Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Before the Order-of the Day are called, I would like to know from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) if he has any information to communicate to us with regard to the recent negotiations between Canada and Russia.

Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Min ister of Marine and Fisheries).

The recent

negotiations between representatives of Canada and Russia, in London, reached the point that a certain suggested settlement would be submitted to their governments by respective delegates, for ratification ot otherwise. The delegates separated on the understanding that the conclusion of the Russian government in the proposed settlement would be communicated to Canada through ordinary diplomatic channels for consideration by Canada. Russia's decision has not yet been received by the Canadian government.

Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID DATJRIER (Prime Minister).

This morning I received a letter from my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) containing this request :

Dear Sir Wilfrid Laurier,-May I ask that the original 1 Gazette ' containing the erasure of non-approval by the Hon. Sydney Fisher of Dr. Pickel's name will be placed upon the table of the House this afternoon. I refer to the ' Gazette,' a copy of which is set forth at page 25 of the printed correspondence.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. SAM. HUGHES (North Victoria).

Mr. Speaker, in resuming the debate adjourned last evening, I may at the outset express my surprise at the conduct of the government in relation to this matter. Many of us felt, immediately after Lord Dundon-ald's speech had been delivered in Montreal and published through the country, that having been caught red-handed, as he undoubtedly was in the-I will not use so strong a term as crime-in the act of interfering politically in the appointments of militia officers in this country, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.Fisher) would frankly confess to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) his fault and ask pardon from the people of Canada, and from the House of Commons, and from Lord Dundonald ; and if he had done so the incident would have been passed over and forgotten. But in-Mr. PREFONT AINE,

stead of that, Sir, we find that the government are hanging together, and as a government and individually, are glorifying in their conduct. Ever since the visit of the Minister of Agriculture to the Orient, a year or so ago, his friends have noticed the enlarged size of his head, and whether he had so impressed the people of Japan with the greatness of Canada, or whether he had led many of them to suppose that he was the Mikado, that he was the ruler of Canada, these people, I am told, actually fell down in front of him and almost worshipped him on some occasions ; and he has returned to Canada with his head abnormally enlarged, and seeks to secure from the people of the Dominion of Canada the same treatment that was meted out to him by the Japanese. In other words, he was regarded as a little tin god whilst in Japan, and on his return he is seeking to impress upon the people of Canada the same opinion.

Now, Sir, I may say that we were not surprised at the exhibition of the Minister of Agriculture ; but we were more than surprised at the exhibition made by the Minister of Militia last night ; and I am satisfied that when that hon. gentleman, in his calmer moments, reads over the remarks that he made in this House last night, and which have gone broadcast throughout the country, he will, deep down in his heart, be ashamed of the manner and the spirit which he displayed in this House last night. If there has been any act on the part of the Minister of Militia which would call for a rupture of the truce that has been extended to him ever since he was appointed head of the department, if there has been any act which would have called for a rupture of the truce that has been observed loyally towards him by the Liberal-Conservative party in this House and this country, it was the evidence that we had last night of his sympathy with the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture to introduce politics into the administration of the militia of this country. We did not expect anything better of the Minister of Agriculture. We knew it was his size to go down dabbling and meddling in the militia affairs of the eastern townships; but we did expect something better from the Minister of Militia than to back up the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture. I am satisfied that in his calmer moments he will apologize to this House and apologize to Lord Dundonald for the position he occupies in suppressing reports of the general, which, he says, are secret and confidential, and trying to blacken the character and reputation of Lord Dundonald, not only in this' country, but throughout the empire, on the strength of reports which the general issues, but which the minister, to suit his convenience, will not place before the people of this country. Now, Sir, I stand here to demand that" that part II. of the confidential report of Lord Dundonald b* given to this House and this country.

545S

We have had confidential reports brought down to this House before. I myself asked the Minister of Militia some time ago in this House-the questions are in the ' Hansard ' if he disputes it-asked him the categorical questions : Was this a confidential report, was it a secret report ? And the answer 1 got was that it was confidential, that it was secret, and that it was not to be put before the House. I have Lord Dundonald's word for it that the report was neither secret nor confidential, any more than any other report between a general and bis minister is secret and confidential. The covering letter may have been marked ' private,' but according to the hon. Minister of Militia himself that covering letter was sent some days before the report reached him. We demand that that report be placed before the country. It cannot possibly be any harm to do so. The rumour has already got abroad, it is already in the air that Lord Dundonald has proposed some tremendous scheme involving an expenditure of millions, and it has been said that the Canadian border from the Atlantic to the Pacific is to bristle with forts. The organ of the right hon. First Minister, not the organ that was complained of last night by the - hon. Minister of Militia, not the Toronto ' News,' but the other Organ, has charged that Lord Dundonald's report involves an expenditure of from $35,000,000 to $50,000,000 for a line of forts along the border and for armaments that would turn this country into a regular hive of militarism. As I .understand Lord Dundonald's policy, it is the reverse of a regular military policy. He aims at the upbuilding of the militia of this country, not an aristocratic army, not an army controlled either by oligarchs or autocrats. The hon. Minister of Militia has admitted that because he has adopted almost in its entirety Lord Dunuonald's confidential report. Then, why cannot it be brought down ? I maintain in the interest of the country and in fair-play to Lord Dundonald that the report must be brought down. I do not see that Lord Dundonald needs to obtain any one's permission after the very cavalier manner in which he has been treated, but in case he requires to obtain any one's permission to publish that report, I maintain that it is Lord .uundonald's duty at the very earliest opportunity to publish that report broad cast to the world in order that we may judge whether the slanders that were heaped on that gentleman last night are justified or not. The hon. Minister of Militia last night undertook to read the House a lecture on constitutional history and constitutional law and he read extracts showing that the Secretary of State in the old country'and the Minister of Militia here, each in his proper place, is the superior of the Commander in Chief or of the General Officer Commanding. There is no child in the

fourth book in any of the ordinary schools but knows that, yet he and his colleague in iniquity in this instance, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, were endeavouring to read us these lectures. I may point out that a lesson was taught these hon. gentlemen long, long ago and I thank the hon. Minister of Agriculture for having profited by the lesson I gave him the other night. I promised him that if I took him in hand I would teach him something.

Mr. INGKAM.

It is a hard job.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

Yes, it is a hard jolf, but he has evidently profited by it. He has been reviewing some of the lessons which it was my pleasure and privilege to teach a certain gentleman in the past. r. do not know that I could at any other period of my remarks better illustrate the position than at the present time. Let us contrast the conduct of the two officers concerned. One of them we find, as the hon. Minister of Agriculture pointed out last night, violated the principles of responsible government and the constitution. The former General Officer Commanding-I refer to General Hutton-actually arrogated to himself the authority of over-riding the Minister of Militia and passing directly to the Governor General without the consent or advice of the Minister of Militia. That was clearly in defiance of the spirit of responsible government. I shall come back to this case a little later on. The former General Officer Commanding, General Hutton, took it upon himself without the consent or authority of the Minister of Militia, to receive from the Governor General and from the imperial authorities, letters concerning officers of the Canadian militia and to transmit such letters without the consent of the Minister of Militia. Lord Dundonald neither directly nor indirectly has attempted to do anything of the kind, and the hon. Minister of Agriculture, although from his remarks last night he is filled with venom towards that officer, did not for one second attempt to say that Lord Dundonald had pursued anything but a constitutional course in all his dealings with him in this matter. The former General Officer Commanding, General Hutton, undertook without the consent or approbation of the Minister of Militia, without the consent of the officers commanding the regiments, to make appointments to these regiments and in that way he clearly violated the constitution of this country. Lord Dundonald neither directly nor indirectly has ever trespassed on the constitution. In a dozen different ways General Hutton usurped the functions of the Minister of Militia, and the minister tamely submitted to it, and Sir, the right hon. Prime Minister will recollect that I had the privilege at, his request, of looking up the authorities to show him that in Lord Palmerston's time, when he was secretary of

54C0

state for war in 1810, I think it was, he 'Drought the Commander in Chief of the English forces, General Dundas, before him and told him that he dare not lift his hat to the sovereign officially without the permission of the first lord of the treasury. General Hutton violated all the principles of responsible government. Lord Dun-donaid has never violated one of them. In relation to the erasure of l)r. Pickel's name and to the 'Gazette' having gone through with the name of the hon. Minister of Agriculture attached as acting Minister of Militia, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, I am sorrv to say, in a tone reeking with pomposity and venom towards the late General Officer Commanding last night, asked : Is the act of

the hon. Minister of Agriculture valid or invalid ? He said : If it is valid I presume the hon. Minister of Agriculture had the powef to initial that list in the absence of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence. I want to tell him that his bombast ill thi? House and before the country is not law and is not the constitution, and I want to say that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has committed an unconstitutional act, that, under the constitution of England, it is only the Prime minister who can act for another minister, unless any other minister so acting is actually sworn in to take the duties of the office. The Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone is the only man who could have initialled that list unless the minister acting was actually sworn in. I Shall take that up though at a later period. I want to tell the hon. Minister of Agriculture further that if this matter is reported to His Excellency the Governor General, as it should be, I maintain that His Excellency would be justified in dismissing from his cabinet the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and if the right hon. Prime Minister does not see fit to dismiss the hon. Minister of Agriculture, I maintain it is the bounden duty under the constitution of the Governor General to dismiss any officer who would arrogate to himself that line of conduct that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has lately pursued and which has culminated in this unfortunate incident. Of that, though, later on. The hon. Minister of Agriculture went on to tell the House that in organizing a corps you must look to the prominent men of the country, men of standing, men physically fit, and lie gave a magnificent description of Christian De Wet, General Delarey. and Dr. Pickel. Yet, although he has described the very type of man that Dr. Pickel is, a splendid horseman. a magnificent rifleman, a man in the prime of life, commanding the confidence of the community, prominent in his own village, warden of his own county, the ideal commander, the Minister of Militia, obeying the dictates of the puny Minister of Agriculture, connives at this man being shut out of the militia. Why ? Because he Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

happened to be a political opponent to the Minister of Agriculture. Here we find a man living on the border whose only professed crime in the eyes of the Minister of Agriculture is that lie is willing to place his body between any invading enemy and the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. And here forsooth he is turned down because he is a Tory. The Minister of Militia in one of his calmer moments last night uttered a word or two that restored the feeling I have had as to the characteristic of that hon. gentleman when he said that if he had been here this unfortunate trouble would not have occurred.

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.

I said that if I had been here, I would have consulted my colleague the Minister of Agriculture early in the affair, and that I believed that then this unfortunate trouble would not have occurred

I am willing even after his speech of last night to give the Minister of Militia credit for his utterance of to-day. I believe he would have turned the meddling Minister of Agriculture down had he been here to attend to his business. I feel satisfied, knowing what I know of him, and of his expressed desire to keep the militia free from the meddling of petty politicians, that he would have done his best to turn the Minister of Agriculture down, and it would then have depended on the question whether that minister had power enough to command the Prime. Minister, and to force his hand. We know that he boasts of Ms power. He has inherited position and wealth and these are all that he has. He has no superior ability over any man along the side roads of the country and yet he has power enough in the cabinet to control the Prime Minister, to control the Minister of the Interior and we are told he even turned down the Minister of Justice, but I can hardly believe it. Why such an official can have such power, passes our comprehension ; possibly history will reveal the reason.

The Minister of Militia last night took the opportunity of reciting a number of acts that he has performed, as Minister of Militia for the Dominion of Canada. The Minister of Militia took credit to himself for a long list of meritorious acts. I do not seek for ail instant to minimize the goods work that he has done, but why has he been able to do it ? Because he has had the backing of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) the hon. member for East Durham (Mr. Ward), myself and other Liberal-Conservatives in the House who are interested in military matters. He knows right well and the Prime Minister knows that in 189G when the Liberal-Conservative party wishing to place this country in a small state of readiness to meet any invad-

ias enemy, placed in the estimates $3,000,000 to purchase rifles, an agitation was carried on by the Liberals throughout the length and breadth of Quebec against that sum of money being placed in the estimates. Why, Sir, I recall that when the Solicitor General was speaking in his place in the House, the hon. member for Sherbrooke told him right on the floor of the House, that his place was behind the prison bars and not on the floor of the House for the conduct he displayed in the last general election in Quebec, in seeking to raise race against race, creed against creed, locality against locality. Had we carried out the same policy towards the Minister of Militia when he desired to add even $100.000 the minister would not have been able to get the money. In this House and out of this House the Tory party of the country to a man have backed the Minister of Militia in his attempts and he knows it. If the gauntlet has been thrown down, if trouble accrues in the future, let the Minister- of Militia and the Prime Minister not blame the Tory party : let them blame the

Minister of Agriculture and Lie weakness of the Minister of Militia in heeding any such interference. I was more than surprised at the Minister of Militia last night seeking to take advantage of a little trifling matter. I presume it was intended more as an illustration. I refer to the ordnance corps. The ordnance corps is a very proper thing and I give the minister credit for what he lias done. He has placed in command of that corps Colonel Macdonald, a Liberal it is true, but a splendid fellow. 1 believe that Colonel Macdonald and the seven lieutenant colonels are all very good men. The minister made a good deal last night of the statement that Lord Dundonald was dishonest in saying that one dollar of extra responsibility was incurred by the country owing to the gazetting of these colonels. What we complained of was that these officers had not been made colonels by Lord Dundonald. I do not know the details but the facts stand out. These officers when the first gazette came out were gazetted as majors. They did not appear as colonels until Lord Dundonald went away on his western trip then they suddenly appeared as full-fledged colonels, and as a natural result these men took then-rank and seniority over all the other colonels in the country. It is a pretty hard matter for an officer after years of faithful service in a regiment to find out that some officer long his junior, owing to a little pull at headquarters, has been put over him. We would not mind it if it were done for any distinguished service. or meritorious conduct or superior work, but when they are put over the heads of officers who have distinguished themselves in a dozen ways as much as these men have done, the question naturally arises

in the minds of these officers, where is the pull that hap put these officers where they are ? I have not looked into the question of the salaries carefully but I would point out that these men come under the Military Superannuation Act and they will draw higher superannuation on account of having been made lieutenant colonels.

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.

The superannuation will depend on the amount of pay they receive, and the pay as lieutenant colonels is the same as it was when they were majors.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

The pay depends on rank.

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.

Not when it is fixed by Order in Council.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

in some respects. I know it breaks his heart to have to put up with a, man like the Minister of Agriculture, and to have all these troubles-I do not know any more moderate term to use-forced upon him by a man of the calibre of the Minister of Agriculture. Even then I fail to see eye to eye with Mr. Willison in his admiration of the Prime Minister of Canada. Yet this editor scathes the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Agriculture in the terms that were referred to in this House last night. The biographer of the Prime Minister is the biographer of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Militia, and, Sir, if we are to accept his authority in the one case-and he is quoted by Liberals all over the country-then surely we must accept his authority in the other case, as displayed in his appreciation of the great powers of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Militia. However, it is a quarrel among themselves, and, as an old trapper up our way says when any of these questions come up, I am not going to meddle in it-we will let them skin their own skunks.

Another reference last night by the Minister of Militia was to our good friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), whom . he taunted with having lost his head. Well, if he has lost his head, he gets on splendidly. As an American once said, he is a mighty lively corpse. The stand that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier made in this House last night is the same stand that he made on former occasions, when he justified himself in Montreal and elsewhere in his public speeches. I may tell the Minister of Militia that his friend the right hon. leader of the government will not express flie views he did in relation to the lack of power and ability of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. Perhaps the minister was touched a little, because, according to his view, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier had been decapitated by his friends while Lord Dundonald had lost his head by his enemies.

Another point attempted to be made by the Minister of Militia last night was that Lord Dundonald had had a reporter in his pay at the meeting in Montreal. Bad as the Minister of Militia had been up to that time,

I thought that was terrible. I did not really believe that the Minister of Militia could so far forget the little courtesies due from one gentleman to another, especially men who had been associated together for two years past in the capacity of minister and adviser. I could not credit it, until I read ' Hansard ' this morning, that the minister could have so far forgotten himself as to charge Lord Dundonald with hiring a reporter to take notes of his remarks in order that they ifight be published, and then, in the next breath, to charge that Lord Dundonald had sought to keep those remarks from being published. I may say that after I wrote to Lord Dundonald for data, previous to the Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

last time this matter was before the House, I was requested to call upon him ; and I may say that he stated then to me, what the Minister of Militia very properly pointed out last night, that he had got sick of the meddling, and that he was determined, as my good friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) said, to cut the painter, and if possible educate the people of Canada to the iniquities that were going on, and that he had nothing whatever to do, directly or indirectly, with the bringing of this matter before the public, and cared not whether it was reported or kept in darkness.

Mr. SCOTT.

Was the reporter at the dinner ?