Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to

be associated with the previous speakers in this debate who have referred in terms of congratulation to your elevation to the high and important position of Speaker of this House. I think it is a fact that you are the youngest man who has ever been called upon to be the first commoner of Canada; but in spite of that fact, those who have been associated with you in the work of this House for the past four or five years are satisfied that you will discharge the duties of this important position in a way that will be worthy of the traditions of the office; that you will have due regard to the preservation of the dignity and decorum of debate, and that as between the parties in this House you will hold the scales of justice with an even hand.

I desire also, as others have already done, to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for the Yukon, (Mr. Alfred Thompson) and to the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) on the manner in which they discharged the task of moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the Throne. It was my pleasure a few years ago to visit that far distant constituency of the Yukon; and although I think in no constituency in Canada is there keener party feeling,, yet I found on all hands an expression of opinion that the present member represents that constituency in a way that gives satisfaction to the people irrespective of politics, and with due regard to the ambitions and potentialities of that great and extensive district.

I also, Sir, would like to say that 1 concur in the words that have been uttered with regard to' the Governor General of

Canada. It has been a good thing for this country that during this time of stress and strain the representative of His Majesty in Canada is a gentleman who has had such an extensive, varied and long experience as a military man, and whose knowledge of military matters has been of very great value in making more effective than it otherwise would have been the aid which Canada has given to the Empire in the present crisis.

My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), to whose speeches, I, in common with other hon. members, always listen with pleasure, who always holds the attention of his auditors, whose moderation in criticism and in debate, and whose admirable parliamentary manner are worthy of emulation, has made certain representations in regard to delays that may have occurred between the time when the Canadian troops are enlisted and the time when they actually get into the firing line. I would like to say a few words on that. At page 37 of Hansard, the hon. member for Red Deer used these words: .

But the point that is exercising- the mind of our people is this: I think they would be glad of the assurance that there is no undue delay in getting the recruits, once they are raised, into the trenches. I hope the Government appreciates my point, and I hope that some one will give the country and Parliament the necessary assurance upon that point.

I can assure the hon. gentleman that the Government fully appreciates this point. It has been the subject of more or less discussion in this country, and there is no doubt that there is, among those who enlist, a feeling that possibiy at times unnecessary delay has occurred before they are able to get into the ' trenches, and come face to face with the foe. That opinion reaches us from those who are overseas. My youngest son, who is serving with the Artillery overseas, who went to -England in August last, and who,

I think, about a week ago crossed over to France, has frequently written to me .complaining about the length of time that h-e is obliged to remain under training in Great Britain, and expressing his impatience at the delay in getting into the firing line. That is the feeling which characterizes all of our young Canadians who go overseas. They are impatient at any delay that may occur, as their desire is to get into the firing line as -soon as possible, and they are apt to fret and chafe at the months they have to spend in training and drill before the British mili-

taiy authorities think it is desirable that they should actually go into the trenches. Hon. gentlemen know that the First Canadian Contingent which crossed the seas was only a comparatively few weeks in camp at Valcartier before it was transported to the other side; but after it arrived in England it was kept under most unfortunate conditions in camp at Salisbury Plain during the whole of the winter before the British authorities thought our troops sufficiently trained and disciplined to take their place in the firing line; but, when they did meet the foe face to faee, they proved themselves the equal of the best soldiers that were fighting side by side with them, and they brought undying honour and glory to their country. Everybody knows that, except in comparatively few gases' our Qsuniadiaim soldiers have had little training of a military character, and so it is necessary that they should undergo a certain amount of preparation before they cross the -sea. The Canadian -Government and the Department of Militia are sending those men forward week by week as they get the necessary training, and as the war office wants them, and as transports can be obtained. When they arrive on the other -side of the water, then their disposition is a matter for the British War Office. They are not members of -the Militia of Canada, but, are enlisted specially for overseas service, and when they get to the other side they become part and parcel of the British army. It is then for the British War Office to decide when they shall be sent to France and when they shall take their place in the firing line. I say to my hon. friend from Red Deer, and. to the people of this country, that, so far as the Government of Canada and the Minister of Militia of Canada are -concerned, th-ey are fully alive to the desirability of -sending the men forward as quickly as they can bo sent forward, having regard to their, training and fitness for the work, and they will continue to do so in the future gs in the past.

My hon. friend and colleague from the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley) made a lengthy speech to this House the other night, a speech very different in tone and in style of criticism from that delivered by the leader of the Opposition and that of the hon. member for Red Deer. In the course of that speech the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) referred to the question of transportation, the difficulty of getting tonnage, and the increased freight rates upon the

ocean, and he referred to it with the intention of holding the Government of Canada responsible for the conditions that exists. The hon. gentleman, with an absolute lack of generosity-to use no stronger term- suggested that the reason for the existing conditions was that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) last year had to spend several weeks away from Canada, overlooking entirely the fact that the Minister of Agriculture was forced to leave Canada on his doctor's advice and in consequence of the condition of his health, and that while he was away under his doctor's orders he was able to render good service to Canada by representing the Dominion, and also His Majesty the King, at the Exposition in California. The hon. gentleman suggested also that the Government were not attending to such matters because they had gone out to address recruiting meetings. It is very hard to satisfy my hon. friend and some of his friends. I have been reading in Liberal newspapers criticisms of the members of the Administration because they had not made more recruiting speeches than they have been able to make, in view of the tremendous amount of work thrown upon them during the last two years. A leading newspaper in Ontario, some months ago, found fault with the Prime Minister because he was not addressing more recruiting meetings, and it asked, who had heard a word in favour of recruiting from the lazy lips of Sir Robert Borden. And now the hon. member for the city of St. John holds the Government responsible for the high freight maxes- beoauae. as he suggests, the members of the Administration had been spending too much time in addressing recruiting meetings.

With the war, a state of affairs arose regarding tonnage and transportation that has certainly been very difficult to deal with. The breaking out of the war put out of business a great many ships that had been engaged in the carrying trade. Go down to the ports of Boston and New York, and you will see there steamers of the North German Lloyd and the Hamburg-Ameriean swinging at anchor, absolutely idle, unable to continue the business which they had carried on before the war, because were they to venture out from their safe havens in Boston, New York, or other American ports, they would be captured by the vigilant British cruisers which, operating from Halifax, are protecting the trade routes across the seas for the people of Canada and the Empire.

Mr. KNOWLES:

If the honourable

gentleman will pardon me, I should like to ask him two questions. The first is: have the twenty-three vessels that were released

for the ordinary commercial transport work been earmarked for the carrying of Canadian export trade, or are the owners at liberty to ply the ships in any waters that they like? The second question is: what is the total tonnage or carrying power of these twenty-three vessels?

Mr. HAZEN:

I cannot give my honourable friend an answer to his last question, but, in reference to the first, I may say that the release of these vessels had special reference to the Canadian carrying trade.

Mr. KNOWLES:

They cannot engage in anything else?

Mr. HAZEN:

Mr. LEMIEUX:

that the Department of Naval Service, amid ithe other departments of the 'Government will continue to press upon the Bniti-sh Admiralty and the iBriltish GovemmieMt the importance and necessity of having ships lawailable to canry the products 'and manufactured goods of Oaniada to the markets of Great Britain. We will continue to press that. I have had requests made to me to use my influence to get the British Admiralty and the British Government to release ships that had been requisitioned for other ports. In a number of cases they have requisitioned that the ships after reaching the other ports of the United States proceed to the ports in Canada. Under the circumstances I felt I could not make that request to the Admiralty because we were urging the British Admiralty and the British Government to supply 11s with all the ships necessary for the purpose of carrying the products of this country across to Great Britain. Under the circumstances I felt it would be a most illogical thing for me to make that requisition. The men whose ships are requisitioned are paid according to a scale prepared by a committee of ship-owners and a committee of the Admiralty. It may be that they can get more while engaging in private work than they might be paid by the Admiralty, but during this time of war we must all be prepared to make sacrifices,, and ship-owners cannot be any exception to the general rule.

Mr. KNOWLES:

Did the commandeered wheat go over in Admiralty vessels or in ordinary transport vessels?

Mr. HAZEN:

I speak entirely subject to correction, but I presume it goes over in the ordinary transports. I think that is the case. I wanted to point out to the House-and I am sorry my hon. friend from St. John is not here, because one would gather from his remarks that shipping on the ocean between Canada and the Motherland, wlas not .so great as formerly-I should like to have pointed out to him, taking the port of St. John for example, what the effect of the action of the Government in regard to that trade has been. I hold in my hand a letter written by Mr. A. H. Harris, the acting Director of Overseas Transportation, dated Montreal, January 6. In it he says:

Dear Mr. Hazen,-In the memorandum to which you referred at our interview yesterday afternoon I stated that the Overseas Department would put an average of about 50,000 tons per month of Imperial supplies through ' [Mr. Hazen. 1

West St. John this season and that this added to Canadian Pacific estimates would probably mean the handling on an average of about 350 carloads per day at that port.

During the month of December the following Imperial. transport^ cleared from West St. John,-

Peshawur,

Dunedin,

Thespis,

Hunstriek,

Trelawny,

Wayfarer,

Egori,

Pascal,

Royal Transport, Elswick House, Lord Strathcona.

with 67,484 tons of cargo as compared with five transports containing 14,296 tons of cargo for the corresponding period 1914-an increase of 400 per cent.

During December 1915 eight steamers of the Canadian Pacific and allied lines cleared from West St. John with 67,892 tons of cargo plus 1,166 horses as against four vessels containing 29,351 tons of cargo plus 605 horses for the same period in 1914-an increase of 130 per cent.

Other lines in December 1915 had 19 steamers from West St. John with 45,994 tons of cargo, as against 11 steamers with 16,699 tons of cargo and 657 horses in December 1914,-an Increase of 200 per cent.

The whole making a grand total of 181,370 tons and 1,166 horses in December 1915 as against 60,346 tons and 1,262 horses in December 1914, a general increase of 200 per cent.

I am told that the result will he even more satisfactory during the present month and during the month of February. Further, I am told that while I have given the figures for the port of St. John, a similarly gratifying state of affairs exists with regard to shipments from the port of Halifax. I may tell the House furthei for their information that from statements I received this morning, I find that to-day there are seven transports loading at the port of 'St. John, six transports loading at the port of Halifax, in addition to vessels of the O.P.R. and other commercial lines.

My hon. friend from St. John made special reference to the lumber trade of New Brunswick. He said:

The same is the case with the lumberman. Go down to the province of New Brunswick, which is a great spruce producing country, the market for which is on the other side of the water. Although there is a great demand in Europe, resultant from the war, yet the lumberman cannot get his lumber to the European market except upon the payment of freight of as much as two hundred shillings per standard, whereas before the war the normal rate was about thirty shillings per standard. That is an increase of about eight hundred per cent in the tariff upon lumber, which is a great burden not only upon the producers, but upon those on 1 *other side of the water who might be able to use the lumber to advantage.

Let us see what the facts are with regard to the lumber trade and the transportation of lumber to the other side of the water.

The lumber trade received the consideration of the Government in the same manner as the other business of this country, and since July 14, 1915, the Naval Service Department, in conjunction with the Acting Director of overseas transport, has shipped, under orders from the Admiralty, by vessels entirely distinct from those transports which I have referred to as having been commandeered by the Admiralty for other purposes, the following quantities of lumber from the ports named:

Quebec.-Pour cargoes (spruce, elm, pine), toal approximately, 7,600,000 feet B.M. from six shippers.

Gaspd.-One part cargo, 724,000 feet B.M. from one shipper.

Chatham, N.B.-Two cargoes from three shippers, total 5,700,000 feet B.M.

St. John, N.B.-Four cargoes, approximately, 12,000,000 feet B.M. shipped to date.

Four further cargoes of approximately the same dimensions now loading or due to load from five shippers.

Halifax, N.S.-Two cargoes, 6,500,000 feet B.M.. Two further cargoes of approximately

the same total now due to load from five shippers.

Box shooks.-In addition to above quantities, 400,000 boards for ammunition boxes are being shipped, part from St. John and the remainder from Halifax.

Estimated total from eastern ports, 50,000,000 feet B.M.

Pacific cSast ports.-Ten cargoes, 30,000,000 feet B.M. from various shippers.

Estimated total shipments from Eastern and Pacific ports, 30,000,000 feet B.M.

Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:

What about

+,Vip. rates?

Mr. HAZEN:

This is lumber which is bought and paid for in this country, and the man on the other side is paying for freight. I shall have something to say about that later. _

I give a further statement, more in detail, of lumber shipped from Canadian ports under the direction of the Imperial Transport Service and the Department of Naval Affairs. The ships which carried lumber from Canada are given in the following table:

List of cargoes

of lumber shipped from Canadian ports under direction of the Imperial Transport Service and the Department of the Naval Service.

From Quebec.

Ship. Sailed. Cargo. Shippers.Statesman

. Germanic

[DOT] Dunclutha 365 standards Gooday & Coxlong, part cargo.July 20

* * [DOT] Nov. 20

Total, 7,600, 3,000,000 ft. B.M. . .. (estimate) 500 standards., .. .. 1,482 "

)00 feet B.M. Burstall & Dobell Becket Co. Gooday & Co., part cargo Price Brothers.

From Gaspd.

Eagle Point July 30 362 standards Coxlong & Co., part cargo.

Total, 5,700,000 feet B.M.

From St. John.

Grantley Hall.. .. ..

K"kerran

E'swick House

Quantock

Aug. 31. . . .Sept. 11. <- . [DOT]Dec. 25. . . .Jan. 14. . . .Alton Oceania Rio Tiete

(Name not known) . .

Jan. 17 . . . .

Now loading: Now loading Shortly due. ,

Shipped

. . . . 1,768 ' ' . . . . 1,597

standards. . . .

. . McKean & Co.

1,239

1,481

to date, 12,000,000 feet B.M.

Partington Pulp Paper Company. John E. Moore.

and

Mr. HAZEN:

No, I am not. I have quoted figures regarding the shipments of lumber which have taken place from Gaspe and from the province of Quebec by means of transports prior to the close of navigation on the St. Lawrence. But I was dealing with the statement made by my hon. friend from St. John, who confined his remarks to the question of lumber shipments from the province of New Brunswick, and my answer was simply directed to that. My hon. friend from St. John dealt with the question of the conduct of the Shell Committee, of which General Bertram was Chairman. I do not intend to follow him all through his argument, and his address on this subject, but I do intend to take up one or two points in connection with the question, and, first of all, I would say that it was remarkable how gently and with what soft gloves my hon. friend referred to the manufacturers of this country. What a change has come over the spirit of the dream of my hon. friend! He would do nothing to injure the manufacturers, and yet, if the argument of my hon. friend meant anything, it meant that the manufacturers had employed middlemen for the purpose of approaching this committee, that they had got their contracts by dishonest and improper means, and that

they had received money in excess of the value of the goods which they had supplied. That was the meaning of 4 p.m. my hon. friend's statement if it meant anything. My hon. friend can - not attack the Shell Committee without reflecting upon the manufacturers of the country, because his whole statement, his whole grievance, was, that middlemen had been emfployed by the manufacturers, and that sums had been paid for shells to manufacturers for political purposes, and that they were far in excess of the value of the goods that they had provided. My hon. friend was treading on delicate ground. My hon. friend knew, and this was the reason he did not want to offend the manufacturers, that fully fifty or seventy-five per cent of the orders for shells which had (been placed by the Shell Committee had been placed with companies some of which were controlled by friends of his own and others of which had friends of his own on their boards of directors, and that if he uttered a word reflecting upon the directors of these companies, he was reflecting very seriously upon his own friends and quite as seriously on those who were associated with him politically and who supported the party on that side of the House. My hon. friend knew that in reflecting on manufacturers who were supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite, he would be reflecting upon gentlemen sitting at the back of my right hon. friend opposite who are interested in many cases in these companies, and in some cases are directors of companies to whom contracts for shells were awarded. Therefore, my hon. friend, while attacking the commission at considerable length, repeated time and time again that he made no reflection on the manufacturers of the country.

Now, Sir, I think everybody will admit, while I hold no brief for the Shell Committee and am in no way bound to defend it, that it had a very responsible and difficult task to perform. When it was first appointed it was to manufacture 200,000 shells, representing about $.1,000,000, and then the business developed more rapidly than any business in this country or anywhere else was ever developed, before. In a short time it found this business running .into thousands of shells and hundred's of millions of dolla/rs. The perfecting of the organization was a great work, and it had to be got through very quickly. If they had proceeded with mathematical precision, step by step and detail by detail, with every

feature of the work, it is very probable that some money might have been saved to the country, hut, while they might have been able to save a certain amount of money, they would have denied to the manufacturers and mechanics of this country the great bulk of the business which has come to them through the action of the Shell Committee, and which is still continuing under the action of the Imperial Commission.

The hon. member for St. John undertook, as men are very apt to undertake, to underrate what is done by our own people, what is done here at home, in comparison with, and in contrast to, what is done at a distance. My hon. friend undertook to praise the way in which shell contracts were awarded in Australia, and the way in which the problem has been dealt with there, in comparison with the way in which the matter has been dealt with by the Shell Committee in Canada. I do not purpose entering into an argument on that point, or answering the argument that my hon. friend has made. I will let one of his own friends answer it. I will let his own friend, the editor of the Free Press, which has been referred to as the leading Liberal paper in Ottawa, and one of the most ably conducted Liberal papers in Canada, answer the statement of the hon gentleman when he makes an invidious comparison between the Canadian and the Australian methods.

Mr. CARVMLL:

Can the minister do it without smiling?

Mr. HAZEN:

I thought I was dealing with a serious question. I certainly should not (think that any one in this House, on the other side would laugh when he found how quickly the argument that had been made on this question by the hon. member (Mr. Pugsley) was answered by the editor of the leading Liberal paper here. The Free Press, in its issue of January 21, Friday last, say.s:

Fair-minded men, anxious not to jump to too-hasty conclusions in regard to the general charges against the Shell Committee which handled the entire munitions business of Canada for the first fifteen months of the war, will, we believe, study the statement (reprinted in another column), made by the chairman of the committee, Sir Alex. Bertram, in December last before leaving for a much-needed rest.

The keynote to the whole situation, we submit, in General Bertram's assertion that he " had difficulty in obtaining fifteen manufacturers at the outset who would take a contract." The other important fact is that at the beginning the orders placed by the War Office were so small, with no assurance that they would be

followed up by others, as to make expenditures on the necessary plant by manufacturers a very doubtful investment.

It is an, easy thing- now to say that, at the outset, methods should have been adopted that were put into operation later. At a time when manufacturers had to be metaphorically dragged into the making of shells, of what avail would it have been to advertise for tenders as was done last fall, when the War Office orders had been enormously increased and when manufacturers were falling over each other for contracts?

Some of General Bertram's statements, 4 -* which particular attention may be drawn, are the following:

Of the first Canadian order from England, all contracts, with the exception of one, were placed in Canada, at prices fixed by the War Office.

The exception was for 100,000 shells which were awarded at a price fixed by General Bertram, a practical machinist, at $1.45 lower than contracts awarded in the United States by J. P. Morgan & Co., the British representatives.

The first Canadian order was filled at a price $20,000 lower than the estimate of the War Office.

The statement submitted to the Duke of Connaught in June, 1915, showed contracts awarded in Canada at a saving of $14,000,000 over the prices estimated by the War Office.

The contracts awarded in Canada at the end of 1915 totalled, as audited, $345,000,000, or $42,000,000 below the War Office estimate.

The manner in which Australia is handling the business of making munitions has been held up as an example in contrast to the Canadian method of supplying British guns with shells. The current issue of the Canadian Liberal Monthly, published from the Central Information Office of the Canadian Liberal party, contains an interesting article on " Australia and war munitions." The commonwealth and State governments in that colony do seem to have tackled the problem of manufacture in an aggressive and business-like way from which excellent results may be expected. In this article we notice, however,

(1) It was not until " the call for shells came from Great Britain in the early summer of 1915 " that the Australian government took any action at all towards manufacturing munitions;

(2) Up to November 1, 1915, " 31 tenders had been received of which 19 had been formally accepted, the balance being still under consideration ; and

(3) It was not until November, 1915, that " the first steel, after exhaustive tests, was shipped to the different States."

Now, it should be observed that all the criticisms aimed at the Canadian Shell Committee are in respect of transactions prior to ** the early summer of 1915," when Australia took the first steps; that Canada began operations six weeks after the first outbreak of the war and six months before even the W u* Office thought it necessary to organize the privately-owned factories for the manufacture of munitions; and that by November Canada had placed orders for three hundred million dollars worth of shells in numerous factories spread all over the country, and at competitive prices, which, we are assured, are on the average lower than the " cost prices " fixed by the Australian governments.

m

The editor of the Free Press says that prices in Canada are lower than the cost prices fixed by the Australian Government. At first it was difficult to get people to go into the business of making shells, because it was not known how many shells would be wanted, or how long the war would last, and necessarily the price had to be fixed at a higher figure. As time passed, however, the price became lower, until now the Liberal Free Press says that the average price paid for shells in Canada is lower than the cost prices fixed by the Australian Governments. The editorial says:

If Australia had done in September, 1914, what it did in June, 1915, and on as little encouragement as Canada received from the War Office for what it did in September, 1914, then we should agree with the Canadian Liberal Monthly that Australia is a fitting object lesson ; but with the facts as they are, we cannot admit that the example is very impressive.

Passing from that, Mr. Speaker, I will now refer to a statement made by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), as reported on page 76 of Hansard. Endeavouring to show that the Shell Committee acted entirely from partisan reasons and placed their orders with Conservative firms in consequence, he said:

And so I am sure, if my information is correct, all over this country orders of that character were given, given to the middleman, the man who had no machinery, and given in this way for the purpose of distributing patronage and doing what was a gross injustice to those who had manufacturing plants.

Mr. Rogers: Unfortunately about 75 per

cent of the orders went to Liberals.

Mr. Pugsley : Well-

Mr. Hazen: That is certainly the case in

the city of St. John in my hon. friend's constituency.

Mr. Pugsley: In my own constituency? I

suppose the hon. member refers to Haley Bros.

Mr. Hazen: To the Messers. McAvity and

the Phoenix Foundry.

Mr. Pugsley: The Messers. McAvity got their order as a sub-order from the Canadian Car Company, as part of an order which the Canadian Car Company had obtained for shells for the Russian Government. And while my hon. friend is upon that subject, what would he say about the York and Cornwall Cotton Mill?

Mr. Hazen: What would the hon. gentleman

say about it? .

Mr. Pugsley: They are very worthy people

and make splendid cotton. There is no better cotton mill in Canada than the York and Cornwall Cotton Mill. Their whole buildings are well filled with their cotton manufacturing plant. Their people are well employed in making cotton and I do not think from the intelligence of the gentleman-take my hon. friend Senator Thorne, one of the directors of the York and Cornwall Cotton Company, a most worthy gentleman, a gentleman of the very highest intelligence, who would not for a single

moment mistake a shrapnel shell or an 18-pound explosive for a hall of cotton.

When the hon. gentleman made the assertion that the Shell Committee acted from partisan motives, the hon. Minister of Public Works said that unfortunately about 75 per cent of the orders went to Liberals, and I followed it up by stating that that was true in the hon. member's own constituency, which is also part of my constituency. The hon. gentleman seeing how that would weaken his charge that these things were being done for partisan purposes, at once, without a moment's hesitation-although living in the city of St. John he must have known the facts, but 1 must presume that he did not-said that the contract awarded to Messrs. McAvity were awarded to them by the Canada Car Company as part of a contract which the Canada Car Company had obtained for shells from the Russian Government.

On the following morning I sent over to the office of the Shell Commission and asked for an answer to these questions:

1. Is it correct, as stated by the hon. Mr. Pugsley, that Messrs. McAvity received an order for shells as a sub-order from the Canadian Car Company, as part of an order which the Canadian Car Company had obtained for shells for the Russian Government?

2. Were any orders given direct to Messrs. McAvity by the Shell Commission?

The answer to the first was:

Nothing known of transaction by Shell Committee. Was awarded by KjSsiho Government direct to Canada Car and Foundry Company.

And the answer to the second question was:

On March 15, 1915, 10,000 4.5 shells at $6.70.

On May 15, 1915, 20,000 4.5 shells at $6.00.

January 1916, 25,000 4.5 shells at $4.00.

Or, there was given direct to Messrs. McAvity by the Shell Commission these three orders for shells to the amount of $287,000.

In addition to this the Shell Commission gave them the following orders:

Cents.

Dec. 23, 1914-25,000 brass sockets and

plugs at 60

Feb. 12, 1915-65,000 brass sockets and

, plugs at 55

May 3, 1915-50,000 4'5 sockets at. ... 70

Aug. 26, 1915- 5,000 plugs at 25

Oct. 23, 1915-10,000 plugs at 25

These orders made $224,500. All told, this concern in the city of St. John which my hon. friend said had got these orders from the Canada Car and Foundry Company, got orders direct from the Shell Commission for $511,500. I charge my hon.

[Mr. Hazen.j

friend with impropriety in making a statement of the sort he did, intended to mislead, but if the truth had been stated to the House at the time it would have shockingly weakened the effect of bis argument that the Shell Committee were handing over these contracts for political purposes. So far as I am concerned, I am glad that these contracts have gone to Messrs. McAvity. They are not political friends of mine, though they are personal and social friends. But, apart altogether from friendship, I am glad that the Sheil Committee awarded to a long-established firm like the Messrs. McAvity these contracts, the carrying out of which represents employment given in the constituency I have the honour to represent. While I was approached time and time again by different manufacturing concerns in my province to give recommendations to the Shell Committee by writing, stating what I knew of their capacity and their ability to carry out contracts, I never refused any concern that was under Liberal' control if I believed they were capable of turning out good work, because I was desirous of seeing the work placed with firms that would carry it out properly and naturally I was desirous also of seeing a fair and reasonable proportion of this work go to manufacturers in the province I represent.

Now I come to the Phoenix Foundry Company. And, while the hon. gentleman makes no charge-and he is quite in the habit of making no charge but deals in insinuation and innuendo-yet, as he has dragged in Senator Thorne's name in connection with the Phoenix Foundry Company, I wish to say a few words on the subject. Who are the directors of the Phoenix Foundry Company? They are James F. Robertson, manager, W. H. Thorne, Jas. Manchester, A. C. Dawson and F. P. Starr. These are gentlemen of the highest possible business standing and reputation in St. John. Some of them are Conservatives, some, I believe, are Liberals. But the hon. gentleman picked out Senator Thorne's name, basing an insinuation upon the fact that Senator Thorne is a prominent and active Conservative. These gentlemen are public-spirited and have subscribed their share and done their bit in connection with the patriotic purposes of the war, and are among the last men who can fairly be charged with making money out of the crisis which Canada faces. I refer to the matter because some gossip has reached my ears, and the mat-

ter might as well be cleared up. A contract was given to the York and Cornwall Cotton Company, of which Mt. J. B. Cudlip, of St. John, is manager. In the month of November, I think it was, of last year, about the time the talk of shell orders became general, this cotton company had been for some time running on short time. It occurred to Mr. Cudlip, who is a most expert mechanic and machinist, and who knows the cotton business from the ground up, having been through every stage of it, that it might be a good thing, as keeping the company's help employed, to obtain a shell contract. Mr. Cudlip is an expert mechanic, as I have said, and he knew that a part of the plant of the mill might be available for the manufacture of shells. He came to Ottawa, saw the Commission, and obtained an order for the manufacture of 20,000 4:5 shells at $6. This was the month of May. Mr. Cudlip, as I understand it, was taken ill, and found difficulty in connection with the manufacturing of the shells, though there was room and plant in the establishment of which he was manager that could be utilized for this manufacture. So he made a contract with the Phoenix Foundry Company controlled by Messrs. Flemming, who are not political supporters of mine-or were not at the last election, but one of whom was chairman of the committee of the hon. member for the city of St. John in Victoria ward. The Phoenix Foundry Company is an old-established and well known industry. Messrs. Flemming enjoy a splendid reputation as did their father and grandfather, the latter of whom, I understand, was the founder of the business. I understand that Mr. Cudlip had difficulty in persuading Messrs. Flemming to undertake the manufacture of shells, as they thought there was little in it for them in view of the need for the purchase of new machinery and the uncertainty of the continuance of the business. However, after discussing the matter they undertook it and the contract was handed over to them. When the Shell Commission learned that Messrs. Flemming were filling the order the name was changed to that of Messrs Flemming or the Phoenix Foundry Company, and all continuation orders were given direct to them. They got orders as follows:

Jan. 28, 1915, 25,000 18-pounder shrapnel shells at $3.80.

May 15, 1915, 20,000 4.5 shells at $6.00.

October 18, 1915, 20,000 18-pounder shells at $2.90.

January 1916, 55,000 18-pounder shells at $1.85.

I have not totalled this exactly, but it amounts to something in the neighbourhood of $300,000.

Let us follow out the other orders placed in New Brunswick and see if they bear out the statement made by my hon. friend from the city of St. John, that the commission had been placing these orders simply for partisan reasons. Large orders for boxes had been placed with the Wilson Box Company, in the parish of Lancaster, adjoining the city of St. John. They are a wood-working concern whose special business it is to make boxes. And who are the directors of this company? Their names should be known by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) as well as they are to me: T. H. Estabrooks, Stanley E. Elkin, S Y. Wilson, of Halifax, John Galey and Alexander Wilson of St. John. These names of directors do not bear out the idea that the commission were actuated by poli-cal motives in giving these orders to Messrs. Wilson. I was glad to see this concern get the orders because it is an important industry in the constituencyl represent and I am sure that their work will be done in a way satisfactory to the public.

The Record Foundry Company of Moncton is another concern for which orders were obtained, and obtained, according to the hon. member for the city of St. John, by middlemen and on party grounds. I think the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) will know the names of the directors and will be able to judge Whether or not it was for party reasons that a contract was given to the concern which is-under their control. The directors are Hon. Clifford W. Robinson, president, who was until recently the leader of the Liberal party in local politics in the province of New Brunswick; Mr. F. C. Dennison, a local Liberal in Moncton is the secretary; Hon. James Barnes, of Buctouche, for years member for the county of Kent, and a member of the Government in which my hon. friend and colleague the hon. member for the city of St. John was attorney general; F. J. Shreves, His Honour Josiah Wood, Lieutenant Governor, and the late Graham Fraser. Would anybody say that it was for political reasons that this contract was awarded? It was awarded to a company composed of both Liberals and Conservatives-though Liberals seem to predominate; it was awarded because the Record Foundry Company was the only

one equipped in such a manner as to be able to fill their contracts satisfactorily.

So far as shell contracts in New Brunswick are concerned, a contract was placed in Chatham with a foundry company called, I think, the Maritime Foundry Company. I do not know who the stockholders or directors are. A contract was placed in Campbellton with the McLellan Foundry Company; I do not think .that anybody from Campbellton would suggest that the gentlemen in that concern have been active supporters of the Conservative party in the past. A contract was placed in Fredericton with the Smith Foundry Company, the members of which-all oi them, I think-are supporters of the Conservative party.

Mr. CARVELL:

Come to Sackville now.

Mr. HAZEN:

A contract was given to ' Messrs. Fawcett, supporters of the Conservative party. I do not know whether there are any stock-holders in that company outside of the Fawcett family or not, but Messrs. Horace and Charles Fawcett, and I presume, their brother-in-law, Mr. Ryan, now in British Columbia, are members of the concern.