Mr. A. S. GOODEVE (Kootenay).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On Thursday last, in the course of some remarks on the subject of the reciprocity arrangement, I quoted a statement attributed to Lord Strathcona. Yesterday, the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) read a cable despatch denying that the words quoted had been used by Lord Strathcona. I feel it due to myself to give my authority for making use of that statement. I find it on the front page of the Ottawa ' Evening Journal ' of February 3, 1911, column 7. The item quoted appears under the general title ' British views,' with the sub-heading ' Canadian Press despatch.' And the date line is ' London, February 3.' The quotation I made use of is found in unrevised ' Hansard,' page 5075, and it is absolutely identical with the despatch quoted in the

' Evening Journal ' of the date referred to. It is also quoted in a great many other daily papers throughout Canada. I further took the trouble to inquire of the chief editor of the 'Journal/ Mr. Wilson, who said that, while he could not vouch for the accuracy of the despatch, he could vouch for the fact that it had been published as issued by the Canadian Press Despatch Agency. I find in the volume of estimates of the current year, the year ending March 31, 1912, page 93, this statement that the said Canadian Associated Press had its subsidy increased from $3,000 to $12,000 by the legislation of last session. Taking all this into consideration, I feel that I was amply justified in regarding this despatch as authority for the quotation I made. Desiring to go further in order to be accurate, I wired the general manager of the Canadian Press Despatch Agency, Toronto, as follows :

Ottawa, March 13, 1911.

C. O. Knowles, Manager, Canadian Press Despatch, Toronto, Ont.

The following appeared in the Ottawa ' Evening Journal' of February 3, also in several other daily papers:-

Then follows a quotation word for word of the despatch to which I have referred, after which my telegram proceeds:

Is it correctly quoted? If not, what is full correct quotation as sent out by your despatch ?

Mr. FIELDING.

I think it may be safely assumed that some remarks made by some other person have been wrongly attributed to Lord Strathcona. That is the most probable explanation, and it is an error which might easily occur.

Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac).

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia).

Mr. Speaker, this matter is a very simple one. My hon. friend has referred to the fact that land grants have been given to those who served in South Africa in the recent war, but my hon. friend will see in the statute making these grants that it was only given to volunteers who were domiciled in Canada. Precisely the same course was pursued in connection with the grants to the South African volunteers as was pursued with reference to those who served in the Red River expeditionary force. Grants were made to those Canadians who served in the expedition of 1870 under the same rule as the grants to those who served in South Africa. The man to whom my hon. friend refers enlisted as a British soldier and was never anything else than a professional soldier who enlisted in England, and came over here without any idea that he would serve in this particular rebellion. He was called upon to serve in the regular course of his duty. I do not see that we are called upon in any way to make a grant of land to him or to any of the regular troops who served in that expedition. The fact that there are only a few of them left would seem to me to be not a good argument. If there is a principle underlying this we would have to hunt up the heirs of those who have died, and make land grants to them just as to those who survive

Mr. EDWARDS.

My contention was that consideration should be given to the fact that this gentleman has resided in Canada ever since he obtained his honourable discharge.

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.

That evidently was not considered a sufficient reason at the time or since for granting land to these men. I do not think that at this late date the House of Commons will feel disposed to take up the matter and give a grant of land to this or any other of the regular soldiers who served at that time. My hon. friend has done right to bring the matter up. I have stated the rule under which the grants were given to those who did serve in that expedition, they were given only to those Canadians who left their homes and their regular business in order to aid in the protection of the country and the putting down of the rebellion. That was the special or specific reason. The professional soldier who happened to be in Canada at the time was a part of the British army, he did not participate and the government which was in power at that time did not think that he had any claim to receive a grant.

Mr. BOYCE.

Why does the minister not apply the same principle to the veterans who served in 1866 and 1870?

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.

There were no grants given to British soldiers that I am aware of at that time.

Mr. BOYCE.

No, but to Canadian

soldiers.

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.

That is entirely a different question.

Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).

I understand from the Minister of War that grants were given to South African veterans irrespective of what section they belonged to. For instance, quite a number of civilians attached to the Army Service Corps in South Africa were given grants. Am I right in that?

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.

If they were domiciled in Canada.

Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).

I wish to' call the minister's attention to one fact that I should think he would take into consideration in connection with grants to those who participated in the Red River expedition. The minister has stated that the same legislation was adopted in the case of the Red River expedition as was adopted in the case of the South African veterans. I have had occasion to go into that matter and I find that instead of legislation the grants in the case of the Red River expedition were made by order in council. I think the minister now will remember that I am right in that particular.