[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 190, for the relief of George Sentis Deslandes.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Daisy Madeleine Peterson.-Mr. Nesbitt.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 184, to amend the Ottawa Mint Act, was read the second time and House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. W. H. Bennett in the Chair.)
Mr. WHITE:: This matter was rather
fully discussed when the Committee of the Whole House had under consideration the resolution which preceded the Bill. On that occasion, I was able to give my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who appeared to be very much interested in the question of the Mint, a certain amount of information which he required; but I promised that I would supplement that information and obtain for him certain other statistics which he would like to have with regard to the operations of the Mint during the past year, the production of gold and silver in Canada, and the output of the Mint in respect to these precious metals. I understood that my right hon. friend wished me to place that information upon ' Hansard,' and I have endeavoured to obtain it in as concise a form as possible. I stated that the total amount of gold, silver and bronze monies coined by the Ottawa Mint from January 2, 1908, to March 31, 1913, that being the entire period of its operation, was $5,710,944.55, divided as follows:
Fifty cent [pieces	$ 751,285 60
Twenty-five cent pieces .. 2,580,196 75
Ten cent pieces	 1,393,582 20
Five cent pieces	 979,880 10
Total	$5,710,944 55
In addition, there were:
One cent pieces	$ 222,801 70
Gold sovereigns	1,484,484 21
Canadian gold pieces		00


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: What denominations?


William Thomas White: Five and ten dollar pieces. The number of issuable pieces coined during 1912, -vyhich was particularly inquired about by my right hon. friend, was as follows;

Value. $141,624 00 636,021 25 323,709 60 292,478 10 51,095 99 706,950 00 770,760 00
Total	 17,209,837 $2,912,638 94
As to the gold production in 1912, in the * entire Dominion the amount was $12,559,443, divided as follows:
Yukon	$5,540,000
British Columbia	 5,167,390
Ontario	 1,745,292
Gold received at the Mint for refining -during 1912 amounted to 101,636 gross ounces and came , from the following ^sources:
Gross ounces.
Nova Scotia..		 3,259
Ontario	 11,666
Yukon	 85,800
Quebec	 911
Total	101,636
<3old coined in lyl2:
Sovereigns	 Nil.
Canadian $10	and	$5....$1,477,740
Gold coined from. January 1	to March 31,
1913:
Sovereigns	$ 18,079 66
$10 and $5	 323,020 00
Total	$341,099 66
"Fine gold bars sold by Mint, 1912, $236,532. In answer further to the question of my right hon. friend, I have ascertained that gold is purchased by the Mint at the rate *of $18.95 per ounce of standard fineness, i.e., 916 f'%ooo fine. I turn now to the question of silver.
Fine oz. Valued at.
Estimated production in
Canada, 1912	31,931,710	$19,425,656
Ontario . .29,190,122 ozs.
B. Colum.. 2,651,118 "
Exports of silver in ore,
&c	 34,9111,922	19,494,416
Amount of silver purchased by Mint by
tender, 1912	 755,000	 .
Cobalt .. .. 70,000 ozs.
United .States 685,000 '
Silver obtained from gold
deposits	 21,298-38	
That was a matter in which my right hon. friend was quite interested. The prices .per fine ounce paid by the Mint during 1912 were: 59:2 cents to 64 -5 cents for 685,000 tine ounces purchased from the American Smelting and Refining Company, and 593 to 59S cents for 70,000 ounces purchased from She Coniagas mine.
Mr. WHITE.	t
Cents.
Average monthly market price, 1912.. .. 60-895 Average monthly market price, 191-1.. .. 53-304
When the Mint requires silver for coinage purposes it asks the producers, Canadian and American, by letter from time to time during the year to tender .prices for stated quantities of silver and, of course, the lowest tenderer is given the order. The prices varied in 1912 as above noted. My right hon. friend asked on what basis the business of the Mint would .probably increase. That, of course, is a -matter of estimate only, but the increase in the past has been:
Silver monies coined:
.1908	$ 313,338 35
1912	 1,383,832	95
Bronze monies coined:
1908	
23,290	951912	
51,095	99
Gold monies coined:
1908	
3,095	201912	
1,477,710	00
Amount of gold and silver refined for sundry persons and charges collected for same:
Silver
-Go-Id	chlorides,
Year.	Deposits. strips, &c. Charges.
Ounces. Ounces.
1909	
5,779-68	14,039-44	$1,127 291912	
105,568-08	34,214-07	4,927 63
' Gold deposits ' means gold sent to the Mint by miners or others. On arrival at the Mint it is melted down, assayed and its value ascertained; tihe price then is paid to the shipper, less charges, and the gold and subsidiary silver contents, become the property of the mint. The gold may then be -dealt with as the Mint wishes, either turned into coin or sold for bullion or mercantile purposes. Gold bars sold for mercantile purposes increased from $9,410 in 1910 to $295,592 in 1912, and gold -coin increased as shown elsewhere.
' Silver chlorides, strips, &c.,' is silver received from business concerns to be assayed. Silver for coining purposes is bought by the Mint by tender as already explained.
I might say further, in answer rather to what my right hon. friend had in his mind than to what he expressed, that it is the intention to enlarge the operations of the refinery in connection with the Mint and this year there is an appropriation for an addition to the building which will cost from $35,000 to $50,000. It is hoped by the deputy master of the Mint that he will gradually become in a position to refine and sell as bullion, or use for coin, all the gold production of Canada. With respect to silver, he points out that the plant required for silver refining is very much more extensive and that the question of freights is also important, so that the geographical position of the silver mines
No.
Fifty cent pieces .. ..	283,248
Twenty-five cent pieces. 2,504,085 Ten cent -pieces	 3,237,096
Five cent pieces	 5,849,562
One cent pieces	 5,109,599
Canadian $10 pieces ..	70,695
Canadian $5 pieces.. ..	455,552

of Canada would have a somewhat important relationship to the place where the silver would be refined. There is not a market in Canada for our silver product. The market	is	in the
United States and chiefly in cities that are international money markets. I am not honeful that in the immediate future the refinery in connection with the Mint will be able to greatly increase its refining operations in silver. The anual expenditure for maintenance of the Mint and the refinery since its establishment in 1908 has been: 1908	1912
Salaries	$27,000	$33,000Weekly wages	
31,000	42,000Contingencies	
12,000	18,000Total	$71,000	$94,000
In 1908 there were sixteen officials and in 1912 eighteen; in 1908 there were forty-five workmen and in 1912, fifty-eight. The estimate for this year is slightly over $99,000, and I have provided in the Bill that the statutory appropriation of $75,000 which since 1910 has been supplemented by $25,000 in the estimates each year, shall be increased to $110,000 and the $25,000 in the estimates will not, for the immediate future, be required. The deputy master of the Mint informs me that he will require for the coming year three men additional on the staff, whose annual wage will aggregate $2,652, and one assistant assayer at a salary of $1,460. This brings the estimated annual expenditure for 1913 to $104,000. It was stated in the former discussion that there was a very considerable seigniorage on the silver issued by the Canadian Mint resulting form the enhanced value of the coin over the intrinsic value of the silver. The arrangement entered into by my predecessor, Mr. Fielding, in 1906, for deporting to the United States large amounts of American silver, has been efficacious, and has enured to the benefit of the Canadian Government by reason of our silver displacing the American silver. It was arranged with the Canadian Bankers' Association that the banks were to ship to the United States all American silver and bronze coins received by them, the Government to pay the banks three-eighths of one per cent on all such coin deported, and, in addition, the transportation charges. The amount deported in this way has been:
1909- 10	 $ 900,000
1910-	11	
1,500,0001911-	12	
1,791,0001912-	13	
1,800,000
The total charges incurred by the Government in- connection with that deportation has been:
1909- 10	 $ 8,493
1910-	11	
13,0001911-	12	
12,0001912-	13	
13,000
Total
I have a memorandum showing the deportation of silver by provinces, which will indicate the points at which the American silver comes in. During the years 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, there was deported from Ontario, American silver amounting to $2,200,000; from Quebec, $760,000; from Nova Scotia $82,000; from New Brunswick: $78,000; from Manitoba $780,000; from British Columbia $1,694,000; from Alberta $323,000; from Saskatchewan $180,000. I think this covers all the information mjr right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has asked for, but if there is anything else I shall be happy to get it for him.


Wilfrid Laurier: The information given by the Minister of Finance is-all I expected, and I am thankful to him,
I believe the House and the country will be interested in the figures he has given. The operation of the Mint has been, up to the present, somewhat mysterious and nobody seems to have known exactly what took place there. There are two points on which I have a word of comment. I understand the Minister of Finance expects that in a few years the Mint will be able to refine and dispose of all the gold produced in Canada either in the shape ol coin or bullion for export, but the hon. gentleman has no such expectation with regard to silver. The production of silver-in Canada is increasing from year to year until I think to-day Canada is the largest, producing silver country in the world. Up-to the present the American market is-the only market we have had for our silver, and it is sent to the United States in the shape of ore, not refined in this country. At present, all the silver produced in: Canada goes to New York, is refined in>
New York, and what is not consumed in. the United States is exported in bars to-European markets. Everyone who has travelled from New York to Liverpool knows that no inconsiderable part of the steamer's cargo is composed of silver bars shipped from New York to London, for distribution throughout Europe. Ten or twelve years ago, practically the whole of: that silver came chiefly from Colorado-and from other American territory, but at present a very large proportion of it comes from Cobalt. The Minister of Finance has-stated that the question of freight is the-impediment to the export of silver direct from Canada, and I would like to have some explanation from him on that point. I cannot see why the charges from Cobalt to Ottawa should be higher than from-Cobalt to New York, or the charges from: Ottawa to Liverpool higher than from New York to Liverpool.



$48,000 COMMONS

William Thomas White: Gold comes to the Mint by registered mail. So that from the Yukon it would come almost as cheaply as from points in the United States that are much nearer. If the silver production of Canada could all be exported to Great Britain, I think that my right hon. friend's point would be well taken. But, as the American market is an important market, he will see that there is more advantage in sending silver ore to New York to be refined and sold than in bringing it to Ottawa. I think that is what the deputy master of the Mint had in mind, and it was from him I got the information I am giving the committee. He pointed out also that private enterprise was engaged in the refining of silver, and he evidently had the view that was a consideration which should be borne in mind. Something, I have no doubt, has to be allowed for that. In addition to that, he pointed out, and I think with good reason, though it would not' be conclusive reason against the Government undertaking the operation, that the enterprise of silver refining on a large scale would require rather extensive operations involving a very costly plant entirely different in character from that which is utilized in the refining of gold which is of more limited quantity. These are the considerations which he laid before me and w7hich I lay before my right hon. friend and the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a
technical subject, and one that requires a good deal of information. Of course, the American market is a large consuming market for gold. A good deal of the gold refined in New York is consumed in the United States and perhaps as large a proportion of it goes to Europe. But the silver to-day is shipped to the United States in the shape of ore. The freight ought to be much more considerable, I should say, than if the silver were refined in Canada and exported in bars. This seems true on the face of it because there is a lprge proportion of dross shipped with the silver in the ore, and freight has to be paid on all. It may be that we are not prepared to^ put up so costly a plant as the hon. minister refers to, and it may be that the market here is not sufficiently large to justify us in doing so. But I hope the day will come, and sooner rather than later, when we shall refine our own silver and consume it ourselves.


William Thomas White: I
am glad to have the benefit of the views of my right hon. friend. This is a matter of much interest to the House and to the country and I shall be glad to pursue my investigations further in order to ascertain, if it be possible, whether the Government should undertake the refining of silver upon a large scale. This is a matter Sir WILFRID LAURIER,
of national importance, and I am entirely in sympathy with the view that, if possible, all refining of our own ores should be done in this country. This was drawn to my attention not long ago in connection with the question of export duty upon certain ores, and I found then that the question of a market was of supreme importance. The right hon. gentleman has rightly said that this is a technical question, but I desire to assure him that it has had and will continue to have my careful attention. I think that we are of one view and desire, that is, that this refining of our ores should be carried on in Canada. Our mineral production is increasing year by year in a most gratifying fashion, and I thiqk that that will be the history of the future as it has been of the past. It is obvious that having the minerals, our policy should be directed to the end of refining them here and doing everything we can to make them profitable.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon):: I am glad to hear the Minister of Finance give expression to hi.s sentiments in favour of the refining in Canada of the precious metals produced in the four corners of our country, and also to hear him say that our Mint will eventually absorb all the gold we produce. This is a matter of very considerable importance. There is no doubt in my mind that our Pacific Coast cities lost a large amount of trade-in the early days of the Yukon because we had not the means in Canada of handling our gold. Everyone knows that there is practically no profit in handling gold of the standard fineness; it is the same as trading sovereigns. But we found in the Yukon that where the miners sell their gold they are very likely to buy their supplies-within a well-defined distance. If a man sold his gold in Ottawa he might or might not buy his supplies in Ottawa; but if he were a miner in the Yukon and sold his gold in Seattle he would be pretty sure to buy his supplies in Seattle. That is, considering Vancouver as against Seattle, where the miner sold his gold he would be likely to buy his supplies, unless the tariff on the goods were of a prohibitive character. I desire to ask the Minister of Finance how he expects the gold that we shall produce from time to time to be absorbed, over and above what we are now able to absorb, having in view the very large amount of American gold which is found in the vaults of our banks and government depositories.


William Thomas White: We hope it will be refined and sold in gold bars. I gave some figures when the matter was under consideration before, showing that we had sold fine gold bars during the calendar year 1912, to the amount of nearly $300,000. That could be increased in-

definitely. I pointed out, I think before my hon. friend came to the House this afternoon, that we were establishing a refinery at the Mint that would cost possibly $50,000 to improve and Increase the work in connection with our gold refining.


Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: Do we
mint British sovereigns now?


William Thomas White: We did, but since we began issuing our Canadian gold coinage very few have been struck.	.


James Joseph Hughes: Do not they market
British sovereigns in the United States and generally at a premium?


William Thomas White: I think not, as against
American gold, for while American gold is not of the same fineness as the British intrinsically it is of the same value. There may he times when British sovereigns are more in demand on the% occasion of a stringency or in some similar condition, but I do not see why they should be at a premium there generally.


James Joseph Hughes: They are at a premium
there now, and I understand that that is generally, if not always, the condition.


William Thomas White: I have not directed my
attention to that point. I have no knowledge of it. I do not see why it should be so.


Wilfrid Laurier: For my part
I am quite sure if we were to coin our own silver, it would be- accepted in the United States just as currently as the coins of that country.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. George H. Perley (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce) House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 27, of the statutes of 1912, and to provide that whenever application is made to the Board of Grain Commissioners for the appointment of an inspecting officer or weighmaster, or both, at a place which is not a terminal point or a regular inspection point, the board, if satisfied that such an arrangement should be made and that the applicant is a responsible person, may order such arrangement as it deems proper, on condition that, besides the fees payable, the excess, if any, of the cost of carrying out such arrangement over the amount of such fees, shall be paid by the applicant in such manner and at such times as the board may determine; and that the provisions as to the inspection and weighing of grain, and as to the appointment of inspectors and weighmasters, and of any rules
and regulations made under the said provisions, shall apply at every place with respect to which such an arrangement has been made; and also that the annual license fee payable by the proprietor, lessee or manager of any terminal elevator shall be twenty-five dollars; the annual license fee payable by the owner of an elevator engaged in the manufacture of grain products in the western division, shall be five dollars; the annual license fee payable by the owner or lessee of a country elevator, shall be five dollars; the annual license fee payable by an applicant to carry on the business of gra_in commission merchant in the western division, shall be five dollars; and the annual license fee payable by any person to carry on the business of a track buyer, shall be five dollars.
(Mr. Bennett, East Simcoe, in the Chair.)
Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: There are at present only two places in western Canada where there is a full equipment for the inspection of grain, namely, at the cities of Calgary and Winnipeg. When the Canada Grain Act was passed in this House a year ago, I urged upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce, now absent, the necessity for his taking to himself or to his Government power to duplicate that equipment for inspection at any other place which the Governor in Council, the Minister or the Grain Commission should deem it advisable to do so. The minister said it would be a comparatively easy matter to have the Act changed from session to session or from time to time. In the city of Moosejaw it has been felt for some months -indeed, I might almost say for a year or two-that that city ought to be made a general inspection point. The policy of the present Government and the operation of the Grain Commission may result in the establishment in certain centres in the West of internal storage elevators, and in those elevators there will be stored grain which will be made the subject of security by the farmers, because it will have received its final inspection and gTade certificate will have been granted. But a final certificate as to the grade of the grain cannot be obtained unless there is available a full equipment for the purposes of inspection, and, as the minister is now amending the Act-, and especially as he is touching this very feature to which I refer, I think this would be the proper time for the Government to take to itself the power to create at any other point, as may be deemed desirable, a full equipment for the inspection of grain. I have reference especially to the Survey Board, which is the board of appeal, and is really the authority when any dispute arises as to the grade of the grain. I do not at this moment urge that the Government should establish a full equipment at Moosejaw or Regina or

any other particular point, strong as my views may ibe in that direction, but, as I have said, I think the Government should, under the Grain Act, take to itself power to create, if the occasion should arise, a full inspection equipment at Moosejaw or any other city, and that they should not have their hands tied in that regard. The Grain Commission nnder Professor McGill has carried on negotiations with the Board of Trade of the city of Moosejaw, as a result of which there may be a proposition, mutually agreeable to the Grain Commission and to the citizens of Moosejaw. by which an internal storage elevator shall be constructed in that city. In this case the trouble will be that the Grain Commission or the Government will say to the city of Moosejaw: We have no power to establish in your city a full equipment for inspection, because the Act specifies that this shall be done only at Calgary and Edmonton. I therefore strongly, yet respectfully urge upon the minister that he should endeavour to take such steps as I have advised; otherwise the hopes which are being raised in Moosejaw in this regard wifi never be fulfilled, because we cannot have an equipment of this kind unless the hands of the Government are free to act. The procedure involved in coming to Parliament for this authority is cumbersome and fraught with delay, and I think that in connection with this proposed amendment of the Grain Act there should be some provision whereby the establishment in other cities aside from those which are already grain inspection points-of the inspection equipment that we are so desirous of obtaining at Moosejaw will be made possible.
Mr. PERLEY; I think that so far as internal elevators are concerned, my hon. friend is unnecessarily alarmed. The matter of building internal terminal elevators is being considered by the Government at this time, and I hope to be able to make an announcement in that regard in the near future. Any internal terminal elevators built on the prairies will he constructed, as I understand the matter, under section 13 of the Canada Grain Act, which gives the Governor in Council power to authorize the minister to construct, acquire, lease or expropriate any terminal elevator after Parliament has granted the money for such purpose. The terminal elevator when built would come under the Interpretation Act, which covers any point declared by the Governor in Council to be a terminal. In other words, if it were decided to build an interior terminal elevator at Moosejaw, Regina or Saskatoon, this point would be declared by Order in Council to be a terminal; then it would be subject to the clauses in the Act which provide for the inspection of grain in and out of terminals, so I think that covers Mr. KNOWLES.
the point in connection with interior terminal elevators.


William Erskine Knowles: No.


Mr. PERLEY:: I quite, understand that
it would not provide inspection points without terminal elevators, but if a terminal elevator were built at any one of these places, provision is made in the Act for the inspection of the grain in and out of the terminal elevator at whatever point may be declared by the Governor in Council to be a terminal elevator.
Mr. KNOWLES; Does the minister mean that it would be feasible to have grain stored in a terminal and certificates granted four hundred miles away from where there is a terminal ? Would that be feasible ?


George Halsey Perley: I would be glad to talk this over with my hon. friend privately, but, as I understand, there is a provision in the Act in the clause with regard to terminal elevators under which all the machinery would be provided for weighing the grain in and out of interior terminal elevators. If Parliament granted the money for that purpose and if it were decided by Order in Council that any point was to have a terminal elevator, then the machinery would be provided under the Act for inspection and weighing of grain in and out of that elevator. If that is not so I am mistaken and I certainly think it should be corrected.


William Erskine Knowles: I would not be positive, but I think that it is distinctly limited to two cities which are both about the same distance from Moosejaw, four hundred miles, and, of course, further from other places. I submit it would be an anomaly, an absurdity almost, to have a terminal elevator at a place four hundred or five hundred miles away from where you have a survey board.


George Halsey Perley: Does my hon. friend say that if, by Order in Council, a city were declared a terminal, money provided by Parliament, and an interior elevator built at that point, that there is no machinery under the Act by which provision could be made for weighing grain in and out of that elevator by persons on the spot P


William Erskine Knowles: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Would the hon. member be good enough to look it up and let me have the reference in order that I may inquire into it before the Bill comes up for second reading. This is merely a resolution which would not affect the matter which the hon. gentleman is discussing.


William Erskine Knowles: I mean that there is no full equipment. There is provision by which men can be employed at any place directed by Order in Council who would

do inspecting, but the inspection to be of any use must be final and permanent and the inspection that such a man would do would be so obvious that the farmers themselves could do it. It is on the nice points that the inspection really makes a difference and it is only where there is a survey board that it is possible to have these fine distinctions decided.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina):: I wish to emphasize what my hon. friend has said. The Canada Grain Act, as I understand it, simply makes provision for terminal facilities at Calgary and at Winnipeg, and the point I wish to take, which has been already taken by the hon. member for Moosejaw, is that if the Government intend to establish interior storage elevators or terminal elevators at other points in the centre of the prairie provinces, some provision should be made for it in the Act. The Minister of Trade and Commerce referred to section 13 of the Canada Grain Act. I do not know what would be the proper construction to place on the section, but I know the intention in my mind when it was discussed before Parliament last year was that that section simply applied to terminal facilities at Calgary and at Fort William. That was the understanding I had and I think that is a proper construction to place on section 13 of the Act. Therefore, if we are to have terminal facilities at other places besides Calgary, Winnipeg and Fort William, some provision must be made for it in the Canada Grain Act, and the general impression is that there is no power in the Government to establish these terminal facilities properly as at Calgary, Winnipeg and Fort William. Notwithstanding that fact there have been a number of meetings held by the present Grain Commission in different parts of western Canada, I remember a meeting at Regina and I saw reports of meetings at Moosejaw, Saskatoon and Humboldt. I do not know whether the commission was properly reported or not Wht I know the impression was left in the minds of the people there that interior storage elevators would be established at every one of these places throughout Saskatchewan where the Grain Commission held meetings. Some of these people are going to be disappointed. The hon. member for Moosejaw has continually advocated on the floor of this House the necessity of some terminal facility at Moosejaw. Equal necessity exists at Regina and other places in Saskatchewan if we are to get the full benefit of the Grain Act.
I wish again to refer to the question of the necessity for increasing the fees as provided for in the resolution. I am not sure whether on the former occasion the minister gave us certain figures to substantiate the
necessity of raising these fees or not, but I have been informed on reliable authority that the administration of the Canada Grain Act, as far as the western division of Canada was concerned, did produce quite a considerable surplus during the last fiscal year. The amount given to me was some $57,000 but it was stated that the eastern division was run at such a loss as to necessitate the minister bringing down the present resolution increasing the fees for terminal licenses and elevator licenses in general throughout the western division of Canada. It is possible that I may have been misinformed but I call the attention of the minister to this fact that it is not out of the elevator companies that these fees will come; they must of necessity come out of the grain trade and therefore of necessity out of the pockets of the producers of grain because it is a well known fact that all fees charged and all freight rates must- of necessity come out of and be added to the cost of the production of grain on the prairie of the West. If 1 have been misinformed in regard to these figures I would like to have the correct information from the minister, because if my information is not correct there is a misunderstanding in regard to the matter.


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry to say that I have not the figures as between the East and the West. I suppose that they could be obtained but the Canada Grain Act is being administered by the Grain Commission as a whole. The information given me regarding this increase of fees is as follows:
The fee of $2 does not yield enough to pay for the cost of printing the licences and forms, mailing them and the rules and regulations, and recording them in the office. The elevators have hitherto been administered through the warehouse commissioners office and the license fees were the only source of revenue. The result was that the office showed a large deficit every year. If the grain department is to pay its way the license fees must be increased.
So far as the increase of the fee from $2 to $5 would affect the price paid by the elevator or the track buyer, it seems to me that it need hardly be considered.
I doubt very much whether it would affect the price a fraction of a cent.


William Erskine Knowles: The hon. minister
asked me if I could refer him to the section referring to the Grain Survey Board. The sections are Nos. 101 and 102. Section 101 provides for the way in which the grain is inspected.


Mr. McKAY:: Do these sections not deal more with appeals?


William Erskine Knowles: Yes.


James McKay: As they stand now would they not be sufficient for the purpose of establishing a terminal elevator at Maose-jaw or at. any other point?


William Erskine Knowles: It is true that the sections referred to do apply to cases under appeal, but to the other questions of my hon. friend I would say no. It is not feasible to have twelve gentlemen, _ some of whom live in Calgary and some in Winnipeg, 400, 500 or 600 miles away from the seat of the terminal elevator, dealing with the matter in contention.


James McKay: I understand my hon.
friend to say that it would foe impossible to have a new terminal at Moosejaw or at the other place unless the Act was changed. It may be inconvenient and impracticable, but it is not impossible.


William Erskine Knowles: I did not say it was impossible. The Act provides that a terminal elevator could be established at Moosejaw or at Prince Albert, but it is an absurdity to think of establishing one at either of these places when the Survey Board is so far away. I will read section 101:
Whenever, in a division or district from which a grain survey hoard has been appointed, the owner or possessor of any grain inspected therein is not satisfied with the inspecting officer's grading of such grain, he may appeal therefrom to the chief inspector, who shall view a proper sample of the grain respecting which the grading is in dispute, drawn or secured in a manner satisfactory to him, and give his decision thereon, which shall be final unless the owner or possessor, within twenty-four hours after receiving the notification thereof, makes further appeal to the grain survey board for the division or district, in which case the said board shall give a final decision to settle the grading of the grain in dispute; but nothing in this section shall prevent the owner or possessor of the said grain appealing directly from the inspecting officer to the said board, whose decision in all cases shall be final and binding on all parties, and the inspecting officer shall issue a certificate accordingly. If the owner or possessor so desires he may call for a fresh sample to be drawn by the inspector for use on re-inspection or survey, the expense thereof to be borne by the applicant, and in case it be drawn for the purpose of survey it shall be sent to the secretary of the said board.
The next sub-section is in regard to cases in which there shall be no further appeal, and the third sub-section deals with the cost of appeal. Then section 102 reads:
The grain survey board for the division shall consist of twelve persons, of whom six shall be nominated by the Board of Trade of the city of Winnipeg, two by the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Manitoba, two by the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Alberta, and two by the Commissioner of Agriculture for the province of Mr. KNOWLES.
Saskatchewan. The competency of the persons so nominated must be approved by the board.
The next sub-section of this clause provides that the board may make further regulations, and the third sub-section has reference to the taking of the oath. Section 103 deals with the by-laws, and section 104 is the same as 102, providing for an office in Winnipeg and another in Calgary. It would be a simple thing for the minister to make a provision not that the survey board should be either at Calgary or Winnipeg or Moosejaw, because we must prove the merits of our claim to have a board at each of these cities, but to see that the Government's hands will not be tied. I do not think it is out of the way to ask that.


George Halsey Perley: I think I understand now what my hon. friend means. He is referring entirely to the survey board, which is the court of appeal in respect to the inspection and weighing of grain. If the Government by Order in Council decided to make Moosejaw or Saskatoon, or Regina a terminal point, the clauses in this Act from 122 on, relating to terminal elevators, make provision for the manner of inspecting grain at such elevators. If there was an appeal from the inspection, that appeal would have to go to Winnipeg. This question has never been raised before, but I ask my hon. friend, would it be possible to have an effective system of appeals with a lot of different appeal boards? How are we going to get consistency in inspection unless we confine ourselves to one or two appeal boards? If there were a terminal elevator in the city represented by my hon. friend, and there were provision there for weighing and inspecting the grain-as a rule I suppose that the inspection is satisfactory and that there are not many appeals-if there were appeals from the inspection at that terminal elevator, would it not be better to have them go to the board to which went the appeals from other elevators? Would it not be better to have the boards of survey limited to two, for instance. Would the system not be much more perfect to havb the grain from all parts of the West graded in the same way?


William Erskine Knowles: No, I think not. It
would be just as easy to get a competent board in the wheat cities, as in Winnipeg or Calgary, perhaps easier.


George Halsey Perley: Is it a fact that there are not many appeals?


William Erskine Knowles: I think the percentage of appeals is small, speaking off hand, but I repeat that the cases that are of moment and that require authentic inspection are the cases that are appealed. That is the point I wish to make. I think that the fact that we have two boards already disposes of the precious doctrine of uniformity. If we have two boards we might as well have

three. At Moosejaw we might have a -better board than the one at Calgary, because Moosejaw is in the wheat country, and the board there would be less apt to make mistakes than the boards in Calgary or Winnipeg. At Moosejaw we have a population more familiar with the grain situation than the population of the two other cities.
There is another point to which I wish to call the attention of the minister. I would refer him to section 57, sub-section 2 of the Act, which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act that may conflict therewith, sample markets may be established in the cities of Winnipeg, Tort William and Calgary, and the mixing of grain permitted in connection therewith, under such rules and regulations as are recommended by the board and approved by the Governor in Council.
I wish to press upon the minister and the Government the necessity of having the same provision placed in the Act here as I advocated in connection with the survey board. Parliament thought it wise that sample markets should be established at Calgary, Winnipeg and Fort William. If that appeared to be wise, then I say it would be just as wise to establish one in any other city than Winnipeg, Calgary or Fort William. I come from Moosejaw, a city in which there is far more justification for establishing a sample market than in the city of Calgary, and I will tell the minister wh}^. If a sample market has any effect it is because there are buyers to patronise it. Any hon. gentleman who comes from the prairie provinces will agree that the buyers in the sample market will be the Americans from Minnesota.


Mr. SCHAFFNEE:: Why was it placed at Calgary and Winnipeg?	,


William Erskine Knowles: Because the Government submitted that in the Bill, we passed it, and there was no way by which we could prevent it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I understand it was because grain going west would go through Calgary and grain going east would go through Winnipeg.


William Erskine Knowles: I think that was the reason, but I submit that that reason had not been thought out to its logical conclusion. I think that everybody who comes from the West will agree that the Minnesota buyers are the people who are fondest of the sample market, and who like to buy on that market. They are accustomed to it, they have formed that business habit in their own country and if ever a sample market is a success it will be because it is patronised by the Americans. I submit that Moosejaw is the place where a sample market would supply the Minnesota people very much better than would the city of Calgary. It is a city having direct railway
connection with St. Paul and Minneapolis. We have four passengers trains daily between Moosejaw, St. Paul and Minneapolis, and there are freight trains in great numbers every day. It is a direct line, and it is at a city like Moosejaw that a sample market should be established. There is no reason why the Government should not take power to itself to establish sample markets at any place that circumstances might justify their establishment. There is more justification for a sample market at Moosejaw than at any other place on the prairie because of the railway facilities between that place and the two great milling cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis. I would press upon the minister that, when he is amending this Act, he keep in mind the desire of the city of Moosejaw for a sample market.


George Halsey Perley: I shall be glad to take
the matter into consideration.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBEO (North Grey):: I would like to call the attention of the hon. acting Minister of Trade and Commerce to an abuse that has arisen in connection with hospital elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. I am told that the intention of the hospital elevator was to take care of and cure damaged wheat. I understand that there are eight or nine -elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur licensed as hospital elevators with the result that they may take in any kind of grain, damaged or otherwise, and mix it to their heart's content. Then, under section 124 of the Act, they are entitled, in fact, the grain board is compelled to give them, a certificate for whatever grade the inspector thinks right. In the ordinary elevator there is a strict account kept of all the grades of wheat that go in and at the end of the season you are able to check out and compare the grades they have sold as compared with the grades they have received, and see whether they have kept an accurate and honest account. The effect of licensing these elevators as hospital elevators is practically to vitiate all the sections of the Act. The hospital elevator may have ninety per cent of damaged grain, it may mix it with straight grade grain and then it is entitled to demand of the inspector a certificate of the product -of -the elevator whatever it is. I have had the complaint made to me that dozens and dozens of cars have come down to eastern Ontario certified as straight grade wheat by the inspector, although this grain was the product of the hospital elevators. Great damage .has been done the eastern millers by reason of the operations of the hospital elevators. They say that if there are to he hospital elevators they should keep some account of the wheat that comes into their possession and compare that with the wheat that is turned

out. Then, further, they say that they should be allowed to sell by sample and that the inspector should not be compelled to give a straight grade certificate. I would like to call the minister's attention to this matter because it seems to be a very serious defect in the Act. It appears to permit that to be done which it was the intention of the Act to prevent.


Mr. McCEANEY:: These hospital elevators are, under the Act, terminal elevators, I understand?


William Sora Middlebro: Under the provision of the Act, as I read it, every hospital elevator is a terminal elevator. That is the peculiar feature of the Act, because the Act says:
' Hospital elevator ' includes every elevator or warehouse which is used for the cleaning or other special treatment, of rejected or damaged grain and which is equipped with special machinery for that purpose.
Any terminal elevator which treats a little damaged grain is a hospital elevator. If the word 'only' were inserted after the word 'grain' it could be restricted. But under the Act it would appear that any terminal elevator is a hospital elevator, and vice versa.


Wilfrid Laurier: Section 124
reads as follows:
There may be such number of hospital elevators as are determined by the board, which shall be governed by such regulations and restrictions as are imposed by the board.
I would imagine that the board could make regulations to prevent the very thing of which my hon. friend complains. If there has been any mixing of grain to the detriment of the public, I am surprised that no report of it was made to the minister. It seems that the case is covered by the Act and that the matter can be regulated.


William Sora Middlebro: There have been no regulations made. If my right hon. friend looks at subsection 3 he will see that it reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, .	.
grain which is being shipped out from a hospital elevator shall, at the request of the owner or possessor thereof, or of his authorized agent, be inspected and graded and the grade so arrived at shall be the grade thereof.
It nullifies all the other provisions of the Act,


Wilfrid Laurier: It can be inspected and graded, but I would suppose that the inspection would be regulated by the board itself.


George Halsey Perley: I would suggest to my
hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middle-bro), that, if he would be good enough to write a letter to the department, I will Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
see that it is sent to the Board of Grain Commissioners with a request to have the matter investigated.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: When the Bill was under consideration the possibility of what my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro) complains of occurring was brought to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It was urged upon his attention that the Act should make provision to prevent just what has occurred. The grain that goes into the hospital elevators for treatment is, under this section, graded as it comes out without regard to its having been treated. The contention from this side of the House was that grain, which had gone into an hospital elevator for treatment, should be earmarked as having been treated. The present provision in the law has proven to be injurious to the trade and it vitiates to a great degree the attempt of the Act to prevent mixing of grain. I would urge the minister to take the matter up with the grain commission, and if the facts are established, as I believe they are, opportunity should be taken this session to make the necessary provisions that grain which has gone through an hospital elevator shall have the fact of its being treated grain stated on the certificate.


William Sora Middlebro: Either that or it
should not be given a government certificate.


Frank Oliver: Whatever the commission may decide is the proper thing to do may be done.


George Halsey Perley: Last summer there was a great deal of damaged grain which could not be treated at the ordinary hospital elevator, and to help the owners of that grain the Government allowed an American floating drying elevator to go to Port Arthur for a certain length of time to treat that Canadian grain. The grain did not belong to the floating elevator; so much a bushel was paid for treating it by the owners. When that grain was treated by the elevator and came out, if the inspectors knew their business and put it in the proper grade, is it fair to the owners of the grain to have that grain earmarked as having been treated? If it is earmarked as treated grain, it seems to me the farmers in the northwest would suffer eventually. Does my hon. friend think that his idea would work out in that case?


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman is
putting up the case of the dealer who owned the grain when it was treated against that of the miller or consumer who buys the grain after being treated. We want to do everything we can to give the holder of western grain the best price he can reasonably get for it so that the farmer from whom he buys may also get the best price. But the

whole purpose of the Grain Act is to prevent grain passing to the ultimate consumer under false pretences as to its quality, believing that in the end the initial producer will suffer because of that. The contention is that this treated grain is graded without certificate as being treated grain, but that is only part of the story. The essential part is that the whole purpose of the Act as contained in these other sections, which are directed against the possibility of mixing different grades of grain, are rendered ineffective so far as these hospital elevators aTe concerned, because under this unrestricted section mixing can be carried on in connection with these hospital elevators to an unlimited degree. The possibility of mixing is introduced in contravention of the whole spirit of the Act.


William Sora Middlebro: I point out the inconsistency between section 124 and a portion of section 107, which portion reads:
No. 3 wheat and lower grades rejected for smut and scoured shall be graded as scoured of the grade to which it belongs:	Provided
that wheat which is inspected No. 3 northern scoured, or lower, may be graded in such regular grade, not higher than No. 3, as the inspector determines.
That shows that No. 3 going into any other elevator can never come out more than No. 3; but No. 3 going into an hospital elevator can come out as No. 1 Northern hard, and the inspector is bound to give a certificate irrespective of the fact that it went into the hospital elevator.


Mr. BORDEN:: Suppose wheat that had not been damaged would have graded as No. 1 Northern but it gets damaged and has to be dried; I would like to know whether or not the methods of inspection applied to this wheat which has been so dried are sufficient to reveal the precise and actual damage it suffered by having got wet, so that that damage can be taken into account in giving the inspection certificate.


Frank Oliver: The inspection having
been made only as to the exterior of the grain, it does not reveal the fact that the grain has suffered internal damage by reason of having got wet and having been dried. That militates against its ultimate milling value. The grain has suffered a permanent damage by reason of its condition which it does not altogether recover from intrinsically, although it does in appearance; I think that is an established fact. But it is not because of the ineffectiveness of the inspection of the treated grain as giving information to the miller, that the great objection is. It is because it is as though every door were closed against mixing except in the hospital elevator, and there the doors were
thrown wjde open; and the result is that it is not only the treated grain that is affected under the inspection, but all the efforts of the Act to prevent mixing are affected so far as grain that can be put through these hospital elevators is concerned.
Mr. W. -M. MARTIN (Regina):	I am
glad to hear a complaint coming from an Ontario man, the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) with respect to the marketing of western grain. It has appeared to me sometimes to be the idea of a number of members in this House that the representatives from the West ventilate their grievances too often. Apparently, there are grievances regarding the marketing of western grain which affect the people in Ontario. I would suggest to the hon. member for North Grey that he urge upon i?e	Minister and the Government
the advisability of carrying out one of the promises made to the people before the last election, that is, the promise of the Government ownership of terminal elevators. I can well remember a resolution moved by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) who at that particular stage in his political career was very active in urging the interests of the farmers of western Canada. It was to the effect that the Government should acquire, by expropriation or otherwise, these elevators. That resolution was voted for by every member in the House who is now in the House supporting the Government. I could quote to the House the number of statements that the right hon. Prime Minister made when he took his western tour in July, I think it was, 1911. I remember hearing him at the meeting in Regina, and a very good meeting it was too. He used the expression that if his party were returned to power, and forced to undertake the responsibilities of the Government of this country, they would proceed to take over the terminal elevators. There are also men in western Canada, like the hon. member for Souris, the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) and others who surelv are not satisfied with the Government's fulfilment of that pledge. For we find that all the Government has done up to the present time is to prepare to make one terminal elevator, I thought at Fort William, but I see in ' Hansard ' that it is given as Port Arthur-in any case, at the head of the lakes. And they are proposing an appropriation for a contract to build .an elevator on a piece of land of thirty-seven acres which they have acquired. I saw also the report in the Regina Province of a speech of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) at a banquet last June, in which he said that before the crop moved for 1912, the terminal ele-

vator was going to be completed. I am not repeating what I saw in Liberal newspapers, but I can show that statement reported in the Regina Province, a Conservative newspaper and one that is very active on behalf of this Administration^ I do not wish to open this whole question about terminal elevators, but there must be members from western Canada who are not satisfied with the fulfilment of the Government pledge on that subject. I find in the manifesto issued by the Prime Minister before the last election, this:
The control and operation by the state of the terminal elevators.
But the policy of the Government is apparently to control and operate one elevator at Fort William or Port Arthur. I would refer to the statement made by the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Perley) in answer to a question to the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Mc-Craney):
Has the Government under contemplation the establishment of a terminal elevator system under Government control?
Mr. Perley:	We are building a large elevator at Port Arthur at the present time for the purpose of controlling the rates, to a certain extent at all events, and so on. The further construction of elevators at Fort William has not been considered up to the present time.
So, apparently, it was considered before this Government came into power in 1911, but according to the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, it has not been considered since during all this time. So, I suppose, that all they intend to do to fulfil the pledge they gave in 1911 in regard to the ownership of terminal elevators is to build and operate one elevator at Fort William.
There is another question I would like to raise, and on this point the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce will correct me if*he finds me wrong. According to my information, a man named J. P. Jones has been appointed to the Grain Commission. Is this correct?


George Halsey Perley: There is a question on
the Order Paper relating to that. It would be better to let it stand until the question is answered.


William Melville Martin: I may not be present
when the question is answered. My information is as I have stated, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong. Mr. Jones has been appointed to take the place of Mr. 'Gribbs, retired. I wish, on behalf of the people I represent, to enter a strong protest against that appointment. In 1910 -


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. gentleman
must know that, as the minister has taken Mr. MARTEN (Regina).
the objection, be is not in order in discussing the subject.


William Melville Martin: I did not understand that the minister objected, Mr. Chairman; 1 understood that he simply declines at this time to answer. I submit that I can give my reasons why Mr. Jones should' not be appointed. I may not have an opportunity again. Will the Chairman allow me to proceed? I will only take up a minute or two of time. In 1910, four elevator companies were indicted before the late Police Magistrate Daly in Winnipeg for mixing grain. These were the Consolidated Elevator Company, the Port Arthur Elevator Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Elevator Company and the Empire Elevator Company. The Port, Arthur Elevator Company was fined $2,500. The Empire Elevator Company was fined $3,000 on six separate charges of mixing grain, all proved before Magistrate Daly. And who was the manager of that Empire Elevator Company at the time? No other person than this Mr. Jones who is now appointed to a responsible position on the Grain Commission, a commission which should be above reproach. How do you expect the people of western Canada to have confidence in a Board of Grain Commissioners of that kind? Here is a man whose company was actually fined when he was its manager in 1910.
Mr. PERLEY- I do not think this is. exactly a proper time to discuss this matter. The information will be brought down in due time in answer to the question on the Order Paper. But it is hardly fair tc allow the matter to rest with an imputation on the character of Mr. Jones-


William Melville Martin: I did not attack his
character-


George Halsey Perley: Then, I would like to
know what the hon. gentleman meant.


William Melville Martin: -but his business
methods.


George Halsey Perley: It is true that Mr. Jones was manager or superintendent of that elevator company at the time. But he was never! prosecuted;1 his name was never mentioned in the case; he was not fined, nor was any fault found with him in connection with the matter.


Mr. NESBITT:: But he was the manager.


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend is usually very fair. He will hardly discuss this matter without having full information with regard to it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No.


William Erskine Knowles: With regard to the matter of Mr. Jones-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: We are considering
the resolution now, not the Bill. This matter could be taken up on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but on the consideration of the resolution I think that a discussion as to the merits or demerits of Mr. Jones is out of order, and I so rule.


George Halsey Perley: We will give hon. gentlemen on the other side an opportunity of discussing this matter at some other time.


Wilfrid Laurier: When?


George Halsey Perley: It would be difficult to name any particular time at the moment.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why not now?


William Erskine Knowles: I do not wish to debate the matter, but, as the Government has not announced the appointment of Mr. Jones, we are justified in assuming that he has not been appointed. I was going to read an official document regarding the Empire Elevator Company, and to place it on record for the information of the minister before he arrives at a decision with regard to Mr. Jones.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Surely this is not the proper time to discuss such a matter. It can be taken up upon the motion to go into Committee of Supply, or when the estimates of the department come up for consideration, but, as I understand the rules, it cannot be dealt with now.


Frank Oliver: If it is permissible to discuss your ruling, I wish to point out that this is a resolution which vests in the Grain Commissioners certain important appointments and certain important authorities. The Grain Commision is to decide where and when special inspection is to be allowed, and, I presume, is to decide also what expenses are to be assessed against the applicants before that commission. The whole question as to the merits of this resolution hinges upon whether the members of the Grain Commission are the men who should be entrusted with this serious responsibility.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Would that not be
more properly referable to the discussion of the Bill? I may be wrong, but it is my impression that upon the consideration of the resolution such a discussion should not be entered into; when the Bill based on the resolution is introduced, the discussion is wider.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. member will agree that it would be proper, and probably no more than fair, that this subject should be discussed only when all the information in connection with this matter is before the House. There will be no delay in bringing that information down,
and every opportunity will be given to have the matter debated to- any extent to which hon. gentlemen may desire to discuss it. If we divert the discussion upon this resolution to a debate upon an appointment which may subsequently be made, it seems to me that we are wandering from the subject. Mr. Jones' appointment does not, in the slightest degree, depend upon this resolution. If it did, there might be some reason for debating it now, but even in that case I am of the opinion that it would be better to deal with the matter when all the information is before the House.
Mr. MoORANEY: When this resolution was before the House a few days ago, I made an inquiry of the hon. acting Minister^ of Trade and Commerce as to the policy of the Government in regard to terminal elevators. He gave a short answer; I presume it was as complete a reply as his information on the subject enabled him to give. The Minister of Public Works made a very important announcement at Regina before the Saskatchewan elections in regard to the establishment of a government terminal elevator at Fort William. We have had no announcement in this House in regard to the matter, and while I make no objection to important announcements being made outside of the House, I think that when Parliament assembles we should have a complete statement with regard thereto, and, I do not think the statement made by the hon. acting Minister of Trade and Commerce was as complete as it should have been. The Prime Minister has suggested that the discussion of certain matters pertaining to this subject be deferred until the second reading of the Bill, and I would ask the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce if he will be prepared, when the second reading comes up, to inform the House as to the intentions of the Government with regard to carrying out the pledges made before the last election, and as to the progress they have made in that regard.


George Halsey Perley: I am unable to give a
definite answer to my hon. friend at the moment but as soon as the matter has been definitely decided it will be announced.
Mr. MoCRANEY:	Perhaps when we
come to the second reading my hon. friend will have fuller information.


Mr. J. A. ROBB:: It seems to me that the word hospital ' is not a very happy one in connection with the Grain Act. The main object of inspection, I think, is to get a fair deal for both the buyer and the seller, and to obtain as much as we can for the Canadian grain which is exported from this country. I think the word ' hospital ' is not the best word that could be used in connection with the treat-
*9127

ment of grain at the terminal elevator points. I would like to ask the hon. minister if any modification has been made in the policy of the Government with regard to the moisture tests on corn. Complaint has been made that the moisture test regulations made by the Government have interfered very considerably with the grain traffic through Canadian ports.


George Halsey Perley: A deputation made up
.of dealers in and shippers of corn came here from Montreal some time ago and laid this matter before the department. I made an investigation regarding it, and received several letters on the subject from various dealers in corn. We came to the conclusion that the section of the Act which made it necessary that, the moisture tests on corn should be used with regard to United States corn being shipped through this country for export was probably a mistake. I have not a full statement regarding the matter before me to-day, but there is a section in the Bill which will follow this resolution, repealing section 109 of the Grain Act, under Which it has hitherto been necessary to apply the *moisture tests to United States corn going through our ports for export.


William Erskine Knowles: The view I take of this resolution depends a great deal on what I think of the board. The legislation we propose in this resolution says that the board may determine so and so, and I, as the representative of 135,000 people of the West, feel it my duty to find out something about those to whom we are giving authority so to determine. I find myself very much in the dark when the Government declines to tell us who compose the board, and whether the board has its full complement or not. I do not raise the point for the purpose of debating ycrnr ruling, Mr. Chairman; whether I think your ruling is right or wrong, I am sure it is given after a long parliamentary experience, and that it is honest and sincere. But I feel very much handicapped in the matter because, although there is much in this resolution with which I cannot quarrel and which I might desire to support, I am opposed to the resolution so long as the appointments are under the control of a board over which there hangs so serious a cloud of suspicion. *Further, we must vote without even the information as to who composed the board, and when the minister is asked whether a man of the common name of Jones is a member of the board and refuses to give the answer it is another form of gag. The minister cannot deny that it is a reasonable request to ask whether Mr. Jones is on the board or not. But he says he will not give that information and for the moment he has the power and we will have to bow to it.
Mr. ROBB.
I want to read what the right hon. the Prime Minister said at Portage la Prairie in 1911. I shall read it very deliberately in order that the Prime Minister may hear it clearly. He said:
I have arrived at

Not I am coming, mind you, but I have arrived.
-at the conclusion

Not at the suggestion or the guess or anything, but at the conclusion.
I have arrived at the conclusion that the result can only he attained

Mark you, he states can only be attained; there is no other means of attaining it.
-that the result can only be attained by
state control and operation of terminal elevators.
By ' state ' I presume he means, not provincial authorities, not the Imperial authorities, not the Right Hon. Mr. Winston Churchill; he undoubtedly means the body created by the British North America Act, this Parliament.
-by state control and operation of the terminal elevators.
You will mark the plural. If it came to a quibble, and I do not accuse the Prime Minister of quibbling, but it is ' elevators,' not ' elevator.' He is not going to reach a solution of this difficulty by purchasing 37-2 acres of land near Fort William, it is by acquiring elevators, not by buying land.
We trust to carry out that policy without delay if returned to power.
Let me dwell on these two words ' without delay.' You know there has been a good deal of contention about the exact meaning of the speedy construction of a navy, the dispute arising on the interpretation of ' speedy.' We here have the words ' without delay.' The Prime Minister delivered that speech many times in the Northwest and travelling around through our beautiful prairie provinces he had plenty of time to think just what he would say, and he used the words ' without delay ' time after time and after mature consideration as to what words he should use.
Let me now read the whole extract in order that it may sink in:
I have arrived at the conclusion that the result can only be attained by state control and operation of the terminal elevators. We trust to carry out that policy without delay if returned to power.
Twenty months have gone by, and ' without delay ' stares the Prime Minister in the face. At Battleford the Prime Minister clinched the whole thing by these words:
If it should be the will of the people of Canada to impose upon me the great respon-

sibility of being called upon to form a government in Canada, and after that government has been formed, the policy I have outlined will be carried out by the Government as I have stated, or one_ man of the Government will go out of public life.
The right hon. gentleman on that occasion told the people that he was born a British subject, had lived a British subject and would die a British subject, and many-other things which did not concern them very much ; we will be able to find all that information in an encyclopedia forty years hence. But they did take a most abiding and vital interest in the promise to construct elevators without delay and they -naturally had a right to take him at his word when he said: When I get into power the policy I have pointed out will be carried out or one man will go out of public life in Canada. Let us realize once for all that the Prime Minister of this country occupies a responsible position and that promises made by him cannot be lightly broken. The people of the West have one hundred and fifty million or two hundred million dollars worth of grain to put through the -elevators every year. The Prime Minister pledged himself that it was not only his firm intention to carry out his promise, but if that promise was not fulfilled he would go out of public life :and here after more than twenty mouths, twenty-two months, it will be two years in two months, the Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing. I say it with all respect, in the way of obtaining control and operation of terminal elevators. If we are going to renew and extend the powers of this board under the Grain Act, when we have this feature of our legislation before us, our grain legislation, it is fair to ask the Prime Minister what he intends to do about these promises now, promises that he has not carried out ' without delay.' I wish for the sake of my constituents, he would enlighten us on the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no doubt that the twenty months to which my hon. friend has alluded, or the twenty-two months-for his arithmetic is not much better than his logic-have seemed very long to my hon. friend, therefore I do not at all complain of his bringing to the attention of the House the observations to which he has alluded, and which he seems to have treasured up in a bound volume. I hope he will commit its contents to his memory because The quotations which he jnade from it were very much the better part -of his speech. I would point out that, in the very first session in which this Government met Parliament, we made provision for building a three and a quarter million bushel state-owned ' elevator at Port Arthur, that the contract was let for that
a good many months ago, the building is now under construction and, as I understand the elevator is expected to be ready to receive this season's crop. Under those circumstances I could hardly expect my hon. friend to admit that there has been a fair beginning but I know that if he would look over some of the records of the past, to which I shall not do more than allude, he would be convinced not only that it is a fair beginning but that it is a very good, a very excellent beginning. My hon. friend before the close of the session will find that we will be prepared to make some advance upon that policy this year. State-owned elevators were very much in demand in the western part of this country for the reason that the people thought that they were not getting fair play in the inspection and the certificating of their grain. It was urged that certain evils and abuses that were spoken of very often in this House could be brought to a conclusion by a system of state-owned elevators better and more effectually than in any other way.
I was impressed and many hon. gentlemen in this House were impressed with that view. Perhaps the subsequent record with regard to the efficiency of grain inspection may, to a certain extent, have modified the views of some hon. gentlemen in this House with regard to the absolute necessity of state-ownership- but whether that be so or not we did proceed at the very first session when we met Parliament to make a respectable beginning of that policy which is being carried out to-day. When my hon. friend speaks of delay I would ask him to contrast the progress which we have made in respect of the pledge to which I have alluded with the progress which was made in some fifteen years of' the period when his party were in power.


William Erskine Knowles: That is easy.


Frank Oliver: My right hon. friend
wishes to contrast the progress which was made in fifteen years by the late Government with the progress that his Government has made in less than two years. The difference is that there was no promise made before the fifteen years, and there was a promise made before the two years. My right hon. friend seems to consider that the commencement of the fulfilment of ten per cent of a promise is a fulfilment of the whole promise. I ask him how long he expects his Government to remain in power?
Mr. BORDEN. About twenty-five years.


Frank Oliver: My right hon. friend just about gives the time. It will take twenty-five years at the present rate to fulfill that promise. I do not think that will be considered satisfactory by the people who are



interested in the Government operation of elevators. I am sorry to see my right hon. friend and his followers treating this matter with such levity. The question of the handling of the great source of annual wealth of this country, and of the economical handling of it so that that product will reach the markets of the world in the best condition, is in itself important, hut surely the promise of the leader of the Government of Canada is even more important and is^ something that should not be treated with levity. The promise not only has not been made good, but there has been no indication during the eighteen months that have elapsed since the Government came into power of any intention to make it good.
_ You have ruled, Sir, that this question of the personnel of the grain commission is not a fair subject of discussion at this particular stage, but I would like to say that in my humble judgment the presentation of the resolution which provides for the fixing of fees and for the placing of a special and hitherto non-existent authority in the hands of the commissioners is the time when the merit of those commissioners should properly be discussed. However, I do not wish to insist upon that, for I quite appreciate the difficulties of the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. We do not wish to press it at a time that wmuld be inconvenient for him, but I think the Government should recognize that the question of the personnel of the commission is an important question.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: It is an important question in relation to this resolution and to the Bill which is based upon it, and it would be in order for the Government now to let us know at what time it would be convenient to bring forward such views as we may have in regard to the personnel of the board.


George Halsey Perley: We shall be very pleased to do what my hon. friend suggests. We will give him some day next week for that purpose.


Frank Oliver: Would that opportunity
be on the Bill, or at some other time?


George Halsey Perley: I do not think it would make a great deal of difference, but we can arrange that later. I have not the papers [DOT]here at present in connection with the matter, but some day next week the question can be discussed, either on the second reading of the Bill or in some other way. I will undertake not to move the second reading of the Bill until we are in a position to discuss the matter referred to by my hon. friend. This Government has taken great pains and will continue to take great pains to see that good men are appointed on this commission. We realize thoroughly the Mr. OLIVER.
importance of the matter to the people of the Northwest, and in fact to all the people of Canada who deal in grain. My hon. friend must acknowledge that this Government is doing very much more than his Government ever did in connection with this matter. Last year we put through the Grain Act. I quite agree it was brought in originally iby hon. gentlemen on the other side, but we put it through last year with some changes with the view of doing everything possible to regulate the trade in the interests of the people who raise the grain. Then we have spent a million and a quarter dollars for the purpose of building an elevator at Port Arthur. It is all very well for my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knbwles) to say we built only one elevator.


William Erskine Knowles: You have ory started one.


George Halsey Perley: We are building one large one, but if we had built two or three smaller ones my hon. friend would have been contented? He would not be contented no matter what we did.


William Erskine Knowles: I guess that is right.


George Halsey Perley: There is nothing like a
frank acknowledgement.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not think you
could do what is right.


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend would
hardly say that except for the purpose of partv advantage. I think when he goes outside he will acknowledge that we are trying to do what, is right. In addition we are giving consideration to the important question of storage elevators in the interior, and we propose to do something in that regard this session. I do not suppose it will' be satisfactory to my hon. friend (Mr. Knowles), but we have the matter under consideration and we intend to make a beginning, in respect to that important question, and before the session closes we will bring down to the House a statement with regard to it.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend the minister made one Temark which requires a little analysis. He said that the late Government should have it laiddo its discredit that during the fifteen years it was in power it did nothing for the farmer in marketing his grain. If the hon. minister did not think that I meant that his Government could do nothing right-of course they do some things right, and my hon. friend is all right, but he has not charge of the department and is lost, and some of the other departments are not all right-I do not think he meant what he said about the late Government. When the Lioeral party came into power there was no Manitoba Grain Act at all. The farmers were leaving the

Northwest Territories because of the difficulties, one of which was the unfavourable conditions under which they marketed their grain. My hon. friend knows that there was no legislation to .protect the farmers when the Liberal Government came into power in 1896. I remember an old-time farmer, a political friend of the hon. Minister of Public Works telling me once of what happened when he went to the elevator, and his remark was: ' Man I was even thankful to get away with my team and wagon.' The fact remains that the only grain legislation that appears in the statute-book to-day is Liberal legislation. When our hon. friends opposite came into office, they took the very legislation we were trying to put through when the obstruction occurred in 1911.


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend will acknowledge that we improved it.


William Erskine Knowles: You may have put in a comma or a semi-colon, but I do not -know of any point which you improved. My hon. friends opposite tried tiheir level best to ruin it. They took away from the farmer that which he had fought for year after year and which he dearly treasured above all the regulations of the Manitoba Grain Act. They endeavoured to rob the farmers of the equitable distribution of cars. By strength of numbers they voted through this House legislation taxing away that right. It is only because of the much abused Liberal Senate that the farmers enjoy the much-treasured right of an equitable distribution of cars. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister seems to be less an advocate of Government control and operation of terminal elevators now than he was in 1911. He says that certain things have come to light which have modified his views. The Prime Minister, when he made that tour through the prairies, said to the people, in gravity and seriousness, that if he was returned to power he would give them without delay government operation and control of terminal elevators. Let him say what he likes, he has not answered that point. To-day he seems to be less along the pathwa5>- leading to government control and operation of terminal elevators than ever because he says that certain things have occurred which have modified his views. We expected that when he started on that pathway he would go right along, but he has gone backwards. He is like the man that Goldsmith tells us about who, going along the road, becoming tired and wanting to rest himself, jumped upon the back of a cart going the other way. The right hon. gentleman does not speak in the certain terms which he had employed in 1911, but he rather talks about modifying his views. Surely he shall tell us
289J
frankly what his views in 1913 are. I can only express on the floor of Parliament, and on behalf of my constituents, the disappointment which they feel that he has not carried out what they believed to be his intentions in 1911.
Kesolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. PERLEY moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 192 to amend the Canada Grain Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Consideration in Committee of Bill No. 21, to authorize measures for increasing the effective Naval Forces of the Empire- Mr. Borden-resumed from April 8. (Mr. Bennett, East Simcoe, in the Chair.)
On section 2:
From and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada there may he paid and ap-lied a sum not exceeding thirty-five million dollars for the purpose of immediately increasing the effeetice naval forces of the Empire.
William Thomas White: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to add anything by way of argument to what I said upon the occasion on which this section t>f the BiU was last under discussion. But I desire to confirm a statement which I then made as to certain remarks by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, which was challenged by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who, I am sorry to say, is not in his seat to-day.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: He is here, but outside of the House.


William Thomas White: Speaking upon this section in committee on the 8th of April, I said:
In the speech delivered by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill on the last day of March, with respect to the proposal of the Government to give three dreadnoughts for the purpose of immediately increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire, he said:
The three ships were absolutely required for the whole world defences of the British Empire apart from England. They would play a real part in Imperial defence, and, if they were not forthcoming, steps would have to be taken to fill the gap and the strain of the burden would have to he placed upon others.
Speaking in reply previously to ' six o'clock upon the afternoon of the same day, the hon. member for Red Deer, as appears from 'Hansard' said:
My hon. friend says that Mr. Churchill said that these ships were absolutely needed. I do not think he did. It is rather a bad
*9135

fault if he did so because I should say that, if Mr. Churchill ,had said that, my hon. friend would have produced a very strong argument for changing his opinion and asking the House to do so. Has my hon. friend the full text of Mr. Churchill's speech?
Mr. White: The quotation I gave is from the press
Mr. Clark: Was it from the full text of his speech ?
Mr. White:	It is given in the Montreal
Star in quotation marks and in a special cablegram or correspondence.
Mr. Clark: We all saw that and those of us with a little more experience than my hon. friend did not believe it. If Mr. Churchill had said that Britain absolutely needed ships from Canada lie would have contradicted everything that every British statesman of wit has been saying for the last three years. On the face of it, it was absolute nonsense. Now, I will tell imy hon. friend what Mr. Churchill did say. The nearest approach he made to saying anything like that was this.
Mri White: What date is that?
Mr. Clark:	This is the full text of his
speech as reported in the London Daily News and Leader of March 27.
It is obvious that I was referring to the speech which the Right Hon. Mr. Churchill delivered on the last day of March. My hon. friend from Red Deer, who I am glad 'to see is now about to take his seat, had in mind the speech of the right hon. the First Lord of the Admiralty delivered on Marsh 27, or probably on March 26, and reported in the London Daily News and Leader of March 27. Then my hon. friend read the article from the issue of that date. As my hon. friend has now taken his seat I should like to call his attention to what I first stated he had said in the debate on April 8. These are the words of my hon. friend taken from 'Hansard'-I *repeat them:	i
My hon. friend says that Mr. Churchill [DOT]said that these ships were aJbsolutely needed. I do not think he did. It is rather a bad fault if he did so because I should say that, if Mr. Churchill bad said that, my hon. friend would have produced a very strong argument for changing his opinion and asking the House 7to do so.
My hon. friend went on to introduce [DOT]certain pleasantries and amenities as to inexperience to which I have no exception to take. In the evening after the House resumed, my hon. friend continuing his speech, said:
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance had not been on his feet for five minutes when he produced a profound impression upon the benches opposite, and how did he produce that impression? By reading a document. He read words and attributed them to Mr. 'Churchill, words which Mr. Churchill never uttered, which anyone who knew anything about English statesmen or anyone who knew anything about this question, knew he could not have uttered. I had read the cabled communication which misled my hon. friend the Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
Minister of Finance, and the moment I read it, being comparatively an experienced parliamentarian, I knew at once that it was a garbled thing, and that Mr. Churchill could never have said what was attributed to him.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: Does my hon. friend now wish to contend that in reference to that cablegram these were exactly the words that Mr. Churchill used?


William Thomas White: I read, before my hon.
friend came in, the precise words which I used stating that they were taken from the Montreal Star as of a day or so previously. I have placed before the House the precise terms of the despatch; I do not desire in any way to misrepresent the situation.


Michael Clark: Does the minister declare
that the words in that cablegram are exactly the words that Mr. Winston Churchill used?


William Thomas White: I have Mr. Winston
Churchill's precise words here and I will allow my hon. friend to judge for himself. My hon. friend from Red. Deer continued:
My bon. friend said that Mr. Churchill said these ships were absolutely needed. I do not think he did. It is rather a bad fault if be did so, because I should say that if Mr. Churchill had said that, my hon. friend would have produced a very strong argument for changing bis opinion and asking the House to do so.
Here is the report I read in the evening and word for word; it is in 'Hansard' as I can show.


Michael Clark: In 'Hansard'?


William Thomas White: In the official Hansard of the British House ' of Commons, which I have now before me. Here is the report I read in the evening:
Both these views seem to me to be equally wrong and equally harmful to our interests, and I must repeat that the Canadian ships are absolutely necessary for the whole world defence of the British Empire from the end of 1915 or from the beginning of 1916, onwards.
Then I quote from our ' Hansard ' what followed on my reading this:
Mr. Murphy:	To whom is the cable addressed?
Mr. White: To the Right Hon. R. L. Borden.
Mr. Clark:	The words which my hon.
friend has just read are not the words he used this afternoon. I do not know what is the authenticity of this cablegram, any more than I know what was the authenticity of the previous cablegram, but I am bound to say that I shall be very much surprised if Mr. Churchill ever used those words, because they would be an impeachment of himself, and a contradiction of everything that has been said by every other British minister. If Mr. Winston Churchill contradicted everything that has been said by bis own Cabinet and by himself for the last three years, then I shall put the speeches of the whole of the Cabinet

against that statement, even supposing it was uttered. But I shall want further confirmation of those words before I believe that he ever said that those ships are absolutely ne-ctssary. The quotation this afternoon was, of course, from a cablegram which I believe, was gai bled foi the purpose, and which was sent if 1. am not mistaken, by ' Windermere/
I have here the official parliamentary debates of the House of Commons of Great Britain of March 31, 1913; in other words, the English Hansard, and I desire, in confirmation of the report which I read to the House from the Montreal Star, and as to its very wording, a confirmation of the cable, a part of which 1 read to the House on the evening of April 8, last, and as to which my hon. friend from Red Deer stated he would require further confirmation, because it was in contradiction, he said, of everything that had been said by the right Hon. Winston Churchill and the cabinet for many years past. I desire to read from the English Hansard the statement made by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill upon March 31, and my hon. friend will recall that I stated I was reading from what the Right Hon. Winston Churchill said on March 31. At page 87 of the English Hansard I quote from Mr. Churchill:
It is necessary, however, to make it clear that these three ships under discussion in Canada are absolutely required from 1916 onwards for the whole world defence of the British Empire, apart altogether from the needs of Great Britain in home waters; that they will play a real part in the defence of the Empire, and that, if they fail, a gap will be opened to fill which further sacrifices will have to be made without undue delay by others.
My hon. friend says that what I originally quoted was a garbled thing; I will quote what he described as a garbled thing. It is this:
The three ships were absolutely required for the whole world defence of the British Empire apart from England. They would play a real part in Imperial defence and if they are not forthcoming steps will have to be taken to fill the gap and the strain of the burden would have to be placed upon others.
I will read again the words of Winston Churchill from the British ' Hansard,' and you can contrast them with the citation I gave from Mr. Churchill on April 18:
It is necessary however, to make it clear that the three ships now under discussion in Canada are absolutely required from 1916 onwards for the whole world defence of the British Empire, apart altogether from the needs of Great Britain in home -waters; that they will play a real part in the defence of the Empire; and that, if they fail, a gap will be opened to fill which further sacrifices will have to be made without undue delay by others.
The Right Hon. Mr. Churchill goes on to say:	i
i
With these facts in view. I ask the House-seriously : Is it not unwise for some people-on one side of the House to say that the Canadian ships are redundant, superfluous a"! an unnecessary burden-(Hon. Members:	Noland is it not equally unwise for other people on the other side to say that they ought to be i-edundanr superfluous, and an unnecessary burden. Both these views seem to me to be equally wrong and equally harmful to our interests, and I must repeat that the Canadian ships are absolutely necessary for the -whole world defence of the British Empire from the end of 1915, or from the beginning of 1916 onwards.
These are the precise words that I quoted from my cable. Mr. Churchill continues :
The fact that they are necessary is no measure of their value. Their value far exceeds the value of three ships. We can build three-ships ourselves if necessary. Parliament has never refused to supply the money for that which responsible ministers have considered necessary for the proper discharge of the responsibilities of the Cro-wn. It is the fact of' this great new nation coming forward, with all its measureless strength and possibility to testify to the enduring life of the British Empire that has already produced an impression throughout the world of more value than many ' dreadnought ' ships, an impression which throughout the world conduces both to the safety of this country and to the peace of nations.
I shall lay this ' Hansard ' on the table of the House in order that what I have read may be checked by any hon. gentleman who so desires. At page 74 of the British ' Hansard '-and this refers to the argument that was advanced that Britain was not in a position to build expeditiously the three -additional ships-at page 74 of the British ' Hansard ' of Monday, March 31, the Right Hon. Winston Churchill says:
I hope, therefore, it will be understood that there is no difficulty, either in accelerating our own ships if necessary, or in placing contracts for the construction of these Canadian, ships which are now under discussion in Canada. This can all be done without any interruption, either of our existing building programme or of the construction of foreign vessels now constructing in our yards.
I said upon rising that it was not the intention to add anything to the arguments I advanced on the last occasion this. section was under discussion in Committee. I rose merely for the purpose of confirming the statements which I then made-and which were challenged by my hon.. friend from Red Deer, in order that it may. appear on the records that what I stated' on that occasion, both in the afternoon and in the evening, was in accordance with the facts.


Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland):: I have listened with considerable interest to the Minister of Finance, but really whether the Right Hon. Mr. Churchill used the words-

he attributed to him or whether he did not, does not in any way, to my mind, affect the situation as it exists at present in	Canada.
The issue between the two parties in this Parliament and throughout the country is not whether England needs these ships, or whether or not these ships should be built. We on this, side of the House agree with hon. gentlemen opposite that Canada should take her place as one of the dominant dominions of the Empire in the naval defence of the Empire. We on this side of the House are equally willing with hon. gentlemen to vote this amount of money which is suggested, or any other amount of money which may be necessary in aid of the naval defences of the British Empire. We say that Canada, as a self-governing dominion, within the Empire, rising to the state of nationhood, should herself establish a navy within her own borders manned by her own men, maintained by her own Parliament, to aid in the Empire's naval defence, and floating in the waters surrounding this dominion. Now,_ there has been, perhaps, enough said in reference to the building of these ships in Canada. 1 think it is pretty generally conceded throughout Canada that we are commercially capable and capable from the point of view of intelligence and skill, of building ships, if not perhaps, dreadnoughts^ at the present moment, at least ships which are equally as valuable to the British navy as dreadnoughts are. For, hon. gentlemen opposite must remember that the British navy is not made up of dreadnoughts only. The British Admiralty is building continually a class of cruisers which may be built in Canada just as well as in the United Kingdom, which cruisers are equally valuable with dreadnoughts as aids to the British navy.	,	.
Now, Sir, there is another question m regard to this matter which has not yet been dealt with to a great extent since this Bill came into committee. It was dwelt upon to some extent when the resolution was under discussion and on the second reading of the Bill, hut it has not been much discussed in committee. I refer to the manner in which this money is to be expended. The Government proposes that Parliament should vote $35,000,000, handing it over to the Government to be used in the aid of the naval forces of the Empire. There is nothing in the Bill which states how that money is to be expended. Hon. gentlemen opposite, the right hon. Prime Minister and others, have said that they will build three dreadnoughts. But there is nothing in the Bill -which provides for the building of three dreadnoughts. It is suggested that these ships will be built. But we are to hand that money over to the
Government to do as they please with, and after the money is placed in the hands of the Government, Parliament is absolutely debarred from any consideration as to the manner of its expenditure. If the Minister of Railways and Canals were to come down to Parliament this session and say: It is estimated that the new Welland ship canal will cost for construction about $45,000,000, and the work will take about five years to complete; I would like Parliament to vote that amount of money for that purpose; is there any hon. gentleman within the sound of my voice wlho would say that Parliament should vote that money for the minister to use as he saw fit in building that canal? It would never be thought of. Hon. gentlemen opposite would not support such a proposition. This year the minister says that $2,000,000 is about all that he will spend during the present fiscal year, and consequently he proposes a vote of that amount toward the construction of the canal. Next year, when Parliament meets, that money having been expended-and the expenditure is subjected to the investigation of the Public Accounts Committee- if the money has been properly and judiciously spent. Parliament will be prepared to vote a further sum to be handed over to the minister for the continuance of the good work for another year. That is the way parliamentary government in Canada has always been carried on, ever since the Family (Compact was broken in 1837. The fact that in those days the Governor in Couneil provided for and managed the people's money without the people's approval and without the people's concurrence was the cause of a rebellion in this country. That was the cause, and the only cause, of the rebellion of 1837 in Upper and Lower Canada, the Governor in Council endeavouring to control the affairs of this country to the extent of spending the people's money without the people's representatives having a voice in that expenditure. Sir, we thought those days were ended; we thought that the foundation stones of responsible government had been planted so deep in this country that no one would attempt to move them. But we are coming back to the same thing again. What does this Bill provide for? To place in the hands of the Governor in Council $35,000,000 to spend at their own free will, without Parliament having a word to say about itj. Sir, that is not in accordance with Liberal, views, it is not in accordance with respon-i sible government as understood in this country. And I say that is one of the questions which are vital questions in this instance; and so far as I am concerned, that is one of the questions that interests me more than the expenditure of the money and more than the building of the dreadnoughts. So far as I am concerned, I am
Mr. GERMAN.

quite prepared to join hon. gentlemen opposite in the expenditure of $35,000,000 to build dreadnoughts, but we will build these dreadnoughts under the control of Parliament, Parliament directing the expenditure of the money. We have at this moment on the statute books of Canada an Act called 1 The Naval Service Act/ and I ask the right hon. the leader of the Government if he cannot under that Act, with the approval of Parliament, do everything he is asking us to do under this Naval Aid Act? I have prepared three questions which I propose to ask my right hon. friend. The first question is, can Parliament under the Naval Service Act appropriate $35,000,000 or any other sum for the construction and equipment of battleships or armoured cruisers of the most modern and powerful type for the purpose of immediately increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire ? I ask my right hon. friend if under the Naval Service Act this Parliament has not the power to appropriate $35,000,000 or any other sum for the construction of dreadnoughts ?


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend will
proceed to propound his various questions, it will be much more convenient to answer them afterwards.


William Manley German: I apprehend that there
can be only one answer to the question. Can we not, under the Naval Service Act of Canada as it exists at this moment, appropriate $35,000,000-


An hon. MEMBER:: What do you think ?


William Manley German: I think we certainly can. If the hon. Minister of the Naval Service had' asked Parliament, under the provisions of the Naval Service Act, to appropriate $35,000,000 for the construction of battleships-which he had a perfect right to do- Parliament could have appropriated that amount of money, or a lesser or greater sum. I want it to be distinctly understood that the matter we are discussing is not whether or not Canada shall aid Britain; we are all agreed in that. The question is how shall it be done. Shall it be done by the Governor in Council, or by the Parliament representing the people of Canada ? The second question I would ask is this: Can the Government, under the Naval Service Act, with the approval of Parliament construct or have constructed, such battleships or armoured cruisers in Great Britain, in Canada or elsewhere ? There is nothing in the present Naval Service Act to prevent the Government, if Parliament votes the money, from having these ships built in Great Britain. The late Government advertised for tenders for the construction of these ships in Canada; there was nothing to prevent them from having the ships built in the Old Country, and there
is nothing to prevent this Government from having the ships built in England if the Parliament of Canada should appropriate the money for that purpose. Third, can the Government, under the Naval Service Act, with the approval of Parliament, place such battleships or armoured cruisers, when so constructed and equipped, at the disposal of the British Admiralty ? No one can deny that, under the present Naval Service Act as it stands on the statute-books of Canada, this can be done. We can vote the money, we can build the ships, and we can place them at the disposal of the British Admiralty under such terms and conditions as Parliament shall approve. Why, then, the necessity for the Naval Aid Act ? If under the Naval Service Act you can do everything that is contemplated by the proposed Naval Aid Act, why introduce the Naval Aid Bill ? That absolutely passes my comprehension; I do not know that anyone has suggested an explanation of it, and before this Bill goes through committee- at any rate until I am gagged-I intend to insist on getting an answer to that question. We must have an explanation from the right hon. Prime Minister as to why he is endeavouring to force through this Parliament an Act to be placed on the statute-book side by side with an Act under which he can do everything contemplated in the present Bill. There must be some reason for this; my right hon. friend is too astute a lawyer not to know that, under the Act as it stands, he can do what he proposes to do under the Naval Aid Act. Why is he introducing this Bill? I hope he will tell us, but I fear he will not. My right hon. friend has been charged in this House-and he has not yet denied it-with having entered into a positive agreement with the Nationalists of Quebec to repeal the Naval Service Act. If he does not give us some reason why he is endeavouring to force this Bill through Parliament, we will have to believe, and the people of Canada will believe, that he has made such an agreement with Mr. Bourassa and his Nationalist friends. If hon. gentlemen opposite want to find out what the opinion of the people in the province of Ontario is, let them dissolve this Parliament; they will get their answer, sharp and decisive, and it will not be an answer altogether pleasing to them. We say that the reason why this Government is endeavouring to force this Bill through Parliament is because the Prime Minister has entered into an agreement with the Nationalists of the province of Quebec that he will repeal the Naval Service Act. He feels bound to do something in aid of the naval defence of the Empire, he so eloquently and intelligently, so strongly and emphatically supported that proposition in

1910 that he must now do something in aid of naval defence.	Consequently he
brings in a Bill under which when it becomes law, the Governor in Council shall control the expenditure of the money, shall control the ships after they are constructed, and shall place them in charge of the British Admiralty under such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may agree.


Mr. BOYCE:: Is the hon. gentleman willing to vote for the appropriation of $35,000,000 for the purchase of three ships, as is proposed under the Bill now before the House?


William Manley German: My hon. friend is, I am sure, not so obtuse as he endeavours to show himself to be. I am certainly not willing to vote for the expenditure of $35,000,000 under the proposed legislation now under consideration, but I may tell my hon. friend that I will vote for the expenditure of such amount of money as may be considered sufficient to build dreadnoughts under the Naval Service Act as it stands on the statute books of this country at the present moment, and so will every other member on this side of the House. Let them drop their Bill, let them drop their Naval Aid Act, iniquitous as it is, and let the Minister of Marine bring down to Parliament an appropriation for the construction of - battleships and then he will see whether or not the two sides of the House can get together and get together right quickly. These hon. gentlemen talk about unanimity. It would be an excellent thing to have unanimity, it would be a grand object lesson to the nations of the world if this great Parliament of Canada could join together and stand up unanimously and say: We will vote $20,000,000 or $30,000,000 in aid of the naval defence of the Em'pire. 'Sir, that would be a grand object lesson to the nations of the world, and that, Sir, we are prepared to do, but we are prepared to do it under the control of Parliament and not under the control of the- Governor in Council.


Mr. SEVIGNY:: Is my hon. friend of
opinion that, under the Naval Service Act of 1910, we could spend $100,000,000 to improve the naval forces of the Empire?


William Manley German: I am of the opinion that we could spend $100,000,000 or any other sum. It is for Parliament to say how much money we would spend, absolutely, that is our position. Under our policy Parliament will appropriate the money, the Government will have control of the expenditure of the money and Parliament will have control of the ships after they are built.
Mr. GERMAN.
At six o'clock, House resumed and then took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PEIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 174, to incorporate the Beaver Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Munson. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 21, to authorize measures for increasing the effective Naval Forces of the Empire.-Mr. Borden. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
William Manley German: When the committee
rose at six o'clock, I was dealing with the proposition that there should be no expenditure of public money in Canada except under parliamentary control and parliamentary supervision. This afternoon the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to the remarks made by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill as to the need of Canada supplying Great Britain with ships. I said then, as I say now, that whatever Mr. Churchill may have said in that regard has nothing to do with the issue as it stands to-day between the parties in Canada. I apprehend that the remarks of Mr. Churchill were made not in the spirit of necessity. If he made them at all,-and I do not intend to deny that they were made, he made them, not from the point of view of necessity but from the point of view that there was a need of unanimity. He was referring to the spectacular proposition that Canada should aid the Empire in naval defence and pointing out that that need existed. I tell hon. gentlemen opposite that in my opinion that need does exist. In that view I agree with Mr. Churchill. A need exists that all parts of the British Empire should unite in a policy of naval defence, and Canada being the brightest gem in the British Empire should be the first to make the move in aiding Great Britain in the naval defence of the Empire. With that I agree, and I believe that every hon. gentleman on this side of the House, as well as every hon gentleman on the other side, agrees with that. As I said before dinner, it is not a question of the desire to aid; it is a question as to how we should aid.	*
The bottom principle in the province of Ontario, in the old province of Upper Canada, was responsible government and parliamentary control over public expenditure That was one of the things that brought about Confederation, that and representa-

tion by population. For that principle, Mackenzie, Baldwin, George Brown, coupled with Papineau, Lafontaine and Dorion, fought for years. That is the principle which is dominant to-day in Canada, and that principle cannot be subverted and overthrown. But that principle this Government is endeavouring to subvert and overturn. The first attempt in that direction after Confederation was made in the province of Ontario in 1870, by John Sandfield Macdonald, he being then Prime Minister in a coalition government in that province. He moved and put through the legislature an Act appropriating $1,500,000 in aid of railways, and placing that money in the hands of the ministers of the Crown to be expended by Order in Council without reference to the legislature. The Hon. Edward Blake was leader of the opposition at that time, and he took issue with that policy as being subversive of all Liberal principles from time immemorial. An election was fought on that principle in Ontario m 1871 and the John Sandfield Macdonald's Government was defeated. That issue, we thought, was laid aside and that it would not rise again. What aid we find? 'Last session the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) introduced the Highways Bill. The Bill was absolutely perfect in itself excepting clause 6, which stated that the Governor in Council could spend the money provided for at his own sweet will wherever he liked to spend it. That was the clause which the Senate threw out and that is the clause which embodies exactly the principle which is embodied in this Nava] Aid Bill to-day. The Minister of Railways has reintroduced that Bill with that clause in it, and I may tell hon. gentlemen opposite, and we might as well understand where the issue lies and in what it consists, that he cannot get that Bill through Parliament so long as Liberal instincts dominate. This Bill of the right hon. Prime Minister cannot pass this Parliament so long as Liberal instincts dominate Parliament, whether it may be in the Senate or whether it may he in the House of Commons. Liberals in Canada will not stand to hand over to the Government, whether it be Liberal or Conservative, any sum of money to be expended at the will of the Governor-in-Council without the inspection and supervision of Parliament. There, it seems to me, is the clear-cut issue between the two parties on this ' question. The right hon. leader of the Government has twitted us and has said on several occasions:	You have voted to appropriate
$35,000,000. So we have, and we intend to vote for it again. I intend to ask, in the amendment which I propose to move, that the right hon. gentleman shall also vote for it and that he shall vote for it with
the rider that the money shall be expended under the approval of Parliament. If we do that we can all get together under one flag. As the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) says we will all run together like the horses of the sun, but we will run together under the Liberal flag of parliamentary control of public expenditure. When we have adopted that principle we will all be together. The amendment which I propose to move is:
That clause 2 be struck out and that the following he substituted therefor: Upon appropriations in that behalf being from time to time made by Parliament, there may be paid and applied from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada a sum not exceeding $35,000,000 for the purpose of speedily increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire.
I have used the word ' speedily ' instead of ' immediately ' because the word ' speedily ' was coined by the right hon. Prime Minister himself. He insisted that the word ' speedily ' should be put in the resolution of 1909; so, in deference to his superior wisdom and knowledge in that particular, I use the word ' speedily ' in this amendment which I propose. But the crux of this amendment is in these words [DOT] upon appropriations in that behalf from time to time made by Parliament.' This Opposition will vote all the money that is necessary to maintain the supremacy of Great Britain and tc ensure that the white ensign shall float the seas supreme. I will for one; I will give you $35,000,000, or $100,000,000 if you need it, or if Great Britain wants it. So will every hon. member on this side of the House. There is no difference of opinion in so far as that part of it is concerned. I am saying that simply as an illustration of our idea of what may be necessary. We know full well that it is not necessary. My right hon. friend said there was an emergency. The emergency is a long time coming. Wherein does it exist? Great Britain is perfectly capable of taking care of herself. She is as supreme to-day as she always was and she will remain supreme for years to come. Speaking for myself, what I would like to see would be the Government of Canada appropriating a liberal amount of money for building ships. Perhaps the first ones might neces" sarily be built in England, although I do not know about that. We can build them here, but at all events, I would like to see Canada building ships and manning them with our own young Canadians.
You never can build up a Canadian navy until you begin. Hon. gentlemen opposite had the nucleus of one when they came into power. They had the naval college established with our own young men attending there. Some of them are in

England now, and I am happy to say that they are standing right up to the mark with
all the English cadets at the naval college there. Have your naval college here, have your training ships here and build up the nucleus of a navy. Begin now. Why delay? If you ever intend to have one why not begin now? You might as well begin now as ten years from now. You will be no better off ten years from now than you are today. Then, I repeat, begin now. Vote the money, build the ships, establish your naval college, provide your training ships, start in as a nation intending to support the British Empire. You will do more in aid of the British Empire by doing that than you will by sending $35,000,000 over to England.
Everyone knows that England does not need the money. That is too -selbevident to be discussed. The right non. Prime Minister said that the Government of England want $35,000,000 to help them in building battleships. They would say: All right, we will take it if you like, but we do not need it and we do not want it. Everyone knows they do not want $35,000,000; what they want is the sentiment in Canada which is behind the $35,000,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Manley German: That is what they want,


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is what they are going to get.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Manley German: I am glad to hear hon. gentlemen opposite cheer that. They want the sentiment behind the money.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: They will get it.


William Manley German: They will get it in this way: if you hon. gentlemen on the other side will simply drop this idiotic Bill and say: under the Canadian Naval Service Act we will vote $35,000,000 and build ships-


Mr. BARKER:: Why do you not vote it?


William Manley German: You have on your statute books at the present time an Act which allows you to get the money. You want this legislation simply because you want to control the money by Order in Council instead of by Parliament. You say it shall be done by Order in Council and we say it shall be done with the approval of [DOT]Parliament. Let any man opposite challenge that statement if he can, we are absolutely behind a rock of impregnability in that. The Prime Minister has got the ability of any hon. member in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Manley German: Yes, he has the ability of any man in this House, and let him Mr. GERMAN.
get up if he can and challenge my statement as to the distinction between the Naval Service Act and the Naval Aid Act. There is no difference between the two except that the Naval Aid Act says that this money shall be spent by the Governor in Council and that the ships shall be under the control of the Governor in Council and handed over to the British Admiralty on such arrangement as the Governor in Council may make, whereas the Naval Service Act says that the money shall be expended under the control of Parliament. We will vote any money needed to aid the British Empire; we will give our life-blood for the Empire; we will stand by the British Empire very much longer than the blatant gentlemen on the other side of the House who shout loyalty and do nothing. I beg leave to move as an amendment to the amendment already before the House:
That clause 2 of the Bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:	_
On appropriations in that behalf being from to time made by Parliament, there may be paid and applied from and out of 'the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada a sum not exceeding $35,000,000 for the purpose of speedily increasing the effective, naval forces of the Empire.
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (St. John City): I do not intend to inflict a speech upon the committee just at present, but I want to correct a statement which the Minister of Marine made as to the cost of building battleships in the United States as compared with the cost of building them in England. The object the Minister of Marine had in view was to convince the people of the country that it would cost a vastly larger sum of money to build war vessels in Canada than it would cost to build them in England.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I rise to a point of
order. Is the hon. gentleman speaking on the amendment to the amendment?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: If my hon. friend will listen he will be able to judge for himself. The argument of the Minister of Marine was along the line taken by the Prime Minister that it would be the height of folly for Canada to undertake to build war vessels in this country, to attempt to create shipyards and a shipbuilding industry here, when at vastly less cost the vessels could be secured in England. The hon. gentleman sought to leave the impression that the battleship Pennsylvania was going to cost the Government of the United States $17,000,000. I quote from the Scientific American of the 15th of March, 1913, and I think every hon. member will agree that among the many able journal^ in America none is more reliable and to be depended on in scientific matters than is the Scientific American. The article states:	.	-j- t'Mi
[DOT]9149

Bids for building the Pennsylvania-Of the, three best bids for the construction of our latest battleship, the Pennsylvania (the largest ship authorized or1 under construction), made by the (Newport News, the New York Shipbuilding and the Pore River Company, that of the Newport News yard of $7,255,900 was the lowest and the contract has gone to that firm. The total cost of the ship when completed, with guns, armour and equipment, will be $14,172,000. The Pennsylvania was described in a recent issue in which her dimensions were given as 600 feet between perpendiculars, 625 feet over all, 397 feet beam and draught 29 feet. The maximum full load displacement will be 32,500 tons. She will be the largest, best protected and most powerful ship afloat on the day of her launching.
Those are statements which I believe can be absolutely relied upon. As I under-' stand it the vessel of the super-dreadnought type which this Government proposes to have built in England, is to have a displacement of 28,000 tons in stead of the 32,500 tons o,f the Pennsylvania. And the figure given by the Prime Minister as to the cost which this Government expected to pay for the building of sudh a vessel in England, if I remember rightly, was $13,500,000 or $13,700,000. I give the figures from memory, but I think I am near the mark. Now, we have here the warship Pennsylvania of 4,500 tons greater displacement which will be constructed at the shipyards of Newport News at a cost, completely equipped, with armour-plate guns, everything necessary in order to start the warship afloat, of $14,172,000, a difference of something less than seven per cent as compared with the cost of the cheaper war-vessel to he built in England. This, I think, will establish the statement which I have made and for which hon. gentlemen on this side of the House contend generally, that if we go forward with courage, with a courage which will be worthy of the Canadian nation, we shall be able to establish in the very near future shipyards in Canada upon the Atlantic and the Pacific, where all the war vessels which will he required for the Canadian navy, and which will be able to take their part in defending onr coasts and also in defending the Empire, can -be built within a very few years at a very little greater expenditure than will be paid out by the Government if these ships are built in England. At the same time, we should be creating a great ship-building industry in this country, we should give employment to Canadian labour, and we shall do something worthy of our Canadian people and in which our Canadian nation will take a just pride.


Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Like my hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley) I have no intention at all of inflicting a speech upon the House. And I should not have
spoken at all at this stage had not it been that the hon. gentleman has attempted, and unfortunately for himself with very little success, to throw doubt upon the figures which I gave to the House with regard to the cost of the battleship Pennsylvania now -being constructed by the Government of the United States. But before I take up that subject, I desire to refer to another. The hon. gentleman has dwelt, time and time and time again in the course of the one hundred and one speeches which he has made on this subject in this House, upon the wonderful success of what he calls the Fore River Shipbuilding Company of the United States, which he visited and which he has held forth to this House, time and time again, and over and over again, as a notable example of the speed at comparatively small cost with which a successful ship-building company could be built up in the United States, and by inference, according to his reasoning, could be built up in Canada. Listening to the hon. gentleman's remarks as I have done time and time again, one would be led to believe that the Fore River Shipbuilding Company -was one of the most successful enterprises of modem time. Can hon. gentlemen who listened to the eulogies which the hon. member -for St. John spoke upon this great company believe that that company which he has held up to the admiration of the House as the acme of perfection in everything in ship-building has actually gone into liquidation? In case any hon. gentleman may have any doubt on that score, I wish to read some extracts from a magazine known as Shipping Illustrated, published in New York and from the issue of that paper of May 3:
The sale of the Fore River Shipbuilding Company to the Bethlehem Steel Company is the solution of a problem which had for some time been puzzling the wiseacres among the shipping and shipbuilding trades,

Among them, I suppose, is to be enumerated my hon. friend.
-who wondered how long the first-named concern would be able to hold out without financial reorganization in -the face of the losses which it was known to have sustained in connection with recent contracts for commercial work, not to mention the two Argentine battleships, Rivdavia and Moreno, originally intended to be delivered in the middle of the year, and which are still lying at the fitting-out wharfs in Quincy, Mass., and Camden, N.J.
The House will remember how the hon. gentleman told us about this company having secured the contract in competition with English ship-building companies, and in competition with ship-building companies all over the world. They did secure the contract, but the result has been very disastrous, and these ships, which should have

been delivered months ago, are still lying there in an unfinished condition.
The circular addressed to the stockholders of the Fore River Company by the directors states that ' being aware that the completion of certain existing contracts -would in the near future leave the company with its working capital seriously impaired to such an extent as to necessitate financing (they) have learned with satisfaction of an arrangement made by the stockholders' committee acting on the initiative and suggestion of the directors and representing a very large proportion (over 80 per cent) of both preferred and common stock to sell property of the company to the Bethlehem Steel Company, which assumes all its obligations and takes all its assets. The ' certain existing contracts ' are well known to our readers as the two white elephants which the Fore River Company contracted to build for the Argentine Government in 1S>10. The securing of these contracts -was looked upon at the time in the lay press as a masterpiece of American diplomacy and business acumen. Naval constructors and ship-builders, however, looked upon these contracts as one of the most ill-advised steps ever taken by a large industrial concern, and now that the last instalment due before delivery has been paid by the Argentine Government, the ships being still a long way from completion, the contractors are compelled to turn over their property to the ordnance sub-contractors, the Bethlehem Steel Company, in order to save what they can of their investment before the final wrangle expected to take place when the ships have gone -through the trials.
And the editor adds:
The pitiful sequel to the flapdoodle which filled the columns of the press at the -time the Fore River Company naively assumed the contract with the Argentine Government at which the largest European naval construction firms had looked askance.
There is more, but I will not take up the time of the House to read it. I think I have read enough, however, to show the House that the foundation the hon. gentleman so elaborately built up with regard to the ease with which ship-building yards could be provided in Canada by the example of the Fore River Shipbuilding Company	of	Quincy, Massachusetts, has
crumbled as the result of the deplorable financial condition in which that company finds itself at the present time. My hon. friend says he did not rise for the purpose of making a speech; it was very kind of my hon. friend to be so self-denying in that respect. He said he rose only for the purpose of showing how incorrect-that, if not the actual word, was what he said in substance-were the figures I quoted to this House as to the cost of building the battleship Pennsylvania in the United States. The figures I gave to the House on that occasion I desire to give again, and I wish to say that those figures were correct then, and, as I repeat them to the House now, they Mr. HAZEN.
are absolutely correct. My figures were taken from the official records of the United States as to the estimated cost of the ships per ton, as shown by the proceedings of the Committee on Naval Affairs on January 3, 1913. They were submitted to the Committee on Naval Affairs by Admiral Knut, the chief director of the United States navy. If my figures are wrong, then the official figures laid before the Committee on Naval Affairs of the Congress of the United States are wrong, and I do not think that was the ease. I mentioned the battleship Pennsylvania, of approximately 31,000 tons. I said that the total estimated cost of that ship, according to those figures, built in a navy yard- which in the United States is considered to result in a superior form of construction, was $16,345,275. If my hon. friend will refer to page 348 of that return, he will find that the estimated returns regarding the battleship Pennsylvania are presented according to the figures I have quoted. I also gave other figures to the House; I said that if the ship were built according to an eight-hour day schedule, the cost would be $15,043,803, the figures in detail being: construction and maintenance, $7,800,000; equipment, $110,000; armour and armament, $7,133,803, a total cf $15,043,803. If built in one of the navy-yards of the United States, in which it is claimed that the vessels built are of better construction than those built by contract, the cost would be as follows: construction and maintenance, $9,750,000, equipment, $110,000; armour and armament, $6,485,275, a total of $16,345,275, or an estimated cost of $527 per ton. At the same time I gave figures with regard to a battle cruiser, but as my hon. friend has not referred to them, it will not be necessary for me to deal with them at the present time. I have here a letter from a prominent official at Washington-whose -name I cannot now disclose, but I may have the privilege of giving it later-in which he says:
On page 348 of the enclosed you will find the estimated cost of the battleship Pennsylvania of approximately 30,000 tons. She is now being built in the Newport News yard of a private firm, and the estimate given, namely, $15,013,803, was based on the actual bids made. The actual cost will be somewhat higher than the estimate, though of course the actual figures cannot be yet known. Between $15,000,000 and $16,000,000 is the statement given to me by the department. You will notice that the Government now require their ships to be built under regulations providing for an eight hours' day.
These were the figures which I gave to the House; any hon. gentleman can verify them by turning up the records of the United States Congress. In view of that fact, I am not disposed to admit for one single moment that I made the slightest error in the figures that I laid before the

House on the occasion to which I have referred.
In the recent debate on this matter, an expression was made use of by my hon. friend, which will be seen in the Commons Debates of March 3, 1913, to the effect that it is mere moonshine-I think that was the language of the hon. gentleman-to talk about a shipbuilding plant costing huge sums of money, and that as a matter of fact the Newport News Company's yard, which is said to be capable of constructing any dreadnought, cost approximately $4,000,000.
Mr. PUGSLEY. My hon. friend is wrong; it was the Fore River shipbuilding yard to which I referred. I visited this yard myself, I saw the work, and I obtained the information as to its cost from the president of the company.


John Douglas Hazen: 
William Pugsley: I am very glad indeed that my hon. friend has removed the obstruction which has impeded his utterance for some time and has taken the opportunity of giving to the committee what I take it for granted he thinks is valuable information. It would toe far better if other members of the Government would follow his example and endeavour to give to the House and to the country that information which it is absolutely vital we should receive in order to enable us to properly discuss and determine this question. My hon. friend says that he gave that estimate of the cost of the battleship Pennsylvania from the official records at Washington, at about $22,000,000. But that was based, he said, upon the idea that the ship would be Mr. HAZEN.
built in the Government yards and that the workmen would be paid for an eight hour day. My hon. friend now says that after the bids have been received under the called for tenders it is estimated that the cost will toe somewhat between $15,000,000 and $16,000,000, a great difference is it not, a difference of $7,000,000 between the amount which he sought to convey to this House and to the people of this country a battleship of the character which it is proposed to obtain in England might cost Canada if a shipyard were constructed in this country. My hon. friend is doing well. He has jumped from $22,000,000 down to between $15,000,000 and $16,000,000.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman is
entirely in error.
Mr. PUGSLEY.:	If my hon friend will
pardon me.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman is
entirely in error.


William Pugsley: I did not interrupt my hon. friend.


John Douglas Hazen: I hope he will allow me
to make a correction.


William Pugsley: Gh no, when 'I get
through my hon. friend can reply.


John Douglas Hazen: I submit to this House-
Some hon. MEMBERS : Order.


John Douglas Hazen: I have the right- '


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand it is a question of privilege to make a correction.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


William Pugsley: When I get through-


John Douglas Hazen: Permit me to say, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Pugsley: When I get through
we will all be glad to hear my hon. friend again. The gag is not applied yet so my hon friend can speak twice or half a dozen times if he wishes but he must not seek to interrupt me. What I am giving, Sir, is not like an estimate from some gentleman at Washington whose name my hon. friend does not venture to give to the committee, he is not at liberty to give it, as if there was some information that that gentleman felt might reflect in some way upon him if his name became public. But, Sir, I am giving to this committee a statement from one of the most reliable scientific journals in the United States, and, as my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says in the world. That statement is that taking the actual bid of the Newport News Shipbuilding Company and estimating for the armament and armour plate and equip-

merit, everything complete, this enormous battleship, of thirty two thousand five hundred tons displacement, will cost $14,175,000 or a little over $1,000,000 more than this Government proposes to pay out to some shipbuilding company in England for the construction of a battleship of something like 4,000 tons less displacement. I am giving figures based on the actual bids. Does my hon. friend seek to discredit the Newport News Shipbuilding Company?	1


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend would not allow me to ask him a question and I do not propose to answer any questions that he puts to me.


William Pugsley: I think my hon friend, in declining to answer that question, displays a wisdom which one would expect from him. The Newport News Shipbuilding Company is a company which I believe owns two drydocks, two of the largest to be found in America, a company which has a great shipbuilding plant and which as far as I know is very reliable. At all events it is a company which has been entrusted by the Government of the United States with the building of this modern and thoroughly up to date battleship. My hon. friend says that the Fore River Shipbuilding Company has gone into liquidation. The hon. gentleman has not proved that. The article which he reads does not prove it. Excepting the statement he made, he gave to the committee no information 'that that company has gone into liquidation. I stated from positive knowledge that the Fore River Shipbuilding Company has a magnificent ship-building plant, at Quincy, Massachusetts.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Prove it.


William Pugsley: I proved it by seeing it myself, and Sir, that is what I wish every member of this House would do. If he did so he would see that all the talk about a shipyard costing an enormous sum of money that would be entirely beyond the financial ability of the people of Canada to pay, is mere moonshine. What are the facts with regard to the Fore River Shipbuilding Company? The plant has been bought by the Bethlehem Steel Company. Has it been bought as a bankrupt concern?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend would
convey the impression that it has, and the ever-wise member for Essex.says, yes.


Mr. WILCOX:: Hold on there, you missed your man.


William Pugsley: Then I take that back so far as my hon. friend is concerned. Perhaps it was the equally wise member
for Dufferin (Mr. Best). What are the facts? I stated that according to the balance sheet which was furnished to me by the president of the Fore River Shipbuilding Company, their total plant, including some 80 acres of land, all the buildings, and all the machinery had cost in the vicinity of $3,800,000. Now I have a newspaper here which I presume would be as reliable as the paper from which my hon. friend quoted, the New York Times of date April 26th, and from a statement in that paper it appears that the Bethlehem Steel Company has bought, the plant of this alleged bankrupt concern for the sum of $4,800,000. In other fwords the plant that had cost the Fore River Company $3,800,000. is purchased by the Bethlehem Company for $4,800,000:	That
does not look much like a bankrupt concern. It does not look like a company being obliged to go out of business. Let me read what the New York Times says, and place it against the statement my hon. friend read.
Fore River Yards Bought by Schwab-Bethlehem Steel Company Acquires $1,800,000 Shipbuilding Plant at Quincy, Mass.-New Line in Big System-Corporation will Compete with Entire World in Construction of War vessels.
Special to the New York Times.
Bethlehem April 25.-The Bethlehem Steel Company, directed by Charles M. Schwab, has bought the Fore River Shipbuilding Company, a $4,800,000 corporation, at Quincy, Mass., and will enter into competition with the world in building battleships.
It does not look much like a bankrupt concern, when they are going to enter into competition with the world in the building of battleships.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Will the hon. member read the part in which he says it has been bought for $4,800,000?


William Pugsley: It is in the heading.
Fore River Yards Bought by Schwab, Bethlehem Steel Company Acquires $4,800,000, Shipbuilding Plant at Quincy, Mass.
It goes on:
The purchase of the Fore river yards completes an organization with 25,000 men on its payroll, and with ability to build and equip a modern battleship from keelplate to armoured turrets.
According to the Bethlehem Company's management, the purchase of the Fore river plant was to complete the development of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation into an organization capable of turning out all iron and steel products used on land and sea.
Contrary to rumour, this latest act of enlargement is not aimed at the Steel Trust, nor does it mean war with any of the other shipyards. It merely places the Bethlehem interests in a position to bid in competition with all the w-orld for the warship business.

The Fore river plant has the contract for one of the Argentine battleships. The contract for another went to the New York Shipbuilding Company at Camden. Mr. Schwab has the contract to furnish steel armour, guns, and ammunition for both vessels. This deal gave him a new insight to shipbuilding, and to perfect an organization he felt he needed the Fore river yard.
And yet my hon. friend has sought to convey the impression that it was a bankrupt company. Let me read further:
Boston April 25.-The transfer of the Fore river shipyard is expected to double the ship building at this port. The company has transacted an annual business of $6,000,000 to $12,000,000.
Twenty-three vessels are in course of construction at the yard, involving contracts amounting to $20,000,000 .
And that is supposed to be a bankrupt concern.
Practically all the vessels are war vessels. The company is building a battleship, nine submarines, two destroyers, and a tender for the United States. In addition there is under construction a monster battleship for the Argentine republic. Schwab interests intend adding a large dry dock to the yard's equipment.
The Fore River Shipbuilding Company's officers are Rear Admiral Francis T. Bowles, retired, president, and .F. C. Dumaine, vice president.	.
Then it gives the names of the directors.


Mr. REID (Minister of Customs):: What paper is that in?


William Pugsley: The New York Times.


John Dowsley Reid: What date?


William Pugsley: April 26. It goes on:
Admiral Bowles refused tonight to make any statement concerning the sale of steel plant


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
price now?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend was
right, beyond the heading there is nothing about paying $4,800,000.


Mr. BEST:: Was it honest to make the statement that that price had been paid for it.
Mr. PUGSLEY": My hon. friend is quite right, I took it from the heading.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then take it back?


William Pugsley: 
Arthur Cyril Boyce: Where?


William Pugsley: At the port of St.
John.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: May I ask my hon.
friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries whether Cammell, Laird and Company's
tender was not a tender to build these vessels at the port of St. John?


Mr. SMITH (South Ontario):: Why did you not accept it?


William Pugsley: The reason was that in the province of Quebec the question of a Canadian navy was being made an issue. It was not being made an issue in any other part of Canada, it is true, but in the province of Quebec it was being made an issue. In that province there were certain public men going from platform to platform seeking to create a prejudice against the Government, seeking to make the people believe that in some way the creation of a Canadian navy would work disastrously to the people of Quebec, that it would mean conscription and that it would mean that the young men of Quebec would be drawn off into foreign wars. I need not repeat to you, Mr. Chairman, the statements which were made in Quebec. You know them, Sir, all too well. You know the unworthy appeals that were made to prejudices in that province.
The Government thought that under the circumstances, as only a very short time had elapsed from the return of the then Prime Minister and the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries from England before the dissolution took place, that it would be proper to leave the awarding of contracts for the building of war vessels and to start upon the construction of the Canadian navy until after the elections took place. Then, after the elections took place, it was thought that it would not be right to award the contract, but that it should be left for the incoming Government to deal with it. The late Government did not deal in an exceptional manner with the case in respect to the building of war vessels, and in proof of that all I have to say is that, in respect to a very large contract at the port of St. John, the contract for the development of Courtenay bay, which ran into an expenditure of $11,000,000 or $12,000,000, tenders had been called. I would have been very glad to have seen that contract let because it meant so much to my own city and to the province of New Brunswick, but the Government felt that in view of the elections it was proper to leave that contract for the incoming Government to deal with. I was glad that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, with what little assistance I was able to give him- and it was of some avail-induced his colleagues to award the contract for these great harbour works at Courtenay bay.
But here my hon. friend fell down, and fell down in the most deplorable manner. Because of the alliance which I have described outside of this House, and which 1 will continue to describe upon every reasonable opportunity which comes to me, as the unholy alliance with the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec, he was



obliged to return that deposit of $100,000 to Cammell, Laird and Company, and he was obliged not to take any action upon the tenders and to abandon, for the time being at all events, the idea of a Canadian navy. My hon. friend has heard the question ot the hon. member for Algorna (Mr. Boyce) as to where Cammell, Laird and Company proposed to build. I will ask my hon. friend; as the honourable man that I know him to be, to tell this House where Cammell, Laird and Company proposed, by their written tender, to build these war vessels. I will ask him if it is not true that, when he came into office, he found there the tender of Cammell, Laird and Company with a deposit of $100,000, and no other deposits because they had all been returned to the tenderers, and I will ask him particularly where Cammell, Laird and Company proposed to build these war vessels. He knows, as I do, that they proposed to build them at St. John. He knows, as I do, that they had selected a site for their shipyard right alongside of the dry-dock which is being constructed in Courtenay bay, and he knows as well as I do that, if he had induced his colleagues to let the contract to Cammell, Laird and Company, long before this the shipyards would have been well equipped, the keels of a number of these vessels would have been laid and there would have been a good many men employed in the shipyard at the port of St. John.
I mention this because it is due to the Minister of Marine that he should tell the House what the tender of Cammell, Laird and Company was, what vessels they proposed to build, what were the prices they asked, and where they proposed to establish their shipyard. And, as to the cost of constructing a shipyard being so great as to be beyond the financial ability of the people of Canada, how about the great firm of Vickers, Son and Maxim? Under an inducement offered by the late Government they constructed a great floating dry-dock in England, they brought it to the port of Montreal, they are establishing a shipyard there, and I have it upon authority, the accuracy of which I cannot question, that Vickers, Son and Maxim offered to this Government to build battleships in Montreal and offered further that, within eighteen months of the day the contract would be given them, they would lay the keel of a battleship in the yard they are constructing in Montreal. Does the Minister of Marine and Fisheries deny that? I have risked for the correspondence to be brought down, and the answer of the Prime Minister was that the correspondence was of a secret character and Vickers, Son and Maxim declined to allow it to be brought before Parliament. Vickers, Son and Maxim have great shipyards in the United Kingdom and if a contract is given for three great battleships to be built in Mr PUGSLEY.
the United Kingdom, I venture to say that Vickers, Son and Maxim will be bidders for the building of these ships there. It makes no difference to them whether they build at Montreal or in the United Kingdom. I can well understand thev would not wish to do anything that would create a feeling of antagonism as between them and the present Government which is determined to build not in Canada but in the United Kingdom; determined not to spend this $35,000,000 by employing Canadian labour, but to send it out of the country in order to give employment to the labouring people of the United Kingdom. I have it on authority;
I do not mind giving my authority, I did not get the information in confidence and I will give the authority to this House for the statement I have made. Before I do so let me say that all, or a large portion of the negotiations which took place with regard to the buildi.ng of a dry-dock and the creation of a ship-building plant at the port of Montreal, took place between the late Government and the late Board of Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, and one of these harbour commissioners was Mr. Ballantyne, and Mr. Ballantyne is my authority. Mr Ballantyne told me that the firm of Vickers, Son and Maxim had offered to build battleships at their yard in Montreal and stated that if they got the contract, they would be able, within eighteen months, to lay the keel of the first battleship. It would be interesting to this House and to this country, if we had this secret and confidential correspondence which has taken place. I am sorry we have not got it; I do not know what it contains but I have given the statement made to me, not in a confidential manner but in the ordinary way of conversation, by a gentleman who had much to do with the negotiations for the building of the dry-dock and ship-building plant at Montreal, and upon that I assert with the utmost confidence that the firm of Vickers, Son and Maxim, if the contract were given to them for building war vessels at Montreal, would be quite prepared to go ahead and within eighteen months to lay the keel of the first battleship. I am very sorry to have taken up so much of the time of the committee, and I would not have done so had it not been that my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) made the remarks he did. I am sorry, sorry beyond measure, that my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) should he straining every nerve to present arguments to the people of Canada against encouraging the building of war vessels in this country. I am sorry that he should be endeavouring by hook or by crook to show to this House that it would be infinitely better, instead of seeking to build war vessels in Canada, to postpone for

all -time the ship-building industry in this country, and to hand over now our money to the British authorities to have these vessels built in England. I hardly expected that from my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen), who boasted that the smell of the salt water was in his nostrils and who gloried in the memory of the old days when St. John was one of the great shipbuilding ports of the world; when St. John turned out those splendid ships which sailed in every ocean and which were the pride, not only of St. John, but of the Maritime provinces. I am pained beyond measure that my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) wh.o claimed he would like to see shipbuilding revived in this country, has so little faith in the intelligence, enterprise and ability of the Canadian people and Canadian workmen, that he would send this money out of the country instead of employing it in the ship-building industry here. I am sorry it falls to his lot, as Minister of Marine and Fisheries (an office which gives him the initiative with regard to the building of the ships), that he, the representative of the great constituency _ of St. John should strike the blow which he has struck, not only at his own constituency but at the entire Dommion. Let me ask my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) if it is not a terrible price to pay for that alliance between the Conservative party and the Nationalist party of Quebec ?


John Douglas Hazen: I think the House will
agree with me that the speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley), and more especially the last part of it, would have sounded much better on the stump than in the House of Commons, for it was evidently a speech entirely intended for effect when the hon. gentleman and I will have the opportunity of discussing matters of this sort on the public platform some time in the future. I must confess that I am deeply pained that I should have caused pam to the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley). The hon. gentleman and I have been, not always, but on some occasions opposed to one another in politics, and even when the hon. gentleman has been on the opposite side of politics to me, nothing would cause me greater regret than that any word of mine should pain the honest soul of my hon. friend to the extent it has seemingly been pained to-night, So shocked and so pained was the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) that he almost shed tears to-night. Of course. I accept the hon. gentleman's remarks as being made in all sincerity; and accepting them in that spirit, I assure nim that in future in any remarks I may make to this House or in any political course I adopt I will try so to act as not to cause the same pain and anguish to my
290i
hon. friend. Now, my hon. friend during the course of the very brief remarks L made, rose and asked to be allowed to ask a question. I -said, certainly, and sat down while he asked his question, and I answered it. And I should have thought that he would have extended a similar courtesy to me. The hon. gentleman may have acted strictly within his rights, but I wish to say that the hon. gentleman, in my opinion, was not acting with the courtesy he should extend to members of this House, when he declined to allow me to ask him a question when he was addressing the House. There is no member, I' think, hon. members on either side will agree, who should more readily extend that courtesy to another than the hon; member for St. John, because there is no member of the House who more often or persistently rises to ask questions or offer explanations, even interrupting the member who is speaking in the middle of a sentence. The courtesy of being allowed to ask a question has been invariably extended to my hon. friend, and I do not think it speaks well for his parliamentary manners that when I rose and courteously asked to be allowed to ask a question of him, he refused to allow me to do so but said that I could ask it when he had finished his remarks.
He started cut by making most extraordinary statements to lead this House to believe that the Bethlehem Company had paid for the plant and the shipyard of the Fore Eiver Comoany $1,000,000 more than it had cost. He spoke of it as costing $3,800,000, and then made the statement that it had been sold to the Bethlehem Company for $4,800,000. There was no mistaking the statement he made, and the impression, if the statement, had remained at that, was that the Fore Eiver Company had been so prosperous that it had been able to sell its shipyard at $1,000,000 more than it bad cost. He was challenged for proof of that statement, and said he would give us proof and that he would give it from a New York newspaper. But from the first to the last in the article in the New York newspaper there was	not	a line	to
justify his statement that the plant had been sold for $4,800,000. But the hon. gentleman may say he was justified by the headline. He looked at the headline, but there was not a word even there to justify his statement. The headline did not say that the plant had been sold for $4,800,000, but it did say that the Bethlehem Company had purchased a $4,800,000 plant- an entirely different proposition. And yet on the basis of that statement-which probably was quite as good evidence as the hon. gentleman has had to support



'9167 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
many of the statements he has made to the House on this question-the hon. gentleman has the temerity to tell the House that the Bethlehem Company paid $4,800,000 for that plant. The hon. gentleman cannot justify his course in doing that. He has attempted to mislead this House and the country. I charge him with making a statement to this House absolutely unfounded and absolutely untrue.
Frank Oliver: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Frank Oliver: I wish to ask if my hon. friend is in order in saying that the hon. member for St. John has made a statement which is absolutely unfounded and absolutely untrue.


John Douglas Hazen: Does the hon. member rise to a point of order?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


John Douglas Hazen: Then I wish to speak to the point of order. I am entitled to say, and am quite within parliamentary rules in saying, thftt the hon. gentleman's statement Is unfounded and untrue. It would not be according to the rules if I said my hon. friend knew it to be unfounded and untrue.
I am absolutely in order, I know what I am saying.


Frank Oliver: I ask the Chairman's
ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The point of order is not well taken.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend has seen fit to discuss many other matters. He is obessed with the idea that he can get some political advantage by repeating the statement that the Government of which I am Minister of Marine and Fisheries and Minister ol Naval Affairs did not enter into a contract with Oammell, Laird and Company for the construction of the cruisers and torpedo destroyers for which tenders were asked by the late Government, and for which tenders were received five months before the late Government went out of power. The hon. gentleman may take all the satisfaction he can get from my conduct in that regard, but I would tell him that either before the people of my own constituency or before the people of Canada I am prepared to stand face to face with my hon. friend on any occasion and to prove to any man who' is not influenced by partisan feelings or party passions that the course taken by the Government and by myself as Minister of Marine and Fisheries was in the public interest and in the interests of this country. The hon. gentleman tells the people that this contract should ' have been entered into, and, had it been entered into, that these ships would have been built at St. John. I pointed out to my hon. friend, and I have never received a satisfactory answer from him, that those tenders were received on the 1st day of May, and that the Government of which my hon, friend was a member remained in office until October 10, a period of oyer five months after those tenders were received. Where was then my hon. friend's vaunted influence? Where was his professed anxiety for the interests of the people of his constituency when he allowed those contracts during that period of time to remain in a pigeon hole in the city of Ottawa, and Shad absolutely no regard for those interests for which he now appears to be so solicitous? The hon. gentleman has referred to the contract for the work at Courtenay bay. Election after election, year in and year out the hon. gentleman has said to the people of St. John: return me to power and in a short time you will have these works going on in Courtenay bay. In the election of 1908 they were told, through the newspaper press, that if the hon. gentleman and the Government of which he was a member were returned to power, only a short time would elapse before large steamers would be seen loading and unloading at the docks in Courtenay bay. From 1908 to 1911 not a blow was struck. Tenders were called before the election, but no contract was entered into; the matter was held dangling before the eyes of the people, and it is my firm conviction that, had the hon. gentleman's Government been returned to power, the matter
would still be dangling before the eyes of the people. The hon. gentleman says the ships would have been built at St. John, but I have seen statements in the press by other hon. gentlemen to the effect that they would have been built at Sydney, and that they would have been built at Halifax. But I have a higher authority than the hon. gentleman to show that these ships would not have been built at St. John; the hon. gentleman's leader stated in most unequivocal terms in this House that these ships would be built at the port of Montreal. Let me head to this House the words of the right hon. leader of the Opposition as reported on page 1063 of ' Hansard ' of December 12, 19127
Yes; we thought as the general elections were coming, that it would not he fair, in a matter of this kind, which was at issue between the two parties, to award the contract in case there might be, as there was, a change of government. I say

The hon. gentleman was speaking with all the responsibility attaching to him as an ex-prime minister of this country

I say now that the Governmeni in power would have been better advised if they had awarded the contracts, and, had they done so, we would at the present time have under construction on the stocks in Montreal four cruisers and six destroyers.
He does not even suggest that any of these ships would be built at St. John. The contracts called for four cruisers and six destroyers, and we have the positive statement of the hon. gentleman's leader, which I am sure he will not repudiate, that, if the contract had been entered into, these four cruisers and six destroyers would be under construction on the stocks at Montreal. The hon. gentleman can fight this matter out with his leader.
I do not propose to trespass further upon the time of the House in regard to this matter, but I say to my hon. friend, that before he again attempts to make statements to this House such as those he has made with regard to the Fore River Shipbuilding Company, and before he again intimates that any assertions I have made are not warranted by the facts, he had better be more sure of his evidence, and more sure that I have not in my hand the proof for every statement I make. The hon. gentleman made reference-and this was the statement I wanted to make when the hon. gentleman was not courteous enough to allow me to do so-the hon. gentleman referred to an assertion I made in regard to the cost of the Pennsylvania. That there may be no misunderstanding, I want to make that statement again to this House. What I said about the battleship Pennsylvania was that it was a ship of approximately 31,000 tons; that its total
[DOT]9171

[DOT]estimated cost, built in the navy-yard, was $16,345,275, or $527 a ton. The figures I gave to the House in support of that were: estimated cost, built in the navy-yard; construction and maintenance, $750,000; equipment, $110,000; armour and armaments, $6,485,275, a total of $16,345,275.
I also gave the approximate figures if built by contract, with an eight-hour day as $15,043,843. I further read to the House the statement I had from Washington in regard to the matter which shewed figures very close to those in that report.
My hon. friend says, making a speech not to this House but to our constituency, that I fell down in a most deplorable *manner in reference to the contract for cruisers and destroyers. Let me say that 'Canada would have fallen down in a most deplorable manner if that contract had been entered into. The Government of the day when they went to consider those tenders had before them statements prepared by technical officers of the Naval Department, men who had occupied high positions in the Imperial navy, men selected for their positions by the Government of [DOT]which my hon. friend was a member. They had befor^ them a memorandum prepared before the late Government went out of power, verified by another memorandum, to the effect that if the contracts were entered into for these vessels and they were built and were not delivered until the time specified under the contract, they would be obsolete and of little service for the purpose for which they were intended; and I submit that under those circumstance I would certainly have been recreant to my duty as a member of the Administration, occupying the portfolio of Naval Affairs, if I had endeavoured to get my hon. friends of the Council to agree to a contract of that sort. [DOT] I do not for one moment believe that they, having regard dor the public interest of this country, would have consented to enter into such a contract and it seems to me that if my hon. friend was anxious to have that contract entered into during the five months and two weeks that those tenders were in the hands of the Government he failed to do it because his colleagues saw the futility -of it and how improper, in the public interest, it would be to have that contract entered into. My hon. friend says it was' not entered into because of an alliance between the leader of the Administration and the Nationalists of Quebec. I absolutely refute that statement. It is simply a flight of the imagination of my hon. *friend. My hon. friend has not as much evidence to support it as he was able to find in the newspaper articles to support his statement that the shipbuilding company at Fall River had been paid $4,800,.000 for its property.
Mr. ITAZEN


William Pugsley: My hon. friend ought
to have told us what was the alliance between the Conservative party and the Nationalist party. He has said that I have no evidence that there was that alliance. Let me tell him that the statement was made in many and many a newspaper giving speeches which were made by Nationalist candidates to the effect that they had the assurance that if the Conservative party were returned to power the Naval Act w'ould be repealed. That was the statement made upon many a platform, that was the statement made not only by Nationalists but by Conservatives in the province of Quebec, running in alliance with the Nationalist party. If the naval law had been repealed, then, of course, a Canadian navy could not be constructed because the Canadian navy was ^ to be constructed under the Canadian Naval Service Act. If you repealed the Act of course the contract for the ships would go with the repeal. That is the evidence which I have and I am sure that there are hundreds and thousands of people in the province of Quebec who could corroborate the statements I have made tonight. But my hon. friend has said that the reason the contract was not given for the building of these ten vessels was that he had concluded, upon the report of experts of his department, that these vessels would be obsolete before they were constructed. What does that mean, if it means anything? It means that Canada could never build war vessels, it means that Canada could never give a contract for a number of war vessels running over a period of six years because before the six years would expire, according to the argument of my hon. friend, these vessels would become obsolete. Is that not absurd? My hon. friend has forgotten to tell this committee that under that contract two of these vessels were to be constructed about every fourteen months, those ten ships were to be built in six years and as each vessel would be constructed it would be delivered to the Government. Would it be obsolete within fourteen months after the contract for its construction was given? What does it mean for a war vessel to become obsolete? It means that, owing to changes in designs, improvements are made and a vessel which might be regarded as up-to-date to-day would in five or six or ten years not be considered up-to-date. But under the term? of the contract as under the terms of all Government ^contracts it would be quite open to the department to change the specifications at any time before the vessel was actually placed under construction, if not at any time before the vessel would be actually completed; and, under the terms of the contract, if these changes involved any additional expenditure the Government would give an allowance to the contractors, while-

if the cost would be reduced by the change the contractor would have to make an allowance to the Government. That is the case with all contracts and it was the case in these contracts. But if there was anything wrong in the proposed contract why did not the new Minister of Marine and Fisheries call for new tenders? These specifications were prepared by the British Admiralty, presumably they were the best for that class of vessel known to the experts of the Admiralty. If they could be improved upon why did not the minister ask the Admiralty to have the experts make the improvements upon them? No, Sir, if it is parliamentary for me to say so, I tell my hon. friend that he is humbugging the people of this country.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman ought to be an excellent judge of humbugging.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend objects to the word humbugging I will withdraw that statement and say that when he makes the statement that he did not enter into the contract because these vessels; would be obselete, that statement is wholly unwarranted and wholly untrue. I tell him that the statement which he makes that he did not enter into the contract because those vessels would be obselete, is absolutely unwarranted and wholly untrue, if I may use the language that my hon. friend .used a short time ago. There can be nothing unparliamentary about that.
Now, just a word with regard to what my hon. friend said respecting myself. I suppose there is hardly a speech that the hon. gentleman has made during the last fifteen years in which he has not referred to the fact that at one time in our political lives he and I worked together. Sir, it has not been at any time during the last fifteen years. We parted company many, many years ago, so far as our political lives are concerned. And let me tell my hon. friend that if he looks back to a period of seventeen years ago he will find that he was then guilty of political conduct which alienated from him a vast number of those who had previously been his supporters. They were of the opinion that he not merely neglected the interests of the people to whom he owed a supreme duty, but that he absolutely betrayed their interests, and that was why hundreds and thousands of those who had been his admirers, ceased to follow him. The result was that, when he appealed to the electorate, he was left at home and given an opportunity to devote his great ability to his private business. My hon. friend says that when I made the statement from a newspaper report that the Bethlehem Company had bought this plant for $4,800,000 I was misleading this committee. He sought to convey the impression, whether in words or not, in a manner
which I think is unworthy of a member of this House


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not think the
word ' unworthy ' should be applied to a member of this House.


William Pugsley: Then I will use other
language and say that in a manner unworthy of any gentleman in this country, he sought to convey the impression that I deliberately intended to deceive this committee. Has my hon. friend told you, Sir, and this committee, what the Bethlehem Company paid for the business ? He ihas made a statement as to what the shareholders received. Has he stated what their obligations were ? We know that with respect to any going concern there are obligations. Has he told this committee, or does the editor of the paper from which he quoted, state what the Bethlehem Company paid for the business ? When I read that headline stating that the Bethlehem Company had bought this $4,800,000 plant, I thought that, in the absence of any further information, I was justified in assuming that $4,800,000 represented the money which they paid for the plant. Let me quote from a journal for which I think my hon. friend has some regard and to whose statements I think he will give considerable credence. I refer to the "Montreal Star, which contains a despatch from Quincy, Mass., the very seat and home of the Fore River ship-building plant. This is what the Montreal Star says:


An hon. MEMBER:: What date ?


William Pugsley: April 26.
Special to The Montreal Star.
Quincy, Mass., April 26.-Announcement is made to-day that the Fore River Shipbuilding Company, of which Rear Admiral Francis T. Bowles (retired), is president, has been sold to the Bethlehem Steel Company, of which Charles M. Schwab is the head.
The price paid is reported to have been $1,800,000. The company has done annual business that averaged from $6,000,000 to $12,000,000. At the present time twenty-three vessels are in course of construction at the yards, involving contracts aggregating $20,000,000, many of which are warships, including a battleship, nine submarines, two destroyers, and a tender for the United States navy.
It proceeds:
In addition, there is in construction a battleship for the Argentine Republic.
' The Schwab interests are said to have elaborate plans on foot to enlarge the Fore river plant. A monster dry dock is reported to be one of the improvements contemplated.
I repeat, Sir, that if you take the statements in the New York Times and Montreal Star, the reasonable inference is that the Bethlehem Steel Company was not purchasing the plant of the Fore River

Shipbuilding Company as a decadent industry, or as a bankrupt concern, but that they were purchasing it in OTder to enlarge their operations in order to enable them the better to compete with the whole world in the building of battleships, as the newspapers say.
I just wish to say another word or two in regard to the statement of my hon. friend that in some way I have been seeking to do him an injury in regard to his return of the deposit of the Cammell-Laird Company. I would be sorry to do my hon. friend an injury, but when I found that as - Minister of Marine and Fisheries, as the one member of the Government of all others whose voice would be potent in the awarding of the contract for the building of war vessels, that he, having before him a tender to build those ten war vessels in the harbour of St. John adjoining the dry dock which is now under construction, that he saw in his department a deposit of the sum of $100,000, and that he returned without just cause and without any reason whatever that deposit to Cammell, Laird and Company I say he did an injustice to Canada and an injustice to the city of St. John for which it is my duty to condemn him. I do so not in order to do him a personal injury, but in order to let the people of his constituency and mine know that, when he had the golden opportunity of his life to do a great thing for his people, at the beck and nod of the Nationalist party of Quebec, he threw away that opportunity and sacrificed his constituency in order to help his Government to carry out the unholy alliance which existed between the Conservative party and the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec. My hon. friend says, there cannot be anything in your argument because the right hon. the leader of the Opposition made a statement that if this Government had let the contract there would have been ten war vessels under construction at the port of Montreal. Sir, if this Government had let the contract, the leader of the Opposition would have had nothing to do with it. What voice would he have had in letting the contract? Would my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries have gone to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and said, I want your consent to enter jnto this contract? Surely not. My hon. friend says that my quarrel is with the leader of the Opposition. It is not. After the late Government left .office, the leader of that Government and the members of that Government were powerless, so far as this contract was concerned. My quarrel is with the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I do not want to know, the people of St. John do not want to know, and the people of Canada do not want to know, -what the late Government would Mr. PUGSLEY.
have done if it had been returned to power. They want to know what it was the duty of the present Government to do. The present Minister of .Marine and Fisheries came into office and he found there a tender from Cammell, Laird and Company, not to build war vessels in Montreal, or at Sydney, or at Halifax, but at the port of St. John, and he found also a deposit of $100,-
000.	As I say, it was not part of his duty to come to the leader of the late Government, or to me, or to anybody else; it was his duty to look at the tender, to look at the deposit, to look at the conditions which the Cammell-Laird Company offered. Their tender was the lowest tender, and it was his duty to act upon it. He had the opportunity to do so, and he did not take it, and that is why I say that he fell down in a most deplorable manner.
I repeat, Sir, that he fell down in the most deplorable manner. Mv hon. friend says that in regard to the work in Courtenay bay, he does not believe that, if the late Government had been returned to power, that work would have gone on. . He says that in 1908 I had promised it to the people of St. John, that I had promised it again before the elections of 1911, and that, if the late Government had been returned to power, it would have been kept dangling before the eyes of the people of St. John. Is there any justification for that statement? My hon. friend talks of making stump speeches. What was he doing when he made that statement? He was making that statement not to influence the members of this House, but in the hope that in some way or other he could create a prejudice against me among the people of St. John.


Mr. CARVELL:: You will see it in the
Standard to-morrow morning.


William Pugsley: It will appear in headlines in the Standard tomorrow morning that the hon. gentleman had made a most eloquent and impressive speech, the greatest speech of his life-and my hon. friend can make a good speech.


John Douglas Hazen: What will we read about your speech in the Telegraph?


William Pugsley: Ah, the Telegraph is
always accurate. But now is the charge that my hon. friend makes against me based upon reason? The development of Courtenay bay was a great work and it meant the expenditure of a good many millions of dollars. When I became Minister of Public Works in 1907 I at once took into consideration the question of improved facilities at the port of St. John, upon the west side and upon the east side. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) knows that, in view of the rapidity with which the business of

the port is growing, it will be difficult to provide the facilities that are needed to accommodate the winter business which passes through the port of St. John. I had Courtenay bay investigated. There was a great basin which was dry at low tide. The question of whether it could be developed, depended upon whether the bottom of the bay was entirely composed of a deposit of silt or whether there was rock in the bay. In order to determine the feasibility of that work it was necessary that almost every foot of that vast area should bef tested by (boring. I had engineers working at these boring operations for a considerable length of time and after that work was done we had plans carefully prepared. These plans were submitted to the Government, they were gone over, they were revised by engineers and at last the plans were approved and tenders called. The time that the tenders were called was in the early part of the summer of 1911. They could not be called before that time. It took a great deal of time and a great deal of expert examination in order to determine whether these plans could be carried out at a cost which would be reasonably within the means of the people of Canada. Although my hon friend and those associated with him-and I have evidene of this-tried to depart from the plans which we had prepared for the development of Courtenay bay, they found themselves at last obliged to let the contract hinder these plans and upon the tenders which we had called for before we went out of office. In so far as I am aware, the plans have not been altered in one single particular. The people of St. John have reason to-day to be grateful to me, and grateful to the Government of which I was a member, in that we had proceeded so vigorously and had had the plans for *this great development work so carefully prepared as that when my hon. friend came into office he was not able to alter a line in the specifications or plans. My hon. friend thought at one time of abandoning the tenders^did he not? Did he not think at one time of cutting the contract up into smaller parcels and yielding to the attacks which were made upon me before the election because I had called for one tender for this enormous work? Did not my hon. friend come to the conclusion that if he did that, and if he departed from the plans which we had had prepared, it would mean his political death in the constituency of St. John? Was it not for that reason, as much as because my hon. friend desired to promote the interests of his constituency, that he signed the contract under the plans we had prepared and under, the tenders which we had called? While I was glad
that my hon. friend went along the lines which we had laid down, and while 1 was glad to see the Government following along the path which we had mapped out for them, yet I realized that if they had not been carrying out our plans they would have had very little to do during the eighteen months in which they have been in office. While it is gratifying to know that the Government is going on with the work in connection with Courtenay bay I do repeat that it is very much to be regretted that when my hon. friend had the opportunity of following up this great work of the development of Courtenay bay bv the creation of a great ship-building yard and the establishment of a ship-building industry, he fell down so lamentably and sacrificed to such a deplorable extent the interests of Canada and the interests of the constituency which he ought to have felt it his duty to maintain and protect.


Mr. IIA  ZEN@: Mr. Chairman, while it
may not be very entertaining or edifying to the members of the committee to protract this discussion between my non. friend (Mr. Pugsley) and myself, I would just like to say a few words in reply. My hon. friend has^ got so in the habit of making assertions-


William Manley German: If this is in order we
want it understood because we want to have the .same latitude for other members.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) might have discovered that fact while the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) was speaking. I am only going to occupy a very short time, if I am in order. My hon. friend is so in the habit of making assertions without any evidence to support them that be gets into the frame of mind of believing that all the assertions he makes are absolutely correct. He has made a lot of assertions about Courtenay bay, the great majority of which have not the "lightest foundation in fact. The hon. gentleman makes the assertion that I intended to cut this contract up into small lots. As far as I am aware no consideration was ever given to any such proposal at all,, but I will tell my hon. friend that the Government awarded the contract for Courtenay bay, at a sum, of $250,000 less than the lowest tenderer, or in other words, the lowest tenderer was compelled to reduce his price by that amount. My hon. friend has referred also to what his right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said in regard to the building of these vessels at Montreal and he asks what the leader of the Government would have had to do with it.


William Pugsley: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. What I asked was, what the leader of the Opposition had to do with it.


John Douglas Hazen: I stand corrected; it was
the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the previous Government, of which any hon. friend was. so distinguished a member. He wants to know what he would have had to do with it. One would imagine that he would have had a good deal to do with it if a contract had been awarded as it should have been, if my hon. friend is right, when the Government of my right hon. friend, the present leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was in power. We have the assertion of the leader of the Opposition that if this contract had been *entered into his six cruisers and four destroyers would have been on the stocks and under construction in the city of Montreal. Therefore, if any conclusion is to be drawn from the argument of my hon. friend, it is that there never was a possible chance of having these ships built at St. John by the Government of which my hon. friend was a member and of which the leader of the Opposition was the head. I will leave my hon. friend to work that argument out to suit himself. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley), a little nettled, has referred to the fact that he and I parted political company fifteen years ago.


William Pugsley: Seventeen years ago.


John Douglas Hazen: 
William Manley German: Was Colonel Domville
the temperance candidate?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not wish to drag
Colonel Domville's name into this discussion; Colonel Domville was the candidate of the Liberal party. As the campaign proceeded my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) began to see that his chances of election were not the best in the world, and so he wrote a letter to Mr. Sinnett who was president of the Conservative party in the county of Kings, in which he used language something like this:	in handing you back unsullied the banner of the Conservative party which the party in this county did me the honour to place in my hands, I desire to say I do it not because I have any difference of opinion with the Conservative party, whose policy I regard as essential to the well-being and progress of Canada, but in order that a candidate may be elected who will have a better chance of carrying the constituency than I will. The hon. gentleman's resignation, so gracefully tendered, was accepted, and another candidate was selected. Then shortly before the election, in the city ot St. John, there were two tickets representing the Conservative and the Liberal parties in the field, and suddenly my hon. friend emerged as the candidate of an independent party, the two planks in the platform of which were undying hostility to the action of the Conservative party in regard to the Remedial Bill, and the alleged grievance that the Conservative party had not done what it should to develop the port of St.'John; a fact which of course was known to my hon. friend at the time he was the candidate of the Conservative party in the county of Kings. We used to have joint meetings on nomination day, and I remember the joint meetings on that occasion very well. T remember standing in the court house and listening to the eloquent words of my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) as he told how he could not support the Conservative party because they brought in the Remedial Bill and because, forsooth, the Conservative party was^ not giving justice to the port of St. John. Then, he lifted his other hand and he said he had no confidence in Mr. Laurier, the leader of the Liberal party. Well, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) was nolj .elected;; he did not poll a very large vote, but ten days after the election, what do you think, the same hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) was about the most ardent Liberal you could find in any part of Canada.' The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugs-

ley) having referred to the circumstances under which we parted politically, I thought it well for me just to give to the House this little description of the reasons.


William Pugsley: Would that be before
my right hon. friend the Prime Minister became a Conservative; I am not quite sure as to that?


Robert Laird Borden: I think you have your
hands full with your own case now.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is time for him to change again.


William Pugsley: Seventeen years is a
long time to go back, and I congratulate the Minister of Marine and Fisheries upon the care he has bestowed upon remembering my language. The fact that he has remembered it so accurately shows that he has repeated it a great many times during the past seventeen years. I certainly think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has never made in New Brunswick a political speech during all that time in which he has not repeated verbatim his remarks of this evening. No wonder the hon. gentleman is able to get it off so glibly and eloquently, so smoothly and


An hon. MEMBER:: And correctly.


William Pugsley: Yes, I think correctly.
I think there is no doubt that at the time he refers to I did decline the nomination in the county of King's.


John Douglas Hazen: But you accepted it, eh?


William Pugsley: I withdrew from it and I did it in a very proper manner and in a manner which was quite acceptable to the people of the constituency. Not that they were glad to get rid of me, because I appealed to the people of Kings county a great many times and I always received a handsome majority from them; two or three times I was elected by acclamation and on other occasions I received majorities running from four hundred to eight hundred. My hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) cannot say that I was unpopular in my native county. But, the hon. gentleman has forgotten one thing, and that is that the election in 1896 did not come off within a year of when it was expected, and when I accepted the nomination it was a year before the election and before the remedial order was pub lished.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend knows
that to be true. Do you think there was anything extraordinary in a man who entertained such strong views against the people of an independent province like Manitoba being coerced, should differ from the Conservative party, on so important a question which was then dividing the people of the different provinces. It was after the
remedial order was published that I became an independent candidate for the city of St. John, and it was before it was published that I was the Conservative candidate in Kings. Under what circumstances did I become an independent candidate? My hon. friend knows very well that the people of St. John, having faith in their port, urged its consideration upon the Government and public meetings were held and party ties thrown to the winds because the people felt they had been denied justice by the Government of the day.


Arthur Meighen: Was the remedial order, to which the hon. gentleman refers, published at the time he wrote his letter withdrawing from the field as a Conservative candidate?


William Pugsley: I am not able to tell
the hon, gentleman as to that. I can tell him that the remedial order was not published at the time I was in nomination. And, Sir, that feeling, as I have said, the feeling that the Government was not doing justice to the port of St.John had been growing, and at last it culminated in 1896, as my hon. friend knows. He knows that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) came to the city of St. John and was waited upon by representative citizens on both sides of politics. Certain demands were made upon him by the people of St. John that were right. He turned a deaf ear to the entreaties of the people, and my hon. friend knows the intense indignation which was aroused among the citizens of St. John. An independent party was formed. And my hon. friend knows that very strong Conservatives like Mr. W. Frank Hathaway, who was president of the independent party, and others, scores and hundreds of strong Conservatives, became members of that independent party. They asked me if I would run as the candidate of that party. Well, Sir, I owed nothing to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I owed nothing to the Conservative party; I was not a member of this House; I was a free and independent citizen; and 1 had a perfect right to take that course which I believed to he in the interest of my city and of my country; and I ran as an independent candidate.


Mr. HENDERSON:: What has all that to do with the Navy Bill?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from
Halton (Mr. Henderson) has wakened up and wants to know what this has to do with the Navy Bill. I am sure that many hon. members have wondered what it has to do with the navy and why the Minister of Marine and Fisheries entered at this time into this matter of seventeen years ago. It is true, I was not elected, but the

indignation of the people of St. John rested on my hon. friend the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and he and his colleague were defeated, showing that the . people at all events did not regard them as worthy of their confidence. At that time, seventeen years ago, the people of St. John taught the hon. gentleman a lesson, which, I trust, he has not forgotten. I think it was a salutary lesson. Perhaps to-day he has more ginger in him than in 1896, and is prepared to fight better in the interests of the people of St. John than he was at that time. I do not think he will ever forget the lesson the people of St. John taught him. 1 think it was a pity, that on this great question of whether we should build a Canadian navy or whether we should send $35,000,000 out of our country, away from our own people, depriving our own labouring men of the opportunity for profitable employment in building warships in order to make a contribution to the British Government, which does not need our money-I say, it is a pity that on this question of whether we should begin now a series of contributions which if once begun we cannot stop, an hon. gentleman occupying the distinguished position of Minister of Marine and Fisheries should turn aside to ask this House to consider whether or not, seventeen years ago, I acted properly and conscientiously in ceasing to follow and support my hon. friend upon the occasion to which he has referred. Would it be contrary to Parliamentary rules for me to say that such a course is unworthy of one occupying the position of my hon. friend? Do you, Mr. Chairman, honestly think that an hon. gentleman occupying such a position is justified in bringing in this irrelevant and unimportant matter before the House when the House ought to be engaged in considering what was at one time at least thought to be an important question-though that is a long time ago and interest in it has pretty well died out-do you think that on such an occasion one in the position of my hon. friend should interject the discussion of these matters of seventeen years ago? To me that time, seventeen years ago, seems a long time away. The only particular recollection I have of it is that the hon. gentleman was angry and chagrined then, as he seems to be angry and chagrined at the memory of the terrible defeat he then met.


Mr. IIA  ZEN@: I do not want to prolong this discussion, but as the hon. gentleman has spoken of a ' terrible defeat,' I may-say that I was beaten by 100 while my hon. friend lost his deposit.


William Pugsley: But my hon. friend
ought not to forget to tell the committee that he was supported by the Conservative Mr. PUGSTjEY
party with all its influence and all its wealth, while I was simply the spokesman of a small independent body of electors with no great party behind us but simply fighting for a great principle, a small body~of citizens who did not regret defeat in the cause we had espoused. And, though my colleague and I were not elected to Parliament, the principles for which we fought were sustained by the people.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: I am sure the committee has listened with great interest to the discussion which has occupied its attention for the last two hours. On one thing, I am sure, all will agree, and that is that the representatives of the constituency of St. John claim a good deal of the attention of the committee and of the House for the discussion of the political exploits and events in that constituency for the last twenty-five years. I am sorry that the Minister of Naval Affairs, whose duty in this naval discussion seems to be to talk about everything except naval affairs leaves the Chamber when an attempt is made to bring the attention of the committee back to the subject. I congratulate the hon. member for the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley) that he has been able to get his colleague, the responsible Minister of Naval Affairs to get up in this House and discuss this question, or at least attempt to discuss it. From the occasion on which, in answer to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, on December 12, last, the hon. Minister of Naval Affairs stood in his place and addressed to the House in a speech which had been either written by himself or prepared by somebody else, he has not ventured to give this House or the country any information such as a minister occupying that responsible position ought to give. When we on this side, sought from this Government that which we have a right to receive from them, the most full, complete and accurate information in regard to the subject, who was it that gave to the House what little information has been vouchsafed to us? Was it the responsibe minister? Sir, he never ventured, or ever was permitted to do so; the Prime Minister seemed to be the one and .only one on the Government side of the House and in the Government who had any knowledge in regard to this question. Why was it that the right hon. Prime Minister did not give to his colleague, the minister having to do with this matter, the responsibility of carrying this measure before the House? The Minister of Naval Affairs is a public man of many years experience; he sat in this House twenty years ago, and since that time has held a seat in the legislature of his own province and has been premier of that province. But the Prime Minister has

taken out of the hon. gentleman's hands from the beginning, everything in relation to the naval discussion, so that the hon. gentleman has not been permitted, up to this stage of the debate, to give to Parliament the information that every minister gives in relation to his department. Hence it is that when his colleague ventures upon a discussion of this question, he harks back to ancient history and tells once more this old story which we have heard so many times with regard to the political events in the city and county of St. John and the province of New Brunswick. What a pitiful position this is for the Minister of- Naval Affairs of this Government. After a lapse of more than six weeks, when we are asked to consider this matter seriously, we find the minister evading the issue and departing so far afield as he has done in the discussion to which we have listened during the last two hours. My hon. friend was boasting of the accuracy of his information in regard to the cost of certain vessels, and seemed to gloat over the fact that he had observed an item in a New York newspaper to the effect that the Fore River Shipbuilding Company of Quincy, Mass., had been sold <to the Bethlehem Steel Company. Does he not know that there are to-day eight or nine other large and prosperous shipbuilding concerns in the United States, engaged not merely in the building of battleships, but in mercantile and marine construction, and in the building of vessels for all parts of the world? I happen to have some special knowledge of the facts in regard to the Fore River Shipbuilding Company. Two weeks ago I visited my own country, and while there I met the relatives of a young man, a native of my county in the province of Nova Scotia, who to-day, after ten years absence from his native province, occupies the position of assistant engineer for the Fore River Shipbuilding works in Quincy, Mass. I w as told by his proud relatives that he is now in Naples, superintending the delivery of a vessel which was constructed for Italy in these works of which we have heard so much this evening. Instead of attacking the ability of Canada to engage in this industry, and alleging that there has been some failure in the United States in that connection, he should have taken the trouble as Minister of Naval Affairs to ascertain not only how many sons of Canada are engaged in the naval service of the United States; but how many natives of Canada, like this boy, Mr. Page, of the county of Pictou, have walked to the front ranks in naval construction, and are among the most successful men in the ship-building works of the United States. In order that we might have some more accurate information than we have been able to obtain from the hon. gentlemen opposite, I took the liberty of applying to a journalistic friend of mine in New York, who is a Canadian, with a view to ascertaining some real facts in regard to the cost of naval construction in the United States. I have received from him some figures which can be verified by reference to the United States Naval Annual, showing the cost of the vessels built for the navy of the United States within the last ten years. The statement is as follows:
Ship.
Delaware	
North Dakota., .Michigan	 South Carolina
Florida	
Utah	
* Built at navy yard on 8-hour basis.
This information is authentic, and, coming to the cost'of the battleship Pennsylvania, with which I shall deal later, I place these figures with the absolute confidence beside those given to-night by this ineffective Minister of Naval Affairs. This information was obtained by my friend from authentic official sources in the United States Government. In regard to the Pennsylvania, he says that the cost of construction and machinery will be $7,-
Hull machinery and armour.	Equipage and armament.	Total.$6,821,015	$1,238,704	$ 8,059,7197.244,550	1.273,038	8,517,5885,693.609	1,101,718	6.795,3275,669,187	1,014,687	6,683,8748,931,495	1,258,740	10.190,235*6,832,392	1,187,379	8,019,772
100,000; equipment, $110,000; armour and armament, $6,485,275, a total of $13,695,275. A difference of $3,000,000 from the figures given a short time ago by the hon. Minister of Naval Affairs. I have here a memorandum which came from official sources in the United States to my journalistic friend, and which shows that the Ministe-of Naval Affairs was not in a position to say that the total cost of the Pennsylvania when completed would be $16,000,000. An



J187 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Act of Congress of August 22, 1912, provided for the construction of the new battleship Pennsylvania at a cost, for hull and machinery, not to exceed $7,425,000. The plans for the armour, which were only then under consideration at that time by the United States Government, were of such a character that they1 contemplated the widest possible expenditure. The estimate given to me shows the total cost to be $13,000,000, and it was not possible for the Minister of Naval Affairs to say to this House that that vessel was to cost $16,000,000, because no such estimate in regard thereto was available on March 19, which is only about six weeks ago, when the figures I have given in regard to the cost of the vessel came from this source in the United States. The result is that my hon. friend the Minister of Naval Affairs, speaking for the first time since December the 12th upon this question, has given us information which is only $3,000,000 out as in regard to the cost of the particular vessel to which he refers. What was the object of my hon. friend the Minister of Naval Affairs in telling us that the Fore River Shipbuilding Company went into liquidation-an announcement which was cheered with enthusiasm by hon. gentlemen sitting behind him ? What is his idea in exaggerating the cost of the Pennsylvania, unless it be for the purpose of leading the House and the country to believe that the cost of construction of vessels on this side of the water is so great that business enterprises fail when they engage in that work, and that we should not undertake it ? If he can have any other motive for making that suggestion I would like to know what it is. The fact that there are to-day eight or ten huge, prosperous industries in the United States engaged in the manufacture of all kinds of vessels, about which there is no question whatever, is suppressed by the hon. member, nor has he given the figures which I gave, showing that the six last battleships built for the United States Government in their own country were built at a cost of less than $10,000,000. These are facts which are not given to the country by my hon. friend when he ventures to give us information. Why is this? Is it to show that we in Canada cannot do anything in the way of shipbuilding?
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Possibly.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are we to understand that the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite in this debate is that suggestion that comes from the Opposition that this money might as far as possible be spent in Canada is one which should not be entertained for a moment because the Canadian people cannot engage in ship-Mr. MACDONALD.
building? Is that the policy? If that is the policy of hon.' gentlemen opposite it is a humiliating policy. I wonder what the former great leader of the Conservative party would say, the statesman who promulgated the national policy, who urged that out of our own resources here in Canada and by our own labour we should establish manufacturing conditions and that there should be a tariff under which the Canadian people would pay more for the articles which they purchased in Canada and would be penalized if they went abroad to purchase, all in order that we might inaugurate manufacturing industries in Canada. These hon. gentlemen do not believe in that policy evidently because if they did they would not be found making the arguments they make here. Every hon. gentleman who goes before the Canadian people and says: You must not, perish the idea, engage in the construction of steel vessels within the borders of Canada. Any man who says that is recreant to every principle which the Conservative party has ever advanced in this country since 1878, because if Canadian workmen and Canadian pluck and Canadian labour and brains cannot do what the same qualities possessed by other people and other nations of the world can do, surely Canada occupies a humiliating position. Yet that is where hon. gentlemen opposite, that is where the Minister of Naval Affairs is placed by all the little arguments he has ventured to make to-night. What does the Premier mean when he tells us, as he did on April 7, that this was not a free gift which he proposes. When this proposition was made on December 5 the headlines of every Conservative newspaper in Canada were marked by the -bold statement that Canada was bringing to the feet of the Motherland this free gift for the purpose of standing by her in time of need. That was the policy which the Prime Minister announced, that was the policy of the Conservative party on December 5, 1912. That policy was changed somewhat. The Premier made a curious speech on April 7 when you come to analyze it. He was trying to justify himself and to make the argument that he was consistent with his attitude on the resolution of 1909. He knew that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House charged him with inconsistency, that we claimed- that he, in common with every hon. gentleman in Parliament in 1909 had voted for a policy which we then declared was to be the permanent policy of this country, the lines on which we were to lay down our relations on naval affairs and aid the Mother Country and he naturally felt the force of the criticism made and attempted to justify himself. He read the resolution of 1909 and said:

I pointed out to the right hon. gentleman then, and my argument apparently prevailed with him, that conditions or urgency might so develop at any time that the very best course, and the safest course for Canada to pursue would be to make a contribution-although we are not even going that far to-day, because we are only proposing to expend $35,000,000 in the construction of ships which, although placed at the disposal of His Majesty for the common defence of the Empire, nevertheless will be the property and in the ownership of the Canadian people.
That was a new step in the journey upon this question, not a free gift, not a generous handing out of this money from the pockets of the Canadian people in order that the old Motherland should see that the heart of her Canadian subjects was as true and loyal to all the institutions that existed here. I would like my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) to study that speech of the Prime Minister. He will find a strange lapse and a marvellous gap between all the heroic sentiments which he enunciated here and the proposition made on April 7 by the Prime Minister that he was not even making a contribution. The Prime Minister goes on further:
He already knows from my statement and from the correspondence that has been brought down, that if it should hereafter be the will of the Canadian people to establish upon a permanent basis a great naval organization, the ships can be recalled upon reasonable notice whenever the people of Canada shall desire and so determine.
The Premier is not going to give this money to England, that is certain. Secondly, he is not going to give any ships to England, they are always to belong to Canada and they are always going to be owned by Canada. Both of these things are very widely different from the original proposition. But my hon. friend has a third proposition in regard to it. Not only is he not going to give the money or the ships but he is going to own the ships; he will lend them to be used in this flying squadron, not in the North sea at all, they are going to be loaned until Canada makes up her mind that she will have a navy of her own. That presupposes logically that it is possible to build ships in Canada and for Canada to have a naval organization of her own. That is a fair deduction from that proposition. If Canada is only going to loan ships to England in the meantime until she establishes a navy of her own, I say that presupposes that Canada can do what we say to-day she can and ought to do, that is have ships built and owned and controlled here in Canada. So that the Prime Minister is contemplating a condition of affairs and assuming that it will be brought about in the very near future, the very conditions that we say ought to be hastened at this moment. I come now to that phrase of
Commander Roper's which the Minister of Naval Affairs is always talking about, that these ships will become obsolete. How long is it going to take the ships that the Premier proposes to have constructed in England to become obsolete? Will they become obsolete and of no value before his Canadian navy is established? Does he propose to bring them back to Canada before they become obsolete? I assume that if he has any idea on this question, and I know that his thought in the back of his head, if he was free to do so, would be to get up to-night and declare that the proper attitude for Canada is to go on the line of Canadian-owned vessels, a Canadian-owned navy, and to build the vessels as far as possible in Canada. That is his permanent policy. Those ships that the Prime Minister is going to have built in England must be brought back before they get obsolete. There is no doubt about that, otherwise he is misleading this House and the people of Canada. He is going to leave them under the direction of the First Lord of the Admiralty who at first was going to place them in the North sea, and who is now talking of placing them at Gibraltar, and he may send them across to the other side of the world if he takes the notion-


William Manley German: To the Malay states.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend is going to have those ships straying round the world, in order to keep faith with the Canadian people he must bring them back before they become obsolete, otherwise we are throwing away money. Is that not a fair business proposition? The Prime Minister says that he proposes to loan those vessels to England and to bring them back to Canada when Canada starts a naval organization of her own. That means that he intends that that naval organization will be developed before those three battleships become obsolete, otherwise there is no sense in his istateinent. The position which the Prime Minister reluctantly took on April 7-although in view of his past record on this question and of the position adopted by his party in and out of this House, he would not venture to say what it was or that he contemplates a permanent policy for Canada which means Canadian ownership, Canadian construction, and Canadian vessels, that he only proposes that those three vessels should be loaned to England and that before they become obsolete he is going to bring them back, to identify them with the Canadian navy. Why cannot he be frank and tell us so. Do not let us have any mystery about a permanent policy. Do not let us have any attempt to befuddle the minds of the people with talk of permanent policies. The Prime Minister has only one permanent policy. He had only

one in 1909 when he was in Opposition, and he has got only one permanent policy now, a policy of having vessels along the lines of the Canadian Naval Service Act. He tells us he is not in favour of contributions. On April 7 I asked my right hon. friend to tell us about clause 2 in the resolution, and if hon. gentlemen are at all interested in this matter, and will take the pains to look at page 7414 of 'Hansard' they will find how very skilfully the Prime Minister drifted away from the question and evaded the request which I then made that he should tell us whether or not while he was urging that he was consistent on the question of contributions, thi3 was not a contribution, and whether or not it was consistent with the policy of a Canadian owned navy such as was outlined in paragraph 2 of the resolution. Why does he not tell us these facts to-night. The Prime Minister surely does not think he is going to fool the Canadian people with this theory of an emergency. All such nonsense has passed into the sphere of ridicule months ago, and there is not a sensible Canadian, who knows anything about- public matters or who has studied either European or Canadian politics, who will venture to-day to make an argument in this House or before any intelligent audience of Canadian people That the Empire is in such a position that there is any need of an emergency (contribution. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister knows that as well as he knows anything. That being so, why should he attempt to push through this House by means of closure a proposition which is at variance with his own position upon this question, a proposition which is antagonistic to every reason that has been urged upon the Canadian people for some six months, a proposition which cannot be justified by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Naval Affairs or by any of his supporters upon any documents that are extant. Now, that my hon. friend the Minister of Naval Affairs is here, I would like to ask him the reason for the (argument which he made in regard to the alleged failure of the Fore River Company and for the exorbitant figures which he gave in regard to the Pennsylvania for the purpose of leading this committee and the country to believe that naval construction on this side of the water would be of such an imprudent character that we could not think of engaging in it.


John Douglas Hazen: I cannot answer my hon. friend's question because it is on wrong premises. He says I gave exorbitant figures.	.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I showed you where you were out, you were three millions out.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend could not show that, because I was not out.
Mr. MACDONALD


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have here figures
which I obtained from a reliable Canadian journalist working in the United States, who got them from official sources in Washington.


John Douglas Hazen: I have given my hon.
friend the official source of my information. I cited the page of the record where it is to be found, and he can look it up for himself. The hon. gentleman will not suppose that I will admit that my figures are exorbitant when I gave him the official source of them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend will not deny that my statement is correct. It was given in an official letter and it gives the exact cost of the Pennsylvania.


Robert Laird Borden: Would my hon. friend
read the official letter?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have here a statement which is an extract from the official letter sent to me by my friend in New York.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend said it
was an official letter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have an extract
which has been sent to me by a Canadian journalist in the United States and which is in the following words:
I also inclose herewith a sheet of characteristics for battleships No. 38, Pennsylvania. The figures for (the total -cost of the vessels allowed by Congress, and which should not be exceeded, are embodied in the memorandum. The following are estimates for this vessel divided as you asked, which are taken from another source: Construction and machinery, $7,100,000: equipment, $110,000; armour and armament, $0,435.275; total, $13,69o,2i5.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that the official letter?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is information
which was forwarded to me by a Canadian journalist connected with the New York World. I will give my right hon. friend his name. He sends me this extract from a letter which he received from an official of the Government at Washington.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My information is
quite as accurate as the minister's.


John Douglas Hazen: I referred my hon. friend
to the page of the official document, which he or any other member can verify for himself.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When we see ' Hansard ' we will compare that information with mine. My hon. friend has evaded the question which I asked him by assuming that it was based on wrong premises. Why did my hon. friend make this argument in regard to the Fore River Company and in regard to the exorbitant cost of the Pennsyl-

vania. What was the reason that caused him to put that before the committee?


John Douglas Hazen: If my hon. friend had
listened to me, or had listened to the debate which took place some time ago he would have realized that what I said about the Fore River Shipbuilding yard had no application to the construction of the Pennsylvania. My hon. friend the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) said I had given wrong figures about the construction of the Pennsylvania. The figures I gave to the House I gave some time ago from the official source, and I am prepared to stand by them. But when I was on my feet I took occasion to point out that the hon. member for St. John had been telling us what a very successful enterprise this Fore River Shipbuilding Company was, and how easy it was to build ships on this side of the water. I pointed out that this shipbuilding yard that he was holding up as a model of enterprise and success had become bankrupt, ana that the shareholders had to sell out at a price that gave the common stockholders nothing and caused a loss to the preferred stockholders of eighty per cent. The one statement had no reference to the other.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is
cnly repeating the argument that he made. I would ask him if, when he made that argument, it was for the purpose of showing that on tin's side of the water we could not hope to engage in the ship-building industry?


John Douglas Hazen: It was made a subject of
attack by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and I was merely answering that hon. gentleman.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will my hon. friend answer the question? Do I understand him to say that he used that argument with the view of leading the committee and the country to believe that it would not be profitable to engage in ship-building on this side of the water?


John Douglas Hazen: I used it for exactly what it was_ worth. _ The hon. member for St. John illustrated his point in regard to the building of warships in Canada by what he said had been accomplished before, and he endeavoured to reason from what he said had been done by the Fore River Shipbuilding Company. I dealt with the Fore River Shipbuilding Company for the purpose of showing that it had been a most successful enterprise, that it had not completed the ships that it had contracted for with the Argentine Republic, that it had failed and that it had sold out at a great sacrifice to the stockholders.
^ Mr. MACDONALD:	Does the Minister
for Naval Affairs sea any reason why we .
should not immediately proceed to the expenditure of money in providing for putting down shipyards until, in the ordinary progress of events, we can engage in construction?


John Douglas Hazen: I have no hesitation-in
saying that I believe, and the Government believes, in encouraging the ship-building industry in Canada in a reasonable and sensible way, but we do not believe that it is to be encouraged by commencing to build dreadnoughts in Canada.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Doe3 the minister
believe that it should be undertaken at all?


John Douglas Hazen: I have already said so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the minister
object further to tell me-


John Douglas Hazen: I think the hon. gentleman had better go on with his speech.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think I had better for the hon. gentleman's sake.


John Douglas Hazen: Not for my sake.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend the Minister of Naval Affairs declines to say to this committee that he does not think it would be feasible for us to proceed to prepare for the construction of vessels in Canada.


John Douglas Hazen: I said nothing of the sort.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, does my hon. friend think it is advisable that we should . proceed to provide for the construction of vessels in Canada?


John Douglas Hazen: I think that reasonable
steps should be taken to provide for shipbuilding.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think so too.
When my hon. friend says that he does not think that battleships can be built at once he is simply evading the question.


John Douglas Hazen: What I said was dreadnoughts.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, then my hon. friend would build a cruiser, not a dreadnought. That is what I understand the Minister of Naval Affairs to say to-night. To sum up the effect of the conversation we have had across the floor, I understand my hon. friend to say that we in Canada can and ought to proceed to provide for the construction of vessels, that we can construct cruisers but that we cannot at once construct battleships. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, only why does not the minister go on and provide for it?


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend
think that we should begin with dreadnoughts ?



91S6


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Certainly not, and
nobody suggests it.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the position
of hon. gentlemen on the other side was that three dreadnoughts should be built in this country at onee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend knows very well that-


David Henderson: Do not go back on
what you all voted for.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Halt-on (Mr. Henderson) was one of those who, in 1909, voted for the proposition that everything, beyond question, should be built in Canada. My hon. friend, and every hon. gentleman who voted for the resolution of 1909, will find that they have a great many more things to explain than we have on this side of the House in regard to this question.


David Henderson: Wbat was the resolution of 1909 ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend will find it, as read by his leader, at page 7143 of ' Hansard.'


David Henderson: Read it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Just to show where we stand on this question-


Robert Laird Borden: Before my hon. friend
leaves that point, do I gather from him that he thinks that it would not be wise or desirable to build these three dreadnoughts in Canada ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What my right hon. friend gathers from me in regard to this question is this: The policy, as I understand it, of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House is that naval construction in Canada is feasible, that naval shipyards in Canada are feasible, just as they are in Australia, and that we should, out of this money, the voting of which we are discussing to-nignt, provide immediately for the laying-down in Canada of shipyards so that all the vessels that can be built in Canada may be built here. Further, let me say to my right hon. friend that if, after the fullest advice that can be obtained from the proper authority, it is necessary, in order to complete the two fleet units that are referred to in the amendment of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, that we should build any portion of them in England immediately, we say build them in England.


Robert Laird Borden: I ask my hon. friend
whether or not, in asking Parliament to vote $35,000,000, he stands for the policy that a great many hon. gentlemen opposite have put forward that these three ships should be built in Canada at once, or as soon as possible ?
Mr. BORDEN.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The policy for which I stand is most admirably expressed in the resolution which was moved as an, amendment to the proposition of my right hon. friend. There is, nothing in that resolution that there is any doubt about. My right hon. friend can interpret every line of it. It is not necessary for any hon. gentleman on this side of the House to shelter himself behind any uncertainty or doubt. At no time have we shifted our position in regard to it. The right hon. gentleman appealed to his followers on the second reading of the Bill, and he won the applause of hon. gentlemen sitting beside him because he said that hon. gentlemen composing the Opposition were voting for an expenditure of $35,000,000 by reason of the fact that in the wording of the resolution they had not stricken out the first clause. My right hon. friend condescended to make that argument in order to justify his position. On the other hand, my right hon. friend and his supporters voted against that proposition when they voted against the resolution that we proposed. If there is any virtue in the argument of my right hon. friend where did he and his supporters stand when they voted against our proposition ? We never resorted on this side of the House to any such argument as that to cover up our position. The intrinsic difference between the two parties on this question is that we propose to spend $35,000,000 along the lines contained in the amendment moved by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition and to spend it as far as it can possibly be spent in Canada prudently, honestly and fairly. My right hon, friend the leader of the Government contemplates, and he will not venture to deny it now in this House to-night, that if he can get this proposition through Parliament and postpone going to the country for two or three years, the formal and permanent policy that he will lay down shall be a policy of building ships in Canada which shall form a part of the Canadian navy. Will my right hon. friend venture to deny that ? I challenge him, in the course of this debate, to deny that. What other permanent policy Can he propose ? He has denied that this is to be a permanent policy of contribution. On April 7 my right hon. friend put himself on record as denying that his policy was a policy of contribution.	What other
policy of a permanent character could there be than the policy we lay down ? Let the right hon. Prime Minister summon all the ingenuity, of which he has shown himself to be possessed in the handling of this case, to his aid and yet he will be unable to	suggest any
other permanent policy for this coun-1 try than the permanent policy which

we propose by our amendment here. In Australia with a steel industry which does not begin to compare with ours in extent or possibilities, in 1909 they brought the plates out from England and put a cruiser together, and now they are actually constructing the whole of the vessel, including the plates. What Australia can do, why can not we do? The Prime Minister owes it to the House and to the country to frankly tell us whether he can have any permanent naval policy for Canada other than the permanent policy we suggest. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has told us that he did not let the contract for the warships, tenders for which had been invited, because he had a report from Commander Roper on which he had to rely. Commander Roper was sent out to Canada by the Admiralty, and at one time he was a lusty defender of the Canadian naval principle. He attended, a banquet in Ottawa in the spring of 1911, when he thought the Government of the day was certain of remaining in office, and he defended the naval policy of the Liberal Government, and made an attack upon the Conservatives, then in Opposition, because they opposed it. I heard these gentlemen opposite attack Commander Roper and say he had no business to make that statement, and that he did not know what he was talking about. It is rather curious that that document referred to by the Minister of Marine, should be dated September 21, the day of the elections; it would seem that Commander Roper was sitting up all that night to write that document. This wily Commander Roper was then willing to abandon the Canadian navy, and all his wife's relations, in order to hang on to his job.


John Douglas Hazen: The date of the document was not the 21st of September; it was the 20th of September.


William Pugsley: It never was heard oi until after the election.


David Henderson: You are all knocked out.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend
can flatter himself that this man was entitled to any special consideration because he dated his letter the 20th instead of the 21st of September, he is welcome to it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I can say as Minister
of Marine at the time that the report of Commander Roper was a concocted report, and I have said so before.


John Douglas Hazen: May I say a word?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. member
has a right to ask a question but not to make a speech.


John Douglas Hazen: I was not about to ask a question. I was about to refer to the I 291*
statement that this was a concocted Teport.. I admit I have no right to interrupt my hon. friend, but I do not want that to go
on record without contradiction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend
from Pictou allow me?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You and the Minister of Naval Affairs can make speeches when I am through; but do not interfere with me now, please.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a concocted
report.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend
anticipated what I was going to say;. I was coming to the same conclusion, but my hon. friend arrived at it without so much circumlocution. Commander Roper was sent out to us from England, and we were not responsible for appointing him, and he and the other gentlemen who came from the Admiralty, and were employed in the Department of Naval Affairs were the men who prepared the plans upon which tenders were called, by the late Government. It was on their plans that the Minister of Naval Affairs in the late Government advertised for tenders and it was on these plans that six reputable and responsible firms in England tendered to construct these war vessels in Canada, and that settled for all time the question as to whether or not these vessels could be constructed in Canada. There is no way in which the Prime Minister or the Minister of Naval Affairs can, get away from the absolute fact that six. of the best naval constructors in the world undertook to build these vessels in Canada on the plan approved by Commander Roper. The Minister of Naval Affairs is fond of talking about why the late Government did not let the contracts, but had.: the late Government done so after the elections, everyone knows that the present Prime Minister would have gone to His Excellency and asked him to cancel that-contract. The Minister of Naval Affairs tells-us that these ships, had we ordered them, would be obsolescent. I wonder whether that obsolescence will settle down on the ships the present Prime Minister will have-built in England? If he keeps putting off' his permanent policy I wonder whether there will be any ships to bring back? Obsolescence is a fatal disease when it comes to build ships in Canada, but it does not-apply to ships built on the other side. It is a kind of Tory virus which describes a condition idealistic to Commander Roper, by which you are going to destroy the construction of vessels in Canada, but it is a virus which would not cause any damage to the same kind of vessel if she is built in England. I wish the minister would devote himself to the consideration of this question instead of attempting to impose
*9199

92G0
upon the country with this fake report of Commander Roper.	.
Now, why is it that, whereas in 1909, the Prime Minister declared himself as against contribution and in favour of the Canadian navy, why is it what whereas he declared in 1909 in favour of the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service, he will not stand by it to-day? Why it is that when he went home to England last year he declared, speaking at a dinner there, that he was always in favour of the one fleet idea. He was not in favour of the one fleet idea in 1909. What change had come o'er the spirit of his dream? The twenty-one members behind him from the province of Quebec who were elected absolutely pledged to the proposition that the Canadian naval service law must be repealed are the people responsible for this change of idea, and no other. Why is it the Prime Minister took into his present Cabinet the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel). No one can explain that except on the theory that he took that hon. gentleman in to represent the Nationalists and that he was recommended by the group who were pledged to the proposition that the Canadian naval service law should be repealed. Everybody knows that they were not in favor of naval contributions of any kind. Especially hon. members who were members of the last Parliament know that there are men sitting in this House today who have voted in favour of the proposition of contribution to the British navy who, previously in the last Parliament, inveighed against anything in the shape of naval assistance to the mother country. Why has the Prime Minister turned around and given up the idea of the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service for the moment? He has only done it for the moment, and he has only done it to retain the contingent of twenty-one sitting behind him. I challenge him to deny the statement that the permanent policy he has in his mind is the only permanent policy, a policy of the organization of a Canadian naval service along the lines laid down in the resolution of 1909. That is our policy. That is what we stand for; that is what we have stood for since December 5 up to this moment ; and that is what we will fight for as long as this session shall last. We know that the principle declared for in the resolution of 1909 is the one which the Prime Minister must adopt if he ever attempts to formulate a permanent policy on this subject. There is no man in this Parliament who has studied this question who does not know that there are only two ways open, one is the way of contribution and the other is the ways of a Canadian naval service. There is no middle course. The Prime Minister of this country, if he were frank enough to own it, is in favor of the Mr. MACDONALD.
policy urged by . the Opposition^ He puts forward this proposal of a contribution as an expedient. Why not let us go to the Empire at once with the permanent and certain aid which alone will guarantee for all time the preservation within the Empire of all nationalities united within its bounds, who must be kept together^ with freedom for themselves if the Empire is to be preserved. The longer we postpone the solution of the question the more danger there is of another appeal along the lines that were followed in Quebec two years ago. Do we wish another such scene in Canada? That will be one of the dark pages in our history. I look forward to the time when all the nations within the Empire, each along it own lines, as Australia has done, as New Zealand is about to do, as South Africa is likely to do, as we must do, will have its permanent naval policy, each providing its own naval service which can be combined for the defence of the Empire in time of need. That is' the policy to which the_ Prime Minister must come, that is the policy that we stand for, and it is the only policy that can ever be the permanent policy of a free Canada within the Empire.


James Joseph Hughes: I desire to say a few words on the subject before the committee, but as it is late I would prefer to move the adjournment of the debate if the leader of the House will permit it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


James Joseph Hughes: We are in Committee of the Whole and I suppose this is the proper time to get information on the subject under discussion. On the 10th of March, last, I made a short speech on the measure now before the committee, and in _ the course of my remarks I asked the Minister of Naval Affairs who was in the House at the time whether the ships we propose to build under this measure and give to the Admiralty would be an addition to the ships that the Admiralty would build for themselves in any case, and the Minister of Naval Affairs was courteous enough to answer my question, and he stated that, as he understood it, the ships proposed to be built under this Bill would be in addition to the ships the Admiralty would build under any circumstances. In order that there may be no doubt about what was said, I had better read from ' Hansard ':
Mr. Hazen: The Government do not propose to give any ships to the Admiralty.
The hon. gentleman took exception to the word * give.'
The House has been informed frequently that what the Government propose to do is to place those ships at the disposal of the Admiralty subject to certain conditions, sub-

jeefc to the terms that they can be withdrawn and brought back to Canada at any time. Those ships, as I undertsand, will be entirely apart from the naval programme of the
Admiralty.
On the 8th of April last, the Minister of Finance made a speech in this House, a carefully thought out and well prepared speech. He quoted a statement made in the British House of Cogimons by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Bight Honourable Winston Churchill, tnat the ships that we proposed to build and give-the hon. gentleman used the word ' giye '-would not be an addition to the ships the Admiralty proposed to build but would be needed by the Admiralty and if we did not build them the Admiralty would have to build them themselves. These two statements made by two responsible ministers are diametrically opposed to each other on a vital point in regard to this important question. The Minister of Naval Affairs was with the Prime Minister in Great Britain last summer, and no doubt he attended the conferences that were held with the Admiralty and the British Government. I would respectfully ask the Minister of Naval Affairs if the statement he made on behalf of the Government, still holds good? As the minister does not answer my question, I presume it was correct. Then we have the Minister of Finance emphasizing and repeating the statement to-night that the answer which the Minister of Naval Affairs gave me on March 10, last, was not correct. What are we to believe when the ministers of the Crown do not agree among themselves as to what the measure now before this committee means? The Montreal Star time and time again has said that this Government must insist upon the principle that the ships to be built must be in addition to the ships that would be built by the Admiralty in any case, and that they must add to the margin of safety, but, according to the Minister of Finance, and according to the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, these ships are not to add to the margin of safety. This leads to another consideration. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Naval Affairs have repeatedly said that these ships can be recalled at any time by the giving of proper notice. It appears to me that if it is necessary that the Admiralty should have these ships, it will be exceedingly difficult for the people of Canada to recall them at any time, and the statement that the people of Canada can recall them at any time does not seem quite accurate. I must ask the Prime Minister which of the other ministers is correct, the Minister of Naval Affairs or the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Naval Affairs told me that these ships that were proposed to be built would be in
addition to the ships to be built by the Admiralty in the ordinary course, and, according to the statement made by the Minister of Finance this afternoon, under authority of the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, these ships are not to be in addition to the ships built by the Ad- -miralty in the ordinary course, but that they are to be a part of the Admiralty programme, and if we do not build them the Admiralty would have to build them themselves. These two statements do not agree; which of them is correct?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has misunderstood the remarks of the First Lord of the Admiralty; if he looks at them more carefully he will see their meaning.


James Joseph Hughes: I have here a statement made by the Minister of Finance when he quoted the First Lord of the Admiralty:
The three ships were absolutely required for the whole world defences of the British Empire apart- from England. They would play a real part in Imperial defence; and, if they were not forthcoming, steps w-ould have to be taken to fill the gap and the strain of the burden would have to be placed upon others.
What does ' others' mean ? The Toronto News says that ' others ' means the British Admiralty. I think I understand what the First Lord of the Admiralty said; it was according to the Minister of Finance, that if we do not provide these ships the Admiralty will have to provide them. That is not the answer that the Minister of Naval Affairs gave me; which is right?


Robert Laird Borden: I think if my hon. friend: will examine the answer of the First Lord, of the Admiralty, made


James Joseph Hughes: March 31.


Robert Laird Borden: Made, I think, earlier in the session than that, he will find that' he states exactly what I have stated here, namely that the ships which we propose to build and place at the disposal of His Majesty for the defence of the Empire are not to cut down the British naval programme.


James Joseph Hughes: Then the statement
made and insisted upon this afternoon by the Minister of Finance is wrong, because he repeated a statement he made on April 8, and he was condemning the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) for taking that meaning out of it. Then I find a discrepancy between the statement made by the hon. Prime Minister himself and one of his leading supporters. On April 7 the Prime Minister made a speech on this subject, and he complained of a lack of honesty on the part of the Opposition in saying that this is a gift or contribution; he said it was nothing of the kind. I find that on



&quot;9203 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
the 23rd of last month the hon. member for West Toronto (Sir Edmund Osier), standing right alongside the Prime Minister, made the statement that no man could read this Bill and come to any other conclusion than that it was a gift and nothing hut'a o-ift. I think there is no man in this House outside of the Cabinet who stands closer to the Prime Minister than the hon. member for West Toronto, and I am sure that he would interpret the views of ^ the party fairlv well. The hon. Prime Minister did not protest against his statement, and he has no right to complain if we on this side of the House take the view that this is a gift or a contribution, when one of his leading supporters made the statement in his own presence. It appears that not only do the Cabinet ministers disagree among themselves, but the leading men on the other side of the House supporting the Government do not know what this *measure	means-and yet this measure is going to he forced through the House by means of closure. 'On the 21st day of September last m (Montreal at the Windsor Hotel the Prime Minister, speaking in his capacity as Prime Minister, made the statement that he was summoning Parliament somewhat early in the season, that he would apply to Parliament for immediate and effective aid to the Imperial navy and if Parliament refused to give immediate and effective aid to the Imperial navy he would appeal to the country. He repeated that statement on the 5th day of December last when he introduced the Bill now before the committee and I ask the Prime Minister if he intends to keep that promise.
Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend
*will have to form his own conclusion as to that.


James Joseph Hughes: I will ask the Prime
Minister again, it appears to have been -rather a strange promise to make, it was -at once a threat and a promise. I have no -doubt that the Premier at the time intended to keep it. He must have expected opposition to this measure.


Robert Laird Borden: I never thought of such 'A thing.
man in his position to take. The
Prime Minister seems to think I am impatient in asking him whether he intends to keep the promise he voluntarily made to this House on the 5th of December last. He had confidence then that if the people of this country were appealed^ to on this subject they would decide wisely and well. Has he lost that confidence?


Robert Laird Borden: 'Not in the slightest. I may say -to my hon. friend, as he asks\ me, that I have had letters from hundreds of Liberals saying they are absolutely dissatisfied and disgusted with the conduct of the Opposition, and that they intend to work hard for the Conservatives next time.


Mr. GRAHAM:: That being the case,
will my hon. friend say he will give them a chance to do it?


Robert Laird Borden: I am pretty well satisfied that my hon. friend does not want the chance.


James Joseph Hughes: Why does the Prime Minister hesitate to give me the assurance that he will carry out his promise? There will be no harm in doing that. There must be some reason for this change. My opinion is that the Prime Minister is afraid and has lost confidence in the people and fears that the people have lost confidence in him. We ought to have this question cleared up at some stage of the discussion of this Bill. The Prime Minister does not seem disposed to give us much information along those lines. He is not disposed to tell us whether Sir Edmund Osier interpreted the Bill properly when he said it was a gift and nothing but a gift. The Prime Minister is disposed to find fault with the Opposition when we take that view. This whole measure was founded upon an emergency. The emergency must have been very real because the Prime Minister himself said he heard the thunder and saw the lightning flash upon the horizon. That was on the 5th of December last. It was an unusual time of the year to hear thunder and see lightning. The dog days, however, are now approaching and we will hear thunder and see lightning then. But in the meantime the . emergency


James Joseph Hughes: And yet he threatened
'.Parliament with dissolution if any opposition was offered. Was he threatening the Opposition? If so, the threat did not seem to have any great effect. If he was threatening his own supporters it does -seem to have had some effect because they sail held their tongues and voted for the 3Bili. At the same time it was a promise "4o the people of Canada. There must have 'been some idea in the Premier's mind because that was an unusual proceeding for a
appears to have gone. Possibly Steffansson may find it on his expedition to the North.


Mr. BURNHAM:: When the hon. gentleman say that the emergency has disappeared does he mean that it ever existed?


James Joseph Hughes: It never existed, a condition of affairs existed in Europe because of the increased armaments of European countries. That condition will continue to exist for many years in the future and these ships, if built, can never
(Mr. HUGHES (Kings, I. P.-E.).

be recalled, there is no question about that. In view of the fact that there is no emergency and the further fact pointed out by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) that there is on the statute books of this country an Act by which the Government and Parliament of Canada can proceed with any reasonable measure for giving effective aid to the Imperial navy and under which we could be unanimous on this measure as we once were, then, in all reason, that phase of the question should be seriously considered because hon. gentlemen opposite have said time and time again that if this Bill passed through the House, under closure, as it will have to be passed, all the moral effect * which it would have upon other nations is lost. Then why not meet the proposition made by the Opposition this afternoon? There is no reason why that should not be considered, there is no reason why the Government should proceed on their present course except that they want closure for an entirely different reason and that they do not care what happens this Bill, they would like to have it killed in the other House and so get rid of it. 1 believe that is really the condition the Government would like to bring about.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: Mr. Chairman, as the hour is late, I would move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


William Chisholm: All right. This subject is a very interesting one, Mr. Chairman, and on that account I would not like to vote on clause* 2 without having something to say on the subject. It is particularly interesting because of the wide differences of opinion that seem to exist on the other side of the House as to the policy of the Government so far as present requirements are concerned, and also as to the policy of the Government in the future. Those differences of opinion seem to grow as time goes on. Some weeks ago, or perhaps I should say some months ago, there was a strong feeling on the part of a great many Conservatives that there was needless obstruction in this House. There were many Conservatives who charged that the Opposition were obstructing the conduct of business. However, there was a large number of Conservatives who shared the opinion of Liberals that the obstruction was producing a great deal of good, inasmuch as it was throwing some little light on the darkness which seemed to overshadow hon. gentlemen on the right of the Speaker, during the greater part of the winter. If you read the speeches on the other side, and if, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Kings, you take the speeches of the Prime Minister himself, delivered on 5th December and on 12th April and attempt to reconcile them you will have a difficult proposition in hand. If you take his views and contrast them with the views of some of his followers in regard to the policy which the Government has in mind, you will find just as much difficulty in reconciling them. However, there seems to be one view that controls the party opposite, and that is the view of the Montreal Star. If one can judge from what their press says, the Montreal Star and the Toronto News have this Government pretty well in band. They pull the strings and the Government has to dance to their music. The Montreal Star has come out most unequivocally in support of the view that the only policy for Canada is a policy of permanent contribution. That is the effect of the arguments which the Montreal Star has been putting up during the winter. It is true that hon. gentlemen opposite try to make it appear that this policy of sending $35,000,000 out of the country is not a permanent policy. That is a very large sum of money, and the people of Canada, irrespective of politics, look upon it as a sum of money which could be more profitably utilized in this country. The people of Canada regard the sending of this money out of the country as a very serious matter, and one and all they condemn the sending of it out of the country unless it can be shown that there is a serious reason why it should be sent. Had a proposition of this kind been made when the German scare was on some years ago, or even last September, or October, -when the Montreal Star had the country worked up to fever heat over the imaginary emergency that existed in Europe, perhaps the people of Canada might have been disposed, if not to view with favour the contribution of $35,000,000, at all events to condone the sending of the money out of the country. But thanks to the Opposition and to the so-called obstruction, which was not obstruction at all, the people have had time to reflect, and they now see that there is no such thing as an emergency. They have discovered that the conditions in Europe are seemingly of the most pacific character, and that there is nothing whatever to justify the suspicion of any estrangement or of any ill-feeling between England and Germany. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) the hallucination of an emergency has disappeared, and to-day there is none so poor as to do reverence to an argument of that kind. The Montreal Star is most emphatic in saying there is only one policy for Canada, a policy of permanent contribution, and it ridicules the idea of having a Canadian navy at present or in the future, for, after all, that is the effect of .the articles of the Star. If you read and weigh them carefully and dis-

passionately, you will find that the whole argument of the Montreal Star is that we must embark on a policy of permanent contributions, and we find an echo of that in the statement of the Prime Minister himself. What does he mean when he criticises hon. gentlemen on this side of the House and when he asks:	What are
you going to do with your fleet units on the Atlantic and Pacific; of what earthly service are they going to be in time of war; what do you want them for anyway? And he says that such fleet units are unnecessary when we have such a splendid organization in Great Britain to protect our shores and commerce. On some occasions he makes strong appeals and strong arguments to show that as there is only one flag and one King there should be only one navy. He takes the ground that a Canadian navy is absolutely useless, and that for Canada to embark upon a policy of that kind would be very unwise. That is his argument.


John Hampden Burnham: Hear, hear.


William Chisholm: My hon. friend says
' hear, hear.' Do I understand him to say that he does not believe in a Canadian navy?


John Hampden Burnham: Most decidedly not.


William Chisholm: It is refreshing to
find an hon. gentleman who at this late hour says he does not believe in a Canadian navy, but there were other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House-I do not know the names of their constituencies, but there are some within hearing of me-who said that their policy was not a policy of permanent contributions, that the. present contribution was to meet an emergency, a pressing need, and that a Canadian naval policy would be embarked upon later, when the scheme could be properly developed and matured. However, my hon. friend from Peterborough does not take that view of it. He is one of the disciples of the Montreal Star. Evidently he has been imbued with the idea that in Canada we are not able to build a navy of our own, and that the only way in which we can discharge our duty to the Empire is by permanent contributions.


John Hampden Burnham: That is not my idea.


William Chisholm: That policy has been enunciated by the leader of the Government himself, and let me call the attention of my hon. friend from Peterborough to the fact that when the Prime Minister took that ground he qualified his statement by saying that we could not embark upon a policy of contribution unless we had a voice in the councils of the Empire, unless we had a say in the making of war and peace. He said that no self-respecting Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).
country like Canada would for a moment think of contributing year after year or from time to time to the exchequer of England unless it were given representation in the councils of the. Empire, and he sought to convey the impression that when he was in England last year he secured representation of some kind. But that bubble was pricked a very short time after the House met. The letter of Mr. Harcourt, the Colonial Secretary, would seem to have been a reply to the speech that was made by the right hon. leader of the Government in which he alleged that he had secured representation for Canada in the councils of the Empire. That letter disproved the argument completely and showed that any representation that Canada was to have was not any new representation that had been offered to the present Government, but that it was something that had been offered to the late Administration some years ago and which did not give us any say in peace or war. It would simply be that the representative of Canada would be there in an advisory capacity and nothing more. In further substantiation of that I might quote the words of the First Lord of the Admiralty himself, and of other British statesmen, to the effect that an arrangement such as that which has been suggested would be absolutely impossible. I had the honour myself of quoting from a statement by Sir Joseph Ward in which he pointed out the difficulties of an arrangement of that kind, and in which he declared that it would be impossible to carry out any such arrangement. At the Colonial Conference of 1909, the representatives of the various colonies discussed the question of representation in Imperial councils, and the present Prime Minister of England, who presided at that conference, stated that a scheme of that kind was absolutely impossible. The matter has been discussed again and again in this House, and no hon. gentleman on the other side has attempted seriously to argue that the scheme was feasible. Everybody knows that the voice we would have in the Imperial Council would be so feeble that it would be almost insulting to the pride and ambitions of Canada to be represented there.
Then so far as the question of an emergency is concerned, that argument has been knocked into a cocked hat. Nobody takes the emergency seriously. There is nobody who will pretend that there is a situation in Great Britain to-day which calls for a contribution of .$35,000,000. If there was an emergency, if there was any real danger to the Empire, the people of Canada would not hesitate to vote, not $35,000,000, but four or five times that amount, if necessary.


John Hampden Burnham: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman, in view of the fact that he considers there is no emergency, would refuse to send over anything ?


William Chisholm: No, I never said any
such thing. I say that we have duties to perform as a part of the Empire, and the resolution of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition points out how! these duties should be performed. He says that he would undertake the defence of this particular part of the Empire, and that in providing for the defence of this part of the Empire, along the lines laid down some years ago by so illustrious a Conservative as Sir Charles Tupper, and along the lines laid down by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce- (Mn Foster) and the right hon. leader of the Government (Mr. Borden) when they were in opposition, we are doing our duty towards the Empire. We could do something effective for the Empire by pursuing that course. But the course that we are asked to pursue is not going to be in accord with the wishes of Great Britain, and it is not consistent with the self-respect of a colony such as Canada is. There is no emergency and there is no .reason for giving this $35,000,000 to the lords of the Admiralty.
On what ground then can you put this grant at $35,000,000 ? It is not that Great Britain needs it. This morning I read in the Ottawa Citizen, a good Conservative authority, the following:
Given under compulsion, Canada would not receive its money's worth, there being no real compensating gain to the country or to the Empire. Great Britain does not need Canadian money. She is amply able, by reason of her wealth to supply all the battleships required for naval defence. Unless Canada's money means Canada's heart and sentiment, the proposed action can mean little more than the transference of several tons of gold from the public treasury into the armament barons' private purse.
Let me quote to you some statistics regarding the wealth of Great Britain, I am quoting from the Kingdom Papers, vol. 15. Whilst hon. gentlemen on the other side may not agree with everything that the writer of these Kingdom Papers says, they will all concede that he is one of the cleverest men in Canada. He .says this:
Q. Is the United Kingdom in need of cash?
A. -No. She has command of unlimited revenues. Part of the income of every civilized man in the world (and of many of the uncivilized) goes, directly or indirectly, every year to pay interest upon her investments. Her new foreign investments last year were over $800,000,0(>0. Her present foreign investments are about $18,000,000,000. Her annual increase in wealth is about $1,200,000,000. Besides paying for all her military and naval preparations, her old age pensions, and everything else, she has repaid, in the last five years, on account of her national debt (due almost entirely to foolish wars) over $270,000,060. Her national debt is about two-tliirds that of France; and her national wealth is one-third greater.
It is unnecessary to dwell upon the financial standing of England, or to make
any comments on what our paltry $35,000,000 would mean to England in a case of this kind.
Our hon. friends opposite, and particularly my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), lay a great deal of emphasis on the cost of building ships in Canada? I observed that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries took very good care not to give a straight, definite and categorical answer to the question put to him by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) when he was asked if he thought that these smaller vessels, cruisers and warships, could not be built in Canada. He wisely evaded that question and he evaded it by answering that it is not possible to build dreadnoughts in Canada. Nobody contends for a moment that dreadnoughts can be built in their entirety in Canada at present. As the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) has said, everything must have a beginning, and,in the matter of building warships, we must make a beginning some day or other. It is idle to pretend we cannot build ships in Canada. Is there anything in our climatic conditions; are our people so inferior, so lacking in intelligence and capacity, that we cannot build ships. We have the iron, the steel, the nickel, the men, the brains, the muscle, the money; we have everything required and there is no reason why we cannot engage in this industry as well as any civilized country in the world. True, it may cost a little more to build these ships, in Canada than in England where they have established shipyards doing business for a great many years, but does that argument come with good grace from gentlemen on the other side. Are our artisans and labourers entitled to no consideration from them? They have to pay heavy duties on everything they use and why not avail of this opportunity to assist our industrial and farming community by creating a ship-building industry, thus giving them a chance to earn the money to pay the extra cost on what they consume? The artisan can buy his clothes and other necessaries of life cheaper in England than in Canada, but this 'beneficent Government will not let him do that without taxing him heavily for the privilege. Even if it should cost more to build ships in Canada-and it will cost probably more for the first few years-does it lie in the mouth of hon. gentlemen opposite to

[DOT]say that because of that fact the ships taiust be built on the other side, especially when these gentlemen maintain a high tariff against the consumers of the country. I might quote from the remarks of the Prime Minister who, speaking at Halifax on October 14, 1909, told the people that the ships should be built in Canada; that in 1909 all parties were in accord on the policy of having a Canadian navy, and he called upon the people to appreciate the fact that he was a true Canadian in advocating this policy. I can quote also from Mr. George Drummond of Montreal, a very eminent authority, to the effect that the ships should be built in Canada. Bet it is not necessary to go further than to point out the fact that when tenders were invited for the construction of strips in Canada, six ol the most responsible and largest shipbuilding firms in the world tendered to build the ships here, and they put up a large money deposit to show their good faith. The very fact that the advertisement calling for tenders stated that the ships should be built m Canada, and should be approved by the Admiralty, and that six large firms tendered to do the work in Canada sets at rest once and for all the contention that it was not possible to get the ships built here. In 1909, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Poster) pointed out in eloquent terms the great advantage that would result from building the ships in Canada, and that argument is as sound to-day as it was then. If the hon. member (Mr. Foster) was here tonight, I am sure he would not be found contending that we could not build ships in Canada just as well as they can in any other part of the world. I have here a little book on Canada which points out some of the things which our country possesses, and iit affords interesting reading. It shows that Canada possesses the largest consecutive wheat field in the world; the most extensive sea fisheries in the world; the largest nickel mine in the world; a greater railway mileage than Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain combined, and more than all the South American countries; the greatest railroad system in the world, the Canadian Pacific Railway employing 73,000 men; the largest grain mill in the British Empire; the largest elevator in the world at Port Arthur; the longest bridge span in the world at Quebec; one of the largest single canal locks in the world at Sault Ste. Marie; the largest lift-lock in the world at Peterborough; the largest coal field in the world at Stellar-ton, Nova Scotia. Surely a country that possesses such great things is able to start in the ship-building industry, modest perhaps at first, hut ultimately able to build Mr. CHISHOLM (AntigonishV
the largest warships afloat. Other countries have navies and why should not Canada? For my part I am not enthusiastic over military or naval expenditure, and I think a great many of the people of Canada entertain the same view, hut as a country attains the status of nationhood, it has to assume the responsibilities of police protection, avid such things as an army and navy are necessary evils. Other countries are building navies; the United States shipyards are turning out war vessels; China, Japan, Norway, Sweden, are able to assume responsibility in this regard, and surely Canada ought not lag behind. The question at issue between the two parties is not whether Canada is ready and willing to undertake her obligations of contributing to the defence of the Empire, but simply as to the method. The policy of the Government, so far as I have been able to gather from what I have heard in this House and read in the press of hon. gentlemen opposite, is a policy absolutely uncertain; they do not know themselves what their permanent policy is. The Montreal Star is fixed in one view-it must he a policy of contributions . But some hon. members opposite, apparently a majority, do not subscribe to that doctrine but indignantly repudiate the idea that such is *their permanent policy. They sav theirs is a policy of a Canadian navy. Why, then, do not they tell us wherein the policy of the late Government Act and the present naval law are defective and just what their policy is. This is the time. There is no emergency now; there is no hurry. Why does not the leader of the Government take the country into his confidence? If .there were danger of war there might be reason for an emergency policy, the permanent policy to be announced later. But it is four yeaTs since the German war scare was started, and as years roll by the danger of war between England and other great countries of the world becomes less and less. According to leading statesmen of the Empire, conditions improve week by week. Is it not time for the Government to be more frank in the matter and declare, if it be true, that their policy is one o.f permanent contribution? I move the adjournment -of the debate.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Cochrane, House ad journed to 12.40 a.m. Wednesday.

Wednesday, May 7, 1913.