Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I see in this morning's Ottawa Journal-Press:

Wild Talk from Lafortune.

Mr. D. A Lafortune, of Montcalm, declared that Canada owed nothing to England, and it was England who must defend the finest colony of the Empire. He added: "Never will we , spend one cent for the Laurier navy before consulting the people."

I declare that I never used that language.

I repeated yesterday what the late Mr. F. D. Monk had declared in this House and outside of it. I repeat, I never used that language, but the very man who used that language was a member of this Government. That is what I said. If the reporter of the Journal-Press is here I suppose he will be gentleman enough to make the correction and to report wihat I said correctly, adding that it was Mr. Monk, the late minister in this very same Cabinet, who used that language, and not the member for Montcalm.

Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):

Some days ago, when I read to the House certain telegrams from parties in the Yukon the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) was good enough to say that he would make inquiries in regard to the matter and give the House the benefit of the information received at a later date. I would like to know if he has the information?

Mr. CROTHERS:

The hen. member for Yukon (Mr. Thompson) received, yesterday, a message from the Administrator of the Yukon in these words:-

Am glad advise you that after repeated conferences between the Manager Yukon Gold Company, the striking employees and myself, an adjustment satisfactory both employer and employees has been reached and the men have practically all returned to work. The strikers were the four dollar per day men. They demanded an advance of one dollar but compromised for fifty cents.

Williams.

I forwarded to the Administrator of the Yukon a copy of the telegram which my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) read to the House a few days ago, and asked him to let me have his answer to the allegations contained in that message. I have not yet received any reply from him, but I probably will this afternoon. I am expecting at any moment to get his reply.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

Before taking up the first clause, I would like to have the permission of the committee to refer for a moment to some observations made by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), in regard to slowing up on recruiting. My hon. friend, on the 19th June last, in the debate upon this measure, said this:-

The leader of the Government on more than one occasion-take the very day when Mr. Mc-Dougall was present, the leader of the Government asked me again if I could not let up on recruiting

Sir SAM HUGHES:

Is the right hon. gentleman referring to me?

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

Yes.

Sir SAM HUGHES:

I have not heard one word yet. I would like to hear it.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I was referring to these observations of my hon. friend on the 19th June, 1917.

Sir Sam Hughes: The leader of the Government on more than one occasion-taite the very day when Mr. McDougall was present, the leader of the Government asked me again if I could not let up on recruiting ; and, moreover, the right hon. leader of the Government later on pointed out-if he wants the whole story I will he glad to give it-pointed out that there was a tremendous agitation in Toronto over the subject, that he had had various communications from Toronto, that the Finance Minister had told him there was a perfect storm brewing there, and that agitation was due to the fact that men could not be obtained as workers.

Further on, the hon. member for Pictou interposed as follows:

Mr. Macdonald: Speaking at Lindsay, Ontario, on April 2S, regarding the conditions of which he spoke and the agitation, the hon. gentleman said:

"This unfortunately had an effect upon the Prime Minister. The result was that I was asked in March, 1916, not to press recruiting, and recruiting to-day has been dead in Canada for fighting purposes."

Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the statement made by him in Lindsay is quite correct?

Sir Sam Hughes: I am quite surprised at the hon. gentleman asking any such question. That speech is issued by myself, and I am not in the habit of issuing statements that I do not endorse. I will prove it before I have finished.

I desire to take the strongest possible exception to the statement of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence, so far as it referred to me, and to repeat what I said in this House, on the 29th day of January last. I shall quote and I now repeat that portion of my statement then made, which is relevant:

I desire to assure the House and the country that neither to the Ontario Recruiting Committee on the occasion mentioned nor to any other organization or individual on any other occasion, did I ever give any such intimation as that suggested, or anything that could be tortured into such an intimation.

In connection with the whole subject, I think it is desirable to point out that on the 17th of January, 1916, in the debate upon the address, I used this language:

I realize that 500,000 men is a large force for us to undertake in Canada; arid I realize further that the national strength of Canada must be maintained, and that in proceeding with our effort to increase our forces in Canada we must have regard to the necessities of the agricultural and industrial interests of this country. Canada, in all the elements of her national life, must be kept strong, and we shall have regard to those considerations.

The subject was also alluded to during the present session, when on the 1st day of February, 1917, in reply to my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), I spoke as follows:

The recruiting proceeded with a great deal of vigour and earnestness, and the fact that we succeeded in the first three and a half months of the past year in recruiting a hundred thousand men or more is an indication that the work was carried on with a good deal of vigour and with a great deal of success. The criticism has been made that proper regard to selection was not made. I discussed that question with the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence more than a year ago-I think in the autumn of 1915 for the first time. The course which my colleague took in that regard was that he did not think at that time that any more systematic method was necessary, and he said that it would be possible, through instructions given to his recruiting officers, to prevent unwise selection, selection which might result in the closing up of industries essential for the prosecution of the war, when recruits might have been obtained from other classes whose work and service werV not so essential. I was informed by General Hughes that instructions had been given in various instances to adopt methods which would give some system to that purpose. [DOT]

Mr. Oliver: About what time was that?

Sir Robert Borden: I think it was in the autumn of 1915 or early in 1916.

Sir Sam Hughes: Early in 1916.

And then, a little later on in the debate, my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence gave some illustrations of cases in which he had acted upon that principle, and he alluded again to his interview with Mr. McDougall, of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company.

Sir SAM HUGHES:

Not to my interview, but to the right hon. the Prime Minister's interview. I was present.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

Yes, and the hon. the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) was present also. I may say that I have received from Mr. McDougall, without any request on my part, a statement of his recollection of what took place at that interview. It corresponds with my own, and he most emphatically declares that there was not any suggestion on my part at that interview that recruiting should be slowed up, but merely that we should endeavour to prevent unwise selection. That is to say, instead of endeavouring to enlist men who' presumably might be of more service to the country in the occupations in which they were then engaged than if they enlisted for service at the front, the activities of recruiting officers should be directed to those whose services at home were not valuable to the same extent to the country.