I wish to draw the attention of the Government to this article which was published in the Montreal Star of yesterday, and which is entitled: "America will not agree to replace released troops":
The War Department has declined to accede to French proposals whereby some of the French army would be released for agriculture or industries and be replaced at the front by United States troops. This was learned to-day to be the outcome of recent discussions of man-power.
The Government feels that both France and Britain should increase, rather than diminish, their military forces and that they should not expect the United States to furnish soldiers to release Allied soldiers for industry.
The recent revelations in the Maurice-Lloyd George controversy spell to Government authorities the significant fact that Britain had not radically increased her army in the past year. They believe she should have done so, and they think she and France should prepare to make further increases while the United States proceeds with its increase in overseas shipments.
War Department plans contemplate getting 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 men overseas this year. But it is pointed out that in time the American shipments are likely not to exceed replacement needs.
I have no official information on the subject, except, of course, we have official information that the various classes in Great Britain have been combed and recombed over and over again in the desire to put into the fighting line every available man. We have been
informed that that has been done to the extent of most seriously interfering with a great many highly important industries of Great Britain.
I should like to call the attention of the House to an extract from an article published in the Daily Ontarion, Belleville, under date of Thursday, May 16. The article quotes an extract from Hansard in connection with the Bill respecting the Belleville-Prince Edward Bridge Company, to which my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) called attention. The article which is under the heading, "Who supplied the misinformation," contains the following extract from Hansard:
Mr. Lemieux: Was Mr. Parliament, the local member for Prince Edward, a party to the
Mr. Richardson: He was a party to it.
Mr. Lemieux: Did he accept the tolls agreed upon, and also the price?
Mr. Richardson: He did.
Mr. Lemieux: And the new conditions?
Mr. Richardson: He accepted the price and the tolls. The ex-reeve of the municipality was also present and also agreed that the tolls were reasonable.
Mr. Lemieux: Then the objecting parties were satisfied?
Mr. Richardson: Yes.
The mistake that happened was this. There was some noise in the House, and when my hon. friend from Maisonneuve asked the question whether Mr. Parliament was a party to the matter, I thought he said "Mr. Porter," the hon. member for West Hastings, who asked me to take charge of the Bill during his absence while attending the assizes in his county. I regret to confess my ignorance, but I did not know that such a gentleman as Mr. Parliament existed, and thinking that my hon. friend said "Mr. Porter," I said, "yes." I do not know Mr. Parliament at all, and I wish to make this explanation in justice to him.
I am very glad for the explanation given by my hon, friend from Springfield, because the day before yesterday I received a telegram from Mr. Parliament denying the statement made by the hon. gentleman, but I knew that a misunderstanding had occurred.
There were several questions. The first question was:
What are the names of the parties who have Connaught Rifle Range rented for pasturing cattle?
The answer was:
The reason I asked the question was because I thought it was beneath the dignity of this country to turn this rifle range into a cattle ranch. The next question was:
What is the amount .paid for rent?
And the answer was:
$925 per annum.
In answer to my question as to the duty of Mr. Holbrook, who lives on the range, I was told that he is caretaker and receives $90 per month, with free house and grounds. What struck me as very curious was that it should take $1,080 to collect $925. There must surely be something wrong.