time and engage exclusively, or almost exclusively, in that particular traffic which is urgent and pressing. I know that in the province of Nova Scotia apple growers are rather apprehensive as to the shipping faciliities for the export of their apples during the present year. I have no particular advice to offer the minister other than that he should take the matter into consideration at an early date and endeavour to make arrangements with the steamship companies which usually engage in this particular trade, and which we subsidize.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will inquire of the apple producers, he will find that every season I have looked after their interests in every way I possibly could. I have taken a vote of $5,000-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think
that $5,000 has been used for many years; it is not very important.


George Eulas Foster: But it is there for use.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There has been no difficulty as regards tonnage in past seasons, but the difficulty this year will be one of tonnage.


George Eulas Foster: There has been some difficulty in past seasons; there was

last year, but I found that, when the matter was presented to them, the steamship companies were very reasonable in that respect; and, in case after case, I think I was successful in getting apple shipments which at first had not been accepted. But there you are; we will have a certain amount of shipping, and, though the apple industry is important, other industries are also important, and each one presses to have its particular products carried. As far as can reasonably be done, what might be called seasonable freight ought to be looked after, and I think the steamships do. co-operate in that sense.


John Howard Sinclair: I did not have an opportunity a minute ago. to say a word on this question of commandeering Canadian vessels. I share with the minister his anxiety as to the necessity of tonnage on the otheT side, and as to the troubles of the British Government. It is our duty to assist them in every way in our power, but I think that our own Government, and not the British Government, should do the commandeering of Canadian ships. I think our own Government should take a stand on this question. We have certain rights in regard to our shipping. We have full control of the trade on the Great Lakes and on the Coast. We make laws in regard to the ships that trade on the inland waters of Canada and on the Coast, independent altogether of the British shipping lines. Our ships .are, of course, British ships, but they carry the Canadian flag. We are, as everybody know's, a nation within a nation, and we have certain rights which we should not abandon to the British Government, even in time of war. My point is that, if Canadian ships are necessary to carry the commerce of the Allies in this war, our own Government should do the commandeering. They could in that way keep track of the situation, and give fair consideration to all the circumstances that surround each case much better than they can do over in London. The Government on the other side do not profess to order us to send soldiers over there to fight the battles of the Empire; they invite us to join them, and we gladly do so. It is all voluntary. Why should our shipping not be on the same basis. I trust I am making myself clear to the minister that he should give the Admiralty to understand that, if they require Canadian tonnage for the purposes of the war, they should apply to the Canadian Government for that tonnage,

and, if we have any to spare, the Canadian Government should do the commandeering itself and hand the tonnage over to the Admiralty for their use. I do not wish to be understood as opposing the commandeering of ships for the war, because we all agree that we must give our last ship as well as our last man and our last dollar in order to win, but I should like the commandeering to come from our Government instead of the British Admiralty.


George Eulas Foster: In the first
place, most of the ships that have been commandeered are British ships, and we should have no authority to commandeer them, whereas the British Government would. In the second place, I think it would be impracticable to carry out the suggestion of my hon. friend, and it would lead to a great deal of trouble at both ends. I think the solution of the matter is rather that the commandeering authorities at London should be in close touch with a representative. of Canada for the purpose of consultation. That is practically being done now through our High Commissioner. I should be very loath to try to understand from my position here the necessities and wants at the centre of the direction of the whole contest. I think it would lead to trouble if I attempted it. However, we are in constant communication with the British authorities, and our views are thoroughly known to them, being represented from, time to time. Hardly a vessel has been commandeered in regard to which there has not been communication between ourselves and the authorities in London.
Winter steam service between St. John, Halifax and London, $15,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What line is
that?


George Eulas Foster: Furness, Withy & Co.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does not the
minister propose to take up vote 158, ocean and mail service between Canada and Great Britain to-night?


George Eulas Foster: As my hon.
friend knows, this service has been very much disorganized. We have not yet concluded arrangement for the coming year, and I did not want to take this vote up until I could give the committee complete information. I expect to conclude the contract before asking the committee to pass the item.

Steam service between Canada and Australia [DOT]or New Zealand or both, on Pacific ocean, $180,50S.


George Eulas Foster: We have had
this contract for a series of years, and it is a very excellent service. The contract ends the middle of this year. The committee might be interested to know that a large quantity of apples are exported to Australia and New Zealand by this service. A very gratifying increase has taken place in that trade. Canada and Australia are complementary to each other, i,n that they are out of their supply of apples when we are in, and we are in when they are out; .and quite a nice trade has taken place in consequence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have we always the
same agents in Australia? I think Mr. Ross represents us there.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, he is a
very excellent agent. Mr. Beddoe represents us in New Zealand.
Steam service between Canada, China and -Japan, $253,333.34.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is no
doubt aware that there was a long debate in the Japanese Diet a few days ago on the question of the treaty between Great Britain and Japan, and reference was also made to the treaty between Japan and Canada. I read a long synopsis of that debate the other day in one of the American papers, and I should like to know if the Government has been approached with regard to a revision of our present treaty with Japan, and whether it has been approached upon the -subject of immigration. The latest available figures show a large increase in Japan

ese immigration to Canada. My hon. friend from British Columbia is very much interested in this question, I know. I may inform him that I receive monthly statements of the Japanese emigration and immigration figures, and these show that about 500 * came to Canada recently. They are classed as returning imigrants, and of course, under the arrangement between the two countries, there is no question about returning immigrants. Are any negotiations taking place between the two countries with regard to immigration, and with regard to the trade treaty? It looks as if there was a strong movement in Japan in favour of a further revision of the treaties, not only between Great Britain and Japan, but between. .Japan and Canada also.


George Eulas Foster: These questions are of course foreign to the subsidy we are discussing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are they not ancillary?


George Eulas Foster: The vessels might be ancillary to the immigration, and of course the treaty affects trade between ourselves and Japan. I think I can calm my hon. friend's anxieties as to any present negotiations between the governments. The debate in the Diet was probably like some of the debates we have here-fast and furious there, but not having much effect elsewhere. No negotiations are in progress at present.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are the last trade figures as between the two countries?


George Eulas Foster: I have not them here, but should be very glad to get them for my hon. friend.
Steam service between Victoria and Saji Francisco, $3,000.


John Howard Sinclair: This is an extraordinary
vote:


George Eulas Foster: This is a vote made necessary by 'the terms of Confederation. It was an arrangement which we carried out for many years. I think at first we paid $15,000, and when I was Minister of Finance I took the matter up and found that we were under an obligation to pay a subsidy, but that the amount of the subsidy was not expressly stated. I therefore cut it down to $3,000, but this is a sort of saving grace that is administered, every year.


John Howard Sinclair: Will it go on for ever?


George Eulas Foster: For ever and ever as long as British Columbia lasts.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We have settled a great many important matters to-day, and, as it is quite late now and a number of members from the Maritime Provinces who are interested in local services are absent, I would suggest that the committee rise. We will not detain my hon. friend very long on the remaining items.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was my hon. friend correctly reported the other day when he was reported as having stated in Toronto that it was the intention of the Government to establish what is called a commercial museum?


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will defer that question until I come to my Commercial Estimates I purpose making a little statement to the House.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Wednesday, April 5, 1916.