1904-06-23

Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :: What is the value of the exports from Canada to British South Africa for each of the fiscal years of 1901-2 and 1902-3 of each of the following classes of products :-
(a.) Products of the farm ;	(b) products of
the sea ; (c) products of the forest, other than manufactured goods ; (d) manufactured goods, not being food stuffs ?	.


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: For the fiscal year 1902 the amount of farm products exported to South Africa was $3,514,509; of products of the sea, $9,990 ; of the forest, $82,560 ; and of manufactured goods, $181,803.	.
During the fiscal year 1903 the exports to South Africa of agricultural products amounted to $1,264,684 ; of fisheries, $12,796 ; of the forest, $246,839 ; and of manufactured goods, $362,111. All these goods were of Canadian origin.


PAY OF MILITIA.
Mr. SPROULE asked :: *
1.	Has the Department of Militia made the regulations referred to by the Minister of Militia when explaining the Militia Bill, whereby the force were to receive increased pay from year to year until a maximum sum mentioned was reached ?
2.	Will the force now doing their annual drill get this increase for the present year ? And if so, when will it be given ?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	Yes ; and the regulations have been .promulgated in the ' Gazette.'
2.	(a) Yes ;	(b) On completion of their
annual drill.


ST. JOHN HARBOUR DREDGING.
Mr. DANIEL asked :: 1.	When will the' dredge for use at the mouth of St. John harbour be ready for work ?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to do any dredging at the mouth of the harbour of St. John this season ?


Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Dredge will be ready for opening of navigation in spring of 1905.
2.	There is no dredge available at present which can do the required work.


TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
Mr. DANIEL asked :: 1.	When does the government expect the report of the transportation commission ?
2.	If such report of a final nature is not expected this year, will there be an interim report ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: I regret to say that I have no information to give my hon. friend.



FRANKING PRIVILEGE.

Mr. GRANT asked :: 1.	Has the attention of the honourable the Postmaster General been drawn to the fact that large quantities of . Conservative campaign literature have been sent free through the mails to the North Riding of Ontario ; the inclosure so stamped as to indicate that it is sent by a gentleman not a member of the House of Commons, the envelopes (evidently addressed and sent to Ottawa from outside) -being franked or stamped with the name of a member of the House ?
2.	Does the sending of this matter in such a way constitute a breach of the franking privilege ?
3.	If so, what action will be taken to prevent the practice ?
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCIv (Postmaster General). To the first question the answer is yes. To the second, if any member of the House chooses to send mailable matter through the mails at the instance of any one else who is not a member, there is nothing in the law to prevent his doing so.


William Paterson: 



MERCHANT MARINE AND 'CANADIAN ENSIGN.

Mr. C. E. KAULBACH.: Before proceeding with the Orders of the Day, I desire, as I announced yesterday, to engage the attention of the hon. Minister of Marine, indeed the right hon. the leader of the government and his associates in the cabinet, to a report appearing in the Montreal ' Daily Star ' of the 17th instant, by Ship-master John Taylor, of Nova Scotia, headed :



HAULED DOWN CANADIAN ARMS.

[Stage Direction]
British Consul declares Canada has no flag.
I might here state, Mr. Speaker, that I intend concluding with a motion. The report reads as follows :

[Stage Direction]
Threatened to fine Capt. Taylor £100 if he continued to use Canadian emblem.
Captain John Taylor, of the three-masted schooner ' M. J. Taylor,' is in this port at present. Captain Taylor has a grievance.
Captain Taylor hails from Nova Scotia. His ship is registered in Parrsboro, N.S., and has always flown what he considered the Canadian flag, the red ensign of the British merchant service, with the Canadian coat-of-arms in the lower right hand corner. - Captain Taylor related the reason for his grievance to the ' Star ' this morning, as follows :-
' I had been sailing around the different ports of South America all winter, and last January I sailed in the port of Rio Grande do Sul, in the Argentine republic, with cargo. We lay there for some time, and as there were a number of vessels in the harbour whose masters were friends of mine, our flag, the Canadian ensign, was flying at our peak most of the time.
' Some three or four days after its first appearance, I received a verbal warning from the British consul, Mr. Ray Stamford, that I was not flying the right flag. He ordered me to haul down that flag and run up the ' Red Ensign.' Well, I have knocked around pretty well, and in the last few years have been in a good many corners of the globe, and the Canadian flag was always good enough for other British consuls, so I thought it would do for Mr. Ray Stamford. I therefore took no notice of his warning.
' Then I did get it. I received a notice stating that I was liable to a fine of £100 if I continued to fly that flag. The notice bore the stamp of the consulate, and ordered me to appear at the consulate with my flag the following day.
' Well, you know the British consul is a man's only friend down there if he gets into trouble ; and I thought it better not to disobey. So I took the flag to him. He ordered me to cut out the Canadian coat-of-arms and fill the space with red bunting. I 'refused, and he had it done himself.
'This I consider quite unjustifiable. We Canadians were given the right to fly our flag in 1867. I have carried that flag at the mast head when lying in the midst of the British Mediterranean squadron at the Malta dock yards, at Cadiz, at Havre, and most of the Mediterranean British North and South Ameri-

can ports, and there has never been any exception taken to it until now.'
Captain Taylor is addressing a letter to the Board ot Trade about this matter, and desires to know if the action of the consul was justifiable. He says that he is a loyal Britisher, but is also a loyal Canadian : and he wants the right to fly what he maintains is the Canadian ensign.
I might here state that although this, to my mind, is an outrageous act on the part of the British consul, and wholly unauthorized and unprovoked, it is not the first time I had occasion to bring a subject of complaint of this nature to the notice of the government by way of seeking redress. It will be remembered by reference to ' Hansard ' that on the 3rd day of May, 1901, I brought to the notice of the government the case of the ship ' Canada,' belonging to the port of Lunenburg, N.S., Captain Arch. Conrod, master, which was floating the Canadian ensign of which, I am pleased to say, we, as Canadians have cause to be proud, in the port of Bahia, Brazil, on the 1st of March, 1901, when the British consul boarded the ship, and peremptorily required of the master to haul his flag down, informing him that it was a gross violation, or infringement of rights, and failing to do so, he would impose a fine of £500 and hold the ship for the penalty until paid. The captain rather than find himself and owners in trouble complied with the request. Peeling naturally much exercised over an apparent insult of this sort. I made special request of the government at the time, that inquiry be made of the British government, as to whether the master of the ' Canada ' was within his rights in floating the Canadian ensign in a foreign port, and if found that the captain was in error, then to arrange with the British Admiralty for authority, and thereby have the Canadian flag treated with the respect Canada is entitled to receive. However, subsequently having ascertained Canada was within her rights in floating her Canadian ensign, having obtained the authority from the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty under power invested in them by the Imperial Merchants' Shipping (colours) Act of 1889, 1 inquired as to whether the authority had been officially communicated to the authorities in Canada, and found that it had. The royal warrant having issued under seal dated London, February 2, 1892, by the commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiralty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, reads as follows :
Whereas we deem it expedient that Canadian registered vessels shall be permitted to wear the red ensign of Hts Majesty's fleet, with a Canadian coat-of-arms on the fly thereof.
We do therefore, by virtue of the power, and authority vested in us, hereby warrant, and authorize the red ensign of His Majesty's
fleet, with the Canadian coat-of-arms in the fly to be used on board vessels registered in the Dominion.
Given under our hands, and the seal of the Office of the Admiralty this 2nd day of February, 1892.
(Signed) H. FAIRFAX.

[Stage Direction]
By command of their Lordships.
(Signed) Evan MacGregor.
To this a circular letter was issued by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa, which reads as follows
In accordance with the permission granted by the above warrant, the following regulations have been adopted by the Canadian government :-
1.	The area of the shield shall in no case exceed one-fourth the area of the Union Jack of the particular ensign.
2.	The shield shall be placed centrally in that part of the fly which is beyond the Jack.
(Signed) WILLIAM SMITH, Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Department of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa, June 10, 1895.
I desire to state here, that my object in bringing this subject of the Canadian flag prominently before parliament at present, is to have the world understand that Canada has a flag, composed of the British ensign with the Canadian coat of arms in the red fly thereof, and has authority to fly it. My object also is to urge the government of Canada to commuflicAe with the office of the Lord High Admiralty in London, through the Secretary of State for the colonies, asking that all British consuls throughout the world be advised of Canada's position as respects her flag, particularly the consuls of Bahia and Rio-Grande-do-suI Brazil, in order that the unnatural and outrageous treatment extended to Canadian shipmasters, sailing Canadian ships, when visiting the various ports, particularly those referred to, cannot ignore the Canadian flag in future, and that all Canadian shipmasters, and the merchant marine of Canada may be advised as well, by a public notice issued by the Department of Marine of Canada and published in the Canadian ' Gazette, ' informing the public of Canada's right to float her Canadian ensign in every sea.
It is wonderful the great instinct of the human race, the great delight we possess in the flying of flags. There is a something innate in man causing him to be enthused by a significant emblem raised in the air, whether it has the insignia of office or descent, or as the symbol of race or nationality -our national flag-it matters not. The flag of old England and the empire of which we may be justly proud-the Union Jack- when floated or wherever exposed, has an inspiring effect, there being in it so much of sentiment and meaning for sober thought. In the words of the poet, so beautifully outlined :
[Stage Direction]
The Union Jack.
It's only a small bit of bunting,
It's only an old coloured rag,
Yet thousands have died for its honour And shed their best blood for the flag.
It flutters triumphant o'er ocean As free as the wind and the waves,
And bondsmen from shackles unloosened 'Neath its shadows no longer are slaves.
We hoist it to show our devotion To our King, to our country, and laws, It's the outward and visible emblem Of advancement, and liberty's cause.
You may say its an old bit of bunting, You may call it an old coloured rag,
But freedom has made it majestic And time has ennobled the flag.
Even the colours In the Union Jack, anil you will remember the Union Jack forms part of the Canadian- ensign, has its sentiment and significance, the red indicating courage, white the emblem of purity, and blue the emblem of truth, more strikingly given in the old loyal and familiar song :	' Three cheers for the Red, White
and Blue,' or more sentimental and expressively rendered 'Three cheers for the brave, pure, and true.'
Let me say that lessons such as this, should be deeply impressed upon the mind3 of our Canadian children, particularly at school, so as to have them live lives worthy ®f the ideals of their national flag, and frame the character of our nation by its teaching.
With such natural emotions animating the hearts of our people, one can appreciate the fervid interest taken by each nation in its own national flag, and can realize and account for the associations which cluster about its folds, and are so ardently treasured In the inmost recesses of the human heart. With such feelings of affection for one's country's flag, picture to yourself the heart of that Consul in Rio-Grande-do-sul, destroying the Canadian flag by cutting the heart out °f it-the Canadian coat of arms held by us so dearly and thereby mutilating the Canadian flag completely ! I feel that no punishment, however severe, would be too great for the heartless act he (the Consul) has committed in the matter of the Canadian flag hoisted on *ie ship.' ' M. J. Taylor.' I sincerely hope this government will advise the imperial government to this end.
Kings in their turn display the banner of their kingdoms, over which they reign, and have sway, value them and float them proudly. Picture to yourself, Mr. Speaker, cutting the cross of St. George out of the flag of old England, or the cross of St. Andrew representing Scotland, or the cross of St. Patrick representing Ireland, or the fleur-de-lis from the flag of old France, or even interfering with one star, or one stripe of the star-spangled banner of the United States, would there not be a howl ? Surely they would be heard from in the most emphatic tones. Then are we as Canadians to Mr. KAULBACH.
suffer the ignominy, nay, I must say the. outrage of having the escutcheon or emblem of Canada constituting Canada's flag-cut out of the red fly of the ensign of old England floated on a British ship, commanded by a British master, in a foreign port, by a British consul not knowing his duty, and be silent ? I say certainly not- I must therefore in conclusion, impress upon hon. gentlemen opposite the necessity of making public this matter, and obtaining redress in the manner I have advised.
Wilfrid Laurier: Let me say to my hon. friend that the subject which he has brought to the attention of the House in such an interesting speech has been engaging our attention for the last two or three days. The hon. gentleman told us that he would have some information to bring before us, but I think there are some facts which have passed into oblivion, and as soon as we have collected the information we shall communicate with the imperial authorities upon this important subject.
Motion (Mr. Kaulbach) to adjourn negatived.



DISMISSAL OF LORD DUNDONALD- PRODUCTION OF CORRESPONDENCE.

Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: Before proceeding with the Orders of the Day, I wish to lay upon the table of the House a copy of the memorandum referred to in Col. Smart's letter dated Ottawa, May 19. This memorandum was mislaid at the time the letter was copied, and was inadvertently omitted. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), when asking for this in the House, also asked for the originals of certain other documents and papers, copies of which have been laid before the House. I would say that it is not the practice to lay the originals on the table of the House. But if the hon. gentleman gives any reason why this should be done I am prepared to do it. The hon. gentleman also asked for copies of letters of the 14th and 15th of May from Lieutenant-Colonel Whitley. One of these letters was marked by Lieutenant-Colonel Whitney ' Private ' and the other 'strictly private' therefore I do not feel at liberty to lay them on the table, nor some other letters to which the hon. gentleman referred. These letters are of a personal and confidential character, addressed to me by constituents of *mine, and I decline to lay them on the table.


Mr. F. D. MONK.: My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has referred to the request which I made, and announces a principle which is new to me, when he says that the originals of documents of the importance of those I referred to the other

day, should not be communicated to the House. I am not aware that that is the practice of the House. We have an absolute right to see the original of any document to which we have access. It is only for the sake of convenience that copies are made and laid on the table of the House,
1 think there can be no doubt about that.
X am not aware that there is any practice to the contrary. Nor are we obliged, when desirous of seeing documents, to state for what reason we wish to see the originals. Our right to inspect original documents is absolute, and we are not obliged to state why we wish to see them. I would like your ruling upon that point Mr. Speaker. However, I do not think there is any doubt about it. Now, as to the documents marked ' private,' I stated the other day when I made my request to the House, that I considered that no document having reference to the organization of this Scottish regiment could be considered as a private document. The questions which have been raised by what is called the Dundonald affair are matters which concern the entire organization of the militia, and the hon. gentleman's conduct in regard to that organization has been called in question, and also his right to interfere in any way with the organization of a militia regiment. I do not think it is a valid defence to make to the House that wishes to become cognizant of all the circumstances connected with the organization of the regiment, to say that the document is marked ' private,' even ' strictly private.' No document concerning public affairs Is a private document to the extent that communication of that document can be refused to the House. I think that is the rule. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister, if I mistake not, a few years ago read a letter which was addressed to him by Reverend Father Le-combe.


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior).: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ?-Perhaps I misunderstood him. Does he mean to say that if a gentleman writes a letter to a member of the government and marks it ' private and personal,' and therein refers, to a matter of public importance, such, for instance, as the organization of the militia, that it becomes a public document and must be produced to the House upon demand ? Is that the hon. gentleman's position ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will tell the hon. gentleman what my position is. When the Plouse. in the exercise of its rights, wishes to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the organization of a regiment, and calls for correspondence having reference to the organization of that regiment, it is no answer to the demand of the House to say :	We will give you the correspondence which is not marked ' private ' but any letter, although referring to the constitution of that regiment, which happens to be marked ' private ' we will not give to you.


Clifford Sifton: Nonsense.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is my contention, otherwise it would be impossible for the House to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the organization of that regiment; it would be possible, in other words, for any man communicating with the members of the government on that subject, by simply stamping his letter 'private.' to exclude it from the cognizance of the House, and that circumstance would really take it out of our, jurisdiction. A letter which, if my memory serves me right -the matter can easily be verified, I am now speaking of what occurred several years ago-which was addressed by Father Leeombe to the right hon. the Prime Minister, was read by the right hon. gentleman in a discussion which took place in this House during the last preceeding parliament.	.
Sta- WILFRID LAURIER. My hon. friend is altogether mistaken.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My right hon. friend may correct me after I have finished. That letter was marked ' private ' and the fact was brought to the attention of the right hon. gentleman by some member on this side of the House, and the right hon. gentleman stated on that occasion that it was a matter relating to the conduct of public affairs, and that no letter of that character could be considered as private. That is my recollection of the circumstance, I will verify it, but I think I am correct.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does the hon. gentleman refer to a letter of Father La-combe on the school question ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is the reference.


Wilfrid Laurier: That letter never was read by me in the House, and that letter was not marked ' private.' I will show it to my hon. friend any time if he wishes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The fact may be as my right hon. friend states, I do not question his good faith, but my recollection is pretty distinct. At any rate I maintain that we cannot fully inquire into the circumstances of the organization of this regiment and, if I may be allowed to say so, into the charge of interference by the hon. Minister of Agriculture unless we can see these letters, which, although marked ' private,' concern the beginning and organization of this regiment. If these letters are refused us we will be at a disadvantage under which as members of this House we ought not to be placed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: < I would point out to my hon. friend that his argument as to the correspondence not being laid on the table of the House has only reference to where the order of the House has issued. In this case there has been no order of the House issued and that contention absolutely falls to the ground. At the same time I do not in any way act upon that argument.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was there not an order for the production of the correspondence ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, there was a request for the correspondence and that request was complied with, frankly, freely and promptly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture must remember that the hon. Minister of Finance stated that the correspondence which I asked for would all be brought down unless there was something private. What I maintain is that there is nothing private in this connection.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not speaking of the hon. gentleman's request of the night before last. I am speaking of the original request to have this correspondence laid on the table of the House, a request which was made by some hon. gentlemen of the opposition and which was frankly acceded to by myself and my colleagues, when the letters which are now before the House and which are contained in this printed document were brought down. But, independently altogether of that I may say in the first place to my hon. friend that when an order of the House issues it is an order for copies of the correspondence, and it is only when the request is made and some grounds shown for it that the originals are brought down. I can only suppose that my hon. friend wishes the originals of these letters because he thinks that the copies are not correct. If -the copies are absolutely correct I cannot conceive of any particular purpose in bringing the originals down. I can only say to my hon. friend that I have in my hands the originals of the letters which he refers to. He refers to two memoranda. I only know of one and therefore I can only lay that one on the table, but in regard to the two letters of Colonel Smart and the memorandum that is referred to in the letter I will lay the originals on the table at the present moment in deference to the hon. gentleman's request although I think it is contrary to the usual practice.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would like to say to the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that I propose to move a reso-ution in - connection with the incident that has just been referred to and if it will be convenient for the government to enable us to do that by moving the House in Committee of Supply to-morrow afternoon I would like to know it. If it will not be convenient to have the discussion upon this subject, then I would like to know what day the government would suggest.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly we shall do so with pleasure ?


Robert Laird Borden: To-morrow ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.



SHIPPING CASUALTIES ACT, 1901.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee on Bill (No. 102) to amend the Shipping Casualties Act, 1901.
Mr. T. CHASE CASGRAIN.: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I "would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the change proposed by this Bill is something of the same nature as that which was proposed the other day by my hon. friend (Mr. Prefontaine) when he moved the second reading of Bill (No. 100) entitled ' An Act to amend the Pilotage Act ' to this extent that instead of substituting the authority of the minister he now substitutes the tribunal which is created by the statute of 1901 entitled 1 The Shipping Casualties Act.' The latter Act enacts that:
The minister may direct the principal officer of customs residing at or near the place where such shipping oasualty occurred, if it occurred on or near any of the inland waters of Canada or on or near the coasts of Canada-


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would ask the House to keep better order. We cannot hear a word of what is being said.
Mr. CASGRAIN (reading)-
-but if elsewhere, at or near the place where such witness as aforesaid arrives, or is found, or cian he conveniently examined, or any officer of the government of Canada, whom the minister appoints, or any other person appointed by the minister, to make inquiry respecting such shipping casualty.
In virtue of the statute the person thus appointed or empowered to hold the investigation into the conduct of the master or mate of a ship is also empowered to Impose fines and penalties on the master or mate who is found guilty of infractions of the law or of neglect of duty. By the amendment to this statute it is sought to enlarge the powers of this tribunal so composed, so that the tribunal may be also a tribunal for the trial of pilots. The Bill says, subsection 2 of section 2 :
If, upon a preliminary inquiry, the officer holding it is of opinion that any loss, or damage, or the stranding of any ship, or any loss of life, has been caused by the wrongful act or default of the pilot in charge, or that such pilot has been guilty of any gross act of misconduct or drunkenness, the license of such pilot may be .suspended by such officer until a formal investigation under this Act has been held and a further decision rendered upon the case.
Section 3 adds section 27 to the -Act already existing and it enacts that if the pilot is found guilty by this tribunal bis license

T

=- 		- *	

may be cancelled, he may be suspended and he may be condemned to a fine.
In any sum not exceeding one-half of the net income he derives from his service as a pilot, based upon his earnings for the previous year.
Mr. Speaker, I really must ask you to maintain order. I do not see how it is that we should be obliged to speak at the top of our voices to be heard on the other side of the House. It is really very fatiguing.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I must say that I have done my best to try and keep order, but it seems that the House has no respect whatever for the chair. The Speaker calls out ' order ' three or four times in succession and nobody seems to pay the slightest attention to it.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: This vests this tribunal with large powers and it is taking away from the pilotage authority that is established, especially in the district of Quebec which tries pilots, the authority that it has now, to try them. Of course the penalties To which pilots are subjected are very severe, and they are made more severe by this Bill because not only can they be suspended, but the sentence of the court may be to this extent, that a pilot can be put under a penalty not exceeding one half of the net income he derives from his services as a pilot based upon his earnings for the previous year. Therefore, if a pilot earns $1,000 in a year, he could be fined to the extent of $500. If we were sure that the person appointed by the minister would always be a fit and proper person, probably there could hot be much exception taken to the Bill. But, under this law, the minister has vast power. He may appoint a principal officer of customs or any officer of the government of Canada, or any person, to make preliminary inquiries. I understand that heretofore Captain Spain or Captain Salmon with two nautical assessors have been appointed. I have not the least objection to these two gentlemen or to the assessors who have been appointed hitherto, but at the same time the minister takes power to appoint any officer of the government, and however competent an officer may be to discharge his ordinary duties, when it comes to trying a pilot for neglect of duty or negligence, it is a technical matter which these officials may not be competent to deal with. I would suggest that section 4 limit the minister's authority to the appointment of some person who would be qualified.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of the expression : ' any person not belonging to a ship ?' It seems a curious expression to use.


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: It means a person hired especially to act as pilot.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the expression taken from any other legislation ?


Mr. PREJFO NT  AINE@: The Bill was drafted by my department, and submitted to the Department of Justice. It would not mean a pilot engaged, by the year, for instance.


Robert Laird Borden: The whole expression : 'any person not belonging to a ship who has the conduct thereof,' seems rather peculiar.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: A number of ships trading between the gulf ports and Quebec and Montreal, have pilots who are hired by the year and who act as captains. Would they come under this law ?


Mr. GEOFFRION.: This may not be a very happy expression, but I have seen it used in similar legislation. It means a pilot who is in charge of the navigation of the boat at the time, but who is not part of the personnel of the boat.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Then, what about the men who pilot these ships from the gulf ports-thus dispensing with the employment of temporary pilots-but who are engaged by the year ? Being pilots they are employed as captains, and consequently the ship is not obliged to take a pilot.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Then they become masters.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The hon. gentleman said that this Act did not apply to any person hired by the year, and therefore these men would not come under the operation of the law.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They would become masters in that case, and they are provided for in another section.


Mr. ROSS (Victoria).: A pilot is a person who is engaged to navigate a ship for the time being, and who is not on the articles of the ship as the master and the other officers are. If he is engaged to navigate aj ship for a whole year, then he is an officer of that ship, and is on the articles and this Act would not apply to him.
On section 2,


Mr.  R. T.. BORDEN@: This would permit the government to appoint the inspector of insurance for example or a clerk in the Inland Revenue Department to investigate a shipping casualty, as I understand the effect of the section.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have retained the same definition as existed in the former Act passed in 1901, and that Act applied to masters, mates and engineers. If the parliament of Canada at the time they passed this

Act had sufficient confidence in the Department of Marine to trust them and to believe that they would appoint a proper officer and if there has been no complaint since this Act was put in operation, not even from those against whom the Act operates, the masters, mates and engineers who are just as important as the pilots, I do not see why there should now be any complaint. But of course X would have no objection to any suggestion to improve the clause.


Robert Laird Borden: My only objection was that the clause in its present form, and in its former reading is very comprehensive. It does not limit the appointment to skilled persons in any way.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The original Act did not either.


Robert Laird Borden: X know, and of course the original Act is open to the same criticism. However the responsibility will be always on the government to appoint the person. I suppose that is the only justification for the clause if it has any justification.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: X would suggest that this subsection be amended by adding the word ' skilled ' before the word ' person ' in the third line, so that the section would read, ' or any skilled person.'


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Define what you mean by ' skilled person.'


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Skilled in this particular matter, skilled to make preliminary inquiries respecting such shipping casualties. The word ' skilled ' is defined by the words coming after, skilled in such matters as the Bill relates to.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If a person other than a customs officer is appointed, would you exact that he be skilled, and who is to pass on his qualification ? If this was adopted I am quite sure it would nullify the effect of the Act, because every time there would be a dispute about the skill of the man appointed. If you want to afford the shipping interest the necessary guarantee, you must trust some one, and it is not likely that the officers of the Department of Marine would appoint a man not able to carry on an investigation. If an investigation was not carried on properly the department would suffer because the shipping people would very quickly make a public complaint. There has been no complaint since 1901 when this Act went into operation. Capt. Salmon who is the head of the department as regards masters and mates has always taken care to have the best assesssors he could find to help him in the investigation and the investigations have proven very satisfactory every time.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: How are the assessors apppointed, under the law ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Under the law, section 9 of the Act, and the section shows that every precaution is taken.
Bill reported.
Mr. PREFONTAINE moved the third reading of Bill.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The Bill is certainly one which gives great powers to the minister and the tribunal he has created for 'he trial of pilots. It seams to me that neither in regard to the tribual nor the mode of trial are the proper safeguards provided for the protection of the pilots. However as this is a government measure, it would no doubt carry even if I moved its rejection. And I desire simply to put on record my protest.


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

['The Sao Paulo Company is in exactly the, same position as this company will be when it gets this Bill passed.']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. H. A. WARD.: Before we go into Lake Ontario. I mentioned yesterday to the attention of the House a matter in connection with the proposed completion of the Trent Valley canal between Rice Lake and Lake Ontario. I mentioned yesterday to the bon. Minister of Railways that I desired him to be present when I made my remarks, but as he is absent, I am perfectly willing to wait, should my right hon. friend the P^'ime Minister desire that I should not go on in his absence.


Wilfrid Laurier: If it would be equally convenient to my hon. friend, I would be glad if he would put off his remarks until another day.


Henry Alfred Ward: I am perfectly willing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Removal obstructions in navigable rivers,

Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Before we discuss this item, might I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he has that letter or report or telegram from Captain Bernier to which he alluded yesterday ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have looked up the record and I find that it is incomplete. I am waiting for a report from Captain Spain, who was senj: specially to Quebec to investigate. There will he an item in the supplementaries, under which all the matters in connection with the * Gauss ' will come up, and the record will then be submitted to the House.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: When we were discussing the ' Gauss ' yesterday, the question of interviews came up given by Captain Bernier to the ' Mail and Empire ' and ' La Presse ' and my hou. friend said he had a letter from Captain Bernier which denied that he had given any interviews to the press. What I want to know is whether or not the hon. gentleman has any such letter and if so why does he not produce it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: In my opinion this, matter has no connection whatever with the item submitted to the House. It will come up on another item.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I merely wish to say that yesterday when we passed the item for maintenance and repairs to .government steamers, it was understood that we would be. at liberty to discuss any question h connection with that item on the following items. My hon. friend from Montmorency was called away to the telephone when we were discussing the question, and we only allowed the item to pass on that assurance being given us.


Peter Macdonald: On looking into the matter, I find that Captain Bernier's connection with the steamer ' Gauss ' does not come up either under the item we have passed or any of the subsequent items in the main estimates. The minister tells us that it will come up under a special item in the supplementaries. It is therefore out of order to discuss it now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the ' Gauss ' a government steamer ? If so we can discuss it under the item for maintenance and repairs of government steamers.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I stated yesterday that no money was asked for the maintenance of the 'Gauss' and that this item had no connection whatever with that steamer. It would not be fair now to judge the question on the filing of part of the record. As soon as the record is complete and the item comes up in the supplementaries, I shall place nil the papers before the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the minister pretend that we could not discuss the sale of the ' Bayfield ' under this item ?	,


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The ' Bayfield ' was a boat which was on the hydrographic survey,* and that is another item altogether.


Mr. INGRAM.: The hon. minister, in reply to my hon. friend from Montmorency, referred to a certain document and he now refuses to lay that document before the House. It seems to me that he is bound to submit to the House any document to which he has made any reference.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would call the attention of the minister to a matter which is of some importance in the county of Jacques Cartier, and with which he is as well acquaint-168
ed as I am. He knows there is, behind the island of Montreal, a stream known as Back river or Riviere des Prairies, which passes in front of the parish of Ste. Genevieve. On one side is the parish of Ste. Genevieve, a populous parish. This is on the island of Montreal, and is frequented by a considerable number of people from the city of Montreal during the summer. Opposite is the parish of He Bizard, which island is nine miles long and a mile or two wide, and lying in the lake of Two Mountains. This would be a very important place for a summer resort if it were more easily accessible. These two parishes, lying thus face to face on the Back river, are about eight miles from Ste. Anne's and in the lake of Two Mountains. The lake of Two Mountains empties into Riviere des Prairies, which passes in front of the parish of Ste. Genevieve and He Bizard, about three miles from the lake. There would be uninterrupted navigation from the lake of Two Mountains down to these two parishes from Ste. Anne's, and consequently from Vaudreuil, Oka, Hudson, Como and, in fact, all the ports of the Ottawa river, but for a small obstruction just at the point where the lake of Two Mountains empties into the Back river. There is a small rapid-in fact it is called Little Rapid-and were it not for this there would be uninterrupted navigation between the lake and these two parishes. I have always been under the impression-and that impression is general among the people down there-that this obstruction could be removed at a comparative trifling cost. What 1 would like the Minister of .Marine and Fisheries to do, if the cost is really trifling, is to have this work of removal of this obstruction done out of this vote. He might perhaps have the obstruction examined by one of the engineers of his department and, if the expense is not very great, and a channel of 15 or 20 feet could toe had by doing a little work, the two parishes I have mentioned wrould be benefited, and, in an indirect way, so would the whole of the city of Montreal. Access could be had to these parishes to the lake at all times. As we have no railway communication at Site. Genevieve or lie Bizard, I think this modest i t quest deserves the attention of the minister. I hope he will look into the matter and have the work done, if it is not found to be too expensive.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Has the hon. gentleman (Mr. 'Monk) any idea of wliat it would
cost ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No ; but I have often been told by people from the place, not experts, of course, but people having some local knowledge, that the shallow water, where it flows through the Little Rapids-it can scarcely be called a rapid-extends over a very short distance, and that a little blasting would remove the obstruction and allow free access to these two parishes from the



lake-in fact, would make these river ports. My hon. friend understands, of course, that that is a matter of some importance.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have no objection to having the investigation made, and if the removal of the obstruction comes within the purview of this vote I will attend to it.
Tidal service, including salary of assistant clerk beyond salary of $400, notwithstanding *anything in the Civil Service Act, $22,500.


Mr.   BRAIN@: When was the steamer " Gulnare,' which is used in this service, purchased, and what was the cost ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The steamer was bought a vear ago last November at a cost of 826,000.


Mr. BLAIN.: The minister was not very accurate in his estimates. I notice when this matter was up for discussion before, he said the salaries would amount to about $2,400 ; now they are over $6,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The pay-list of the officers and crew for the last year amounts to $6,513.73. That is what was expended.


Mr. BENNETT.: Was this a second-hand boat or a new one ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The boat was built for the imperial government, and specially fitted up for this kind of work. She was leased by the imperial government and bought from the owners. Sfre was built of steel, and is nine years old.


William Humphrey Bennett: We had a case yesterday in which it was shown that a boat had to be disposed of on account of her age. It seems to be the policy of the minister to purchase these old second-hand boats from time to time. May I ask the minister when he is about to invest in a boat, what steps are taken ? Is a specification prepared of the kind of boat that is required, and are tenders invited as to what such a boat will cost ? Or does the minister simply go out and. hear of some person having a boat and buy it at their own price ? What is the policy of the department in this respect ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In this case there is no fixed policy. Iu this case the department wanted a boat, and bought one in April, 1902, before I took charge of the department. This boat was offered to the department, and Mr. Douglas Stephen, inspector of government steamers, was asked to make a report on her, which report I now have before me'. I may say thab the boat cost originally $85,000, and it was bought for $36,000 on the recommendation of Dr. Dawson who was in charge of the service. It was the only ship available for this kind of work.


William Humphrey Bennett: It seems to me that some person comes along, whenever they hear that the minister wishes to buy a boat, and offer it at their own price. Then some officer of the department comes in, and if he Mr. MONK.
thinks it is right the boat is taken at that price. I do not think there is any other department that proceeds on those lines. If the department wants a boat there is a procedure laid down. Plans are prepared and tenders invited. If that is not always the case, it should be. But the minister, in disregard of business methods, looks around, makes up his mind that he must have a boat, and then and there if he sees one that suits him, he gives the vendor his own price. Was this the first price asked by the vendor, or did the minister succeed in beating him down ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The purchase was made, as I have said, before I took charge of the department. An explanation was given. I am informed, a year ago, and was considered satisfactory. The boat was built specially for the imperial government for the same kind of work that she is doing at the present time. She cost $85,000, and was bought for $36,000, after the owners had asked $42,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then there must have been something radically wrong with the boat, if she cost only $85,000 six years before, and was sold for less than half that sum. What explanation can the minister give as to why the boat-I presume she was an iron bottom boat-was sacrificed at that figure ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: She was in perfect condition, and the reason we were able to buy her at such a low price was that the imperial government had no more use for her. She could not be used for any other purpose, because she was built specially for that purpose.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are there any vessels being constructed now for his department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. The ' Canada ' is being constructed by Vickers. Maxim & Son. She is a cruiser, and was launched on the 14th of this month.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the prospective cost of that steamer ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I forgot to mention that another one is being constructed by the Poison Company, Toronto, a cruiser destined for the lakes to replace the ' Petrel,' which was not found.fast enough to compete with the American boats.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the estimated cost of the two boats ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will be ready to give all the details regarding these two boats when the item comes up.


William Humphrey Bennett: Approximately.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
William Humphrey Bennett: In the case of the boat that is being built in the old country, were the plans prepared by the department ; also were plans prepared for the boat that Is being constructed by the Poison Company ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The plans were prepared in the department and submitted to experts and prices were asked on these plans.


William Humphrey Bennett: When the bon. minister comes down again with some further estimates will he be good enough to give the tenders which were submitted for the two boats, first, for the one constructed in the old country, and second, for the one constructed by the Poisons ? No one can find fault if, after the preparation of plans and specifications, these were openly advertised and tenders invited. In that case it would be a business proposition. But, on the other hand, if the department simply invited these gentlemen in the old country and the Poisons to construct boats and then to fix their own prices, it is a different proposition.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will have all the information.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the Poison boat to be built in the time limited ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: She is going to be delivered within a week.
Winter mail service, $8,500.


Mr.   BRAIN@: Give us some explanation of that ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This vote is for keeping up winter mail connection between C'ape Tormentine, N.B., and Cape Traverse, P.E.I., across the Straits of Northumberland.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I see that the hon. minister spent only $6,211 on this service during 1902-3. Does he expect it to be more costly this year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This is an uncertain expenditure. It depends entirely on the difficulty that is experienced in crossing the strait.
Marine biological station, $3,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This is a new experiment not inaugurated by me, but it is an expenditure which began in 1898 when an amount of $7,000 was placed in the estimates for a marine biological station, $5,000 for providing a floating station, and $2,000 for providing for the maintenance and support of such station and the payment of salaries. It was found that $2,000 a year was not sufficient to meet all the expenses in connection with the maintenance of the station and the salaries of the university 1681
professors who have the station in charge, and they called upon me,' and I agreed to increase the amount to $3,000. That amount was voted in the supplementary estimates last year. Last year the station was located at Malpeque. I have not yet received the report of the professors in charge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the station for ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: These scientific people make special researches into and studies of fish life. They are professors of the different universities at Toronto and elsewhere. It was at their request that this biological station was. established in 1898 and it has been maintained since that time.


Mr. OSLER.: Is that the station at which Professor Ramsay Wright was experimenting last year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Has he sent in his report to the department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think it would be a very interesting report if it were sent in, and if the government are spending money in that direction, the result of the experiments should be given to us.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is proposed to issue it.
Mr. HACIvETT. Might I ask who are the gentlemen in addition to Professor Prince who are connected with this biological station ?	*


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: All the professors from Toronto, McGill and Laval universities.


Mr. HACKETT.: What is the object of having this biological station ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think I had better read from the report of last year, because it would be very difficult for me to explain clearly what is done at this station.
marine Biological station.
In last year's report it was pointed out that by a resolution of the board of management this scientific fisheries' station was to be moved from Canso to a suitable location on the shores of Richmond bay, adjacent to the famous Malpeque oyster beds. Unfortunately, after leaving Canso, on May 18th, and while the floating station was being towed up the Northumberland straits, a period of stormy weather began, and the station went aground not far from Pictou harbour.The information gained proved of the greatest value in carrying out three new methods of oyster breeding and fattening from which it is anticipated a most essential basis of facts will be secured with a view to the improvement of the valuable but deteriorated beds all along the coast of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Faunistic and embryological

studies were also pursued by the staff, and a most successful season's work closed about the end of September. Further oyster work, and fisheries surveys of a highly valuable nature will be continued during the season of 1904.
The programme of work for the year was as usual prepared by the director (Professor Prince) ; but owing to the mishap referred to and the consequent delay, the whole of the field outlined could not be covered. \ It embraced :-
1.	Faunistic work ; surface and bottom ;
2.	Pelagic ova and young of Teleosteans ;
3.	Extended studies on the life history of the oyster, its food, reproduction and local variations on the famous Malpeque and Curtain island oyster beds ;
(Richmond bay, being one of the most famous and extended places of oyster beds in the world, affords splendid facilities for this important field of fisheries investigation.)
4.	Experiments in raising oysters by fascines, viviers, claires, &c.;
5.	The occurrence of smelt in the local streams, the schools of young and food at different stages ;
6.	Faunistic studies, especially fishes, a great variety of specimens available at some of the fishing stations along the shore.
7.	A thorough study of the external features and internal anatomy of the sea trout of Prince Edward Island, and comparisons with specimens of brook trout from inland waters. This research is intended to decide an important controversial point in connection with the fisheries administration ;
8.	Experiments on the behaviour of lobsters in traps, especially, with regard to the entrance and exit of small, undersized lobsters ;
9.	A comparison of the schools of young clu-peoids herring, alewives or gaspereaux, shad, &c.;
10.	A study of the peculiar structures developed on tidal gauges, floats, material for which will be provided by Dr. Bell Dawson ;
11.	Studies on the clam beds, soft and hard shelled ;
12.	Inquiry into the depredations of dog-fish, and methods of coping with the serious plague of these fish.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Would the hon. gentleman give us a resume of what he has just read. In the first place we do not understand a word of what he has said except his reference to Malpeque oysters.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 1 thought I had it very clearly at the beginning and that it was only for the pleasure of having me read the list of subjects mentioned in the report that the request for further information was made of me. If I say a few words I am called down, and if I Say too much I am called down. What I said was that these scientists are making a special study of fish life in its different phases. They are studying the oyster, the taking of which is becoming an important industry and they are also devoting their attention to other questions affecting fish life.


Edward Hackett: I understand the hon. minister to say that there is no report of last year's operations.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have not received it yet.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Is it private ?
Salaries and expenses of cattle inspection, $3,600.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this cattle inspection ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This vote is to pay the officers whom the department has charged specially to see that cattle are shipped in compliance with the regulations as to cattle space, food, &c. There are two in Montreal and one at St. John.


Richard Blain: Could the hon. gentleman give ns the salaries paid to these gentlemen ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Geo. H. Pope, formerly of Belleville, gets $1,000 ; and H. Delorme $1,000. They are the inspectors at Montreal. The expenses of the inspectors were $207.72. Thos. Bucltley, the inspector at St. John, has a salary of $800. There was paid to Mr. Hunter, at Halifax, $67.15, and H. P. Walsh, Charlottetown, $500.


Mr.   BDAIN@: Do I understand that the cattle exported at these different ports are inspected by these gentlemen ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Richard Blain: Do they make a report?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. It is published in the report of the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: What salary is paid to O. G. Y. Spain ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: $2,000 a year.


Andrew B. Ingram: I see the government paid $100 for a fur-lined coat for this gentleman. Can he not provide his own clothing ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That amount has been refunded by Captain Spain. It was on a trip to Newfoundland and he thought he was authorized on account of the severity of the winter to make that expenditure. He refunded the amount when he was called on to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Auditor General's Report does not say that it was refunded.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed that the amount was refunded since that report.


Mr. FOWLER.: Where is the coat ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I suppose he has [DOT]got it himself ; he paid for it.


George William Fowler: Is this officer still in the employ of the department ? Do you allow your officers to go around buying what they please ? Do I understand the minister to say that this man whom the government paid $100 for a furlined coat for, can charge his ordinary clothing to the country ? Is
[DOT]5293

that the minister's view of what his duty to the public is ? It was only on account of the vigilance of that most excellent officer, the Auditor General, that attention was called to this, and the country saved this amount. And the Auditor General's services are to be dispensed with, because hie can no longer put up with the way in which his decisions are overruled by this government. It seems to me that the Minister of Marine should give a pledge to this committee that this man Spain should be dismissed from the service ; a man who has such an idea of his duty as a public officer.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In justification of Captain Spain I am informed by my officials that he was authorized to buy this coat, on account of the extended trip he was taking ; and when it was discovered it was illegal, he kept the coat and refunded the money.


George William Fowler: What officer authorized him to buy this coat, because he happened to be going to Newfoundland? The climate of Newfoundland is not so much different from the climate of Canada as to necessitate the government buying a coat for him, any [more than if he were going to any other part of Canada.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed that it was during a severe winter when he was snowed in for eight or ten days, and he asked authorization from the minister, and the minister gave him the authority or some employee implied that he was authorized from the minister to buy a coat. He used the coat, and when the department was called upon to reimburse the amount as an illegal expenditure, he reimbursed it.


George William Fowler: Where does that amount appear as being reimbursed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It will appear in the next Auditor General's Report.


George William Fowler: Had this man no coat at all ? It seems rather strange that in Canada, a man occupying the position of Captain Spain would not be in possession of a furlined coat. Men who receive less salaries than he, have furlined coats. It is only a small matter I admit, but it is a straw which shows how the wind is blowing. It is a most outrageous thing. WTho was minister when this authorization was given to Spain to buy a coat-I am reminded by one of my hon. friends that this $100 fer the fcoat, is just the price the minister got for that timber limit which he sold to his friends. It took that $100 to supply a coat for an officer.


Edward Cochrane: One hundred dollars from the minister's point of view is no great matter, when they are frittering away millions. But it is a considerable amount in the eyes of the hard working farmers of this country. Here is a minister of the Crown
who sells timber off 100 acres of land for just the amount of money that one of his officials is giving for a furlined coat. The principle underlying this transaction is what I object to.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It was not principle; it was fur that was underlying it.


Edward Cochrane: If the government keep on at this rate taking taxes out of the people for such purposes, there will not be much fur left on the taxpayers. The right hon. the Prime Minister tells us that they are a business government.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Humphrey Bennett: 
Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) sitting beside you is *your joker.


Edward Cochrane: When the Prime Minister tells me that this is a business government he is not only deceiving me but he is deceiving the whole country. I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Macdonald) if any business man wrould sell the timber on a 100 acres of land without asking for tenders.


An hon. MEMBER.: On the recommendation of a member of parliament.


Edward Cochrane: I can see that he might be deceived by a member of parliament, but if he were a business man he would not be. I have no doubt of Mr. Spain's ability. Mr. Spain no doubt is a very worthy officer and I understand howr Mr. Spain could be misled into this trouble, but do you think Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Spain would have refunded that money if it had not been for the Auditor General. I was very much grieved to hear that that gentleman is going to resign.


William Humphrey Bennett: Do you mean the minister ?


Edward Cochrane: No. no ; I mean the Auditor General. There is no trouble about retaining the minister. He has got a good fat job and there is no trouble about his conscientious scruples forcing him to resign as long as he gets the salary he now gets. I see from the Auditor General's Report that he got an advance of $250 for travelling expenses.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: He can buy a coat with that.


Edward Cochrane: He can explain what he did with it when I get through. I think I would retain office if I got the salary he does, and when we ask for explanations he does not know anything about the matters in question and simply reads the reports

but reads them in such a way that no one can understand him. I certainly cannot understand him. This official spent $100 for a fur-lined coat. I wish the hon. gentleman who leads this government to stop writing for a few moments and in order that X may ask him if he thinks that this is a business transaction. In looking over the Auditor General's Report I find gentlemen travelling in the Northwest buying eider-down quilts at $25 and eider-down pillows at $8 or $10.


William Humphrey Bennett: They had been on the straw before.


Edward Cochrane: It is all very well to laugh but it is a serious matter that the public of Canada has to pay for these things. I would like to know, if any hon. gentleman representing a rural constituency in this House should submit these questions to the electorate how many of the electors, men and women who work hard to pay the exorbitant taxation required for the support of this reckless administration, could state what an eider-down quilt is. Just fancy, eider-down quilts for gentlemen rolling around the Northwest country and three or four satchels for one gentleman and $3.p0 for a leather pocket-book for one official. I ask the leader of the government if he thinks that is a business transaction.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 29) to incorporate the Canadian Credit, Indemnity and Guaranty Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. GUTHRIE moved to add the following words to clause 2 :
In case any of the provisional directors resign or decline to act at any time, their places may he filled by the remaining directors appointing another or others in their place, but it shall not be necessary for them to do so. The quorum shall consist of the majority of provisional directors from time to time in office and acting.
Mr. HENDERSON.: This is rather an unusual clause to introduce at this stage. This Bill was considered by the Banking and Commerce Committee yesterday, and this seems to me a very important amendment to bring up after the Bill was considered by the committee. I think the promoters should ask to have the Bill sent back to the committee for further consideration and let the committee deal with it.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: There was some discussion in the committee yesterday as to the number of provisional directors who should form a quorum. The difficulty is that there Mr. COCHRANE.
are eleven provisional directors and it requires six to form a quorum. They are all very prominent and busy men and it is questionable if six can be got together. This amendment only gives power to appoint new provisional directors in case any of those named decline to act or resign. If they do, the remaining directors can appoint others to fill their places, but a majority is still required to form a quorum. This does not affect the working out of the matter in any way, but still leaves a majority necessary before anything can be done.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: It was pointed out in the committee that it was difficult to get a majority of the directors present and therefore it was desirable, if any should resign- which I suppose is intended by this Act- that a majority of those remaining should form a quorum. But the danger, I see is to whom are they to resign and how are they to resign. The amendment provides for their failing or refusing to act, but what evidence will we have of that ? The work done by the provisional board may be all upset by some irregularity or some difficulty in finally determining whether these directors have declined to act or to whom they are to resign. I would prefer that the number of provisional directors should be reduced instead of making this provision, as I see a good many difficulties in working it out.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the resignation in writing to the other provisional directors would be a sufficient resignation on which to act.


David Henderson: It seems of little use to refer a Bill to a select committee, if action of this kind is to be taken immediately on the return of the Bill to the House. I do not think the point is well taken. I find that the names of the provincial directors include the following :
James Joseph Kenny, John Woodburn Langmuir, John Fitzallen Ellis, William Stone, Alexander Archibald Allan, Phineas Hophni Burton, Peleg Howland, William Kirkpatrick McNaught, and Robert Bryson Osborne, all of the city of Toronto, and John Roaf Barber, of Georgetown, in the county of Halton.
All these gentlemen are in Toronto, excep't Mr. Barber, who is in Georgetown, very near to Toronto, and who spends about as much time in Toronto as he does in Georgetown. Practically these provisional directors all live in one city. I do not see why there should be any difficulty in getting a majority of them together. Yesterday when the question was before the Banking and Commerce Committee we were firm on the point that a majority should constitute a quorum and I object to the change.


Hugh Guthrie: It still leaves it a majority. Some of these gentlemen, I understand, are not very anxious to act in the work of provisional directors.


David Henderson: But surely they would be willing to meet in order to make the proceedings regular. I agree with the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) that there might be a difficulty if a notification by one provisional director to all the others were counted a sufficient withdrawal. But I approve of the Bill being referred back to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. I understand that there is to be a meeting early next week, and the Bill can be considered in the House again. There is no danger of it being lost through any delay of this kind.


Hugh Guthrie: I would not object to that if there was anything material in it. But, as we know, the duties of provisional directors are very slight-merely to meet and organize and get subscriptions. If any one of the board does not desire to do the work and resigns, addressing his resignation to the provisional directors of the company, surely that ought to overcome any irregularity. At all events, I suspect that the gentlemen who seek the amendment are the only ones who would involve themselves. I do not think there is much in the objection.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many directors are there ?


Hugh Guthrie: Eleven.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But if you drop two, a majority would be five, and surely that number can be got to take part in the organization of the company.


Hugh Guthrie: At present we want six. But, if two drop, five would be enough. It is a minor matter, I think.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Bill as amended reported and read the third time.
Mr. GUTHRIE moved that the Bill pass, and that the title be ' A Bill to incorporate the Canadian Credit Indemnity Company.' Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 97) respecting the Trans-Canada Railway Company.-Mr. Girard.
Bill (No. 131) to incorporate the Farmers' Bank of Canada.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 54) to incorporate the Dominion Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Macpherson.
Bill (No. 121) respecting the Century Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 122) respecting the Ottawa Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Rosamond.

Mr.   ALEX@: JOHNSTON moved the second reading of Bill (No. 140) respecting the Alliance Bank of Canada.


David Henderson: Mr. Speaker, before this Bill is read the second time, if the promoter of the Bill (Mr. Russell) is present I would like to have some explanation as to why the company have not proceeded to organize this bank before asking us to grant this extension of time. It seems to me that it is not a wise thing to keep these charters alive on the statute-book of the country unless some action is going to be taken by the promoters of these Bills. Last year we granted nine bank charters and I am not aware that more than one of these banks actually went into operation. It seems to me that it is quite unnecessary for us to proceed with the granting of bank charters year after year unless some action is to be taken. I do not think it is a wise thing to hold these charters over from year to year without taking some action, and I would have hoped that the promoter of the Bill would have been present to have given the House some reason why the purposes of the Bill had not been accomplished, why action had not been taken and the bank actually put into operation.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: The hon. member (Mr. Russell) who is in charge of this Bill, is out of the House just now. I have charge of it in his absence. [DOT] When this matter came up before the House a few days ago, satisfactory explanations were given at the time as to the reason why the promoters had not gone forward with the organization of this bank during the year. This charter has not been held over from year to year. As hon. members will recollect, it was only towards the end of last session that this charter was granted and it was stated a few days ago by the hon. gentleman who is in charge of this Bill that there were some reasons why the promoters did not succeed in carrying forward the work of organization. The condition of the money market, it was represented, had prevented the gentlemen who are connected with this enterprise from carrying on the work of organization. They are men of means and I have no doubt whatever that if the House will consent to the Bill which is now before it, the work of organization will be carried forward speedily. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), when this matter was before the House, expressed his satisfaction with the reason which had compelled this company to delay organizing, and I am sure that my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) will not insist at the present time upon throwing any obstacles in the way of carrying this measure to completion.


David Henderson: If I am assured that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, who resides in Halifax, the head office, I presume, of this intended bank, was satisfied, I would in no way desire to press any

further objection, but I must say, as I understand that the Alliance Bank is simply an amalgamation of a number of other banks, that I fail to see wherein the condition of the money market could have any effect whatever in preventing the object of the promoters being carried out.


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

Hon.  W. S.@: CALVERT moved the second reading of Bill (No. 142) respecting the Rio de Janeiro Light and Power Company, Limited, and to change its name to the Rio de Janeiro, Tramway, Light and Power Company, Limited.


David Henderson: This, I may say, is a somewhat extraordinary Bill. We are incorporating a company to do work in South America. I have no file of the Bill, and I am not aware whether it has been printed. It is not marked as having been printed. I think we ought to have some knowledge as to what the Bill is.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is marked as printed on my order paper.


David Henderson: It is not marked as printed on mine, and I presume mine must rule, because this is the notice that has been given to us. My hon. friend (Mr. Kaulbach) says it is not distributed. It is a rather remarkable Bill and it was introduced somewhat late in the session by special permission. I do not think there is any reason why it ought to be hurried through the House. I think we ought to have a little of this light which is supposed to be generated thrown on the question before we pass it so hurriedly. I do not think it will suffer if it is allowed to stand for a day or two.
Mr. CALVEuT. Mr. Speaker, when I asked the permission of the House to present the petition for this Bill, I endeavoured to give an explanation and it was agreed to both by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I think there should be no objection to the Bill going to its second reading when a full explanation can be given before the committee. As I stated at that time, the Bill is for the purpose of organizing a company to do business in Brazil. It will not interfere in the slightest with any company or corporation in Canada. These people are all Canadians ; the capital will be $25,000,000, and they propose to do business subject to the laws of Brazil. As they have entered! into a contract which is to be commenced within the present year, I asked the House to permit of the petition being presented. The House agreed, and I would like my hon. friend from Halton


David Henderson: (Mr. Henderson) to allow this Bill to go to the committee so that we can get along as rapidly as possible. I think he will be perfectly satisfied when he knows the gentlemen who are connected with it. It is for the purpose of permitting Canadians to do business outside of this country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is the stage at which to explain any principle in the Bill which may be considered objectionable. The reasons stated on the introduction of a petition are simply to satisfy the House that it might be permitted to be introduced at an unusually late date. I think perhaps there is a precedent for this in a Bill we passed some years ago, but it is rather strange that we should incorporate a company to do work in some other part of the world.


Mr. CALVERT.: The Sao Paulo Company is in exactly the, same position as this company will be when it gets this Bill passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a second time.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Unforeseen expenses generally, $5,000.
['Yes, lately.']
Richard Blain: How was this vote expended last year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The expenditure for last year is $2,973.25 up to the present.


Richard Blain: What were the principal items of expenditure ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The principal item was one of $1,409.80 in connection with the interruption of navigation between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. The others are small items.
Salaries and allowances of lightkeepers, $238,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This year a number of new lights and stations have been erected but it is thought that the same amount that we took last year wili be ample. This is the ordinary expenditure.


George Taylor: I understand that the services of a great many of the light keepers above Montreal have been dispensed with. After fifteen or twenty years service the minister simply told these men to walk, giving them a few months notice. Is that fair treatment for men who have been in the service of the country for many years ? Is it the intention to give them some compensation.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The following oil lights in the River St. Lawrence in the neighbourhood off 'Gananoque, were converted shortly after the opening of navigation this year into automatic acetylene

lights, viz. : Burnt Island, Red Horse Rock, Spectacle Shoal, Jackstraw Shoal, Ganan-oque Narrows, Lindoe Island. The above named lights were formerly looked after by the following keepers . James A. Acton, Burnt Island ; J. Lamdon, Red- Horse Rock and Spectacle Shoal ; Manly Cross, Jackstraw Shoal and Gananoque Narrows ; John G. Wallace, Lindoe Island.
The salaries of the above named keepers were as follows :	James Acton, $250 ; J.
Lamdon, $300 ; Manly Cross $480 ; John [DOT]G. Wallace, $250.
In addition to the salaries of the keepers the lights cost for maintenance, exclusive of repairs, about $40 per annum each.
The amount of carbide used since the lights are automatic averages about $60 per annum and the power of the light is very materially strengthened.
The salaries of the keepers amounted to $1,280.
The following is a comparative statement of the cost of the lights under the old arrangement and under the new.
Under Old System-
Maintainance 6 lights at $40
each	$ 240
Keepers salaries	 1,280

Linder Present System-
Maintainance 0 lights at $60
each	$360
Salary of caretaker, Manly Cross	 550
Total	$910
Saving in cost per annum.. ..$610 The carbide used for these lights is purchased from the Ottawa Carbide Company at the wholesale price of $65 per ton. This is the price paid by the wholesale dealers in carbide, including the Canadian Pacific Railway, which uses a very much larger quantity than the government.


George Taylor: Does the minister include in that comparative statement the cost of the steamer '-Scout,' that is scouting around the lakes with a large crew on board ?
Mr.	PREFONT AINE.	The steamer
would have to be maintained all the same to look after the buoy service,


George Taylor: The lights were there for many years and we had no steamer to look after them ; nor did we have to maintain a factory and employ about 100 men up there at Prescott in connection with this carbide which is made here at Ottawa by a company in which some of the cabinet ministers are stockholders.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Well, what if they are ?	'


George Taylor: I may say that this system of lighting with carbide was started
simply for the purpose of purchasing' carbide from a company in Ottawa, promoted by members of this government. My hon. friend has started a factory at Prescott, having purchased a property there without a vote of this House, that I know of. I never heard of a vote to purchase property there for that purpose, and I knew nothing of the project until I was in Prescott the other day and saw something like one hundred men working there on property purchased at large expense. We have not been asked to purchase the property or told that the government were going to start a factory to make tanks to hold acetylene gas. So far as I know this gas,
I would not have it on any property I own. You can hardly read a paper, but you see accounts of explosions of this gas, yet the government, because some of its members are engaged in the manufacture of the carbide, purchase a property, start a factory and employ some one hundred men.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: What does the hon. gentleman mean ? What kind of a factory ?


George Taylor: What is my hon. friend doing in Prescott in the Wiser distillery works ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Does he mean we are manufacturing carbide at Prescott ?


George Taylor: No, manufacturing iron tanks to hold the gas you make from carbide. Am I not correct ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Somewhat correct.


George Taylor: Where did the minister get the authority to get that property and start this factory ? We have never heard of it in parliament, but there is the factory to-day running and manufacturing these things that might be made at the Kingston locomotive works or the Kingston boiler works. But my hon. friend has purchased a property there and has one hundred men employed, running a manufacturing industry, competing with other Canadian manufacturers.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The explanation is very simple. $35,000 was voted last year to purchase the Prescott property. I know nothing personally of the property itself. I know that the property was considered good value at $40,000, but we managed to buy it at $26,000, or thereabouts, after the amount had been v.oted by parliament last year. It was considered to be in the interest of navigation and of aids to navigation to establish a station at that point. I am awfully sorry that we should be called down for having done a thing which is in the interests of navigation on the lakes. If we had thought that we would be reproached for it we would have put the money elsewhere, and then we would not have, been accused of having done anything

wrong towards the country. Another time I suppose we will consult the gentlemen who represent the district. We intend to put a station at Parry Sound, but if it is objected to of course we will put it somewhere else, and will have all the supplies necessary for the lights whether acetylene gas or any other gas, kept at a place where no objection will be raised. I am very sorry when we have established such a station at this point for the sake of improving aids to navigation on the upper lakes, and between Montreal and Kingston, that we should have been accused of having done something that is wrong. The whole question came before the House last year and was approved of. The explanations were all given at the time and we went on with the project just as we have been going on with the shipyard at Sorel. We do not find any kick about the shipyard at Sorel. Every one is satisfied in Quebec; they think it is right that it should be established there and worked there, and that it is doing good work. The fact of the matter is that we are being asked every day to have everything done at the yards there. Instead of giving out contracts for the building of ships and boats in private shipyards, we are asked to do it at Sorel where we have the men and facilities necessary to do the work in the interests of the country. If these gentlemen are not satisfied with the establishment of the station at Prescott, I am very sorry. We are not going to abolish the station which has got to work. It is useful and is going to be worked in the best interests of the province of Ontario in spite of the hon. gentlemen on the other side, who do not think this should be done.


George Taylor: I would like the hon. gentleman to point to me in the estimates of last year or in the debates of last year, where $35,000 was voted and one word said about purchasing a property at Prescott to start an industry for manufacturing tanks to hold this gas. The first I heard of it was when I was in Prescott and saw the place. I do not represent the town of Prescott or that district, but I do say that this expenditure for lighting the River St. Lawrence under this system, including the cost and maintenance of the crew of the steamer ' Scout,' will be largely in excess of the cost of the other system. Under the old system I could stand at Gananoque, and see the three lights looming well, but under this system they, are like little stars.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are people who cannot see the light. When it is so bright it blinds them. When you have a five candle power light, they can see it, but when it is a fifteen or twenty power light of course it puts them in the shade and they are nowhere.


George Taylor: I do say and will maintain that the government had no right to


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: v
dismiss the faithful and efficient servants who had been employed there for twenty years, and to throw them on the world giving them two or three months' notice. The government had no right to start this manufacturing industry at Prescott without asking parliament. I never heard in the debate, nor can it be pointed out in the records of last year that it was the intention of. parliament to vote this money for the establishment of this factory. I want the minister to point it out. He made the statement that $35,000 was voted last year to purchase this property. Will he point out one word in the estimates or in the debates to show that ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Was it before the minister came into the department or since, that this purchase of land was made ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The purchase was made last year after the vote was taken by parliament. I have not the vote before me, but I will have it in a moment. A vote of $180,000 was asked, and this included, I think, the sum of $35,000 to establish a station at Prescott, including the purchase of a property there. The property instead of costing $35,000, has cost only $20,000. At the time we calculated it might cost us $35,000. The price asked was $40,000, so I do not think there is enough in this transaction to kill the government or even a very humble member of the government.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was any explanation given to the House last year that $35,000 of this $180,000 was being voted for the purchase of that property ?
Mr. -PREFONTAINE. I have sent for the statute.


Andrew B. Ingram: Under what head will we find that discussed last year ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Commencing at page P- 47 of the Auditor General's Report there is a resume of the expenditure on lights above Montreal. Now the lights on the St. Lawrence are of course counted among those above Montreal and in looking through this I can find no reference to the purchase of this property. Perhaps the minister can tell us where it is.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: On page 31 of the Statutes of 1903. Lighthouse and coast survey.
Further amount for construction and aids to navigation, including the purchase and equipment of boats for sweeping channels . . . and the substitution of compressed gas for oil as illuminant for lighthouses, increasing the power of lights below Montreal and the establishment of a buoy depot for the upper lakes, $180,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Surely the minister does not call this the establishment of a buoy depot where they are manufacturing pipes ?
*


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They are not manufacturing any thing of the sort.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is being manufactured at Prescott.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The are manufacturing gas. Some one the other side said so. They are full of it.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Full of what.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Gas. What is being made there is everything that is necessary for keeping the lights in operation. repairing the appliances, filling the bouys, &c. That is the work done at this station which before was done, either in private establishments or at Montreal or elsewhere. Instead of that we thought, seeing the increase of necessities for better aids to navigation, that it was better that all these things should be under the control of the department. That is why the station was established. There is no gas manufactured there, there are no holders manufactured there except for repairs that may be necessary in connection with the working of the buoys.


William Humphrey Bennett: As I understand the acetylene gas is made in this way : There are certain iron receptacles made for the holding of this carbide.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They are not made there. At this depot they are doing everything necessary to maintain the lights and the buoys on the upper St. Eawrence.


William Humphrey Bennett: In an acetylene gas plant there is an iron receptacle into which this carbide is introduced and the gas is produced by moisture and is then conveyed by pipes and becomes an illuminating power. We know that the carbide is not manufactured there. It is manufactured at two or three different places, at Ottawa and also at St. Catharines, I think the same company is interested in both concerns, and it is quite well known that the Minister of Public Works is a large stockholder in at least one concern. There is no harm in that but it is a well known fact that Hon. Mr. Sutherland is one of the promoters of that industry. The use of acetylene gas is quite popular in Ontario, although in some places it is not popular by reason of the explosions that occur in connection with it. Am I to understand from the minister that in all the lighthouses on the great lakes, the present system of lighting by oil is to be dispensed with and carbide introduced instead ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I could not say that off-hand. There are some lights where it is in the interest of the service that acetylene gas should be used, because it gives a mueh stronger light, and there are other places where the oil lamps will be kept. It is a technical question which comes within the province of the officer in charge
of the lights. I may say that almost all of these changes have been asked for by the shipping interests. As regards the acetylene gas, I know nothing particularly as to who manufactures this carbide. I understand there are two companies, one in St. Catharines, controlled entirely by Mr. Willson, and I understand there is another in Ottawa; these two control the market. The factory in Ottawa is controlled by the Messrs, Bronson, of Ottawa, Mr. Cranueil and Mr. Willson and others. I deny that one of the members of the cabinet is a director of the company.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the Mr. Willson, who
i.s interested in the one at St. Catharines, the same Mr. Willson woh is interested in the one at Ottawa ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. From information I have received, the company in St. Catharines is not able to furnish the quantity of carbide asked for. Then there remains this company in Ottawa which is selling all the carbide it can produce to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and other concerns, and the price we pay is the same as is paid by these companies, which buy a larger quantity than we do. The department has no interest whatever in favouring any one company or another. If another company would offer the carbide at a lower price, the department would buy from it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Do I understand that some of these lighthouse keepers have been dispensed with altogether ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then at the expiration of the time during which the machines are supposed to run. it will be necessary for a man to reload them ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No. We have a machine now which is loaded for six months or a year. ' All that is necessary is that it should be visited now and then to see whether the apparatus is in good order and condition.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, as there is no caretaker in the building, any one evil disposed could obtain entrance and put the whole arrangement out of gear. And if there should be a wreck, there is no lighthouse keeper to assist the stranded vessel. And if anything should go wrong with the machine, there is no one to set it right.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: These changes have been approved by the marine associations and shipping interests all over. \ can produce many letters to show that these interests are very grateful to the department for having adopted this means of giving better aid to navigation. I do not claim credit for this new departure, t found the experiments going on, and after

they proved satisfactory, I thought it my duty to continue the system.


Edmund Boyd Osler: How does the hon. gentleman purchase the property at present ? What has he paid for it and how did he arrive at a valuation ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The property was valued at $40,000. We did not disclose who wanted to purchase and the price came down to $35,000. We thought it could be bought cheaper and we employed an agent from the city of Ottawa. The politics of this man I do not know, but I am inclined to think he is a Conservative, and we thought that by employing him we could dispel the suspicion that the government wanted the property. We_ succeeded in getting the property at $20,500 instead of $35,000 and we paid about $500 commission.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What arrangement has the minister made with the acetylene gas company for the supply of the carbide, and what period does it cover ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We buy the carbide at $65 a ton, which is the ordinary price paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Edmund Boyd Osler: How long does the agreement last ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no agreement. We buy at the market price.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Then when you have all these arrangements made and are using the acetylene light over your whole system, these gentlemen put up the price.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Canadian Pacific Railway would be in the same position.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I venture to say that the Canadian Pacific Railway does not go into any such bargain. When the Canadian Pacific Railway make a bargain, they see that they do not run the risk of being cornered at the end of the year. I do not think it is right for the minister to bring the Canadian Pacific Railway into this discussion. I am not here to defend the Canadian Pacific Railway or to represent that company, but I am here representing the people of Canada and the constituency for which I am elected ; and when I ask the hon. minister for information, I have the right to get an answer which does not bring in the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am not objecting to the use of the acetylene gas, because I believe it is a light that is going to stay and I hope it will prove much better than what was heretofore used. But what I say is that the government ought to take precautions against being cornered by the people who control the acetylene gas. The government ought to have some arrangement with these people of a permanent character.
Mr. PREFONTAINlEt My department and the government can hardly be blamed Mr. PREFONTAINE.
if they have acted with as great care as that shown by the large private companies. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company have fitted up cars at very great expense to burn acetylene gas, and fitted them up so that they will not burn anything else. And the company buy their carbide from the Ottawa Carbide Company at the same price that the government pay. I do not know what the arrangement of the Canadian Pacific Railway with the Carbide Company may be, but I know that we buy the carbide on the market. And if the company wants to charge us a higher price we can go elsewhere. I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) is in a position to tell us what the nature of the contract made by the Canadian Pacific Railway with the Ottawa Carbide Company is, and, if he will do so, perhaps we may be able to make the same contract. At present, though we have made no contract, we are buying carbide at the same price as the Canadian Pacific Railway, $65 a ton. Though we have gone to some expense to provide the apparatus to use this gas, we have not spent as much as the Canadian Pacific Railway in fitting up their cars for the same purpose. So, I think I have a right to say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) has no business to reproach the department for acting as we have done. And even if he tries to divide his responsibility as a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway in making the same kind of a contract that we have made, I think that the people generally Mull not consider that we have been guilty of a great crime.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not seek to divide my responsibility as between the Canadian Pacific Railway and this House. My responsibility as a member of this House is here.
I am not here to say whether the Canadian Pacific Railway has made a good or a bad bargain, but I am here to criticise the item under discussion. I say that if the government are going to large expense to change the system of lighting-to which, mind you,
I do not object at all-they must keep in view the fact that the carbide, as I understand it, is controlled by one company.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: It is manufactured all over the world.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is not even a patent on it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is practically controlled by one company.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) says that it cannot be manufactured by anybody who chooses to take up that line of business ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: The Standard Oil Company give exactly the same answer as the minister has just given. They say there is no objection to anybody else going into the oil business-that there is no monopoly in the oil business.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is a great deal of difference. I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) as a business roan can defend his proposition that there is a similarity between the Standard Oil Company and the concerns that produce carbide. The Standard Oil Company have bought all the sources of supply, while the carbide industry is an open one in which any one can engage.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am very glad to hear the hon. gentleman (Mr. Prefontaine) endorse so completely the statement I made in the House when the Minister of Finance brought in his Standard Oil legislation the other day. I stated, and the minister of Finance contradicted me, that the new oil duties were simply playing into the hands of the Standard Oil Company, because they had or would have control of the output. The Minister of Finance and others on that side said that I was talking nonsense, but now the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries tells us that the Standard Oil Company own all the oil in the world, and that there is no analogy between the production of carbide and the production of oil. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries goes further than X did. I said that the Standard Oil Company would ultimately control the supply, but the minister says that they do control it. I am confident that I state a fact when I say that the production of carbide is practically a monopoly. I have no accusation to make against any men who are interested in that manufacture. They have a perfect right to engage in it and to make all the money they can out of it. But the government, in making these expensive changes to adopt the new system of lighting should take into account the fact that the production of carbide is practically a monopoly.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If there is a monopoly-though I do not admit it-and if the hon. gentleman has admitted that there is a monopoly in the oil industry-


Edmund Boyd Osler: I did not admit it, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Prefontaine) stated it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: But that is the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Osier's) argument. He says that the tariff brought down will not benefit the people, because the Standard Oil Company controls the whole trade and will use these duties for its own purposes. It would appear, then, according to the hon. gentleman's argument that it is simply a question of whether we shall face the difficulty of a monopoly in oil or a monopoly in carbide.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is a little mixed, or else I am very dense. I did not say that the Standard
Oil Company now had a monopoly, but that it would acquire a monopoly in Canada as it had elsewhere. The minster himself stated absolutely that the Standard Oil Company had a monopoly.


William Mulock: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) would allow me. I would like to ask him a question. He stated that the manufacture of carbide was a monopoly


Edmund Boyd Osler: I say that practically carbide is a monopoly. *


William Mulock: Will the hon. gentleman explain what he means by that ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Practically it is in the hands of a very few.


William Mulock: Does the hon. gentleman know the nature of the monopoly of which he speaks ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is of the same nature as the Standard Oil Company-the production is in the hands of a few companies.


William Mulock: Is the hon. gentleman quite sure of that ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think so, yes.


William Mulock: I think the hon. gentleman is in error. I know nothing about the internal workings, and so may be in error myself. But I have heard the statement made, and I believe it to be correct, that the patentee of the process is a Mr. Willson of this city. I suppose he patented it in various parts of the world. He is not manufacturing I presume all over the world, but like other persons who have inventions, he sells territory, and probably either retains a royalty or gets something for the sale of the territory. That is a different thing from saying that he controls the market price at which it may be sold. Now the information is easily obtainable, I suppose that gentleman lives in this city, and we could ascertain by telephone whether he controls the selling price. If he does not control the selling price, then there is competition. If this carbide is manufactured throughout the world, then there is competition, and if it happened that manufacturers in Canada should seek to impose high prices upon the people of Canada, then this material could be brought in from other parts of the world where it is manufactured. Unless the hon. gentleman says that one man or one syndicate controls the output and regulates the price so that they can put it up or down, his theory of a monopoly amounts to nothing.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think the hon. gentleman quite understands a monopoly.


William Mulock: I want the hon. gentleman to explain his argument.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am speaking quite frankly, because I know nothing about the gentlemen interested in this carbide, and 'have no

interest in it. But if a patent is sold for the manufacture of carbide in Canada, that patent carries with it, as in almost every other case, this right, that if it is manufactured in the United States they cannot come into Canada and .sell it here. That is almost the invariable condition of a patent that is sold anywhere. If you sell a patent in Canada for the manufacture of an article and you sell the patent in England for the manufacture of the same article, the first and primary condition is that no goods manufactured in Canada can be sold in England under that patent.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman will see at once the absurdity of such a statement. He is an inventor, we will suppose, of this particular material, and has sold his patent to manufacture this material in Germany, we will say, and it is sold on liie market in Germany. Now, is there any private agreement that one could make with a German manufacturer that would prevent the person who bought this material in Germany from importing it into Canada ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Certainly there is.


William Mulock: It is absurd to talk so.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. minister does not know the ordinary conditions of trade, and I will illustrate that in a moment.


William Mulock: Will the hon. gentleman say that the goods manufactured in Germany cannot come in here ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: If a man has a patent to manufacture goods in Canada and the same patent is sold in England, the condition of the patent is thht the goods made in Canada cannot be sold in England, and the condition in the patent is that English goods shall not be sold in Canada, without any question. Now, let me show how close these trade arrangements are made. Let me give an illustration. If you go to an agent in London of French wines-I make this illustration, because it is something that happened to myself mot long ago-you buy from the French house in London so many cases of claret, or whatever it may toe, to he sold and sent to Canada at the price there. The house will simply say, when you tell them to send It to you in Canada :	We cannot do it, we
have an agent in Canada who has the sole control of the right of selling it there. I may buy it in London, true from the agent and ship it myself out here as an individual, but I cannot go into the market there and buy it through an agent to be sent to this country. That is an illustration in a small way, and a patent carries exactly the same conditions, only much more strictly. If a patent for acetylene gas or' carbide is sold in Canada and the patent is also sold in England and English goods are sent into Canada, the transaction will be attacked almost at once, and there will be a dispute Mr. OSLER.
straight and square between the manufacturer in England and the manufacturer in Canada.


William Mulock: That is a theory.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is the practice.


William Mulock: We are not dealing in practice, we are dealing in carbides. Take this case. Assume that this patentee has sold his patent in other parts of the world-and I am sure that must be the case, because it is a useful article, and he would protect himself by getting this article patented. I think we may fairly assume that an article of this utility is being manufactured In all the civilized nations of the world, and the product of this patent is on the market. Suppose the hon. gentleman's theory is correct, and that the manufacturers in Canada should seek to put up the price, will he say what is to prevent the Canadian government, if they want to buy ten tons or any other quantity of this stuff, from going to the country where it is sold, say to Germany, and buying it there ? What is to prevent that, if it is for sale there ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am not a lawyer, and am not familiar with the Patent Act in theory, but I am familiar with the practice, and I know that the Patent Act protects the manufacturer in every country where that patent is running.


William Mulock: Does the hon. gentleman say there is anything in the patent laws of Canada that will prevent an article that is manufactured under a patent in some foreign country from being sold to a purchaser there and being taken into Canada ? Is there anything in our patent law to that effect ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: If the article is manufactured in England under the patent law and is sent here, at once the manufacturer in England will be notified that he cannot send that article out here. That Is always the case, and that practice is enforced as a matter of fact. I am not speaking of the law, but I am saying that, as a matter of fact, that is absolutely the case, the same as the copyright of a book. There is no question about it. If that were not so, what would be the use of selling the patent in England, or Germany, or France ? A patent iE England means that the patentee in England who manufactures cannot have the Canadian market; the patent in France means that the manufacturer in France can have nothing but the French market. However it may be in theory, in practice the patent in a country protects the manufacturer in that country. If that was not the case, what would be the use of our giving patents here to anybody ? It would not be worth while.	'	-


William Mulock: The patent might prevent buying and selling in this

*country, but this is not a question of importing. I think an article that is sojd in Europe, although it may be patented in Canada, could be brought into Canada. If a man chose to buy it in Europe he could bring it into Cana'da. If he chose to buy an article in a foreign country that is also the subject of a patent in Canada, I do not think there is anything in the customs law that will prevent him bringing that article into Canada.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. gentleman is a lawyer and I ami not. Let one put this question to him. This carbide is patenteed in England, it is manufactured in England under the English patent. Can I, as a consumer of carbide, import from England all the carbide I want straight from the manufacturer in England, in defiance of the Canadian patent ? Will the minister answer that question ?


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman was making the statement that there was a monopoly, and I was asking him if he could tell me what the patent law was.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No, I do not know the patent law.


William Mulock: Then he is pretty much in the same position as myself. I would be very much surprised if when an article is manufactured in a foreign country and when a man has bought it and owns it, the patent law would prevent him from bringing it into this country. I could understand the patent law preventing a man from dealing in a patented article. I am merely theorizing the Act before him.


Mr. LAVELL.: If the hon. Postmaster General were familiar with the Patent Act he would be aware that it forbids the use of any patented article in this country without the consent of the owner of the patent. If it were not so the patent would be practically useless.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I would like to give the committee a little illustration of this matter. The General Electric Company in the United States manufacture electrical goods for which they have the patents in the United States, and for which they have the patents in this country also. They are manufactured here by the Canadian General Electric Company. The Canadian General Electric Company manufacture these goods here and nobody else has the right to manufacture them. I want, for instance, to buy a certain kind of electrical motor that is manufactured by the Canadian General Electric Company. I think they are charging me too much for it. I write to the General Electric Company in the. United States and I ask them what they want for a ten horse power * electric motor. They write back that they
cannot sell one of these motors because they are made in Canada. All I have to do is to write over to my agent on the other side and tell him I want a ten horse power motor manufactured by the General Electric Company in the United States. He gets a price over there writes to me and I tell him to ship the motor at that price. I get the motor and we are doing it every day. The same thing applies to electric "lamps and other electrical goods.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it the same company i1


Aaron Abel Wright: Certainly. We get the motor manufactured by the General Electric Company of the United States and we do so notwithstanding the fact that the article is patented and made by the Canadian General Electric Company.


Andrew B. Ingram: Suppose they patented that in Canada and the United States and sold the right to manufacture in the United States ; the hon. gentleman gets his agent to send him over one of these articles on which there is a patent here. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say he can bring that article in here 1


Aaron Abel Wright: I am speaking about goods patented here and patented there by the General Electric Company. If I want it I get my agent to get it for me.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I have the Patent Act under my hand, and I will read section 37 :
Every patent granted, under this Act, shall be subject and be expressed to be subject to the condition that such patent and all the rights and privileges thereby granted shall cease and determine, and that the patent shall be null and void at the end of two years from the date thereof, unless the patentee or his legal representatives, within that period, commence, and, after such commencement, continuously carry on in Canada the construction or manufacture of the invention patented, in such manner that any person desiring to use it may obtain it, or cause it to be made for him, at a reasonable price, at some manufactory or establishment for making or constructing it in Canada-and that such patent shall be void

This particular section has been amended, but not in the essential parts as regards this discussion.
-[DOT]if, after the expiration of twelve months from the granting thereof, the patentee or his legal representatives-
That is sthe agent which my hon. friend (Mr. Wright) was speaking of.
-or his assignees for the whole or in part of his interest in the patent imports or causes to be imported into Canada, the invention for which the patent is granted.
That is the law, so that in the case which my hon. friend has just spoken of the patent would be voided.


Aaron Abel Wright: I do not care whether the patent is voided or not, I know we do it every day.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I did not intend to get into any controversy with the hon. Postmaster Genera] beeause he is a legal man and supposed to be familiar with the patent law, in theory, while I am only speaking of what I know from practice. The production of carbide is more or less of a monopoly, it is patented. The government have decided apparently to change the system of lighting the harbours and on their buoys. Now, do not for a moment think that I am objecting to that, because, as far as I know, acetylene gas has probably come to stay, and it is going to be a very advanced method of lighting as against what we have had. But, I say that before this government go into such an expenditure, before they make such a change, casting aside their old lighting apparatus and adopting a system of lighting which depends upon patents controlled by a small number of people, they ought to have an understanding with the manufacturers of this article that they shall have the right for a certain number of years, and a long number of years, to buy their product at a price not higher than that at which it is sold to anybody else in the market. I understand from the hon minister that no such arrangement has been made.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We do not intend to make such an arrangement.
Mr. OSLER, I do not wonder at that, I would not expect that the minister would intend to do it. The position we are adopting on this side of the House is that we have the right to criticise the transactions of the hon. minister. I think I am criticising the course of the hon. minister in regard to this matter quite fairly. I am not criticising the action which the hon. minister has taken in changing the system of lighting, because as far as I know, without knowing anything technical or scientific about the question, I understand that the lights are going to be better than the old lights that have been in use before. But, I say that the hon. minister, before he adopts that change, involving a large amount of money and committing the government practically for all time to come, or at all events until a new light is discovered, to the use of this material, the hon. minister should have an agreement with the men who have a monopoly of this material which is necessary to the government for a series of years providing that they will supply this material at as low a price as it is supplied to any person else.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: From the argument of the hon. gentleman I would draw the inference that he is interested in get-Mr. CASGRAIN.
ting us to make a contract at $65 a ton with this company irrespective of whether the price may go down to $50 or $25 a ton within the next year or six months.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think the last statement I made was that I suggested that the government should at all events make a contract with the company that they should be supplied with this material at the lowest price at which it is supplied in future to other people.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: What do you want better than to buy it at the market price ? If these gentlemen in Ottawa are not disposed to sell us carbide at a reasonable price, we can buy it elsewhere.


Edmund Boyd Osler: You cannot buy it elsewhere. Nobody else makes it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
Edmund Boyd Osler: No.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Is it because we do not make a contract with them that they will not charge us more ? Do you think these people are fools ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: No.
Mi-. PREFONTAINE. Do you think they would sign any such contract? Of course the hon. gentleman wants to find fault, and I don't blame him ; perhaps I would no the same thing if I were in his position. But let us find fault within the bounds of reason, and not in connection with such a matter as this where there is no room for fault finding. We are not hound to buy from that particular company.


Mr. CLANCY.: What other companies are manufacturing this article ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Willson Carbide Company of St. Catharines, and the Ottawa Carbide Company.


George Taylor: The same thing.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Not quite ; one is controlled entirely by Mr. Willson and the other is controlled by the Messrs Bronson.


George Taylor: No.

531S


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, I know what I am talking about. There is a company authorized to start at Grand Falls; there is another that will be started at Shawinigan within a few months, and if there is any money in the business I suppose others will be organized. We are not paying an extreme price ; the fact is that we are just as businesslike as the Canadian Pacific Railway people.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I resent that assertion on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway would be bankrupt before the end of the year if they were not more businesslike than the minister.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They are paying the same,price as we are, $05 a ton, and they are buying a thousand tons where we buy twenty-five tons.


Mr.   I.AVEEL@: Does the minister buy all his carbide at $65 a ton ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


John Reeve Lavell: How is it that the Auditor General reports that you pay $20 for 400 pounds ? What is the explanation of that ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have no answer to give.


John Reeve Lavell: In other words you have given that much boodle.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Boodle is in the mouth of the one who speaks about it.


John Reeve Lavell: The Auditor General's Report distinctly says that you bought 400 pounds of carbide for $20, and notwithstanding that the minister may throw back abuse, I can tell him that I prefer the Auditor General's record to his. If the Auditor General is right, an explanation is required of the minister.


William Mulock: I have the Patent Act before me now. Clause 44 says:
The government of Canada may at any time use any patent invention, paying to the patentee such sum as the commissioner reports to be reasonable compensation for the use thereof.
The definition of ' patent invention,' extends not only to the article itself but to the product of the article. It says :
The expression * invention ' means any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter ; or any new and useful improvement in any art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
It means not only the design but the product of the design, that if the owner of this patent had a monopoly, the government would have the right to ignore tho patent and fix a reasonable price.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I don't think there is any doubt about that. The government have the right to bring in auyAing free of duty, but that is not what we were talking about.


William Mulock: You were talking about how the government could be cornered. If the owners of this patent should seek an unfair price from the government the government could get its supply elsewhere and the patent does not restrain the government.


Edmund Boyd Osler: We do not suppose that the government would do an injustice to any patentee.


William Mulock: Nor would it do an injustice to the people of Canada.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not think you can find one single case where a patent owner in one country would undersell the man who holds the same patent in another country.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman began his argument by saying that these people had a monopoly, and that they could compel the government to pay more than a reasonable price for the article. That contention could only hold if the Canadian patent prevented the government importing that article or if the patent were binding against the government. The patent law does not bind the government, and the monopoly argument falls to the ground.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I didn't talk about the government. I talked about the general principle.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman talked about the supplying of carbide to the government.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Quite right; but I didn't suppose the answer would be that the government would take that position.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh. *


Edmund Boyd Osler: You need not laugh. I was not familiar with the Patent Act, but my statements are absolutely correct; more correct than the minister who answered me, although he is a lawyer I think ; I am in the judgment of the House on that point. I say further that if a patent owner in England were asked to sell to the Canadian government to the detriment of the man who owned the patent in Canada, the government would find that there existed a loyalty between the owners of patents in all countries which would prevent the request of the government being acceded to.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman says there is a monopoly, but the question is whether these lighthouses can be



supplied with carbide without the government being compelled to pay an excessive price. %


Edmund Boyd Osler: Quite so.


William Mulock: Well, when the law says that the government may fix the price, how can the government be compelled to pay an excessive price ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: If the government are going to fix the price, they at once interfere with trade. The government have the right, I admit, but I do not think that that is an element which can enter into an argument of this sort. The government have the right to repudiate: their indebtedness to! their bondholders


William Mulock: How does the question of repudiation come in here ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I admit that the government could at once take away the duties and admit the carbide free or give a bonus to an English manufacturer to compete with the Canadian, but allowing all that, I say that if the patent is held in Canada, England, France and Germany, all these companies will stand loyally together and prevent the government from breaking down the Canadian patent by buying cheaper elsewhere.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman is straining hard for an argument when he advances one of that kind. He talks about repudiation, but if it is expressly stated in the Patent Act that the patent does not bind the Crown, how can there be any repudiation ? Should the owner of the patent endeavour to exact an unfair price, surely there can be nothing dishonourable in the government taking advantage of one of the conditions on which the patent is issued in order to protect the Canadian people.


Andrew B. Ingram: The argument, in the first instance, was that if a man held a Canadian patent, you could bring him to terms by importing into Canada the articles for which hg holds.a patent, but that can only be done under certain conditions. According to section 7 of the amended Act of last session if any -holder of a patent who asks an unreasonable sum for the article he has patented, the government may grant a license to another party to manufacture the same article. If I want to buy an article and I can show that the holder of the patent is asking an unreasonable price, I can appeal to the department for a license to enable me to manufacture the article myself. Take the hon. gentleman's own department. A man takes out a patent for a mail bag and lock in Canada and the United States, so long as he sells at a reasonable figure, he is protected, and you cannot import these from the United States in violation of his patent.


William Mulock: Except as against the Crown.


William Mulock: 


Andrew B. Ingram: Against any person so long as he does not charge an unreasonable price.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: -We have a lighthouse at Summerside harbour, and I would like to know if this acetylene light is to be used there. If so, I would suggest that the substructure of the lighthouse should be repaired before putting in these expensive lights. I called attention a few days ago to this. The department should see that the Summerside lighthouse is put in proper repair and also the breakwater. I noticed the other evening, when the hon. member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett) was asking why the ' Stanley ' was taken off the Sum-inerside and Cape Tormentine route, the reply was that the quantity of ice there made it too dangerous to leave the boat on that route. I take issue with the hon. gentleman. Where the hon. minister got his information I do not know, but I can only tell him that the ice, when the ' Stanley ' was taken away in December last, was no impediment whatever. The ' Stanley ' left on a very fine day. It took five hours to cross, which was an unusually long time with the conditions of the weather and the ice conditions in the harbour. In the meantime, during the whole fine day, with no notice or warning to any of the merchants or shippers of Prince Edward Island, without a word to those shipping their goods from the mainland to Prince Edward Island via Cape Tormentine, the boat left Cape Tormentine in the afternoon for Georgetown. They did not even wire to the shippers at Summerside until after the boat had left. In the meantime, the shippers at Summerside were hauling their freight, grain and products of one kind and another down to Summerside wharf to be shipped. It was not only an insult to the commercial interests of Prince Edward Island, but it was a wholly uncalled for act on the part of the department and their agents and Captain Brown upon whom * they were, apparently, depending to take the boat away from Summerside when we had absolutely fine weather and the ice conditions were favourable. Let me tell the committee something about the ice conditions. On the 28th December, 1903, there were six miles of ice, that had caught with the frost of practically the last night or two. In the heaviest part of it this ice was only two inches thick. We know the capacity of the ' Stanley.'


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lefurgey) will allow me, we are not on the item of which he is speaking. I raise the question of order, Mr. Chairmin, We are on gas at the present time,, while the hon. gentleman is speaking about ice,; I think he is out of order.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I gathered from the acrimonious discussion that has gone on

that the whole field of the hon. gentleman's department was open for discussion.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Not at all.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: And we have even gone beyond the department and have been discussing the Patent Law.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That applied to gas.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Well, I am going to try to get the minister to light these steamers with acetylene. Perhaps it will help to break the ice. This is a matter of interest to the committee and to the minister's department. The discussion of the subject has been opened and I think nothing will be gained by trying to rule me out of order. For, this is a matter that will be discussed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: ^1 rise to a question of order. If we are here to stay all night, at least we should follow the rules.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I submit that I introduced this subject on the Summerside lighthouse, and I am now moving toward the Cape Tormentine light ; and I want to get the track clear of ice. As I said, the steamer passing out from the Summerside lighthouse with only two inches of ice backed up some twenty odd times. She got out of the harbour very easily but took a much longer time than she usually takes. She got down off Cape Tormentine lighthouse in about five hours. As I said, the conditions were as favourable for the boat continuing this service as at any time during the year, and the department are certainly to blame for allowing her to be taken away.. Now, I turn to the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and I find here a letter from the deputy minister on the island service. I must say I take issue with the explanations of the Deputy Minister. I think I know as much about the conditions there as the Deputy Minister does, and I submit that the report is, to a large extent not correct, but conveys a wrong impression as to the situation in regard to the winter, service. The minister told us last session that he was going down to Prince Edward Island to look over the service, and he| did go down.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I rise to a question of order. The item under discussion is * salaries and allowances to lighthouse keepers,' and with this the question of the service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland has nothing to do. If we are going to stay all night we will stay all night, but we might as well follow the rules. If the hon. gentleman was not here last night to discuss the question when the item under which it would properly arise was before the committee, he can take some other opportunity to discuss it.
169J


Archibald Campbell: I think the hon. member (Mr. Lefurgey) is wandering a little from the question before the chair. He is an old member of the House and knows the importance of carrying on the debate in an orderly way. The item before us is salaries and allowances of lighthouse keepers, and, under that item I think he can hardly discuss the question to which he has been referring.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Then, how was the discussion allowed to go on for two hours on acetylene gas and patents '? The question I have to bring before the committee is of great Importance to the people of my section-of more importance than the subject that the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) and some other gentlemen have been discussing for so long, a discus-, sion with absolutely no point or purpose. Now, I have a point and purpose ixi this,' and it is to show up the mismanagement-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Campebll).: I must call the hon. member (Mr. Lefurgey) to order. I think I can hardly allow this discussion. I must ask him to keep to the question under consideration.


Edward Hackett: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you rule my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey) out of order. I beg to move that the committee rise.
Mr- FIELDING. There will be no difficulty in finding ample opportunity to discussing the question to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lefurgey) has referred. It is an important question, but it does not happen to be related to the subject before the chair. Hon. members on both sides are interested in seeing that we confine ourselves within a reasonable regard for the rules. This is not a party question at all.' We can keep one another here many months if we depart from the rules and allow too wide a range of discussion. I would appeal to my hon. friend (Mr. Hackett) not to insist upon a division upon the question, but to observe the ruling of the chair. Another opportunity will be afforded for discussing the question which has been referred to the importance of which I recognize. '


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am well on with the discussion of the subject now, and I would like to finish what I have to say 1 do not intend to occupy more than a few minutes, and I would like to finish and get -m ex-' planation from the minister.
The CHAIRMAN Hackett moves that
(Mr. Campbell). Mr. the committee rise.


Mr. FIELDING.: I hope mV hon. friend from Prince will accept the suggestion I offer. The motion is quite in order, of course, but I appeal to the hon. gentleman to assist us in conducting the business of the House and not to ask a division on such

a question as he has raised. The hon. gentleman is an old member of the House and knows that if we do not confine ourselves reasonably to the items before the chair, we shall not be able to have a fair discussion of any question.


Edward Hackett: I am anxious to expedite the business of the House and get through the session. But. I find an effort being made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to shut off my hon. friend from East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) in the discussion of the subject he has brought before the committee. I would ask, in the interest of all concerned, that the hon. member for East Prince be allowed to make his statement. .


Archibald Campbell: On the very next item we take up 'Agencies, rents and contingencies ' it would be perfectly in order for my hon. friend to make the remarks that he was addressing to the House; but on this particular item I do not think he can make them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would suggest to my hon. friend that he withdraw his motion, because we will reach in a little while an item upon which he can make his remarks.


Mr. GAHVREAU.: 
William Stevens Fielding: <
lapse of time. This year, the requirements of navigation demanded an additional month of service. We are always ready to ao all in our power to be of service to navigation, both early in the spring and late In the fall. To do so it is necessary to keep a complete crew, and a greater amount of provisions, which costs a large amount.
We, therefore, beg of you to allow us an additional month of salary, pro rata, In order to indemnify us for such expenditure and for the services that we rendered. We also desire to draw your attention to the fact that early in the springtime navigation work is cold and hard ; and in the fall it is not only cold and hard but also dangerous. Hoping that you will take our petition into favourable consideration, we have the honour to be your very humble servants.



[Stage Direction]
Keeper of lie Rouge floating lighthouse. '

[Stage Direction]
Keeper of lie Blanche floating lighthouse.
CAPT. ESDKAS LEBEL, [DOT]
Keeper of Bas de la Traverse floating lighthouse.
(Translation.) Mr. Chairman, the salaries are being' increased everywhere on the ground that the cost of living is higher and these men are forced to work one month more without getting more pay. Out of the $2,400 which are granted, the captain must provide for a mate, an engineer, and pay the crew and hoard them. Just think of the amount remaining to the captain after all those expenses have been paid. I hope the hon. minister will he able to take from these $238,000 the amount required to comply with the request of these three gentlemen, since we want them to remain at work for a longer time in view of improving the navigation in the lower St. Lawrence.
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: (Translation.) Of course, I will consider the request made by my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Gau-vreau) if the facts stated by him are true, that is, if these gentlemen are obliged to work fifteen days longer in spring and fifteen days longer in fall, it appears to me that their petition for an increase is only fair and reasonable. Although this estimate does not amount to so large a sum as that of last year, yet I may assure my hon. friend that steps will be taken in order that justice be done to whom justice is due, and I think the men he has mentioned are entitled to that, if he has stated the facts correctly.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Does this apply only to these three men mentioned by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) ? I think the same principle should apply to all those who, under the new regulations, have to be in the lighthouses 15 days earlier in the spring and 15 days later in the fall.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: (Translation.) It goes without saying that the same principle must be applied everywhere. It is hut reasonable that he who is hound to work

for a longer time whether it be at Kamou-raska or at Temiseouata, should get more pay. The principle is fair and resonable in every case. If you force an employee to work during a longer time than he was obliged to when he took service, I think it but fair that you should pay him more on account of those additional services.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I think the hon. gentleman is perfectly right. But under the circumstances he should increase this vote of $238,000. He will never be able to pay the same salaries he is paying now, and he will never be able to increase the salaries, as he says he contemplates doing, unless he increases this vote.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: (Translation.) Before the supplementary estimates for next year are brought down I will have time to consider this question, and I say again that I will endeavour to do justice to whom justice is due.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: (Translation.) I was just going to ask the hon. minister if he could not have the necessary amount voted in the supplementary estimates.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood the minister to say that he had dispensed with several light keepers on adopting the new system. How many did he dispense with ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I read the statement about an hour ago and will read it again if the hon. gentleman desires. We dispensed with four.


Andrew B. Ingram: So all the change the hon. gentleman has made amounts to dispensing with the services of four light keepers.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: So far.


Andrew B. Ingram: These are marvellous changes.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are other marvellous changes.


Richard Blain: The minister stated that when this new system was introduced there would be a great saving in maintenance of the lights, he said there would be a saving of $10,500 a year. Does he expect that saving to take place in the near future ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I stated that the saving for the present would be $1,610 a year.


Richard Blain: I will read what the hon. gentleman said last year when he was giving to the committee the reasons for changing the old system of lighting to the new system :
The ten new ranges of gas lights will require no keepers, saving an annual charge of $3,000, and the proposed conversion of the lights from an oil to a gas basis will enable the keepers to be dispensed with as opportunity offers, at a saving of $7,000 per year, or a total saving in cost of maintenance of $10,500 per year.
What has the hon. gentleman to say to that ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Last year I spoke of the installation of the new lights according to a new system. Of course that cannot all be done in one year. We cannot get the apparatus as fast as we would like to make the change. Last year we could only make the change in respect to four lights. We could not go faster profitably, but some hon. gentlemen opposite think we have gone too fast. We think we have been acting in the best interests of the department. Of course there are other lights besides these four where the new system will be installed.


Richard Blain: In what places are the lights now in operation ?


Mr PREFONTAINE.: For the present we have'only made these four changes, which are on the upper lakes.


Richard Blain: There was a statement made some two or three years ago. perhaps not . by the hon. gentleman, but by his predecessor that there would be some changes in respect to the insurance rates on the St. Lawrence route when this new system was installed. Can the hon. gentleman make a statement in regard to that matter :


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 1 think I gave some information in regard to this question at the beginning of the session when I stated that I had been informed by the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that they had obtained for their boats a special reduction in the insurance rates. I am sorry that I cannot boast, and I think every business man in this country will share my regret, that we have not yet obtained a general reduction. It is a matter which takes a long time to settle but I think that everybody should join hands in trying to better the conditions of the St. Lawrence route. We have been trying to do that and I do not think that any fault can be found with what has been done, at least since I have been at the head of the department. I have put myself at the disposal of the shipping interests, and of the Boards of Trade of different places and I have tried to carry out their recommendations. It will take some time yet but when we have carried out all the improvements and alterations that are contemplated, if we do not obtain from the British insurance companies a reduction in rates, it will be time for us to make a move so as to force the insurance companies to recognize the sacrifices that have been made by the' Canadian government in order to improve the route. I think that at the present moment I can boast of the fact that we have not been reproached bv any Board of Trade or any shipping federation that we have not tried to do what was best to improve the route of the St. Lawrence. Any suggestion that hon. gentlemen are disposed to give the department

will certainly be received with the greatest consideration and we will try to do the best under the circumstances.


Edmund Boyd Osler: In reference to the remarks which the hon. minister has just made as to insurance rates, I quite agree with him that nothing can be done except on business principles. I am not sure that I can agree with him that all that can be done has been done because I think that the improvement of the St. Lawrence, the proper lighting and development of the route, is of far greater importance to Canada than any transcontinental railway or any other work that is contemplated or suggested, and I do not think that the government are devoting half enough of their energy to the development of that route. This is the one way of spending money that will receive the endorsement of every man in Canada. Going back to our discussion in regard to acetylene gas I would like to ask the hon. minister who is the officer in charge of the work of replacing the old lighting with the new lights and under what recommendation the hon. minister is acting.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The engineers and staff of the department.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Who is the head man ?


Mr.   P R E F OXT AINE@: The chief engineer of the department is Col. Anderson, but since last winter I have thought proper to organize a special lighthouse board composed of a number of my officials with power to call in representatives of the marine interests. When a question which interests one section of the country is to be considered these outside gentlemen will be called in. At the same time I thought it proper to appoint a special officer as lighthouse commissioner, Mr. J. F. Fraser who was employed in the department before I took charge of it. This gentleman was acting under the supervision and control of the head of the department. He has certain special duties to perform while at the same time the chief engineer remains with certain duties to perform. We felt in doing so that we were serving the interests of navigation and transportation and that we were trying to satisfy the general public interest especially in navigation because representatives of these interests would have an opportunity to be heard before this board, to make their representations and to present arguments. This board was instituted about five months ago. As far as I can learn from people interested in navigation it has given entire satisfaction. Questions that have been pending as regards the establishment of lights at certain points and about which there have been differences of opinion have been decided, and decided favourably to the interests of navigation. I think in acting in that way we have done what is best in the interest of the'country.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Has the hon. gentleman a report from the gentleman he named, Col. Mr. PREFONTAINE.
Anderson, in reference to this change from the old method to the new ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know what the gist of the hon. gentleman's question is.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. minister says that Col. Anderson is in charge of the work connected with this proposed change of lighting from the old system to the new and I want to know if he has a report from that officer.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no proposed change. The change was made four or five months ago and Col. Anderson is a member of the board. He has never refused to act on the board and I do not know that he has offered any objection to the decisions or deliberations of the board.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is not the question I asked. I asked whether there was a report from this gentleman to the department in any shape or form in connection with the change of lighting.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: None whatever.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No report, confidential or otherwise ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: None whatever.


Edmund Boyd Osler: May I ask the hon. minister who Mr. Fraser is, when he was appointed to the department and if he had been formerly in any shape or way connected with an acetylene gas company i


Mr. PREFONTAINE M. J. F.@: Fraser was appointed in 1893. He is a graduate of the Royal Military College and he was employed in the department on the staff of the chief engineer. He was considered the most suitable person to occupy that position of lighthouse commissioner.


Edmund Boyd Osler: He has been in the employ of the government ever since ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Since 1893.


Edward Hackett: Did you declare that item carried, Mr. Chairman, when I had a motion before the chair that the committee rise ?


Archibald Campbell: I understood the hon. member had withdrawn the motion.


Edward Hackett: I did not withdraw. I am required to give a reason why this committee should rise, and my reason is that my hon. friend from East Prince (Mr. Le-furgey) was endeavouring to show that the terms of confederation with Prince Edward Island have not been carried out, and he was refused a hearing by the Minister of Marine and the Minister of Finance, and in justice to the hon. member (Mr. Lefurgey)
I make this motion in order that he may be heard.


William Stevens Fielding: The statement that the hon. member (Mr. Lefurgey) was refused a

hearing by the Minister of Finance is erroneous. All I suggested was that the hon. gentleman should wait until the question was properly before the House. I quite agree that the question is an important one, but even important questions have their proper place.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The hon. gentleman for West Prince (Mr. Hackett) has given the House just cause why this question should be discussed at the present time.


Archibald Campbell: On a motion that the committee rise, you can only discuss the question as to why the committee should rise, and it is not proper to discuss a question relating to transportation in Prince Edward Island.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: That is just exactly what I am going to do. The chairman must know that the government has not carried out the terms of confederation with Prince Edward Island, and that is the question which I am discussing at present.


Archibald Campbell: I am quite sure that the hon. member wishes to facilitate the business of the House, and I would point out to him that on the very next item he can discuss this question.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The reason why the committee should rise is that the government are not carrying out the terms of confederation with Prince Edward Island. Wo are not satisfied with the efforts nor with the bona fides of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and we say that justice is not done to Prince Edward Island.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I call the hon. gentleman to order. We are now considering the vote for salaries and allowances to lighthouse keepers.


Edward Hackett: The motion is that the committee shall rise-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I wish to speak on this question of order which has been raised by the Minister of Marine. If this kind of thing goes on any longer my hon. friend will not get very far in his estimates.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh ; bluff.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I say that on a motion that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, hon. members can not only discuss the question as to why the committee should rise, but they can go on with the discussion as on a motion to adjourn the House. I tell my hon. friends on the other side that they will not advance their business by trying to cry us down.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Whajt difference does it make anyway ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I am speaking to the question, and so long as my hon. friends go
on in that way the business of the House will not be advanced.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is not justified in using the threat that such and such will take place.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I am not using any threat, but I am asking you, as chairman, to maintain order ; and I say that those gentlemen who are trying to cry me down are not in order. It is your duty to ask them to keep order, and not to call me to order.


Peter Macdonald: I beg the hon; gentleman's pardon if I have done anything wrong. When an hon. member is interrupted, he himself has the right to complain, but as some hon. gentlemen like to be interrupted, if the Speaker interferes-


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: How is it you interfered and called me to order when no hon. member complained ?	*


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Peter Macdonald: I want the hon. gentleman to understand that no hon. gentleman has the right to throw out the threat that such and such a thing will take place unless he has his way. That is a well known rule.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise to speak on the point of order. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lefurgey) was giving reasons why the committee should rise, and he associated with those reasons the urgent demands of Prince Edward Island, and he can talk to the committee until to-morrow morning if he likes and be quit? within the rules of the House.
iSome hon. MEMBERS. Go on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So long as the hon. gentleman keeps within the rules of debate and the rules of the House, he can talk as long as he likes on that question.


Peter Macdonald: Will the hon. gentleman please tell me what the point of order is ? It was raised before I came m.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The point of order, as T understand it, is as to what the hon. gentleman had a right to talk to on the motion that the committee rise.


William Stevens Fielding: iSurely my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule), on a moment's reflection, will not take the ground he practically does-that on a motion that the committee rise an hon. member may talk on any subject under heaven.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I made no such statement, and I want to tell the hon. Minister of Finance that there is not a man with a spark of manhood in him would misrepresent me as he has done.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He knows I made no such statement. I said he could talk on

the subject before the House, the motion that was made before the House, and give any reasons that he desired to give to the House ; not that he could talk on any subject but talk on that one subject.


William Stevens Fielding: The point which we raise is that the hon. member in making the motion must confine himself to reasons connected with the subject under consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what I said.


William Stevens Fielding: No, he said the hon. member was quite at liberty to introduce other matters and give anv reasons he pleased.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I deny it, and the minister has no right to state it.


William Stevens Fielding: Just at present I have the right to b* on the floor; my hon. friend has not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He has not the right to misrepresent me.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman must withdraw that remark, that I misrepresented him ; that is not parliamentary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say deliberately, if you make that statement, you misrepresent me, and I repeat it.
Mr. JiTELDING. I do not want any words about it, but if my hon. friend wants to quarrel I demand that he withdraw these words.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I shall not.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Chairman, this hon. gentleman-I regret it because he and I have generally got on very well-I want to ask if he adheres to the statement that I de-! liberately misrepresented him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not say deliberately. I said he had not the right to misrepresent me.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman inserted the word deliberately.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes, he did.


William Stevens Fielding: ' Hansard ' will show the hon. gentleman used the word deliberately.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, I said, ' I say deliberately that the hon. gentleman misrepresented me,' and I meant it.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not going to quarrel with my hon. friend on that but I have raised a point of order.


Peter Macdonald: An hon. member has not the right to say that another hon. member has deliberately misrepresented him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you were listening to me you must understand that I did not say that.


William Stevens Fielding: The point on which I want a ruling is whether an hon. member on making a motion to rise, should confine himself to reasons connected with the subject before the House, or whether he is at liberty to introduce new matter.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I am reading now from Bourinot, page 523 :
It is not regular to move an adjournment of the debate on a question or an adjournment of the sittings of the committee to a future time ; but certain motions may be made with the same effect. If it is proposed to defer the discussion of a Bill or resolution, the motion may be made-' That the chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again ' ; and if this motion (which is equivalent to a motion for the adjournment of the debate) be agreed to, the committee rises at once, and the chairman reports accordingly.
I call your attention to the statement which is made here in Bourinot that the motion that the Chairman of the committee report progress and ask the committee to sit again is equivalent to a motion for the adjournment of the debate. Now there is no ruling better known than that on a motion for the adjournment of a debate, the; House is not at all limited to the question which is then being discussed by the House, because then there would be no cause to; make a motion for the adjournment of the debate. When the motion that the committee rise, is made, I take it that you can then discuss what you could discuss on the motion that the debate be adjourned. The motion that the debate be adjourned is made in order that a member may bring in another subject than the subject which is being debated when the motion is made. My hon. friend says : ' For one reason or another I was not able to discuss the ques-f tion which came up yesterday and which is not now before the House. However I move that the committee do rise now, and report progress and ask leave to sit again. For what reason ? In order that I may bel able to discuss this question which was discussed yesterday ;* not to discuss the particular question in debate when this motion was made.' If my hon. friend will say to the House that the reason for which " he makes this motion is to discuss the most important question which he is about to discuss he will be perfectly in order. He has brought before the House an important question and the reason for which he asked that the committee rise, was because he wants to discuss that question. It seems to me that if you only give me one of your ears, Mr. Chairman, I will be able to convince you that the Finance Minister is not quite right and that Bourinot is against him on this point.

-Mr. FIELDING. If Bourinot is against me, my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) has neglected to point out the passage. He has quoted nothing against me. I accept my hon. friend's own statement that the hon. gentleman moves that the committee rise in order that he may have an opportunity of discussing a question which was properly before the committee yesterday. In that view members could constantly be taking up matters already dealt with, and my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) is too good a constitutional lawyer to believe anything of the sort.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood my hon. friend to advise him to withdraw the motion although it was perfectly in order.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite admit that the motion is in order, but I do not admit that another hon. gentleman had the right to make a speech on another subject in connection with the motion.


George Taylor: I do not see that we are saving much time. The hon. member from Prince Edward Island said it would take him only about ten minutes to conclude and then we could proceed with the next item. Let him conclude and then let us proceed. I think it will be better in the interests of peace, harmony and good-will to allow the hon. gentleman to proceed and have his remarks all together.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: To have peace and harmony we had better follow the rules.


Peter Macdonald: We must bear in mind one or two points in considering this matter. There are two motions which can be made while in committee terminating the sitting of the committee. One is that I do leave the chair. That is equivalent to the adjournment of the House. There is another motion which is that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. That is equivalent to the adjournment of the debate in the House. Now understanding these two points, let me read Bourinot :
Nor is it in order under cover of a motion for adjournment-to put a question which the Speaker has declared irregular, or when there is a question before the House and a member moves the adjournment, he must confine himself to the question.
That is my decision.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: What question ?


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: The question before the House.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The question before the House, is the reason why I moved the committee rise.


Peter Macdonald: It is a question very frequently put when it is meant that the chairman leave the chair it is put in this way : that the committee rise. But that is not a proper form. If you stop at' ' the committee rise ' it is equivalent to the
chairman leaving the chair. The other motion, which is equivalent to the adjournment of the debate in the House, is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. That is an adjournment of the day's work. The motion that I leave the chair is equivalent to a motion of adjournment in the House.


Edward Hackett: Do I understand by your ruling that I am out of order ?


Peter Macdonald: The question before the House is that I do leave the chair.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Peter Macdonald: Would the hon. member be good enough to submit to the decision of the Chair or appeal against it ? The Chair has decided that he cannot discuss any other question hut the one he raised at the particular time when he raised it.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Am I to understand that after the motion that the committee rise and the statement of the hon. member for West Prince that it rises for a particular purpose to discuss a very important matter we cannot discuss that matter ?


Peter Macdonald: You cannot introduce a new question.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I submit that this is not a new question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We will then talk on acetylene gas. I submit that the lighthouse in Summerside harbour should be supplied with this light and that the minister should instruct his deputy to pay more attention to the general repairs and conduct of' the lighthouse service around Prince Edward Island. The largest portion of the traffic of Prince Edward Island comes in and goes out of the harbour at Summerside, and we trust that a winter mail service will be established at that point and carried on without the humbugging which characterized it during the past winter. I would like to impress upon the minister the necessity of having an arrangement concluded before next winter comes on, so that the boats will be in possession of every facility for the resumption of this service.
Motion negatived


Mr. WILSON.: I brought up last week the question of buoying the Napanee river and was promised the information I asked for. I did not get it until after the House took recess at six o'clock, but I find that the fault is not with the contractor. When I was at home a few days ago, he pointed out to me the difficulty. He had a letter from the department dated the 17th of April, 1903, authorizing him to go on putting out the buoys in the season of 1903 and informing him that a contract would be sent for him to sign. He went on and did the work as instructed. On the 1st of July a contract was sent to him to be signed' for a year, and he Signed it believing that the department would do as it had done hitherto, and consider that when he put out the buoys in the spring and looked after them during the summer and took them in again in the fall, his years' work would be done. It appears however that the department want to hold him until the 1st of June of this year and instructed him to put out the buoys again this spring. He got a lawyer to write to the department but could not find out whether the department would pay him for the extra work of putting out the buoys this spring. He therefore refused to put them out and the department have called for tenders. It seems to me that the department is to blame. They had a servant who was faithfully discharging his duty and was not getting too much for the work he did and they should have continued him in that service.


Mr. PREJFO NT  AINE@: The difficulty
seems to me to be that the contractor is disappointed because we have not given him the job. He got a contract for one year and fulfilled it, and now he wants it for three years more. The department decided to call for tenders. What objection has this man to tendering again ?


Uriah Wilson: The difficulty is that the department want to hold him for a year from the time he signed the contract although he had done his year's work. Here is a letter written by Mr. Herrington to the department, dated May 23rd :
Dear Sir,-I handed your letter of the 19th instant to Mr. Mowers, and while your intention may he clear, yet your letter is capable of two constructions.
Mr. Mowers had earned one year's salary by putting out the buoys last year and taking them in again in the fall.
It is true that his contract was dated the 1st June, but it really should have been dated the 18th or 19th of April, as he did immediately upon the receipt of your letter of the 17th April, 1903, go to work and prepare and put out the buoys, whereas the contract in which this very work was done is dated the 1st June.
It is better to have a clear understanding in thfe beginning. He is prepared to go on and prepare the buoys and put them out this season, Mr. 'LEFURGEY.
but he would require some assurance that he will receive pay for this year's work.
If the ' Scout ' takes over his contract and takes them up next fall, what pay is he to receive for putting them out this spring, as his work of preparing and putting them out is fully five times as serious as the matter of taking them in 7 Mr. Mowers is not at all disposed to cavil over the matter, but as it was a mistake that the contract was ever dated the 1st June instead of the 18th or 19th of April, you can readily see that it is of the first importance to him that you and he should understand one another.
We presume that you do not contend that the pay he has already received is to cover the work you are now asking him to do.
If you will make this clear in a telegram to Mr. Mowers or to myself the work will be proceeded with.
It does seem to me that that is a very plain statement. All the minister or his deputy needed to do was to write a letter or send a telegram saying that Mr. Mowers would be paid. They write a letter and say that he will be paid, but call 'attention to the fact that the contract was for a year and the year was not up. So, he said : I will not do the work because I do not believe they will pay me. And what is the result ? Up to this hour the'river is not buoyed. Is that the way the public service is to be neglected ? And all because the hon. minister or his deputy would not write a letter saying that a man who did certain work would be paid for doing it. I think the minister ought to tell us the reason why he did not write such a letter.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have explained the matter already a couple of times. And further discussion seems to me a loss of time. Mr. Mowers had a contract for a year to put out the buoys, and this contract expired on 1st of June. According to our interpretation of the contract, it was his duty to put out the buoys this season. He refused to do so and wanted a contract for three years. We wTould not consent, but have now decided to call for tenders. We did call for tenders and they will be in in a few days. Mr. Mowers is free to tender like the others. Because we would not consent to give him a contract for three years -blame is sought to be attached to us for his neglect to carry out his contract.


Uriah Wilson: I wonder if the minister is more used to holding people up than to being held up. Here is the letter I referred to :
Ottawa, April 17th, 1903.
Sir,-I have to inform you that the department will enter into a contract with you for one year for maintaining the buoy service on the Napanee river for the sum of $60 per annum, the amount paid you formerly for this service.
I have to request you to forward the name of two sureties and a contract will be made out and sent you for signature. In the mean-

time you may have the buoys prepared and placed in position as soon as possible.
That is signed by the deputy minister. It does seem to me that when he put out the buoys in the spring, and took care of them in the summer and took them in in the fall he had honestly performed his contract.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentleman's friend is not satisfied, let him give it up or tender with the others.


Uriah Wilson: I am not dealing with this as a question in which one person is interested. It is a question of the public service and the rights of the people in that section. The river is not buoyed as it ought to be.


Mr. PREJFO NT  AINE@: The water is higher than it ever was, and nobody is suffering.


Uriah Wilson: I would like to know if a vessel is not as likely to go aground in a narrow river when the water is high as when it is low. The water covers the marshes and shallows, and, unless the person in charge of the vessel knows the channel well I believe he is even more likely to run his boat aground when the water is high than when the water is low.


Mr. PREJFO NT  AINE@: Have there been any accidents ?


Uriah Wilson: I do not know, but the minister is not to get credit if there have not been.


Mr. PREJFO NT  AINE@: The reports from my department show that there is no danger at the present time.


Uriah Wilson: Then, why buoy the river if there is no danger ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It will be buoyed in good time.


Andrew B. Ingram: Under a contract for one year has the contractor to put the buoys out twice and take them in once ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is the interpretation we put on this contract having a contract expiring 1st of June he had to do the work twice.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, this is simply a misunderstanding with the holder of the contract.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is exactly what I say. There is a misunderstanding on a question of $60. Why should the hon. gentleman raise such a cry and spend so much of the time of the House discussing such a question when this man has the privilege of tendering again ?


Andrew B. Ingram: There is a very serious side to this question. If a man puts out the buoys in the spring and takes them in at the close of navigation he would perform one year's service.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We do not read it that way.


Andrew B. Ingram: Surely there can be no question about it. The minister is taking advantage of mere technicality in the contract. The man says he is willing to put out the buoys a second time if he is paid, and surely he is entitled to be paid for the work he does.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Why did he not put them out in the spring like an honest man ? He would then have been entitled to $30, according to the hon. gentleman. But he did not do it ; he wanted to hold us up.


Andrew B. Ingram: No, he was willing to put out the buoys a second time if the department would pay him.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Where do you find that ?


Andrew B. Ingram: In the statement of the deputy which I have here :
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 13th instant in which you state that Mr. Blakely Mowers expects to be paid for placing the buoys next spring.
That is the statement of the hon. gentleman's own department.	.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Go on. Read.
Mr. INGRAM (reading)

It is not at all the intention of the department to ask Mr. Mowers to put out the buoys without paying him for them this year.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Go on. Read.
Mr. INGRAM (reading)

He entered into a contract nearly a year ago and it will terminate in June.
' It will terminate in June.'


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Go on. Read.
Mr. INGRAM (reading)

The department has placed on the St. Lawrence river the steamer ' Scout ' and many changes have been made in the buoy service with the intention of performing the work with the department's steamer. It is expected to take over the work that is now under Mr. Mower's contract and have it done by the steamer ' Scout.'


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Go on.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the end. This gentleman, in fulfilment of his contract, put out the buoys and afterwards took them in.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He has been paid.


Andrew B. Ingram: He has done a season's work, has he not ? The department says his contract does not finish until 1st of June and he must put out the buoys a second time.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: But he did not put them out. What complaint does he make ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Here he is told that the work was to be taken over and done by

the steamer ' Scout.' Why not pay the man for putting out the buoys a second time ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Because he did not put them out a second time.


Andrew B. Ingram: Because you refused to pay him.


Mr LANCASTER.: This man seems to have met with bad treatment. The minister asks what complaint he makes. Does the minister think he is bound to do a year and a half's work for a year's pay ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I listened carefully to the discussion, and I think I am right In saying that that is in effect what the department demanded. It seems that he put out the buoys and afterwards took them in and has been paid for a year's work. The department ought to be ashamed of trying to enforce this contract merely because it was dated on the 1st of June. I think this man was clearly entitled to be paid for his extra work, and the department ought to be ashamed, if it is possible for them to be ashamed of anything, for refusing to say they would pav him if he did it


Edmund Boyd Osler: The action of the minister in this matter I think deserves all the censure he is getting. But that is not the most important question. The minister apparently does not realize the fact that the government has undertaken the public duty of buoying this river. They have always done it at a certain date of the year, and the minister asks whether any accident has happened because that was not done. Suppose no buoys had been put on the St. Lawrence, and the government had saved $800 or $8,000 in consequence, and no accident had happened, would that be any excuse for the minister not having put in the buoys at the proper time ? The charge is serious enough for this individual, but, much more serious for the minister hfmself, in having allowed the river to remain unbuoyed to this late date of the season, and the boats to run the risk of accident.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: My size is just as big as the hon. gentleman's.


Andrew B. Ingram: I can tell the minister that he cannot bluff us. We have read about the hon. gentleman, and I can tell him that if he is going to indulge in crooked transactions of this character he is guilty of undignified conduct, and there is no language by which we can characterize it in terms of sufficient contempt. Then the hon. gentleman says :	Why, there has been no
accident. Suppose accidents had occurred, he would have been responsible for them. Can it be that this hon. gentleman has such an exalted idea of his business ability that he can permit himself to resort to miserable, contemptible tactics of this kind. If that is the hon. gentleman's estimate of the proper way of conducting his department, I can assure him he will not succeed very well. Before I had read this correspondence I thought the hon. gentleman must have had some reason, some excuse for refusing to pay this man, but since I have lead it I am bound to say that he has no excuse.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I may tell the hon. gentleman at once that his contempt does not reach the ankle of my foot. All I have to say about this matter is this : Mr. Mowers got a contract for putting buoys in the Napanee river.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When did the year commence ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It commenced on June 1, 1903. I am ready to take the interpretation of the hon. gentleman of the mean-

mg of that contract. He got a contract for putting out the buoys for one year. Am I right in understanding that the interpretation put upon the contract by the hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) is that it expired at the time the buoys were taken in ? Is that the hon. gentleman's interpretation ?


Uriah Wilson: Yes.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
Uriah Wilson: I will tell you when you get through.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Then I conclude that is the interpretation that he puts upon the contract. If the year, whenever it expired, meant $60 for the year, and meant putting in the buoys in the spring and taking them out in the fall he would be paid for one season's work, but he would have to continue the service until June 1, 1904, and be paid extra this spring. There is no use working up such contempt about so simple a matter. There is no use getting so excited about it. I am not at all excited over it. I do not cast personalities against any person in this House. I am perfectly free to do so, but I refrain because it would be undignified on my part. Now, suppose the contract meant what the hon. gentleman from Lennox pretends, that the buoys were to be, put in in the spring and taken up in the fall. The man's contract was from 1st June, 1903, to 1st June, 1904, and whatever work was necessary within that time he should have done. He was paid $60 for last year's work, and would have been paid $30 more if he had placed the buoys in the spring before June of this year. When spring came it seems that there was a misunderstanding, I admit that. Mr. Herrington-I am not saying that he interfered with the department-wanted this gentleman to get a contract for three years. We said : No, we do not intend to give a contract for three years, we intend to have this service done in another manner. What did it mean ? It meant that if Mr. Mowers had put back the buoys in the spring he would have been entitled to $30 for his actual work. The department never told him he would not be paid for his work. But, he was badly advised, and he said : No, I will not put them out unless I get a contract for three years. Mr. Mowers was an uneducated man, because he does not seem to know how to write, and he was advised by other parties not to do anything until he got his own way.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman read from the correspondence the statement that he wanted a three year's contract?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The correspondence is in the department, but this is the information I get from my officers. He refused point blank to put the buoys out in the spring, but wanted a contract for three years. I do not know anything about this small potato matter, as it has been called by some hon. members on the other side of the House, and if he wanted to secure this $30 extra it would have been very easy for him to have put out the buoys, but he did not do it. We do not owe him anything, He tlid not spend anything). Tenders have been asked for this work and he can tender if he thinks proper. The great argument, however, is that these buoys have not been put out and that there might be danger to navigation. I have to rely on my officers as regards that. My officers report to me that there is no hurry to put the buoys out because the water is so high that there can be no danger at the present moment. It is all very well to argue like my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) who is a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway that if you do not put buoys out in the St. Lawrence an accident may occur but in this case that argument cannot apply. We know perfectly well that in certain seasons of the year there can be scarcely any danger in leaving a small river without buoys. The fact of the matter is that not later than two days ago there were no buoys at all on Lake St. John which is an immense lake in the province of Quebec and we had to send an officer up there because the contractor had not put the buoys out. Things of this kind happen every day, but there was no danger there any more than there is in the Napanee river because the buoys are put out only to indicate shoal water. At the present moment the water is high enough and navigation can be carried on over the whole lake without any danger. There was no disposition on the part of the department to ill-use this contractor or take advantage of him in any way. If he had performed any work that he was not obliged to do under his contract he would have no reason to believe that the department would not have paid him.


Uriah Wilson: I am a little bit surprised at the statements made by the hon. minister, and that accounts to me for the answers that he gave because he desired that they should be interpreted either way. The deputy minister wrote :
He entered into the contract nearly a year ago and it will terminate in June.
Notwithstanding that, the deputy minister had written him in April, 1903, urging him to go on and do the work and saying they would send the contract for him to sign. On the strength of that letter he got the buoys ready and put them in their places. Here is a copy of the receipt that Mr. Mowers signed for the pay for the work and the department at that time did consider
5343 '

that he had carried out his year's contract. Mr. Herrington told him that the letters that he was getting from the department were liable to be interpreted in two ways and Mr. Mowers wanted to get an understanding from the department as to the work which he was to do. In the face of that he failed to get any declaration from the department. The hon. minister does not seem to haye much confidence in Mr. Herrington.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know him.


Uriah Wilson: He is the leading Liberal in Lennox, a gentleman who goes out and stumps against me and we are just as good friends as the minister and I or a little better. Mr. Herrington is one of the strongest Liberals in that district and he is just as disagreeable on the stump as my hon. friend is in office. This gentleman has taken the pains to write for Mr. Mowers, and he himself puts this interpretation on the letters he gets. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for the hon. minister or for his deputy to direct that a telegram be sent to Mr. Herrington : Tell Mr. Mowers to do the work and we will pay him for it. I know of nothing in regard to a two or three years contract. As I can quite understand Mr. Mowers would prefer to have a contract for three years rather than for one year because sometimes the buoys get out of order and if he has to make a new one it would be better for him to have a three years' contract because the buoys last that long. In this case Mr. Mowers was prepared to go on and do the work if he had got an answer from the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is perfectly plain that the hon. minister wanted to make us believe something which is not borne out by this correspondence. What was the object of the deputy minister in writing that Mr. Mowers' contract terminated on the first of June ? He wrote asking about putting the buoys out in the spring. It is all very well for the hon. minister to talk about entering into personalities in connection with a matter of this kind. I have not said anything personal against the hon. minister himself but I am condemning this transaction, but if it is personal to call it contemptible I will repeat that. I have nothing against the hon. gentleman personally nor against any other minister of the Crown but it does not follow that because I have that regard for him I am to sit here and endorse a transaction of this character. The hon. gentleman cannot read that correspondence and come to any other conclusion than that which I have come to in regard to it. What was the object of writing in this way, if it were not to take advantage of this man ? It requires no lawyer to interpret that; a layman can interpret the object of writing that letter.


Uriah Wilson: 


Mr. ALCORN.: It appears very plainly on the face of this correspondence, that the whole difficulty has arisen in the department, and that Mr. Mowers was perfectly justified in the position he took, that he should not do a year and a half's work for one year's pay. The letter of the 17th of April, 1903, makes that perfectly plain. The deputy minister writing to Mr. Mowers says :
I have to inform you that the department will enter into a contract with you for one year.
That was not one year from June, 1903, because the letter is dated in April, and it is one year from that date.
I have to inform you that the department will enter into a contract with you for one year for maintaining the buoy service on the Napanee river for the sum of $60 per annum, the amount paid formerly for the service.
If the department had, in pursuance of their evident intention, at the date on which they wrote that letter, sent the contract dated, April, 1903, none of the difficulty would have arisen. But the department having omitted to carry out what they evidently contemplated, has resulted in the river to this hour being unbuoyed, to the danger of craft navigating this narrow and tortuous stream. I know the river and it is quite incorrect to say that because the water is high this year, dangers to navigation do not exist. The dangers, as a matter of fact, are intensified because of that reason. The river has extensive marshes, particularly on one side, and it is more difficult for a vessel to keep in the channel when the water is high, because when the water is, low t;he land marks would be more apparent. The government has therefore made the initial mistake departmentally, in not sending the contract in April when they stated they would and afterwards taking advantage of the contract forwarded in the month of June. The department is to blame for leaving the navigation dangerous by not buoying the river up to the present time.


Edward Hackett: Who is the contractor for placing the buoys at Alberton, Prince Edward Island ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I cannot state from memory. I will bring the information to-morrow.


Edward Hackett: Was the work given by tender, or by private arrangement ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed that my officials think it was continued from year to year.


Edward Hackett: Without advertisement?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am not sure, but that is the information I have.


Edward Hackett: Who has the contract for placing the buoys at Summerside ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will bring down the information later.


John Reeve Lavell: I do not think it would be too great flattery to the minister to say that in the course of the evening he has given us one or two small pieces of information. I asked him a question some hours ago which would help us to discover what value we could place on even the little information we got from him. The minister stated on several occasions that he always paid $05 a ton for the carbide, and ir, view of the question asked it was important that his answer should be correct. I called his attention to this fact that according to the Auditor General's Report he had paid at the rate of $100 per ton for carbide. It is important for the House to know how far we can trust to the accuracy of the Auditor General or to the accuracy of the minister's statements.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: What was the quantity ?


John Reeve Lavell: It was only 400 pounds, but what difference does that make ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: You can make the difference.


John Reeve Lavell: It may make very little difference to the minister whether his statement is true or whether it is not, but it does make a lot of difference to the country. Does the minister contend that because it is a small quantity he had to pay $100 a ton ? The minister apparently will not answer. It may be that since he became minister the cerebral end of his corporation occupies more cubic feet than formerly. I submit that a member of this House has the right to know how far the minister's statements can be relied upon. I know from experience that you can buy 400 pounds of carbide at the rate of $65 a ton, because I have repeatedly done it myself. Why should the minister pay more? Perhaps the minister's statement in this respect may throw a side light on the accuracy of his other statements, and if his other statements are not more correct than this, I would like to know why the minister should attempt to give any information to the House at all on this or any other matter.


George Taylor: The minister has given no satisfactory reason why the buoys are not placed on the Napanee river. A lot of money was spent by the steamer 'Scout' last year in placing buoys between Montreal and Kingston. She placed a number of buoys opposite Gananoque among the Thousand Islands, on some very dangerous shoals but she failed to pick them up again and now they are scattered all over the
river in places where there are no shoals. Is it the intention of the minister to have them replaced this summer or to have them floating around the river as at present ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The information of my officials is that these buoys were placed at the demand of the hon. gentle-^ man, at his special request, with the under-1 standing that they would not be picked up by our steamers.


George Taylor: The arrangements were made altogether through Mr. Britton, and the department. The hon. gentleman has no right to refer to me in the matter.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is the information I get.


George Taylor: If you get that information from your department your officers are not worthy of giving you information. The arrangement was made with Mr. Britton. I know all about it, and I know they were placed through Mr. Britton who had been a candidate for the Liberal party there several times and I presume has the confidence of the department and with whom I suppose the department consult. It was he who arranged for having these buoys placed there and he takes all the credit. The department left them there, the ice swept them about and they are floating all around now. The * Scout ' passes there every few days ; why does she not replace them.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The information of my officer is that Mr. Britton may have been present but that the hon. gentleman himself was present, and it was arranged that the buoys would be put out but would not be taken up in the fall by our steamers. I have no other statement to make.


George Taylor: They are there now, government property, floating around the river. The late minister (Mr. Sutherland) went over the river, saw these dangerous shoals, agreed to put buoys there and did put them there. If there was any arrangement made with Mr. Britton or any one else, about taking them up I know nothing about ill., The hon. member for Toronto some time ago, asked the minister on whose representations the change was made from oil to acetylene gas in lighthouses. Was that recommended by Mr. Anderson ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have said half a dozen times that the change was made in the regular course of business. I found that the policy of the department through the engineer was perfectly satisfactory. I did not inquire whether Mr. Alexander or Mri Fraser or some one else had recommended it, but I found that it was the policy of the department to replace the oil lamps by acetylene gas wherever necessary.


George Taylor: Was there a report from the engineer ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: X suppose so.


George Taylor: Can your officers not inform you ? I am informed that your engineer reported against it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed that Colonel Anderson himself started the first experiments. I understand the latest improvements on the route were made under Mr. Fraser afterwards.


George Taylor: Then it was Mr. Fraser who recommended it to the department ? Somebody must have made a report recommending the change. The opposition are prepared and willing to grant all the money required for the improvement of the lights. I would like to have the minister brifng down the report from his chief engineer or the engineer whoever he was, who made the recommendation that the change should be made. These old and faithful lighthouse keepers after serving the government for many years have been turned out almost on a day's notice.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: It has come out that the public service in connection with this department has been neglected, and the minister has given a most remarkably excuse. He has said that no accident has occurred from this neglect. Is that a reasonable or fair excuse to give ? If the same principle is applied to the lower St. Lawrence and the outlet to the ocean, I do not know what the results may be in the future. The excuse is weak, puerile and altogether unbecoming and unworthy of a minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that the House is entitled to the information as to whose recommendation was received in reference to this change. There is an impression that while the lighting may be an improvement, there may be an increase in the price that would not warrant the change. We should! know at least who recommended the change and whether it was recommended by a competent person.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The experiments were begun by the chief engineer, Col. Anderson, and by Mr. Noble. They were begun before I had charge of the department. The result of the experiments was that the department a couple of years ago decided to put the system in operation. Since then it has been perfected, better apparatus has been secured, and the new system has given every satisfaction. There is no written recommendation or report that I know of, but if the hon. gentleman wants to insinuate that Col Anderson, the chief engineer. was opposed to the change, he is mistaken. A year ago. when there was an excursion to the Montreal harbour, and Mr. PREFONTAINE. '
when the most important men of Montreal interested in shipping were complimenting the department on the improvements made in the lighting, Col. Anderson endorsed everything that had been done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I made no insinuation regarding Col. Anderson being either in favour or against the change, but I only asked whether there was not a report recommending it. The minister says that the experiment was begun before he had charge of thy department, but the records of the department are at his disposal, and if there be any recommendation either one way or the other, he ought to be able to procure it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I would ask my hon. friend as a business man, what difference would it make, if the change be a good one, whether it was recommended by Peter, John or Tom. The result is perfectly satisfactory not only to the department but to every body interested in shipping, and I do not see what more any one else can want.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All I want to get at is whether the department undertook to change the lighting without having the report of some one recommending the change. I cannot imagine any business man changing a whole system of lighting without having had an inquiry made by some one competent to judge and obtaining the report of that person. Will the minister give us the assurance that he will endeavour to ascertain whether there is any such report or recommendation, and if so submit it to the House ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister is only wasting his own time and mat of the committee in putting up a man of straw only to knock him down. I did not object to the improvements. They may be all right, so far as I know. He says that there were no written reports, but that there may have been verbal ones. I take it that he did not order these changes without consulting some one and without having some one advise him that this would be a wise expenditure. All I asked was that, if there were any written reports, the hon. minister should bring them down. The hon. gentleman spoke of the upper lakes, but when he came to speak of improvements made there he mentioned one at Gananoque. He does not seem to use the expression ' upper lakes ' in the same way I have been accustomed to hear it used. We speak of the upper lakes as the waters from Georgian Bay upwards. Is any provision to be made for these waters ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Not under this vote. But, under a supplementary vote wo are asking enough money to provide a depot on Georgian Bay so as to provide the aids to navigation as fast as possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the hon. minister speaks of a depot, does he mean a manufacturing establishment to turn out these gas buoys ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, we do not manufacture the gas buoys. We have been trying to get them in Canada. Since I have been at the head of the department I have approached all the manufacturers in Montreal and Toronto and tried to convince them of the advantage they would gain by manufacturing these buoys. They are made of steel plates welded together, and the manufacture of them is very costly. There is no plant for that purpose now in Canada, and we have been obliged to import them from Germany. They are not made in the United States either, for that country has to import them* from Germany also. I understand that Mr. Poison has stated that if there was sufficient market for them, and if the department would purchase them in sufficient quantity, he would install the necessary machinery. The machinery for manufacturing these buoys, according to the information I have obtained from Mr. Poison as well as from the Laurie works in Montreal, would cost about $100,000. It stands to reason that the principal purchaser would be the government. The work that is done at Prescott consists in the preparation of the gas, the manufacture of lanterns ancf other apparatus required. The depot is there, also the headquarters of the



buoy service between Montreal and Kingston. Formerly such an expensive plant was not required, because there were not so many buoys and lights and signals in use. The department is now in a better position to give the necessary service which is required. The matter is not new, it came before the House last year. We have discussed the question with business men in-i terested in navigation between Montreal and the lakes.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to point out that when we have tried to get some statement from the hon. minister as to who recommended the acetylene gas he replied that he did not know if there were any written reports. Now it is not to be expected that every member of this House can read all the reports laid before us from time to time. If the hon. gentleman had applied to; his deputy, he could have ascertained the page and he could have referred us to page 94 of his own report, appendix No. 5, which tells us that Mr. Fraser dealt extensively with acetylene gas lights. If the minister had given us this information promptly less time would have been taken up.
Mr, SPROULE, What do these tanks cost each, I mean one that runs six months or a year ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About $875. In answer to the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), I may say that the report of Mr. J. F. Fraser was dated on the 31st of December, 1903. But I do not know that Mr. Fraser had anything to do with it. Besides Mr. J. F. Fraser there is another Mr. Fraser, who is assistant to Col. Anderson himself. So it is not extraordinary that Mr. J. F. Fraser in his report as commissioner of lights should have treated, this question. He should not be reproached for it, nor should the government.
Mr* INGRAM. The minister might have told us that we could find the report in ap-j pendix 5, page 19 of his report.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The question put by the hon. member was whether, before beginning the experiment of the acetylene system, there was a report. As I explained, that was before I took charge of the department. The report to which the hon. gentleman makes allusion is that of Mr. ,T. F. Fraser, and is dated 31st December, 1903. The experiments had been made previously to that, and it was therefore no longer an experiment.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is no absolute recommendation in this report that these are the proper lights to adopt, it merely deals with the experiments that have been made. If the hon. gentleman wants to expedite business, let him tell us where we can get this information. We have not got time to go through all these blue-books. We expect


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: the minister and his officers to point out to us where the information is to be found, because they are familiar with their own reports.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries was laid on the table of the House at the beginning of the session. Now does the hon. gentleman suppose that my officers, even those who prepared the reports and appendices, are in a position to tell me the precise page where I can find any particulars ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Certainly.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is impossible, no man's brains are equal to the task. It is not reasonable to ask the officials to do this for the members. The report is laid before the House on purpose to inform the members of its contents, and if the members of the House are not intelligent enough to read the report and post themselves, they have no right to blame the minister or his officials because they are not ready to point out the precise page where you will find such and such a thing.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will guarantee that the hon. gentlemen will not get any of his brother ministers in the cabinet to endorse him in that statement. Does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that the Auditor General's Report, that contains hundreds of pages, along with the hon. gentleman's own two departmental reports, also many others of great size, are such that the members of the House can master all the details contained in them ? We have not the time to peruse all the blue-books that are laid on the table of the House and attend to our other duties besides. It is simply impossible and I can tell my hon. friend that if I confined myself to the mastering of the details of these two blue-bodks since the opening of the session to now I could tell him the page in which to find this information. Here is the hon. minister and his officers handling this department from January to December, and yet they tell us they cannot point out in the appendix to these two blue-books where we can find this information ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Why did you not
ask me ?


Andrew B. Ingram: We have been asking you all along.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I must deny that. If you had asked me where you could find this information from my reports I would have given you an answer at once. But, when you ask me that question in regard to all the reports in my department it is a different ching. You want me to look in all the pigeon holes of my department for reports, imaginary and otherwise. If the hon. gentleman had asked where this

subject was treated In the report of the department 1 would have looked it up and given him the information.


Andrew B. Ingram: My hon. friend from East Grey simply asked whether there were any reports, and the minister said he did not know whether there were any or not.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That was not the
report asked for.


Andrew B. Ingram: That was the report. The report asked for was in regard to these experiments which were carried out with the steamer ' Scout.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is about time that we adjourned if we intend to do another day's work to-morrow.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I presume the understanding is that the House will be moved into Supply after routine to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: To-day, yes ; that is correct.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 12.50 a.m., Thursday.
i	*

Thursday, June 23, 1904.
The SPEAJCER took the Chair at Three o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS-EXTENSION OF TIME.
Mr. A. GIBSON moved:: That, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 20th report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders that portion of the 49th rule which limits the time for presenting private Bills be suspended in reference to a Bill respecting the New Brunswick Southern Railway Company.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: Mr. Speaker, I take it that this is a recommendation by a single committee. I would draw your attention to the rule of the House w'hich says that where a rule is asked to he suspended the petition on which the request is made must be .sent to two committees of the House, the committee that passes upon the principle of the Bill as well as the Committee on Standing Orders. I notice that lately there has been a complete disregard of that rule, and the rule is sometimes suspended on the recommendation of the committee.


Wilfrid Laurier: To what rule does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) refer ?


John Graham Haggart: I have forgotten the number.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think that that is one of the rules that is more honoured in the breach than the observance.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, lately.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 143) respecting the New Brunswick Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Gibson.


Mr. EARLE asked :: 1.	Has any communication been received by the government, or any department thereof, from cannery men in British Columbia, requesting the export to the United States of salmon caught In gill-nets in Canadian waters he prohibited ?
2.	If so, what action does the government propose to take on such application ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	The question was considered at the time of the adoption of the British Columbia fishery regulations, dated 2nd May, 1904, and it was decided to confine the prohibition of such export to fish caught in trap-nets.



SEIZED SEALERS-PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.

Mr.   I@: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to inquire of the government whether they have any information as to the -probable date when the claims in respect to the sealing vessels seized by the Russian government will be paid. Some persons in my province who are interested in these claims have written me asking me to impress upon the government the extreme importance to them in several cases of the payment of these claims being expedited as much as possible. If the government have any information I would be glad if they would give it either to-day or on some future occasion.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no doubt that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) or the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) will be able to give the Information to-morrow.



DR. HAANEL'S REPORT.

Mr.  E. F. CLARICE@: Might I ask the government in what position is the report made by Dr. Haanel in respect to smelting ores by electricity 7


Clifford Sifton: The full report of Dr. Haanel has not yet been completed and it will be some time before it is completed. The preliminary report can be had at any time.



SUPPLY-THE DISMISSAL OF LORD DUNDONALD.

['I expected that we would have been able to conclude this debate to-night ; but in view of the great importance which the subject has attained in the country, I think every latitude should be given to the other side to ventilate their grievances, and therefore I assent to the motion.']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that any one in the House or in the country will deny the importance of the incident to which I propose to direct; attention this afternoon and with respect to which I propose to move a resolution irf amendment to that which has been proposed by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I regret that I was not able to give to the House last evening the tenor of this resolution, but I have sent a copy of it to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at the earliest possible moment this morning, after it had been completed. The incident to which I refer touches vitally the question whether or not we are to have in Canada a non-partisan militia force, or whether we are to have in this country partisan politics introduced into the appointment of officers and the recommendations of men for commissions in that force. I would not suppose that there could be any two opinions on what should be the correct course. Up to the present time we have not beard a great deal of politics being introduced at least into this portion of the administration of the department. I do not remember in my own province ever hearing a man's political opinions discussed in connection with an appointment to a position in the militia. It would be extremely regrettable if partisan political considerations should be allowed to interpose between the General Officer Commanding and those officers who are subordinate to him. To permit, that is to permit interference by politicians with men who are engaged in the performance of their duty, and to interfere with an officer in the performance of his duty, in that regard is certain to result in the most disastrous effect upon the militia force of this country.
The incident with which we are especially concerned this afternoon, is that which relates to the organization of the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons, in the eastern townships of the province of Quebec. The circumstances connected with the case have been placed quite fully before the House and the country. I shall have to come to a consideration of the. correspondence which has been brought down before I conclude my remarks, but let me say for the present that having read everything that


Mr. CLARKE.: has been published on the subject, having carefully examined the correspondence which has been brought down, having listened to the statements made in this House by the hon. the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher)' I cannot find one jot or tittle of evidence which indicates that Colonel Smart or Colonel Whitley, his brigadier, were influenced by any political considerations whatever, in the establishment of that regiment until the Minister of Agriculture imposed such considerations upon them. I think the evidence is absolutely conclusive that these gentlemen were simply endeavouring to find the best available men, to obtain qualified men when they could obtain qualified men and in the absence of men who were *qualified, that their efforts were solely and absolutely directed to appointing the most efficient men in order that that regiment might be put on the most efficient possible basis. Mere motives of self-interest would lead these men to adopt that course. Why should Colonel Smart, a man responsible for that regiment, a man only desirous to put it on the best possible basis, seek to introduce political considerations ? Colonel Smart is not a partisan ; I do not know what his politics are, I do not know whether he has any pronounced legal opinions. Certainly he is not a Conservative partisan and I do not think he is a Liberal partisapj Colonel Whitley is, I understand, a Liberal in politics. I have never heard that he is a political partisan but I understand that his political sympathies are with the party in power. Therefore there is no possible reason to suppose that either one of these men would have been influenced by any political considerations, certainly not by any political considerations that would lend either one of them to favour the Conservative party in the making of appointments.
The question is whether or not partisan politics were introduced by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) into the organization of that regiment. We have had; upon that subject a statement in this House by the hon. gentleman himself, and also a statement by the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) and I propose to call attention in the first place to what the Minister of Agriculture himself has said upon the subject in order that I may in that way lead up to some consideration of the correspondence which has been brought down. The statement of the Minister of Agriculture is to be found in ' Hansard ' at page 4581. I shall not read the whole of it, hon. gentlemen are familiar with it. It is to this effect :
In regard to Lord Dundonald's general statement that I interfered with the organization of the corps, and with the names of the other proposed officers of the corps as well as Dr. Pickel's, let me say this r That the only

grounds on which I made any suggestions in regard to the establishment of this corps were the immense importance of the appointment of leading officers with military qualifications, who knew the country and the people of the eastern townships, the district where the corps was to be established.
Now, it we were to stop there end take that statement of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) supported as it was by the hon. the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) we might only regard the interference of the Minister of Agriculture as meddlesome, and we need not regard it as absolutely vicious. He would be only meddling in that which other men were much better qualified to do. If his interference had stopped there and had been directed solely to that object, the criticism which I am about to make this afternoon would not have been so well deserved although I do not see any reason why the Minister of Agriculture should interpose his wonderful military knowledge, between the General Officer Commanding and those men who, under the General Officer, were charged with the duty of organizing this regiment. I would not suppose that, apart from political considerations, the Minister of Agriculture would feel himself qualified to over-ride the opinions of these gentlemen so far as military qualifications are concerned, because it is in regard to military qualifications that he is speaking in the portion of his remarks to which I have called attention.	,
Having thus called the Minister of Agriculture as a witness in his own behalf and having quoted that portion of the written) statement which he made before this House, let us now see what he said further on the subject, after a memorandum from Lord Dundonald had been read, and let us see whether or not the statement which I have just read emanating from his own lips is supported by his own language on the very same day, in fact only a few minutes afterwards. On page 4005 he said this :
I found this list of proposed names for the staff for the neighbourhood of Sweetsburg. First, Mr. John M. Gibson, a nephew of Senator Baker, and talked of as a possible Conservative candidate, in the constituency of Mis-sisquoi to be third in command of that regiment.
If my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture was concerning himself alone with the military qualifications of the gentlemen who were proposed to be recommended for that regiment, why was it necessary for him to inquire or to state the political opinions or the relationship of this gentleman, to whom I have just referred. He proceeded then as follows :
Dr. Pickel, one of the strongest Conservative workers of the neighbourhood, and a family connection of Senator Baker, to be major in command of the squadron which, though gazetted
for Adamsville, was to be changed to Sweetsburg to suit his convenience.
Do we find any reference there to the military qualifications of this gentleman ? No, we find there simply a reference to his political opinions and to his relationship to this same Senator Baker who seems to be the bete noir of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and who has influenced unconsciously the hon. Minister of Agriculture in regard to this important matter hy the mere fact of his having opposed him, as he had a perfect right to do, in his political campaigns in the eastern townships. But, surely we do not find in these words of the lion. Minister of Agriculture any question of the military qualifications of Dr. Pickel. The minister is interested merely in his political opinions and his relationship to this same Senator Baker. What is the next remark ? It is this :


Mr. G. H.: Baker, sou of Senator Baker, to be senior captain of the said squadron.
No objection to the military qualifications of Captain Baker but merely a statement that ne happens, unfortunately, to be related to Senator Baker-unfortunately according to the view of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, because if Captain Baker had not been the son of his father there would have been no objection to him by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. Then, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture proceeds as follows :


Mr.   T@: Pickel, son-in-law of Senator Baker, to be the junior captain of the said squadron.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture is unable to get Senator Baker out of his mind. Senator Baker looms up before him in connection with every one of these gentlemen, and it is not their military qualifications but their connection with Senator Baker which so thoroughly alarms him in connection with the appointments to his regiment. He proceeds :
Then there were the names of two gentlemen, Messrs. Steaoie and Reynolds, of Montreal, to be lieutenants. And down at the bottom of the list Mr. Thos. F. Cotton, a Liberal, son-in-law of the above-mentioned John M. Gibson, and grand nephew of Senator Baker.
It reminds one of a genealogical table.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. R. D. BORDEN.: My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) smiles I am speaking of the remarks of the hon. Minister of Agriculture. This hon. gentleman who first told us that he was considering merely the qualifications of these officers has not one word to say about their military qualifications in what I have read, but lie concerns himself solely with their relationship to Senator Baker and with their

political opinions.. Yet lie bad the audacity to stand up in this House and say that his interference in the affairs of that regiment was concerned solely and absolutely-^ with the military qualifications of tli officers. He may be able to reconcile those statements. I am not able to reconcile them. I regard one statement as absolutely inconsistent with the other statement. But, X will go further and quote again from what the hon. gentleman said :
And down at the bottom ot the list Mr. Thos. P. Cotton, a Liberal, son-in-law of the above-mentioned John M. Gibson, and grand nephew of Senator Baber.
I am a little puzzled ; I do not know whether or not the fact that Mr. Cotton was a grand nephew of Senator Baker would outweigh the fact that he was a Liberal. There are two considerations. The hon. Minister of Agriculture must have been embarrassed. He was a grand nephew of Senator Baker on the one hand, but you must- take into consideration the fact that on the other hand this gentleman was a Liberal in politics.
I told these gentlemen

	.
Mark this

-that, putting aside any question of military qualifications, which I afterwards went into, such a list of officers for that squadron in that neighbourhood would be held to be an instance of political preferment.


Some hon. MEMBERS: :	Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: This hon. gentleman who said that he was absolutely concerned with the military qualifications of these gentlemen, says here that putting aside any question of military qualifications such a list of officers would be held to be an instance of political preferment, and he continues :
It would be impossible to remove from the minds of the people of the district of Bedford the impression that the colonel who made such recommendations and was responsible for the success of this regiment had deliberately undertaken to turn that squadron, if not the whole regiment, into a political Tory organization.
Now, I venture to say that if an inquiry is granted by this government, and if Colonel Whitley and Colonel Smart are examined on oath they will be able to depose that the first man and the only man who brought any political question into the regiment was the hon gentleman who sits as Minister of Agriculture in this House. The hon. gentleman went on further :
tism and would make its beginning as a Tory organization.
That is the way in which the hon. gentleman did not Introduce political considerations into the organization of this regiment. That is the way in which he did not introduce them from first to last. Let us observe further what he said at page 460S of 1 Hansard ' :
I warned these gentlemen who, not knowing the country, not knowing the individuals, not knowing the relationship in connection with these people, I believed innocently, were led by local people into doing a thing which if it had been allowed to go through would have been a fatal blow to the efficiency and the success of this regiment. Sir, I plead guilty to that much interference in the matter on the ground of politics. And if that much of such interference is not in the interest of the regiment and of the country, and if men who apparently may have been-I do not say they were-carrying on these intrigues in regard to military appointments, these political intrigues to which Lord Dundonald refers, had been permitted to carry through their proposal, instead of being an interference on behalf of Liberals, of which I am accused, it would have been a deliberate Interference and political intrigue on the part of Conservatives for the purpose of making this regiment what the old regiments there were, a Tory preserve and a Tory organization.
I quote this for the purpose of showing the animus with which the hon. Minister of Agriculture entered into the discussion of this matter with Colonel Smart and Colonel Whitley. The hon. gentleman does not make it very clear who were intriguing but I would gather from his remarks that he is accusing these two officers, Colonel Whitley and Colonel Smart, of carrying on that intrigue. I do not know whether he means that or not. Let me, however, say that as he refers to a family compact and refers to Senator Baker I have assurance from the best authority-Senator Baker-and I believe Colonel Smart has given the same assurance, that these two gentlemen who are accused of ihtriguing together have never exchanged one single word throughout their lives and are not personally acquainted with each other. That is the intrigue which the hon. Minister of Agriculture says had been going on in the eastern townships. Two gentlemen not even acquainted with each other are supposed to be intriguing for the purpose of creating a so-called Tory organization. Well, let ns see what is said further about this matter. Let us see now what is said in regard to his conduct in the Order in Council which seeks to justify it :
And I said that, if such a recommendation as that were to go through and be known in the district of Bedford, nothing under heaven would remove the impression from the people of the county and of the country that the new regiment was to be conducted on the lines of the old regiments there, and that it would receive its bap-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
Mr. Fisher states that so far as his interference related in any way to politics, it was not to give the new regiment a political colour, but to guard against that very evil.
And this is the same minister, who in a written statement before parliament used

these words which I will quote again in order that they may not be forgotten. -
The only grounds on which I made any suggestion in regard to the establishment of this corps, were the immense importance of the appointment of leading officers with military qualifications.
In the minister's own speech delivered a few minutes afterwards, and in the very Order in Council which seeks to justify him. there is a confession of his interference on political grounds. I would not require more proof of the minister's political interference, but let me quote these words from the memorandum of Lord Dnn-donald which was read in this House by the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes). Lord Dundonald says.
Shortly after the promulgation of the order authorizing the organization of the regiment, I received an order from Sir Frederick Borden to Colonel Pinault, the Deputy Minister of Militia, desiring him to stop the organization.
We have never yet had any explanation in this House as to how the Minister of Militia was induced to issue that order, stopping the organization of the regiment. Although it is said these reasons were communicated to the General Officer Commanding, they have not been communicated to this House, and knowing what we do of the conduct of the hon. minister afterwards, we cannot fail to come to the conclusion that it was the indirect interposition of the Minister of Agriculture which induced the Minister of Militia to make that order, and that it was for these partisan purposes which are disclosed in the correspondence, that the order was issued stopping and delaying the organization of that regiment. Lord Dundonald continues.
No explanation or reason for this step was vouchsafed, but indirectly I learned that the Minister of Agriculture was responsible for the delay which thus occurred.
And yet, this is the minister who, in his first statement at least to this House, declared that his interference was for no other reason than to secure the appointment of properly qualified officers. Colonel Smart continues :
This I refused to do, as I had invited Dr. Pickel to come into the regiment, and told Mr. Fisher- that some one else would have to he responsible for the withdrawal of Dr. Pickel s name.
Then Colonel Smart proceeds to deal with the facts attending the voluntary withdrawal of Dr. Pickel's name, and he gives a great many instances of cases in which the Minister of Agriculture had interfered with him. For example he says :
Hon Mr. Fisher also took exception to the name of Mr. T. R. Pickel, who is also very enthusiastic and would make a capital cavalry officer.
1 had submitted Mr. Pickel's name, recommending that he be appointed captain in ' E Squadron, but Mr. Fisher insisted that I substitute the name of Lieutenant R. Steacie, making him captain and Mr. Pickel first lieutenant.
I pointed out to Mr. Fisher that Mr. Pickel, being a resident of the townships, was entitled to a senior rank in preference to Mr. Steacie, who lives in Montreal, and, moreover, as Mr. Steacie is a relative of mine, it would place me in a false position, and appear as though I was unduly advancing him at the expense of others. However, Mr. Fisher evidently _ had his mind made up on the matter and insisted on the change, to which 1 reluctantly agreed. I regret to say that this caused some dissatisfaction, and I would like at the first opportunity to transfer Mr. Steacie to another squadron and recommend Mr. Pickel for his captaincy.
And let us see what the Minister of Agriculture bad to do with the case of Captain Converse, a gentleman who in the memorandum brought down only yesterday by the government, is described as the most capable cavalry officer in Canada. Colonel Smart says :
There has been no contradiction in this House, of that statement up to the present. But that is not the chief part of the indictment against the Minister of Agriculture. because we have the direct and hitherto uncontradicted statement of the officer commanding this regiment, and whose duty it was to organize the regiment, as to the part which the Minister of Agriculture took in this matter. Colonel Smart says in his letter to Lord Dundonald :
I submitted the name of Dr. F. H. Pickel, who is mayor of the town of Sweetsburg, and warden of the county of Missisquoi, to he major in command of ' E ' Squadron. Dr Pickel is a gentleman of means, can ride fairly well, and was quite willing to take the necessary time to qualify himself for the position of major. Mr. Fisher objected to him for no other reason than that he was a strong political opponent of his and was quite determined to block the whole organization, unless Dr. Pickel's name was withdrawn.
With -regard to the' adjutancy, Captain Converse, whom I selected for this position, has served in the militia for about (15) fifteen years and for a long time served as sergeant-major in the Duke of York's Hussars. Mr. Fisher asked me to drop this gentleman and substitute Mr. Adams, of the 6th Hussars, a gentleman who is very deaf, and whom I -consider physically unfit for the position.
But, you will observe- throughout all, that the Minister of Agriculture is solely concerned with obtaining officers qualified for the position, and for that reason he wanted to put to one side Captain Converse who is described as the best cavalry officer in Canada, and to substitute for him Mr. Adams, a gentleman so deaf as to be incapable of acting, in the opinion of Colonel Smart. And, according to the statement of Colonel Smart, Captain Adams was so sure of the effect which political power in the hands of the minister could exercise,

that he openly threatened Colonel Smart in the presence of Colonel Whitley with the exercise of his political influence. And, Sir, the political influence which Mr. Adams declared he could have exercised, has been very effectively exercised by the Minister of Agriculture. I venture to say, that if the government sees fit to grant an inquiry into that most important statement made by Colonel Smart as to the threats of Captain Adams, they will find that Colonel Smart is corroborated by Colonel Whitley, his brigadier. Colonel Smart says :
I absolutely declined to consider this at all, and Mr. Fisher waived his objections.
But he was not finished with Mr. Adams yet, as we shall see.
He then asked me to recommend Mr. Adams for major to command ' E ' squadron, and this I flatly declined to do.
Mr. Fisher asked Colonel Smart to recommend Mr. Adams in place of Dr. Pickel whom Mr. Fisher had rejected, and yet this is the hon. gentleman who was concerned solely with assisting the Colonel who was to organize the regiment, in the selection of officers duly qualified for command. The Minister of Agriculture seems to have regarded his own judgment as absolutely superior to that of these experienced officers; he thought himself much more competent and more qualified to select officers, having regard to military qualifications, than were the experienced military men whom this country paid to discharge that duty.
Now, Sir, I shall consider for a moment what is the position of the General Officer Commanding, and what is the position of the Minister himself ? This regiment was about to be organized and the commanding officer had been chosen, whose duty was to select and report the names of his subordinate officers for recommendation by the General Officer Commanding. . After the General Officer Commanding had recommended these names to the Minister of Militia, the Minister of Militia would of course have the responsibility of either approving of them or rejecting them. There is no question of that, under the system of government which we have in this country. Let us see what the statute says about the status of the Minister of Militia :
There shall be a Minister of Militia and Defence^ who shall be charged with and be responsible for the administration of militia affairs including all matters involving (expenditure and of the fortifications, gun-boats ordnance, ammunition, arms, armouries, stores, munitions and habiliments of war belonging to Canada.
The duties of the General Oflicer Commanding are defined as follows :
There shall be appointed an officer who holds the rank of colonel or rank superior


Robert Laird Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: I may say that there was no objection at all to bringing it down. I would be glad to bring it down. It was marked private, and for that reason was not brought down. But I will ask Colonel Whitley for his consent, because I would prefer to have it brought down.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, there are the letters of Colonel Whitley to the Minister of Agriculture of the 14tli and loth of May.
Hois,. SYDNEY FISHER (Minuter of Agriculture). I would like to say to the hon. gentleman that Colonel Whitley requests that those letters should not be brought down. They were marked private by him, and he has requested that they be kept private.


Robert Laird Borden: Has Colonel Whitley made that request by letter or orally ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: By telephone, to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I do not know why the letters of a brigadier in the militia to the Minister of Agriculture should be marked private. The Minister of Agriculture has some status in this matter or he has no status. I think he has no status. If he claims to have a status which justifies him in interfering with the affairs of this regiment, why is it that official communications respecting the organization of this regiment from an officer of Canada to the Minister of Agriculture should be marked private, and that this House should be deprived of them because either the Minister of Agriculture or Colonel Whitley thinks they should not be brought down ?
Why may we not have all communications in the Department of Militia or any other public department marked private ? Why may we not have every report by a paid officer of this country marked private, and have ministers of the Crown refuse to have them brought down because they are marked private ? Where are we to stop ? Do not those letters relate to the organization of this regiment ? Will my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture deny that ? And yet these letters are to be withheld from parliament because Colonel Whitley/ an officer paid by this country for his services, thinks they should not be brought down.
I do not know whether any suggestion was made to Colonel "Whitley on that point; I do not know whether any intimation was given to him. From what I have heard of that gallant gentleman, I would not believe that he would write letters which he was not willing to have placed before parliament and the country unless he was led into some specious intrigue by the Minister of Agriculture which he might not be willing to disclose. Apart from that, I do not know of any reason why letters of Colonel Whitley or letters of any other officer of the militia with regard to matters of this kind should not be laid before this House. There were inclosures in one of these letters of Colonel Whitley. They are referred to on page 26 of this memorandum. The Minister of Agriculture says this, in his letter dated May 20, 1904 :
I have read your letters and the inclosures, and want to assure you not only that I am very glad things have now been tfettled, but that I appreciate the efforts which you and Colonel Smart have made to make things satisfactory.
Are the inclosures confidential ? Might I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture whether the inclosures were -also confidential ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are sent back to Colonel Whitley at his request. They are not in my possession. I do not know anything about them beyond having looked them over.


Robert Laird Borden: Colonel Whitley is I believe, the brigadier of the eastern townships and a salaried officer of this government. If he has documents of that kind in his possession, they can be produced. The government can produce them, if they desire, but we cannot. Why were not these inclosures brought down ? But that is not all. The Minister of Agriculture proceeds as follows
I have written to our friends telling them that this has been done and urging them to take hold of their work energetically and loyally, and I am sure they will do so.
Why should not these' letters to ' our friends' be produced? They would show to what extent the Minister of Agriculture was interfering in the affairs of the regiment.

I take it for granted he lias written nothing of which he is ashamed. If he is not ashamed of them, why does he not bring these letters down ? If he was interfering in the organization of this regiment, he must have been doing so as a public man, as one having some official status ; and as he wrote to *Colonel Whitley and in that letter referred to inclosures, and as his own letter has been brought down, why should not the documents mentioned in that letter be also brought down ? How it is that these docu: ments are any more private or privileged than the letter itself ? That letter could just as well be regarded as private as the documents referred to in it. Yet we have not one of these various documents to which I have referred. For some reason that 1 cannot very well appreciate, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture thinks they should not be produced.
As I have said already, the interference of my hon. friend in this matter evidently began early in March and was exercised up to the 20th of May, when lie said he was acting as Minister of Militia. I do not know in what way he was really acting as Minister of Militia and Defence after all, but certainly up to the 19th of May he was not acting in that capacity. Yet his friends have been representing to the public that his only interference in the affairs of this regiment was when he was acting Minister of Militia and Defence in the absence of the hon. member for Kings, Nova Scotia (Sir Frederick Borden). That is the impression which his friends are seeking to convey throughout the country. But the interference of the Minister of Agriculture began as far back as the mohth of March and continued without intermission, as the correspondence and the evidence show, until the 19th of May, when he undertook, at the request of the Deputy Minister of Militia, to sign a certain recommendation in council. Let us see what authority he had to act. At page 24 of the return we have that authority which is contained in letter No. 5 on that page. That letter is as follows :-
Ottawa, May 19, 1904.
Hon. Sydney Fisher,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Out.
Dear Mr. Fisher,-Will you kindly sign the inclosed for the minister and if possible have it passed to-day.
Very faithfully yours,



[Stage Direction]
That is the only authority which m,y hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture had, and that is the only occasion on which he undertook to act officially for the Minister of Militia and Defence. If power can be given by any minister through his deputy, to another minister' to act for him, if in that informal way one minister can vest in Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
another all the powers conferred upon him by statute, I am very much surprised-! But when we come a little further on, we find the mode in which the hon. minister did purport to act. He purported to act in this way
Ottawa., May 19th, 1904.
To His Excellency
The Governor General In Council.
The undersigned has the honour to recommend for your Excellency's approval, the attached draft general order, containing appointments and promotions, 13th Scottish Light Dragoons, the same having been recommended by the General Officer Commanding.
Respectfully submitted,

[Stage Direction]
for F. W. Borden, Minister of Militia and Defence.
The Minister of Agriculture does not purport to be the acting Minister of Militia and Defence, but simply purports to sign his name for F. W. Borden, wlio is the Minister of Militia and Defence. I would not understand that, under' any authority contained in that letter signed by Colonel Pin-ault, the Minister of Agriculture could have taken upon himself the functions of Minister of Militia. I should think that any authority of that kind would have to be conferred in some more formal way.
Before dealing with the correspondence, let me say further that my hon. friend takes great credit to himself for not having objected to ail the Conservatives who were named by Colonel Smart and for having recommended some Conservatives. Well, as I understand the facts, Major Gibson was recommended, in the first instance, by Colonel Roy long before the Minister of Agriculture began his interference. I understand also that Captain G. H. Baker was transferred from the 6th Hussars, which he had originally entered, at the instance and request of Col. Amyrauld, formerly law partner of the late Mr. Duffy, provincial treasurer. So far as these gentlemen are concerned, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture had nothing to do with their appointment or recommendation. They were recommended by Colonels Roy and Amyrauld long before be began his Interference. I understand also that Mr. Russell and Mr. T. R. Picltel were recommended by Colonel Roy and selected by him in conjunction with Colonel Smart. I have that information and I believe it to be accurate. The government have opportunities for discovering the truth. And Captain Converse, to whom the Minister of Agriculture objected, is described in the memo, brought down-described by Colonel Whitley, I think-as the best cavalry officer in Canada.
Before coming to the correspondence as to the net result of the efforts of Colonel Whitley and Colonel Smart to organize this regiment, which has been described by the Minister of Agriculture as a Tory organization-or rather he
[Stage Direction]
has said that the efforts of Colonels Smart and Whitley would have converted it into a Tory organization-let me say that some investigation into the facts in that regard has been made by a gentleman connected with the Toronto * News,' an independent journal, certainly not un-f-riendly to this administration, and the matter has been summed up in that journal, after what was evidently very careful research. Referring to Colonel Smart, the correspondent says this :
He is associated' with no party organisation. In his old corps politics constituted a forbidden subject, and his only idea was to ignore politics in forming his new corps. As a nucleus for the 13th he was given two squadrons of the 6th. One of the squadrons is commanded by a Liberal, the other by a Conservative. He had to find three more squadron leaders. Of the three men he selected, two are Liberals and the third, Dr. Picfeel, is a Conservative. Thus, if noses are to be counted politically a majority of the five squadron leaders would be Liberal. A number of his officers, by the way, came from the old 79th Shefford and Brome Highlanders.
Further on in discussing this incident, the same journal said :
Of the eight senior combatant officers, we find the second in command and three squadron leaders Liberals, the third in command and two squadron leaders Conservatives, tlje commanding officer an independent. One of the Conservative officers only got his post after it had been declined by a strong Liberal. The brigadier, under whose immediate supervision the organization work was carried on, is a Liberal.
Perhaps the political complexion of the officers can best be set forth by a table :
Independent Liberal. Con- or
servative. Unknown.
Staff	.. 2	5	1* A ' squadron	.. 4	4	' B ' squadron	.. 3	1	' C * squadron	.. 3	2	*D ' squadron	.. 2	1	2' E ' squadron	.. i	3	1
Total ..: .. 15	16	4


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: That first squadron should be three Liberals and one Conservative, not four.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I am taking it just as It is given. Therefore, there is a total of 15 Liberal officers, 16 Conservatives, and 4 independent or unknown. And that is practically as it was proposed by Lieutenant-Colonel Smart in the first instance, as I understand ; and surely my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture and those gentlemen who so vociferously cheered his remarks will not pretend for a moment in this House that any such organization of a regiment as that can be regarded as a Tory organization. I do not think it would make any difference if all the officers were Liberals, or if they were all Conservatives, provided they were the best men for the positions. 1 do not believe that
Lieutenant-Colonel Smart had it in his mind to inquire or did inquire-until forced to do so by the Minister of Agriculture- whether any men he selected were Liberals or Conservatives in politics. Further than that, I may say once more that, while the Minister of Agriculture, in his zeal was anxious to impose Mr. Adams as adjutant of this corps, he was not less urgent in support of three gentlemen named Miltimore, two of whom had no military experience The Minister of Agriculture was shocked at the idea of two Pickels, but rejoiced at three Miltimores. It just happened curiously enough that the two Pickels were Conservatives while the three Miltimores were Liberals. And yet, we are told, he had not the slightest idea of introducing politics when lie interfered with the affairs of this regiment. Further than that, I am informed, and I believe that the information is correct, that Mr. T. R. Pick el tried to induce a Mr. Matthew Ruiter an ardent Liberal and mayor of Cowansville to take bis place. And Mr. Ruiter, though he did not take that place, has given his most loyal support to the squadron.
Now. I must refer at a little length to the correspondence brought down and I must refer to it in order of date. In February, 1904, the General Officer Commanding gave the usual orders to organize the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons. On the 19th November, Lieutenant-Colonel Smart was gazetted chief in command. Shortly afterwards, the General Officer Commanding was, for some reason not explained, ordered by the Minister of Militia to stop the organization. The Minister of Militia says :
Towards the end of March last, I wrote to Lieutenant-Colonel Whitley, expressing a desire to see him. Having learned afterwards that he was in England, I requested the general to suspend the work of organization until Lieutenant-Colonel Whitley's return, having previously explained the reasons to the military secretary for the information of the general.	.
We do not know what the reasons a.re. Perhaps we may hear before this discussion is concluded. On the 11th April a formal order was issued in these words :
Ottawa, April 11th, 1904.
The General Officer Commanding.
With reference to the establishment of the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons, will you be so kind as to>
suspend the orginization of this regiment until further orders.
L. F. PINAULT, Colonel, Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence.
That was followed by this :
Ottawa, April 29th, 1904. To the General Officer Commanding.
On the 11th- i s*ant a nrnute was sent you requesting that the organization of the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons be suspended until further orders.

It has been brought to the minister's atten tion that the organization of this corps is being proceeded with, and he desires that the District Officer Commanding be at once notified to suspend the work until further orders.
L. P. PINAULT, Colonel, Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence.
I think the Minister of Militia and Defence owes it to himself, to rise in this debate and explain to the House, in the first place, why it was he saw fit in April to stop the organization of this regiment which he himself had directed in February, and why, in the next place he supplemented that direction by the imperative command contained in the order of April 29th which I have just read. That command says, ' It has been brought to the minister's attention that the organization of this corps is being proceeded with.' Who brought it to the attention of the Minister of Militia ? Was it, by any chance, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture ? And was there any question of introducing politics in it ? Let us see what took place afterwards and perhaps we can form a judgment with regard to that. On 3rd May, the order which I have just read was followed by a direction from the Military Secretary to the District Officer Commanding which is as follows :
Ottawa, May 3, 1904.
From the Military Secretary, to the District Officer Commanding Military District No. 6, St. Johns. F.Q.
It is directed that the organization of the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons is suspended for the present. Notification to that effect should, at once, be sent to the lieutenant-colomed commanding.
HENRY SMITH, Lieut.-Col.,
Military Secretary.
At this stage, it might be well for us to consider the effect which this delay had. In order that we may estimate the results of this delay, directed by the Minister of Militia, let us look at Lieutenant-Colonel Smart's letter to the officer commanding the brigade dated 1st June which is to be found at page 40 of the correspondence. It is addressed to the officer commanding the Eastern Townships Cavalry Brigade. In the course of the letter Lieutenant-Colonel Smart says :
When I took command of the regiment, I was prepared to have the organization fully completed in time for the brigade camp this month, and have laid my plans accordingly, sparing neither time nor expense to accomplish it, but owing to the unfortunate delays to which I have been subjected, which were entirely beyond my control, I now find it impossible for me to realize my expectations.
That is the result, according to the official report of Lieutenant-Colonel Smart to his immediately superior officer. To the same effect is the letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Smart to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). The Minister of Agriculture had interfered to such an extent that Lieute-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
nant-Colonel Smart seems to have thought it necessary that he should report to him as well as to the officer immediately above him, and on the 1st of June notifies Mr. Fisher, Minister of Agriculture, that he is unable to take the regiment into camp in its present unorganized state. This letter was sent to the Minister of Agriculture, for his information as it is said, and the Minister of Agriculture in replying on 3rd June said :
I have always thought that it was impossible for you to organize a new squadron in time for that camp.
Lieutenant-Colonel Smart was of opinion that he could get the regiment organized in time to take it in to camp, but the Minister of Agriculture with that superior knowledge of military affairs which has characterized him throughout, tells the commanding officer that he has always known from the first that it would be impossible for him to organize any squadron in time. Then he goes on to say : -
I will recommend this to Sir, Frederick Borden and hopie that everything will be satisfactorily arranged for you to have a September camp. During the summer I have no doubt I shall be able to find some other young men who will take positions so as to better fill up your regiment.
That shows to what extent the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) was willing to commit the charge of his department to his gallant-I suppose I should say gallant -to his hon. and gallant colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). Now. the organization having been suspended negotiations proceeded with my hon. and gallant friend the Minister of Agriculture. And the Minister of Militia stated, in his memorandum read in this House :
Early, in May, Lieutenant-Colonel Whitley brought Lieutenant Colonel Smart to Ottawa
to see me	Both expressed a strong
desire to have the general order put through quickly so that the regiment might go to camp.
The question was whether or not the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Militia could be induced to permit the organization to proceed. There was an interview that morning with the Minister of Militia, but the real interview, the important event, took place in the afternoon, between Lieutenant-Colonel Whitley and Lieu-tenant-Coionel Smart on the one hand and the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Agriculture on the other hand. There is a reference to that in the correspondence. I refer to the letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Smart to Mr. Fisher of 9th May. And that letter shows the extent to which the Minister of Agriculture interfered in the affairs of this regiment. It is as follows :
Montreal, May 9, 1904.
Hon. Sydney Fisher,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Fisher,-Agreeable to your request at our interview last Friday, I now inclose

herein memo, showing establishment of my regiment, also a list of all staff officers, with the exception of the veterinary surgeon, and all the various squadron officers recommended to date.
Now, is that not a curious letter to come from Colonel Charles A. 'Smart, engaged in the organization of this regiment, not to the .Minister of Militia, hut to the Minister of Agriculture ? He incloses to the Minister of Agriculture who has nothing whatever to do with the militia, a memorandum showing the establishment of his regiment and all the various squadron officers recommended to date. He goes on :
I am showing the headquarters of ' B ' Squadron as Knowlton, instead of Mansonville, as per arrangement made with you.
That is per arrangement, not made with the Minister of Militia, or with the General Officer Commanding, or under the direction of his superior officer, but ' as per arrangement made with you,' the Minister of Agriculture. And then, knowing that the Minister of Agriculture ought to have nothing to do with it, 'Colonel Smart adds :
And I am writing officially to-day through the proper channel asking that the change he made.
Then he proceeds as follows :
As you desired, I am not asking for the transfer of ' E ' Squadron headquarters from Adamsville to Sweetsburg, meantime, but will wait until I hear further

-from the General Officer Commanding, or the brigadier under him ? No.
-until I hear further from you.
He can do nothing until he hears from the Minister of Agriculture. He continues: With reference to the position of the veterinary surgeon, I would he pleased if you would recommend a good veterinary surgeon for this position. Dr. Irwin, of Waterloo, applied to me personally for this position, and I would have been pleased to recommend him as Mr. Parmelee spoke very highly of him, hut unfortunately he is veterinary-surgeon in the Granby Field Battery, and Major Seale of that corps objected to having Dr. Irwin transferred, so I had to drop the matter. The only available veterinary-surgeon I know . of is Dr. Dyer, of Sutton.
Then what follows ?
Would he he acceptable to you ? I would he glad to hear from you as early as possible 'about this matter to enable me to complete my staff.
Then there is a list of officers inclosed. The officer commanding is, of course, Colonel Smart. The officers recommended to date are :
Second in command, Major D. M. Stewart, Montreal.
Third in command, Mr. John G. Gibson, R.M.C., Cowansville.
Adjutant, Capt. W. B. Converse, Montreal.
Paymaster, Lt. M. F. Goddard, South Stukley. Quartermaster, Lt. M. C. Martin, Waterloo. Medical officer, Sur. Mjr. Macdonald, Sutton. Medical officer, Sur. Lt. S. H. Martin, Waterloo.
Vet. Surgeon, still vacant.
Until the Minister of Agriculture can recommend a proper officer. Then he goes on to give a list of the squadron officers :
' A ' Squadron.
Major, Major B. B. Morrill, Stanstead. Captain, Captain Lincoln, Stanstead.
Captain, Captain Curtis, Stanstead. Lieutenant, Lieut. G. W. Pomeray, Stanstead. Lieutenant, Lieut. Cowans, Stanstead. Lieutenant, Mr. H. B. Wheeler, Stanstead.
'B' Squadron.
Major, Major Guy Carr, Compton.
Captain, to be filled.
Captain, to be filled.
1st Lieutenant, Mr. J. M. Miltimore, Compton.
' C' Squadron.
Major, Capt. N. R. Moffat, West Ely.
Captain, Dr. Vaillancourt, Waterloo.
Captain, five lieutenants, Capt. Moffat has not yet submitted names for these.
'D' Squadron.
Major, Lt. E. J. Holland, V.C., Montreal. Captain, Mr. W. H. Russell, Stanhridge East. Captain, Mr. G. B. Bullard, Stanhridge East. 1st Lieutenant, Mr. C. W. McLean, Montreal. 1st Lieutenant, Mr. H. G. Sewell, Montreal. 1st Lieutenant, Mr. W. P. Miltimore, Sweets-
Major, Dr. F. H. Pickel, Sweetsburg.
Captain, Lt. E. H. Baker, Sweetsburg. Captain, Mr. Thos. R. Pickel Sweetsburg. 1st Lieut., Lt. R. Steacie, Montreal.
1st Lieut., Mr. H. W. Reynolds, Montreal. 1st Lieut., Mr. Thos. F. Cotton, Sweetsburg.
Now, what happened next ? Let us trace the steps one by one in order that we may appreciate what follows. First, we had the organization of this regiment ordered in February. We had it stopped early in March. We, had a direction issued to stop the organization on April 11th. We had that direction renewed on April 29th. We had that direction communicated to the General Officer Commanding on (May 3rd, and we' had Colonel Whitley and Colonel Smart summoned to Ottawa to meet the Minister of Agriculture on 'May 6th. Then we had the correspondence, in which Colonel Smart is forced humbly to ask for the recommendations and the permission of the Minister of Agriculture ; and then, on May 12th, after all these negotiations had gone on, the Minister of iMilitia was graciously pleased with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture to order that the organization might proceed. The Minister of Agriculture had been Accomplishing his work of interference, matters were being arranged satisfactory, as one of the letters to which I shall refer expressed it, and so the organization of this regiment having

been stopped for two months, it was now allowed to proceed, the 'Minister of Agriculture -having had arrangements made 'to! satisfy him, or at least having so fixed matters that no officers could be recommended by Colonel Smart to the General Officer Commanding unless the Minister of Agriculture was pleased to concur in the recommendation. On May 13th there is a letter, which is also fouud in this memorandum, from the Minister of Agriculture to Colonel Smart, That is a very interesting, letter. It is in reply to the one which I have just read, and is as follows :
Ottawa, May 13, 1904.
Dear Colonel Smart,-I beg to acknowledge yours of the 9th instant and the list of officers therein contained.
The gallant gentleman looked over this list of officers, and we will see what his opinion is in l'egard to them :
I am very glad to look over this, and in a general way am quite satisfied with what you have done. There are, however, one or two suggestions which I beg to make.
In the first place, I note that although in ' D ' Squadron you have changed Mr. Russell and Lieutenant Holland, making the latter major and the former captain, you have still kept Dr. Pickel as major of ' E ' Squadron. I thought it was thoroughly understood with us that this should not be, and that for the same reason that Holland was made major of ' D ' Squadron, some officer of experience should be made major of ' B ' Squadron.
I note also-what was not developed in onr conversation-that in addition to Dr. Pickel and Lieutenant Baker, Mr. Thomas Pickel seems to have been offered a junior captaincy, and that two lieutenants of that squadron are suggested from Montreal, both apparently in the list to be senior to Mr. Cotton.
I am going out to the county to-morrow and expect to see a number of the men who are interested in the regiment at Cowansville to-morrow or Sunday


Some hon. MEMBERS: . 'Sunday !
'Mr. R. L. BORDEN. To-morrow or Sunday,' yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: . 'Sunday ; oh, oh.
Ml\ R. L. BORDEN (reading)-
-and will be able in the beginning of the week to write you more fully.
I think the interview was really held on Saturday night. If I remember correctly, the Minister of Agriculture made some reference to It when it was mentioned in the House, and denied that any such interview had been held at that time. If I remember his remarks, he denied that there was any such interview.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, no.


Mr.  R. I.. BORDEN@: My hon. friend did not deny that ?
v Mr. FISHER. The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) read a newspaper report Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
I
of such an interview, which I stated was : tissue of misrepresentations.


John Graham Haggart: He said further than that, that no such interview occurred.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I did not. Refer to the ' Hansard ' and you will see.


John Graham Haggart: If you will look up the debates you will find it.


Robert Laird Borden: I gathered from the remarks of the hon. minister at the time that no such interview had taken place.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I made no such statement.


Mr.   R.@: 'L. BORDEN. There was an interview with the hon. gentleman's party friends ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There was an interview with some gentlemen interested in thfis-regiment.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall proceed with the letter. The hon. minister deals with the matter very fully in this case, and some of his remarks are very suggestive. He goes on :
I note also that a certain Captain Converse is suggested as adjutant.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: While the matter is up, I may say that I ihave looked up the ' Hansard,' revised, page 4646. I simply said :
I have only to say, Mr. Speaker, that that statement is a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end.
That is all the denial I made.


John Graham Haggart: What is the page ?


Frederick William Borden: Page 4646.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN (reading)-
I note also that a certain Captain Converse is suggested as adjutant. I think it would be very much better to name Mr, Adams as adjutant of this regiment, transferring him from the Montreal regiment. I have not consulted him, nor do I know whether he wishes it or would consent to it, hut I think it would he extremely 'desirable that Colonel Whitley or you should offer Mr. Adams the adjutancy of this regiment. He is from the county, is known out there to take an interest in military matters and will be able to contribute very much to the raising of the regiment and to its organization.
I accept fully that his deafness precludes him from being one of the staff ; but if it does not preclude him from being adjutant of the regiment in Montreal, it cannot preclude him from being adjutant of this regiment.
The hon. gentleman is absolutely interested in the efficiency of this regiment. In a memorandum which was brought down yesterday Captain Converse is described in the handwriting of Colonel Whitley, if I am not mistaken, as the most efficient cavalry officer in the county, and when Colonel Smart desired to appoint Captain Converse to the adjutancy of that regiment, having the best qualifications, Captain Converse

being, I suppose a Conservative, the lion. Minister of Agriculture desired to put him to one side and appoint to that position a gentleman whom the colonel absolutely refused to accept because his deafness precluded him from filling that position. Now, the next paragraph is also significant and it indicates to us very clearly the status which the the hon. Minister of Agriculture regarded himself as possessing :
I accept freely

Mark you

-I accept freely Major Stewart's appointment as second in command, and Mr. Gibson as third in command,

How very fortunate for these gentlemen it was that the hon. Minister of Agriculture had no objection to them.
-also Surgeon Major Macdonaild as senior medical officer, he being no doubt the senior medical militiaman in the district. I have been told since I saw you that he does not care to enter a cavalry regiment. If this is so, I will be glad to-search for another medical officer, but I trust that Surgeon-Major Macdonald will accept, if only for a short time.
Surgeon-Lieutenant Martin also is quite acceptable.
Matters are going smoothly for Colonel Smart. The hon. Minister of Agriculture was graciously pleased to be satisfied with several of these nominations.
In regard to the appointment of Lieutenant Goddard as paymaster and Lieutenant Martin as quartermaster, I would say that Lieutenant Goddard acted as quartermaster at the last camp for the 7!>th, and that he has asked Mr. Parmelee and myself to be appointed quartermaster In this new regiment.
He does not make his application to the colonel commanding ; he simply goes to the Minister of Agriculture and desires the appointment.
Under these circumstances I must ask you

I must ask you

-to change Lieutenants Goddard and Martin, and make Lieutenant Goddard quartermaster and Lieutenant Martin paymaster.
He has, to use a Scotch expression, a very good conceit of himself when he informs the lieutenant-colonel commanding this regiment that although that gentleman has named certain officers to certain positions he, the Minister of Agriculture, must ask Lieutenant-Colonel Smart to change Lieutenants Goddard and Martin and make Lieutenant Godard quartermaster and Lieutenant Martin paymaster. Then he continues as follows :
I have just had a letter from Mr. Clifton Miltimore, w'hose name did not come up in our discussion the other day.
And let it be remembered that this is the third Miltimore that appears upon the scene.
He tells me he has had camp experience as a member of the 6th Hussars, and that he would like to have a captaincy in one of the squadrons, either ' B ' or ' E.'
There is no possible reason why half a dozen Miltimores should not be in that regiment, even if every one of them was the strongest Liberal in Canada, provided they were the best men that could he found for those positions, and on the other hand there is not the slightest reason why a dozen men of the name of Pickel should not be in the regiment If they were the best men for the positions, although they might happen to he Conservatives. The person who, under the law, has to determine that is not the lion. Minister of Agriculture, but Colonel Smart. Smart.
I think

Officer Commanding, under conditions such as these has not got the recommendations of his subordinate officer. These recommendations, so far as they are altered at the instance of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, are the recom-menda'tions of the Hon. Sydney Fisher and not the recommendations of Colonel Smart, the officer commanding. Lord Dun-donald in receiving these recommendations would be deceived or misled. He would suppose that in these proposals he had received the deliberate opinion and advice of a competent and. experienced commanding officer making his recommendations in the course of his military duty ; but he had only the partisan political opinion of the hon. Minister of Agriculture expressed to him through the medium of the officer commanding the regiment.
Now, let us return once more to the 14th May. On that date a general list of appointments to the militia, cavalry, artillery and infantry was prepared, including the proposed appointments to the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons. This list included the name of Dr. Piclcel. The list was submitted to the General Officer Commanding and approved and signed by him on the 18th May. The list was then delivered on the 18th May to the Department of Militia, and was on that day laid before the hon. Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) by his deputy, Colonel Pinault. On the 18th May the hon. Minister of Militia approved the list submitted with the exception of the part relating to the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons. The whole of the appointments to the 13th the hon. minister ' desired to hold over for further consideration.' And as the hon. minister intended to leave Ottawa on the 19th for about a week, he did not wish to delay the appointments to other regiments. He, therefore, cancelled the part as to the 13th instead of returning the whole list to Lord Dundonald for that purpose. He then appended to this list his recommendation to His Excellency and signed it, and that recommendation was subsequently approved in Council on the 31st of May.
On the 19th of May, the deputy minister advised Lord Dundonald of the action of the minister on the 18th, as above stated. That was by letter, which is to be found at page 17 of the memorandum, and which letter is as follows :
Ottawa, May 19th, 1904.
Dear Lord Dundonald,-Late last evening I placed before the minister the ' Gazette ' dated 18th instant, for approval and submission to Council. With the exception of the part relating to the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons which the minister desired held over for further consideration, it was approved and as the minister intended to leave the city this morning for a week or so, rather than delay the submission of the remainder of the * Gazette,' he cancelled and initialled the ap-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
pointments to the 13th instead of returning the draft to you for that purpose.
Very faithfully yours,


L. F. PINAULT.
[Stage Direction]
It will be observed that in this letter there is no suggestion at all that the appointments to the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons are to be dealt with before the minister returns. I challenge any hon. gentleman in this House to read the terms of that letter, and to conclude that the Minister of Militia had it then in his mind that the appointments to the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons were to be dealt with in his absence. It is true that the Minister of Militia in his statement to the House uses the following language, to be found at page 10 of the memorandum:
Finding that I would be obliged to be absent from Ottawa from the 18th to the 26th of May, I instructed my deputy to take the general order containing the proposed list of appointments as soon as completed to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, to be by him submitted to Council, in view of the urgency of the case. I telegraphed to Lieutenant Col. Whitley to meet me at Montreal, on my way from Ottawa to Nova Scotia, which he did. He then repeated his previous request as to the necessity for putting the appointments through immediately.
There is some suggestion in that statement of the minister, that there was an intention on his part to have this matter dealt with during his absence, but in the letter written at the time by his deputy under instructions from himself, there is not the slightest suggestion of that character.
What happened then ? It appears that Colonel Smart came to Ottawa on the 19th of May. There is a very peculiar letter on page 34 of the memorandum to which I direct attention. It was from Colonel Smart to the Minister of Agriculture and is as follows :
The Russell, Ottawa, 1 p.m.,
May 19th, 1904.
Dear Mr. Fisher,-As arranged with you this morning, a new list of recommendations has been made out and is now in the hands of the Deputy Minister of Militia, and I trust you will see that it goes through Council to-day.
Let it be especially observed that so far as this list is concerned, no authority whatever appears to be given to the Minister of Agriculture by the letter from Colonel Pinault to him. The letter continues :
The recommendation re Dr. Pickel is included, to be dealt with by you.
The papers re quartermaster, paymaster and Mr. C. Miltimore will go to Council later, the recommendations being in the hands of District Commanding Officer No. 6, in the case of the two former, and the latter I handed personally to the adjutant general.
I return herein memo you gave me this a.m. as you may require it.

Will meet you at 3 p.m. at the House as agreed.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) CHAS. A. SMART,
Lieut.-Col.
Now, we have no very definite or precise information as to what took place at the interview between Colonel Smart and the Minister of Agriculture. It is perfectly evident, however, that Colonel Smart finding that he could not get his regiment organized unless he conformed absolutely to the demands of the Minister of Agriculture, came to Ottawa in despair after consultation with the brigadier, for the purpose of acceding in every respect to the demands of the Minister of Agriculture, and in that way to get his officers gazetted. Let us observe what the letter implies :
A new list of recommendations has been made out.
That means that Colonel Smart had made out a new list of recommendations to the General Officer Commanding ; the former list of recommendations having been cancelled by the Minister of Militia in order that the appointments to the other regiments might not be delayed :
The recommendation re Dr. Pickel is included to be dealt with by you.
That is to say, Colonel Smart insists that he will not withdraw the name of Dr. Pickel ; that the recommendation re Dr. Pickel is to go to the General Officer Commanding ; that name is to be included in his recommendation. And so the recommendation of Dr. Pickel is to be dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture in the absence of the Minister of Militia. That is the whole position so far as disclosed by that letter. What otherwise is the meaning of the expression:
The recommendation re Dr. Pickel is included to be dealt with by you.
And, on the original memorandum which has been brought down, there are certain words in pencil which confirm that conclusion. This, which I hold in my han^l is the list of officers handed by Colonel Smart to the Minister of Agriculture, and which was before them when they had this interview on the 19th. We find :
Major, Dr. P. H. Pickel.
The words Dr. F. H. Pickel are erased in pencil, and over it are the words in pencil :
ing in the list of recommendations to the Minister of Militia. There cannot be any doubt about that, although there has been an apparent attempt to cover up this transaction, as I will show further on. But let me in this connection refer to certain remarks of the Minister of Agriculture in his address to this House on a former occasion. I will read this to him, and I will ask him whether or not he still adheres to that language. I am reading from the revised ' Hansard ' page 4610 :
Lord Dundonald goes on to say a number of things to which I shall not allude with regard to Mayor Pickel, &c., as I have already dealt with them. He, however, then goes op to show clearly by a letter to Colonel Pinault, that he was perfectly well aware of the fact that I had been requested by my colleague to sign this particular recommendation. He knew perfectly well that that list of officers was to be gazetted with the understanding that that name should be stricken out.
Does the Minister of Agriculture say that Lord Dundonald was apprised of that fact in any way ?
Sydney Arthur Fisher: When he made his speech in Montreal he knew it.


Robert Laird Borden: What is that ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When he made his speech in Montreal he knew it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not talking about when he made his speech in Mont-j treal.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was what I was talking about.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not what the Minister of Agriculture was talking about when he made this statement:
He knew perfectly well that that list of officers was to be gazetted with the understanding that that name should be stricken out.
That does not apply to anything that Lord Dundonald said in Montreal. It is a statement by the Minister of Agriculture to this House, that when Lord Dundonald made this recommendation he knew that the name of Dr. Pickel was to be stricken out of it by the Minister of Agriculture, or by the Minister of Militia. If it means anything, it means that, and I venture to say that the Minister of Agriculture will not be able to substantiate in this House or anywhere else this statement made by him on the floor of parliament.
Major, Guy Carr.
And opposite the name ' Pickel,' these words in pencil :
Minister to fix this.
He fixed it by erasing the name of Dr. Pickel, after that name had been recommended by Colonel Smart and had been included, by the General Officer Command-171


Sydney Arthur Fisher: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman for a moment ?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The context shows clearly that I was speaking of Lord Dundonald's speech in Montreal. I say:
Lord Dundonald goes on to say a number of things to which I shall not allude, with regard



to Mayor Picket, &c. He, however, goes on to show clearly by a letter of Colonel Pinault that he was perfectly well aware of the fact that I had been requested by my colleague to sign this particular recommendation.
I was speaking of Lord. Dundonald's speech and of nothing else, as the context shows clearly.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend cannot distort that language into anything other than I have stated. He was talking about one thing, and one thing only : he was talking about Lord Dundonald's knowledge of what had been arranged at the time that gazette was put in. Even a child could understand that, and the Minister of Agriculture cannot twist the language into any other meaning. Talking about his speech in Montreal !-He was not talking about his speech in Montreal. He was stating, as distinctly as could be, that the General Officer Commanding had certain knowledge when that gazette went in. ' He knew,' says the Minister of Agriculture, ' perfectly well that that list of officers was to be gazetted, with the understanding that that name should be stricken out.' Does not that relate to Lord Dundonald's knowledge at a time anterior to that gazette going in ? Otherwise, why does he use the expression,
' he knew that that list of officers was to be gazetted ? '
It is beyond doubt

and we have it here distinctly in the admission of the Minister of Agriculture-that it was arranged by the Minister of Agriculture at that interview that that name was to be stricken out, and the General Officer Commanding, through the machinations of the Minister of Agriculture, was placed in this position. The subordinate officer, Colonel Smart, acting under his direction in the organization of this regiment, was, by direction of the Minister of Agriculture, to send in a recommendation to the General Officer Commanding, with an understanding between that subordinate officer and the Minister of Agriculture that one name, that of Dr. Pickel, was to be stricken out. The list went to the Department of Militia, the Minister of Militia left Ottawa for a time, and the Minister of Agriculture appears upon the scene. Lord Dundonald, who was perfectly capable of scratching this name out himself, if there was any understanding on his part that it was to be scratched out, sent in the list including this name; and then the Minister of Agriculture, on the same 19th day of May, 1904, wrote on the memorandum with reference to the name of Dr. Pickel :
Not approved. Sydney Fisher, for F. W. Borden.
The Minister of Agriculture on the same 19th of May sent the following memorandum to His Excellency the Governor General In Council :


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Ottawa, May 19, 1904.
To His Excellency the Governor General in Council :
The undersigned has the honour to recommend for Your Excellency's approval, the attached draft general order, containing appointments and promotions, 13th Scottish Light Dragoons, the same having been recommended by the General Officer Commanding.
Respectfully submitted.


SYDNEY FISHER,
[Stage Direction]
for F. W. BORDEN, Minister of Militia and Defence.
Now, as I understand the facts, Dr. Pickel's name had been stricken out by the Minister of Agriculture before that letter was written and before that list was sent in. If I am in error in that, the Minister of Agriculture will correct me.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: The recommendation was signed and the name struck out at the same time.


Robert Laird Borden: That is, the recommendation went forward in this letter of the 19th of May with Dr. Pickel's name struck out ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: might prevail in Canada. He can afford, I think, to treat with disdain, the jibes and sneers which now emanate from those who, during the past two years, have been willing to accord to him that meed of praise which his distinguished services demand, but who now make him the mark for their petty attacks. He goes with the regret and the respect of the militia of Canada, the men who best know him, and the respect of those men means something to Lord Dun-donald, because he knew them in South Africa, he appreciates the record which they made there of gallantry and devotion in the cause of the empire. He can appreciate that tribute of respect because the militia of Canada have at all times, whenever they have been put to the test, been found worthy of the trust which the country reposes in them. From the time when, under a gallant Canadian from the province of Quebec, 300 Canadian militiamen repulsed the American invasion at Chateauguay, down to the war in South Africa, those men have never been found wanting, and I say it is a tribute to his merits which Lord Dundonald, I believe, will not soon forget, that when he leaves Canada-whatever opinion may be entertained by men who desire to impose upon him party considerations-he will leave it at least with the respect of the militia of Canada and with the respect of all men who sincerely desire the welfare of the militia of this country. I beg to move thereof :
That all the words after the word ' that ' in the proposed motion be left out and the following substituted therefor :-
The selection and appointment of officers in the militia should be made without regard to party political considerations which if permitted to exercise an influence will prove disastrous to the efficiency of the force.
That while the Minister of Militia is charged with and responsible for the administration of militia affairs the General Officer Commanding is by law charged under the orders of His Majesty with the military command and discipline of the militia and with the duty of recommending to the Minister of Militia fit and proper persons for appointment to commissions therein.
That the conduct of the Honourable Sydney Fisher, Minister of Agriculture, in interfering with the commanding officer of the Thirteenth Scottish Light Dragoons while that officer was engaged in the duty of selecting his subordinate officers for the approval of and for recommendation by the General Officer Commanding ; and the action of that minister in interposing party political Influence between the General Officer Commanding and his officers and in requiring recommendations and appointments to he made or disallowed from party considerations, deserves and should receive the censure of this House.
The House regrets that this unwarrantable interference has been approved by the government, and that it not only has unduly delayed the organization of the regiment, but h i,e culminated in depriving the militia of Canada of an experienced and distinguished com-'ruling officer.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Speaker, in view of the resolution which has been moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) in view, more especially, of the tone of many of the remarks he has addressed to the House, I believe it to be not only my duty but my right to take it upon myself to make a reply. I am glad of the opportunity of exercising that right, because I believe in what I have done in regard to this matter I have not only been exercising the right of a citizen of Canada, the right of a member of parliament, the right of a Minister of the Crown, but that I have been performing a duty which has been laid upon me as a public man on behalf of the militia of Canada. Valuing that right, impressed by that duty, I come to the consideration of the question with a clear conscience ; and I only ask that this House and the country shall judge me upon the merits of the case and upon the defence which I make to the accusation.
A few minutes ago the leader of the opposition read extracts from certain letters, attributing to those extracts certain meanings which he said were the only meanings he could read into the words. I venture to say that another meaning is easily to be found in them, a meaning more in consonance with the dignity of this _ House, and more in consonance with the dignity of the leader of a gfeat party than the disingenuous quibbling indulged in by the leader of the opposition which was more worthy of a pettifogging lawyer than of the leader of a great party.	-
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Peter Macdonald: I hope the House will maintain order.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Sir, I will go into some of these details before I sit down, I will deal with some of the remarks which were made by the hon. leader of the opposition with regard to these letters ; and I will show what, I think, will appeal to any person who studies the correspondence with unprejudiced mind, that the interpretation put upon the letters by the leader of the opposition is not the fair or true one.
I wish, however, first of all, to say a word or two in regard to the resolution which the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) has placed before the House. To the first clause of that resolution. I do not think that anybody, least of all myself, can take exception. It is an expression of words of the spirit in which I have dealt with the whole matter of this regiment in the eastern townships-' That the selection and appointment of officers in the militia should be made without regard to political consideration, which, if permitted to exercise an influence will prove disastrous to the efficiency of the force.' Sir, I take straight, square issue

with the leader of the opposition and his political friends on this question. I maintain that, in the action I have taken and in the spirit with which I have acted I have opposed the interference of political considerations in militia appointments. I maintain, Sir, that the protest which I made was a protest against the political complexion of a certain squadron of this regiment, and that, had I not made that protest, I should have-been worthy of such censure as the hon. gentleman expresses in this resolution. But, having made that protest, I claim that I deserve the thanks of gentlemen who profess to be influenced by these sentiments in regard to the militia ; instead of censuring me, they ought to have thanked me and supported me in my action.
The hon. gentleman has referred to the correspondence which has been laid on the table. I wish, very briefly to refer to the first item ih that correspondence which is a copy of of the report of the sub-committee of council, having had under consideration certain recent public utterances of the right honourable the Earl of Dundonald, the conclusion of which was to dispense with the services of that, officer as General Officer Commanding the militia of Canada. I would like to say, Sir, as a matter personal to myself-and I think that the House and the country will justify me in taking up a. few moments of time in dealing with the personal question-I was not a member of that sub-committee of council and its work was done and its recommendation made during my absence from Ottawa. As a member of the council I had nothing whatever to do with the form of that report, or with the drawing! up of it, or the wording of it. I want to say this simply because I feel very much gratified indeed at the terms of that report and the way in which my personal conduct was endorsed and sustained, by my colleagues in the government. I will read, if I may, just one clause of that report which, I think, embodies the whole question as between the hon. member (Mr. R. L. Borden) who has introduced this resolution and the government which that resolution condemns :
In the case of members of the cabinet, while all have an equal degree of responsibility in a constitutional sense, yet in the practical working out of responsible government in a country of such vast extent as Canada, it is found necessary to attach a special responsibility to each minister for the public affairs of the province or district with which he has close political connection and with which his colleagues may not be so well acquainted.
Mr. Fisher, while sharing with his colleagues that general responsibility already referred to, represents in a particular manner the eastern townships of the province of Quebec. If, when it was proposed to form a new regiment in that district, he interested himself in the work and sought to make the organization effective, he was not merely exercising a right : he was discharging a duty both to the people of the district and to his colleagues in the cabinet, who
would expect him to inform himself of all the facts and advise them before approval by the cabinet of the proposed arrangement.
Mow Sir, I maintain that while I had nothing to do with the wording of that clause, it contains not only the proper constitutional interpretation of the duties of a Minister of the Crown in the government of Canada, but also a' plain common sense statement of the necessities of government in this country, and that in that statement lies the complete and absolute justification of the work which I have done in regard to the constitution, equipment and enlistment of this regiment. Sir, I will make a very short recapitulation of what had occurred. When this matter was first brought to my attention I noted the appointment of a Montreal gentleman to be colonel of that regiment. I was afraid that people outside the district from which the regiment was to be recruited might not know the condition and the circumstances of the district, might not know the people in the district, might not be able to deal with the matters in the district as well as those who were in the district born and bred and acquainted with the people. I believed that in the militia organization of this country local knowledge in the raising of a regiment is especially necessary. In an old established militia organization it would not matter much if men from outside were introduced into that organization but when it comes to recruiting a new regiment, the establishment of an entirely new organization in a community, I ventured to think and think still that it was better that men with local knowledge should have the management of that organization. I leave myself in the judgment of the House and of the country on that point. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) wanted to know why it was that the Minister of Militia suspended the work of the organization of the regiment. I would say to him that I made representations to my colleague that it was inadvisable that all the leading officers in that regiment should be appointed from without the district. I pointed out the dangers to which I have just alluded and I believe that it was on that ground that my colleague gave the order suspending the organization of the regiment. I will say further that it was not until some time after that I received letters from the eastern townships pointing out a certain political complexion in the squadron that was afterwards so much discussed. I again spoke to my colleague and again pointed out that there was not only danger of people from outside doing things not in accordance with local conditions and needs, but also danger of political strife being raised in regard to the organization of this regiment.


Samuel Hughes: Have these letters to which the minister has referred been brought down ?

Mr. 1ISHER. All the papers have been brought down that are not of a confidential nature, and no more papers that I have anything to do with can be brought down because they are of a confidential nature. .Just at this point I may interrupt my argument to speak of this matter of confidential letters. I leave myself in the judgment of the House and of the country, but is it not perfectly proper and right that ihen who are interested in certain public matters should be allowed' to write to their representative, and express views to that representative, in regard to public affairs which are of a confidential nature and which it would be highly improper to publish to the community at large ? Sir, if it is contended that this can not be done, I venture to think that members of the government and members of the parliament, will be seriously hampered in the exercise of their public duties. If we are are not to receive communications which the writers can consider confidential, we cannot receive the best information in regard to public affairs. Sir, it would interfere with the efficiency of every member in this House if all correspondence that comes from his constituents to him as their representative, were to be open to the public and be laid before the public on the inconsiderate demand of anybody and everybody in this House. I venture to lay that "down as a principle on which I am prepared to stand or fall.
When the hon. gentleman interrupted me I was saying that when these representations were made to me I then only and only then, and for the first time then, began to look upon this matter as in any sense political. I received a clipping from a newspaper out there which made some remarks as to the political complexion of the new organization, and I received letters which indicated that a certain squadron of that organization had a political complexion. I did speak to my colleague the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) on that point 'and it was in consequence of that that he brought me into contact with the two military officers, Colonel Whitley and Colonel Smart. When I met these officers and found out exactly what they were recommending I was, as I stated on a former occasion, astounded to find the list of officers that was proposed for certain squadrons. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has read some of my remarks to-day, and taking out a sentence here and there he has endeavoured to attribute a false representation, a mistaken representation of the whole of those remarks. I shall go back, if I may, and allude to some of those remarks. I am quoting from the unrevised ' Hansard,' page 4762. I said : I
I took no exception to this. But I found a recommendation in regard to the neighbourhood of Sweetsburg, which, I confess, surprised me, and to which I did take exception. I must premise my explanation in regard to this matter Mr. FISHER.
by saying that Senator Baker, of Sweetsburg, is the acknowledged and active leader of the Conservatives of that district. I found this list of proposed names for the staff for the neighbourhood of Sweetsburg. First, Mr. John M. Gibson, a nephew of Senator Baker, and talked of as a possible Conservative candidate in the constituency of Missisquoi, to be third in command of that regiment. Dr. Pickel, one of the strongest Conservative workers of the neighbourhood and a family connection of Senator Baker, to be major in command of the squadron which, though gazetted for Adamsville, was to be changed to Sweetsburg to suit his convenience. Mr. G. H. Baker, son of Senator Baker, to be senior captain of the said squadron. Mr. Thomas R. Pickel, son-in-law of SenatoT Baker, to be the junior captain of the said squadron. Then there were the names of two gentlemen, Messrs. Steacie and Reynolds, of Montreal, to be lieutenants. And down at the bottom of the list Mr. Thomas F. Cotton, a Liberal, son-in-law of the above-mentioned John M. Gibson, and grand nephew of Senator Baker.
The ' Hansard ' says ' son-in-law,' He is a nephew, not a son-in-law of Mr. Gibson and a grand nephew of Senator Baker. The leader of the opposition undertook to say that I was dealing with that from a purely political standpoint. He read that passage and said that there was nothing about qualification there, and he tried to make this House believe that I was dealing with the mat.ter purely from a political standpoint, without any regard,to the question of qualification. But if "the hon. gentleman had read the very next sentence he would have seen that I did deal with it. With a disingenuousness which I did not expect from a man in his position in this country, the leader of the opposition suppressed the following sentence, and it Is this :
I tola these gentlemen that, putting aside any question of military qualifications, which I afterwards went into

Mr. 11. L. BORDEN. I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I read that very thing which be says I did not read.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I accept the hon. gentleman's correction, but if he did read it he read it after turning around to his followers and impressing upon them, as he wants to impress upon the people of this country, that I was dealing with this matter purely from a political standpoint, and that military qualifications had nothing whatever to do with my recommendation. He says ha read it, and I accept his statement, but if he did read it he did not read it in connection with that ; he read it afterwards at a time when it did not appear to have any connection at all with that.


Robert Laird Borden: I read it immediately after.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I went on further to say this, and I am going to repeat it here and now, and I say that it is not only a justification of what I did in this matter, but it makes imperative the course which, had I

i-ot pursued it, I would have been open to the severest condemnation and censure in regard to this regiment.
-such a list of officers for that squadron in that neighbourhood would he held to he an instance of political preferment, and that it would be impossible to remove from the minds of the people of the district of Bedford the impression that the colonel who made such recommendations and was responsible for the success of this regiment had deliberately undertaken to turn that squadron, if not the whole regiment, into a political Tory organization.
The position which I took then, and which I take to-day, is this : Colonel Smart was a stranger going into the district of Bedford to organize this regiment. He appears to have got into the hands of certain people out there. He told me himself that he had no political intentions. I fully accept that statement. I believe Colonel Smart, in making the statement that he had no polfti cal intentions, made a statement which was absolutely accurate and truthful. But I pointed out to him, as I point out to this House and the country, that if he had the strongest political intentions of making that squadron a political Tory organization he could not have chosen a set of names that would have more perfectly fitted his purpose. Sir, the very danger that I had foreseen when I protested to my colleague the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence that all the senior officers of this regiment should not be taken from Montreal came rapidly about. Colonel Smart, through an error or an inadvertency, he tells me, and I accept his statement, had deliberately done the thing which would have stamped him as a political agent, and which would have stamped the regiment as a political'organization. I felt that it was my duty, as well as my right, to protest against such an action, such an occurrence and such a result.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are very solicitous against political interference. They do not condemn me at all, Sir, because 1 asked that Mr. Russell, a well-known Lib eral, should be removed from the place of major of another squadron and that he should be replaced by a well-known Conservative, who had had military experience when Mr. Russell had none. They do not condemn me for that-oh, no ; because there I was asking that a Liberal should be put down and a Conservative raised above him. They do not object at all to my recommendation that Captain Guy Carr, a well-known Compton Conservative, should take the place of Doctor Pickel, because 1 knew that Captain Carr was an experienced military officer and that Doctor Pickel had never had any connection with the militia at all. They do not condemn me at all or take exception to that * political recommendation '

oh, no ; because it was the recommendation of a Conservative, and
therefore it is all right. Some years ago I read a witty saying from an eminent French writer who was discussing the question of capital punishment. An appeal had been made to him and others to do away with the death penalty. In discussing the question, he put the whole argument pithily and well in this way :
Que messieurs les assassins commeneent.
For the benefit of the hon. leader of the opposition and others, I may say that it means :
Let the murderers commence in doing away with death.
I think I might apply that now to the question of political interference, and say : Let the Conservatives commence, and perhaps it would be well for the militia of the country. In that connection, I have one or two other things to say which I will say as briefly as possible about the list, &c. The hon. gentleman who has spoken alluded to Colonel Smart's letter to me and mine in recommending this list of officers, and he said that he doubted the truth of that recommendation. >and said that it was not the recommendation of the General Officer's whole list. What I was recommending was the list recommended by the General Officer in Command. I recommended it in the usual form of the Department of Militia, and signed it for my colleague th^ hon. Minister of Militia and Defence. If the name of one officer was struck out, it did not militate in any way whatever against the recommendation of the rest of them by Bond Dundonald. Lord Dundonald made the recommendations, I signed them and sent forward his recommendations. I struck one name out, and I will deal with that a little later on ; but in this regard the hon. gentleman's criticism was rather disingenuous. The hon. gentleman talks about two Pickels and three Miltimores, and he refers also to Mr. Russell. The hon. gentleman says that I recommended Mr. Russell, who had no military experience. As I have just pointed out, I recommended his being reduced to a lower rank. I did do that because he had no military experience, and I recommended the appointment of an experienced military officer to take precedence of him in the squadron. The Conservatives say that was all right. I will have something to say a little later on perhaps in regard to the general question of the recommendations of the General Officer Commanding. I said a few moments ago that the hon. gentleman said Colonel Smart's action was non-political. I acquit Colonel Smart, but, as I said a few moments ago, I cannot refrain from saying again that although Colonel -Smart's intentions were not political, his actions were intensely! political-intensely political in the sensj that they would have that effect upon the community. If there is one thing more inv

portant than another, it is that any regiment organized in the eastern townships should be efficient, that the officers chosen should be all men eminently qualified for the positions to which they are appointed, and that no political considerations should enter into the organization of the regiment. When I found, not Colonel Smart's, not Colonel Whitley's, not Lord Dundonald's, but no doubt the political intrigues of local politicians there, who had got the ear of Colonel Smart, making the regiment a political organization, I did protest, and to that extent only have I interfered on political grounds.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to tell us who are these political gentlemen who have obtained the ear of Colonel Smart ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Well, apparently they were the Baker family.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will my hon. friend tell us if he has any evidence of that ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have no evidence except the list submitted and I think that evidence is enough. The hon. leader of the opposition has dwelt at some length upon the question of Mr. Adams and Captain Converse, and he has read my letter to Colonel Smart. That letter put the whole case in a nut-shell. Mr. Adams is a young man of eastern township birth who has been living for a number of years in Montreal, who has taken an active part in the militia organization there, and who has been an officer of the 6th Hussars for a number of years. This fall, at the military tournament in Montreal, Captain Adams took the first prize in equitation ; a rather necessary qualification in a cavalry officer. Mr. Adams was a lieutenant in the 6th Hussars and-I do not remember the exact date but It was some time in the fall or early last winter-Colonel Whitley, his brigadier recommended Mr. Adams as adjutant of ,the 6th Hussars. Now, all I had the temerity to do was to suggest, that if Mr. Adams was competent physically and in a military sense to be the adjutant of the 6th Hussars on the recommendation of the ^brigadier, he was also competent to be 'adjutant of the 13th Dragoons. I therefore, wrote to Colonel Smart to suggest that as Mr. Adams was an eastern township man, where he knew the people, where he had been born and brought up, where he was a popular young man, who could lead (a great many recruits into the ranks ; he should be given a commission in this regiment, rather than to take absolute strangers to the district; men who knew nothing of the people, men who knew nothing about local conditions or the geography of the jCountry. I did have the temerity to suggest that. I suggested it not as a military expert, not as a man familiar with rnili-Mr. FISHER.
tary matters, not as a man who undertook to decide upon Mr. Adam's military qualifications, but as a man of some little common sense. As a man who does know the district of Bedford, and who does know the local conditions, I believe that such a man as Mr. Adams would not only be an ornament to the corps, but would be of great use to the organization of the corps in that district. The leader of the opposition read the statement by Colonel Smart in his letter to Lord Dundonald-not any statement Lord Dundonald made to me in regard to Mr. Adams-that Mr. Adams was physically unfit for the position, and yet his own brigadier within four months before that, had recommended Mr. Adams !to be adjutant, the very same position in the 6th Hussars. In suggesting the name of Mr. Adams under the circumstances, was I interfering politically? No. I was interfering simply in a common sense way in the organization of the new regiment. I grant fully', and no man is more prepared to admit it than I am that on purely military qualifications the military experts at the command of the government ought to rule. But when it comes to matters connected with the affairs of this country ; when it comes to matters involving local knowledge of local conditions, and knowledge of the people of Canada, I venture to think that the public men of Canada know more than any expert military or otherwise. The leader of the opposition has said that Captain Converse is a Conservative. I do not know whether he is or ;whether he is not. I have only this to say : that my colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries wrote to me asking me to recommgnd Captain Converse for the position as adjutant of that regiment. It does not look as if he were a Conservative, unless the Minister of Marine and: Fisheries' is so favourable to the Conservatives that he should recommend one. Anyway, I do not know whether Mr. Converse is a Conservative or not.


Frederick William Borden: It shows that there was no politics in it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As my colleague the Minister of Militia says, it shows that there are no politics in our recommendations.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. FISHER, Mr. Speaker, before you left the chair at six o'clock, I had touched upon some remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition in regard to his interpretation of certain things which appeared in the letters which passed between myself and Colonel Smart. There was one matter, however, which the hon. gentleman alluded to

which I did not take up. and upon which I would now like to say a word or two. The hon. gentleman quoted from remarks of mine which were made in this House on a former occasion, from which he wished to draw the conclusion that I had said that the General Officer Commanding knew certain things at a time when he did not know those things. I want to say to the hon. gentleman, and I request him to accept the statement, that his interpretation of what I said then, whatever the language may bear, was not the one I had in my mind. I venture to think my words as reported in ' Hansard ' do not hear the interpretation which the hon. gentleman put upon them. But still I will leave the matter of the interpretation of the single sentence to one side, and will say, and say positively and distinctly, that when I spoke on that occasion I meant to say that the General Officer Commanding, at the time he made his speech in Montreal at the military banquet in question, knew what I then alluded to. These are the words, and that is my interpretation of them, at page 4610 of the unrevised 1 Hansard :
Lord Dundonald goes on to say a number of things to which I shall not allude with regard to Mayor Piekel, &c., as I have already dealt with them. He, however, then goes on to show clearly by a letter to Colonel Pinault-
That is evidently a misprint, because 1 am not aware that there was any letter to Colonel Pinault to be shown, but there was one from Colonel Pinault
-that he was perfectly well aware of the fact that I had been requested by my colleague to sign this particular recommendation. He knew perfectly well that that list of officers was to be gazetted with the understanding that that name should be stricken out. And yet his words at the banquet of Montreal. I submit to any unprejudiced person, would lead the public to believe that X, the Minister of Agriculture, had taken a recommendation of my colleague the Minister of Militia and had changed it on my own responsibility.
Now, Sir, that was not the case. The whole recommendation was signed^ by me acting for my colleague the Minister of Militia. The striking out of that name was done by me, having been discussed between Colonels Whitley and Smart, the Minister of Militia and myself, and was done by me after the receipt of a letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Smart requesting me to do it-requesting me to do it because be had communicated with Dr. Piekel and that gentleman had given his final answer m regard to this appointment, and that final answer was that Dr. Piekel did not wish to go into the ' Gazette.' Then, and then only, I struck out the name, signed the recommendation and sent it forward to Council to he embodied in an Order in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: Are the dates wrong -the dates of the 19th ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: and is now in the hands of the Deputy Minister of Militia, and I trust you will see it goes through Council to-day.
The recommendation re Dr. Pickel is included, to be dealt with by you.
Then he goes on and alludes to some other matters in connection with the regiment. The recommendation from the Deputy Minister of Militia did not come to me until the next morning, the 20th. The letter of recommendation was inclosed in a letter from Colonel Pinault to me. It was dated the 19th, but coming through the mail it did not reach my office until the morning of the 20th. Colonel Smart appears to have gone back to Montreal on the evening of the 19th. His letter says that he will meet me at the House. I do not know whether he met me at the House or not ; I do not remember that he did. But he went back to Montreal that evening, as is evidenced by a further letter from Colonel Smart written from Montreal on the evening of that same day on which he had seen me at Ottawa, and on which he had addressed to me "the letter from the Russell House, dated 1 p.m. He left on the afternoon train, and addressed to me this letter from Montreal on the evening of the 19th :
Dear Mr. Fisher,-Immediately on my return this evening I met Lieutenant-Colonel Whitley and discussed fully with him all matters in connection with our interview of to-day. Colonel Whitley was pleased to learn that everything was arranged satisfactorily, and at his request I telephoned to Sweetsburg with a view of getting from Dr. Pickel his final answer as to whether or not it was his intention to remain in the squadron, because, as I stated to you to-day, he had intimated to me his lukewarmness in the matter. I now have his final decision, which is that he gives up all connection with the squadron. In accordance therefore with Dr. Pickel's request, I can now, as commanding officer of the regiment, request you to kindly make the change in the 'Gazette ' by leaving Dr. Pickel's name out.
I do not see any difficulty about the sequence of events which the hon. gentleman finds It so difficult to understand. It seems to me to be perfectly clear, and had the hon. gentleman read this correspondence with attention, had he noted all the facts and not tried to take out something here and there on which he could hang an argument, he would have been able to see the sequence of events just as clearly as I am now demonstrating them. Colonel Smart went on to say : I
I sincerely hope that this will meet with your approval, and in view of the short time between now and date of camp, you will kindly gee that all the recommendations pass Council to-morrow.
Thanking you for your kind consideration and assistance, believe me,
Yours very sincerely,


CHAS. A. SMART,
[Stage Direction]
Lt.-Col. commanding 13th S. L. Dragoons.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: At the bottom of that letter was the following written in the handwriting of Colonel Whitley :
In view of above I certainly recommend that Lieutenant-Colonel Smart's suggestion be followed.


FRED. WHITLEY,
[Stage Direction]
Lt.-Col. commanding * E ' Cav. Brigade. Montreal, May 19, 1904.
Here, Sir, is a request from the commanding officer of this regiment, on whose recommendation the general had included Dr. Pickel's name in that list, to strike the name out, because Dr. Pickel had intimated to him that he did not want to have it in. And we have the endorsation of the brigadier, Colonel Whitley, to Lieutenant-Colonel Smart's request. On the receipt of the letter, I took up the recommendation which had been sent me by Colonel Pin-ault, the Deputy Minister of Militia, and 'which was lying on my desk, and struck out the name of Dr. Pickel, and signed opposite * Sydney Fisher for F. W. Borden.' I signed at the bottom my name ' Sydney Fisher for F. W. Borden, Minister of Militia and Defence,' and I sent that recommendation to Council, where it was embodied in the Order in Council passed and signed by His Excellency within a few days. To corroborate what I have just said, ?I must mention that on the same day. I wrote the letter addressed to Colonel Whitley :
Ottawa, May 20th, 1904.
Dear Colonel Whitley,-I have not had an opportunity to reply to your letters of the 14th and 15th May earlier, hut yesterday I had an interview with Colonel Smart, at which I think all arrangements were satisfactorily made to-push along the establishment of the 13th Hussars.
This letter was written on the 20th of May, and it was on the 19th I had the interview with Colonel Smart.
I have read your letters and the inolosures, and want to assure you not only that I am very glad things have now been settled, hut that I appreciate the efforts which you and Colonel Smart have made to make things satisfactory.
I have written to our friends telling them this has been done and urging them to take hold of the work energetically and loyally, and I am sure they will do so. I think you will appreciate -that I have noit asked nearly as much as impetuous friends in the county expected, but I think that what I have asked has been entirely reasonable, and that some of these things at any rate were absolutely necessary to remove the Impression which had been created by the unfortunate earlier recommendations.
My hon. friend is very keen at drawing conclusions. Well, I think he might draw the conclusion from this letter that I had found things done which would be detrimental to the interests of the regiment and was glad to have been able to improve matters. I went on to say :

I have just signed, on behalf of Sir Frederick Borden, the gazette, and expect to put it through this afternoon.
I here stated that I had just signed the ' Gazette.' I didi sign it on the 20th, and I stated that on the 19th I had had an interview with Colonel Smart. What difficulty can there be in following the sequence of events ? I do not see that the sequence is in any way involved or militates in any shape or form against the statement of facts I have made. I think X have dealt pretty thoroughly with all the matters the hon. gentleman has brought up regarding my political interference.
Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the hon. gentleman what it is which is referred to in Colonel Smart's letter of the 19th of May, to be found on page 34, when he used this expression :
The recommendation re Dr. Picket is included, to be dealt with by you.
Also the pencil note in the memorandum which was returned by Colonel Smart to the Minister of Agriculture : ' The minister is to fix this,' that was opposite Dr. Pickers name.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The explanation is very simple. I have already said that an interview which took place between Colonels Whitley and Smart and the Minister of Militia and myself, at the instance of my colleague, with regard to the affairs of the regiment, we have before us the list of officers which I have already characterized and need not characterize again. In that list was Dr. Pickel's name. In it were also the names of Captain Baker, Mr. T. R. Pickel, Mr. Cotton and Mr. J. F. Gibson. I found in that list a political complexion which I informed Colonels Whitley and Smart would damn the regiment as a Tory organization. More than that I venture to say that that list had a family complexion which would damn it equally in the eyes of the Conservatives, not only as a political organization but as a family compact. When Colonel Smart told me that he had no political intention, I said to him: I accept your statement Colonel Smart. I suppose you have no political intention, but if you had desired to do something which '.would stamp that regiment as a Tory organization, you could not have selected a list of officers which would more completely have that effect. Colonel Smart then said to me :	What can be done ? I replied :
Here are some gentlemen who are qualified. Mr. J. F. Gibson is a graduate of the military school at Kingston. His name will be unobjectionable to anybody in the townships, whether Liberal or Conservative. Dr. Pickel's name is the next, but that name would not appeal in the way of military qualifications to anybody. You are
asking that Dr. Pickel should be made major of the squadron. You want to give him an important military position in the regiment, one requiring military experience; one in which he would be entrusted with the lives of a large number of men, one in which he would be obliged to handle those men, not only on the parade grounds, but, should the occasion arise, on the field of battle. Dr. Pickel was a man who had never taken an interest in military matters, who had never held an appointment in the militia. On what ground then could his appointment as major of a squadron in that regiment be justified ? I pointed to his name and said :	There is one you can
sitrike out on the ground that he has no qualification, and if it be struck out, the defects of the list will be minimized. The striking out of that name will lessen its political appearance, and) the people will not be so disposed to condemn the regiment as a political organization. Dr. Pickel's name was struck out because he was to be appointed to a responsible position, which called for a man of military experience, and he had none, and because the whole list was so political in its appearance something had to be done to remove that evidence of political interference. Colonel Whitley and Colonel Smart seem to acknowledge the force of what I said. But, Colonel Smart said that as he had urged Dr. Pickel to take that position as he had asked him to go into the regiment, he did not feel like asking him not to send in his name. Then it was suggested and I do not know from whom the suggestion came-but I think it was my hon. colleague who suggested it-that when such a name as that came before the Minister of Militia, the Minister of Militia would not hesitate to strike it out, because the recommendations of the general are subject to be changed by the minister. When the recommendations of the general are asked to be put into effect they can only be put into effect by the approval of the minister.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: I was referring to an interview of the 19th May ; but I think the hon. gentleman is referring to one of the Sth ?


Mr.   BTSHER@: I was describing events that led up to it.


Robert Laird Borden: ' The recommendation re Dr. Pickel is included, to be dealt with by you.' Does that mean that it was to be struck out by the hon. gentleman if he desired to do so ?


Mr.   BTSHER@: It refers to an arrangement by which Dr. Pickel's name was to be

struck out in the first place by the Minister of Militia. That morning, the minister being absent, Lieutenant Colonel Smart came to my office and asked me to go with him and put the order through which my colleague had arranged to do, as evidenced by Colonel Pinault's letter. And I, acting for the Minister of Militia, carried out the intention of the Minister of Militia as expressed to Lieutenant Colonel Smart and to Lieutenant Colonel Whitley.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman one more question ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As many as you like.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not wish to interrupt without the hon. gentleman's consent.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: You have my free and frank consent.


Robert Laird Borden: Was the Minister of Militia present at the interview of 19th of May ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, he was out of towu. And it was in consequence of his being out of town that I had to act for him so as to get the gazette through, at the request of Lieutenant Colonel Whitley and Lieutenant Colonel Smart.
Now, I think I have explained that reference and have made clear the sequence of events. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) has any other questions to ask me I shall be glad to answer.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Fisher) has answered them most satisfactorily.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hear, hear. For once, we agree. There are some other points in this resolution concerning which I wish to say . a few words. There is one thing in it which is remarkable. We have already had a debate in this House on this question. In that debate Lord Dundonald's name came prominently forward. And, in that debate, hon. gentlemen opposite dwelt a good deal on Lord Dundonald's name and on his position as General Officer Commanding. But, on this resolution it comes in only as an allusion at the end. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only supppose that hon. gentlemen opposite, having slept over the question, having considered what they had said, having considered the whole bearing of this question, have changed their minds. They have come to the conclusion that they will attack me personally, and, through me, the government of which I have the honour to be a member. They are discussing this resolution chiefly- almost altogether-in relation to the question of political interference. I think I have dealt with that in my own particular case. At any rate, I am ready to leave my case on that point as it stands. I know, however, two things. In the first place, by the order dispensing with Lord Dundonald's ' Mr. FISHER.
services, my colleagues did me the honour of espousing my cause, declaring that they agree with what I did, and saying that, so far as political interference was concerned, I was not guilty of the charge laid at my door. In the second place, in this motion the hon. gentleman alludes to the fact that what I had done was approved by the government. We, therefore, take square issue with hon. gentlemen opposite on behalf of the government and of the party which that government represents, on this question of political interference. I stated this afternoon to what extent I would plead guilty. I stated this afternoon what I believed to be the essence of the question before the country, and that essence is embodied in the Order in Council dispensing with the services of Lord Dundonald. I will not read the paragraph again ; but I may point out and repeat here that the extent of [DOT] political interference to which I plead guilty 'is simply this-that when I found political interference and preferment being introduced into this regiment I protested against it. To that extent, and only to that extent, did I bring politics into the matter. I have already proven clearly that, in the discussions which arose as to the qualifications of the officers, I advocated the appointment of Conservatives over Liberals, that when I did suggest that a certain officer was not qualified from a military point of view and could not be justifiably appointed as major of that squadron, the only name I suggested as an alternative was that of as pronounced a Conservative as himself. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about my recommending certain gentlemen of the name of Miltimore. These gentlemen were appointed to subordinate positions ; one, who had had experience in camp was recommended and ratified by Lieutenant Colonel Smart as captain ; and the others as junior lieutenants. I have the word of the General Officer Commanding and other military authorities that, when a new regiment is to be organized some men not qualified by military experience must necessarily be given positions in that regiment. But my whole contention was that where men of no military experience were put in as officers, they should take subordinate positions, and that the men who were given responsible positions should have military experience. I did not care whether they were Liberals or Conservatives. I recommended and suggested the appointment of Conservatives who had military experience.
Sir, the hon. leader of the opposition, (Mr. R. L. Borden) said this afternoon, that, as Minister of Agriculture and a civilian I was endangering the efficiency of the militia of this country. I found the recommendation of the General Officer Commanding, I found the recommendation of Lieutenant Colonel Smart, in favour of a man, who had no military qualification, for a responsible position, and I asked that he should not be

placed in that position. Who, I ask you. Sir, has the interest of the militia at heart ?
Is it the General Officer Commanding who recommends such a man ? Is it the colonel of the regiment, another military expert who recommends such a man '! Or is it I, a civilian, who urge that a man given a position of command in the militia shall be one of some military experience ? Sir, I leave my conduct in the hands of the House and, with the history of that case as I have given it, I believe I shall be backed up not only by Liberals, but by Conservatives, by all who have at heart the interests of the militia of Canada.
The last paragraph of this resolution says :
The House regrets that this unwarrantable interference, approved by the government, not only unduly delayed the organization of the regiment but has culminated in depriving the militia of Canada of an experienced and distinguished commanding officer.
The whole tenor of the document, and of the remarks of my hon. friends on the other side, shows clearly and distinctly that they have thrown Lord Dundonald overboard, but I did not suppose they would go to the extent of throwing over entirely and wholly Lord Dundonald's final statement as issued in the ' News ' of last Saturday. They say that my conduct has culminated in depriving the militia of Canada of an experienced and distinguished officer. What does Lord Dundonald himself say ? In his statement, taken from the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of Monday, June 20,-and I believe this is a reprint of the statement which appeared in the Toronto ' News ' which was revised and authorized by Lord Dundonald-he says :
In my efforts I was constantly hampered by interference with that particular part of my work. This Interference began very soon after my arrival. It has continued incessantly ever since. Mr. Fisher's interest in the affairs of the Thirteenth Scottish Light Dragoons was simply the final incident in a long list of various phases of obstruction.
I am not the guilty one ; I am only the last straw that broke the camel's back. All I can say is that if my political interference is a fair example of the political interference about which Lord Dundonald complains in this extract he has very little to complain of, very little to complain of. I presume from the text of the whole statement that this was an aggravated case, that it was a case so aggravated that the general could no longer contain himself. I supposed when he made the speech In Montreal, and the report first came out, that it was a temporary outburst, but I find from Lord Dundonald's own statement in the letter which he addressed to the bon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) that he went there with the deliberate purpose and intent of setting the heather on fire.


Samuel Hughes: He has succeeded.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He has succeeded ?


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He has succeeded. That is all right, we will see 'what the results of the conflagration are.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: A tempest in a pickle pot.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I want to point out that if this is the policy of the hon. gentlemen opposite their contention and their conclusion has been entirely disproved out of the mouth of Lord Dundonald himself, and that therefore, on the evidence of the General Officer Commanding, this resolution ought to fall to the ground.
There are one or two things in this statement which I shall not discuss at length, but about which I must say a word or two. Under the heading of * Wanted a verdict we have :
A course offering many attractions was to resign and issue a public statement giving my reasons. So far as I personally was concerned it would have been by far ^ the easier and more pleasant course. The object'011 was that by so doing I would give neither the government nor the people of Canada any real opportunity to pass judgment upon the matters brought to their attention.
That of course is a matter of judgment and Lord Dundonald's judgment in regard to his course must be accepted. I must say myself, viewing it from the outside, that the judgment does not appeal to me.


An hon. MEMBER.: A pity.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And it appears to me that if Lord Dundonald had desired to draw the attention of the people of Canada successfully and effectually to anything concerning the militia, he would have done so more successfully and have put himself less in the wrong had he done so in the proper constitutional method and not violated everything connected with the constitutional government of this country. The course which in this article Lord Dundonald rejects would have been a proper and dignified course for an officer of the government. Lord Dundonald would have been quite justified if he felt his position as an officer of the government was not consistent with the actions of the government to have addressed a letter of resignation in whatever terms he chose to the minister in whose department he was. to the government of which he was an officer and that course would have been a right and proper course under the constitutional government of this country, and by adopting it he would not. as he has done in this case, have set at defiance every rule of constitutional government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The letter of resignation might have been treated as confidential.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Sir. the hon. gentleman knows quite well that the insinuation he is

making could not have any foundation. The hon. gentleman could have moved that the papers connected with the resignation of X,ord Dundonald should be brought down, a ml they would have been brought before the country in a proper constitutional way while by the course pursued the whole has been done in a way which if this gentleman has such a strong position as his friends think and he thinks, he certainly endangers and injures that position because he has set at defiance all the rules of constitutional government in this country and has left himself open to the most serious reflections and the most serious condemnations.
I shall not go at any length into the question of the propriety of an officer of the government discussing the actions of that government but I will point out this, that there have been instances of a similar character in the old country and here. There have been expressions of opinion in regard to the propriety of the General Officer Commanding the militia being independent of the government of the' country and independent of the Minister of Militia. Various authorities have been cited on this point. I am not going into it at any length but I shall point out the fact that I have here under my hand the authority of an eminent militiaman and military critic in this country. In the course of a correspondence this gentleman inquires :
For my information and guidance might I have the authority quoted which permits the General Officer Commanding, an officer directly under the Minister of Militia, to receive and transmit as General Officer Commanding, commands from His Excellency.
Then in another case the same gentleman says :
May I respectfully request you will be so good as to quote to me the authority which permits the General Officer Commanding tQ receive and transmit any commands from His Excellency, without its being an Order in Council, and then only by order of the Minister of Militia.
And then again he asks for anv authority which allows an acknowledgment from the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies to him to be forwarded through the General Officer Commanding without the order of the Minister of Militia.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Who wrote that ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: An eminent military authority in Canada who signs himself * Sam. Hughes.'
There are one or two other matters in regard to this subject in connection with which Lord Dundonald refers to me. The District Officer Commanding in the course of this memo, says :
The only possible way to get the new corps officered was to get local support and tru3t


Sydney Arthur Fisher: the opinion of the Commanding Officer entrusted with the duty of raising the regiment.
The bon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) this afternoon dwelt a good deal on my advice in regard to the officering of this regiment. He dwelt on the fact that I had interfered because I had dared to suggest to Colonel Smart certain officers with certain qualifications.
The General Officer Commanding says that he ought to have this advice from the commanding officer. I do not deny for a moment that when it comes to a question of military qualifications it is the duty of the commanding officer, the military expert, to know about them, but when you come to laise and organize a new regiment in this country, or in any other country, as long as there is nothing that interferes with military qualifications there are other considerations to he taken into account in the successful organization of the regiment. There are considerations to be taken into account, in regard to which the people of the neighbourhood, even though they toe civilians, little as they are to be considered in these matters, may find that they can give advice, in regard to which civilians who know the country, know the genius of the people, know the local conditions and circumstances, may be able to give advice which will be valuable to even a military expert-not advice on military affairs, not advice as to military qualifications. We have to take the word of the military expert for that. When Colonel Smart told me Captain Adams was physically disqualified to be the commander of the squadron, I said : That ends the matter. When I was told that it was military etiquette that the commanding officer of the regiment should have the absolute choice of his own adjutant, and although 1 had suggested Captain Adams' name in place of Captain Converse, when I was told that it was a subject for the colonel alone to deal with, I said that if it was a matter of military etiquette I had not a word to say, notwithstanding the fact that Captain Adams was adjutant of the 6th Hussars, and that, as an eastern townships man, he would toe well qualified to be adjutant of the I3th 'Scottish Light Dragoons, seeing that he had been recommended by Colonel Whitley to be adjutant of the 6th Hussars a few months before. But these are military matters. I do not presume to set up my opinion against that of the military expert in military matters, but when it comes to matters which are social, and which are local in their character, I do venture to think, in my presumption, that I know more about the eastern townships than Lord Dundonald or Colonel Smart. When I first undertook to say anything about this regiment, it was just on that point that I spoke of. The men who come from Montreal to command the regiment in the eastern townships, not knowing the people, not knowing the local conditions, not knowing the various condi-

lions that go to make it a success, having made a mistake, I advised them, hoping to be able to remove some of the difficulties which confronted them in their ignorance, and that is the whole force and front of my offending in the matter. Again, I am rot to set up my own opinion, but there is another opinion which I ibow to as being that of a military expert. There was trouble a few years ago in regard to another General Officer Commanding, and these pregnant words were used in regard to that gentleman. The writer of these remarks was apparently interviewing His Excellency :
Re my remarks to His Excellency-what I there stated I repeat. I was somewhat taken aback at the cavalier manner in which he ' pooh-poohed ' my suggestions re soldiers as colonists and re Canadians becoming British soldiers. He seemed troubled with what I frankly confess to be, in my opinion, your complaint of knowing it all and of not wishing to hear facts.
I suppose then he ought to have heard the facts. [DOT]
What I said to him of you was that it was Just possible you might make a mistake in [DOT]selecting the officer to command a Canadian contingent.
These were the remarks made by this eminent military critic about the General Commanding the Canadian militia.
You might not he possessed of all the facts.
Aud, therefore, of course, this gentleman undertook to advise His Excellency.


Some hon. MEMBERS: What is the name of that gentleman ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That letter is signed ' Sam. Hughes. The General Officer Commanding, in this document, says that I was a witness against myself. He proceeds :
That Mr. Fisher's motives were political, he himself admitted in his second speech in the House of Commons on June 10. This admission, I may observe, was singularly at variance with his earlier speech on the same day. In that speech, which was a prepared statement, he distinctly stated that his objections to Dr. Pickel were of a military nature, and that his Interference was not due to political motives.
The hon. leader of the opposition stated this afternoon, as he did on the former occasion, that my speech on that day was at variance with my statement. I venture to say that anybody who examines the two records will say that it was in no shape or way at variance with the statement. I stated that I had made no objection to any officer oil political grounds alone. I did so in regard to Doctor Pickel because be had no military experience, and I did so because I found it necessary to remove the Tory political complexion of that particular squadron.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hon. gentlemen nod their heads. That is political interference, they say. They and their friends are to be allowed to intrigue, are to be allowed to put their friends into the militia, are to be allowed to give their friends promotion in the militia and are to be allowed, as in the old days, to make the militia of Canada a Tory preserve. And, Mr. Speaker, with that going on right under our noses, no Liberal who has at heart the interest of the militia is to be allowed to protest.
!Mr. ROSAMOND. No Tory need apply.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Gibson applied, and I endorsed him. Captain Baker applied, and I endorsed him. I recommended Captain Carr to take the place of Doctor Pickel, and I recommended Captain Holland to be put over Mr. Russell, the one a Conservative and the other a Liberal. I said that Surgeon-Major Macdonald, one of the most active politicians against me in my county, should, because he had been connected with the militia for years back, toe offered the senior medical place in the regiment. I was told that he did not wish to go into a cavalry regiment. I said in one of the letters, which you can read, that I would be sorry if he declined and that I hoped that even for a short time he would take the position, because he was a military officer who had had experience. Yet the hon. gentleman says : ' No Tory need apply.' I venture to say that I have proved that Tories can apply and be endorsed by me if they have the military qualifications which justify their appointment. The same spirit which that hob. gentleman illustrates to-night, the same spirit which for years kept the Liberals of this country out of the militia of Canada and would not allow them to have a place in the -militia continues to-day. They want to continue, in face of the fact that throughout this country there ai'e hundreds of Liberals who want to go into the militia io serve their king and country, the intrigues of the old Conservative party, but I want to tell this House aud to tell the people of Canada that as long as there is a Liberal government in power, as long as the Liberals hold a majority in this country, they will not be allowed to continue those intrigues. I take issue with hon. gentlemen opposite directly and straightly on that point. The Liberal government say that politics shall not toe introduced into the militia. If they want to continue the militia as a Tory preserve I tell them that the Liberal government will say to them that they shall not do it by their intrigues and machinations.
That is the whole extent of any political interference in the militia which'the Liberal party or the Liberal government would countenance or allow. The general goes on to say : That there was a peculiar coincidence in the fact that I was acting Minister of Militia. Well, there was a co-

incidence, but I do not think it was peculiar. My colleague, the Minister of Militia, and myself had been discussing this question ; we had been discussing the list of officers which was to be submitted ; and notwithstanding the insinuation, notwithstanding the evil opinion these people, thinking evilly, have in regard to myself, it was the most natural thing in the world that when my colleague, the Minister of Militia, went away for a day, he should ask me to sign the recommendations instead of going to one of his other colleagues who knew nothing about it. The rest of the government at that time knew nothing about it ; the rest of the government had not been concerned in it. The Minister of Militia, and I, as representing the townships-I who knew the local circumstances and conditions!-had been consulting dn regard to this matter. I had been giving suggestions with the view of making the regiment a success and making it effective, and it was natural, the most natural thing in the world that my colleague should ask me. It was a coincidence if you like, but I cannot acknowledge that it was peculiar. Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know that I need speak much longer ; I have spoken at much greater length than I intended ; I have been forced to do this, but I take issue straight and square on this resolution. It is a resolution condemning me and through me the government who have endorsed my action. 1 venture to think, Sir, that no political interference has been proven. On the contrary, my action, which has been endorsed by the government, was with a view of preventing all political interference. 1 venture to think that the statement that Lord Dundonald, by consequence of this incident has been lost to the militia of Canada, is not true ; and I have proven that it is not true ; out of the mouth of the late General Officer Commanding. If hon. gentlemen opposite wish to take that question up further, they can do so. I am surprised I must confess, that in this document and in this resolution they seem to have completely changed their minds since the former debate when Lord Dundonald was in the mouth of every one of them ; when Lord Dundonald's record and Lord Dundonald's actions were in the mouth of every one of them ; while to-day there is none among them so poor as to do him honour.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very glad to be able to say a few brief words in defence of Lord Dundonald. I have listened to the Minister of Agriculture. and it is only by a violent stretch of the imagination that I have not been able to see in him the Minister of Militia. I am accustomed to hear the Minister of Agriculture entertain us about cold storage, the breeding of cattle, experimental farms, and the fattening of chickens, in the mildest possible fashion. But to-day, put a Mr. FISHER.
sword in his hand, and a military cap on his head and hear the swash-buckler, cutting language which he used, and all illusion concerning his agricultural pursuits is dispelled. He called my hon. friend the leader of the opposition a pettifogging lawyer. That is an opprobious epithet ; it is hot used by gentlemen practising my profession, and the people of Canada no matter what their party allegiance, will be surprised to know that the Minister of Agriculture has applied such language to the distinguished leader of the Conservative party, who so calmly and so judiciously and with such a high sense of honour, placed before the House the facts of this very peculiar case. The Minister of Agriculture stated that he thought he could not let this motion go to the House, without making some observation. Well, I should think not. If the Minister of Agriculture had heard what every one else has heard during the past few days ; if he had heard that he placed himself and his party and his government in a very unnecessary mess, and that he is condemned generally for his foolish intermeddling, he would have no ' hesitation in believing that it was necessary for him to give some explanation to this parliament. Let us look at the facts calmly. Two years ago the government summoned to Canada a man of brilliant career ; a man having a proud record ; a brave man, a competent man. They gave this military expert the position of General Officer Commanding commanding our militia ; a position which he has since filled with perfect satisfaction to the Canadian militia, and to the whole people of Canada. To show what was the opinion entertained by the Minister of Militia of Lord Dundonald, I quote these words used a few months ago by the hon. gentleman (Sir Frederick Borden). He said :
We might congratulate ourselves in this country on having at the head of the military side of the Militia Department a gentleman who understood the importance of all he (Sir Frederick) had said. He was not only a great warrior, as he had proved in a dozen battles, but he was a man of sound sense and judgment, who was here for the purpose not of self-aggrandisement, not of playing to the gallery and having his name and praises sounded on every possible opportunity, but of developing the material he found into one of the best fighting forces on the earth.
And the Minister of Militia could have added what he knows, and what every one knows ; that Lord Dundonald, whose record in the past has been so pure, so noble, so worthy of admiration, has not been in this country a mere dilettante, but has been without doubt, the best military commander we ever had. And what has happened ?
A short time ago the General Officer Commanding after having discharged his military duties in Montreal, met his brother officers at dinner. It was not a public dinner tendered to him ; I insist upon that

feature because it is important in appreciating the conduct of Lord Dundonald. It was a dinner given to him by tlibse officers who assisted him In the great work upon which he has been engaged for two years. At that dinner Lord Dundonald stated that in the carrying out of the mission which had been entrusted to him, his work was constantly hampered by political interference, and by meddlers who had no right and no justification for their conduct. And, Sir, he gave as an instance the fact, that the Minister of Agriculture without semblance of right had stricken from a list of officers presented by him in virtue of his duty, the name of an officer whom he had recommended for a position in this new regiment. Then what followed is a further proof of the harshness and arbitrariness of this government which has been manifested upon more than one occasion.
An organ of my right hon. friend in the city of Montreal stated in its issue of this morning that Mr. Monk would be watched, and it would be seen whether in this instance he was supporting Lord Dundonald. T am supoprting him, Mr. Speaker, as I have supported many less important men than Lord Dundonald, who have been sacrificed under the same principle of arbitrariness and tyranny which has characterized the government since 1896. This is no isolated case, Sir. Public employees in the county of Jacques Cartier, after the elections of 1896, fell like leaves in Vallum-brosa, and they fell not only there but elsewhere, and we took their defence when it was just and right to do so. And why should we not do so on this occasion if this man has been treated unjustly ? In cases without number* in my own county an inquiry was held conformably to the principles of British justice. Those who were about to be sacrificed were given an opportunity of being heard. But there has been no such element in this case ; for what do we find ? The General Officer Commanding, this man of whose record in military matters there is nothing .but good to be said, was summoned to state ivhetlier what he had declared at that banquet was correctly reported or not. He was offered no opportunity to explain ; he was not censured ; he was asked simply to declare whether this was true or not; and upon his declaration that he had spoken substantially as reported in the papers, an 'Order in Council was passed. He was not treated with that courtesy which, as I am informed, military men of his rank are treated in every civilized country in the world. No messenger was sent, to communicate to him the declaration of the government. While he was in another city performing the military duty assigned to him, a telegraph boy brought him a yellow message informing him that the country had dispensed with his services.
Now, Mr. Speaker, speaking for myself, I regret this incident ; but what is the cause of it ? Has there arisen any great controversy between this distinguished man and the militia of our young country which he had under his command ? None whatever. He was giving general satisfaction. Speaking at any rate for my own province, there has been no complaint. The relations have been most cordial. He is recognized
in the province of Quebec as having been probably the most sympathetic, the most earnest, the most capable commander we have had in this country. Has he had any serious difficulty with the only man in this country who is his superior-nobody disputes that-the head of his department ? None whatever in this instance. Has he had any serious difficulty with the government as a whole ?	He does not appear to have had. But the cause, the substance, the root of this whole difficulty is in the interference of the Minister of Agriculture. There is no other cause, There is no other man who takes cognizance of this record, who takes the trouble to study the 'facts, who does not say that if the Minister of Agriculture had not interfered in this affair, nothing would have prevented this able general from carrying to completion a work, Sir, which, what ever may be our opinions as to the necessity of increasing or diminishing the militia, is a necessary work in this countiy if we are to hold up our heads as a nation.
Now Sir, will you allow me-because I am not a military man myself, and there are very competent men in militia matteis on this'side of the House, and perhaps on the other side-will you allow me to draw your attention for one moment to the position occupied in this country by the General Officer Commanding ?	1 believe that
is of some importance ; because if the conditions under which we live are not satis factory, we may alter them. If the msti tutions which we have do not please us, we may possibly find something to improve upon them. But in appreciating the conduct of Lord Dundonald, and in coming to a sound judgment upon the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture upon this occasion. it is necessary for us to have these facts before our minds. The General Officer Commanding in this country occupies a special position. It is impossible to read the law relating to that officer, it is impossible to know our constitutional tradi tions, without admitting that fact. It sufficient to refer to the statute organizing the Militia Department to see that tne position of the General Officer Commanding is not that of any other man in the service of this country. In the first place, the command of the militia forces in this country, just as in England, is vested in the head of the executive. There is no doubt


REVISED EDITION '5415 COMMON'S 541(3
[Stage Direction]
in regard to that. We have wrested from the Crown a great many rights and privileges. We have an absolute control of most *of the things that appertain to the public service ; but in this country, as in the old country, we have with the consent of the people, left certain prerogatives to the Crown. Amongst these is the prerogative of mercy, the prerogative of being the fountain of honour, the prerogative of initiating all financial measures, the prerogative of concluding treaties, and the prerogative of the command of the troops. I mention this fact, because I deem it important in appreciating the conduct of this whole affair. It is true, that we have long ago abandoned the old traditions of the Mutiny /Act. It is not necessary for us to legislate every year in respect of the army or the militia because with the growth of our political institutions we have maintained the command which we can exercise to-day -a control over the armed force to which we could not pretend in former days-and we have to resort to what I would call intri-caciies in parliamentary procedure. But the fact remains nevertheless that the control of the army, the control of the militia, is under the head of the executive, under the Crown; and our action upon the militia can only be exercised by parliament through legislation and through the voting of supplies. To a certain extent, Sir, this explains how parliament has dealt with the functions of the Minister of Militia and the functions of the General Officer Commanding. After having declared that the command of the force is in the hands of His Majesty or the Governor General, ns his representative, the statute defines the duties of the Minister of Militia. That minister is charged with and is responsible for the administration of the militia affairs, including all matters involving expenditure.
The Minister of Militia and Defence shall have the initiative in all militia affairs involving the expenditure of money.
The Governor in Council shall, from time to time, make such orders as are necessary respecting the duties to be performed by the Minister of Militia and Defence.
Ana when we come to the duties of the chief officer commanding, this is how parliament has defined them :
There shall be appointed an officer who holds the rank of colonel or rank superior thereto in Her Majesty's regular army, who shall be charged, under the orders of Her Majesty, with the military command and discipline of the militia, and who, while he holds such appointment, shall have the rank of major general in the militia, and shall be paid at the rate of four thousand dollars per annum in full of all pay and allowances.
This is repeated in the regulations and Assignment of duties to the General Officer Commanding. In the regulations, which Mr. MONK.
have for us the force of an Act of parliament, the General Officer Commanding is the sole person who is entitled to present to the Minister of Militia the list of those who are entitled to commissions and of those who are entitled to be promoted. If we bear these facts in mind, we will find in the Order in Council, under which the dismissal of the General Officer Commanding has taken place, an exposition of a totally different doctrine. That doctrine which has been defined by parliament, that doctrine which has been declared to be the will of parliament, which assigns certain specific duties to the Minister of Militia, which assigns certain duties to the General Officer Commanding, which circumscribes with care and defines within strict limits the duties assigned to the Minister of Agriculture-that doctrine which has the sanction of parliament and which has defined the administrative functions of this government, is absolutely contradicted by the Order in Council, of which i will read a paragraph. This is what the Order in Council says ;
In the case of members of -the cabinet, while all have an equal degree of responsibility in a constitutional sense, yet in the practical working out of responsible government in a country of such vast extent as Canada, it Is found necessary to attach a special responsibility to each minister for the public affairs of the province or district with which he has close political connection, and with which his colleagues may not be so well acquainted. Mr. Fisher, while sharing with his colleagues that general responsibility already referred to, represents in a particular manner the eastern townships of the province of Quebec. If, when it was proposed to form a new regiment in that district, he interested himself in the work and sought to make the organization effective, he was not merely exercising a right : he was discharging a duty both to the people of the district and to his colleagues in the cabinet, who would expect him to inform himself of all the facts and advise them before approval by the cabinet of the proposed arrangement.
That definition of the duties and administrative functions of the ministers is in direct contradiction, not only of our constitutional traditions, (but of the express enactment and desire of parliament. Let me point out for a moment the view which I take of the interference of the Minister of Agriculture in this matter, and let us see what were the powers of the Minister of Agriculture before the 18th of May, when the Minister of Militia found that he had to leave Ottawa for a few days. Will It be pretended seriously that the Minister of Agriculture had before the IStfi of May any more power to interfere with the organization of this new regiment in the eastern townships than any other man interested in public affairs throughout the country V If it were proposed to organize a regiment in the county of Jacques Cartier, could I. as one knowing the local conditions probably

better than most people, be qualified to interfere with the -work of those regularly charged by statute and regulations with the organization of that regiment ? Would 1 have the right to meddle with that organization aud interfere with the nomination of the officers and men, duly and regularly proposed by those to whom the law had given that task ? Had the Minister of Agriculture any more right than any other citizen to do what we find he did long before the Minister of Militia left Ottawa and long before the final arrangements were made for the confirmation of the list to which reference has been made in this matter ? I say he had not, and I say more. We have had here three distinct defences from the Minister of Agriculture. So convinced was that gentleman that it was impossible for him to justify the interference on his part, which has produced such regrettable results, that he has three times shifted his ground of defence. On one occasion he pretended that he had merely acted in the capacity of errand bearer for the Minister of Militia. His role had been merely the ministerial one of bringing the list to Council. Later on he shifted his ground and urged that, as minister for the district, he had a right to interfere and pronounce on the efficiency, from a military point of view, of the gentlemen selected to be the officers in this new regiment. Then in the last resort he pretended that he had the right to interfere and make sure that in the organization of that regiment both political parties would be represented in their proper proportions. Let me point out what were the powers conferred upon my lion, friend by the Minister of Militia when he left the city of Ottawa. To ascertain what these were we need only refer to the record and to the explanation given by the Minister of Militia himself. It has been urged that at the moment, when the facts referred to in this case took place; my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture was in reality the acting Minister of Militia. But, Sir, there can be no such thing as an acting Minister of Militia, or an acting minister of any department, unless authority has been duly conferred upon him in the proper way. 1 fail to see how, when a minister goes away from Ottawa for a few hours, or even a few days, he can, by his mere request, make one of his colleagues the acting minister for his department. He cannot do so. The minister in charge of a department is constituted under the great seal of [DOT]Canada with certain regular formalities, and he cannot be replaced, even temporarily, unless certain formalities are gone through, and unless the cabinet has sanctioned the change. But there never was any pretense of conferring that authority on the Minister of Agriculture. What does the Minister of Militia say ?
Finding that I will be obliged to be absent from Ottawa from the 18th to the 26th of May, I instructed my deputy to take the general 172J
order containing the proposed 'list of appointments as soon as completed, to my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, to be by him submitted to Council, in view of the urgency of
the case.
In other words, If the Minister of Agriculture had been brought into this affair at that moment and for the purpose specified by the Minister of Militia, the only role assigned him was a purely ministerial one- to take the list, as submitted to the Minister of Militia by the officer commanding, to Council, and have it approved as it then was and not otherwise. But, long before that, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture had forcibly introduced himself into this organization. He had long before that, and when the question of the formation of the regiment had been moqted, taken charge ot the whole affair. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has quoted in detail from the record. It is not necessary that I should go over the same ground. But I say that there is no fair-minded, impartial man who will take cognizance of the correspondence and of the documents contained in this return, who will not at once arrive at the conclusion that, without having initiated in any way the idea of this regiment, the moment that idea was being carried into execution, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture interfered like a busybody and did not cease interfering until the event that we regret so much to-day had happened and he had deprived us of the services of the General Officer Commanding by his injudicious meddling. You will find that long before the 18th of May-in February and March-the Minister of Agriculture had already endeavoured to obtain control of this new organization. We do not find him going to the General Officer Commanding. He had the General Officer Commanding right here at hand. True, he made appointments with him which he did not keep. But he never in any way laid before the General Officer Commanding these observations which he laid before
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to correct the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) I never made any appointment with Lord Dundonald which I did not keep.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In this as in so many other instances, I regret to say, we have to choose between the utterances of Lord Dun-donald himself and what is said by my hon. friend (Mr. Fisher).


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is bound to accept my statement in this House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did the hon. gentleman tell us to-day that he ever had any serious conference with the Minister of Militia himself ? If he did, I must confess we would be inclined to doubt his word, because it is sufficient to read the letters of my hon.

friend long before the IStb of May and up to tbe 7th of June to see that he speaks only In his own name. He says, ' I am undertaking to write letters in order to enlist officers ' ; ' I will endeavour to make sure you will be able to go to camp this year,' and So on. Taking the documents before us sie seems to have left entirely aside the General Officer Commanding, and also the head of the department and the employees of the department. He placed himself in communication with Lieutenant Colonel Whitley and Lieutenant Colonel Smart. It is with them, and with them exclusively, that he endeavoured to organize that regiment in the way he thought it should be organized, balancing between the political parties. That is what my hon. friend did and I question whether, as a matter of fact, he did not by his actions, endeavour to seduce these officers from the performance of their duties. It was with the General Officer Commanding they had to deal, not . with the Minister of Agriculture. They had to deal with the General Officer Commanding and the Minister of Militia, and nobody else. And it is impossible, I say, to take cognizance of this correspondence and not arrive at the conclusion that, by the tolerance of the Minister of Militia, if in no other way. it was the Minister of Agriculture who took charge of the entire formation of this regiment, acting with Lieutenant Colonel Smart and Lieutenant Colonel Whitley, and that he violated not only the text of the law and of the regulations, but the spirit of the law and of our military organization, by addressing himself to these two officers charged with the organization of the regiment locally and endeavouring to interfere in order to prevent the nomination of certain officers and secure the appointment of others. My hon. friend, I stated a moment ago did not act as Acting Minister of Militia. The instructions he had from the Minister of Militia was to take that list to Council and have it approved. That was his duty, and I venture to assert and no one in this House will contradict me, that the only place where the Minister of Agriculture might have urged what reasons he had to urge against the appointment of certain men and in favour of the appointment of others was at the Council Board itself.	As
Minister of Agriculture he had no authority, as an individual member of the government he had no right, to interfere in any way. Under our constitutional system he could have been heard at the Council Board and there have urged what views he saw fit to urge-but no where else. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has accused the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) of violating the decencies of debate in respect of his action with that specific list. Well, I am disposed to violate them to the same extent, because I interpret his dealing with the list exactly the same way as does Mr. MONK.
my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. That list was printed on the 19th of May. At that moment it stood approved by the General Officer Commanding. And, on the 19th of May, according to the record which we have before us, it was brought to Council by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, and on the 19th of May, my hon. friend, without having any information whatever that Mr. Pickel had abandoned his right to his command as major, did erase his name from the list. And according to the record it was on the 19th of May that the erasure took place and the list was passed through Council. Yet, it was only on the 20th of May that my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture had before him the letter of Lieutenant Colonel Smart in which that gentleman revealed, for the first time, to the Minister of Agriculture, that he had telephoned out to Sweetsburg and had obtained from Dr. Pickel himself his willingness to resign all right to his commission. That is the way I understood it. So that at the moment when this action was taken, at the moment when my hon. friend erased Mr. Pickel's name from that list, at the moment when it passed through Council there had not yet been brought to the Minister of Agriculture the knowledge that in view of the pressure which had been brought to bear upon him Mr. Pickel had abandoned his design of forming a part of the regiment.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman is stating absolutely the contrary of what 1 proved within the last half hour.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is not the way in which I understand it, and that is not the way in which the record speaks. But. Sir. I do not wish to incur the reproach of my hon. friend of being a pettifogging lawyer. It is not necessary in my estimation to go fully into these details although they are important, but, Sir. to show that the plea set up in this instance that Mr. Pickel had abandoned all right is not well founded, I may say that it was only when the act was completely accomplished that the fact was brought to the minister's knowledge.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have stated twice that I had Colonel Smart's letter in my hand, and had read it before I signed the document.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then my hon. friend signed the document on May 20.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It bear? the date of the 19th.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend ignores what I said. It bore the date of the 19th when it was sent to me by Colonel Pinault from the department. It reached my office on the morning of the 20th and was then signed by me.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is dated at the top and the bottom and listed the 19th. These documents are laid before us, and it is not

S
pettifogging for us to invoke tlie dates which they bear, but it is not necessary to do so. My hon. friend has not in a manly and courageous way contradicted the important statement contained in Col. Smart's letter to Lord Dundonald. What does he say ? He says that from the very inception the Minister of Agriculture interfered with the organization of this regiment. Is it true or is it not that the Minister of Agriculture said that this regiment would not be organized if Mr. Pickel was going to form part of it ? That is the important point, because his objection to Mr. Pickel we all know was not his want of military qualification ; it was his relationship to Senator Baker. Senator Baker is like a red rag to one of mv hon. friend's bulls. Anybody who is related to Senator Baker seems to be for my hon. friend an objectionable man to form part of the militia of this country. What seems to me to be of supreme importance is that there is not by the Minister of Agriculture any categorical contradiction of the statements contained in Col. Smart's letter to Lord Dundonald. We are finally reduced to this that the proposition laid down by my friend the Minister of Agriculture and applauded incessantly by hon. gentlemen opposite is a proposition, which as far as I am concerned, I unreservedly condemn. It is contrary to the best interests of this country, and it is contrary to the interests of the militia that when a regiment is in process of organization political men, having no right under the statute or under the regulations, should interfere with the object avowed here by the Minister of Agriculture to give about an equal balance of both political parties in the construction of that regiment. If we accept that proposition. we may as well abandon every idea of having an effective militia in this country. If we accept that proposition it is perfectly ridiculous for us to spend over $3,000.000 per year on the militia. This government since it has been., in power has spent over $10,000,000 on the militia, and this year we are spending $3,000,000. Then it is ridiculous to bring over from the old country a competent man, a man qualified to organize1 our militia, having no political tendencies himself, desirous ouly of one thing, to place our militia on a proper military footing. I say that this becomes ridiculous and absurd. If we accept the principle that politics are to have any portion, however small, in the organization of the militia we are laying the foundation of incalculable evil. If it is open to the Minister of Agriculture, why is it not open to every other member of the cabinet, and why is it not open to every member of this House to interfere with the military organization of a regiment, and the military organization of the country ? If you admit that principle I say that the money we are spending on the reorganization of the force and in the improvement of our militia system is money absolutely
wasted. There are changes proposed in our militia Bill. It is possible that we may improve it, but as long as the law is as it is and as long as we bring here from the old country a military man to command our militia, I say that military man ought to. have carte blanche in his work. He is under this government that is not controvertable. There is no question about that. I have seen particularly in the newspapers of my province, some what I should call absurd issues, raised as to tbe rigiit of the Canadian people to control their own militia organization. That question is not in issue in this case, that for my own part, I feel sincere regret at the extremely harsh and cruel treatment adopted by tliis government towards Lord Dundonald. It may be a logical consequence of the words which he uttered in Montreal that he has given this government the right to dispose with his services, but I say that in the eyes of the people of this country, if this government found that he had done wrong in that instance, it would have been far more dignified, far more honourable, far more just, to have communicated in plain language its opinion as to Lord Dundonald's conduct to that gentleman without in that abrupt way removing him from the theatre of what I would call his most beneficial actions since some time. I am perfectly sure that when the people of this country come to form a calm and judicial judgment upon the act of this government they will arrive at the conclusion unquestionably that he has been harshly treated and that in view of the role, the very ignominous role played iu this whole transaction by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, the recourse to dismissal was a cruel and revengeful course which will be condemned by tbe people of this country.


Hon.  W. S.@: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) saw fit to begin his oration by what I should think the bon. gentleman would have considered a most unworthy sneer at my hon. friend who sits on my le5t, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) by referring to his chickens and certain matters connected with the department over which he so ably presides. I want to tell my hon. friend that my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture occupies too important a place in the affections and regard of the people of this country to merit any sneers from him or from anybody else in regard to the duties which he discharges. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture does not need a champion in me. My hon. friend has made a statement here coolly, calmly and ably today which, I am sure, will carry conviction to the people of this country as it has carried conviction to every independent man in this House who has listened to him.
I will refer to a few points to which the hon. member for Jaequ.es Cartier has alluded.
*

Tlie hon. gentleman began by declaring himself to be a champion of that much injured nobleman, Lord Dundonald. He wished it to be distinctly understood that he was here, at least as one friend, to stand by the Earl of Dundonald, but beyond that announcement with a good deal of sound and fury we heard scarcely any word in reference to Lord Dundonald. He was leading up, I supposed, to prove that Lord Dundonald's course was absolutely constitutional; but he had not gone far before he changed his mind, and he ended his speech by admitting, if words mean anything, that the course pursued by Lord Dundonald could not be defended, though at the same time claiming that our treatment of him was somewhat harsh. So it is understood that there is no question in this House as to the fact that the act committed by Lord Dundonald was absolutely indefensible and in violation of every rule which controls an officer of the government ; and that it was such as could not be overlooked by the government of this country. The hon. gentleman declared himself to be the champion of Lord Dundonald although he forgot to perform the task which he had undertaken. It occurred to me that there might be a bond of sympathy between the two gentlemen. The hon. gentleman has been suffering recently. He had his head cut off not very long ago and he can more fully sympathize with the Earl now in trouble and difficulty. It was chivalrous indeed for the hon. gentleman to come forward at this moment, feeling as he does the deepest sympathy, and being desirous of making known the fact that he realized his own position and is ready to sympathize w-ith another who is similarly situated. But the difference is that the hon. gentleman was disciplined by his own friends voluntarily, and of course he will hardly confess that he deserved it, as he is bound to admit that his fuaend whom he is championing did deserve what he got.
Let me refer for a few moments to the observations which my hon. friend has made in reference to this case. He says at the outset that the dinner which Lord Dundonald attended 'was not a public dinner, that he was in the city of Montreal attending to his duties, that he was invited to dine with some friends and that it was at a private dinner that all this occurred. How is it that at this private dinner Lord Dundonald had a newspaper reporter present, paid to be there, and that every word that was said was taken down by that newspaper reporter, although next morning an attempt was made, and successfully made, to prevent the publication of these notes in the Montreal ' Gazette.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the "lion, gentleman say that the General Officer Commanding had a newspaper reporter there paid to report his speech ?


Frederick William Borden: 


Frederick William Borden: I am so informed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Sir I REDERICIv BORDEN. I have no personal knowledge. At any rate we have this curious fact that the only version of what was stated at the dinner, which Lord Dundonald admits to be authentic, was the version which was reported by that reporter. But, Sir, he told us that Lord Dundonald was in Montreal attending to his duties. We have read the correspondence which lias been laid on the table of the House, and we have heard the statement which Lord Dundonald had read to this House by a prominent member of the opposition. " and from that we have learned that Lord Dundonald went to Montreal for what purpose ? To see Colonel Smart and to ask Colonel Smart to write a letter-a letter which is published in Lord Dundonald's statement-and he went to Montreal to bring together some of his subordinate officers in order that he might hunt up evidence to found a charge against my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture and against this government. When he came to make that charge and to make that speech, how fair was he, how honourable was he when by his own admission he knew that my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, was acting for me at the council board, when he knew that my hon. friend had in his hands at the time he erased the na me of Pickel from the ' Gazette.' a letter from Colonel Smart-when he knew all these things he made his speech at that dinner, whicjh speech was taken down by his reporter, and he carefully avoided giving his hearers to understand the truth in reference to these facts V


John Graham Haggart: Does the hon. gentleman say that Lord Dundonald knew of the erasure before it went to Council ?


Frederick William Borden: No. I said that at the time Loyd Dundonald made his speech in Montreal he knew that my hon. colleague had in his hands a letter from Colonel Smart not only authorizing, but asking, my hon. friend to make that erasure.


Robert Laird Borden: Did my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence not understand from the hon. Minister of Agriculture this evening, as I understand from him, that before that letter had been received it had been arranged between him and Colonel Smart that the name should be struck out ?


Frederick William Borden: I do not know that that has any bearing upon the point. What I say is that when Lord Dundonald made- the statement at that banquet, finding fault with the Minister of Agriculture, charging him with altering a document improperly, he knew that the Minister of Agriculture was acting for me, and he knew that the Minister of Agricul-

-lure had the authority of the officer commanding the regiment to strike out that
name.	,
My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has referred to as cruel, the manner in which Lord Dundonald has been treated ; and he says that this cruel treatment was because Lord Dundonald was notified of his dismissal by a cold every-day telegram. I would like to ask my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) what other means was in the hands of the government or myself by which to inform Lord Dundonald-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As I have stated, when an officer of that rank is dismissed, a member of the headquarters staff is sent by special letter to bring him the message.


Frederick William Borden: Seeing that Lord Dundonald was attending to the camp, where lie had gone against my advice-
Mr. ,SAM. HUGHES. May I ask th-hon. gentleman a question ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Frederick William Borden: I can lay that letter on the table of the House if it is desired.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask a ques-' tion ? Did the minister advise Lord Dundonald not to go to the London camp ?


Frederick William Borden: I did.


Samuel Hughes: Hold on-before the Order in Council was passed dismissing him '!


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Then yoiu prejudged the case.


Frederick William Borden: No ; mv mind was made up.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. TISDALE.: Will my hon. friend allow me


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


David Tisdale: If you have any objection, I do not wish to interrupt. It was not quite plain whether the minister said he did not understand that it was the custom of the War Office to send a special messenger on such occasions.


Frederick William Borden: Well, it is a mere matter of three or four hours' journey for the War Oflice to send a messenger to any of the principal commands in the British Isles, but here it was a matter of a great many hundred miles, and it seemed lo me the greatest iiossible act of kindness to let Lord Dundonald know at the earliest possible moment what had taken place, in order that he might not be in an awkward or unpleasant position. TO prevent Ms getting into that position, after consulting the Prime Minister, and as soon as I heard
that Lord Dundonald intended to go to the camp, I sent a polite note to him telling him that I had heard that he proposed going to the camp, and suggesting the propriety- these were the words I used-suggesting the propriety of his postponing his visit to that camp. I got an answer from him at eleven o'clock that night practically to this effect : That if I had said ' you must not go,' hr would not have gone, but because I did not say so, he proposed to go ; and he went. Therefore, it was necessary to send him a telegram, and if there was any great cruelty in that, I only wish to say that it was not intended. Our motives were absolutely (he opposite of any unkindness or cruelty.
Now. the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) has said that Lord Dundonald had no quarrel with me. and that it was only the Minister of Agriculture with whom he had the quarrel.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I beg my hon. friend's pardon ; I did not say that. I said the Minister of Agriculture had not laid the grievance before you, or before the General Officer Commanding ; he seemed to have himself dealt with Colonel Smart.


Frederick William Borden: I took the words of my hon. friend down : that Lord Dundonald worked harmoniously with me, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) did me the honour to read a speech of mine in proof of that. He read that speech to show that the official course of events was absolutely calm and without a ripple on its surface, except for this difficulty with the Minister of Agriculture. Well, surely my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) understands that when an officer of the government makes an attack such as Lord Dundonald made upon my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture ; a most unfair attack, as I have shown ; a most misleading attack, as I have shown ; and when that officer attacks the whole government at the same time ; surely my hon. friend does not expect that the Minister of Militia, at the head of the department in which this official is an officer, is not to be affected by what the General Officer Commanding said under such circumstances.
I will show later on exactly the attitude of that gentleman towards this government and towards myself, although I am quite prepared to admit that I misunderstood him. 1 made the speech which the hon. gentleman has quoted to-night. That speech may not do much credit to my head, or to my discernment, or to my brains, but I think it will be admitted that it does some credit to my heart, and that it proves, at any rate, that, so far as I was concerned, I was willing to do my very best to get along comfortably and satisfactorily with Lord Dundonald. I also was speaking to a meeting of officers at a dinner in Montreal, at which all the guests were. I believe, officers. But, instead of following the tactics of Lord Dundonald, by which be endeavoured to pre-

judice these officers against those in authority, I took advantage of the occasion to endeavour to assist'the General Officer Commanding.
My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) ventured the statement at the outset that the General Officer Commanding in Canada occupied a special position. He undertook to elaborate that argument, but I did not observe that he arrived at any conclusion. I followed him very closely, because I thought I was going to learn some new constitutional doctrine. I thought I was going to hear announced again, as used to be claimed many years ago, that because the officer who commands the militia of this country, under the laws of this country, must be, under the present law, an imperial officer, that therefore, by virtue of that fact, the General Officer Commanding possessed some special power with reference to the Canadian militia. I am glad to know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) did not go to that extent, and so we are all agreed once more that there is no constitutional question at issue. If it were necessary to prove that there is no constitutional question at issue it could be easily done.
I have here under my hand quotations from speeches of some of the great men who have occupied the position of Secretary of State for War in England. I will not detain the House with them now ; but both the Right Hon. Hugh C. Childers and Lord Cardwell, who occupied that positiiou with great honour 'and; dilstinctiion. have laid down most distinctly, and to-day there is no question about it, the proposition that the minister has absolute control of every officer, including the Commander iu Chief, in the War Office. You could not carry on government otherwise. It would be an absurdity. If the General Officer Commanding is to have these extraordinary powers, why should not a deputy minister have them? Carry that idea out to its legitimate conclusion, and you would have not government, but chaos in the affairs oi the country. So it is not worth while to waste time discussing it.


David Tisdale: I think the hon. gentleman had better discuss it fully, for later on I may deal with it.


Frederick William Borden: I will read two of the authorities. First, I will read an extract from a speech of the Right Hon. Hugh C. Childers, delivered iu 18S2. It is to be found in a book entitled 'Life of Right Hon. H. C. Childers,' second volume, at page 56 :
It has been suggested that of late years successive Secretaries of State for War have, in the government of the army, been encroaching on the functions of others. The army, these critics say, is the army of the Crown ; we, Secretaries of State forsooth, want to make it the army of the House of Commons. The Crown, Sir F. W. BORDEN.
they say, governs the army through the Commander in Chief. The Secretary of State is a mere financial officer, who has gradually intruded on the province of the Crown by means of the power of the purse.
Now, gentlemen, I am bound to tell you that all this is a mere delusion. These writers ought to reflect that to no one can the wrongful attribution of power be more distasteful than the sovereign herself. The Queen, gentlemen, as she is the most just and wise, so is she the most constitutional of sovereigns. The Queen is the undoubted head of the army ; she is also the head of the navy, and of every branch of the public service. As such she can do no wrong. But she does no wrong for the express reason that all her acts are the acts of her responsible ministers. The doctrine of personal government which you have seen so undisguisedly claimed in Prussia within the last few days is absolutely unknown to our constitution.
This is hot a matter of custom or unwritten law. The functions of the Secretary of State for War, as ' administering the royal authority and prerogative in respect of the army,' are laid down with great precision by the Order of the Queen in Council of June. 1S70. Under him there are three great departments, the heads of which are equally responsible to him ; the Commander in Chief for the Military Department, the Surveyor General for the Ordnance and Supply Department, the Financial Secretary for the Finance Department. No act of discipline can be exercised, no appointment or promotion can be made, no troops can be moved, no payments can be made, without the approval, expressed or implied, of the Secretary of State. To say that the Secretary of State has no controlling power in such matters, when he is responsible to parliament for any improper exercise of the Queen's prerogative in regard to them is manifestly absurd. On this subject I have never known any misapprehension within the walls of the War Office or in Parliament. . . .
I will also read an extract from a book entitled ' Lord Cardwell at the War Office,' by Sir Robert Biddulpk, at page 239 :
Thus was the question of the royal prerogative with regard to the command of the army placed on a constitutional basis. ' The General Commanding-in-Chief was formally declared to be a subordinate of the Minister of War ' ; and that minister was declared to be the channel through whom the Sovereign's commands were to be conveyed to the army.
All military work hitherto done at the War Office was transferred to the Horse Guards, both offices being made one, so that correspondence between the two offices should cease; it being clearly understood that no question should arise to prevent the Secretary of State from sending for any officer or any clerk in any military office, if he wished to examine him on a question of doubt.
Under the British constitution, the Secretary of State is necessarily a member of parliament, and must usually be a civilian, and therefore without that sort of knowledge that pertains to a life spent in the military service. This is an unavoidable result of our parliamentary system, and as it could not be bhanged. it was necessary to make the best arrangement for working it. To this end, it

appeared to Lord Cardwell that the Secretary of State should surround himself with the best ' officers in the army as the heads of the various departments, so that after freely consulting them he could form a sound judgment and come to a clear conclusion upon the great questions submitted for his decision.
The hon. gentleman has said a great a<3eal about my hon. friend the Minister of "Agriculture not having any power to act as Minister of Militia. Well, in answer to that. I would ask him whether the act which my hon. friend did is valid or invalid. If it is valid, I presume he had the power.
My hon. friend has also said that no minister outside of the Minister of Militia, no politician-no political man, to use his own words-has any right to advise or to use any influence in connection with the organization of a corps of militia. Well, it seems to me that no more absurd proposition could be put forward. If we were dealing with a regular army, I could understand that. But we are dealing with a militia force, with a citizen army, not a regular army. We have no regular army. We must look to the people of this country to build up our militia, and we must look to the influential men. We want the cooperation and assistance of the influential men throughout Canada to assist us in building up the militia ; and can you find an influential man in Canada-I was going to say a man worth his salt-who has not some political views or ideas ? I think it would be very difficut to find one ; and the practice in this country, in organizing new corps, has been to go at once to the most influential man in the county and enlist his influence.
In the organization of the militia in 1S68, in which I took part, I remember very well that the man who was selected in my own county to organize the regiment, of which I became a member afterwards and which exists to this day in that county, was a member of parliament. And in every county of Nova Scotia some prominent man was selected to organize the militia in that county immediately after confederation. The same course, I presume, was followed in every other part of the Dominion. Of necessity such a course had to be followed. Are we to be told, then, that because my hon. friend happens to be a member for one of the eastern township counties and a member of the cabinet living in the eastern townships and consequently specially charged with looking after the welfare of that section of country, he is therefore to be excluded from taking any part in the organization of an important militia corps in that community ? I should say that that was a very good reason why his co-operation and assistance should be in such an important work. At any rate, such is the course which had always hitherto been followed ; and right here let me
point out the difference between ordinary promotions and ordinary appointments in the regular course and the establishment and organization of a corps which had heretofore no existence. Why, hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have lost their heads over this matter. The General Officer Commanding ought to have known better. Had he reflected, he would have known that in Great Britain, whenever a volunteer corps is to be organized, whenever a corps of yeomanry is to be established, the lord-lieutenant of the county is the man in whose hands the law has placed the giving of these official positions.


John Graham Haggart: Hear. hear.


Frederick William Borden: And who is the lord-lieutenant ? He is an appointee of the government of the day.


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.


Frederick William Borden: I wish merely to add that, so far from receding, so far from refusing to accept full responsibility, I wish it to be considered that I have accepted to the fullest extent responsibility for everything my hon. colleague has done. The only thing that I regret is that I happened to be away from Ottawa in the city of Boston for five or six weeks at the beginning of this year, during which period the organization of this corps was taken up. Had I been here, I woud have spoken to my hon. friend and Very likely the unfortunate difficulties which have occurred might not have taken place.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frederick William Borden: Another fact worth noting is this. The General Officer Commanding, instead of pursuing the usual course,-a course which I never knew to have been departed from previously.-instead of going to the District Officer Commanding in the district in which this corps was to be organized, saw fit to go outside of the district altogether and call to his assistance gentlemen who were not citizens of that particular district. I am not objecting to the officers he chose as his advisers, but I do say that he ought to have placed the organization of this corps chiefly under the control and management of the District Officer Commanding in the district in which it was to be organized. Why he departed from this sound rule I do not know. Why this stickler for propriety and etiquette, who has suffered so much during his two years residence in Ottawa from the lack of regard for etiquette, should have chosen to depart from this good, sound rule and thus administer an unjustifiable and unmerited snub to the District Officer Commanding in that district. I am at a loss to know. He did. however, depart from that rule. The District Officer Commanding in that district happens to be a worthy French Canadian, and I am not aware whether that

fact had anything to do with the general's taking the course he did or not. I certainly hope it had not.


Samuel Hughes: Are we to understand that Colonel Roy, who is the District Officer Commanding in the division, had no part in the organization of that regiment ?


Frederick William Borden: Nothing, except-


Samuel Hughes: I have data to the contrary.


Frederick William Borden: I know that the hon. gentleman is very well versed in these matters, but I cap tell him that Colonel Roy was simply made use of as a means of registering or passing papers from Colonel Smart and Colonel Whitley to the General and back again. That was all.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask whether the hon. minister will inquire of Colonel Roy whether or not he took any part in the organization of this regiment. I have heard that he did, and I think that my hon. friend, if he makes inquiry, may perhaps find correspondence to show that he did. I think it is as well we should be under no misapprehension about it, particularly as the minister has suggested-for some reason I cannot comprehend-that Colonel Roy was overlooked in some way because he is a French Canadian. I do not know that Lord Dmidonald was worthy of that reflection on his character.


Frederick William Borden: We will investigate as to his worth as we go on. The concluding part of my hon. friend's remarks and the only part in which he seemed to pay very much attention to the general, whose cause he has offered to champion, consisted of the statement that he thought such an eminent soldier, when he was brought out to this country to take charge of our militia affairs, should have been given carte blanche to do as he liked. Well, I do not believe that my hon. friend's leader would approve of that theory, I do not know. But he might find himself getting into somewhat deep water if he were to follow such a liberal course as that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, sinc-e the broader question has inevitably come under review. it will be expected that 1 should devote some attention to the pronun-ciamento or address which the late General Officer Commanding has seen fit to issue to the people of Canada. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) has referred to some of the interesting portions of this address, this appeal from the government to the people of Canada.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, if the minister would permit me-I do not wish to raise the point of order, though I must say I do not think that the point he is now discussing is relevant. It has nothing to do Sir F. W. BORDEN.
with the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture. But my point in the matter is this-that the Minister of Militia will have, at a very early day, ample opportunity in this House, and on a similar motion to this, to discuss the document to which he refers.


Frederick William Borden: Mr. Speaker, I think that if there were no other reasons, the House would agree with me that the nature of the document to which I refer, its references to myself, would be a sufficient justification for me to take advantage of the very earliest opportunity to discuss it. We will take advantage of the other opportunities also when they arise. Now, Sir, I observe that the concluding words of the r.isoution we are now7 discussing are as follows :
The House regrets that this unwarrantable interference approved by the government not only has unduly delayed the organization of the regiment, but has culminated in depriving the militia of Canada of an experienced and distinguished commanding officer.
Well, now7, as my hon. colleague (Mr. Fisher) has pointed out, this statement, this address to the people of Canada, states otherwise. This address to the people of Canada contains statements which the people of Canada no doubt, will read with surprise, after having read the speech in Montreal and after having read the letter to me. in answer to the inquiry I made in reference to that speech, in which the ex-Commanding Officer declared that he had no notes on that occasion with reference to the question w'hich w7e have been discussing here tonight. And also they must have been surprised w7hen they learned of the tremendous effort that was made to suppress and prevent the publication of the report of that speech at Montreal. But I suppose they are bound to believe the statement w7liich this gentleman makes in the ca(jn of his own office, and, evidently after very careful consideration and deliberation. In this statement he tells us that the speech at Montreal was no sudden ebulition, but that he had gone down there w7ith the greatest deliberation and with the intention of precipitating the crisis which he had been carefully w7atching for an opportunity to precipitate for months, if not for years. And one cannot help trying to understand the mental, not to say the moral, make-up of the man who, w7hile having this in mind, goes every day to his office, meets his chief day after day ; proffers him the hand of friendship-or professes to-writes him polite notes ; professes to be engaged in full sympathy with him ; and occasionally even indulges in paying him a compliment;-I say it is difficult to understand the mental and moral make-up of the man who could do that and carry it on. not for days, nor for weeks, but, confessedly, for months. And what is the object which the gentleman states as the justification for this course 1

Oh, liis object was to save not exactly his country, but this benighted country of Canada. He was to be the saviour of this country. And one can imagine the stress under which this high-minded nobleman, day after day felt impelled to go to his work, acting this double part, even though he did it because of the great benefit which he was going to confer upon this country of his temporary adoption. I do not think we need to go much further in order, I will not say to understand, but to wonder at, the condition of mind in which such sx man must have been. And we cannot go very far in that line of reflection and investigation without being satisfied that the people of Canada. at any rate, do not want public servants'of that kind.
He begins this extraordinary document in these words :
Considering it desirable that I should lay before the people of Canada a statement of my position with reference to the difficulty between myself and the government of Canada.
' Myself.' ' Myself and the government of Canada.' In that phrase you have the explanation of the whole difficulty. A more highly concentrated exhibition of egotism and' self-assertion than is to be found in these words, cannot, I believe, be found in the English language. ' Myself.' Who is this gentleman who speaks of himself first and the government of Canada afterwards 1 Why, Mr. Speaker, it is almost necessary to have the Order in Council before one to enable one to believe-in view of the words I have just read-that this gentleman was appointed by Order in Council of the very same government, approved by His Excellency the Governor General, to an official position under the Minister of Militia in July, 1002. But the gentleman is going to take charge of things in this country ! Well, let me say this Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has one thing to learn before he can become dictator. Before he governs Canada he must learn to govern himself. The hon. gentleman is precipitating in this country, or trying to-t do not think it can last very long-the kind of conflict of which history tells us, conflicts which were of frequent occurrence about two centuries ago, when there was a constant struggle for supremacy between the military and the civil side of society. Happily that question was settled in all Anglo-Saxon countries, settled in the mother country one hundred years ago. I do not think we need fear that a campaign of that kind will proceed very far in this country.
The manifesto makes several references to myself which I think I should deal with now, at the very earliest opportunity which lias presented itself. He has said that he did not seek to impose his policy, but simply wished to take control-because he used the word ' control,' of the technical administration of the department. Well, I
do not know what he calls policy, but I should suppose that any development of the militia in this country which involves a large expenditure of money would be considered to be a question of policy ; with those questions the government felt under obligation to deal, and in dealing with those questions, I am bound to say I have had the greatest difficulty in the world in keeping this officer anywhere within bounds, as i shall attempt to prove as I proceed.
He has divided his attack upon the administration into two parts. On the one hand he charges interference; on the other hand he charges indifference, two things which do not logically come together. But the late General Officer Commanding is not always logical any more than he is always considerate of the absolute, literal truth of the statements he makes. He says that he was subjected to interference. Interference, forsooth. Interference by whom ? Interference by the regularly constituted authorities of the people of this country, interference by the government of the country, the representatives of the people, the people who were paying him for the services which he was supposed to be giving. Well, let us see in what respects he attempts to make good these charges. As one of the reasons why he wished to ' let daylight ' into the proceedings of the Militia Uepartment. Ac., he refers to the fact that a new militia law was about to be introduced. These are the words he used :
I realized moreover that the new Militia Bill would soon be discussed in parliament and that it was my duty to give a warning of certain dangers before it was too late.
Not to his minister, not to the government -because, if he could not get my ear, he might have gone to the Prime Minister-but he must make an appeal to the people, because, forsooth, in my wisdom I saw fit to introduce into this House a much needed Militia Bill and was about to put it through. What was the matter with the General Officer Commanding ? He saw in that Bill and learned from my statements in this House that I approv'ed of a new system which has been adopted in England, by which the services of the Commander in Chief are dispensed with, and he took alarm, and was determined, without making an effort to convince me that I was wrong in my proposal, to appeal over my head and beyond the government, to the people, in order to prevent me from carrying the Militia Bill through this House.
The first charge which he makes is that Part II of his annual report was suppressed, that is. his report of 1902. He says :
One extremely serious case of interference was the suppression of the important parts of my first annual report on the militia. After studying the situation with great care, I came to certain conclusions, and thought out certain.

plans. For convenience of reference I divided my report for the year 1902 into two halves. Fart I. was a simple diary of events. Part II. contained my description of the condition of the militia, and an outline of a comprehensive scheme for reorganizing the force upon lines suitable to the country. This part was fully intended by me for publication. It contained nothing that could be described as a military secret. It covered matter such as is constantly made public in Great Britain and the United States. In my judgment it was information as to the actual condition and possibilities of the militia which it was desirable for the people of Canada to know.
This part of the report Sir Frederick Borden suppressed against my protest.
Mark these words ' against my protest. '
In the House of Commons at various times he described this part of the report as ' private.'
Mark that word ' private. '
' Confidential ' and ' secret.' It was neither private,-
Mark that.
' Confidential ' nor ' secret.' When the minister made these statements he had been ex-' plicitly informed by me that I desired its publication. He went so far on one occasion as to compare the report to the secret report on Canadian defence.
With that report my report had no analogy.
That is so far as the first report is concerned. What are the facts ? The facts I will endeavour as briefly as possible to place before the House. It will be remembered that last year a question was put upon the order paper by the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) and answered by me. I have the reference from ' Hansard ' here. I will not read them hut the question was substantially this : It has been stated in the English and Canadian papers that a report had been written by the General Officer Commanding which had not been printed, and I was asked whether It was my intention to print it. I gave as the reason why it had not been printed, that I considered the document to be confidential and I proposed to treat it in that way. Later on my hon. friend from South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) brought the matter up in the House and asked some question and I replied to him in the same sense. I stated that I would be very glad to submit the report to a committee of the House, composed of the hon. leader of the opposition and any hon. gentleman whom he might name, together with some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who might be interested in the matter. I took the ground, which I am sure would have been taken in England under similar circumstances, that this was a report not then, at any rate, proper to he published and I gave my reasons Lord Dundonald states that he urged the publication, that he protested against the Sir F. W. BORDEN.
refusal of its publication and that it. was noft marked by him ' private.' I do not know that it would matter very much, although, as a matter of fact, I will be able to show that it was marked ' private.' But, that does not matter because I am the judge, I think, as the responsible minister to the people of this country, whether a report should he published or not or when it should be published.


Mr. LENNON.: It does not apply to the railway company.


Frederick William Borden: What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) say ?


Haughton Lennox: It does not apply to the railway company.	>


Mr. HEYD.: He would be sure to say something foolish.


Frederick William Borden: I do not know what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) means. I have here the correspondence which passed between Lord Dundon-aid and myself in reference to this report.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question.


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman did not bring that report down to parliament last session. Has anything been stated to the public or has anything been stated outside of this parliament in connection with that document other than what the hon. gentleman stated last year during the session?


Frederick William Borden: Not by me, but I think that by the General Officer Commanding a good deal has been stated.


Andrew B. Ingram: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. What I wish to know is : Was there any statement to the effect that a very expensive scheme had been laid down by the major general and was that authorized by the hon. gentleman to be stated publicly outside of this parliament or inside of this parliament?


Frederick William Borden: I said nothing about an expensive scheme that I am aware of.


Andrew B. Ingram: And the hon. gentleman did not authorize his department to do so?


Frederick William Borden: A statement was made in the newspapers and by some extraordinary and mysterious method reports of what is going on in the Militia Department have frequently been published in England and before they were published in this country.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that how the ' Globe ' got it ?


Frederick William Borden: I do not know. It was not stated by me or with

my authority. But, here is the tact; this letter is the covering letter of this report. It is a letter from Lord Dundonald to me.
I have secured from Lord Dundonald consent to publish this letter.	I could not
do it until I had secured that consent because it was marked ' private.' It is as follows :
Creichton Lodge.
Ottawa, Jan. 29, 1903.
* Private.'
Dear Sir Frederick,-I am sending you with this my report for the year 1902. I only received the last of the sub-reports to me last Saturday"-there has been, as you are aware, a great deal of work involved, first in becoming acquainted with a system, then in discovering its weaknesses, then in suggesting remedies for improvement. I hope that the recommendations I make will commend themselves to you.
I think they will, as from our conversations I believe we agree on many essential points. 1 don't think the country can obtain a cheaper or more efficient system for money expended than the one outlined, if only you can see your way to get it adopted and the proper funds voted.
I am still confine!! to the house but hope to get out to-morrow and shall look forward to seeing you Monday at latest if convenient to you.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) DUNDONALD.
This is the covering letter of the report under consideration marked ' private.' On the 31st of January, two days later I wrote the following letter marked ' private ' also: Ottawa, 31st Jan., 1904.
Dear Lord Dundonald,-I have carefully read your very interesting and able report. I don't know whether you intend Part II to form part of the annual report of the Minister of Militia and Defence for this year (i.e. 1902), but I am afraid it would not do to put forward a scheme which has not yet been considered as a whole, even by the minister, and of which the other members of the cabinet have as yet had absolutely no opportunity of knowing anything. Besides, there is the very grave question of propriety of giving such a scheme to the world; at any rate, in such detail. Furthermore, you are aware that a scheme was recommended hy the Defence Committee of 1898, approved by the War Office and adopted by the Canadian government. I think it will be necessary to carefully compare your proposals with those of the committee.
Then there is the financial question. It is absolutely necessary that I should have a carefully prepared estimate of the cost involved in your proposals before they can be considered by the government. Will you kindly furnish this at your earliest convenience ?
It seems to me that your Report II should be considered as a confidential paper for the information of the minister and of the cabinet, and I trust you will see the force of this and of the other reasons I have given against publication, at any rate at this time.
I shall be glad to see you on Tuesday next if convenient for you, when we can perhaps settle upon what should be published as part of the annual report.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) F. W. BORDEN.
On the lltli of February I received this note :
Dear Sir Frederick,-Yes, I will let you have the report with slight amendments as suggested almost at once. Will you let me have the part you have, and I will let you have the whole back in a few hours ?
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) DUNDONALD.
I sent the report at once. On the 21st of February I still was without the report and I wrote this letter :
Dear Lord Dundonald,-I w'ould like to again call attention to my letter of the 31st ultimo dealing with your annual report. After very careful consideration of the matter since that letter was written, I am more than ever convinced of the correctness of the views therein expressed.
It is quite outside the province of an annual departmental report to propound a scheme or policy of defence, and therefore I must ask you [DOT] to be good enough to omit Part II (so called) from your report, and to amend Part I accordingly.
I shall be quite ready, however, to approve of the insertion in your annual report of a clause stating that you have prepared for my information a scheme which you think would (to use the words of the heading to Part II.)
* conduce to the greater efficiency of the militia as a fighting force.'	.
May I ask, therefore, that the annual report be amended as above suggested, and placed in my hands to-day, so that it may go to the printer.
Yours yery truly,
(Sgd.) F. W. BORDEN.
On the 28th of February I received this note :
Dear Sir Frederick-I return the report divided as you wish. There was a difficulty in getting the work done Saturday, owing to the day being a half holiday.
Very truly.
(Sgd.) DUNDONALD.
p.S.-I ge to Kingston at 11 a.m. to visit the Royal Military College, &c.
Here is another letter of mine :
February 23rd, 1903.
Dear Lord Dundonald,-Thanks for your letter of this date and the amended annual report.
I have been obliged to make a few unimport-, ant changes, which cannot be delayed for your return from Kingston.
Yours very truly
(Sgd.) F. W. BORDEN.
That ended the incident, so far as the report was concerned; but on the 3rd of March I wrote the following letter :
Major General,
The Earl of Dundonald,
Ottawa.
My dear Lord Dundonald,-Will you he good enough to have the financial statement, showing approximate .expense involved in your plan of reorganizaion of the militia, completed and sent in to me as soon as possible. I wish to discuss this and other matters pertaining to them

with my colleagues and cannot do so without the memorandum showing the cost.
Instead of making the statement simply to show the additions, I would be glad if you would show the whole expenditure on capital and income aocount, respectively, under your proposals.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) P. W. BORDEN.
Now, that is the record. Does that record hear out the statement which this right hon. gentleman has seen fit to make in this address of his to the people of Canada ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes.


Frederick William Borden: Who says 1 yes ' V


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I do.


Frederick William Borden: In the first place, he says that I suppressed the report. Well, I think I can now be relieved from a charge of that kind. He says that it was in no sense private. Well, it was marked * private.'


Samuel Hughes: The report ?


Frederick William Borden: The letter covering the report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is not the gist of your letter to the General Officer Commanding that sucli a report could not be well given to the public, because it was not considered by the cabinet, and, even though it were considered, it would not be wise to give it ?


Frederick William Borden: He sent me his report under cover of a private letter. He says that he protested. If he protested I never received his protest. Now, I think, for a gentleman to make such an unwarranted statement as that to the public of Canada, charging me with the suppression of public documents, with misusing a document and misleading this House and the country, is rather a serious matter, and one which is perhaps the most serious and grave offence which he has committed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: May I ask my hon. friend if we will have that report ?


Frederick William Borden: I will come to that before I get through.


Samuel Hughes: The Toronto ' Globe ' has it already.


Frederick William Borden: We have heard a good deal about coincidences, and we have some coincidences in this connection. A persistent demand for this report has come from gentlemen on the opposite' side of the House, and there have been references to it in the English papers, which,
1. say, did not come from me, or from any officer in my department, so far as I know -unless it came from the General Officer Commanding himself.


Mr. KEMP.: That is not fair.


Frederick William Borden: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: It is fair. '


Frederick William Borden: Just here 1 may be permitted to record a complaint against certain of the newspapers in this country for their treatment of me in this matter. I am not in the habit of making complaints of this kind; in fact, I am bound to say that I never have had very much reason to ; but it seems to me somewhat unfair-not to characterize it in a stronger way-and it seems a coincidence also, that the newspaper which first published the authorized edition of this manifesto has referred to me in its editorial column in these words, speaking of Lord Dundonald's statement :
That means that Sir Frederick Borden lied- lied fri^m his seat in the House, lied in an official statement to the House.
From the Toronto ' News,' June 20th ; J. S. Willison, managing director. I had expected different treatment from that source ; from any source. I did not suppose that any newspaper edited outside of Billingsgate could indulge In language of that kind. And this is a paper which assumes a high moral tone in this country ; a paper which was started to show the every-day people of Canada, who did not know anything about their work-such as my hon. friend of the ' World,' for instance-how to run a newspaper. This is the man who is posing as being too good to edit the Toronto ' Globe ' any longer. He got out of that; he was to be translated to a higher sphere. The
Globe ' never published such a contemptible reference to any man on any side of politics in this country, I a>m happy to say. If it had no regard for me, if it had no regard for itself, if it had no regard for the amenities and decencies of life, it should have some regard and some respect for the position which, for the time being, I have the honour to hold in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the next charge is that I refused to publish Lord Dundonald's second report of the year 1903. I have his letter with reference to that. He wrote the report and sent it to me with the following letter-this time the letter was not marked'
[DOT]	private ' :
To Hon. Sir Frederick Borden.
Ottawa, 1st March, 1904.
Dear Sir Frederick Bouden,-Herewith I inclose my report for the year 1903. You will observe on page 23 of the report that I make reference to the necessity for reports from the heads of certain important branches. These branches having to do with the supply of material an-d with the requirements of mobilization, the reports from them should, in my opinion, be published with the report of the General Officer Commanding.
Those that I now inclose-from the quartermaster-general and the director-general of engineer services-appear in my opinion, to be more in the nature of memoranda on matters of a minor nature than reports on the important subjects with whiclj those officers are

appointed to deal, and, perhaps, you would kindly use your discretion as to whether they should go into the blue-book or not. Next year I hope the reports from these officers will be of such a nature that they will be read with interest and be above adverse criticism.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) DUNDONALD.
Well, Sir, I read this report, and I found that like its predecessor it contained things which I could not publish. I sent for Lord Dundonald, and I spent a good deal of time with the report, reading over every word of it, and marking in pencil the parts to which I objected. I did not object to the report so much as I objected to the publication of certain portions, and I wished him to amend it, and he, as I supposed, agreed to do so. Some of the objections which I made to it were that it referred to documents which had not been brought down to parliament, which there was no intention to bring down. I informed him that the moment that report was laid on the table of the House, the members of the House would have the right to ask for the documents ; and, as we did not wish to bring the documents down, I did not wish those references put in the report. I pointed out to him several instances in which he had put in his report references to matters which had been before me-matters of detail, matters of routine in the department, matters of very trivial consequence, and matters of principle in which I had differed with him, and to which I had refused to give my consent. I asked him if he proposed to appeal from me to parliament and the people of the country. He agreed to make changes ; he agreed to omit the portions of the report to which I objected. He took it away with him, and, after keeping it nearly three weeks, sent it back. X returned it to him with this letter, by a messenger :
Ottawa, 28th March, 1904.
Dear Lord Dundonald,-Referring to your letter of the 1st instant, I will send you to-day a copy of your report as I propose to have it printed in my annual report. I have omitted certain things and have made a few slight verbal changes which do not in any way alter the meaning. As I have explained to you very fully the reasons for the omissions I am making, I need not go into that matter in this letter.
"With reference to the reports from heads of important branches, which you think should be fuller, I am inclined to agree with you, and would feel disposed to print as large a portion of them as possible, and I think the reports should be prepared with that contingency in view.
Yourte very truly,
(Sgd.) F. W. BORDEN.
This amended report, which he says was cut and carved, as if lie knew nothing about it. was sent to him by a messenger on the 28th of March, and delivered to him. In due course the report went to the printer,
and on the 21st of April I received this letter from Lord Dundonald :
Ottawa, April 21st, 1904.
Dear Sir Frederick Borden,-I have just received the printer's proof of my report for 1903 as revised by you for publication and have returned it. While acquiescing in the changes you have made because you so insist,
I wish to point out that my true report is the one originally sent in and that the unpublished portion of it is consequently with you as my opinion for the betterment of the force.
Yours verv truly,
' (Sgd.) DUNDONALD.
There was not anything clandestine or secret about that. I insisted upon my right as the head of the department to say what should appear in my report, and I carried it out ; and I am in the judgment of parliament under the rules of constitutional government, whether I was right or not. Lord Dundonald talks about what is done in England. Who ever heard of a Secretary of State for War being placed in the humiliating position of having a report from his Commander in Chief or some subordinate placed before parliament and before the people, he sitting dumb in his seat, without being the first to announce to parliament and the country, as it is his duty to do, the policy of the government with reference to military matters ? It is absurd, it is monstrous, and nothing could prove more clearly the absolute want of knowledge of that gentleman of the first principle of responsible government. Well, Sir, the ' interference ' still went on. The next instance of it was with reference to this celebrated ordnance corps, which has been so beautifully illustrated in a cartoon in one of the daily papers. What does he say about that ? He says :
A more recent instance occurred in connection with the organization of the ordnance corps. The establishment of this corps was fixed at a colonel, .a second in command-with the rank of lieutenant-colonel-and three lieutenant-colonels. This was a larger establishment than I would have recommended had I been unhampered ; but Sir Frederick Borden wts anxious to have a number of senior and highly-paid posts, and the scheme which he desired was carried out.
Soon after this I went to the Northwest.

Of course, I would not have dared to do this if he had been here

-As soon as I had left Ottawa the Minister of Militia ordered the adjutant-general to prepare an order increasing the number of lieutenant-coif i.els to five, thus giving seven officers of the rank of lieutenant-colonel and upwards to a corps of about 100 men. In this connection it must he remembered that the most elementary requirements of militia were neglectec for want of money.
Now, let us see about this. First, by way of parenthesis, let me refer to a corps d'elite, a corps in the organization of which the exGeneral Officer Commanding has taken very great pride, and I believe it will be a val-

uable corps. It is a corps known as the Corps of Guides. It is composed of 407 of whom

will yon believe it ?-his own particular and special child-109 are officers and 302 non-commissioned officers and men ; whereas in my poor, wretched attempt at a corps, called the ordnance corps, numbering 106. there are only 20 officers and SO men. In the former one-third of the corps are officers ; in my wretched imitation only one-fifth are officers. But that is only by the way*. Now, I want to refer to this ordnance corps. We are told that it was devised and .originated by me for the purpose of making some fat places for some favourites ; and the insinuation is made that by promoting two men from the rank of major to the rank of lieutenant-colonel I was consequently increasing their pay.
No more misleading-I do not wish to say maliciously misleading-statement was ever put forward by any man. What are the facts ? They are these. The ordnance corps was divided into districts. The districts were divided into first, second and third-class. The pay, no matter what be the rank, was according to the class of the district. There were seven first-class districts. The pay of these officers was to be $1,600 a rear. There was a certain number of second-class districts, the pay in which was to be $1,200 a year : and a certain number of third-class, in which the pay was to be $1,000. To say, therefore, that the promotion of these two men from the rank of major to that of lieutenant-colonel was for the purpose of giving them additional pay, is a statement absolutely without foundation. But it is my corps, forsooth. What is it? The ordnance corps is simply a branch of the militia which has existed ever since we have had a militia-the stores branch. I explained the change to the House fully a year ago. and let me tell you that in this old stores branch of the militia, before it was organized into the ordnance corps, there were not seven but eleven lieutenant-colonels. I have here the report of the officer formerly at the head of the stores, and now at the head of the ordnance branch, and I think, especially in view of the small sized accusations which are being made against me, that it is of sufficient importance to read. This paper, and mind you, it was penned in June, 1903-a year ago -is entitled ' Memo, for the Minister.'
Having reference to the organization of an Ordnance Stores Corps to be formed, as far as possible from the officers and other employees of the existing military store staff of the department.
It is proposed to classify the different stations as first, second and third-class, according to relative importance as to work and responsibility ; thus Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa,, Montreal and Quebec will be rated as first-class ; London, St. John, N.B., and Halifax as second-class; and Victoria, Winnipeg and Charlottetown as third-class stations.


Frederick William Borden: It is also proposed that the pay of the officer:: at the several stations shall correspond with tl eir duties and responsibilities. Thus it will be station and not the rank in the militia which will govern the amount of pay.
It is suggested that the officers of the first-class stations should rank as lieutenant-colonels, those of the second-class as majors and those of the third-class as captains in the militia.
It should be understood that the duties of the officers, whilst they necessarily command the men at their respective stations are almost wholly administrative.


John Graham Haggart: Did it increase the expenditure any ?


Frederick William Borden: Very trifling. As to the rate of pay :
Comparing the proposed pay of the ordnance officers with that of the members of the civil service, it will be seen that that of the first-class ordnance officer is that of a first-class clerk of two year's standing, that of a second-class ordnance officer not equal to the maximum second-class clerk, and that of the third-class ordnance officer is the same as that of the third-class clerk. According to the present. arrangements, the command of the corps will not entail any additional expense.
That is the statement of Colonel Macdonald who is at the head of the stores. I have here, but will not trouble you with the reading of it, the report to the council. I have here a document which shows the changes that were made after the senior officer of the ordnance corps had sent in his report to the General Officer Commanding. It transpired that the general thought seven lieutenant-colonels too many, although there had been eleven before, and for some reason or another he reduced the lieutenant-colonels of the two most important stations in Canada, Quebec and Ottawa, from lieutenant-colonels to majors. I have in my hand the report of the director general of ordnance. The director general of ordnance, under the English regulations and ours,, reports to me direct as well as to the general. He is under the supervision of the general but under the control of the min-ister.I had not observed that in that report there was a change made, but my attention was called to the fact that two of the officers had been reduced. The change did not involve any reduction in their pay, for they got the same as before, but they were reduced from lieutenant-colonels to majors. As soon as I learnt that, I wrote this letter to Lord Aylmer, who was acting in the absence of Lord Dundonald :
November 24th, 1903.
Dear Lord Aylmer,-I am sorry to find that there is a discrimination among the officers of the Ordnance Corps, holding the five senior positions in the first-class districts, and that three of them are lieutenant-colonels and two of them majors. Had I known this earlier I am sure I would have persuaded the General to treat them all alike, and 1 am writing you now to ask you to send at once to Council tha

recommendation for the necessary correction. I will take the full responsibility and will write Lord Dundonald about the matter. I saw Lieutenant-Colonel Boulanger, in Quebec, who happens, owing to the date of his commission, to be either at the bottom of the list or next to it. He has been in command of a battery, has served, as you know, in South Africa, and in China, with distinction, and for that service holds the South African and Chinese medals, and was given the rank of lieutenant-colonel, He also has control of the stores in the largest and most important stores depot in the Dominion. Moreover, he happens to be a French Canadian and the only one among the five first-class appointments. Now, whatever may be done later on, when new and younger blood is introduced, I think no distinction should be made in the first-class appointments at the outset, and therefore I ask you to be good enough to have the order amended and sent in to me for approval at once, so that it may go before Council.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) F. W. BORDEN. Colonel Lord Aylmer,
Adjutant General,
Militia and Defence.
So much, then, for the ordnance corps. So much for the base use I am alleged to have made of my position as minister of the Crown to create fat places for my friends. But it will be observed that not one cent more goes to these officers as lieutenant colonels than would have gone to them as majors. But you will observe, Sir, that in this letter I say :
I will take full responsibility and will write Lord Dundonald about the matter.
As soon as Lord Dundonald returned, I asked Lord Aylmer to hand him this letter, and I am informed by Lord Aylmer, to whom I went a day or two ago for the letter, that it is in Lord Dundonald's possession to-day. With regard to the pay, just one word more. In the English service the director general of ordnance receives annually $10,227. In Canada he receives $3,200. In England the assistant director general receives $3,896. In Canada he gets $2,400. In England a lirst-class ordnance officer gets $3,666 and in Canada $1,600. These are the ,two highly paid officials for whom I was seeking a job. In England a second-class ordnance officer gets $2,626 and in Canada $1,400. In England a third-class ordnance officer gets $2,277 and in Canada $1,000.
Now, Sir, with regard to over-officering of this corps of 100 men with 20 officers and 7 lieutenant-colonels-what are the facts ? This corps is never brought together. It is not homogeneous. It is purely an administrative corps, scattered from Prince Edward Island on the one hand to British Columbia on the other. And these officers of higher rank control the stores in the chief stores districts in the Dominion-most responsible positions-those of the second rank have charge of the stores 173
in the second class districts, and those in the third rank have charge of the stores in the third class districts.
This manifesto goes on to say that there was a certain Colonel Gregory whose case was a very bad one. And here again I would like to call your attention to the disingenuous character of this manifesto issued to the people of Canada :
The case of Colonel Gregory of the 2nd Dragoons has been placed before the public. The excellent work done by him during his term shows itself in the fine state to which he has brought his regiment. I was anxious, for the sake of the regiment, for reasons into which I need not go, to extend his command for another year.
Anybody reading that would infer that this proposed extension was the first extension. Anybody reading that will be surprised when I tell him that Colonel Gregory has just ended a year's extension of his command. No one would infer that from the wording of the manifesto. And therefore, I say it is disingenuous, and, I am afraid, intentionally misleading. What about this Gregory case V Under the provisions of the Militia Regulations we have a rule by which, after five years' service, the term of command ends automatically. That is one of the reforms that have been introduced into the militia in my time-at least enforced in my time. Under the old regime, a man became lieutenant-colonel, and there he stayed. And so we had venerable gentlemen in the service-lots of them-fine men in their day, who had been in command of the same corps for thirty or thirty-five years, and who had no idea of retiring. Well, for fear that this sudden change, this limitation of command might sometimes work injuriously, a regulation was framed to the effect that, for reasons to be given by the District Officer Commanding, the time of an officer might .be extended for three years. That power is very seldom used. In my humble opinion it should never be used if that can be avoided. But where you have a case where the second in command is not qualified to take the position, then it becomes proper to exercise the power. It so happened in this case. The second in command was Dr. Ferguson, the son of a gentleman whom we all knew, at one time a Conservative member of parliament and afterwards senator. Through some physical defect-disease of the throat, I believe,-Dr. Ferguson had been unable to attend the camp and unable to qualify ; in fact he could not speak above a whisper. It was hoped that he might recover, and so the recommendation was sent in for the extension. That recommendation was for an extension for two years. When it came before me, I said : Why not-and this is my rule-extend for one year ? And, if at the end of that year there is no officer fit to take command, it is an easy matter to extend it for another year. The extension was given



for one year. And before the year was ended a capable officer, Major Glasgow, had qualified and had been promoted to the position of second in command ; and, on the 12th of July


Samuel Hughes: A good day.


Sir   FREDERICK@: BORDEN. Yes.-On the 12th of July, Major Glasgow will become commanding officer of the regiment. Where is the political interference in this case ? Where is the wrong in it ? It seems to me that I was acting in the best interest of the corps and especially in the best interests of the officers below Major Glasgow who are looking for promotion, who are anxiously, and properly, looking for promotion, as a reward for their faithful service. I am not ashamed of what I did in this case. I have done it over and over again, and I propose to do it over and over again, in the interest of the young and rising officers in the militia.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister (Sir Frederick Borden) has yet to make the statement that Major Glasgow was properly qualified for command.


Frederick William Borden: I make that statement deliberately. He is officially qualified.


Samuel Hughes: He is not so reported.


Frederick William Borden: I cannot help that. The papers can be produced, if necessary, and they will show that Colonel Otter and Colonel Lessard have both recommended and approved, and he has actually received the authority by Order in Council.
I had noted several points here which are scarcely worth taking up the time of the House with, except one. Over and over again, it has been stated by Lord Dundonald and his friends that he had not been invited by me to make any statement with regard to what happened in Montreal ; and this is put forward as an excuse for sending a communication to a member of the opposition, to be read in the House, thus passing by the minister. Well, I do not know what Lord Dundonald expected from me. He received my letter in which I called his attention to the report in the newspapers of what took place in Montreal. Surely that opened the door to the hon. gentleman to make to me any explanation he saw fit. He knew that I was seized of the fact that something had occurred at that banquet in Montreal ; he knew that I thought it demanded explanation. Surely there was his opportunity. What did he expect me to do ? Did he suppose that I would ask him to write a manifesto, for instance ? Did he expect that I would prescribe to him the particular method. Why, I knew it would be a reflection upon the capacity of a man who has shown himself to be possessed of such enor-Sir F. W. BORDEN.
mous resources to indicate such a thing to him. He is a gentlemau of patrician rank, a member of the House of Lords ; a man of great experience in matters of etiquette. And for me, a humble Canadian, a plebian, an ordinary, every day colonial to presume.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frederick William Borden: Why, Sir, it would have been arrant presumption on my part, but I gave him the opportunity and I gave it to him at the very earliest moment that I had cognizance of what had occurred. It is not my fault that he did not take advantage of it in a constitutional manner.
Now we come to the next stage, the indifference. He says :
This government has shown crass indifference and want of sympathy with the militia of this country.
And he arraigns me on that account. Well, Sir, it may be that to increase the annual expenditure on the militia by some one and a half or two million dollars is a proof of crass indifference to the well-being of the militia, but I do not believe that the people will take that view. I have a list of the improvements which we have made. I shall read it, but shall not enlarge upon it although it is a theme upon which I could say a good deal. Our indifference to the welfare and the interest of the militia was shown first and perhaps in the most marked manner, by the adoption, without fail, of th.e principle of having annual drill for the whole militia of this country, and we have had annual drill of the militia every year since I have had the honour to preside over the Militia Department.
We have limited, as I said a moment ago, the term of commanding officers, thereby giving young men-some of whom got to be old men up to 60 years of age, under the old regime, as first lieutenants-some hope that some day they will get a reward for the work they have done.
We enforced the order with regard to age. Formerly we had lieutenant-colonels up to 65 and 70 years of age, but we have enforced the rules strictly, not only as to lieutenant-colonels, but as to majors, as to captains, and as to lieutenants, within the last six or seven years.
We have established a reserve list of officers, a most important improvement.
We have established cadet corps and cadet battalions, thereby enlisting the sympathies of the youth of the country and preparing them early in their career to do their duty later on, should it be necessary, in the defence of their country.
We have appointed a defence commission which sat here for many weeks and which went very carefully into the question of defence, and propounded a scheme which has been adopted by the experts of the war office, and by the people of this country, but for which I am bound to say two Gen-

eral Officers Commanding have had very little regard. One illustration of the unworkable character of the present system of General Officer Commanding, I think is worthy of note. The commission to which I have just referred, the defence committee, fixed upon a certain place for the establishment of a battery of guns for the defence of a certain place. I do not wish to mention the place, because - that is secret and should not be mentioned. General Hutton came shortly afterwards. He, of course, had access to the secret report. He looked it over and said : Oh, that is not the right place at all, it should go here. So he fixed upon a place. General O'Grady Haly did not trouble himself very much with that. I think he was quite satisfied that the defence committee knew its business, but the recent acquisition, the gentleman of whose services we have recently deprived ourselves, looked into it, and he discovered a third place. Is it any wonder if the poor, perplexed Minister of Militia, having three different sets of advisers is somewhat in doubt and inclined to hesitate before plunging the country into the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars. That battery has not been located yet.
A general service medal was secured by this government as a reward for the work done by the men who defended this country against the Fenian invasion.
The Colonial Officers' Decoration, the Long Service Decoration was secured for the militia of this country through the efforts of this government.
Officers are now required to have a much higher state of qualification.
The Medical Service branch of the militia was established by the government.
A Military Pension Act by which the officers of the permanent force and the staff and all the men of the active militia will receive pensions was passed by this parliament at the instance of this government.
A school of musketry was established by this government, one of the most important things in the interests of the militia that has ever been done in this country.
Rifle associations are being encouraged all over the country and enormous amounts of money up to $100,000 a year are being expended in the construction of rifle ranges, so as to put in the hands of our people the means of making themselves efficient in the art of rifle shooting.
The corps of guides, to which I referred a little while ago, has been established by this government.
The engineering branch has been established.
The military stores branch has been converted into the ordnance corps.
A military intelligence branch has been organized as an additional permanent unit of the Army Service corps.
We hear a great deal in this report about the uripreparedness of this country for war.
1T3J
The Dominion Arsenal, the oucput of which was under a million rounds of cartridges a year, has been increased so that it has an output of 10,000,000 or 12,000,000, and its capacity is very considerably above that quantity.
We have succeeded in establishing in this country a small-arms factory which at the present momenc is turning out rifles, which will be able to supply the government at the rate of 1,000 a month and which has a capacity of double that quantity, if necessary.
We have established factories at which steel gun carriages, limbers, &c., are being manufactured in this country instead of having to be manufactured in the old country, both at Quebec and in this city.
So, I might go on, but surely I have said enough to demonstrate to the satisfaction of any fair-minded man that we have not been indifferent to the needs of the militia of this country. This manifesto refers to my having interfered with the courses of instruction. I am sorry to weary the House with reference to this matter, but it seems to be necessary for me to do it. Some months ago Lord Dundonald came to me and said that it would be very much better if the educational branch of the service in relation to the officers could be put completely under his control, that it was rather tiresome to have to be going to council all the time to get any business through and if I would let him have carte blanche, to use the phrase of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, he could manage it-he could do it all. I had my doubts about it, because I felt that the Governor in Council, although often inconvenient, was rather a sound institution ; and it took him a good many weeks. I think some months, to convince me. When at last I did acquiesce I did it under protest and with the distinct understanding that if the thing did not work we would revert to the old conditions. What has happened ? I have not time to elaborate it, but as no doubt the discussion upon this subject will occur again, I will have an opportunity of letting you see that as a result of that mistake which I made in granting that extraordinary power, chaos reigns to-day in the Department of Militia in reference to matters of education.
The late General Officer Commanding says that I refused to grant certain courses of instruction he wanted to give in September. Let me tell you that the late General Officer Commanding succeeded in putting through militia orders and general orders absolutely contradictory of each other until he has got now two or three absolutely contradictory orders governing the same thing. He need not worry. The vjnurses of instruction which he recommended should take place in September, will take place, but they wiii not take

place until we get proper regulations pass-el to carry them into effect.
But, Sir, he complains that I have refused to adopt a central camp, or rather he says that after adopting the principle I have refused to carry it into effect. I have correspondence here which would show the reason why. I will not trouble the House with it to-night, hut let me say that it was proposed to purchase or acquire a great tract of country, some twenty or thirty square miles or more in extent, upon which the central camp should toe established, and where conditions similar to those which take place in time of war could be had, for the education chiefly of the officers of the militia of this country, to which a certain number of the militia might be brought and all the officers to the number of thousands. The idea is a good one. I believe in it. I said so last year, I repeat it now, but. Sir, the expenditure involved in establishing that central camp will be very heavy. The buildings alone, estimated by Lord DundonaUl himself, would cost $100.000. If we succeed in getting a grant from either one of the local governments of the province in which we may decide to locate the central camp, the land granted would not cost much, but we will have to acquire by purchase a certain amount of land. Rifle ranges will have to be established in that camp ; so that it will involve an expenditure of at least $250,000 at the very best that can be done. Well, now, that is a somewhat serious expenditure. Then, we have not only that initial expenditure, but we have to consider' the expenditure for transportation for ever, or for fifty years, because we are not going to construct your central camp for a day or for a year. It is a permanent camp and when you establish it you want to look forward, you want to see what you are about, you want to exercise the same caution that any business man would in making a very heavy expenditure of money ; and surely it is just as important and as necessary for the government of the country to exercise due caution, it is just as much their duty as if they were doing this work for themselves. So Lord Dundonald made up his mind that we should locate this camp at Kazubazua, in the province of Quebec, near the line of railway running northward. I am favourably impressed with the loaction. but I have heard of others and men in whose judgment I have confidence told me that they believed there were others. I have gone myself to the trouble of going to the Kazubazua district, I have gone to the Sharbot Lake district, I have gone to other districts to examine and see for myself, as I think it is my duty to do. as the custodian, in this regard, of the public money, and in the interest of the people of Canada. I came to the conclusion that we must not be in too much of a hurry and I refused to be, to use


Frederick William Borden: the phrase of my right lion, friend, the Prime Minister, either dragooned or stampeded into selecting a site before I believe that site is the best that can be got in the whole wide Dominion of Canada.
But he has a very serious grievance. He has in this great state document, this paper which is going to emancipate the people of this country from the domination of this vile government, in this serious, sober document upon which the destinies of the nation hang, another grevious complaint against me. Why, he said he made some placards to hang up in the camp and that I refused to have these placards reprinted this year.
Well, I did, and I will tell the House why. Last year, at a very considerable expenditure of money, placards, as he calls them, a kind*of large map. illustrating different .operations in engineering, cutting, down trees, and all that kind of thing- rather superfluous information, perhaps, for the soldiers of Canada-various placards with various figures upon them were printed and distributed among the camps. But, Mr. Speaker, it turned out that when we had the services of an engineer, whom we had borrowed from the imperial service at Halifax, it turned out that these placards were wrong. And so His Lordship, who is so very anxious about the expenditure of public money that he was afraid that I was giving some favourites of mine small increases of salary by promoting them from majors to lieutenant-colonels-which wras not true, all the same-he coolly sends down these amended, improved, corrected- that is the proper phrase-corrected placards, and asked us to do it all over again. Well, I thought a good deal about the placards, as I did about the guns which were to be located at one of three places that these experts have selected. I felt I would wait until I could get hold of some one who knew how to make placards before I would spend any more of the public money of Canada on them. I am sorry these placards were bad and were wrong, because I am afraid that some erroneous ideas may have gotten into the heads of the soldiers who went to the camps last year. I only hope they will come back long enough to see the corrected placards, which I hope- when we get the benefit of the services of a practical militia council in this country sitting around the board and aiding and assisting the Minister of Militia, whoever he may be-we will be able to fix the places where guns are to be put, and to make placards which won't have to be corrected the next year. So much for this serious complaint as to the placards.
Now, Sir, we have heard a good deal in this manifesto about the system. He is exposing the system ; the system is a bad one. All of this letter is for the purpose of showing that we are living, as he says, in a fool's paradise, and under a system

which is absolutely wrong. Well, X have a letter here which is very short, and which 1 would like to read, with regard to this very same much-abused system. Here is a letter which was addressed to me by this same noble lord, after he came to Canada. It is headed from the Three Rivers camp, and is dated September loth, 1902 :
Dear Sir Frederick Borden,-I am considering the permanent corps matter and also other questions to bring before you later on. At the moment I am very fully occupied with the camps. So far, I may say, they have been a success, and I do not think I can improve much on the system adopted.
The system in vogue then was more particularly due to the industry and ability of 'General' O'Grady-Haly, and Lord Duudonald says of that system, the system which was in actyal operation-because these camps were actually going on when he came here ; he did not call these camps together at all ; possibly this camp may have been called later, but the Ontario camps were going on at the time he came-he says :
So far, I may say, they have been a success, and I do not think I can improve much on the system adopted, so far as the means at my disposal have permitted.
So much then for this system, which, if persisted in, is going to destroy any prospect this country may have of ever being able to defend itself.
Well, now, Sir, one word in conclusion. What was the intentio.n of this document 1 Was the object of that document to make the militia of this country feel satisfied and comfortable and happy ? Was its object sincerely to improve the condition of the militia ? Was it not rather to sow discord ; was it not rather to breed in the ranks of the militia the idea that the men responsible for the government of this country, the man chiefly responsible for the care of the militia in this country, was utterly and absolutely disregarding the interests of the militia ? Is that a high and noble object for a high and noble gentleman to pursue ? Mr. Speaker, the militia of this country are the everyday citizens of Canada. We have no army : the militia are the people-good, practical, common sense people, who can see through motives of interested persons about as quickly as any people in this world. And these people will look very carefully to see whether the professions contained in that document, of good-will towards them, are real and genuine, or whether they are not. They will look at that document with suspicion, having learned, as they have now, of its utterly unreliable and disingenuous character. I have faith, I have always had faith in the good common sense of the militia of Canada. They are not going to be dissuaded from their duty or stampeded into any unfair or unjust course. They will look into the merits of this whole question, and I invite them to do so most carefully and
most fully. I am prepared to stand by the verdict of the people, whatever it may be, but. I have no fear as to what that verdict will be.
I was asked a question about the report, and before I sit down I would like to deal with it. I said last year, and I repeat now, that I would be most gratified and delighted to submit to a committee composed of any gentlemen on both sides of this House who are interested, any matters of this kind. I think I have some right to speak in this matter ; I am charged with the responsibility I say, and any military man knows that it is not desirable-I. do not care what Lord Uundonald may say ; I believe he knows better-it is not desirable to publish to the world either your strength or your weakness. And, Sir, I think that the publication of this paper, especially as it does not correctly represent the facts, was a most unpatriotic act. But, Sir, I am prepared to submit these reports at any time to a committee. I do not at the present moment think that they should be published to the world ; but the committee may be made as large as necessary, with the understanding that the documents are being submitted for confidential consideration. -


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lateness of the hour and with the consent of the House, I have great pleasure in moving the adjournment of the debate.


Wilfrid Laurier: I expected that we would have been able to conclude this debate to-night ; but in view of the great importance which the subject has attained in the country, I think every latitude should be given to the other side to ventilate their grievances, and therefore I assent to the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 12.15 a.in., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Fbiday, June 24, 1904.