1917-01-30

REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Copy of the evidence taken before the Hpn. Sir Charles Davidson, Kt., Commissioner appointed to inquire into the purchase by and on behalf of the Government of the Dominion of Canada, of Arms, Munitions, 'Implements, Materials, Horses, Supplies, and other things for the purposes of the present war, and as to the expenditure and payments made or agreed to be made therefor; together with the report of the said Commissioner concerning the Sale of Small Arms Ammunition; purchase of Submarines; and Military Cloth (Auburn Woollen Mills Oo.)-Hon. Mr. Meighen.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rt.   H@: Mr. Speaker, by your leave may I be permitted to read a telegram which I have just received, and which has been sent to me in order to correct a statement which was made a few days ago by the hon. member for DuffeTin (Mr. Best), with regard to contributions made in Montreal by the French Canadian people in connection with the war. The telegram is as follows:
Montreal, January 29, 1917.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Ottawa.
As chairman of day's pay Committee which last year secured subscriptions exceeding five hundred thousand dollars from employees in Montreal, I can safely say that at least half of this amount was contributed by French-Cana-dian workingmen and women. The English and French-Canadian citizens of Montreal are at present working hand in hand in the organization of another campaign to raise two and a half million dollars here in February. All interests are working together in the most energetic and harmonious manner for its success.
J. W. McConnell.



RECRUITING.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. BURNHAM:: May I ask if any provision has yet been made or permission granted by which recruiting can be done for specific battalions at the front instead of in the ordinary way?
Hon. A. E, KEMP (Minister of Militia): The matter to which the hon. member for Peterborough refers is under consideration. A large number of battalions are still below strength and these are being filled up as rapidly as possible.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. G. C. Wilson (Wentworth) for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Monday, January 29.
Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: (Resuming.) Mr. Speaker, when the debate adjourned last night I was saying that I believed it was the duty of every man in this House and every man in public life in this country to work for the harmony of the races which compose the people of Canada. I was speaking of the attacks which have been made upon the province of Quebec, and of attacks which have been especially directed

against the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I spoke also of the testimony which had been given at the banquet in the city of Vancouver by the late hon. the Postmaster General, Mr. T. C. Casgrain, when he said that there was no anti-war feeling in the province of Quebec, and that he could testify that at the very outset of the struggle my right hon. friend and others oh this side of the House had laid aside their political opinions and had appeared with him upon the public platform of that province to advocate recruiting. I could have gone further and instanced testimonials of loyalty which were given to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition at different banquets in the city of London, notably at the banquet at the Imperial Institute in June, 1897, which was presided over by the then Prince of Wales, afterwards King Edward VII. I do not think that it is absolutely necessary this afternoon to do so, and I shall content myself simply with stating, in answer to hon. gentlemen opposite, that one of the present ministers, the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny), speaking in the county of Dorchester


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That "hear, hear" is very weak. However, we will let that pass. Here is what Mr. Sevigny said:
After explaining National Service as usual, Mr. Sevigny said that he was ready to retire and leave the field to Mr. -Cannon if anybody present was ready to say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had not advised the people to sign the National -Service cards.
Sir, I give that testimony to the House for what it may be worth.
The second thought that was in my mind, and with that I shall conclude my remarks this afternoon, was the attempt which is being made by gentlemen opposite to make political capital out of this war so as to satisfy the prejudice of political opinion. We have had instances of that in this country unfortunately, both in the public press and in the utterances of men in public life. I did tell you last night, that when the right hon. leader of the Opposition was in the province of Quebec urging the young men to join the colours, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) was out in the town of Aylmer trying to incite his friends to find somebody in the county of Wright who would redeem it to the Conservative cause. Let me instance another case. The whole province of Ontario, and in fact the Dominion of Canada, was thrilled by the words

of Mr. Ralph Connor in the city of Toronto calling upon the people of this country for national unity and saying that there was only one thing worth while, and that was winning the struggle. Yet the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) sat back and contented himself with dismissing the idea by saying: "Well, Ralph Connor, after all, is only ,a Grit." Now, Sir, we have other gentlemen who have the honour of having seats on the treasury benches who are trying to make political capital out of the war-Let me begin with the right hon. gentleman who leads this Government. The House was amazed and the country was amazed the other night when the right hon. gentleman who, generally speaking, has the reputation of being broad-minded, thought it necessary to cast aspersions on the right hon. 'leader of the Opposition for some attitude, which he did not thoroughly explain, mark well, but which would give the impression to friends opposite and to others in the country that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was disloyal to the Empire during the South African war, when the history of the case, when all the facts of the case, are directly against such a contention. Is it surprising, then, that other members of his Cabinet stoop so low as to- try and make political capital out of the war. We have the -hon. Minister of-What is he now? He is Postmaster General, Mr. Blondin. Speaking in the county of Dorchester a few days ago, and what was he doing in the county of Dorchester? Was he advocating recruiting?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh; it hurts.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: It hurts? I have no doubt it does hurt hon. gentlemen opposite. What was the Postmaster General saying in the . county of Dorchester? Does it cause merriment upon the other side? It did not cause as much merriment with the right thinking people of Canada after they had read the words which were uttered by the Postmaster General. He was not advocating recruiting, but a policy of emigration from this country to the United States.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh, "take it back"; "that's exploded."


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Let me give his words; I am quoting now from the Montreal Gazette of January 26:
St. Germaine, Dorchester County, Quebec, January 25th:	The following affidavit was
given out to-n'ght by the Liberal chiefs here:
We, the undersigned, declare that we heard last night at Ste. Rose, January 24, 1917, the Hon. P. E: Blondin make the following declara-

tion:	"As for the Allison scandal and others
of the same nature, let us suppose that if these thefts have taken place, It has no importance for the people of Ste. Rose, because it was English money that was stolen."
Speaking of the danger of conscription, Mr. Blondin declared that, even if conscription was put into force, that would mean little to the people of Ste. Rose, because they had only to go across the frontier to get away.
That language was intended for home consumption, but when he found that these words had gone abroad, Mr. Blondin thought he would manufacture something else; so he immediately sent a correction, and I take his correction from the Ottawa Evening Journal, another good Tory paper. Here is what he says:
The statement which has been sworn to by certain Liberals with regard to my utterances are a distortion of my words. I never by any means intended to convey-
Mark well, that he did not intend to convey.
-the meaning which they have attached to my speech.
So it was not plain speaking.
Mr. Cannon had been stating in his speeches that the Conservative party had been grafting from the Canadian treasury in connection with munition contracts.
No man in this House or in the country can deny that.
In my speech at Ste. Rose I explained that it was not true that the Allison scandal had to do with Canadian money, pointing out that the money paid for the shells was the money of the British Government.
It was all right to steal the money because it came from the British Government; it would have been a crime if the money had come from the Canadian Government.
In regard to the conscription matter I told the people of Ste. Rose that I did not believe conscription would be necessary because so many Canadians were eager to go and fight for the cause of liberty and humanity. I added chat if any of them were afraid of conscription, if conscription should be passed and they did not want to go to the war, they had a remedy left. They could go across the United States line which is near Ste. Rose and escape military service.
Will hon. gentlemen opposite now applaud these words? There was another statement made by the hon. gentleman, only it was for exportation. It is contained in the wire which he sent to the right hon. gentleman, the Prime Minister, on the morning of the election. Mark well, for therein lies the danger. Here is an hon. gentleman in the Cabinet who makes a statement sworn to by electors of this
country. He finds that that statement is creating disturbance in the Conservative ranks, and he makes a correction which is worse than the original statement. Then he lets matters go on until the morning uf the election when he sends a telegram to the Prime Minister in which he does not refer to his words upon conscription. I hold a copy of the telegram in my hand, and not a word in it refers to conscription. He does not deny that he advised the people of Dorchester County to go across the line to the United States. And yet hon. gentlemen opposite say that they are not making political capital out of the war.
Let me say to my hon. friends opposite that their press, backed by the party, is creating the same sentiment in this country as that to which I have referred. The chief organ of the Conservative Party in the province of Quebec is L'Evenement, and here is a sample of what that paper was publishing during the Dorchester campaign. I quote it for the sake of my merry friends opposite:
I may first state, however, that the idea of L'Evenement was this:	If conscription
was adopted in Canada it would not be due to any action on the part of the Conservative party; the sole blame was to fall on the head of my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition. L'Evenement prints in very large type for distribution throughout the county of Dorchester words that were signed by my right hon. friend's friend of 1911, Mr. Henri Bourassa, the friend of the Postmaster General of the present day (Mr. Blondin), of the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny), and of the Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude). The statement published in L'Evenement is as follows:
If England were, I will not say in danger, but simply at grips with one or two or several of the great powers of Europe, the Prime Minister could demand not $35,00'0,000, but two, three, or four times $35,000,0'0I0, We would put all the resources of Canada at the disposal of England. There would not be a single discordant voice.
These words were not given to the electors of Dorchester county as those of the Prime Minister of this country; they were given as the words lately uttered by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. Again in big type, we find this in L'Evenement:
It was Sir Wilfrid Laurier who had passed in 1904 the Militia Act which would permit of the establishment of conscription in Canada. This Act is found in Chapter 41 of the Statutes of Canada of 1906.
And the article ends:

If we shall ever have conscription, it would be put into force thanks to a law passed by Laurier. Electors of Dorchester do not forget that.
I submit, Sir, that the Government have been making all the political capital possible out of this war. The Prime Minister made a statement and gave figures, which I quoted last night, purporting to show just what the Government had done for the Allied cause. He took credit to himself for having sent a large number of young men across the ocean. He stated that he had sent some 17,000 Russian, Italian, and French reservists. I want to tell my right hon. friend that if he or his Government had never existed, and the war went on, those French, Russian and Italian reservists would have had to go anyway under the laws of the countries whence they came.


John Hampden Burnham: I ask my hon. friend if he is in favour of conscription under any circumstances?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will it materially aid my hon. friend if I enter into a dissertation upon conscription? The question will come up in the House when it will be discussed fully.	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: At the proper time, I will give my views upon the question of conscription, and I will be very happy to listen to my hon. friend when he gives his views. But I assure my hon. friend, that if I had to go to fight I would go to fight, and would not come back to Canada unless I came back wounded.


John Hampden Burnham: You evidently won't go at all.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: firm then. Do not trust the Grits." Then comes quite an extract from a communication to me:
Now is your chance to get even with the * inance Minister and the High Commissioner, or Overseas Minister of Militia, for their intrigue and undermining you. Can't you see the ring against you? The Montreal Daily Mail, the Montreal Evening News (both owned by a half brother of the Finance Minister), the Toronto Telegram, on which the Finance Minister served for years and which is regarded as his Toronto organ, whose editor is reported about to be knighted for viciously attacking vou ; whose representative and nephew in London. connected by marriage with the High Commissioner, or Overseas Minister of Militia, has been constant in misrepresenting you, and slobbering over your enemies in the Associated Press notices from England, paid for by Canadian money-these Tory papers and people have led in the vicious attacks on, and attempts to undermine you.
And he writes a lot more that I will not read. Even the dear old Toronto Globe gives advice and warning against the Tory pitfalls, and the Ottawa Journal-Press urges me to beware of the wily old politician from Quebec, under whom the editor of that paper so long served. It is very pleasing to receive such good advice. But some of those now urging me to stand to my friends were, within a year, active in urging me to desert friends as true, as honourable, as capable, as patriotic, as self-sacrificing, men who have done as much for the cause of humanity and the Allies in this war, as could be done; while others now professing friendship and offering advice were then busy in their efforts to discredit me. All good advice, but Sam Hughes now, as then, stands by principles and by every honourable man, rather than in wasting his time attacking mere creatures of the hour. Men are transient and soon forgotten, but principles are eternal.
Many people-and I am sorry to see by reading the Hansard debates, even some members of this House-seem .to forget that we are engaged in a struggle for our very existence. Now, Sir, I am a firm believer in responsible government, which means party government. I always waive non-essentials for party, but always as certainly do I waive party for essentials. With me, country and cause come first. I have differed from party leaders in days' gpne by, but the verdict of history has vindicated my action in every instance. Party government involves intelligence, instruction, and independence on the part of the electorate. Party government involves the same conditions for members of Parliament, and let me also say, party government involves the same conditions for a
[Sir Sam Hughes I
cabinet. Party government does not imply autocracy either in the leader or in the cabinet. The danger of party government is where members lose their independence for any cause-for hope of .office, or reward, or for any other reason sacrifice their individuality for temporary, selfish and incompetent leaders. IThe party should always assert itself; its members should not be mere slavish followers.
Now, as to loyalty. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has claimed that it is a vice or a weakness in me that my heart gets the better of my head. I have studied history and have observed that no man has ever benefited humanity whose heart did not greatly overbalance his head. But there is not much danger in some quarters of any such over-balancing. My way is not strewn with milestones to abandoned friends. The Prime Minister has stated that he has always been loyal to his colleagues, and his colleagues have been and are loyal to him. I think it is quite unnecessary that I should take up the time of this House for a single moment in reviewing my loyalty to the Prime Minister of Canada, but it might be not amiss to inform the public and the House that Canada and Great Britain are engaged in a war to the death, and that I shall stand by party where party interests are the people's and the soldiers' interests-but, where the party fails in its duty, especially in regard to the war and to our soldiers, then I shall not hesitate to have duty done and self-sacrificing patriotism rewarded.
I am strongly urged by some to stand true to my friends. Why, the reproach to me by many is that I never desert a friend. I may be deserted; but to break with the dear good fellows of the great Liberal-Conservative party would wrench me almost as much as losing the war. It pains me to see, however, that party feelings, party prejudices, are so strong in Canada over non-essentials.
I have been asked by some-not officially by Liberal leaders; I want to make that distinctly understood-to cast in my lot with Laurier and the great, time-honoured Liberal party. In all love and kindness, let me say that the idea shocked me. To assist in placing a statesman of even his high character and power, with the principles enunciated by his authorised supporter in Dorchester, and have Canada depend on his ideals for the conduct and the

settlement of the war, would be repugnant to my very soul, although everyone knows my personal admiration for the right hon. leader of the Opposition.
"Canada has done enough in this war for England." and sn forth, are the utterances of the acknowledged, the endorsed henchmen of the right hon. leader of the Opposition. Canada is forced into this war, not for or by Britain; for Britain never asked a man, never hinted for a man; but Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific sprang to arms because the liberties of this fair land were and still are threatened.
Whatever my course to-day may be, and whatever the effect to me may be, you may rest assured, Sir, that my aim, my purpose, my determination, has but one conclusion: the active, energetic conduct of the war to a victorious issue. Men and munitions, and still more men and more munitions, is the cry. Our hearts go out to the gallant boys at the front, and also to their mothers and other loved ones at home who long for the return of the lads; or if they be not among those returning, to get a chance some time to see the spot where the beloved boy did his duty and gave his life for human liberty and dear old down-trodden humanity. These people, as well as our soldiers themselves, ask, what is Canada doing? Canada has a higher duty to perform, a more important duty in the war, than gathering harvests, assisting in making munitions and helping to furnish bread to the soldiers. And yet, as reported by the Montreal Gazette and the Ottawa Journal-Press, the hon. Mr. Sevigny, in a speech delivered -by him, stated that the only duty of Canada was to gather harvests, assist in making munitions and help to furnish bread to the soldiers. I have no hesitation in saying that I think the right hon. leader of the Opposition, unless he could prove that his candidate in Dorchester had not uttered the words he did, should have called him off in that contest or repudiated him publicly, and I have also no hesitation in saying that the right hon. leader of the Government, when he read these words uttered by Mr. Sevigny and when he read the speech delivered by Mr. Blondin, should have, without any delay, repudiated those gentlemen or called for a cancellation of their statements. I wonder why the good people of Dorchester county did not throw both candidates out of their riding, if the piffle we hear was really uttered amongst them. I have always claimed that the
people of the province of Quebec have never had a real opportunity of showing what they can do. They have had this party and that party. In 1896 it was the Liberal party, with the cry: What, going to put Tupper in and spend three million dollars to send your sons off to fight? A few years later it was the Conservative party going through the ridings of the province and proclaiming the same sort of doctrine, appealing to the passions and prejudices of the people. My experience of the people of the province of Quebec is that, when they hear the proper side of a case, they act like men, and when they get an opportunity to go to the front and fight, they fight like men; and it annoys and maddens me to see the two great parties of the Canadian people tell -them all that little tittle-tattle that was reported in the papers in connection with the Dorchester election.
Argentine and the United States both supply harvests and make munitions and furnish bread for our soldiers. Canada should do a little more. WThat action is being carried on by Canada? We must go forward and not backward. Let action be the mandate.
It is well known to the members of this House and the people of this country that my policy has been for many a long year and still stronger is than ever before: Full partnership of Great Britain and her colonies throughout the world, with the great Central Government dealing with what concerns the Empire, and each of the component parts of the Empire dealing with what concerns itself in various degrees, and one not interfering with the other. Therefore, any stand which I may take to-day for the protection of our Canadian soldiers at the front, for the up-building of our army, and for the success o' the cause, will, you may rest assured, be along the lines of my love and admiration for all that is great and good in the motherland, but the motherland should take her own -position in relation to her soldiers, and Canada should have absolute control of her soldiers.	,
In the addresses of both the right hon. leader of the Opposition and the right hon. leader of the Government reference was made to participation by Canada in the South African war. May I be permitted to mention one or two particulars in that connection? Let me frankly say that I was the one who had the honour of first bringing up this subject in the Parliament of Canada, and I was brow-beaten by my honoured

[DOT]258

officers, and men thereof, all or any of the provisions of this Act, subject to such adaptations, modifications and exceptions as may be specified in such law, and where so applied this Act shall have effect in relation to such force, subject to such adaptations, modifications and exceptions as aforesaid; and where any such force is serving with part of His Majesty's regular forces, then so far as the law of India or the colony has not provided for the government and discipline of such force, this Act and any other Act for the time being amending the same shall subject to such exceptions and modifications' as may be specified in the general orders of the general officer commanding His Majesty s forces with which such force is serving, apply to the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of such force, in like manner.
This section shall not apply to any officer belonging to any such force when attached to or doing duty with, or to any non-commissioned officer o- man belonging to any such force whqji attached to or otherwise acting as part of or with, any portion of the regular, reserve, or auxiliary forces in the United Kingdom.
Inasmuch as I have a number of paragraphs from the military law which are more or less lengthy and very technical, I would he very pleased if the House would excuse me from reading them and permit me to place them on Hansard.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Perhaps my hon. friend could state in a few words the effect of the sections which he is not going to read?


Sir SAM HUGHES:: They axe merely
explanatory and declaratory. They are explanatory of sections 175 and 176 which refer to colonial troops paid by Britain.
I am quoting them to show that Britain safeguards the colonies. Take for instance any colonial Tegiments raised and paid for by Britain; when in England they are absolutely under their own laws. They go as fax as that in Britain to safeguard the interests of the colonies and to preserve their own self Tespeet.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: My hon. friend might indicate the numbers of the paragraphs that he desires to put in.
SiT SAM HUGHES: Notes 2, 3, 4, and 6 refer to section 177.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With the unanimous
consent of the House it is permissible, according to custom, to place such statements on Hansard; if thexe is any objection, it cannot be done.


Samuel Hughes: I desire to place on Hansard notes 2, 3, 4, and 5, relating to section 177, as follows:
(2)	This section applies to what may be termed strictly colonial forces, that is to say, forces raised on the responsibility of the government of the colony. The amendments made by A. A. A., 1909 and 1912 are intended to make it clear that colonial legislatures can apply the

whole of the Army Act, or any part of it, to the
forces of the colony, subject to such adaptations as may he necessary to make them applicable.
(3)	So long as such forces are within the colony their discipline can be provided for by the law of the colony. This section removes any doubts as to whether that law would apply to such forces when outside the limits of the colony.
(4)	In order to prevent difficulties arising from deficiencies of the colonial law in cases where the colonial forces are serving with the regular forces, the section provides that such deficiencies may be remedied by the application of the Army Act, subject to any modification made by general orders of the general officer commanding the regular forces in question.
(5)	"This section shall not apply", etc. The effect of this provision (added by A. A. A., 1909) is that where the Army Act applies to colonial forces serving with the regulars (see, for instance s. 175 (11) and s. 176 (8. A.), it will apply to them as if they were regulars.
Then there is axi explanatory clause:
The last paragraph of section 177 beginning "this section shall not apply," etc., had also in view, when it was added, the control of bodies of militia or troops from the colonies visiting the United Kingdom.
My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition will remember this because it was passed when he was Prime Minister. He may remember that soldiers went over to Britain for athletic purposes, or to the Coronation, or for some other purpose, and they went around England in uniform without any control; and this clause was added: Then in regard to colonial forces, Class 2, not only are colonial forces, Class 1, undeT colonial law in any part of the world, but colonial forces, Class 2 are exempted from the Army Act where a Colonial Act is in existence applying thereto. Army Act, section 175, relating to officers, subsection 4, and section 176 relating to soldiers, subsection 3, are as follows:
Section 175, subsection 4, page 534:
(4) "All such persons not otherwise subject to military law as may be serving in the position of officers of any troops or portion of troops raised by order of His Majesty beyond the limits of the United Kingdom and of India, and serving under the command of any officer of the regular forces. Provided nothing in this Act shall affect the application to such persons of any Act passed by the legislature of a colony."
Section 176, subsection 3, page 536:
(3) "All non-commissioned officers and men serving in a force raised by order of His Majesty beyond the limits of the United Kingdom and of India, and serving under the command of an officer of the regular forces:	Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the application to such non-commissioned officers and men of any Act passed by the legislature of a colony."
Page 536, note 1, paragraph 4, section 176:
" This is not meant to include strictly colonial forces, hut only forces raised at the Imperial expense."
Subsection (8. A.), section 176, page 538 :

"All non-commissioned officers and men belonging to a force raised in India or a colony when attached to or otherwise acting as part of or with any portion of the regular, reserve, or auxiliary forces in the United Kingdom."
Page 538, section 176, note 2, paragraph (3) :
" This is not intended to include strictly colonial forces, hut only forces raised at the Imperial expense, whose maintenance is voted annually by Parliament. It might, however, no doubt extend to a force raised under a Colonial Act, but under the Imperial control. But strictly colonial forces are dealt with by section 177."
Now, Sir, I wish to take up the question of service under the Militia Act. At the time of the census of 1911 the male population of Canada between the ages of 18 years and 45 years, was 1,720,000. Married men in Canada of all ages numbered
1,332,000,	and married men over 45 years of age numbered 650,000. The number of married men under 45 years of age was estimated at 682,000. Duduct from the total of 1,720,000 the 682,000 men, and you have 1,088,000 single men in Canada between 18 years of age and 45 years of age. The number already enrolled is 400,000,
100,000	married men and 300,000 single men. Therefore according to the census of seven years ago, there are 788,000 single men in Canada, who have not enlisted. We can apply the Militia Act and get for home training and defence, any number we like, say, 300,000 men. Then in the spring we could call fpr volunteers for overseas, and I am satisfied that there is not a district in Canada that would not furnish its quota. If we did not get enough volunteers for overseas we could send them under the law as militia, each district being credited with the men already enrolled therefrom. Here let me point out what I found in the course of my visits to Quebec. One gentleman would say:	why should my
sons go away to the front and perhaps be maimed for life if my neighbour does not allow his sons to go. There was one case of a gentleman who had four sons. They wanted to go, but he would not let them. He asked whether it was fair that he should let them go and run the chance of becoming maimed for ilijfe while the fellows who went into the munition factories remained at home and earned their $4, $5 and $6 a day. We are all human, and there is a good deal of logic in the position taken by that man. I am satisfied that you would meet the wishes of the great mass of people of the province of Quebec, as well as of every other part of the Dominion, by applying the Militia Act and by siaying:	"We will take so many
men for home defence, and then when we
want more soldiers to go overseas we will call for volunteers. If there are not enough, we will send them under the Militia Act." I am satisfied that these men would do their duty fearlessly and well.
The rule from time immemorial in Britain has been that the man becoming a soldier loses no rights of citizenship. On the contrary, special privileges have been conferred upon him as a soldier. I may point out that while in England last summer, the question arose as to the right of the soldiers of British Columbia to vote in the provincial election. Those I talked to were men high up; they were not underlings. I asked them what right they had to refuse permission to the soldiers of British Columbia to vote. I asked under what authority they meddled. I pointed out that the province of British Columbia was a self-governing province and that Canada was a self-governing country, and that if British Columbia wanted her soldiers to vote all she had to do was to notify the Prime Minister of Canada and he would arrange the matter through whatever diplomatic channel he chose. I quoted, also, that the rule from time immemorial in Britain was that the man, in becoming a soldier, loses no right of citizenship, but that on the contrary special privileges have been conferred upon him as such soldier. I fail to see why the soldier at the front should be disfranchised, while the slacker or the munition worker at home should exercise his franchise. The Home Government appoints the Governor General of Canada; Canada has the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The command in chief of Canadian forces rests with His Majesty through the Governor General, which, of course, means through the Governor General in Council. Thus Canada hae absolute control of her soldiers in Canada, in the United Kingdom, and at the front, subject to any general order of the Commander in Chief, but such order must be in conformity with the laws of Canada and subject thereto. Canada, therefore, has the absolute right to provide her own equipment, arms, ammunition, supplies, transport; in short, everything for her troops at the front. Further, the appointment and promotion of officers rests entirely with Canada for her troops in any part of the world. Any association with the War Office in any of these regards is merely a matter of convenience, courtesy, and for exchange

of ideas. The Canadian forces are in no sense British regulars. The wisdom and foresight of British statesmen and War Office officials in framing the Army Act and amendments .thereto have left nothing unguarded in the interests of the colonies. Where the practice has differed from the law the fault lies with those concerned for not understanding, or, if understanding, for not applying the law. It was'different in the case of the contingents we sent to South Africa. There Britain paid while Canada, as agent of Britain, enrolled. Now, Canada as Canada, not as an agent, enrolls, pays and controls. I am not casting that up as any reflection upon the ex-Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I may say here that the plan to be followed in relation to our Canadian troops was laid down by me with Lord Lansdowne two years before the South African war broke out. Lord Lansdowne has the plans which I laid down in the month of December, 1897, for colonial assistance before war broke out, and the Sydney Daily Telegraph, an Australian newspaper, on the occasion of my visit there in 1897, published a statement exactly bearing out the line of policy I had laid down.
I see some of my Liberal friends opposite looking as if they thought that I was finding fault. I am responsible for the plan that was carried out. In view of the opposition there was in Canada and in other parts of the world to the colonies serving for the Motherland, I thought the best plan would be .at the start to let the troops be paid by Britain and thus one objection would be removed. I had taken the matter up previously with Lord Lansdowne and the identical plan that I propo.sed was the one that was carried out. Canada furnishes her own uniforms, weapons, equipment, hospitals, nurses, and doctors' staff, and yet, when I sent over the dentists, the first time the system had ever been introduced, they were thrown out by the medical service of Great Britain and attached to the British hospitals up and down the line; they would not have them. We put our foot down and finally, after a great deal of struggling, they were recognized. They were to have one dentist with every hospital. They were bound that the dentists 'should be under the control of the medical officers, and I was bound, that they should not be. I did not see why a dentist who was over twenty-one years of age should not be allowed to pull a tooth without having to do it under the authority of a medical officer.
I take the ground that it is none of the business of Great Britain if we chose to. use wheel-harrows for our transport service at the front. We must take it for granted that we know our business and that Canada will have the best things that are going as we have the best things that are going, and that it is our privilege to say what is good and what is no good. In this connection the Prime Minister made a .statement the other night and the ground which be took then is the gfound which has been taken by others. In bringing this up I am not divulging any secret. Without actually quoting the right hon. gentleman, he said that wherever a committee of the British service examined goods and threw them out he was ready to abide by the decision of that committee. That, I think, is a fair interpretation of the right hon. gentleman's remarks.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I did not just put it in that way.


Samuel Hughes: I will quote-


Robert Laird Borden: It is immaterial-


Samuel Hughes: I will quote what
the right hon. gentleman said:
On the other hand, I do not propose, I have not proposed in the past, and I do not propose in the future to set up my judgment or the judgment of this Government against the opinion of military experts who may say that it is necessary that the type of equipment, of transport, or of anything else necessary in this war ought to he uniform and that the war cannot he carried on effectively unless it is uniform.
That is the ground taken by the Prime MiniisteT. I am not finding the slightest fault with his taking that ground, but it is not the ground I take. The halo had gone off a lot of these fellows so far as I was concerned long ago, and I did not see why the opinion of a young sprig of a captain about twenty-two years of age, who threw out our equipment should prevail as against the opinion of a young Canadian officer. I am not impressed with any man who shuts out any Canadian stuff, such, for instance, as our Canadian wagons. Our little Canadian, two-horse wagons ini South Africa would carry a heavier load than the British wagons with four teams1, and we could out-distance and out-travel them. In the Northwest Rebellion the ordinary farm wagons which were used there travelled more miles up to their axles, in mud than the heavy British wagons travelled on the good roads of France and Belgium. When our wagons went to Eng-

-j:.1	^ [DOT]Jjr-tprrj'T-* :,v*wn**t* " '
fJESHn

land they were thrown ont by these young officers, yet, I may say that many of our trucks and wagons were running after many of those sent to the front from England were thrown out.
But, let us see for a moment how these inspections are made and what they amount to- Here is a letter that was addressed to me as Minister of Militia:
Hotel Cecil, London, W.C.,
March 15, 1915.
Major Genl. the Hon. Sam Hughes,
Minister of Militia and Defence, Ottawa, Canada.
My dear General.
Re Motor Lorries:
The main fault that the Mechanical Transport Department of the War Office had to find with our Motor Lorries was the fact that we had five makes in use, three of which were being sent over to Prance, and which necessitated carrying over spare parts for all these various makes.
When I heard that everything else had been thrown out, I naturally raised Cain with my .officers here and found that everything was all right.
As I advised you before, when our 1st Division were ready to go to France, the British Mechanical Transport Department supplied us with 51 motor lorries and 9 motor cars to make our equipment complete.
The motors they rejected cost us about $2,800 each, and they charged for the ones they gave us $5,241 apiece.
I have been endeavouring ever since I got back here to get details of these lorries and cars; these have just been received by me and I am more than astonished to find that six English makes of motor lorries were supplied
to us as follows:-
Leyland	5
Halford	1
Wolseley	6
Daimler	9
Albion	7
Seabrooke	20
and two makes of motor cars as follows:
Sunbeam	 9
Vauxhall	 2
These people do beat me! They impressed on me in no uncertain terms that we must positively get down our makes of motor lorries to if possible two, as the question of taking spare parts to the Continent and keeping them in stock was a very serious one indeed, and here they are doing the very thing that we were instructed not to do and doing it to a much greater extent than we had ever dreamt of doing. These things are rather difficult for me to comprehend, and X intend to take the matter up with the War Office officially tomorrow, but do not expect that I shall receive any more satisfaction than usual.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd) John W. Carson. So that the claim was all moonshine that we must have a uniform system in regard
to the trucks because they themselves had nothing of the kind.
I take the stand that the soldiers who fought and won at St. Julien, Festubert, etc., are fit to furnish soldiers and officers for any service, and that we have inspectors in Canada who can determine what we shall have and what we shall not have. I did not know there were any people in the universe who would revive that old, exploded idea, but to show that there are such pre-historic people, I may say that the auditor general on his return recently brought back the old question which I explained last year, as to why our transport wagons and that sort of thing had been thrown out. I do not want to repeat what I have already said, but I may say that the objection to our wagons was based chiefly on the ground that they could not turn on the narrow roads of France. Why, Sir, the British wagon takes 35 feet of a circle in which to turn, while purs takes 31 feet 9 inches. That was put before the Government in May 1915, or earlier, and yet we find a British officer in our service here bringing it up again a short time ago. The thing is nonsense. Our wagon turns in 31 feet 9 inches, while theirs takes 35 feet and, as I have already pointed out, our wagon has proved better and has outlasted theirs. My stand is that Canada should decide as to what she herself shall use.


William Pugsley: Before my hon. friend leaves that matter, could he say what was the value of the equipment which was thrown away?


Samuel Hughes: I forget; it was millions. We did not look at the value; we were so busy" swearing we had no time to figure up the value. Now, Mr. Speaker, my Object in bringing this matter up is this: I am anxious that this Empire shall rest upon a stable foundation. I have given the best years of my life to advocating the cause of full partnership union. I have taken part in two wars for the Empire, and I am going to stand or fall by the rights of Canada under its Constitution.
In the first year of the war Canada had no say whatever. In the appointment of General Carson to go over there and represent me, I -brought in my Order in Council. My idea was that he should represent the minister over there, and look after the soldiers' interests, and things of that kind, but he was only allowed to look after -supplies. I -am ' not blaming anybody; this is not a new thing. I had the same trouble in South Africa, where it was pointed out

that the British did the paying, and I did some very vigorous kicking at that time on the rights of Canadians. In this war we are doing the paying, the equipping and outfitting of our men, and the ground I take is not in the interests of Canada alone, but in the interests of the whole Empire, because unless we have a proper understanding things are going to go wrong. Why, at the very time I have been speaking of, when these motor trucks were being purchased, every man that came home invalided, and every letter from the front, talked of another Boston tea party. It went so far that some fellows on the staff drew 'lots as to who should punch the head of -the officer who -had been offensive to them. Can I he blamed for standing to the law? Carson was n-ot to interfere in any way with the forces. The Pay Department was modelled after the British, and so was the medical service.
Now, my hon. friends opposite cannot make any political capital out of this, for it is the same with Grit and Tory alike. Today, in Great Britain, you appoint a Canadian to an office and when a British officer comes along the Canadian kow-tows to him. That is the only fault I have to find with Canadians in Great Britain. They have not understood their individuality as Canadians, and have not stood up for their rights kind-ly -and firmly. The only Canadian officer who has done it to ithe King's- taste is Frank Meighen of Montreal. He has -stood up for the rights of Canada under the law up to the hilt and he gets along better than any other officer in our force.
I am not going to enter into- -a discussion of the medical service to-day, -but rest assured that when- the time comes I -shal-1 have a hand in- it, and -it may be, up to- the elbow. Last year when I was in the Old Country I found that under Colonel Jones' administration

and the Prime Minister will remember this-it took me three weeks to get from -him a list of the hospitals scattered all over the country in which our men were being treated. I asked at the time why, when we were paying the expenses of our own men, they should be treated in V.A.D. hospitals away up in the north of England -and other parts of the United Kingdom, and I -asked why ou-r good nurses with three years' training were being utilized for more than half their time looking after British soldiers. I -asked why when we were paying seventy-five cents a day, we should have our fel-low-s' brows smoothed -and -their bands held by nice little gir-ls w-ho had taken a six weeks' course in the

St. John's Ambu-anee Corps or -something like -that. It was very congenial of course, but -at the same time I think our boyis would have liked to have their brows smoothed and their hands held by our o-wn girls.
As to the command of the troops, I have recognized from the outset th-at in the field the troops should be, not that they legally -are, under the command of -a British officer. The general command of the troops is part of the law, -and I have n-ot sought to evade the law in- the slightest degree. When it came to sending over the second division- and the Prime Minister disputed my statement the other night, that I had informed him in regard to this and I might here remind him that I showed him copies of my telegram to Lord Kitchener, -and the Prime Minister drew my attention to -the -fact that in one of the telegrams my language was a little too strong. In other words, I received a gentle reprimand for my language in one of the telegrams.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not remember at the time. But I will look up the correspondence, and if there is -any eorection-tion to be made, I shall gladly -make it.


Samuel Hughes: On March 20, 1915, we agreed that Steele -should command, and I sent the following telegram to Kitchener:
I purpose appointing Major General Sam Steele to command Second Overseas Canadian Division. He is splendid organizer and disciplinarian. Do you object?
Kitchener replied as follows:
London, March 22, 1915.
General Hughes,
Minister of Militia,
Ottawa.
Reference to your telegram of twentieth March. I am sorry that in present state of warfare on the continent, it would not be possible to place General Steele in command of a division. Very experienced officers are necessary in such positions to do justice to the troops under their command.
That got me rather hot under the collar, because Steele had had a lot of these gentlemen under his command in South Africa. Some of the very best men at the front have been trained by Steele in South Africa. I am not saying that he has not his faults as an administrator, but as an organizer and trainer and commander of troops I think he would be hard to beat; and I always endeavoured to put these fellows where they would do the most good. I would not have dreamed of putting General Steele in a place of administration in comparison with some others, but I would put him in to command men. On March

29, 1915, I wired Lord Kitchener as follows:
Regret your views re Steele. Could he have done worse than at Salisbury?
I need not refer to Salisbury, where our men had to put in a winter of horror, and where the General Officer Commanding visited them only twice during the whole winter. The telegram reads:
Regret your views re Steele. Could he have done worse than at Salisbury? My opinion based on years of experience and observation in war and on manoeuvres convinces me Steele, and my brother, Colonel John Hughes, each has qualified for division as any officer in British service.-General Blank.
Then I named an officer whose name I will not repeat because he has not come to the front; he has not been heard of publicly. In other words, several names were suggested to me, and this was one of them. The telegram continues:
General Blank-seriously suggested from England. Believe I have fifty better. However, Steele could take division across and commander satisfactory to .you could be named later. How would Lowther do?
Sam Hughes.
I was willing to meet him more than half way every time. On April 1, Kitchener replied as follows:
General Hughes,
Ottawa.
Your telegram of twenty-ninth. I have no objection to General Steele coming here in charge of contingent, if it is clearly understood by General Steele that when the contingent takes the field as a division, other arrangements for its command will have to be made.
Kitchener.
That got me rather hot under the collar, as if I was going to deceive Steele! So 1 sent the following reply, which the Prime Minister, very properly in his opinion, objected to:
Ottawa, April 7, 1915.
Earl Kitchener,
War Office,,
London.
Am somewhat surprised at your 3833 cipher April 1st. Am not in habit of deceiving and Steele will certainly know exact situation. Am not dictating, merely reviewing. I know many of your major generals ; some good and capable, but many absolutely reverse, far inferior for administration in office or capability in the field to Steele or a dozen other of my officers. Have calmly and loyally remained aloof from interference with Salisbury horror and disintegration of First Canadians, but please do not ask that too much be borne. Claim no authority to manage force in field but under Army Act, Canada has absolute authority in respect to appointments. Further, offensiveness and contemptuousness of some army officers in
First Division became almost intolerable. I look to you to see that courtesy, even-handed justice and fair play are accorded to all my deserving officers.
Sam Hughes.
A good many hon. gentlemen have insisted that I should clear up matters with regard to contracting for supplies. My plan at the beginning of the war, so far as Canadian purchases are concerned, was that the director of contracts-incidentally he is a cousin of the Prime Minister-together with capable business men should have control of the purchasing for the Canadian forces, and that it should be done by public tender or universal service, and that supplies for Great Britain and the Allies should also be managed by the director of contracts. The first buying done for Canada was on the above lines and the results were splendid, except in the case of the trucks and bicycles purchased through the friend of the Minister of Finance. The second plan of purchasing that was adopted was purchasing through a sub-committee of the Privy Council. When I was in England in 1914, they prepared jointly the Orders in Council I do not know how they ever did it, for I tried it once myself. However, that plan gave place to another one, where the minister on the recommendation of the Quartermaster General and D.O.C. sent in an order in council, which was referred to a sub-committee of the Privy Council. This resulted in failure and delays, and gave place to the War Purchasing Commission under the Hon. Mr. Kemp, which I need not say was a much better system, although I think the plan I had at the very beginning of having the buying done by the director of contracts was still better. The War Purchasing Commission amounts practically to the same thing and its work has been very well done.
The fourth system of buying was by the War Purchasing Commission, using the Quartermaster General and the Director of Contracts to help them. The first subcommittee of the Privy Council ran the buying on the basis of patronage. Next the British commission was appointed, and then the War Purchasing Commission and the Munitions Board.
In regard to munitions, I may say that I do not hear the words "Shell Committee" mentioned now. To the Shell Committee and to your humble servant in inaugurating that committee, is due the financial success that Canada enjoys to-day, and to them and

ififi
their kindred operations is due the fact that the Minister of Finance can tell the banking institutions of this country that he wants so much money, and as their vaults are filled with it they can hand it out as required. Let us not forget the Shell Committee. The Imperial Munitions Board is a nice name, but I like the old Shell Committee, and I like the men that ran it. It was well run; it kept this country from bankruptcy, and it has helped to bring about a condition of affairs that this country will be thankful for for many a long year. The munitions were handled in the first instance by the Shell Committee, and afterwards by the Imperial Munitions Board.
I may say that a good deal of the trouble concerning all this matter has been raised by Mr. T. A. Bussell, the chosen friend of the Minister of Finance and of the Chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board. He has consulted the right hon. leader of the Opposition; he has posted him, and he has written letters to the Prime Minister of Canada finding fault with the old Shell Committee, thus creating an unhealthy atmosphere.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: My hon. friend is utterly wrong as to Mr. Bussell consulting me. I never saw Mr. Russell.


Samuel Hughes: Will the right hon. leader of the Opposition let me inform him that not only did Mr. Russell consult him, but Mr. Russell handed him correspondence to put in the Toronto Globe.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not to me.


Samuel Hughes: Oh, but I know it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Samuel Hughes: I accept, of course, the statement of my right hon. friend, but I can prove what I say.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member knows that the rule is very clear as to the acceptance of statements made by hon. members.	.


Samuel Hughes: Our memories sometimes become defective. I was sorry to see the Prime Minister forget two 01 three things the other night and I am sorry that the leader of the Opposition is forgetting this now.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend is absolutely misinformed. I never received any communication from Mr. Russell.


Samuel Hughes: I would not dream of charging the leader of the Opposition with equivocation. Will he say that Mr. Russell did not put into his hands an article for publication in the Toronto-Globe, and ask him to have it published?


Wilfrid Laurier: Not Mr. Russell, another gentleman did, not Mr. Russell.


Samuel Hughes: Well, the article
was prepared by Mr. Russell.


Wilfrid Laurier: That I do not know.


Samuel Hughes: I do know.


Wilfrid Laurier: The article in question never went from me to the Globe. I kept it in my archives.


Samuel Hughes: 
Mr. MACDONALD:: When was that order in council passed?


Samuel Hughes: I am not sure. It was passed in my absence anyway, you may be sure of that; I have never read it yet. The point is that they said: Here you must not have so many regiments recruiting in Toronto or so many recruiting in Montreal.


Robert Laird Borden: I think what my hon. friend -says might be misunderstood. There was not an order in council passed saying that no further battalions should be recruited, but that no further battalions should be recruited without an order in council.


Samuel Hughes: The object being to prevent two or three being raised in Toronto or Montreal, for instance.


Robert Laird Borden: Too many being raised in one place.


Samuel Hughes: Toronto has a population of 600,000. Toronto should have fifteen regiments recruiting at once; but it never had more than three. Montreal, with a population of 750,000, should have had about eighteen or twenty battalions recruiting at once. Montreal never had more than three. I do not see why my county, which has turned out nearly 5,000 men, should have one battalion being raised there with 40,000 people while Toronto should have only three with 500,000. I never could see the logic of it, and I do not now. I think that Toronto should have at least fifteen battalions going on while the counties of Ontario, Peterborough and my own county, with about
40,000	each, should be raising about one battalion each.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What was the result of that order in council? What effect did it have on recruiting?


Samuel Hughes: I do not know. Recruiting has not gone on, I know that. The Minister of Public Works wanted three battalions in Winnipeg-he was not afraid of it, and I passed the order. That was when I happened to learn that this order in council to which I have referred had geen
[DOT]270

passed. I went to England and when I got back he had not yet started raising the battalion; authority had not been given; it was held up in the Treasury Board or some place and nothing had yet been done. Had I been running the show in the old way we would have had them raised in six weeks. We raised the troops for Valcartier in that time, and we would have got them in the same way. In other words, three months was lost, not in organizing the battalions, but in getting the power to organize them. I am not criticising, only there seems to be a desire to play to the gallery in connection with these munition workers. There was a drop in recruiting at all events. I have heard all sorts of stories, but I have never asked my officers. When I came back my officers made certain statements; they had been directed to go slow in recruiting, but I never asked; I do not know 'whether it is true or not.
However, seeing the falling off, seeing the need of straining every nerve we .could strain at the front, when I came back I set to work to try and get the pulse of the boys. I have always been in favour of universal service, training the boys. I did not deem conscription necessary, and it was not. I could have raised 500,000 men by voluntary enlistment. I could have raised 600,000 by voluntary enlistment without any trouble, I believe. That is only a statement; but I believe I could have done it. However, this order in council stopping the authorization of regiments was passed, and the talk came on from every hand-I presume paid for by German agents- against taking men from munition works, when we have 800,000 single men between the ages of 18 and 45 in Canada, single men not doing their duty in any way except in jobs where others could take their places.
On October 17 I wrote to the Prime Minister stating that I had come to the conclusion that we must resort to compulsory service. I take the ground to-day, I have no hesitation in telling my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) that I would not be afraid to go into Dorchester or any other county in Quebec, to meet the intelligent electors in that county; and I am sure that they would endorse the stand I take in favour of applying the Militia Act to secure men for the army. They must know that nothing stands between them and Von Hindenburg except the British Navy. And if 50 ships of war with transports should go down, what stands between Great Britain and Von Hindenburg? If the Ger-

man navy ever overbears the British, then Von Hindenburg can march to Ottawa withaut hindrance; and then I suppose these gentlemen who have opposed our men being trained would take to the woods and leave their wives and children.
I come now to the business end of the war, and I trust not to detain you much longer. Early in the war Lord Kitchener asked for certain things. We appointed the Shell Committee, made up of General Bertram, the Carnegie Brothers, Colonel Cantley and Colonel Watts. We made shells. Canada, I see by recent statements, has received directly and indirectly upwards of $750,000,000 from shells and munitions, and the country generally, as the result of that, has been prosperous. The use of basic instead of acid steel in the manufacture of *shells was introduced, and billions of pounds -not millions-but billions of pounds of basic steel, made in Canada, have been used in place of acid steel which we would have had to import from the United States. That was done through the action of Colonel Cantley and your humble servant in the premises; and, I make no bones about it. We claim the credit, the Shell Committee and your humble servant claim the credit of introducing good times into Canada through the Shell Committee and munitions work. Bankers would not lend a dollar at that time; they were very adverse to lending money for the purpose. t The manufacture of tri-nitrotoluol was introduced into Canada, as was also that of gun-cotton, acetone from the distilleries, and other materials necessary for the production of munitions. Copper was refined in Canada for the first time. Zinc also was refined, and on the first order for zinc the British Government saved $4,000,000 owing to the difference between our price, 15 cents, and the American price, 42 cents. Hundreds of thousands of tons of lead were produced in Canada, and steps have been taken for the manufacture of nickel. Then the fish industry in Canada has been greatly stimulated and expanded. We have no conception of the value of the stimulus that has been given to the fishing industry. It is estimated that $100,000,000 a year can easily be brought into Canada through the supplying of Canadian fish to the soldiers of Canada, Great Britain and France. I am informed that the French Government-and I took this matter up direct with the French Minister of War and the Minister of Munitions-has now placed a contract for fish in Canada, and that delivery of these fish will

start very soon. I took the matter up with the British Government in connection with the supply of fish for their soldiers, and the British Government, as well as the *Canadian Government, is giving large *orders for these fish. Then we had plans laid for the development of our timber trade with the Motherland, and also for agricultural products and manufactures. Why should we not supply munitions? We are supplying men, why not munitions too?


William Pugsley: There is a point in regard to which I should like some information, because I think it is important. My hon. friend, in one of his letters to the Prime Minister, as quoted upon page 62 of Hansard, refers to the organization in England, and he makes the statement that it is now proposed to go back to the old conditions as at the end of the first five months of the war, which my hon. friend states he is sure would produce a chaotic condition of affairs. Has the hon. gentleman any information as to what the result of that has been in England?


Samuel Hughes: That is a question of hearsay, and I am not going to butt in. I have my own views and data, but I have no official authority.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend in one of his letters makes the statement:
As you are aware, it took us four months in the midst of this great war to fight through the principles of purchasing, for the Second Division, trucks at the lowest wholesale prices.
When was it that the four months were lost?


Samuel Hughes: I read a long letter -was my hon. friend not listening?-show-ing that the motor trucks should have reached England in December.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that that is what he refers to in the letter which he addressed to the Prime Minister in regard to the delays in purchasing?


Samuel Hughes: It is distinctly stated in that letter that those trucks should have been ready in December, and they were not ready in May.


William Pugsley: That letter was not in the correspondence published.


Samuel Hughes: It is not.


William Pugsley: I would like to see it.


Samuel Hughes: It is on Hansard. I am asked to back the Tory Government
and party. Yes, I will gladly back the Tory Government and the Tory party-I have done so for a good many years-but the platform must be broader than "keep Laurier and the Grits out," and action must be something different from epileptic utterances and theories re the labour wanted at home and the National Service Commission. I will back any party whose interests are the best for the welfare of our soldiers and the energetic, active, successful prosecution of the war to a victorious conclusion at any cost. There are in Canada millions of mothers, fathers, sisters and children of the 300,000 boys across the water who are wondering what Canada is doing to support these lads in every legitimate way. Canada wants another 100,000 men, maybe 300,000. They can be raised. They must he raised. Less than half a hundred battleships and their consorts of the British navy stand between Germany and sea supremacy. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition hopes for victory through famine and exhaustion; others for victory along similar lines, but should famine and exhaustion fail to materialize, and should by any mischance disaster befall Britain's navy, then there is nothing between Von Hindenburg and Ottawa, and we will have to take to the woods. Let me point out that the German papers are proclaiming that even Canada is getting near the famine stage. People are talking about compulsory thrift and that sort of bugaboo. That is published in Germany, and Germany thinks that Canada with all her resources, and with the United States at her door, is exhausted. It is the same in England with those agitations about food and meatless days. They are all published in Germany, and the German people are wondering if Britain is not on the verge of a food shortage.
Let us not live in a fool's paradise. This thing is serious, and must be treated seriously, not by theorizing but by energetic action. I have no dread of Quebec province and compulsory service. In my heart I feel that should the Militia Act be applied, our compatriots of Quebec province, following their wish for an even-handed compulsory service, will not merely be enthusiastic in volunteering, but be found to respond loyally and well. I have one aim above all others, the winning of this war; but the winning of this war will never be accomplished by theorizing; it can only

be accomplished by action, action, and still more energetic action.


Hon.   S@: Government without any exception whatsoever. The policy that we have followed from that day to this has been to prosecute this war to the utmost of the power of Canada, and our actions have been such as to attract the admiration of the world outside of this House of Commons. No one believed at the time that the war would last so long or attain the magnitude that it has since attained, but the intention of the Government from the first has been to leave nothing undone which could assist in the great cause.
The ex-Minister of Militia assembled some 30,000 or 35,000 men at Valcartier. He did it in record time. I always gave him credit for it and I give him credit foT it today. It was a great achievement on the part of the ex-minister, an achievement which will stand out in times that are to come-to assemble these men from all parts of Canada within a few weeks, organize them, equip them, give them preliminary training and send them overseas. It was not only of great assistance at the time from a military standpoint but as a matter of fact it drew attention to the Dominion of Canada throughout the world. It was a great national achievement on the part of Canada. In that organization and at that time the ex-Minister of Militia had the support of every one of his colleagues from the Prime Minister down. He said very truly that this Government, unlike the Government that was in power a few years ago, did not fight like blazes amongst themselves.


William Pugsley: He says that he himself swore.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I did not understand him to say that.


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Thomas White: The ex-Minister of Militia got generous and loyal support -and I am sure he will say it here to-day -from every one of his colleagues in connection with sending forward the first contingent. Why, the ex-Minister of Militia and myself were on such good terms that he actually-and I regard this as an evidence not only of esteem but almost of admiration-offered to make me an honorary colonel. But, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that I was obliged to decline because I felt that I had not the necessary military qualifications. So that, up,on the matter of policy in regard to the Militia Department before the outbreak of the war, and in regard to the prosecution of the war after the war broke out, the ex-Minister of Militia
revised edition

and myself and all the members of the Government, as far as I know, always saw eye to eye and did everything we could to assist in winning the war. Occasionally we had differences as to methods. Temperamental differences sometimes exist. The minister might desire to do things in one way and I might think that these things should be done in another way. Particularly did those differences arise with regard to the matter of expenditures under the War Appropriation Act of 1914. Hon. gentlemen will recall that a special session of Parliament was summoned in August, 1914, and Parliament, without a dissenting voice, voted the sum of $50,000,000 in a War Appropriation Act. There was this difference between that vote and the vote for the ordinary estimates: the vote for the ordinary estimates sets out the amount that shall be expended in respect of the separate services, but this vote was a lump sum. It was proper that it should be voted that way. Parliament reposed a great deal of confidence in the Government that was to expend that $50,000,000, but nevertheless provided as a safeguard that the money, and this is the express wording of the Act, should be " expended by or under the authority of the Governor in Council." We all realize that in the hurry of getting the first contingent away we could not stand too strictly on legality. The ex-Minister of Militia went ahead, through his director of contracts and other officers of his department, and gave orders for equipment, and was never interfered with.


Samuel Hughes: Might I point out that not only was he not interfered with,'but he had the direct sanction of the Prime Minister of Canada.


William Thomas White: Not only was he not interfered with, but he had the direct sanction of the Prime Minister of Canada, and he was not interfered with either by the Finance Minister or any other colleague in connection with the equipping of the first contingent. The question of the expenditure of the $50,000,000 voted by the Parliament of Canada was first raised, so far as I am concerned, about the 20th of August, 1914. It was drawn to my attention that large expenditures were being made from this $50,000,000 vote, and that in all cases competitive tenders were not called for.


Mr. MURPHY:: Was that in 1914?


William Thomas White: It is 1914 that I am speaking of. On August 27, 1914, I wrote the following letter to the Prime
[Sir W. T. White.3
Minister, and I intend to place it on Hansard, because I want the ex-Minister of Militia to understand the position I have taken, and I think when he knows the facts he will commend the position I took:-
Ottawa, August 27, 1914.
Military and Naval Expenditures.
My dear Sir Robert,-As instructed by you I have asked my deputy to convene this afternoon a meeting of the chief officials of my department of the Militia and Marine Departments and the auditor general for the purpose of considering the question of the procedure to be adopted, in order that the public interest may be protected on the one hand and no necessary delay occur on the other, in connection with the authorization and audit of expenditure under the provisions of the Act appropriating a war credit of fifty million dollars.
Under this legislation it is clearly provided
that no expenditure shall be made save under the
general or special authority of the Governor in Council. It is apparent therefore that all contracts of every kind-for transport, munitions of war, food, clothing and other supplies __must be sanctioned by order in council. Personally I realize that in the emergency which so suddenly confronted us on the outbreak of the war prompt action had to be taken by the Militia Department, which evidently proceeded to give orders for supplies and let contracts in accordance with the custom of the past. This custom should, however, no longer be followed because of the very large amounts involved and the necessity for the Government seeing to it that large contracts should only be awarded after tenders have been called for and duly considered. Any other method of procedure can only result in improvident contracts with great waste of money to the national loss and the enrichment of individuals. What I am contending for is that the vast expenditure which we must make for military and naval defence be authorized by Council in the usual way before it is entered upon. The statute expressly provides for this and the auditor general will not he able to certify payments unless its te-ms are strictly complied with. What I have to suggest is this:	.
(1)	A complete list of contracts and expendiditure already entered into and made to be laid before Council for ratification.
(2)	All future contracts and expenditure to
be entered into and made only after Council has passed the necessary orders (gene-al or special) under the authority of the Act.	t
No delay of any consequence can possibly arise in carrying out my second suggestion. The ministers are all here and likely to be here for many months to come and we are holding Council meetings once or twice daily.
If the course I have indicated is not adopted expenditures amounting to almost one-fourth of the total annual outlay of the Dominion will be made by the officials of the two departments in question, notwithstanding that responsibility for such expenditure devolves upon all members of the Government individually and collectively.
Tours faithfully,
(Sgd.) W. T. White.
What was the motive that actuated me in sending that letter? My motive was to pro-

tect the treasury of Canada, and in my present position I conceive that to be my duty. On January 11, 1915, I addressed the following letter to the Prime Minister:-
Ottawa, January 11, 1915.
My dear Sir Robert,-During the past few days I have been outlining my budget speech, and have consequently been examining carefully into our financial situation. Frankly, on account of the huge expenditure of the war and our uncontrollable expenditure upon capital account for railways and public works, I have become exceedingly apprehensive as to our finances for the coming year. It may be necessary for us to consider the shutting down of some of our larger works, but I hope this may not occur, as it is an object to us all to continue to afford as much employment as possible. So far as our war expenditure is concerned the fact that we can obtain the money readily from the British Government should not blind us to the fact that it has to be repaid, and that in the meantime interest is running upon it. Our borrowing under this heading to the end of March will amount to sixty million dollars, upon which interest charges next year will be two and a half million dollars. If we borrow one hundred million dollars next year, the interest charge will be four million dollars, which added to the two and a half millions referred to will make a total fixed interest charge of six and a half million dollars. The additions will of course go on as long as the war lastsr I am only drawing this to your attention to show how rapidly our fixed interest charges will mount up. When we issue our Canadian war loan to repay the British Government, an even higher rate of interest will have to be paid, because our credit is not so good as that of the Imperial Government.
As you know I have been strongly desirous from the beginning that we should put forth every effort to bear our share in the burden of the war notwithstanding the expense involved. What I desire to ask now is that you will give particular attention to the matter of saving unnecessary expenditures in connection with the administration of the Militia Department during the war. No doubt a great deal of such expenditure is inevitable, but it appears to me that everything that might be considered as an extra and not really required for the equipment or substantial comfort of our troops should be omitted. Suggestions will no doubt be continually brought to our attention for the purchase of accoutrements or equipment or for other expenditure which might fairly be regarded as useful, but at the same time not indispensable.
I could mention certain equipment of that character if I so desired.


William Pugsley: I think the Minister ought to do that.


Samuel Hughes: I would respectfully ask the Finance Minister to do so.


William Thomas White: What I had in mind when I wrote that was a shovel.


Samuel Hughes: I was mighty well aware what the hon. gentleman had in hi3 mind.
18J
. Sir THOMAS WHITE: The letter continues :-
All items of this kind should be scrutinized most carefully. I do not care to take the matter up with the Minister of Militia myself, but would suggest that you do so in view of the foregoing grave financial situation which I have drawn to your attention. I have been doing my best with the estimates, but. notwithstanding all our efforts they are bound to be exceedingly large.
Yours faithfully,
W. T. White.
I now come to the month of June of last year. The ex-Minister of Militia has criticised the appointment of an Overseas Minister of Militia as unnecessary. In that I do not agree with him. I propose to read to the House certain letters which will show clearly my views with regard to the necessity, as I regard it, of the appointment of an overseas minister. When I say necessity, I mean necessity from a financial standpoint, the necessity of safeguarding the enormous expenditures of the Dominion which have been and are being made in Great Britain:
Ottawa, June 23, 1916.
Dear Sir Robert,-
On account of the immense volume of business now being transacted by the Militia Department both in Canada and In England and the magnitude of the expenditure involved, it has occurred to me that it would be in the interests of the Government to appoint some outstanding firm of chartered accountants for the purpose of advising respecting the administrative system of the Militia Department both here and abroad and upon the matter of safeguards upon expenditure such as auditing, etc. I understand that Hon. Mr. Kemp employed the firm of Price, Waterhouse & Company with good results in establishing the excellent business system of the War Purchasing Commission. The Imperial Munitions Board has also engaged firms of auditors for the same purpose. Firms such as Price, Waterhouse & Company, Touche, Niven & Company, and Marwick, Mitchell, Peat & Company have organizations in Canada and England and would no doubt be glad to undertake such duties as I have outlined at a reasonable rate of remuneration, although the question of price for services of such importance is really of secondary character. If the idea generally commends itself to you I would suggest that you discuss it with the Paymaster General and other officers of the Militia Department. In my view nothing but good could result from such action on our part and it would I think meet with the approval of Parliament and the country.
On July 27, 1916, I directed another letter to the Prime Minister:
Ottawa, July 27, 1916.
Dear Sir Robert,-
While Sir George Perley is here I think we should consider carefully the question of our war expenditures in England. From a statement presented to me this morning by the

Dominion accountant it appears there are large outstanding liabilities and unadjusted accounts running into the millions. Personally X feel that there should be some further check upon the expenditures. No doubt the officers in charge have been doing their best, but with the responsibility of their actions devolving upon us here I feel there should be a closer connection and a more rigid supervision than has prevailed in' the past.
On August 30, 1916, 1 directed a further letter to the Prime Minister:
Dear Sir Robert,-
I am somewhat concerned over the fact that the Governor in Council exercised no control, except through officials, over our growing military expenditures in Great Britain. We must have one hundred thousand men there and we are borrowing from the British Government for military expenditures at least a million pounds a month or sixty million dollars per year. A considerable part of this sum is of course for pay, but I am satisfied that there are large expenditures for supplies and equipment. This expenditure should undoubtedly be subject to authorization by or on behalf of the Governor General in Council. As it is not practicable for the Government to deal with such expenditures here I think we should appoint a commission somewhat like the War Purchasing Commission, whose authorization would be required before any contract for supplies or equipment is entered into or any expenditure made for construction or other purposes.
That I may say was my first idea of overcoming the difficulty which we had in checking and safeguarding our war expenditures in England.
If this is not done there will be opportunity for irregularities which will undoubtedly be taken advantage of; in fact rumours of irregularities have reached me from time to time recently. My idea is that this commission should be directly responsible to the Governor in Council and should have at its head Sir George Perley, acting high commissioner. With such a commission we would have every confidence that this large expenditure was being made properly and that waste would be practically eliminated.
There is another suggestion which I have to make, namely, that a firm of chartered accountants, such as Price, Waterhouse & Company, or Marwick, Mitchell & Company, should be engaged to audit all our accounts in Great Britain. When it is considered that our expenditures there are equal to the entire expenditure made by Canada only a few years ago, the necessity for the closest possible check is apparent. Such an audit should not only' cover future transactions but past expenditures also in order that we may be assured of the regularity of the transactions which have already taken place. My view is that the auditor general should also have a representative in England as I do not believe his office here can properly audit expenditures made abroad.
As the question of expenditure so closely concerns my department I had intended making a submission to council embodying the above suggestion, but upon reflection it appeared to me that any submission should be made by yourself. I hope you will take the matter up at an early date as I am frankly anxious about the situation.

This is the letter I submit of a minister of the Crown who is desirous of safeguarding the money of the people of Canada, and throwing all proper checks around expenditures in Great Britain. It was at my suggestion that the auditor general went to England during the past year foT the purpose of looking into the situation and, if ihe found it necessary or desirable, of establishing a branch of his department in Great Britain. I submit that my course in that regard was proper from every standpoint, and I have no apology whatever to make for it. It was the sound and proper course. The auditor general went over to England, and with him and Sir George Perley we looked into the question of the expenditure of the pay office and the organization there, and I am glad to say that I came hack very much reassured as to the situation in Great Britain. The administration in Great Britain has, on the whole, been an honest one. The officials there have, as a general rule, done excellent work, having regard to the difficulties with which they had to contend.


Samuel Hughes: I did not know that the Minister of Finance had all this datja here. I had intended to touch on this very aspect of the case. At the first the financial situation on the other side could not have been more rotten than it was, but I changed that in the year 1914-15. I appointed Mr. Dowie in charge of remodelling the pay office in Great Britain; I afterwards strengthened it by sending across Mr. Ross, an expert accountant of Montreal, and I could have told the hon. Minister of Finance, if he had asked me, that he would find things there better than in the city of Ottawa.


William Thomas White: I am not at all clear as to that; hut I am quite clear as to this, that if we are spending sixty or eighty million dollars in Great Britain, we cannot surround that expenditure with too many safeguards.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. Minister of Finance not aware that almost every dollar of that money spent in England is statutory expenditure?


William Thomas White: A great deal of it is for pay, hut a great deal of it is expenditure otherwise. Let my hon. friend make no mistake about that. The position I take in that letter is a sound course and one that will commend itself to every member ,of this House.
On October 6, 1916, I wrote another letter to the Prime Minister with regard to

the appointment of a Minister of Overseas Services. I produce the letter because I do not believe that the ex-Minister of Militia knows my true attitude with regard to that appointment. I believe he has been misled with regard to my attitude.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: By whom?


William Thomas White: It might be by some of his good friends on the other side. I do not know.
On October 6, 1916, I wrote this letter to the Prime Minister:
Ottawa, October 6, 1916.
Dear Sir Robert,
On August 30 I wrote you stating that I was concerned over the fact that the Governor in Council exercises no control except through officials over our growing military expenditures in Great Britain. This expenditure will soon reach an amount equal to the total annual expenditure of Canada ten years ago. After giving the matter my best consideration I am of the opinion that the time has arrived when we should have a Minister of Overseas Services who will have direct supervision and control over all our expenditures abroad and be responsible therefor in the same way as a minister here is responsible for the administration of his department. No system of administration through officials will be satisfactory, as the principle of responsibility to Parliament and the people will be lacking and grave irregularities are bound to arise for which the Government and every member thereof will be accountable. For myself I feel that the matter is vital and that I cannot assume responsibility for the acts of officials not under the immediate supervision and control of a member of the Government. In my view it is not possible for a minister here to exercise the necessary degree of supervision and control over officials carrying out such extensive and constantly increasing operations as are involved in our transactions in Great Britain. I feel that it is particularly my duty to call your attention to this subject and to express to you the opinion which I hold respecting it, as the Department of Finance is more immediately concerned and has probably, in the eyes of the public, a higher degree of responsibility for the effectual control and safeguarding of our expenditures than any other department of the Government. I commend these representations to your most earnest consideration.


Mr. MARCIL:: Will the minister read
the answers to any of those letters?


William Thomas White: There are no
answers. I sent them to the Prime Minister, amd no replies came to 'hand, except, possibly, acknowledgements- It was perfectly clear to all of us-not only to me as Minister of Finance, but to the Prime Minister and to the Government as a whole- that the time had arrived when, on account of our great expenditures, of the enormous forces that we bad in Great Britain and of the necessity for co-ordinating the services in Great Britain and on the Continent, a Minister of Overseas services had to be appointed. No man, I care not who he is, -could administer from Ottawa military affairs three thousand miles away, and involving as much expenditure as the whole Parliament of Canada administered ten years ago. No minister could do it successfully and as it should be done, having regard to the necessity for safeguarding the public interest. I say further that if I had been Minister of Militia, I should have insisted upon the appointment of an Overseas Minister of Militia; so that I have pretty clear views as to the necessity for taking that course.


Samuel Hughes: Why not appoint
an Overseas Minister of Finance?


William Thomas White: Because the situation does not demand it.


William Pugsley: It is finance we are dealing with.


William Thomas White: I beg my hon.
friend's pardon. So far as general finances are concerned, the work over there has not been very greatly increased; it is the expenditure in connection with the military situation, that has increased-
My bon, friend has animadverted to the appointment of an Overseas Minister; he has been disposed to criticise it. Well, if I read correctly the correspondence, he was willing that an Overseas Minister should be appointed. He wanted Sir Max Aitken to foe appointed.


Samuel Hughes: Never.


William Thomas White: The correspondence seems ito indicate that. If the hon. gentleman, however, says that I am wrong, I shall be glad to withdraw my remark at
once.


Samuel Hughes: The hon- gentleman can read the English language; that is all I have to say. There was nothing of the kind in the correspondence.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman made a reference to me; if he does not wish me to say anything, I shall have to sit down.


William Thomas White: Go on.


Samuel Hughes: I have been using
Sir Max Aitken as an intermediary-a gentleman who is capable of carrying out any job that is handed over to him, unlike the other gentleman who was put in there. My suggestion was not that Sir Max Aitken should be a Minister of the Crown, but that

he should have rank or title to give him authoxity-


William Thomas White: As Minister of
Finance I consider it my peculiar duty to the citizens and taxpayers of Canada to safeguard our expenditures both here and in Great Britain to the utmost possible extent, and upon these letters that I have read to the House I may rest my ease before this Parliament or before any body of citizens in Canada.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Eecess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I had placed before it certain letters which I had addressed to the Prime Minister, during the years 1914, 1915 and 1916, with respect to safeguarding the war expenditure of the Dominion. I may say that in the suggestions which I made to the Prime Minister I had always his entire support and the support of my colleagues. The letter of August 27,	1914,
which I read first, referred to instructions received from the Prime Minister himself; and-the suggestions which were made to the Prime Minister in the letter of August 27, 1914, were acted upon. Tnat is to say, all orders which had been given without the express authority of the Governor in Council, on account of the necessity for haste in getting forward the first contingent, were ratified by order in -council, and all subsequent orders were sanctioned by the Governor in Council before being given. Those letters embodied the principles which have actuated myself, as Minister of Finance, and actuated the Government since the outbreak of this war. I spoke in one of the letters of the matter of equipment. I stated that, having regard to the large expenditures which the Government was making and to the general financial position, it was advisable, in my opinion, that all purchases of equipment, unless clearly indispensable,'should be scrutinized closely. Now, I do not mean to suggest for one moment that the then Minister of Militia was bringing forward or was about to bring forward any proposals for the purchase of equipment which he did not regard as desirable. On the contrary, I believe this, that in the case of no belligerent in this war or in any other war has there been less waste

in the administration of the war than there has been	in connection with the
administration of this Government since the war broke out. War makes demands upon governments and governments must act quickly. The real question is whether the Government has acted, on the whole, with good judgment and in good faith.	The ex-Minister of Militia
brought forward many proposals for equipment, always in good faith. Patents were placed before him. The minister, pressed with the multitudinous duties of his office, came forward with what he thought might be of use for the purpose of protecting the lives of our soldiers at the front or giving them greater efficiency in their "work at the front. So I say, with regard to this matter of equipment which I touched upon in one of the letters, I was not suggesting for a moment that any equipment had been purchased, or was likely to be purchased, that was not, in the opinion of the minister, necessary or advisable. What I was contending for was that all things that were not clearly indispensable should be scrutinized closely. I think it is only fair to the ex-Minister of Militia that I should make that explanation. I repeat that if you take all the nations that are engaged in this war, and have regard to the scale of their operations, the mode of (purchase, the administrative acts which have been taken, their financial operations, having regard also to the proportion which must be observed between their operations and ours, in my belief there has been less waste in connection with the administration of the Militia Department	and this	Governmentof Canada than	in	connection	withthe administration	of	any	other	belligerent in the world. I say that not only with regard	to	the	present	war
but in regard to any war of the past. I say it has been possible because the Prime Minister and all the ministers of this Government, including the ex-Minister of Militia, while we have been desirous of doing our whole duty, doing everything possible to carry on this war, we have at the same time been desirous of eliminating waste so far as possible and carrying on the war in such a way that our finances would stand the strain; because this war had not been long under way before it was apparent to most of us that it would be a long war, that it would probably be determined on the principle of attrition, by the exhaustion of the combatants, and that it

was necessary to preserve, so far as possible, our credit and our resources. Apart from that, making large demands as we have been upon the tax payers of the country, borrowing heavily from the patriotism of the people, it is desirable in a large degree that the utmost economy should be exercised, having regard always to the exigencies of the wax.
I have spoken briefly with regard to the office of Overseas Minister. Some reflection has been cast upon Sit George Perley, who is not in the House. I have been desirous for a long time of paying what I regard as a much merited tribute to Sir George Perley. Sir George Perley went over to England in 1914 intending to stay as acting high com-missioijer for a few months only. But war broke out, and at great inoonveni'ence to himself, because he lives he^e, and his interests are here, he remained at his post. I wish to say that the services of Sir George Perley in the office of acting high commissioner since the war broke out have been, in my judgment, simply invaluable to Canada. I do not think that anyone in this House, outside the members of the Government, have any idea of the extent of the negotiations that have taken place between the Government of this country and the Government of the United Kingdom since the outbreak of war, of the cabling which necessarily takes place, of the financial and other transactions which have been carried out through the mediation of Sir George Perley. I was gratified in the highest degree, but not surprised-because I knew the man-to find the high standing which Sir George Perley enjoys in official, financial and other circles in London. I make bold to say that no representative, either of this Dominion or of any of the overseas Dominions, ever enjoyed a higher standing than that enjoyed by Sir 'George Penley as acting high commissioner of Canada in London.
Reference has been made also to General Turner. I was in England during the month of November, and it was during that month that the retirement of the Minister of Militia occurred. Sir George Perley consulted with me a good deal about the situation existing in Great Britain. He reached the conclusion, I think soundly, that a commander in chief was needed in Great Britain with an adjutant general, quartermaster general, inspector general, and other officers of a general staff. It was necessary, not only from the standpoint of the efficiency of the Canadian forces in the United Kingdom, but, in our judgment, and in the judgment of the Government, in order that the
work of the forces in the United Kingdom and on the Continent might be properly co-ordinated. The problem over there is to train the contingents that are sent from here, first in England, and, after they have been trained sufficiently, to send them forward to reinforce the men at the front. Reinforcements have been required on a scale undreamt of at the outbreak of the war, because the casualties have been so heavy, and if there is anything that appears clearly to me it is that, having regard to the extent of the forces in Great Britain and on the Continent at the present time, it is desirable that there should be a staff with a commander in chief, a man who knows the situation in Gres* Britain and or>
the continent, and who will assist in coordinating the British situation with the continental situation. That is precisely what the commander in chief, who has been appointed in Great Britain, will help to do. In selecting that man, regard was had to the troops at the front, and, so far as I know, no more popular appointment could possibly have been made, no better man could possibly have been appointed than General Turner. I was surprised and delighted on my visit to the front in talking with the brigadiers and colonels to find the high esteem in which every divisional commander was held by all the men at the front-General Turner, General Currie and General Lipsett. I was delighted to find the high esteem in which they were held by all the officers and men with whom I had the privilege of talking while I was there. General Turner is a man who won the Victoria Cross. He is a man of the highest standing, and is beloved by his division, and, as far as I could ascertain, by all the other commanders, brigadiers and officers in France; and, so far as I am concerned, I have no hesitation in saying that I do not believe that any better appointment could have been made. General Turner was not desirous of leaving the front. Let me make that plain. Nothing but a letter from the Prime Minister of this country asking him to accept the position, which was deemed of great importance, the position of commander in chief in Great Britain, induced him to leave the front. I think it is only fair to General Turner, as a gallant officer and a man who would much rather have remained at the front than have returned to England to assume the duties, and important duties they are, of commander in chief of the Canadian forces in Great Britain, that that explanation should be made in this House.

This afternoon the ex-Minister of Militia made a statement, which I am sorry to say reflected upon myself, with respect to Mr. T. A. Russell's connection with the purchase of motor transport. The ex-Minister of Militia stated that Mr. T. A. Russell had been recommended to him by me for the purpose of purchasing the motor transport. This statement is absolutely incorrect. I did not recommend Mr. Russell to the exMinister of Militia for the purpose of purchasing the transport for the first division. If the ex-Minister of Militia had asked me whether I would recommend Mr. T. A. Russell for the position, I would have said without any hesitation that I would, because I believe him to be a thoroughly honourable and capable man. But, as a matter of fact, I did not recommend him. As I understand it, Mr. Russell came to Ottawa to try to get an order for the Russell Motor Company, of which he was the managing director. The minister desired the transport quickly for the first contingent, and he said to Mr. Russell: I want you to buy the motor transport; you have three weeks in which to do it; and, as I understand it, Mr. Russell did the work in three weeks. Unless I am mistaken, that was the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee.


Samuel Hughes: By whom?


William Thomas White: By Mr. Russell.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to make a correction? I had several names before me, and I remember I took the matter up in the presence of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. I knew that Russell had been recommended. A number of the heads of the departments had been looking for men, and I stated that Russell had been recommended. The Minister of Finance said, *' An A1 man," or words to that effect, and the Prime Minister also said he was a very good man.


William Thomas White: I only wish to
say that the memory of the ex-Minister of Militia is not iclear. If he had 'asked whether I would recommend Mr. Russell,
I would unhesitatingly have said that I would; and if to-day I were asked if I would recommend him, I would say without hesitation that he is as good a man as we could get, a capable man, an honourable man. I .stand by that. The reflection that has been made upon me is that for some reason of interest to myself I recommended Mr. Russell, and that Mr. Russell's com-

pany made a profit upon the purchase of the transport. I repeat that I did not recommend Mr. Russell, and I did not know of Mr. Russell's appointment until after it had been. made. But after he was appointed, I decidedly said that Mr. Russell was a good man. If the matter were loft there, if there was no other evidence upon this point, the position would be that the ex-Minister of Militia says the Minister of Finance recommended Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell, according to. his statement, made a profit for the Russell Motor Company and the Minister of Finance was a friend of Mr. Russell. It was stated further that the Minister of Finance had some transactions with Mr. Russell in connection with the Cycle Motor Company. I desire to say that I never had a business transaction with Mr. Russell in my life, not to the extent of one copper.


Samuel Hughes: Were you not connected with the Canada Cycle Motor Company?


William Thomas White: The company of which I was general manager acted as transfer agents for the Cycle Motor Company. If any body wanted to transfer shares of the stock he came into the office of the National Trust Company and transferred, in the books, of the company the shares of the Cycle Motor Company. We had scores, if not hundreds, of transfer agencies and I do not know of any trust company that has not transfer agencies. Mr. Russell is connected with the 'Cycle Motor Company, as I understand. I never had a dollar's worth of interest in the Russell Motor Company. I want to say further, because I want to clear this thing up-I believe in clearing the air-that when I became Minister of Finance I proceeded to sell out every security of every kind whatsoever that I had in Canada because I did not want any one to be in the position of saying that the Minister of Finance is interested in this industry or in that industry, or in this company or in that company. That may be quixotic but I wiant to make that statement; it is true. Just to clear this up a little more-


Mr. GRAHAM:: I wish we had all sold
about that time.


William Pugsley: We should have all sold out just about the time this Government came in.


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend will look at the quotations on the stock exchanges to-day, and I have no doubt he is fully posted on them-


William Pugsley: That is owing to the
war.


William Thomas White: If he will look at the quotations, I think he will find a degree of prosperity that this country has never had before.


William Pugsley: That is what they call
war bride stocks.


William Thomas White: , Now, one word on another matter referred to by the ex-Minister of Militia, because I do not think he wants to be unfair to me. After the transports had been bought for the first contingent, it was brought to the attention of my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) that a commission had been paid in connection with the purchase of transport to a firm in Ottawa on a sale by the Ottawa Car Company of certain transport. It was alleged that Mr. Russell had bought this transport and the implication was that he had been a party to the paying of a commission. We did not know the circumstances under which that commission was paid. Mr. Russell having concluded his work in purchasing the transports for the first contingent, I had given to him, as I had given to scores of business men in Canada, a letter of introduction to Sir George Perley because he was going over to England to eee if he could sell some transports to the British Government. I heard that Mr. Russell had been appointed a purchasing agent for the British Government. I had every confidence in Mr. Russell but nevertheless, as soon as I heard the suggestion that a commission had been paid which might have been improperly paid in connection with the purchase of transports from the Ottawa Gar Company, I sent this cable to Sir George Perley:
Ascertain and cable whether T. A. Russell whom X introduced to you has been appointed as purchasing agent for British Government as reported here. Sorry to state there has been grave criticism of his buying for-Militia Department here. If he is purchasing for War Office ask him to see you and show him this cable. Important.
I got a cablegram back frtrn Sir George Perley, in which he said that:-
Have seen Russell who says he has not been appointed purchasing agent for British Government except that he arranged through another firm to buy in United States some goods for War Office about which he wrote fully to Doctor Reid but which for war reasons ought not he generally known. I am writing you some particulars by to-day's mail. Russell has also been asked by War Office report on some large machines when he returns home early in December.
The letter to Doctor Reid refers only to matters of customs. When Mt. Russell came back from England I asked 'him to come to Ottawa and we held a Treasury Board meeting, at which the Solicitor General was present. We asked him for an explanation of the commission of the sale by the Ottawa Car Company. He gave a full, direct and entirely satisfactory explanation and I wrote to Sir George Perley as follows:-
Ottawa, January 5, 1915.
Personal.
My dear Sir George,-At my request Mr. T. A. Russell, to whom I gave a letter of introduction to you some time ago, appeared to-day before the Treasury Board with reference to purchase for the Militia Department of transport necessary for the first contingent. In view of my cable to you I think it only proper to say that Mr. Russell's explanations were not only entirely satisfactory to the members of the Committee but such as to entitle him to the thanks of the Government for the untiring intelligence and zeal displayed by him In arranging for the purchase within a period of twenty days of the entire transportation equipment of the first contingent. There has been much ill-founded criticism by interested parties but we are all satisfied that Mr. Russell's conduct throughout has been wholly exemplary. He had a most difficult task to perform and carried It out, in my judgment at least, with very great ability. As Mr. Griffith saw the cable which I sent you I shall be glad if you will acquaint him with the contents of this letter.
With kind regards.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) W. T. White.
Hon. Sir George Perley,
London.
That looks as if I were interested in Mr. Russell making commissions for the Russell Motor Company. If the ex-Minister of Militia, in view of the correspondence and of the statement I have made, believes it, all I have to say is that I am sorry for him.
Before six o'clock I stated that I understood the ex-minister had been willing that an overseas minister should be appointed, provided that the minister was Sir Max Aitken. I accepted the statement that the ex-minister made, that that was not his intention, but the statement made in his letter of October 26, 1916, which possibly has been before the House, is this:-
But I will be more than proud to support the proposition, with all my heart and all my power, if you fill in the name of Sir Max Aitken. It is a question of the man and not the office.


Samuel Hughes: Read the next letter.


William Thomas White: Which one?


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman must know that if there is one letter there

must be others. Read the next letter. Be fair.


William Thomas White: Very well; hut, however, I accept the explanation of my hon. friend and I am quite willing to take his statement that he was opposed to the appointment of an overseas minister of militia. I think I have cleared up nearly all the matters touched upon by the exMinister of Militia except the question of delay in the purchase of transports. My own recollection in regard to it, although, as a matter of fact, I had very little to do with it, is that there was some delay as to whether Kelly-Springfield or some other truck was the better truck. But my recollection is that the'ex-Minister of Militia appointed a committee for the purpose of determining that, and whatever delays took place were delays inseparable from making a decision on the very important subject of motor transportation. That is all I desire to say cpon that.
There are one or two observations I desire to make upon the general debate. I do not propose to generalize, but I am sorry, and I think many members of this House are sorry, as well as many people of this country, that in some respects this debate has degenerated into a petty political controversy. I have no desire- to generalize, I say, because it would be unfair. Some notable speeches, some serious speeches, some earnest speeches have been made, but it seems to me that there has been a lot of idle talk about patronage and appointments and Nationalists. Here we are in the midst of the greatest war in the world, a war in which we are engaged as belligerents; the flower of our youth at the front; others of our sons in the United Kingdom ready to go to the front, and thousands in Canada ready to cross the seas. We are at the very crucial period of the war-the third and probably the decisive year, the year in which the greatest battles in the history of the world will be fought, the year in which the greatest strain will be imposed upon the belligerents, the year of defeat or of victory, and yet in this House some of us are talking about patronage, appointments, and Nationalists, and assailing the Government for trying to make capital out of the war.


William Pugsley: For making political capital out of the war, not for trying to.


William Thomas White: There has been a good deal of talk about lack of leadership, 
and slackness in carrying on the war, but I say, and history will confirm what I say, that there is absolutely no *room for national self-depreciation. Canada, and the Government of Canada, have played a great and noble part in this great war. Take your minds back two-and-a-half years ago, when the ex-Minister of Militia was assembling his troops at Valcartier. I gave him credit for that this afternoon,_ and I give him credit now. It was a great achievement. Let any man in this House or in this country ask himself what he would have thought at that time if it had been suggested to him that this country, peace-loving Canada, unprepared for war, composed of mixed races, diverse nationalities, a heterogeneous population of eight million, scattered over a territory as large as Europe, as large as the United States of America, would in two-and-a-half years, recruit, organize, equip, and train an army of 425,000 men; The only people who 'belittle that achievement are partisans. The organization of this great army has commanded the admiration of the world. Go to New York; what do they think about it there? Go to London; what do they think about it there? They never hear of it without greeting it with cheers. What room is there for national self-depreciation? What room is there for criticism of this Government in connection with the raising of an army of 425,000 men under the conditions I have mentioned? It is wonderful. There is not a man here, I do not care what his imagination, that could have forecasted it or would have believed it possible.
What about finance? Canada, a borrowT-ing country before the war, a country that had never made a single loan of more than six million pounds, and borrowing in London a million dollars a day, or three hundred million a year, for the Dominion Government, Provincial Governments, railways and other companies, borrowing in Great Britain principally, and also in the United States, Canada was suddenly confronted with the war, and the dislocation of business that it caused. From the very beginning, so far as it has been possible to me, and so far as it has been possible to this Government, we have aimed to maintain financial and industrial and commercial stability. We have aimed to maintain confidence, and confidence lies at the very root of prosperity, and the prosperity of this country to-day is the best evidence of the confidence

we have succeeded in maintaining in this country. Six months dislocation of business at the outbreak of the war. And yet what have we succeeded in doing? The hon. member for Piet-on, (Mr. Macdonald) is worrying as to who is to get the credit. We -never stopped, to con-siaer who was to get the credit. This is not a boys' school. Sufficient fo.r us if the thing is done. The main thing -is to get the big things done and that is what the Prime Minister has been doing, and what his ministers have been doing. We have not worried about who i-s to get the credit.
I have spoken of the effect on the world of the raising of an army of 425,000 men in Canada. Let me speak now of the effect on the world of what Canada has done in a financial way. Canada was- a borrowing country before the war. A loan had never been made in Canada, except perhaps a little currency loan thirty or forty years ago. What have we done -since the outbreak of the war, and by " we " I mean the people of Canada. I always give the credit to the people of Canada. The Government are the instruments; we take the initiative; choose the time for the loan; see that market conditions are favourable, and the -people do the rest. I do not care whether you call it leadership o-r no-t. All I want is results, and we get the results. What have the results been? In 1915 we asked the people of Canada for $50,000,000, and they gave u-s $100,000,000. Last November we asked the people of Canada for $100,000,000, and they offered us $200,000,000. Canada has financed her war expenditure on this side of the Atlantic -since the outbreak of the war and that in itself -is a notable achievement, but that is on-ly the beginning of what -she has done. What else has -she done in a financial way? The Dominion of Can-ad-a has advanced $150,000,000 to the Imperial Treasury to purchase munitions on this side of the Atlantic, and in addition to that, we have arranged for a credit of $100,000,000 from the chartered banks of Canada, making a total of $250,000,000, which we have placed to the credit of the Imperial Government for the purpose of purchasing munitions in this Dominion. Is not that an achievement? Consider the prosperity of this country to-day. There are high prices, of course, for agricultural and other products. But what of the munitions output, so large a portion of our exports? The prosperity of the country is related to agriculture and our other productions and to the production of munitions.
Now, I am going to give the ex-Minister of Militia a good deal of credit in connection with the establishment of the Shell Committee. He and I sometimes differ, but we always differ in an open way. The ex-minister deserves credit for originating the idea. An idea may be developed, but the -man who originates it deserves a great part of the credit. The ex-Minister of Militia believed in the industries of this country and he started the Shell Committee, and 1 give him credit fo.r starting it; but at the same time do no-t let us altogether lose sight of the fact that the financing of it has had something to do with the result. An exchange situation exists to-day, by reason of the fact that Great Britain is importing so much from thi-s continent, by reason of the fact' that the exchanges have partially broken down, under which Great Britain can purchase munitions on this side of the Atlantic only if she can raise money with which to pay for them on this side of the Atlantic. That statement is absolutely true; in fact, it falls short of a full statement, because she not only has to borrow, on this side of the Atlantic, all the money required to pay for her enormous purchases on this side of the Atiantic, but she actually has to borrow money on this side of the Atlantic to support the exchange, so that it is a fact that Great Britain can not purchase in Canada unless Great Britain is financed in Canada. Finance lies at the basis of Great Britain's purchases in Canada just as finance lies at the basis of Great Britain's purchases in the United States. What does that mean? That means that the $250,000,000 that we provided for the Imperial Government has meant that she was able to give the orders for munitions in Canada during the past twelve or fifteen months. No -leadership! I do not care whether you call it leadership or not. Whait would leadership be under -those circumstances? Would it do more than provide the $250,000,000 or $300,000,000? If there is anything more that leadership would do, I would like my Ihon. friend the member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) or any one else to tell me. - No leadership! No one would have dreamed of such a (thing happening. Ask any financial -man in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, or any other place you like, if -two or three years ago he would have believed the Dominion of Canada would pay her own war expenditures, amounting as it does to the tremendous sum of $1,000,000 a day, and would, in addition to that, (h-ave been able to provide $250,000,000 for the Imperial Government for purchasing

in Canada. He would have laughed at you. Is there any room for national seM-depre-oiation? Has there been no leadership? The prosperity of this country .is to-day abounding. There is no belligerent country in anything like the condition in which we are, financially, commercially or industrially. Not a man who will work is out of work in this country to-day; wages are 'higher than they have ever been, and yet it is said that there is no leadership. Our Ihon. friends opposite accused us of lack of leadership. I cannot help but think of the story that is told of Abraham Lincoln and General Grant. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who is fond of history, the other night accused the Prime Minister of indecision.


Robert Laird Borden: Amongst other things.


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is a great admirer of Abraham Lincoln. Let us bear in mind what has been accomplished. We have recruited 425,000 men; we have financed ourselves and Great Britain, and let us also remember the prosperity that exists in this country to-day. And yet my right hon. friend says that the Prime Minister is guilty of indecision. Abraham Lincoln appointed General Grant as Commander in Chief of the forces of the United States. Grant had some enemies who sent word to Lincoln: "He drinks!" Lincoln replied: "What brand of whisky does he use? I want it for my other generals." If that brand of leadership has produced that magnificent result, why, lack of leadership would not be a bad thing for the Prime Ministers of Canada from this time forth, to say nothing of those in the past, such as my right hon. friend. My right hon. friend has an imagination. Let me appeal to it. Years ago we used to talk of the total trade of Canada as being $500,000,000. The year before the war the total trade of Canada, exports and imports, amounted to $1,000,000,000, and we congratulated ourselves upon the fact. It was wonderful that the total trade of Canada should be one-fifth of the total trade of Great Britain. Canada was coming on. For the first six months of the year just past the total trade of Canada exceeded $1,000,000,000, which was the high-water mark for the year preceding the war, and this year we ?hall have a total trade of over $2,000,000,000. And yet my hon. friends say there is no leadership. Of course, being modest men, we give the credit to the public. If my right hon. friend had found a condition

like it he would take the credit for the party. We say that under our administration the favour of Providence, and the energy and intelligence and patriotism of the Canadian people, all these things have been accomplished.
In 1912, 1913 and 1914 the balance of trade was against us, $300,000,000,	$200,000,000
and $140,000,000, and there has been a balance of trade against us for many years past. This year, however, there will be a balance of trade of probably three ot four hundred million dollars in our favour. Yet, my hon. friends say there is no leadership. Well, if no leadership gives such magnificent results as that there is a good deal to be said for it. Now, I am not particular whether we get the credit or not. After all, this is not a boys' school.


Wilfrid Laurier: It looks like it.


William Thomas White: It does sometimes, when I look at the other side of the House, not only a boys' school, but when I hear some of the followers of my right hon. friend speak I think it is an infants' class. We are content with the results.
What is required of Canada? We are in the third and crucial year of this war. Talk all the election talk, talk all the partisan talk you like in the House of Commons, but we are in a year of the greatest events in the history of this war, and talk of that kind will make but little impression and will not last long. I was in England during November-


George Perry Graham: So the ex-minister said.


William Thomas White: -and I want to tell hon. gentlemen that the seriousness of this situation dawns upon one when he visits England and France. We are 4,000 miles from the western battle-front, but when you are in England, France or Belgium you realize what war means. You see the fleet, as I saw it-and in my opinion the fleet of Great Britain, which is the greatest human agency to-day between the Hohenzollerns and the domination of the world, was never actually or relatively as strong as it is to-day. When you see that fleet; when you see the great body of clean-cut, strong men who, day in and day out, in summer and in winter, in heat and in cold, maintain that monotonous and weary vigil which means the safety of our commerce and the preservation of our civilization, you realize that the Empire is at war. And when you go to the front and see the men there-the officers living in dug-outs comprising two little rooms, cold

and damp; when you see the men going into the trenches and coming out encased in mud; when you observe the uncomplaining, cheerful demeanour of these men who daily walk with death, you realize what this war means, because these are our boys. There is little patience at the front with talk of patronage, appointments or Nationalism, and there will be less patience with it as the war goes on. No thinking man can visit the fleet and visit the front without coming away profoundly impressed with the terrible seriousness of this war, and that impression will grow more and more upon the people of Canada, of the Emprie and of the world as the war proceeds during the present, as I believe, crucial year. That is the spirit in which we should give consideration to the important matters of public business before us, and that, I believe, is the spirit in which the great majority of the members of this House are approaching them-a spirit which exemplifies a realization of the seriousness of the war and which is manifested in its deepest sense by men who have sons there and by men who have lost their sons.
It devolves upon every member of this House and every citizen of Canada to do his part. The Prime Minister cannot be on every platform of Canada, week in and week out. He has spoken scores of times since this war broke out; so have I, and so have other members of the Government. We have been necessarily oppressed with business since the war broke out. Transactions with the Imperial Government, matters relating to the troops in England and at the front, the organization of our troops in Canada, matters arising out of the dislocation of business which is inevitable when a war is proceeding, international questions, matters of the utmost moment and importance-these are the burdens which from day to day, from week to week, morning, noon and night, Saturday and Sunday, have been borne by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. We are not complaining; it is our duty, and we do it. But it is open to any member of this House to do his best to impress the public mind with the necessity for men and munitions and the necessity of saving for the purpose of assisting the financing of the war. I believe that most of the members have done this, and I am quite sure that they will continue to do so. What is required at the present time, not only in Canada and the United Kingdom, but
throughout the entire world, is organization and the creation of a certain attitude of mind on the part of the public with relation to this war. The great majority of the people are seized with the importance of the war, but many are not, to the same degree. There must be man organization; there must be organization of vital industries; production must be stimulated and increased as much as possible. There should be no personal or public extravagance, and there should be national saving, because in the last analysis it will be money and resources as well as. men that will win this war. There must be selfdenial and there must be self-sacrifice. The men at the front are undergoing sacrifices cheerfully and uncomplainingly; it is not too much to ask every person to exercise self-denial and self-sacrifice in
9 p.m. order that he, too, may contribute to the utmost of his power to the winning of the war.
A great number of important questions are mooted from time to time-important, but secondary and subsidiary questions. The real question before the Empire to-day is the winning of the war, and nothing else. How do governments, oppositions, individuals, measure up against the great question of winning the war? That is the question to which the governments of all the communities in the Empire must direct themselves. The British nation was slow in getting organized for the war, because it was so entirely unprepared at the outbreak of hostilities. In Great Britain these questions were met as they arose, and to-day I believe that the nation is very highly organized. Millions of men have been sent to the front; no one ever expected that more than 200,000 or 300,000 men would be sent from England to Europe. The loans that have been raised by the British Government would have staggered the imagination of men before the war broke out.
The Government since the outbreak of this war has addressed itself to the utmost of its ability and power to the great questions that have been presented for its consideration. The successes which we have met with-with the co-operation and support, of course, of the Canadian people, because the Government can do nothing without that-are exemplified in the statements which I have made to the House with regard to the recruiting of our forces and our finances and trade. I repeat that there is absolutely no room for national

self-depreciation, but I am the first to say that we can do better. We can all do better. We have gone so far; we can go much farther. The Government will continue to put forth its best efforts as in the past, and I am perfectly confident that, putting forth ,our best efforts, with the rest of the overseas dominions putting forth their best efforts, with the mighty effprt which Great Britain is putting forth, with the heroism and the sacrifices of France and the efforts which she will put forward in the future, this war is going to be won this year.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, there are some remarks which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) has made with which I am sure we will all agree. The one that strikes me as being the most important is that all the people of Canada should be united in a determination to do the utmost that is possible in assisting in bringing this war to <a successful conclusion. My hon. friend has very frankly stated that we could all do much better than we have done. With regard to the Government, Sir, I think we will all be disposed to agree with him. We will all agree that the Government, if it applied its mind, if it applied the united efforts of its members, could do a great deal better than it has done in the past, and, may I add, Sir, the hope that after the expression which my hon. friend has used, that the Government can do better than it has done, it will make a sincere effort to do better and to perform a 'service which will entitle it even in some -measure to the gratitude and confidence of the people of this country, because, Sir, let me assure my hon. friend, as I believe, that no one upon this side of the House is desirous of seeing this Government lost the confidence of the people of this country merely in order that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and hon. gentlemen upon this side of the House, may assume the seals of office. We have no especial personal desire for. that. Speaking for myself, 1 would assure you, and I do assure you most earnestly, that I never was so happy since the day I first entered political life as I have been in opposition; and my pleasure has been increased by the fact, Sir, that I have been engaged in the worthy cause of attacking a Government which, I believe, is not deserving of the confidence of the people of this country. That, Sir, is a worthy object for any body of men. To dp one's duty as a member of His Majesty's
fPir W. T. White.]
loyal Opposition is to perform one of the noblest services which a public man can render to his country. Therefore, dn all sincerity, I express the hope that from this moment this Government will turn back upon its tracks, will reverse the course which it has pursued in the past, and will endeavour well and faithfully to serve the people of this country. It may be too late for them to regain the confidence of the people; it may be, but still it is not too late for them to try.
Now, Sir, my hon. friend says that in this House and in this country there is an attempt to make party capital. I interjected a remark to that effect when my hon. friend was speaking. If I were asked for proof, I should give it in the fact that ever since this war broke out this Government and its supporters throughout the Dominion have endeavoured, so far as they could, to make their conduct of the war the means of increasing their party influence and a stepping stone to their return to power. The Minister of Finance says that, being now in the third year of the war, the most strenuous year in the history of the war, our attention should be entirely directed to the winning of the war, and that we should not stop to give consideration to such questions as patronage, and partyism, and nationalism and questions of that kind. What does that mean, Sir? . It means that the Government should not be criticised for using patronage in the making of war contracts; it means that they should not be criticised for the effort to strengthen their party with the people of this country by passing money and patronage into the hands of their supporters or those whom they hope will become their supporters. And this, Sir, when there are in that Government, members of the Nationalist party. We have the evidence before us that in 1910 the Nationalist party of Quebec first took the unpatriotic ground, laid it down as a matter of policy for the people of Canada which they at all events were determined to support in Quebec; that Canada should take no part in the wars of the Empire, that neither the money, nor the men, nor the ships of Canada should be sent beyond the confines of this Dominion; and they appealed to the prejudices of the people who had confidence in them to stand by thedr policy as against any participation in the wars of the Empire. From that day to this we have seen the Nationalist party in Quebec adhering to that position, and, Sir, only two or three days ago, we had the spectacle of the Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin) going

down into a constituency in the province of Quebec where a by-election was being held, and declaring to the people there that they need have no fear of conscription, because, if it came into force their young men could easily cross the boundary into the United States and so escape from the effects of the war. And yet we find that gentleman, so far as we can judge from the statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, still enjoying the confidence of his colleagues. So it comes with ill grace from the Minieter of Finance to taunt us with speaking of Nationalism and condemning Nationalism on the floor of this Parliament.
Then, Sir, what further have we so far as patronage is concerned? We have the statement made in this House, we have the statement made in this country, made without contradiction, because it is impossible to contradict it, that even in the case of soldiers, even in the case of our boys who have gone to the front prepared to make the supreme sacrifice for their country, when they have returned wounded and have asked for positions which they could properly fill, they have been referred by the committee having the matter in charge to the patronage committee representing the Government of this country, speaking for the Conservative party in this country, and they have been obliged to get the recommendation of this patronage committee before they could be appointed to fill any position! S'ir, only a few days ago, in the city of St. John, there was a meeting of the recruiting committee, and I am now going to quote from what took place at that meeting as supporting the statement which I make, and not merely the statement, but supporting the charge, a charge which this Government ought to be ashamed to lie under, supporting the charge that even in the case of the returned soldier the question of whether a man has belonged to a Liberal or to a Conservative family is to determine whether he is to get employment, is to determine whether or not his country is to recognize the sacrifice which he has made for the flag. Well, Sir, this meeting in St. John was presided over by a gentleman whom the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) knows well, presided over by one of the most prominent *Conservatives in the province of New Brunswick, a gentleman who not long ago was appointed by the Conservative Government in the province of New Brunswick as one of the directors of a company which is constructing that important line of railway known as the St. John Valley railway; I refer to Mr. Richard O'Leary, of the county of Kent, in the province of New Brunswick. At that recruiting meeting in the city of St. John, on the 3rd of January last, as reported in the St. John Telegraph of 4th January, Mr. O'Leary said:-
In spite of the resolution, it still is necessary for even a returned soldier to secure the recommendation of the patronage committee before he can secure a Government appointment.
That was the statement made by a gentleman who has been closely identified with recruting in the province of New Brunswick, who was chairman of the recruiting meeting for that province; a gentleman of the very highest standing, who has given of his wealth and time to every patriotic cause in New Brunswick since the war began; and that statement is simply confirmatory of what hon. gentlemen have stated on the floor of this House as to what is going on in this country. And yet my hon. friend the Minister of Finance says: Oh, because the war is on, and because our united effort should be directed towards the winning of the war, you must not speak of patronage; you must let us exercise it to the fullest extent in respect to our supporters throughout the country, and you must not make any complaint or criticism. Why, not long ago, the newspapers reported my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) as having gone to the city of St. John and given a banquet to his patronage committee who are making these recommendations for the filling of positions of this character and of other positions which come under the control of the Government.
We have had an extraordinary exhibition this afternoon and evening. Although Parliament has been sitting now for some days, we have had no explanation by the ministry as to the reasons why the Minister of Militia was dismissed from office. The ex-Minister of Militia is not in the position of one who resigned; he was dismissed from office. The letter of the Prime Minister to him shows clearly that this is the position in which he stands. Ordinarily, in such circumstances, ministerial explanations are made. Ordinarily, the Prime Minister takes Parliament and the country into his confidence, and gives the reasons for ministerial changes; but the Prime Minister has not done this House or the people of this country the courtesy of giving the explanations which a Prime Minister always thinks well to give in such circumstances. It has remained until this

afternoon and evening for us to hear something of the reasons for the change which has taken place. The statements made by the ex-Minister of Militia and the Minister of Finance lead us to believe that very many more statements might have been made and very much more information might have been given to the people of this country as to the reasons why the change took place. My hon. friend, the ex-Minister of Militia, is clearly holding himself in leash. It would break his heart to separate from his dear Conservative friends, he says.


Mr. WILCOX:: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: He says it would almost give him as much anxiety and as much sorrow to do that as if we were to lose the war. Loving his Conservative friends as he does, he holds himself in apparent restraint in order that he may still have a bridge across which he may walk backwards and again get into the confidence of his party. Perhaps between the time when he informed the public through the newspapers that he was going to make a full statement, and to-day, he has heard rumours which have come across the Atlantic that it will not be long before there is a change in the high commissionership, and that some other gentleman, possibly one who stands high in the Government of this country, may take the place of the gentleman who now occupies that position. It is not impossible that my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia may think that when the changes that may come about in the whirligig of time, possibly within a few weeks, take place there may be an opportunity for him to go back. Perhaps he feels that it is due to himself that he should not say too much or say anything that would prevent him from returning to the fold. But he tells the House that, for the first ten months of his administration of the Militia Department, he was continually hampered in his work; that he was treated as a responsible minister ought not to be treated, and that in the Cabinet he had two enemies. He uses polite language, the language of Parliament, but he tells us there were two enemies who constantly intrigued against him and prevented him from carrying on the great work which he felt he ought to do in his department in the interests of Canada and of the Empire.
How does my hon. friend the Minister of Finance answer that? Does he give us
fMr. Pugsley. ]
an explanation? He says there was something relating to trucks in regard to which the ex-Minister of Militia made some recommendation. He was getting information as to the Kelly truck or some other truck, and that it took some time to decide. That is what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance says. But that is not the charge made by the gentleman who for five years was the trusted colleague of the Prime Minister, the gentleman who for five years was entrusted by this Government with the duty of managing the military affairs of this country. I will read what he says in his letter to the Prime Minister dated May 13, 1915. So far from agreeing with my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in what he states regarding the little matter of trucks and the delay that was caused, this is what the ex-Minister of Militia says:
Dear Sir Robert:	Since my return from
England last November, I have repeatedly notified you that owing to the interference and plans of the "so-called" sub-committee and to the repeated hold-ups and needless obstructions of some of my colleagues in the affairs of this department-
Will the Minister of Finance take notice? If the Minister of Public Works were here I would ask him to take notice also.
-the Contract branch has been very much hampered and practically blockaded; delays have been very prolonged; the cost has been greatly enhanced and the goods supplied have been, in many cases, inferior. Indeed, the most ardent agents of the German government could scarcely have been more successful in holding up the proper equipment of our forces, had they been in control.
Mr. Speaker, did you ever read a more serious charge than that made by a retiring minister against his colleagues with a war on? When a few weeks' delay might mean the cost of thousands of lives, and might materially affect the fortunes of war; when there was necessity for the utmost haste, the ex-minister says that he was not only not given a free hand, but was not even allowed to do that which other ministers claimed the right to do, to carry on the detail work of his department. But, by means of this .sub-committee, which *was appointed apparently behind his back, appointed for the purpose of taking control really of his department and, may I not also say, Sir, appointed for the purpose of enabling those gentlemen who were hostile to the then Minister of Militia to succeed in eventually driving him out of office-by means of this sub-committee- I say, contracts were held up, our soldiers were delayed and the most serious results

therefore necessarily would follow. Has the Minister of Finance, in whose presence that letter was read, iany answer to make to that charge? If that charge is true, Sir, it ought to bring upon this 'Government the strongest possible condemnation of the the people. Every man, every woman, every boy, whether at the front or in Canada, whether still fighting the battles of the Empire, or whether he is one who has returned -after doing his duty and being wounded is no longer able to be at the front, must feel that if that charge is true the Government must stand condemned at the bar of public opinion. Yet, Sir, notwithstanding that most serious charge, made in this House of Parliament, made before the people of this country, a charge which, to-morrow morning wil-l go- broadcast in the press of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the Minister of Finance, has either not found it possible, or has not deemed it desirable, to attempt to give to this Parliament -and the people any answer. Then, the ex-Minister of Militia gives an example. He says:
As one of many specific examples, take the trucks for the second division. They should have been ready last December.
Think of that, Mr. Speaker, this sub-committee -apparently h-as had the matter o-f the trucks in charge since the previous December. Although the truok-s ought to have been ready in December they are not ready even -as -late as the 13th of May.
They should have been ready last December, and they are not ready yet. -Some ot my colleagues constituted themselves champions of this or that truck, and brought about delays whereby untried trucks would he purchased; high prices would he paid in commissions to agents, and the Government, and the country, would be treated practically as a retailer. My policy, as you may remember, in this and in all other matters, was to force dealers to give the Government wholesale, or manufacturers' rates.	-	'
If thdre is -any answer to be made to that letter, any answer to be- made to these two paragraphs, if any reply can he made, to the most .serious charge which is- contained dm these two- paragraphs, is it not due to this House, to the people and to the Government themselves that they should -make -an .answer to that charge to Which the Minister of Finance should have made a reply while -he was addressing the House this evening? Not one word of a -reply -has been m-ade. If the ex-Minister of Militia is the kind of gentleman whom this -Government -must have thought him to be when they placed him in charge of this -most important department, if he is
the man they have thought him to be for five long years in the' midst of the greatest war in history, and in the midst of the first great war in which our country has been engaged, if they have allowed him to control that important department having an expenditure of millions upon millions of the people's -money -and if he is the high minded gentleman whom we must believe him to be, and whom they believed him to be, surely there is -a duty cast upon the Government to endeavour to answer the most serious charge contained in these two paragraphs. Then, he says:
At the present time there are upwards of one hundred requisitions that have long been in.
These aTe requisitions for the soldiers; these are war -supplies which are necessary to- be issued to the soldiers before they can go to the front.
The Quartermaster General has over and over again, until his heart has grown sick, brought them before me; they have been promptly passed on to the director of contracts, and the great majority of them when passed on to the Privy Council have been held up in council, or by the Treasury Board, laid aside or sent hack 

but always delayed; while the director of contracts and his officers have unceasingly been interfered with, delayed, and given endless and unnecessary work by the sub-committee.
Where is the answer to that? Has the Prime Minister any answer? No, apparently not. The Minister of Finance has not attempted to give any answer and we have a right to assume that it is because no answer can be given, because these hon. gentlemen must know it is true. Is it not too horrible to conceive of, to think that when our boys needed these supplies, no proper effort was made -to furnish them? The ex-minister states that more -than one hundred requisitions have long been made, that the Quartermaster General, whose duty it is to furnish the -supplies, has over and over again, until his heart had grown sick, brought them before him, that they have been promptly passed on to the director of contracts by the minister, that they have been forwarded to the Treasury Board and they have -been held up, laid aside, or sent back and always delayed. Is it not a sad thing to think that when these articles were required- were absolutely required-in order to enable Canada to take her part in the carrying on of this war, they, simply through apathy, the indifference of the ministers, through some o-f them, as the ex-Minister of Militia says, wanting an article purchased from one manufacturer and others wanting an article purchased from another



manufacturer, and not being able to come to a conclusion for months and months, have been held back and the director of contracts has not been able to get his wants supplied? Could you think of a more serious charge to make, one which reflects more strongly upon the indifference and inefficiency of the Administration, than the *charge made'by the ex-Mini.ster of Militia contained in the paragraphs which I have just read? Then, he says:
I saw, by an article in the Free Press, that it is current talk everywhere among the soldiers and officers that they are short of nearly every class of equipment and supplies. In fact, three times recently I have been severely reproached about shortages in supplies and equipment by outsiders who had learned of these shortages from soldiers and officers of the force.
Here is another very serious charge regarding the medical department:
Further, to my surprise, I was spoken to in Montreal this week, and informed that our medical units going over were only half equipped, while many of our combatant units are not properly outfitted. In addition to the serious aspect of the case, and from the viewpoint of the efficiency of our soldiers, there is the disheartening side. It is not only unfair to the gallant boys who are giving and will-iiigly risking their lives for the cause, and making domestic sacrifices, but it is absolutely unjust to me and my officers.
There is the wail thait goes up from the heart, (apparently, of (the ex-Minister of Militia demanding that his boys, as he is proud to call the Canadian soldiers*, should *be promptly and adequately supplied with those things which they required to enable them .to perform their duty to their country. He tells the Prime Minister that these requisitions are tied up by the sub-committee of Council or tied up in Council until *it has made him heartsick and until it has made the Quartermaster General heartsick as well. Yet there is no reply. There is no attempt on the part of the Prime Minister to explain or excuse, and no attempt on the part of the Minister of Finance to deny or excuse. The ex-Minister of Militia goes on:
Therefore, as Minister of Militia, I must respectfully enter my protest, as I have frequently before entered it, at the interference and delays caused in all these things. It tends not only to the injury and inefficiency of our soldiers, thus jeopardizing the success of the British arms, but it must politically reflect seriously upon the Government.
I need not read any more from this letter, as it has been read by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia, and will appear in Hansard. I think I have read sufficient to
fMr. Pugsley.]
show that it discloses a most serious state of affairs during the time the ex-minister was a member of the Government. It was" written as long ago as May 13, 1915, and yet for a year and a half after that time, a year and a half after the ex-Minister of Militia had made this heart-rending appeal to the Prime Minister to assist him in seeing that necessities were supplied to our soldiers promptly, the minister continued as a member of the Government, and still had the confidence of the Prime Minister, and still, apparently, enjoyed the confidence of the majority of his colleagues. We must believe that the statements he makes here he would not make except from positive knowledge. We must believe those statements are absolutely correct, and as I said before, if they are correct, I want to know what more damning accusation could be brought against a government? In the face of these charges, does it lie in the mouth of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to tell us we ought not to criticise the Government, but ought simply to join with them and do our part in winning this war; that we ought not to criticise, or find fault, or point out defects in the Administration. Sir, I would want nothing more than this letter of the ex-minister to justify my conscience in bringing these matters to the attention of Parliament. If any member of Parliament under these circumstances declined to bring a matter of this kind forcibly to the attention of the House and country i he would not be discharging the duty he owes to the people he was sent here to represent. I do not know that I need deal further with the statement which was made by my hon. friend the exMinister of Militia, and the very unsatisfactory statement made by the Minister of Finance, but just let me say this in passing, that it is a habit with hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, when fault is found with them, when it has been shown that they are wasting money, or distributing patronage for party purposes, at once to begin to talk about the bravery of our gallant boys at the front. As if the fact that upwards of 400,000 of Canadian boys have shown their willingness to shed their blood in defence of the Empire was a defence of the shortcomings of the Government ! But that is what they do. That is what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has done to-day. Instead of answering the just criticisms made by the exMinister of Militia, he tells us what has been accomplished by our brave boys; he

tells of the sacrifices that are being made by the mothers, fathers and sisters of the boys who have gone to the front, as well a,s of the sacrifices which the boys themselves are making.
The Minister of Finance says we ought not to criticise the leadership which this Government has given the people. Well, I do not know that we are debarred from doing that, if we honestly think they might have done much better than they have done. If we honestly think they have mismanaged the affairs of this country since the war began, I do not think we ought to hesitate, I do not think we should be discharging our duty if we did hesitate to criticise the Government. But the Minister of Finance says: If you do not like our military leadership, see how splendidly we have led you in finance. See how splendidly we have led you in the way of borrowing money, and increasing the revenues and trade of this country. He even boasted of the fact that whereas some three years ago we only had a trade of between $500,000,000 and $600,000,000 in the current year our export and import trade will be in the vicinity of $2,000,000,000. Sir, I think that trade is not a trade for us to rejoice in. It is a trade that is washed in blood. It is a trade that tells many a tragic story of many a broken heart. It is a trade that is dependent entirely upon the war. We bring our imports of the comparatively raw materials from the United States; we manufacture them in our munitions factories and other factories throughout this country, and then send them forward as manufactured goods at. a higher valuation, which includes the labour that has been put upon them. That is how our present exports are largely made up.


Mr. CARVELL:: What about profits?


William Pugsley: And the profits which
have gone to the munition manufacturers are also counted in the value of the export. When the war is over matters will get down again to a normal condition, and these fictitious exports and imports will no longer be a factor in the prosperity of our country. Look at the'United States. Some politicians there are boasting of the enormous exports of the United States, but the right-thinking people of that country are pointing out that these exports are entirely fictitious and wholly due to the war, that they have grown to abnormal proportions, and have brought amazing wealth to the people of the United States. But the wealth comes from
a war in which they are taking no part. For us, this greatly increased wealth comes from a war in which we are taking a heroic, a noble, but at the same time, a sad part, and I, for one, would be very glad indeed to see the time come when these enormous exports would cease, and we would again have peace in Canada, peace in the Empire, and peace throughout the world.
I de-sire, with the indulgence of the House, to speak for a short time on a few matters which are contained in the speech from the Throne, as this is the only oppor-, tunity which one will have of referring to these questions which are general in character, but which at the same time are of considerable public interest. In his speech His Excellency makes this statement:
Steps have been taken by my advisers for better organization of National Service, and attention has been given to more thorough utilization of our natural resources.
This brings to my mind a subject which I think ought to have been dealt with long since by this Government. I am told by experts that we have in Canada natural resources, which, if they had been taken hold of in a proper manner, would have furnished the raw material for practically everything which is required by Canada for war purposes. Instead of spending in other countries vast sums of money for raw ma-[DOT] terial, we have plenty of raw material at hand, which might have been utilized. After two and a half years of war, we are told by the Government, what? That attention has been given to the more thorough utilization of our natural resources. Attention in what way? Have they appointed a commission to investigate? If they have, it will be about the 106th commission which this Government have appointed since they came into office. Perhaps my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), who seems to be taking a serious view of the Observations which I have been making, will enlighten the House upon this subject, because it will be interesting to know in what respect this Government are paying attention to the natural resources of this country. What are they doing in the way of assisting in the development of out mining industry? What are they doing to encourage the utilization, within our own country, of the magnificent and valuable nickel deposits of Canada? What are they doing in the way of shipbuilding, of utilizing the vast deposits of iron for the purpose of building ships? In this, the third year of the war, the Government must confess that they have done absolutely nothing.

I trust my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will pardon me for calling his attention to some of his political activities, as, of course, it is difficult to refrain from doing so, because my hon. friend is very much in the limelight. Not long ago he went to the province of Quebec in order to attend a very interesting ceremony at the Vickers Maxim dock of launching a dredge or an ice-breaker-I forget which it was, and he spoke there of the great work which is being done in shipbuilding in Canada. My hon. friend, however, did not tell the assembled guests-perhaps he had not time to do it-that they would not be building any ships in the Vickers Maxim plant had it not been for the course which the late Government pursued when I was Minister of Public Works. It was at that time and under our administration that the Vickers Maxim plant was established, which has enabled them to do the creditable work to which my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries referred. My hon. friend also spoke of the .splendid ships which were being built at the head of lake Superior by the Port Arthur Dock and Shipbuilding Company, which is not only building some splendid ships to sail on the Great Lakes, but which is now building some ships for the Norwegian Government. My hon. friend did not stop to think. If he had, perhaps he would have remembered that I turned the first sod of that dTy dock and shipbuilding plant at Port Arthur when I was Minister of Public Works, and it has been doing magnificent work since. My hon. friend would have probably had brought to his mind that uneasy thought which would perhaps have caused him some unihappiness, that not long ago he told the members of this House and the people in the country that it would take twenty-five years or on to fifty years to establish a 'shipbuilding yard in Canada. If he had paid especial attention to the Port Arthur Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company, he would have known that it only took the short period of two or three years to get that plant into working condition so that it could turn out the greatest steamers that ever floated on the Great Lakes. So I could go on with other cases. But I wish that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had been able, on that pleasant and interesting occasion, to tell the people that the Government had taken steps to establish shipbuilding plants in the Maritime Provinces. I well remember that in one of those eloquent speeches which my hon.

friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows so well how to make speeches which thrill the hearts and evoke the admiration of his listeners, he told this House that he longed to see shipbuilding established in the Maritime Provinces; that he had the smell of the sea in his nostrils, and that he was simply aching to commence an enterprise of that character on behalf of the Government of this country.
He -must not forget this; and if he ever does, I shall be sure to remind him of it, because I do not want him ever to forget it; I do not want this Government ever to forget it, and I do not want the people, who wish to know what a great penalty has been paid by the people of Canada 'because of the unholy alliance between the Nationalists and the Conservative party in 1911, ever to forget it. Let me remind my hon. friend that when he came into the office of Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the fall of 1911, he found on the files of his department an offer from one of the greatest shipbuilding firms in the United Kingdom, the firm of Cammell, Laird and Company, agreeing to establish a magnificent shipbuilding yard at the port of St. John, to build ten war vessels, mamely, six cruisers and four destroyers, and to have them all completed before or in the year 1916, the year which is now-past. He also found there on deposit the sum of $100,000 as a guarantee that this great shipbuilding company would perform its contract. What did my hon. friend do? During the election of 1911, the Nationalist party of Quebec had declared that we should have no Canadian navy, that being a part of their policy. They were not going to participate in the wars of the Empire; they were not going to allow Canadians to man the ships of Canada to sail upon the high seas, and to have their young men disembowelled upon the seas of China, or of Europe; they would pledge themselves to secure the repea1 of the Naval Service Act, and there wa.- to be no Canadian navy. When my lit n. friend came into power, dearly as he would have liked to establish that shipbuilding plant at the port of St. John, dearly as he would have liked to enter into that contract with Cammell, Laird and Company, his hands and the hands of the other members of the Government were tied by that unholy alliance between the Liberal-Conservative party and the Nationalist party, which has been like a millstone around the necks of the peoplb

of Canada from that day to this. The Government did not dare go on because they were bound not to go on, and they returned the deposit to Cammell, Laird and Company, and the contract was never entered into. And that magnificent inlet of the Bay of Fundy at the port of St. John, where this splendid shipbuilding yard would have been built, had the contract been let by my hon. friend, according to the tender, where to-day there would have been ships under construction, where there would have been from three to five thousand men employed, where there would have been great docks, that splendid sheet <'! water to-day is as quiet as a grave. Where there would have been the hum of industry, to-day there is nothing but the sound of the seagulls passing over the waves. All is dead, as dead as this Government will be, when the people of Canada have an opportunity at the next election of expressing their will.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Did you hear
about Dorchester?


William Pugsley: Yes, I heard about Dorchester, and let me tell my hon. friend what I heard about Dorehestef. My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Blon-din) stated that all that he did with regard to the money which Allison took was to tell the people that they were not concerned because it was England's money and not Canada's money which had been taken, and that all that he told them with regard to conscription was to point out to them that Mr. Cannon had said there would be conscription, but that the young men of Ste. Rose need not mind it because, if they did not want to serve their country, they had a remedy, they could easily cross the border and seek safety in the United States.
In addition to that, I heard another thing that Mr. Sevigny said. He claimed credit, even now, for having prevented the building of a Canadian navy. That is quite in accordance with the position -which was taken by gentlemen like Mr. Blondin and Mr. Sevigny when a contribution of three battleships was suggested. They assured the people that that did not mean anything at all as compared with the proposal for the building of a Canadian navy. The building of ships would mean that Canadian boys would have to man them, but the giving of three dreadnoughts would simply mean that so much money, coming mostly out of the English-speaking people
of Ontario, 'would be contributed. This, they said their friends would not mind very much, because the money would be all they would have to contribute and their young men would remain safely at home.
Something was said by one ,of the hon. gentlemen who spoke in this debate with regard to the great mistake Canada had made in not giving three dreadnoughts to the Empire. Looking at matters in a practical way, I appeal to every right thinking member of this House-which is, I think, appealing to every member, because while we sometimes differ I am satisfied that we all try to think aright-as to whether it would not have been a splendid thing for Canada to-day if we had even the ten ships which were to be constructed under the Naval Act of 1910. Opportunities have not been wanting in which they could have done great service to the Empire and have added to the glory of Canada. Only the other day a Hun Taider appeared in the waters of the S.outh Atlantic, and within a few days from 16 to 20 merchant vessels were sent to the bottom. If we had those ten vessels for the protection of our trade routes, as was designed by the Government which was led hy the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition, these vessels would be patrolling the north and south Atlantic looking for raiders and doing work which now has to be done by British ships. In this we would be following the splendid example which Australia has set in constructing a navy designed for the protection of her own coasts and available to the Empire in time of war. The war has now lasted more than two years, and we do not know how long it may continue. Even now it is not too late for my hon. friend., on the treasury benches to take hold of the question of building a Canadian navy. It may not yet be too late to build vessels to form part of a 'Candian navy-cruisers, destroyers and submarines-which would be of enormous benefit to Canada and to the Empire.
In the speech from the Throne there is another paragraph of great interest. It is as follows:
The life of the present Parliament will expire in October next, and under existing legislation a dissolution and election would be necessary in the early future. My advisers, however, are of opinion that the wishes of the Canadian people and the urgent requirements of the war would be best met by avoiding the distraction and confusion consequent upon a general election at so critical a time.
~ If it were possible to avoid a general election during the war, it would be desirable to do so, provided such a course
2M



COMM.ONS

[Stage Direction]
would be in accords ce with the wishes of the people. When this question came up last year I used practically the same words. Many people throughout the country said to u.s last year: if you grant an extension, a precedent will be created; you may be asked to grant another, and it will be difficult for you to refuse. I think there was a good deal in the position taken by Mr. Lamarche, from the province of Quebec, who said that under the Constitution of Canada, Parliament has to sit for five years; that he was elected to serve the people for a term of five years and that he could not conscientiously vote himself a longer term as a member of Parliament. We have no guarantee that the war will end this year. It may run on to another year, and the question will naturally arise, as, indeed iit has already arisen among the people, whether the members of Parliament would be justified in renewing their term of office from time to time for an indefinite period. That is the question to which the Government will have to direct its attention in submitting the matter to Parliament. Perhaps hon. gen-
10 p.m. tlemen on the other side will take occasion to let us know whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Minister of Public Works will accompany the Prime Minister to England and that when the date of re-assembling comes there will be no meeting, but a dissolution of Parliament and an appeal to the people. If that decision has been arrived at the House and the country ought to be taken into the confidence of the Government at as early a date as possible. We ought to know whether we have to return for actual business, or simply to be told that His Excellency has dissolved Parliament and that we have to submit ourselves to the people.
Mr. ROGERS:: We might as well set my hon. friend's mind at rest at once. He can depend upon being called upon early in the spring to attend business as usual.


William Pugsley: I am very glad to have that assurance from my hon. friend. He will observe that I am not nervous by reason of the rumour which I have heard. I believe in the words:
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labour and to wait.


An hon. MEMBER:: Especially wait.


William Pugsley: Whenever the elections come-and I am prepared to wait until they do come-I shall be ready to submit to any fate that may befall me.

My right hon. friend the Prime Minister is going to England to represent Canada as a temporary member of the War Cabinet. I assume that he will have the right to vote at the meetings of this conference. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition took occasion early in the session to say that the Liberal members in the House would facilitate in every way the Prime Minister's attendance at that conference.
I am very glad, as one member of this House, that my right hon. friend made that statement, because, of course, it makes the path of the leader of the Government easier, and we shall all be prepared to make any sacrifice necessary in order to allow him so to attend. As one member of this House, I desire to say that when he goes to England he will have the sympathy and the support, I believe, of all the people of this country, irrespective of party, irrespective of their political differences, irrespective of the faults which we have to find with the Government in its administration in the past. We are all united in the one desire to serve the Empire in every possible way.
With regard to the conduct of the war, I am sure that he can carry to His Majesty the King and to the British Government a guarantee that the people of this country, irrespective of party, irrespective of religion or race, are united in a determination to make every sacrifice which is humanly possible in order to carry the war to success.
With regard to the terms of peace, of course we can say nothing. I notice that is one of the great subjects on which the overseas ministers are expected to deliberate.. But let me say to my right hon. friend that the people of this country, while praying for peace, yet want a peace with glory for the Empire, and a peace which we can be sure will be lasting, and which will secure the realization of those ideals for which the Empire and our Allies are fighting. We trust that when it comes the joy bells will ring around the world acclaiming a victory for democracy, for civilization and for the highest Christianity.


Mr. A. BELLEMARE (Maskinonge) (translation):: in the belligerent countries, this year's crop has partially failed. Unfavourable weather conditions and the scarcity of farm hands have left unproductive in 1916 part of the wheat fields of the West which were under crop in 1915, with this result that in the United States and Canada and the whole of North America the production of wheat has been from 500 to 600 millions of bushels short of that of the year 1915.
But there are complications arising from the problem of transportation, and if the world produces an average crop next year and the Allies have to solve this problem, there can be nothing else than dire famine for Europe, and even for America. There will be a shortage of wheat. The 45,0'00,000>
bushels in stock would hardly be sufficient for home consumption and for seeding purposes.
If I draw conclusions from the article I have just quoted and which seems to me well founded, the present Government should stimulate in every way the production of wheat, and not only in the Canadian West, touit also in all the provinces of the Dominion. I gave a few lectures last summer in the county of Masfcinonge, which I have the honour of representing in this House, and have advised the farmers to sow wheat. Some have followed this advice and are now quite satisfied, for you know that wheat is highly priced and flour is dear. I believe that by .sending lecturers through all the provinces-even in our province of Quebec-we would help not only our own Canadian population, tout also the Allies who are now fighting for the cause of civilization.
Motion of Mr. Gordon C. Wilson (Wentworth) for an Address to His Excellency, the Governor General agreed to.


Hon. Mr. HAZEN:: In the absence of the Prime Minister I beg to move, seconded by the Hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) :
That the said Address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this House as are of the honourable the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Hazen it was ordered that this House do to-morrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Hazen, it was ordered that this House do to-morrow resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.

On motion of Hon. Mr. Hazen, the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
Wednesday, January 31, 1917.