1903-10-12

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 265) respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: What progress has been made with the revision of the statutes and is it expected that the revision will be so far completed as to enable the law to be enacted by parliament next session ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not quite sure that it will have progressed that far, but very substantial progress has been made. Over forty statutes have been completely revised and thirty-seven adopted. I expect that in December, more than one-third will be completed. I am not sure that the revision will be completed for next session but it will be in the Interval between next session and the session after.


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

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask my right hon. friend whether or not the contract with the North Atlantic Transportation Company has been laid on the Table ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not yet. There has been no formal contract, but correspondence which we have assumed to amount to a contract will be placed on the Table perhaps to-morrow.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman promised to make an announcement with respect to further government measures.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I shall make it to-morrow.



ALASKA BOUNDARY.

Robert Laird Borden: I would ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister whether or not he has taken any steps to verify the accuracy of the alleged interview with Mr. Aylesworth, one of the commissioners on the Alaska boundary question.
I have not the telegraphic report at hand, but it contains rather extraordinary observations with regard to his duties as com-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.	1
missioner and also with regard to his views on matters now the subject of political controversy in the United Kingdom. It seems to me rather unusual, and I decline to believe that Mr. Aylesworth could have used the language attributed to him ; but inasmuch as the interview has been cabled cross the Atlantic-I am not sure whether by the New Canada Press Association or not-and has been commented on throughout the country to a considerable extent, it seems to me desirable that the government should ascertain whether or not it is accurate, and if not, inform the public and the country.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The government have taken no steps to ascertain whether this alleged interview has taken place or not. We assume that this interview had not the character attributed to it. Mr. Aylesworth is a counsel of very great eminence, and I would hestitate to believe-and I think my hon. friend would have equal hesitation-that he would have expressed any opinion on a matter which is sub-judiee and in which he himself is one of the judges. The language attributed to him is very improbable and until I hear to the contrary and have some better ground for believing that Mr. Aylesworth has so expressed himself, I shall believe that this interview, like many others, was not an expression of the views of Mr. Aylesworth.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROSS (Ontario)-by Mr. Heyd-asked :
1.	Did the government grant a contract to the Clergue works at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, for the supply of steel rails for the use of the Intercolonial Railway ?
2.	What quantity of rails was contracted for?
3.	What quantity cf rails was delivered ?
4.	Why were not the full quantities contracted for taken ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) :: 1.	Yes, to the Lake Superior Power Company.
2.	An Order in Council was passed authorizing the taking of 25,000 tons per annum for a period of five years on terms therein stated. A contract was entered into for the first year for 25,000 tons. The company were not able to supply any rails under this contract.
3.	Subsequently it was agreed that the company should supply 10,000 tons, but all that they were able to deliver were 5,768 tons.
4.	The full quantities authorized were not taken because the company were unable to supply them. The government took all that were offered.


IMPERIAL SERVICE DECORATIONS AND MEDALS.
Sir. CLARKE asked :: 1.	What system was followed by the government in selecting the members of the civil service who recently had the honour of receiving the Imperial Service decoration and medals ?
2.	What are the names of the officials who have been recommended by the government, and on whom the decoration will be conferred ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hou. Sir *Wilfrid Laurier).: I understand that ray lion, friend is asking what recommendations have been made and what appointments are to be made. 1 can only give information regarding past appointments.


Mr. CLARKE.: Will not the right lion, gentleman answer the second question, and give the list of names ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The second question refers to future appointments :
' What are the names of the officials who have been recommended by the government, and on whom the decoration will be conferred.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: The second question refers to the names of those who ' have been recommended, ' and on whom the decoration will be conferred. The announcement, has been made that it is the intention to confer this decoration on the day of prorogation, on those who have been recommended.	-


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would ask my hon. friend not to rely on such information.


ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY-MANAGEMENT OF THE HOSPITAL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEMIEUX by Mr. Talbot-asked :
1.	Is the honourable the Minister of Justice aware that the grand jury summoned for the September criminal term of the Court of King's Bench, for the district of Montreal, made a report blaming the management of the St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary for the manner in which the hospital of that institution is kept 1
2.	Is it true that the hospital of the St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary is conducted in a manner that conflicts with every law of hygiene ?
3.	Has the inspector of the penitentiary made a special report to that effect ?
4.	What is the nature of that report ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) :: 1.	No, but the minister has read the report as published in the newspapers.
2.	No, quite the contrary. The hospital contains three wards. One isolated on the upper story for contagious diseases, one for ordinary patients, and one for convalescents to exercise in. All are well lighted, by large
428 J
windows during the day, and* by electric light at night. They are thoroughly ventilated, comfortably heated and scrupulously clean. There is not a trace of damp. The floors are of hardwood, the bedsteads of iron, white enamelled, with spring and fibre mattresses. None of the patients sleep on the floor, as stated in the report referred to.
3.	No.
4.	The hospital was renovated in 1900. That year the warden reported :
The old hospital, as improved, affords to-day the accommodation so much needed in the past by patients, and if they have not the conveniences accessible in the Kingston penitentiary, they have at least improvements which afford them the hygienic means necessary to the recovery of their health. The isolating hospital for contagious diseases has already rendered important services in preventing contagion. A convict has passed through the phases of typhoid fever of an adynamic type. The state of this patient has caused the physician great uneasiness, but, thanks to isolation, the contagion has not, so far, claimed any other victims. (Page 19, report of Minister of Jhstiee, 1900).
The surgeon reported :
At last our old hospital has been repaired and improved, and has been at the service of the sick since the middle of May. (Page 40, same report).
In 1901 the Inspector reported :
The hospital is inconveniently located, but has been improved by the addition of a ward that doubles its original capacity.
LIBRARIANS OF PARLIAMENT. REGISTRARS OF THE SUPREME #	COURT-SALARIES.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolutions :
1.	Resolved, that the salaries of the general librarian and the parliamentary librarian of the library of parliament, and the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada shall each be $3,500 per annum ; with an annual increase of $100, up to a maximum of $4,000 per annum.
2.	Resolved, that for the purpose of determining the salary of the officers at present occupying the said positions, each shall be credited with his period of service ; and shall hereafter be paid such salary as he would by length of service have become entitled to, had the provision of the next preceding resolution been in force at the time of his appointment.
3.	Resolved, that during the financial year ending June 30th, 1904, there may be paid, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, such sums as are required for payment of the foregoing increases.
He said :	His Excellency the Governor
General approves of these resolutions, and recommends them to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.


S U P P L Y-5A L A S Iv A BOUNDARY COMMISSION-OPINION OP BRITISH COMMISSIONER.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of tjie government to a statement which I see in several of the morning papers with regard to the Alaska arbitration now proceeding in Great Britain. The item is as follows :
Toronto, Oot. 10.-The ' News ' special cable from London says : ' I am informed on what may be accepted as high authority that a majority of the Alaskan commission will shortly give judgment adverse to the Canadian contention. It is understood that Great Britain's representative on the commission, Lord Alver-stone, has privately intimated to diplomatic and colonial office officials that he is convinced that a stronger case is made out by the United States, and that he intends to give judgment accordingly. A majority of the commission will thus agree upon a verdict and the two Canadian commissioners will, if they register in the issue, be unable to affect the result.'
I have quoted from the Ottawa ' Morning Citizen,' but I have seen the same item in one or two other newspapers. I am sure that the House and the country will be very glad to learn if there is any information that the government can communicate to the House on the subject.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: I think this so antecedently improbable and almost impossible, that it does not require tiie slightest consideration at the hands of the government or any member of this House. I cannot conceive it possible that a person in the position of Lord Alverston could have committed himself in advance to delivering judgment in any such way as is stated in this despatch.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-PETITIONS AGAINST NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the motion for supply is carried, I would ask whether or not the Committee on Privileges and Elections has been summoned to meet. I mentioned this matter to the right hon. Prime Minister on Saturday. He said that he would have some intimation to make later on, after-I think he said-having consulted with the chairman of the committee. It is usual, I understand, to have the Committee on Privileges and Elections summoned immediately after any matter has been referred to them. That course does not seem to have been pursued in this case.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
I will call the attention of the Chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections to the matter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He is absent from the city.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I understand that Mr. Wade, the chairman of the committee is absent, but I will call attention to the matter. I am not aware of the circumstances that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has alluded to. I supposed it was with reference to the petitions.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.
I



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the motion for Committee of Supply is carried, 1 would like to say that there is a matter to be brought up by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blnin) on going into supply. But I understand that it is more convenient for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) to proceed with his estimates this morning. We have every disposition to meet the right hon. gentleman's convenience, with the understanding, of course, that the House will be moved into supply later on.
' The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE. I believe it will be agreeable to bring the matter up on going into Committee of Supply, at three o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- additional to service between Great Britain and Canada, $25,000.
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: This is for the purpose of meeting any possible additional subsidy that may be required under our contract with the Allans. We pay by steamer, and the rates vary, therefore, it is not always possible to ascertain in advance exactly how much will be paid. Of late, I may say the service has considerably improved. The ' Tunisian ' and the ' Bavarian ' have been making, during the last three or four months, very fail-rates of speed from Rimouski to Moville and back.


Mr. SPROULE.: What is their general rate of speed ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The general rate of speed by the steamers I have referred to is about 14 knots ; the others about 124 knots.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The contract seems to be on a sort of sliding scale. Is it according to the number of trips made ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: According to this, I assume that the minister has not made provision for the maximum outlay ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Heretofore there has been a sum which has been available for this service- about $25,000, under the head of service from St. John to Liverpool. That has been dropped. So, this is practically no increase, because, in the past we were able to use this $25,000 in addition to the $150,000 voted for this service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are we correct in understanding that the vote heretofore given to vessels by St. John via. Newfoundland to the old country has been dropped ?
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COM-'MERCE. No, there was no vote for exactly that service. There was another vote. That vote to which my hon. friend refers is a vote of $20,000, not from St. John's, if my memory serves me, but from Halifax to St. John's, Newfoundland, and thence to Liverpool. That vote remains. When that was originally granted there was no calling at St. John's. It remained for a considerable time, and was not nearly used, except for the purpose of supplementing the vote to the Allan service.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose it is through not clearly understanding the circumstances that I do not comprehend the necessity of the additional $25,000. Is it occasioned by putting on another boat, or is it occasioned by the fact that the sum paid to the Messrs. Allan is on a sliding scale ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes, on a sliding scale, dependent on the speed and quality of the boat. Two of their boats receive a much better sum than the other. The ' Bavarian ' and the ' Tunisian ' are paid very much more than the inferior vessels employed. But of late they have been employing better vessels. The close of the South African war released a number of those craft, and we are now getting a better service.
Additional for steam service between St. John, N.B., and Glasgow, during winter of 1903-4, $7,500.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Hon. gentlemen will observe that a similar sum is in the main estimates for the service heretofore run. We propose to
double that service, and give a corresponding sum, the total of which will be about $15,000. That service has been of considerable use in bringing us into communication with Glasgow and the population round about.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many vessels are they giving ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We have a fortnightly service instead of a monthly service. They carry mails if any are tendered by the post office, but, of course, the mail service is not a very important portion. To all intents and purposes they are freight boats.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have they cold storage apparatus "!


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They have summer accommodation. But the hon. gentleman will observe that this is a winter service. There is not much of a perishable nature carried by them during winter.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the character of the freight, and is there any - return freight ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is of a very mixed character, all sorts of general cargo. They fill up with deals if they can get nothing else. They also carry large quantities of produce of various kinds. The return cargo is not large. It consists chiefly I am told of articles of iron and things of that kind. But the great difficulty we have to contend with, and the reason for giving more money in these subsidies, lies in the fact that the return cargo is generally very small. Still this service is of use in that it brings us into direct communication with a large and important centre of population in Scotland. In Glasgow and the surrounding district there is a population of a million and a quarter. It is a matter of considerable moment to us to have direct communication with these people for the purpose of facilitating the sale of Canadian products. I think the money has been pretty well spent.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do American exporters make use of these ships to send their produce in competition with our own ?
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE!. That its chiefly in (Connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am sorry to say they are not very much overburdened with cargoes. They take what they can get.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any contract made with this company which prevents them from discriminating in freight rates ?
The MINISTER OB' TRADE AND COMMERCE. There is some regulation of that kind.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any provision made by which the exporters of Chicago, for instance, shall not get better rates than those of Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton or any other points ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: There is a provision that they shall not discriminate against Canadian shippers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Can we see that provision before we adopt the item ? It is a matter of importance to the people of Canada, who are subsidizing these vessels, that greater facilities shall not be given American exporters by means of lower freight rates than are given to our own people.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I will send for the provision.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like the item to stand until we get it.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I think the regulation should provide that not only should there be no discrimination, but that we should have a preference. What is the good of Canada paying out subsidies to steamship lines if we do not get any preference in rates ? If the Americans can come in here and compete with us in using these lines, what is the use of paying out Canadian money to subsidize these vessels to carry American freight ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is difficult to get a cargo as it is. It would not help Canadian freighters if you prevented discrimination.


Edward Cochrane: I am talking about giving a preference. If we give a large subvention, why should we not have a preference ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is not a large subvention, it is an extremely small subsidy.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think it would be better to give even a larger subsidy and to get a discrimination in favour of our own exporters.
Item allowed to stand.
Additional for steam communication during the season of 1903, between the mainland and the Magdalen Islands, $6,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is a provision to double the accommodation heretofore afforded to these islands. The service for a long time was run weekly, and we paid $9,000 for it. They are now running semi-weekly, and they receive this additional remuneration. The boats are the ' Amelia ' and the ' Lunenburg.'


Robert Laird Borden: What are the mainland ports ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Pictou and Souris.


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are we doing much trade with the Magdalen Islands ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: A fair amount. Of course, with a double service we may expect to do more trade.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the nature of the imports and exports ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The Magdalen Islands belong to us. They send their fish down, and whatever is required for the use of the Magdalen population goes to them by this route. They have no other means of communication whatever.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is only fair that assistance should be given to the islands.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the population of the island ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: About 7,000 altogether.
Steam communication between Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton and Newfoimdland, $8,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is for the purpose of encouraging communication from Sydney to Prince Edward Island and incidentally to Newfoundland. I may observe that this vote* which is for $8,000 is granted partly in consideration of the reduction of the subsidy voted for a service between Prince Edward Island and Great Britain. We were giving them 810,000 but it was found very difficult to get a sufficient number of steamers. The vote has been reduced to $5,000 and in lieu of that we are proposing a service between Sydney and Prince Edward Island. That will be practically $3,000 of an increase on the two votes.


Mr. HACKETT.: From what points in Prince Edward Island will this service be maintained ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Between Charlottetown and Sydney.


Robert Laird Borden: How frequent a service is proposed between these two ports ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Our intention is to have a weekly service when the new contract is made.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the steamer been selected ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No, we have not been able to conclude our arrangements until we got the money.


Edward Hackett: Would it not be possible to include Summerside in this arrangement ? The steamers that will perform this service will likely belong to some lines running between Montreal and Newfoundland. They pass Summerside and why not include Summerside ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I shall be very pleased to do so if I can obtain the service. This, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) will observe is a new vote and we have not as yet been able to come to close quarters on the subject as to the number of places to be called at, but I will be very glad to include Summerside if I can possibly manage it.
Additional for steam service during the season of 1903 between Sydney, C.B., and Bay St. Lawrence and way ports, $500.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This service is being a little enlarged. We have a service at present and we now propose to run it as far as St. Anne's bay. The steamer is the ' Weymouth.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do you come to put that item in here ? When does your financial year end ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is for the season. They have been giving the service on the understanding that we will put in the item.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It should be in the supplementary estimates for the year ending 1903.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No, it is for the season and the season will not end until December.


Robert Laird Borden: How frequent will this service be ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is a weekly service.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is Bay St. Lawrence ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is in Victoria county.
Steam .service between Canada and Australia, $194,666.66.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any provision made in this contract that as a condition of our giving this subsidy there shall be no discrimination in rates in favour of American exporters as to the goods which they send to Australia ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it not be well to supply the committee with that provision or arrangement ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I think I brought it down. This is a repetition of the former vote we passed in the supplementary estimates for 1903, and 1 think, if the hon. gentleman will refer back, he will see that information was given.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The right hon. gentleman may be correct, but if there is a provision of that kind, it can easily be brought down.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes, there is no objection. This formerly was a statutory vote, but the statute
has expired and in place of making it statutory we are now putting it in the ordinary estimates.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What will be the amount of our contribution ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: There was an addition made last year, partly paid by ourselves and partly paid by Australia and Fiji.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much of the addition are we contributing ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do these boats carry the mail ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any arrangement for cold storage or for special freight storage V


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: There are arrangements for cold storage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In how many of the boats ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I think in all. The boats are the ' Aorangi,' the ' Miowera,' aud the ' Moana.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are three vessels. How many trips do they make in the season ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: There are sailings once every four weeks. A pretty considerable trade is being developed with Australia and it is an increasing trade as far as our exports are concerned. The imports are not so large.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the trade of any considerable importance or is it increasing ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The total amount of our exports was $2,586,554 to Australia.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: And our imports ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They are very small. They amount to some $200,000 or $300,000.


Samuel Hughes: I drew the attention of the minister some years ago to the fact, that while our Canadian commissioners in these countries are promoting the question of Canadian manufactures and products, they might devote some time to the question of getting imports from these countries for Canada. For instance, in the matter of hides, Australia is a large exporter, and I believe we could profitably import hides direct from our sister colony. We should, I think, have a monthly freight service established from eastern Canada -the ports of Montreal, Quebec, Halifax
136S0

and St. John-and I am satisfied that if we did so, millions of dollars worth of hides could be imported from these colonies rather tka-n from foreign countries which have antagonistic tariffs against us. These hides are now taken largely to Holland and are then distributed to England and to Canada. I understand that at the present time, the Canadian service goes monthly, and the American service monthly also from the Pacific coast to Australia.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: The American service goes tri-monthly from San Francisco.


Samuel Hughes: I am satisfied that a large and profitable trade could be developed between Canada and Australia, even if we had sailing vessels plying from eastern Canadian to Australian ports. At present our exports have to be shipped across the continent to Vancouver, and the rail rates for such a long haul are absolutely prohibitive. If we could send vessels around the Horn from our eastern ports to Australia, it would be a great benefit to both countries. Has the minister given that his consideration ?


The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I have; but I am afraid any subsidy it would be within our power to give, would hardly produce the results which the hon. gentleman desires. We are doing a very decent export trade with Australia, but our import trade is very small; only $152,000 last year.


Samuel Hughes: A profitable trade could be done in furniture, if we could ship it direct to Australia, but it is impossible to send it by rail to Vancouver.


The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The journey from eastern Canada to Australia is nearly half around the globe; about 12,000 miles.


Samuel Hughes: I am aware of that.


The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It would be a very long journey, and would require, 1 am afraid, a very steep subsidy.


Samuel Hughes: The distance from Australia to eastern Canada is not so great as from Australia and New Zealand to German ports, and yet I was able to give figures some time ago to show, that the rates from Sydney, Australia, to Hamburg, on hides were less than the rates on the same articles from Chicago to Bracebridge, or other ports in Ontario by rail. I should think that the rates from Australia to eastern Canada would be less than from Australia to German ports.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: When the Australian commonwealth begins to find its feet a little more, they may join with us.


Samuel Hughes: 


Samuel Hughes: Of course I do not expect it to come about in a miuute.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I would expect more assistance from them than they have been hitherto giving, because that trade which the hon. gentleman speaks of would be to their advantage as well as ours.


Samuel Hughes: Certainly.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I have directed the attention of our agents to this matter, and possibly something may come of it.


William Ross: The great drawback is that our export trade has t6 be sent across the continent to Vancouver for shipment, and the railway freights must necessarily prevent anything like a large trade being done. You have either to send by rail to Vancouver or ship to New York, and when you ship to New York you cannot compete with the American exporters. If we had monthly steamers from Montreal, Quebec, St. John or Halifax, as the case may be, our trade with the commonwealth would be immense. I know of one firm that is ready to take a shipment of 3,000 tons of paper right away if they could only get it shipped direct from Canada. Ordinary furniture could be exported in what is called ' knock-down ' shape to be painted and put together when it arrives in Australia. Carriages of different descriptions, window sashes and doors, and other Canadian manufactures would find a ready market in Australia, because the tariff on most of the articles which we could export to that country is only 15 per oent. This is a question which is worthy of all consideration. I should hope that the Australian government would supplement our grapts to steamers. I am happy to say that the condition of Australia is improving very rapidly at present. The recent rains there have been most beneficial, and the reports are that there will be very large and profitable crops in the commonwealth this year.


Mr. BLAIN.: Is the minister aware of the policy of the United States in respect to subsidizing vessels to different ports ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I do not think they grant any subsidies to the lines to Australia.


Richard Blain: What is their general policy with respect to subsidies.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That matter has been under consideration in congress a good deal, but I do not think they have as yet formulated any policy. They have talked a good deal about granting subsidies, but unless it be to the Philippines, or some of their own possessions, I do not think they have granted them in the fashion we have granted them.


Richard Blain: Has the minister any information with respect to the trade between the United States and Australia ?
The MINISTER OB' TRADE AND COMMERCE. It is considerably larger than ours ; it is perhaps $8,000,000 or $10,000,000. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) asked what were the provisions as to discrimination. The terms are as follows :
All passengers or freight that may be offered, or that can reasonably be procured, at rates which shall not be in excess of such maximum rates as are fixed by the minister, should it be advisable so to fix such maximum rates. And in no case shall any discrimination be made as regards rates, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, against Canadian merchants, or shippers who shall always have precedence for their freight and goods over all other merchants and shippers.
And It is agreed and understood that the freight rates on eastbound trips sailing from St. John. N.B., as hereinbefore provided on bills of lading through to Glasgow, Scotland, from any place in the province of Ontario, or Quebec or from any Canadian points further west, shall in no case be greater than from the same place to Glasgow via any United States route or port; and on west bound trips the rates from Glasgow to any point in Ontario or Quebec or other Canadian points further west, shall be as favourable as by any United States route or port to the same place.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If I apprehend the meaning of what the minister has read that makes provision that the rate collected from any point in Canada via this route shall not be greater than via New York or Boston.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Or any other United States port.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What we are aiming at is to prevent discrimination as between Toronto or Hamilton or London or Stratford and Chicago or Detroit or any points west of these cities.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I do not think that can be met under this contract.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Complaints have been made again and again that rates are given via Montreal, Quebec or St. John from Chicago-


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: By this line ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: By lines running from Montreal and St. John-that rates are given from Chicago to Liverpool that are much lower than the rates charged from Stratford, Hamilton, Toronto, or other great industrial exporting points in Canada, and there is no provision in this contract, if I apprehend the meaning of the words, to prevent such a condition of things. In the item which we are discussing, the steamship service to Australia, it is an indisputable fact, and the United States returns will establish it, that the exports of American products to Australia are increasing by leaps and bounds.
It would surely be bad policy on our part to give these enormous subsidies to establish a line of steamers from Vancouver to Australia if it is found that the owners of these ships make better rates for goods going from American points, Chicago and points in the eastern states, than are given to our exports from Quebec and Ontario ? We are actually paying a bonus to these companies to give an advantage to our competitors.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) will send me any detailed instance in which that has occurred, I will inquire into it at once.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think it is the duty of the right lion, gentleman to see that this is not done.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I do not know that anything of the kind has occurred.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I believe it can he established.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Well, then establish it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am not prepared to establish it at the present time, but I think that we should be sympathized with instead of being attacked for asking for information.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The hon. gentleman has a perfect right to ask for information.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the right hon. minister, in asking this $200,000, prepared to say what the rates are from any New England point, say Boston or New York, as compared with those from Toronto or Montreal ?
The MINISTER OB' TRADE AND COMMERCE. I have not that information with me but I can get it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Perhaps it would be well to let the item stand until the right hon. gentleman is prepared to give that information. I have heard again and again that goods from Boston are shipped at a lower rate via this route to Australia than goods .'from Montreal or Toronto.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: If the hon. gentleman will produce any evidence on that point we will have the matter investigated at once.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Surely if the right hon. gentleman is as jealous and zealous as he should be to guard the trade of Canada he should have all these particulars at his finger ends.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is the business of parties who have complaints to make, to make them and to give their evidence. They have riot done so in this case.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The right hon. gentleman admits that he lias no information on the matter and is not prepared to say what the freight rates are between these points ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I did not say that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He made that admission a moment ago.


Samuel Hughes: I have repeatedly in this House, even during this session, called attention to this matter and the right hon. gentleman promised across the floor of the House that he would look into it. I did not bring up the Australian case but I did bring up the fact that goods are shipped via Canadian steamboat lines to Liverpool at cheaper rates from western United States points than from the town in which I live and other Ontario points. The minister promised to look into these rates, to have them printed and laid before the House.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The hon. gentleman had nothing to say about the Australian rates.


Samuel Hughes: I brought up the rates to England from Canada and the fact that the American farmer, who lias never contributed one cent in bonuses to these railways and steamship lines, sends his freight by them to England and lands his grain there at a cost of five to ten cents a bushel less than what it costs the people of the county from which I come, who have taxed themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for these railway and steamship lines.


Robert Laird Borden: The agreement which the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been good enough to place in my hand provides that the steamship line is to handle :
All passengers or freight that may be offered, or that can reasonably be procured, at rates which shall not be in excess of such maximum rates as are fixed by the minister should he deem it advisable so to fix such maximum rates ; and in no case shall any discrimination be made as regards rates, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, against Canadian merchants, or shippers who shall always have precedence for their freight and goods over all other merchants and shippers.
I would suggest that the difficulty raised by my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) would hardly be met by that clause, for it simply deals with discrimination against Canadian merchants or shippers and not with rates from points in Canada as distinguished from the United States.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Read a little further.


Robert Laird Borden: Then the contract proceeds as follows :
And it is agreed and understood that freight rates on eastbound trips sailing from St. John, N.B., as hereinbefore provided on bills of lading through to Glasgow, Scotland, from any place in the province of Ontario, or Quebec or from Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
any Canadian points further west, shall in no case be greater than from the same place to Glasgow' via any United States route or port; and on west bound trips the rates from Glasgow to any point in Ontario or Quebec or other Canadian points further west, shall be as favourable as by any United States route or port to tbe same place.
The remaining portion of the clause relates altogether to cargoes of lumber or timber and prescribes the proportion which can be carried. So, it seems to me, that this portion of the clause will hardly cover what my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has spoken of, because it merely provides that the rate from any place in Ontario or Quebec shall not be greater by this route than by a United States route. What my hon. friend from Toronto is dealing with is this. He alleges that he has been credibly informed that rates from Chicago or other United States points in the west via these lines are lower than from eorrespondingpoints in Ontario and the west via the same lines. That is quite different from anything specially provided for in the contract. Do I make myself clear ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Quite clear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When the question of transportation was discussed whole pages of rates were presented to the House by hon. gentlemen who were familiar with the question. The hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Maclaren) gave the schedules of rates from his own district points, Stratford, and, I think, Listowel.


Tile MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I rather misunderstood the point my hon. friend is taking. The point he is now taking, I understand, is that in fixing through-rates from Chicago the railway or steamship company might charge less than from Canadian points. He is aware that that is an excessively difficult question to deal with. He is also aware that these vessels, as a rule, go out of St. John scarcely ever with full cargoes. They are obliged to fill up with deals and other commodities of that kind. How far it would benefit us to interfere it is a very difficult question to answer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I admit that, but I submit that tbe situation is a peculiar one, to say the least. The people of Ontario are willing that we should vote reasonable subsidies to assist tbe shipping trade in tbe maritime provinces, but we are being handi-caped in the matter of exports, if the allegations I have made are correct. If we desire to transport cattle, cheese or butter by these subsidized vessels, we have to pay greater freight rates from points in Ontario to Liverpool than are given to our competitors who reside in the United States and bill their products from Chicago. In the clause which the right hon. gentleman read to us, there is no provision to guard against

this discrimination. We not only pay a subsidy, but higher rates are charged our shippers than are charged our competitors in Chicago. The same condition applies with regard to exports from the New England states to Australia and the east. Lower rates are charged than our Canadian shippers have to pay. This should be remedied. If we subsidize these lines, Canadian exporters should not have to pay higher rates, but should be treated with at least equal consideration with those of the United States.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That is quite right. The point he makes is one worthy of serious consideration, but I would point this out to him as a business man. I-Iere we are endeavouring to build up tbis export trade from the maritime provinces. These people complain of the low subsidies given. They state with truth that a great deal of this trade from St. John is carried with a loss. If there was the slightest disposition to give a preference to American goods over ours, we have taken power in the contract to prevent that. But does the hon. gentleman think that we would benefit by prohibiting the shipping of American goods by that route and sending them to United States ports instead of St. John or Halifax ? We can easily prohibit the export of American stuff through our lines and over our railways, but I fail to see how that would benefit us.


Edward Frederick Clarke: According to the hon. gentleman these ships do not take full cargoes, so that there is room in them for Canadian and other exports. It is an anomalous condition that we should subsidize steamers, and then find these steamers utilized by our American competitors at lower freight rates. That condition should not be continued.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: What would you suggest ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would suggest a larger subsidy and prevent discrimination in rates, or cut off the subsidy.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That might be done, but the House would have to go to a far heavier expenditure than we are now making. Take a steamer 2,000 tons, and suppose she has 1,200 tons of cargo from Canadian shippers. If she has not more than the 1,200 she will be obliged to charge the Canadian exporter with heavier rates in proportion than if she were filled up from other quarters. And while you can compel American products to be sent by their own ports if you like, still, I am bound to say, nnless we undertake a very much larger expenditure than we have undertaken, and larger, I think, than my hon. friend contemplates or would approve, we shall find it very difficult to deal with that particular
question. He knows that the matter of the through-freight from competitive points- Chicago, for instance-is one of the greatest problems that are presented for consideration in connection with this whole transportation question. Now, if we desire that our people shall have the preference if they have stuff to sell, I am not clear, though the matter deserves consideration, that we can well help ourselves.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If we have a steamer of 2,000 tons burden and only 1,200 tons of Canadian produce offers for her cargo, surely the people of Canada are paying the subsidy to have that 1,200 tons carried to market. If the vessel carries a full cargo what is the balance made up of ? It is made up of products which are to enter into competition in the common market with the Canadian products. And this American freight is sent to our ports only because the rate is lower than the rate by American ports. Surely this is an anomalous condition of things- that the people of Canada should pay, in the first place, a subsidy to a vessel to take our products across the Atlantic, and then pay a higher rate than those who have products to sell in competition with ours, and who are not called upon to pay any share of the subsidy.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Well, to continue the illustration of my hon. friend, how would the people of Canada benefit if we compel this 800 tons of American products to go by New York ? They would enter into competition with Canadian products just as much as they do now, and the shipmaster would be obliged to charge a higher rate on the Canadian products than he now charges. I do not deny that the position is awkward and anomalous. But I point out the very great difficulties in the way of solving the problem which the hon. gentleman speaks of unless by undertaking a very heavy expenditure, and, ill any case, preventing competition.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria)* I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce has misunderstood the position of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). The hon. member does not want to prohibit the carrying of American freight, but I think he desires that the freight rates on the American goods shall not be less than on the same class of goods sent from Canada. In other words, we should not bonus the steamer to take Canadian goods to foreign ports and then allow that steamer to call at American ports and take similar commodities at lower rates.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: None of these steamers call at American ports.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: It would be well for the minister, I think, to look into this matter of the freight rates. I believe there is a good deal in the contention that our sub-

sidized lines are carrying American products at lower rates tlian they give to Canadians. Of course, they say that when they take freight at Chicago to be carried through, they have to take it at what rates they can get, and that it does not hurt the Canadian shipper whatever those rates may he. But, at the same time, if they can carry American products at 20 cents per hundred pounds I do not see any reason -why they should carry Canadian products at 30 cents per 100 pounds for the same class of freight. I find also that subsidized lines running from Canadian to other ports are very loath to meet competition. I would instance the Bickford & Black lines from Halifax to the West Indies. They are obliged to meet competition from New York, but they do not meet it until the last protest is entered. They do meet it finally, but they are a long while about it, and as soon as an excuse offers, they raise the rates again. They may carry flour for the Americans for 20 cents a barrel and there is no reason why they shrfTdd not do the same for Canadians. If they receive a subsidy from this parliament, then, we sboud make it a condition that they shall carry Canadian produce at as low rates as those they give to the Americans. If the minister would inquire into this and see that such a condition is carried out, I believe it will be only fair and would be in the interest of Canadian trade. Bait I advise him that it takes a good deal of vigilance, to have such a condition carried into effect. They are very wary and you have to be constantly ascertaining what the freight rates are at Chicago and you have to be always on the alert.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The rate is made by rail and water. The steamships themselves do not carry freight for the round rate.


Archibald Campbell: They ' divvy up ' with the railways. There is an understanding between the railways and the steamship companies. This, would be a matter well worthy of the minister's careful consideration.


Mr. FOWLER.: The discrimination in freight rates does not ncessarily affect the Canadian shipper in the market to which the goods are sent. Of course, if the American shipper undersells the Canadian by reason of the discrimination, then of course the discrimination is a matter that very injuriously affects the Canadian. But if that is not so, I do not see how the Canadian shipper is very much injured by reason of American freight going through the Canadian channels. On the other hand, it helps us to get the service of a less subsidy than we should get it for if American freights were not allowed.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) has hit the exact difficulty of the situation. I have made inquiries and, so far as Mr. CAMPBELL.
I can learn, competition on the other side of the water is not affected by what goes through by these steamers. Everybody knows that the amount of American produce which goes to England is enormous ; and it is so enormous that the comparative trifle that goes by those lines does not affect the prices.


Samuel Hughes: There is another point that should not be lost sight of, and which goes to benefit our friends in the maritime provinces. There is, for instance, a rate from a western Canadian point to St. John. There is a through-rate from that western Canadian point to Liverpool. In that case, the through railway rate to St. John would be less than the direct railway rate to St. John. On reaching St. John, an arrangement is made with the agent of the steamship company by which, for some trifle, these goods are not taken across the water but are taken out and disposed of to the merchants of St. John and other places. In that way the merchant profits by the difference between the through-rate and the local rate to St. John, which amounts to something considerable. I understand that this practice is carried on to a very considerable extent not only in our Canadian seaports but in American seaports as well. I think the minister could make his department, if he intends remaining in it, one of the most beneficial in the whole service to the public, if he would take hold of these freight rates, both through-rates and rates in bond and make comparisons, and publish them to the shippers of the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice in the contract which wTas read that the minister has the right to make a maximum freight rate. Has he done so ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: As a rule these people have all been complaining that the route is not a profitable one, and that the rates they maintain are so low that they can hardly make the two ends meet. From inquiries I have made I think that for some time, until a trade is built up, it will hardly be advisable to exercise that power. I have made careful inquiry into the question. Hon. gentlemen will understand, without dwelling on the subject, which is one of some delicacy, that to attempt to build up our winter ports has its difficulties. They are at a longer distance from the Canadian centres of production than the American ports, and we must make some considerable concessions in order to draw trade of that nature. Take the case of goods going from Montreal. If they go to Portland, it is scarcely 300 miles ; if they go to St. John by the Canadian Pacific Railway, it is 500 miles ; if they go from Halifax I think it is about 750 miies by the shortest possible route from Montreal. These are geological difficulties, and can be palliated by legislation but cannot be removed. Up to the present time I think there has been a gratifying increase in trade from

the maritime provinces, particularly from St. John. Still, trade has to be conducted under a good many difficulties, some of which we hope to remove. Some of those difficulties are discrimination in the matter of insurance, which is higher than it ought to be. Still we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that we are working to some extent, I must say, against natural obstacles, and therefore we have not attempted to cut down the rates that they can obtain.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that if it be found that less rates are charged to American shippers than to Canadian shippers the government would be justified in making a maximum rate above which they should not charge Canadian shippers, because we pay a portion of the cost of running those lines, whereas the Americans pay no portion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I make bold to say that if the right hon. gentleman will instruct the officers of his department to make inquiry as lo through-rates from the New England states, and the through-rates from Chicago to Liverpool and Glasgow, he will find that the statements made here are fully borne out by his officers. If that is found to be the case, I think it deserves the serious attention of the right hon. gentleman and that he should see that such discrimination no longer continues against Canadian shippers.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That will be a matter for the House seriously to consider. But absolutely to refuse American goods coming to our various jjorts is a thing I would hesitate to recommend to the House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I point out the anomaly, that we continue to pay these subsidies when they are practically used against us.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is quite true that from such points as Chicago, where there is a vigorous competition for European trade, the anomaly does exist.


Robert Laird Borden: The question is not without difficulties, some of which have been pointed out by the right hon. gentleman. But I should hardly think they point to the necessity of a prohibition of the vessels from carrying American goods at those rates. The position of the right hon. gentleman seems to be this, that if you fix rates from Chicago equal to those which are paid from corresponding Canadian points, the result would be that having strong competition from Chicago, you would not get the cargo which is now procured. That would seem to be the position of the right hon. gentleman. No doubt many coinplicated matters have to be considered, to some of which he lias alluded, that is to say, that if you do not take this freight which is offered from Chicago you increase the cost, it may be argued, to Canadian
shippers, because you take that much away from the net earnings of the vessels crossing the Atlantic. However that may be, it certainly does seem an anomaly that while the Canadian government is paying a certain subsidy to these steamships-in this case it happens to be about $15,000 a year, but the same principle would apply to cases where the subsidy is much greater-it does seem to me an anomaly at least, whether it can be corrected to the advantage of the country or not, that Canadian shippers should pay on that line subsidized by their own money a higher rate of freight than that which is paid from corresponding points in the United States. I think my right hon. friend recognizes that as an anomaly. .


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I admit it, but my hon. friend will also recognize the difficulties that I have pointed out. You are between Scylla and Charybdis, very often, in matters of this kind.


Robert Laird Borden: Something like it is presented in the transportation problem which has been investigated by the United States Railway Commissioners. This subject has also evidently been under the consideration of this government in drafting the Railway Commission Bill which we had this year, because it is obvious that certain provisions in that Bill contemplated circumstances of this kind. I think the right hon. gentleman should take the representations of my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) into careful consideration, and ascertain whether it is possible to remove this great anomaly, one which must be considered a grievance by Canadian shippers, because they naturally feel that there is no reason why they should pay higher rates on these lines subsidized by their own money than are paid by United States exporters.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That is quite true, and the matter deserves consideration. But my hon. friend has incidentally struck on the real difficulty, which besets, both the Interstate Commission in the United States, and which will beset our own commissioners when they come to deal with the question of deciding what is to be done with the rates charged from competitive points. You see at Chicago you are within 800 miles of the ocean via New York, and a little longer to Boston, and not much longer to Baltimore. You are at the same time, if I recollect right, at a distance of 1,250 miles to St. John. I am not quite certain of the distance, but it is several hundred miles longer to St. John ; and if you turn away the freight which you can get from that quarter, you produce results which I have pointed out to my hon. friend from Toronto-we will have to pay a much larger subsidy if we deprive ourselves of the chance of getting a certain amount of freight from competitive points.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Coming back now to item 95-steam service between Canada and Australia-is that subsidy practically payable to tbe Canadian Pacific Railway Company ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is a separate company which, runs these vessels. The New Zealand Steamship Company is subsidized by the New Zealand government and by the Fiji government as well as by ourselves.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to be a new item.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Tbe reason is that heretofore it has been in the statute, but the statute expired last year, and we have not renewed the statutory provision.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You are making an increase of ?50,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why ? Are you getting any improvement in the service ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We are getting a little better service, but the fact is that we could not have the service performed for the amount formerly given. The parties refused to perform the service for the old subsidy.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the improvement in the service which justifies the addition of $50,000 to the subsidy ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They are giving us a better class of vessels than formerly, but the chief reason is that they distinctly declined to go on with the service for the old subsidy. We had either to pay more or to drop the whole thing. As the trade is increasing very largely, I did not feel justified in refusing, particularly as the Australian government, who are in favour of maintaining amicable relations, strongly advised us to pay a little more, and intimated their willingness to pay more.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What portion did the Australian government pay before and what do they pay now?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: What does Fiji pay ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: Is that a new subsidy to the line ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No, they always paid a little.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is their contribution increased ?
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT, i


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: There is a trifling' increase.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Does New Zealand pay anything ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: New Zealand was paying something, but we dropped that subsidy, because the New Zealand service added a very considerable length of time to the trips.


Samuel Hughes: Are the boats not calling at New Zealand ports ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Not at present.


Samuel Hughes: Why not ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Because they were not willing to pay the subsidy.


Samuel Hughes: If they were getting no advantage out of it, I do not see why they should pay, but if we were getting any benefit out of it we should have the boats call at New ZealamJ ports.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Calling at New Zealand ports added considerably to the length of the trip.


Samuel Hughes: I have had the privilege of travelling over the route two or three times, I know all about the distance, and I know that it would not take very much time to call at New Zealand ports. Do boats call at Brisbane ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I venture to say that the extra distance would not be so great that it would add very much to the length of the trip. A very large trade can be worked up with New Zealand. New Zealand is going to be in the near future the British island of the southern hemisphere and I would be very sorry if any action were taken on the part of this government, even if the New Zealand government do not see their way clear to contributing towards this subsidy, which would result in taking these steamers off the New Zealand line.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It would take a couple of days to go to New Zealand, and that is a matter of considerable importance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is it that this subsidy is not payable to the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Because they do not own tbe boats.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see here in their statement the ' Empress of India, the * Empress of China,' &c., for the service of which steamers they receive a subsidy.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That is the Japan subsidy. That is under the statute. It has nothing to do with this service.


Robert Laird Borden: What boats perform this service ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The ' Aorangi,' the ' Miowera ' and the ' Moana.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What number of trips do they make? Do they make a trip every month ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Every four weeks.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Two of the three vessels named by the right lion, minister have been performing that service for years. There has only been one vessel put on.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes, it was simply because they refused to perform this service unless we increased the subsidy that we have made this addition.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We had to increase the subsidy or the service would be dropped- is that the situation ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Are they provided with cold storage


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes.
Mr. BORDEN Halifax). Of an efficient character ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I am told so.


Samuel Hughes: The right bon. minister said a moment ago that they were going to provide newer and better steamers.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They have some better steamers than they had before.


Samuel Hughes: What ones ? They have the same old 'steamers.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The ' Warimoo ' was on before, and they have put another vessel in her place.


Samuel Hughes: The right hon. minister told us a moment ago that the ' Warrimoo ' was still on.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No, I said the ' Moana.'


Samuel Hughes: Would the right hon. minister read the names over ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The ' Aorangi, the ' Miowera ' and the ' Moana.' The ' Warrimoo ' was withdrawn, and a larger vessel took her place.
Hon, Mr. HAGGART. I see a report in the papers that the Canadian Pacific Railway were proposing to take off the Japan steamers, the ' Empress of Japan ' and the others, that they were going to put a larger class of boats on that route and that they were going to place the present Japan boats on the Australian route.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is an attempt to give a winter service to that section of the country for a couple of months longer. The original grant is $12,500, but we only paid $11,500 to the end of November, so that now, although I am asking for $3,000 more, it will only really cost us $2,000 more. It will give an additional service during December and January.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The experience in navigating these waters in November and December will be of some value in determining whether it is possible to navigate the lower St. Lawrence during the entire winter ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes, this is a tentative vote, and I hope it will prove useful in that respect.
Additional for steam service between Vic-tona and west coast of Vancouver Island, $2,500.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What about this ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is a service which we are giving along the west coast of the island of Vancouver. We are getting a larger and better steamer and we are proposing to give the company $2,500 more for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much do they get now?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: $2,500. They go along the west coast as far north as Cape Scott, and call at a variety of ports along the coast. The people have no other means of communication except by steamers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the right hon. minister recollect the name of the new steamer?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I have not the name of it, but they have agreed to have a larger steamer placed on the service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the aggregate subsidy will be $5,000?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes.

Additional lor steam service during the year 1903 between St. Stephen, N.B., Ste. Croix river points. Deer Island, Campbello, Passama-quoddy bay and L'Etete or Black bay, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We have heretofore been paying $2,000 for this service, but it has been represented to me very strongly for some years back that it cannot be done at that rate, and we have agreed to give $3,000 in the future.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any improvement in the service or in the frequency of the service ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No, the service will not be increased in frequency, although the steamer will call at two or three more places. But they really could not perform the service for the sum that was provided before.


George William Fowler: You are increasing the subsidy ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes, from $2,000 to $3,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there going to be a more frequent service ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No, I cannot say it will be much more frequent, although they have done more than their contract provides for.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many trips does die contract provide for?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They are semi-weekly.


George William Fowler: Is a better steamer being put on ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They have a somewhat better steamer, but the real fact is that they were going behind all the time. We could not expect them to perform the service for the same subsidy. They represented to me that they have been running the steamer for the last three years at a dead loss, and, from the best evidence I could obtain, I found that their statement was true.
Steam service between St. Catherine's bay and Tadousac during the winter of 1903-1904, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: There is a good deal of settlement going on now along the north shore of the St. Lawrence, and heretofore they have had nothing but a canoe service.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is St. Catherine's Bay ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is on the St. Lawrence, on the eastern entrance to the Saguenay river.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this an experimental vote ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Richard John Cartwright: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the distance between St. Catherine's bay and Tadousac ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The distance is not very great. Quite a number of new industries have been established and quite a number of complaints have been made as to the means of communication, and it is said that this ferry across the mouth of the Saguenay is indispensable.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many trips will be made ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They will make as many trips as they can in a day. The distance is about a mile or a mile and a half.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: What county is St. Catherine's bay in ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Chicoutimi and Saguenay. The people who are on the east side of the Saguenay, when going to Quebec, have to drive up on one shore to St. Alphonse, cross on the ice there, and come down the other shore when they are going to Quebec. It is hoped that this ferry will save about 70 miles of a journey. Messrs. Price Brothers have an important lumber industry at St. Catherine's bay, and they are willing to make the experiment this winter with their steamer, in consideration of this subsidy.


George William Fowler: It would seem that this is a service which should be performed by the government. The ferries are not run by the Dominion government.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Ferry licenses are under the control of the federal government on navigable waters.


George William Fowler: On the St. John river, the ferries are subsidized not by the Dominion government but by the local government. There is a ferry in my own constituency at Milledgeville and that is entirely kept up by the local government. It does seem to me that the province which the Minister of Justice represents, is singularly favoured inasmuch as these services are performed by the Dominion government in that province, which have to be performed by the provincial governments in other provinces. I quite understand how important it is to the people of this section to have this ferry; I have no fault to find with that, but it does seem to me that it is a service that should be performed by the provincial government of Quebec rather than by the federal government.
The MINISTER OB' JUSTICE. The question of the ferry at Quebec was under the consideration of our courts and it was decided-and no one has disputed it-that that service was strictly under the control of the federal government, and that we could give licenses for ferries to cross the St. Lawrence on the same principle that we give

authority to construct a bridge. Quite recently the question has come up in Ontario-


Edward Frederick Clarke: With regard to Sault Ste. Marie.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The provincial government issued a license, and it was found to be of no value,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was un international matter, and there is no comparison.


George William Fowler: I should certainly think that no ferry, such as this at St. Catherine's should have a subsidy.


Robert Laird Borden: The ferryman has as good a right as any one else to use navigable waters as a public highway, and the only question remaining is, who should assist him. The ferry from Halifax to Dartmouth, crossing navigable waters, is established altogether under provincial enactments. We have various ferries throughout our province, over navigable waters, and those that are assisted at all are assisted by the provincial government.
For services of the steamer ' Lord Strathcona ' and wrecking plant on the St. Lawrence for the year ending June 30, 1904, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is for the maintenance of a steamer which is held in readiness to be called to the assistance of any vessel that gets into trouble on the St. Lawrence.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In how many cases were steamers assisted ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Some four or five vessels were assisted.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How does the record of the present season compare with the previous season, so far as accidents are concerned ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Within the last two or three months it has been better, but in the early part of the season the number was quite up to the average, I am sorry to say.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the right hon. minister, what steps are being taken to improve the situation ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has. been exerting himself in that direction, in the way of better lighting, better telegraph communication and other things which I hope will have a beneficial effect.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Have there been any reductions in insurance rates as a result of these exertions ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Not as yet. Unfortunately this spring there were a considerable number of disasters in the lower St. Lawrence and 429
they have made that an excuse for keeping the rates up.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I notice considerable correspondence ill the London * Times ' from Lloyds and others, respecting the St. Lawrence route, and suggesting that it is not at all satisfactory. It is rather! humiliating to Canadians to read such statements, and I am quite sure that if any reasonable expenditure were asked by the government, to improve the system of pilotage, and lighting, and for wrecking apparatus, it would be most cheerfully granted by this parliament.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COM MERCE.: All these things are being attended to at the present time by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. He is extremely anxious to make the navigation of the St. La wrence as perfect as it can be, and I hope he will succeed in doing that to a very great extent; hut it cannot be done at once.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to say that he had some information from Lloyds, that if the aids to navigation were improved they were likely to consider a reduction in the insurance rates.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I would be in hopes, that result would come.


Samuel Hughes: Is the minister taking any steps to have pilots who know their business, placed on these steamers ? I have no hesitation in saying, that as a rule these pilots do not know their business, and I think that is the universal verdict of shippers and every one else.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has taken over the pilots between Montreal and Quebec, but not between Quebec and below.


Samuel Hughes: And below too.
Additional for salaries of inspectors, deputy inspectors and other employees under the General Inspection and Manitoba Grain Acts, $12,000.
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COM-I may state briefly that this demand arises simply from the fact that the business of inspection has increased very largely, but, on the other hand, the receipts have also increased. We had an expenditure of $66.000 but collected fees to the extent of $88,000 so that the revenue will not he any the worse for the additional expenditure which is now asked for.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have the official weighers been appointed and the grain standards decided for the year ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We have now before the House a Bill for extending the provisions of the 1 Inspection Act and providing official weigh-I ers for the district east of Manitoba. We



cannot appoint any weighers in Ontario until that Bill is passed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But action has been taken in the matter.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: There is a Bill on the Order paper which I introduced.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The grain standards have been fixed before this.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes.
Some resolutions reported.
At one o'clock. House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.



SUPPLY-COST OF CENSUS.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['When we go into Supply I will move the resolution with regard to granting provincial autonomy to the North-west Territories of which I have given notice.']
Richard Blain: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I wish to move an amendment which reads as follows :
That all the words after ' that ' to the end of the question be left out and the following substituted therefor :-The expenditure in connection with the taking of the census for the year 1881 was $511,550 for a population of 4,324,810 ; that the expenditure in connection with the taking of the census for the year 1891 was $549,991.76 for a population of 4,833,239 ; that the expenditure in connection with the taking of the census for the year 1901 is $1,198,268.99 for a population of 5,371,315 and the accounts for the census year 1901 have not all been paid.
That in the opinion of this House the said expenditure for the year 1901 is excessive and extravagant.
You will notice by the figures contained in the resolution that the increase in the population, as shown by the census of 1901 over that of 1891, was 538,076 and the increase of the cost of taking the census for 1901 over that of 1891 was $648,277.23. You will observe by tlnese figures, Mr. Speaker, that it cost considerably more than twice as much to take the census in 1901 as in 1891. In looking over the debates of parliament I see that when the items for the payment of the accounts of the census of 188i were up for discussion the Reform party, who were in opposition at that time, strongly condemned the Liberal-Conservative government then in power because of what they called the extravagant expenditure. In 1891 when the census of that year was up before parliament for discussion the same thing occurred. Some hou. gentlemen who now occupy government positions were then sitting on this side of the House and they used very strong language in condemning the Conservative government for the extraordinary expenditure and the inaccuracy of the census taken in that year. On looking over that debate we would naturally expect that if the time should arrive when these gentle-Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
men should come into office, as they did in 1896, a new condition of things would prevail. We naturally expected that when they came into office some of the pledges they gave to the people of Canada in respect to economy of administration would certainly be put in operation. In so far as expenditure in taking the census of 1901 is concerned the manner in which the promises were fulfilled was very disappointing to the people of Canada and it is for that reason and some others, that I propose to move the resolution that I now place in your hands. "We would naturally expect. Mr. Speaker, that some advancement would be made by the Parliament of Canada during ten years of Canada's prosperity. We would naturally expect that this government in 1901 would be able to apply some new rules in advance of those adopted by the Liberal-Conservative government in 1891. As you know, a great many changes have taken place during these ten years and it would be expected that the Minister of Agriculture would he able to take advantage of some of the municipal advancement that has taken place in the different provinces and apply these rules to the taking of the census in 1901. I wish to give an illustration in this respect. In the county I have the honour to represent there is a township called Toronto township. It was assessed by the municipal corporation in 1901 at a cost of $135 which was paid by the municipal council. Two assessors were appointed for that municipality in the year 1901, and I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, what the assessors' duties are in the province of Ontario-I am not so familiar with the other provinces-the instructions are very complete the assessor on entering a house enumerates everything that is there. Let me read for illustration some of the schedules in the assessors' roll for the municipalities in Ontario. In column 22 he takes down the number of cattle upon the farm ; in column 23, the number of sheep ; in column 24, the number of hogs ; in. column 25, the number of horses ; in column 26, the number of births.
I could go through a large number of columns put into the assessor's hands as he commences his duties in the spring of each year. If you look over the schedules placed in the hands of the enumerators, when the census was taken in 1901, yon would see a very large number ot' columns like those I have read. When I remember that in that very spring of the year 1901, the people in every municipality of Ontario were called upon to pay their assessors for taking down these items, I find it strange that the hou. Minister of Agriculture did not take advantage of their services, and thus cheapen the cost of taking the Dominion census. I would not venture so far as to say that a complete copy of the assessment rolls would be sufficient for the Dominion census ; but what I do say is that if every ten years the Dominion

government were to place the additional schedules in the hands of each of the assessors in Ontario, each assessor would be able to give the government a complete and accurate census of every municipality in that province for a great deal less money than was spient in 1901. 1 repeat that it cost the municipality $135 to assess the township I refer to in 1901. That assessment was done by two assessors ; but when the Minister of Agriculture went to take the census in that township he put on nine enumerators, where two did the work for the- municipality, and it cost this government, not $135, but $433.45. The increase in the number of enumerators was seven, and the increase in the cost was $298.45, and the popula lion in each was the same, 5,208. I. throw out the .suggestion for the benefii of whoever may fill the position of Minister of Agriculture when the time comes to take another census. I think that some of the assessor's work, in the province of On tario at least, should be utilized in the taking of our census. My hon. friend the. Minister of Agriculture made a statement, during the discussion of these census items last session, that a great many more ques tions were asked in 1901 than at the previous census. That may be true, but many of those questions were altogether unnecessary. There were questions that did not bring out any valuable information, and some very important questions were omitted. For instance, in the columns which the enumerators had placed in tlieii hands, there was no column for fallow land I asked the hon. minister why there was no such column, and he replied because there is not much fallow land in Canada. Surelj that must have been a reply made in haste, for if he is at all conversant with the agricultural interests in Ontario, if he knows anything of that interest in other parts ol: this country, he must know that there is a very large quantity of fallow land. You cannot travel through any part of the province of Ontario, but you will find that on almost every hundred acres there are from ten to fifteen acres of fallow land each year. Let me ask my hon. friends from Ontario, who belong to the legal profession, what they find when drawing up leases. They will say that there is generally a clause providing that the tenant, when the lease expires, must have ten or fifteen acres fallow land. Why is that put in ? Is it because there is no fallow land in Ontario ? No, but because there is a large quantity of fallow land in that province. 1 asked my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) the other day what about fallow land in Manitoba and -the Territories. He said :	We fallow a great deal of land in
Manitoba and the Territories ; it would be difficult for us to seed it down, because we do not want hay, as we have more than we can use. and no market particularly for it.
429i
Therefore the only possible way by which we can clean our land from weeds is to leave it fallow. Any gentleman who has travelled through Manitoba and the Territories will see thousands of acres which are under fallow. Yet, notwithstanding that, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture tells us that the reason he put no column for fallow land in the census of 1901 was because there is very little fallow land in Canada. He may say that is not important, but to my mind it is. If it is important to put a schedule in the hands of the enumerators, showing the number of acres of wheat and oats, why is it not equally important that we should have a record of the number of acres in fallow ? If a gentleman who wished to engage in agricultural pursuits in Canada were to take up the census returns, and if he were an advanced agriculturist, he would ask whether the farmers of the Dominion were forgetting what is the best means of cleaning the soil of weeds, not finding any fallow land in the census columns, he would conclude that the Canadian agriculturist did not know his business. Everybody knows that it is important for the farmer who wants to keep his farm in good condition and clean from weeds to have some fallow land. I wish now very briefly to give a table of counties in Ontario, so as to make a comparison between the cost of taking the census of 1891 and that of taking the census in 1901. I take six counties in'the well-settled portion of the province. In 1891, the figures with regard to these counties were as follows :



[Stage Direction]
Number of
-County,	Population.	Cost	Enumerators.	Hal ton	21,982	$1,444	98	16
South Perth ..: 19,400	1,332	40	24Peel	15,466	1,102	03	18


Cardwell .. ..: 15,382	1,102	94	16Prince Edward.	18,889	1,390	25	23


Bothwell .. ..: 25,593	1,767	74	27116,712	$8,140	34	124
In 1901 the figures were as follows :


SIX COUNTIES-CENSUS OF 1901.
[Stage Direction]
Number of
County, Population. Cost. Enumerators.
Halton. 19,545	$2,488	94	32South Perth	..	17,861	2,469	30	33Peel... 13,687	1,967	31	24Cardwell	..	,.	13,060	1,956	88	27Prince'Edward. 17,864	2,402 16	36Bothwell	..	..	25,223	3,539	81	48107,240	$14,824 40	200
A -comparison of these figures will show that in every case there has been a decrease of population, and yet an increase of cost of taking the census and an increase in the number of enumerators employed :

[Stage Direction]
Decrease in- Increased Increased. County.	Population. Cost. Enumerators.
Hal ton		2,437	$1,043 96	16
South Perth ..: 1,539	1,136 90	9Peel	1,779	865 28	6


Cardwell .. ..: 2,322	853 94	11Prince 'Edward.	1,025	1,011 91	13


Bothwell .. ..: 370	1,772 07	219,472	$6,684 06	76
So it will be seen that under t-lie Liberal-Conservative government, the wickedness of which, in always finding offices for its supporters, lion, gentlemen opposite are never tired of dwelling upon, offices to the number of 124 were filled in connection with the taking of the census of 1891 in these six counties. But under the preseut government, and in connection with the census of 1901, the offices were increased to 200, or 70 more than under the Liberal-Conservative government. I see my hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) in his place. Let me give the figures with regard to his riding. In 1901 the cost of taking the census there was $2,683.52, the population being 26,707. In 1891 the expenditure was $1,488.78, and the population 23,357. It will be observed that in this case the population increased by 3,348 and the cost of taking the census by $1,194.74. I am one of those who believe and expect that the cost of taking the census in 1901 would be more than it was in 1891. But I do not quite understand that any of these central counties in tile province of Ontario-and the same applies to almost every county in Canada-where there are fewer people, it should cost so much more, in some cases nearly double, to take the census. I am a little suspicious that there has been some political influence at work. This is not always charged against my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, but I rather think that in this case he is guilty. In looking over the returns for the county of my hon. friend from East Peterborough (Mr. Lang), I notice some explanatory correspondence. We would naturally expect that a business government, proposing to take a census, would carefully prepare a statement of the enumerators' duties, have it put in the form of a circular and sent to all the parties interested ; and that, having made a careful arrangement as regards the duties of the [DOT] enumerators, they would be able to decide the basis on which those enumerators should be paid. But this is not the case in the county of my bon. friend. The commissioner in East Peterborough put in his account and payment was refused. Some vouchers were not forthcoming. They were not very particular about vouchers in many cases, i must say. There was some little difficulty about the items in East Peterborough, and my hon. friend (Mr. Lang) wrote some letters to the department. And
in the statement given by the department of the Minister of Agriculture the following memorandum appeared : ' Im view of the letter from Mr. Lang, a revision of the account has been made. The accountant has used liis discretion in allowing board items, and this might be explained to Mr. Lang in writing to him.' That looks like political influence, does it not ? The Minister of Agriculture says :	I discharge my duties
without regard to political parties. Yet, when an account comes into the hon. gentleman's department and the payment of it is refused, my hon. friend (Mr. Lang) writes on behalf of his supporter, and, as soon as the letter is received, the word goes, ' pay the account.' Why ? Because it was a just account ? Was that the reason ? If so, why was it not paid without my hon. friend's intervention ? The Department of Agriculture prepared the statement laying down the duties of the enumerators and giving full instructions, so that accounts might be put in correct. But my hon. friend interceded, all that w'as necessary was some political interference, and as soon as my hon. friend wrote a letter to the department it was all right, and the account was paid.


Edward Cochrane: That was for board.


Richard Blain: In looking over the items, X find one for over $2,000 for telegrams sent out to the enumerators. Why was it necessary, within a month after the instructions were given, to pay $2,000 for telegrams ? Was it because the minister bad taken pains to prepare and issue correct instructions ? No, it was because the instructions that were sent out were in some cases incorrect, and the minister had to telegraph all through the country to the commissioners in the different counties, at a cost to the people of Canada of over $2,000, in less than six weeks. But that was not all, for when these enumerators were called together they were in some cases kept from two and three and five days awaiting their instructions from the government under this hon. gentleman. Let me read a paragraph that will throw some light upon it. In the county of East Peterborough, John Kerr, was commissioner. In writing to the department about his account, he makes this statement over his own signature :
You will see that considerable expense has been incurred for which neither the enumerators or myself were responsible, on account of the necessary books and papers not being received on time.
Who would be responsible 'for that ? Surely that could not be blamed upon the hon. gentleman who represents the county, nor upon the enumerators or commissioners. These men were called together at central points from different parts of the county, and when they got there they were kept in the leading hotels at the cost to the country


Richard Blain: because the papers had not been sent out on time. Another item in that letter says :
James Pengelby and Charles O'Reilly of Norwood should each be allowed six days. They -were both here for three days the first week. But as the papers had not been received and they had to return the next week for two days.
That is, they waited for three days for instructions after being called together. I wish to make the statement that in any opinion there has been some negligence-shall I say some political interference 1 I leave the House to judge on that point. Now, I wish to refer to the county of North Hastings. Mr. Kelly was commissioner for that county, and he had a very large bill, amounting to 5P653.14. He put in his bill, but there was some little dispute about it, and it was not paid at the moment. So Mr. Kelly says : * I will get after this government.' Of course lie understood what kind of ammunition was required to reach the minister, and he says : ' My plan would be to get a leading Reformer in my county.' And he sought out the nominee of the Reform party for the local legislature in that county, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Kelly and Mr. Lott came down to Ottawa after payment of the account had been refused, Mr. Speaker-these gentlemen came down, and Mr. Lott used his local political influence with the Minister of Agriculture. The two gentlemen came down together, and interviewed the minister. Here is Mr. Kelly's letter to the Minister of Agriculture, I will only read one paragraph :
When I met you in the House of Commons on Thursday last in company with Mr. Lott.
It is proved over this gentleman's own signature that he came down to Ottawa in company with the Reform nominee for the local legislature for that county, and they interviewed the Minister of Agriculture. With what result ? That is the important point. No one can complain of that gentleman coming down to interview the Minister of Agriculture, that of course would be part of his political duty ; but when the country has to pay for this interview, then the opposition have a right to complain. Now what was the result? Listen to the letter written after he went home to the Minister of Agriculture, dated at Marmora, 24th March, in which he says :
The Ontario elections are coming off the end of May or the beginning of June. Mr. B. 0. Lott is the unanimous choice of the Liberal convention. I have made up my .mind to do some hard work in this north riding of Hastings. Mr. Lott is the best canvasser and the hardest worker ever went into a political contest.
I have the honour to remain, your old servant,


WM. KELLY.
[Stage Direction]
He seems to have had a good deal of political familiarity with the hon. Minister *of Agriculture. Now what was the result of the interview ? As soon as the minister gets that letter from Mr. Kelly, the accouut is rectified, and a letter goes forward from
the department to pay him. When was it rectified ? is the question I would like to have answered. If the account was a correct one put in by Mr. Kelly for $653.14, the ,commissioner for the county, if that account was in accordance with the schedule of prices laid down by the minister in giving his instructions to the commissioner and the enumerators, then my hon. friend should have paid the account at once, there should have been no dispute, Mr. Kelly had a right to his money. But let the House take note-just as soon as they brought this political influence to bear, indeed, almost before that hon. gentleman reached his home, a letter went out from the department to pay the account and Mr. Kelly got his money.
Edward Frederick Clarke: The Minister of Agriculture threw up his hands.


Richard Blain: Well, he threw up the purse of Canada for the amount I have mentioned. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is about all I have to say. I could go on and give many more instances, because X have made an extended investigation of the different counties. What I have to.say is. in the first fflace, that the people of Canada expected better things from the hon. gentleman.


Edward Cochrane: They don't know him as well as we do.


Richard Blain: Well, they will know him better soon, I suppose. The complaint we make is that when these hon. gentlemen were sitting on this side of the House in 1881 and 1891, they strongly denounced the Liberal-Conservative government for taking' the census at such an extravagant cost, and we are surprised now, as the people of Canada must be surprised, to find that after these economicial gentlemen get Into office and come to take the census, they pay for it double the price that the Conservative government paid, although there is but a small increase in the population. We complain that the census taken by this government, so far as the agricultural interests are concerned, is an incomplete census, and it does not come up to the requirements of the country. We make this charge moreover against the hon. gentleman, that in regard to some of these accounts at least, the hon. gentleman has weakened, and has yielded to political influence, and has done what otherwise he would not have done, and should not have done in the interests of the country. We charge that political influence has been exercised upon the department, I do not know how far it has been carried. But we have found some instances where political influence was brought to bear, and I suppose if we carried our investigations further we would find many other instances. We say that we condemn this government for this excessive expenditure. We say further that some more advanced methods should be adopted, that these hon.

gentlemen should have learned something during the ten years from 1891 to 1901, that they should have profited by the advanced methods that have been adopted by the different municipalities in Canada and that they should have applied them to the taking of the census. In this country the functions of government overlap. Assessors are employed in every municipality in the province of Ontario,, and they take the municipal census. This government came forward and they increase the number of men employed even in those counties where the papulation has decreased, but the time has come when the people expect the government shall make some advance in the matter of the taking of the census. I am not quite sure that the lion. Minister of Agriculture will occupy that position at the end of the next decennial period.


Mr. HOLMES.: Oh, yes, he will.


Richard Blain: The hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) says * yes he will.'


Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand).: And he is quite correct.


Richard Blain: I congratulate these hon. gentlemen upon their opinion. Well, we differ about that. I would like my hon. friend from Haldimand and Monck (Mr. Thompson) and my hon. friend from West Huron to go back to their counties and try to give an explanation to the electors how it is that this so-called economical government found it necessary to expend so much more money to take the census in 1901 than was expended in 1891.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: We will be there.


Richard Blain: If the hon. gentleman applies the test of municipal government to his county he will find that the methods of this government will meet with general condemnation from the electors. I would expect that hon. gentlemen opposite would vote for this resolution. It is a mild condemnation of the extravagance of the government in connection with the taking of the census in 1901 as compared with the cost of the taking of the census of 1891. I beg therefore. Mr. Speaker, to move the amendment which I have read.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: Mr. Speaker, I must compliment my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) on the shortness of his speech at all events and I will try and emulate him in that respect. At this late date of the session, I do not think it is necessary for us to thresh out and repeat the discussion that took place in the earlier part of the session on this question. My hon. friend has made a serious reflection upon this government on the ground that the expenses in connection with taking the census of 1901 is excessive in comparison especially with the cost of taking the census of 1891. In general terms I Mr. BLAIN.
would have to very shortly state that if the expense was very much greater the work of taking the census was also very much greater in consequence of two or three facts which nobody can dispute. The expense of doing the same amount of work in the year 1901 was more than in the year 1891. because, in the former year, the cost of labour, the cost of living and of everything in connection with all kinds of work in Canada was decidedly greater. I am not able at the moment, speaking from memory, to say what the proportionate cost of labour and living would be in each of these respective years, but, without going into the details, I am safe, I think, in saying that the tariff of rates established for the payment of the census workers in 1901 was fixed on a basis which was comparatively fair in order to give the people employment in taking the census, a fair amount of pay for the same amount of work they performed in 1891. In 1891, the enumerators of the census were paid at the rate of three cents for each name they took, three cents for each death they enumerated, fifteen cents for each farm the details of which they enumerated, and twenty cents for each factory, the details of which they enumerated. In 1901, we established the following rates : Five cents for each person enumerated, five cents for each death enumerated, twenty-five cents for each farm and thirty cents for each factory.
]Mr. HENDERSON. How much for each farm V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Twenty-five cents.
air. CLARKE. That is an increase of GO per cent V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Roughly speaking, between 70 and 60 per cent. I may say that this schedule of rates was carefully considered before the work of taking the census was commenced. It was discussed with those who seemed to have knowledge in such matters and it was agreed upon as a fair rate to be paid for the work to be done. It was agreed upon without any reference as to how it would work out or as to what the totals might be when the census work in toto was paid for. It was established on the ground that a fair day's work should be got and a fair day's wages should be earned by the person doing the work for the country, and,
I may say here, at once, that to a large extent tlie increased cost of enumeration was due to the increase in the schedule of rates.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What proportion of the total cost does the cost of enumeration amount to 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The enumeration of the census of 1901 up to the present time has cost $878,000. Had the rates of pay been the same in 1891 as the tariff in 1901, the census of 1891 would

have cost $767,000 making allowance for the increase of population or only $111,000, while the information obtained in 1901 through the 657 questions as compared with the 216 questions in 1891 is infinitely greater and well worth this $111,000 extra expense.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What about the other expenditures ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was in the schedule of rates, but in addition to that we found it was necessary to make an allowance for horse-hire and days of instruction. We paid for the days of instruction, which was entirely apart from the pay under the schedule rates, and which was exclusive of the time occupied in the direct taking of the census. The horse-hire was due almost entirely to the desire to have the census taken more rapidly, and the work put through so as to get the returns in with greater speed. That object was also aimed at by the rule that we should take a census enumerator for each polling sub-division instead of for a larger area. That of course involved a greater number of persons to be instructed, and consequent increased cost. The result was a much more rapid taking of the census and we believe it was worth some sacrifice to attain that end.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the work of the census completed yet ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am speaking now altogether of the enumeration, and that was completed long ago. We had also the fact that certain unorganized districts were enumerated in 1901, and were not taken into the count at all in 1891. That is not only the case with regard to the far off Yukon and the northern parts of our territory, but it also refers to districts in organized territories, and even in the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec, which were counted in 1901, but which in 1891 were simply estimated in the office here at Ottawa. In the census of 1901, the whole country, whether thickly or sparsely settled, was taken into the actual count, and the census of 1901 is a de jure count of the population of the Dominion, whereas the census of 1891, with respect to a large area of our Northwest Territories, a considerable area of partially organized territory, and a considerable area of the province of Ontario, was merely an estimate made in Ottawa, and was no census at all. This added materially to the cost of the enumeration in 1901.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say exactly how much, but the hon. gentleman will understand that the taking of the census in the older portions of Canada was easy and inexpensive, compared with the counting of the population in these remote districts. The fishery enumeration in
1891 cost $2,245, and in 1901 it cost nearly $14,000. As a matter of fact the fishery enumeration in 1891 was so inefficient that the figures were thrown aside and no compilation made of them, whereas in 1901 the information is carefully compiled and will be valuable for future reference to the people of Canada.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Can the minister tell the difference between the cost of taking the census in Prince Edward Island in 1891 and in 1901 ? There are no remote or sparsely settled districts in that province ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not the figures at hand with regard to Prince Edward Island, separately. In consequence of the desire to get earlier returns we had to employ a larger number of enumerators which involved, of course, greater expense.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What urgency was there for an earlier return than in the case of the previous census ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The answer is obvious, that the sooner we *Can get these statistics the more valuable they are. If we are to drag along for nearly the whole time between the two censuses without getting these returns, they are of comparatively little value.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were the returns available for the public use earlier than they were in the case of the previous census ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. If the hon. gentleman has patience I will give him that information. The enumeration was to be completed within thirty days from the 31st of March. It was the duty of the commissioner to revise all schedules before transmitting them to the central office. Ten per cent of all the schedules were in before the end of April; fifty-eight per cent before the end of May; eighty-three per cent before the end of June and ninety-five per cent before the end of July, and those that were not received before that date were in connection with the most remote districts of Canada. In 1891 only one per cent of the schedules was received before the end of April; forty-one per cent before the end of May; eighty-three per cent before the end of June and ninety-six per cent before the end of July. This shows a very considerably increased efficiency and a quicker return of the large bulk of the schedules in 1901 over 1891.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister repeat what percentage was returned at the end of July in 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The return in July in both cases was practically the same, but that includes the ones that were sent in almost immediately, as well as those that were sent in in July, and if you take the earlier months you will find a much larger percentage in 1901 than in

1891. Naturally, at the eud there are always a large number that cannot be brought in earlier, those dealing with the outlying parts of the 'country, but in both cases the ones that could be brought in early were brought in earlier ; they were brought in early in 1901 and not so early In 1891.
'Mr. CLARICE. Might I ask the minister if the schedules containing the statistics respecting manufactures are included in the schedules, the date of the return of which he has just given ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No ; in all cases, both in this and the other census, there was a special enumeration with respect to manufactures.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Have you the dates there when the schedules with respect to manufactures were finally received by your department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will inquire about that. The first volume of the census of 1SD1 was issued March 20tli, 1893, or two years later ; it comprised 424 pages. The first volume of the census of 1901 was issued in December, 1902 and comprised 561 pages, including a great deal more information and a larger number of tables than were included in the first volume of the census of 1891. The second volume of the census of 1891 was issued on November 25, 1S93 ; the third, dealing with manufactures, on February 20tli, 1895, and the fourth, including agriculture, forest products and miscellaneous, appeared February 11, 1S97. Now, the second and third volumes of the census of 1901, dealing with agriculture, which was included only in the fourth volume of the census of 1891, with forest products, which was also the fourth volume of the census of 1891, and with fisheries, manufactures and mining, are now just about complete and will be in the hands of the printer next month. They include all the information that was in the second, third and fourth volumes of the census of 1891. The second volume of the census of 1891 was issued in November, 1893, about the same period as the second volume in the present census, but the third volume did not come out until two years after that, in 1895, and the fourth, dealing with agriculture, forest products and miscellaneous, not until 1897.
Now, as to bulletins. The first bulletin of the census of 1901, containing the population of some cities and towns, and also the populations of census districts for the years 1881 and 1891. is dated in August of 1891. The first bulletin of 1901, which is dated August also, gave the population by census districts, and in addition to what was given in the census of 1891, contained the number of families and the number of dwellings in each census district, together with the population of towns and cities according to their municipal boundaries. It appeared about the same date as the first bulletin in the Hon. Mr. FISHER.
other census, but it contained double the amount of information.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The first bulletin was issued about the same date ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was issued about the same date, but it contained double the amount of information.	.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that the census return for 1891 did not give the families at all ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The families were not included in the bulletins ; they were in the subsequent volume, which was not issued until much later.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The first information received was issued about the same date ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A certain proportion, about one-half of it. The bulletins of 1901 stated that in a few districts the records were incomplete.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You changed some figures?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Some figures were changed in both cases ; the bulletins were never absolutely complete when they were Issued in either case. They were compiled and issued for the information of the public from time to time, subject to revision, and in some cases subject to change. It was stated in the bulletin that they were not complete, because there were outlying districts of which the population and details were not contained in the bulletins, but that was the case in the bulletins both of 1901 and of 1891.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Several bulletins were issued, if my memory serves me ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Several bulletins were issued. The first bulletin of the census of 1891 was issued in August ; the second, which was issued in October, gave the population Of Ontario ; the third, which was issued in November, gave the population of the maritime provinces by districts and sub-districts ; the fourth, which was issued hi December, gave the population of Quebec by districts and sub-districts ; the fifth, which was issued in February, 1892, gave, by districts and sub-districts, the population of 'Manitoba and the North-west Territories ; and the sixth, issued in February, contained a summary of the dwellings of the people.
In 1991 tlie first bulletin of the Census was issued in August and gave the population, the number of families and tlie number of dwellings by census districts, together with the population of cities and towns. It contained information which was included in the sixth bulletin of the former census. The second bulletin, issued on January 29tli, 1902. was delayed a little while for the full details of the information from the outlying territory.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When was the second
bulletin issued in 1S91 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In October.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Two mouths after the first [DOT]>


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many months elapsed between the first and second bulletins in 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: From August to January-sijf months.
The second bulletin of the census of 1891 gave the population of Ontario by sub-districts, just the population of Ontario. The bulletin of the census of 1901 gave the whole population of Ontario and Manitoba, classed as rural and urban ; the population of all incorporated cities, towns and villages, situated in one census district, together with the details of population of all cities, towns and villages situated in two or more census districts.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Repeating what is in the first bulletin.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, it does not. The third bulletin was issued January 22nd, and gave the same details of .population as the second, but gave them for Quebec and the maritime provinces.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the date of the issue of the third bulletin ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Several days later than that of the second bulletin, practically they were issued at the same time, the one dealing with Ontario and Manitoba and the other dealing with Quebec and the maritime provinces. They were issued a week apart, giving information which was not contained in any of the bulletins that were issued in the census of ten years before.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You struck a new line ? The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. Quite a new line ; we struck quite a number of new liifes ; if we had not, our census would have been a poor one.
The fourth gave the same information for British Columbia and the North-west Territories and the unorganized districts ; it was issued one week later. Practically those three bulletins were issued together, although they were a week apart.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How do the dates compare with the bulletins of 1891 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In 1891 the date of those bulletins were October, November and December, but they did not contain the information to be found in the bulletins of 1901.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What were the dates in 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: December and January, but containing information which the other did not. No. 5 was issued on February the 21st and another two weeks later, giving the religion of the people bv provinces and territories, including 142 different specified religions, together with a comparative table of the two censuses. That was not given in any of the bulletins of the former census. The seventh issued in March gave the population of the Dominion by origin, which is not to be found in any of the bulletins of the former census. Bulletin eight issued on the 30th of April, gave the immigration and birth place, which was not included in any of the bulletins of the former census. Number six gave the population of the Dominion by sex and couiugal conditions on the 24tli of February. These bulletins were issued one after the other as rapidly as they could be obtained from the printer. Number seven was issued on the 12th of March, and number eight on the 30th of April. Number nine, issued on the 16th of April, gave the infirmities, also not given in any of the bulletins of the last census. Number ten, issued on the 25th of July, gave the census of the people by ages, which is not given in any of the bulletins of the former census. Number eleven, issued 24th of November, gave the agricultural statistics of Prince Edward Island-information which did not reach the people, in the census of 1891, until 1897, when four volumes of the census were issued, or six years after the information was obtained. But in the last census this information was given to the people by the bulletin of the 24th of November, 1902, or only eighteen months after it was got from the' people. On the 20th of December, the bulletin was issued giving the agricultural statistics of British Columbia. The bulletin of the 13tli of December gave the agricultural statistics of Nova Scotia. On the 14tli of December was issued the bulletin giving the agricultural statistics of the North-west Territories. On the 15th of December we had the agricultural statistics of Manitoba, and on the 16th those of New Brunswick. We now- have ready the agricultural statistics of the whole Dominion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are those of Ontario issued yet ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, nor of Quebec, but they are just going to the printer. This information was not given until after the issue of the fourth volume of the census of 1891, which was issued in 1897, or six years after the census was taken, whereas in the present instance we are giving the agricultural statistics of the Dominion within a little over two years from the time of taking the census.


Mr CLARKE.: The hon. gentleman gave us the date on which a certain number of the first bulletins of the census of 1901 were

issued. He did not give the dates of the others.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I gave you all. There were six. The hon. gentleman has spoken about a compilation. A few months ago, in discussing this matter, I said that there was a considerable amount of money spent in both these census on the fishery schedules. In the census of 1891 there was a considerable amount of money spent in taking information of that character, but when it was brought into the office here, it was found so incomplete and inaccurate that it was thrown aside and never compiled. We, however, compiled the information we got. While the census of 1901 has cost double as much as that of 1891, in the census of 1901 we have got information which is valuable and accurate, whereas in 1891 we did not get much information, and what we did get was largely inaccurate, owing to the careless and cheap way in which it was taken and compiled. Those things have to be taken into consideration when we make a comparison between the two censuses.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did not the hon. gentleman invite the officer who had charge of the census of 1891 to assist in the completion of the census of 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, because I found that the results of the census of 1891 were so inaccurate and incomplete that I did not want the census of 1901 under the charge of that officer. Let me give an instance in confirmation of what I say. It Is well known that in the province of Quebec, they use the measure of the ar-pent and not the acre, a difference of about one-sixth, five acres being equal to about six arpents. It is also well known that in the province of Quebec the farmers measure their grain and other products by the minot and not the bushel. The minot 'is thirty-six pounds, while the standard bushel is thirty-four pounds. Well, in the taking of the agricultural census in the province of Quebec in 1891, the enumerators were instructed to take their information from the people as given in arpents and minots, and the change would be made in the office here, but I found that the figures of the census were exactly those given by the enumerators. What is the result 1 It is that a farmer of the province of Quebec, who had say 100 arpents of oats which would give say about 5,000 minots at 50 minots to the arpent was credited with 100 acres giving only 5.000 bushels, thus losing both ways for he had only 83 acres which gave nearly 5,300 bushels or nearly 64 bushels to the acre. Our farmers in the province of Quebec are thus discredited before the world, and it is shown that their crops are smaller though the area is larger; that their land is poorer, and so that they are but indifferent farmers. And that is a specimen of the way in which


Edward Frederick Clarke: the compilation of the census of 1891 was made in the statistical bureau of my department. This was before I became Minister of Agriculture. I did not wish to see that repeated in the census of 1901. I took care that the officer who allowed that to be done was not in charge of the census of 1901. Let me give but one or two items to show that the details in the schedules of 1891 did not correspond with the tables issued to the world. We have found many such cases, but I have not the details at my fingers' ends. Nor do I wish to occupy the time of the House in giving a mass of details when a few citations will suffice. The first case to which I would refer is in the county of Addington in Ontario. The statistics with regard to this district show products in 1891 largely in excess of those shown by the schedule of 1901. In this, as in so many other cases, we were obliged to go into details in order to account for an extraordinary comparison and to learn why the figures showed lack of progress in parts of the country where we knew the progress had been phenomenal between the last census and this one. We first revised our own figures to see if errors had been made there. Finding no error, we went back to the schedules of 1891. And what did we find ? We found the case of one flour nTill alone credited with an output of $560,000 in 1891. This was one single flour mill. We found that, whereas the schedule of the enumerators showed that this mill had two employees, the table made in the department showed six. The amount paid in wages, according to the enumerator's schedule, was $750, but this had been changed to $3,750 in the office here in Ottawa. The value of raw material was changed from $45,000 to $420,000-a trifle of nearly ten times. The value of the product was given as $600,000, the product being entered in the enumerator's schedule in written numbers as three million pounds. Now, three million pounds of mill products, as everybody knows, is not worth $600,000. The value of it could not reasonably exceed $60,000. No doubt, a larger sum was given by error of the enumerator. The owner of the mill states in a letter that for eighteen years his product has been about 60 barrels of flour per day. The revision failed there in not going back to the original source of information. We did go to the original source of information and made corrections in the case of manifest and obvious inaccuracies of the schedules. Now here was another case. In 1891, Montreal Centre is credited-at page 88, vol.
3 of the census of 1891-with a cartridge factory having a working capital of $175,000. employing 90 persons, paying $30,000 in wages per year, using $100,000 worth of raw material, and having a total output of $200,000. Now. there never was a cartridge factory in Montreal Centre. A certain cartridge factory, situated in Brownsburg, in

the county of Argenteuil, has its office in. the city of Montreal. But that office was credited with the factory and all the details, and all were repeated in Argenteuil county, ail counted double.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: And all paid for.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: And paid for double. Now, I will not go at greater length into these matters, but I will say a few words as to the accusation of my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) that we have departed from the rate of pay and the rules of payment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the minister will excuse me, I think he has forgotten to show the number employed in compiling the census in 1891 and 1901.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cun give that now


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it would be better; the comparison can be given with greater convenience.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not certain that I have the number employed, but I have the cost of compilation for the two years. The salaries which were paid, independent of the enumerators, for the census of 1901 amounted to $236,731. That includes not only the compilers, but the chief officers of the census and all the salary connected with the census apart from the enumeration in the country. For the census of 1891 the same items amounted to $121,000-here again a little over half what it was in 1901. I think I have already given evidence how it was that it could be done for that amount at that time. My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) spoke about the expense of telegraphing. I have not the figures in sufficient detail to show the expense of telegraphing by itself. But I have the figures of ' sundries,' which includes telegrams, travelling expenses of the head office staff, and things of that kind. In the census of 1901 this item cost $9,300, and in the census of 1891 the same item cost $17,000, or nearly double. So, in that respect, at all events, we were not extravagant.
Now, I wish to say a few words on the subject on which I had begun to speak when the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) interrupted me. My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) has accused me of departing from the schedule of rates and making payments extraneous to the proper payments. I plead guilty to that quite frankly. I say freely that the schedule of rates was fixed for ordinary circumstances, there were cases in which the circumstances were extraordinary and called for special consideration, and which were given special consideration, and in which an exception was made in order to make payments larger than the ordinary schedule of rates would permit.
Such conditions as the peculiar enlargement of the work which a man had to do, and over a greater territory ; peculiar conditions where he had to do the work over again in consequence of something for which he was in no wise at fault ; peculiar conditions such as the one mentioned in the House before, where the papers in a whole district were lost by accident to a ship, and the work had to be done all over again ; other peculiar conditions where the increased expenditure was vouched for as being proper and legitimate, and it was shown clearly by vouchers that the officer had really expended the money. In this connection I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Auditor General has not objected to tiie passing of a single account coming from my department. I think therefore we may fairly conclude that the accounts were subjected to a proper audit and a proper scrutiny. Now my hon. friend would leave the House and the country to suppose that in the other census the schedule of rates was absolutely adhered to, wliefeas we have departed from it. He has assumed that it was impossible, under the holy and good Conservative party, that anything of that kind could have been done, but that as soon as the horrible Grits came into office we were guilty of all these naughty things. Well. Sir, I am charitable, I wish to believe that my predecessors in office found the same kind of difficulties that I found, and found that there were peculiar conditions and circumstances-


Mr. POPE.: Not so many of them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Perhaps not, but I have found that while the schedule of rates under my predecessors applied to the whole work, there were a great many exceptions, and there were cases where, in justice to an efficient officer, they had to make allowance and give greater pay. I plead guilty to having done that thing in a good many cases. But I want to give a few instances in which my 'predecessors did the same thing in the census of 1891, and I think my hon. friend will acknowledge that if they were justified in departing from the schedule of rates in 1891, I may have been actuated by equally proper motives in desiring to do justice to the employees of the government. I will take the county of Addington, Ontario, as being first on the list. I find that out of twenty enumerators, there were no less than five who were paid considerably higher than the schedule of rates would allow. For instance, there wras one man who was entitled by the schedule to $37.15, and who was paid $54, a flat rate of $3 a day for eighteen days, contrary to the law, and contrary to the schedule of rates. But I have no doubt that some good reason for that expenditure appeared which justified the department. By the next item I find that where the schedule of rates would have given a man $12.72, he was paid $27, a little

more than double. Another man should have got $51.30, he was paid $69. Another mail should have got $24.75, he was paid $42.


Richard Blain: Would the minister give us the cost of taking the census of Addington on the two occassions.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Speaking roughly, I suppose it was about double on the last occasion, I will assume that for the sake of argument, and plead guilty to it. In the county of North Bruce, for which I have the list here, I find that, contrary to the schedule of rates, men were paid by the flat rate of $3 a day, contrary to law, contrary to the accounts they ought to have supplied and sworn to. The first case I find is where a man should have been paid $28.64 by the schedule of rates and be was paid $45 ; in another case he should have been paid $41.58 and he was paid $54. So on down the list every one of them was paid contrary to the law and more than the schedule of rates allowed. Now take the county of Frontenac here I find the same thing. One man ought to have got $48.31, and he was paid $3 a day for eighteen days, $54. Another man ought to have got $21.45, and he was paid for eight days at $3 a day, $24. Another man ought to have got $5.45, and he was paid for eight days at $3 a day, $24. In the county of Peterborough East I find the same kind of thing. Ten of the enumerators were paid more than the tariff of rates allowed them, were paid contrary to law, for so many days at $3 a day. The same was true, to a certain extent, in North Renfrew. Also I find that in Simcoe East- where is my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) V-all the enumerators in 1891 were paid a flat rate of $3 a day. contrary to law and contrary to the tariff of rates which was then issued. In North Renfrew nearly all of them were paid in the same way. The hon. member who then represented South Renfrew seems to have had a little more influence with the minister than the hon. member for Simcoe. because he no't only got $3 a day for twenty-five days for the enumerators of his county, but he also got an extra five cents on every farm they enumerated, an extra ten cents over the schedule of rates on every factory and industrial establishment they enumerated. The same is true of South Waterloo, where every one of the enumerators, contrary to the law, contrary to the tariff of rates, was paid $3 for more days than the tariff would have allowed them to get. The same in North Waterloo.
Now. Mr. Speaker, I need not go further into details, as I could if I had tfme. While I admit that the census this time has cost double as much. I believe we have got returns for the money spent. I believe we have got an accurate census, giving information that will be much more valuable to students of economics in Canada. I believe that we can show a census by which every Hon. Mr. FISHER.
part of the Dominion is fairly represented, unlike the census of 1891 where the province of Quebec was misrepresented, to the detriment of that province, to the discredit of the people of that province, to the discredit of a large number of industrious agriculturists and inhabitants throughout this Dominion.	We have got reliable
information, and I venture to say that the information which is given in the census of 1901 will be found accurately to tally* with the totals and the compilations which have been made up from it, because in addition to the compilers, we have had a staff of revisers who have been going over the work once, twice and in many cases three times, so as to insure perfect accuracy. My hon. friend has complained of the increased number of employees engaged on this census. It is true we have had more employees, it is true we have been spending more in the compilation, but, as I have shown, when our compilation is finished it is correct, it is absolutely right and complete, instead of being left incomplete and unfinished as is was in 1891.


Rufus Henry Pope: It was because your work was badly done.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, my hon. friend (Mr. Pope) is entirely mistaken. If he would go to the schedule of 1891 and compare them as we have been comparing them with the -compilations he would find that the schedules of 1891 did not tally with the compilations in many instances and -that the work was done in a slovenly and incomplete manner; whereas, under our arrangement the work has been revised and checked and gone over so as to make it absolutely accurate and correct. I venture to say that in statistical work there is one thing that is absolutely necessary and that is accuracy. Statistical work without accuracy is absolutely useless and unfortunately the statistical work of this census will lose to a certain extent its value by reason of the fact that comparisons between the results of the census of 1891 and the results of the census of 1901 are not fair or proper comparisons because the census of 1891 was so inaccurate and incomplete. I venture to think that in the census of 1901 we have made a new departure, that we have done some new thing, that we have done a thing which I hope and believe will be the beginning of accurate statistics in the Dominion of Canada and that as a result of the taking of this -census the people will be able when the time comes .to take further statistics to make proper and accurate comparisons with this census, the deductions from which will be of value in the economic study of the condition of the country. Believing this and believing that I have made out a case which cannot be impugned in any way I will rest satisfied that the House will vote down the resolution of my hon. friend.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, I only desire to occupy a few moments to consider 'the question which has been handled by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) and X want to take up the last statement that he made first. He said :	We got thorough and reliable
information while the census of 1891 was entirely unreliable and inaccurate. What evidence have we of the statement that we have reliable information ? We have simply his bare statement unsupported by any proofs. We might just as well believe from the knowledge we have that the census of 1891 is correct as that the census of 1901 is correct. If the hon. Minister of Agriculture cannot support his statement by any better proof than that which he has presented then I say the country can fairly be allowed to judge how far it should give credence to such a statement. In reference to the census of 1901 he admits that the same work cost more than double what it did in 1891. What explanation does lie give of that additional cost and what justification lias he given for it '! We know that as a party economy was always their cry but as a government extravagance was always their practice. This is another illustration of it and it is as good a one as we have had for quite a length of time. To what does he attribute tile increased cost ? First, the .increased cost is attributed to the increased cost of labour and secondly to the Increase in the amount of work done. He says that the census of 1891 did not entail as much work as the census of 1901, that labour was higher, that the cost of living was greater ; therefore it is natural that the census would cost more. First then in regard to the cost of labour, what evidence have we of it ? I endeavoured to satisfy myself upon that and X took up the figures which the labour bureau has compiled- in regard to the cost of wages in 1901. It is true that you cannot very readily make a comparison as to the cost of this class of labour because it does not give a statement regarding the cost of labour in this line, tout one line that would serve as a comparison is the cost of labour. The cost would be proportionately about the same in the two lines. I take the cost of labour according to the ' Labour Gazette' in 1901, and I will compare the wage of the ordinary labourer in 1901 with what it was in 1891 because that is the only class of labour for which I can find a statement in both years. I find that the ordinary labourer in 1901 got from $1 to $1.25 per day. The average of that would be $1,124 a day. I take up the report of the Bureau of Statistics for the province of Ontario and I find that the ordinary farm labourer received in 1891, boarding himself, $25.81 a month throughout the whole province. The farm labourer cannot work every day in the month so that $25.81 is really more than $1 a day for every day he worked, so that if we credit him with the additional earnings he would have received, he must have got at least $1.12| a day, while the average rate of wages in 1901 was $1,124 a day. Is that an evidence that there was much difference in the price of labour in both decades ? It is an evidence that the price of labour was comparatively the same, that there was very little difference and that therefore the increased cost of labour could not account for the increased expense of taking the Census. Then, in the next place the hon. minister says:	We did a great deal more work.
Well, it is true that there was a little more work done but I find that in giving an answer to the hon. member for Peel as to how much more work was done the hon. minister said that the number of questions that were asked in 1891 was 2,111,136, while *the number of questions asked in 1901 was 3,034,000, or practically not quite one-third more questions asked while there was double the expense. The wages were practically the same in both decades but the work was done by one set of men in 1891 and toy another in 1901. Is there evidence that the increased cost of labour or the increase in the amount of work can fairly account for the increased cost ? I say that neither accounts for it. While we would naturally expect that the census of 1901 would cost a fraction more than the census of 1891, I say that the additional expense is out of all proportion to the additional work that was done. That cannot account for it, and I say that nothing does account for it except extravagance and blundering as far as I can see. The hon. Minister of Agriculture says :	We have done this work
over two or three times. It was only because they were not satisfied in the first place that it was correct, which compelled them to do their work over and over again in order to make it presentable to the public. It required to be examined and checked by some independent authority and therefore I would not be disposed to take the hon. minister's statement as satisfactory evidence of its accuracy without examining it itself. I will take the work that was done in my county. In two ridings of Grey there was a decrease in population as between 1891 and 1901. Take the east riding of Grey which I have the honour to represent. In 1S91 there was a population of 26,225 and in 1901 a population of 25,387 or a decrease of 838. In the first instance 26 enumerators, the commissioner and all, were required to take the census while in the second instance 59 were required to do the same work; or in other words 29 more men were employed in 1901 to do the work that was done in 1891.
In 1891 the census in that riding cost $1,834, and in 1901 it cost $3,592, or nearly double. That shows that the men employed by this government in 1901 were incompetent, or extravagant, or unbusinesslike, and perhaps all three combined. They can impale themselves on which horn of the di-

lemma they like. The officials in 1891 did . the work as accurately as the officials in 1891, and they did it for $1,659 less money. In 1891, in North Grey, twenty-six men were employed, at a cost of $1,665, to take the census, and in 1901, with a population of 1,000 more than 1891, fifty-one men were employed, at a cost of $3,000, or again nearly double. In South Grey, in 1891, twenty-three men took the census of a population of 23,672 people at a cost of $1,047, hut in 1901 it took thirty-nine men to take the census of 22,171, or 1,500 fewer of a population, and it cost $2,591, or $844 more than in 1891. This shows that the same work was done much more economically in 1891, than in 1901, and in every respect the work was as well done. It is true that perhaps one-third more questions were asked in 1901 than in 1891, and if the increased cost had only been one-third more, there perhaps would be no serious objection ; but the fact remains that the cost of the census in 1901 was nearly double the cost of the census of 1891 in every instance. The Minister of Agriculture told us, that he wanted more men employed because he wanted the returns within a shorter time, but the truth is, that in the main the census figures of 1891, were got out as early as those of 1901. The minister did not supply the census to the people of the country very much earlier in 1901 than they were supplied in 1891. I asked the Minister of Agriculture for a comparison between the number employed in compiling the census in 1891 with the number employed in 1901. He dare not give the figures, because the difference in number is so much greater in 1901 that he was ashamed of if. Although I honestly believe that he had the information under his hand, he dared not give it to the House notwithstanding that I asked him three times for it.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am perfectly in order. The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. What does the hon. gentleman refer to ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I said that the hon. minister dare not make a comparison between the number employed in compiling the census in 1891 and the number employed in 1901, because the difference was so great in the latter year that he was ashamed of it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I gave the hon. gentleman the cost. The numbers vary from time to time. There was a certain staff in the beginning on both compilations, and that staff was reduced from time to time. So that it would be very difficult to give any figures.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it be difficult to give the number of days they were employed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would have to make a calculation as to Hon. Mr. FISHER.
that, and that calculation I have not under my hand, and the hon. gentleman has no right to say I have.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not desire to make any charge against the minister that I cannot prove, but I do say, that if he wanted to make a fair comparison he could have given us the number of days of work. Although I have asked for this information several times during the session, I have never been able to get it, and I have the right to assume that for some reason or other unknown to me, he desires to keep that information to himself. I say that from the first to the last, an examination of this census proves that the government have done the work in an extravagant fashion. I shall not say that it was done incompetently, because I would require more detailed information to justify that statement, but I do say that no reason has been given to this House, to show that the census of 1901 is any more correct than the census of 1891. I do know for a fact, with regard to my own locality, that the census was not accurately taken in 1901.
Mr. HEYI). Give us the facts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am stating the fact from my own personal knowledge, as to my own locality, and I may fairly draw the inference that the same remark applies to other localities. I therefore say that the minister cannot justify the claim that he has given us an accurate census. When we endeavoured to bring these schedules before the Public Accounts Committee, the minister dared not allow them to be presented before that committee. I leave the country to draw the inference why that was the case. The Minister of Agriculture took the responsibility of instructing his officers to keep from the committee the information which the committee was entitled to by precedent and practice, and I can only reach the conclusion that that was done to prevent us from making the facts known to the people of the country. The hon. gentleman has no reason to congratulate himself upon the magnificent work he has done in taking the census. He has done the same work as his predecessors, but It has cost the country twice as much money and the country has secured nothing that will compensate it for a fraction of the difference in cost. '


Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).: One would have thought that after seven months our friends on the other side would have been able to make out a stronger case than they have done. They have been endeavouring to deceive the people, not only in this House, but throughout the length and breadth of the country, on this great question of the census. They have been issuing from the parliament buildings here, franked to all parts of the country, charges against the government with respect to the census which convinces me that they will try to

make this an issue before the people. A document with respect to the census which they have circulated, and which has come into my hands, is absolutely misleading and untrue in almost every particular. I have looked over it with a considerable degree of care and have put on the Order Paper three questions in order to give the census authorities an opportunity of answering three charges which are made in the paper. 1 will read them to show the House the character of the matter they are supplying to the people, and that absolute worthlessness of what is contained in their literature. It says :
At one time a staff of thirty men worked for months on enumerators' accounts. Then a new basis was applied and all their work thrown away.
The answer of the Census Department to this is :
The statement is absolutely untrue in every particular.
They make a further statement :
A year's work was done by a large staff on mortality tables which were all condemned and burned ; after which the work was done over again. The same thing happened to other compilations.
The Census Department say, in answer to this :
The work on the mortality tables has been done by four clerks and no part of the work has been condemned or burnt. The statement is wholly untrue.
And I will say what the commissioner would not dare to say, that it is an absolutely false statement, calculated to deceive the people. The third statement contained in this sheet, and these are specimens of the work, is this :
For about two years a staff of about thirty persons have been engaged in altering and amending enumerators' returns, changing forest land to pasture land, fallow land to pasture, and making other alterations.
The reply to this statement is that, it is absolutely untrue in every particular. The word ' fallow ' brings to my mind the fact that tlie only charge against the census that is made here to-day, after seven months' work, is that there is not a column in the schedules for fallow land. I think tlie opposition ought to have prepared a better attack. We have had two or three fallow years in which these gentlemen could have prepared themselves to make some real attack against the government and the quality of this census. We -have the work, we can analyse it for ourselves, and we can see whether the census for 1901 was a good census and whether it was an improvement on the census of 1891, yet the only suggestion that our friend from Peel threw out was that the municipal assessors should make this census. This, he said, would he a great saving to the people. In
the city of Brantford we have two assessors and it takes them six months to make an assessment of the city of Brantford. How long would it take tlie two assessors of tlie city of Brantford to take the census, when it took twenty-two men thirty days ? It would take them two years at the least, and the whole advantage of a census is that it is taken quickly and covers a great deal of ground.
But tlie principal charge is that this census is too expensive, and they try to prove that by the statement that the census of 1891 cost less than that of 1901. The fact that the census of 1901 cost nearly $1,200,000, is no evidence at all of extravagance, nor is there any evidence of economy in the census of 1891, because it cost only $550,000. If I was to say that I built a house in 189.1 for $1,000, and that I built another in 1901 and it cost me $3,000, and then claimed that there was economy In the building of 1891 and extravagance in 1901, every one would see the absurdity of the position. If a man said :	I ran my factory in 1891 for $500
per annum, and last year it cost me three times ns much, the first question the ordinary man would ask is : Have yon the same character of work and the same quantity of work in 1901 as you had in 1891 V For purpose of comparison we must have things that are similar. A man who would compare the census of 1891 with the census of 1901 would thereby show that he had not looked into the character of the census. There is no comparison in the completeness of the two, or the amount of labour involved in securing the information. Let us take the number of men engaged. In 1891 there were only 4,324 while in 1901 there were 8,800, more than double the number of men to take census. But it is not the same census. It is a much more complete census involving a great deal more labour, and for that very reason


Richard Blain: Wherein is tlie eeusus of 1001 more complete in respect to Ontario than that of 1891 ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I understand that the remuneration per name was 3 cents in 1891 and 5 cents in 1901. It seems to me that 5 cents is very cheap for the work done. It has been said in this House that it cost a certain newspaper in Montreal more than 5 cents a head to get the signatures attached to certain petitions to this House. Now whether they got 3 cents or 5 cents does not prove anything.


Rufus Henry Pope: Do you know that ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: There are a good many things I know that I cannot say here, and there are certain things I ought to say which, being what I consider myself, a gentleman, I would not say. Now let us compare the work that the enumerator was expected to do for 3 cents in 1S91 with what he was expected to do for 5 cents in

1901. We liave the evidence of that in the number of questions there were asked. I have certain schedules here ; I took them up indiscriminately, and they do not cover the whole work, hut they will illustrate my point. We have the great factor that the enumerators in 1901 had eleven schedules besides four specials, while in 1891 there were only nine. The population has also in-ereased, so that there is a greater amount of work. But leaving that aside, let us take the schedules dealing with land and farms, one of which would be in the hands of almost every enumerator. The number of questions asked in 1891 was seventy-five, while in 1901 it was 127. We could hardly expect one man to take as many names when he had to ask 127. questions as he would take when he had to ask only seventy-five. Let us take the schedules dealing with manufactures of clay. In those the number of questions is not so material as the statistical work that is afterwards involved. In 1891 there were ten columns, while in 1901 there were thirty-one columns, and the necessary clerical work of classifying this additional number involved the expenditure of an exceedingly large sum of money.
Take the question of minerals, which is a very important part of the exports of this country and deserves exceptional treatment. In 1891, the exports of our mineral products only amounted to $5,748,000, while in 1901, they amounted to $40,000,000. That certainly justifies the hon. Minister of Agriculture in spending a little more money to secure a proper return upon the mineral resources of the country. In the census of 1891, there were only twenty-three questions on this subject, while there were 224 in 1901. How could you expect the census enumerators in British Columbia to take down for the same price the answers to 224 questions which their predecessors charged, who only had to answer 23. Could you expect the department to compile, separate, analyse and compute the figures and put them in suitable shape in the case of the returns to 224 questions as yon would in the case of the replies to 23. Yet we have the government charged with extravagance because the work in each case was not done at the same price. Take the question of manufactures ; manufacturing in Canada has grown to enormous proportions. In the schedule of 1891, there were only 23 questions, whereas in that of 1901 there were 63. How could you expect the work to be done in both cases for the same price, more especially when you consider the additional work involved in the collation and compilation of the returns and the additional number of enumerators who had to be employed. In 1891 our exports only amounted to $6,000,000 whereas in 1901 they amounted to $18,000,000. Any information that shows the development of our agricultural, mineral and manufacturing resources, the people will not begrudge paying for ; and if the census of
1901 has cost $1,250,000, as compared with $500,000 for 1891, the people have got good value for their money. Take the articles of butter and cheese ; in 1891 the exports of cheese amounted to $9,000,000, and in 1901 to $19,886,000. Butter in 1891 was exported to the value of $602,000, and in 1901, the export amounted to $5,600,000. In 1891 very few questions were asked regarding this industry, whereas a great many were asked in 1901. Take the schedule on population, there are on it thirty-four questions compared witli sixteen in 1891, or eighteen new ones. That involves additional work in compiling the returns and the engaging of additional clerks. Take clay, thirty-one questions were asked in 1901 against ten in 1891. Then take minerals, in 1891 the questions were twenty-eight, and in 1901, 200. I need scarce-t ly allude to the subject of fisheries, concerning which there are over 200 questions. There are over 100 more in 1901 than in 1891. And the fishery industry is an important one in this country, one in which a large number of men find a livelihood, and the government, in spending money to gain information for the people with regard to that industry, did just what they ought to have done under the circumstances. Hon. gentlemen on the other side are comparing two things that are entirely dissimilar, the census of 1891 and the census of 1901. I have here two books, one the first volume of the census of 1891, and the other the first volume of the census of 1901. An examination of these two will show that hon. gentlemen opposite are not properly informed and are simply indulging in a little captious criticism. There is no comparison of the quality of the information contained in the two volumes. If you take the first volume of the census of 1891, you will find 105 pages taken up with this class of information, as shown by the headings :
Houses-wood, brick, stone ; houses-1 story, 2 stories. 3 stories, 4 stories and over ; houses- 1 room, 2 rooms. 3 rooms, 4 rooms, 5 rooms, 6 to 10 rooms, 11 to 15 rooms, 16 rooms and over, uninhabited, in construction.
The last two are of importance. But for 105 pages out of 375 we have information of the class indicated by the headings I have read. What do the people of this country care how many houses of one storey, or two stories, or three stories there are ? What do they care how many houses there are of one, two, six or fifteen rooms ? That is not information of any particular value to the people. When you come to the heading ' civil condition of the people,' they use 104 pages, but the information is woefully incomplete as compared with the census of 1901. Then when you take religion, you find 105 pages devoted to it. A great many of our people attach a great deal of importance to religion, and in this volume of 1901 there are 140 pages devoted to the subject. Then take tjie division ' plaee of birth.' We take a great deal of interest in


Charles Bernhard Heyd: the question of where our people come from, and are spending large amounts of money every year to bring into our country the best class of people. The census of 1891 has 31 pages devoted to origin and nationality, while in 1901 we have 190 pages. And yet our friends on the other side say that this 190 pages of high class statistical work is to be done at the same rate as the 31 pages of the census of 1891. Why, the thing is absurd on the face of it. In the first volume of the census of 1891 there were only 89 subjects dealt with, while in 1901 there were 201, or nearly three times as many. There is exactly three times as much information, judging from the number of columns. Then take the matter of quality. There are seven schedules here or heads covered in 1891, while in 1901 there were 18. There are about only 215 questions to answer in 1891, while in 1901 there are over 523 questions. And yet our friends accuse us of extravagance because we cannot get up such an elaborate census as this at the same cost as that of the census of 1891. If you show that a .man spent $3,000 in running his factory in 1891 and $10,000 in 1901, you do not show that he has necessarily failed in economical management. It may be that he has more employees and is turning out more work. The only fault I find with the Minister of Agriculture is that he did not pay the claims of these men who put in good hard work and did not get enough for it. I say that at 5 cents .per name it was impossible to get that information and cover long distances and earn fair wages. And while the census of 1901 did cost more, the men were not as well paid and did not earn as much money as ten years before. If the Auditor General's Report shows that they got $3 a day, they never received it. Those in my constituency were not paid $3 a day. The number of names they took was divided by 60 and that gave the number of days, and each of them were short from two to as high as fifteen or twenty days. That is where the trouble comes in for us, and trouble in which our lion, friends opposite are not interested. We will have to settle that with our enumerators. Some of them grumble, but they are too loyal to the country to be seduced from allegiance to their own party, though they were not so well paid as those who were appointed ten years before. When you look at the quantity of work, as shown by the two volumes I have here, you will see that the census for 1901 might as well have cost three times as much as that of 1891. In the census of 1891 there are only 83 columns, while in .that of 1901 there are over 200 devoted to statistical work. If hon. gentlemen opposite have more to say on the census, let them adduce facts. It is no argument to tell us that the cost is greater or that more men were employed. The question is what did the men do in 1901 and what did they do ten years before ?
Let them compare the result, and we shall be in a position to judge whether there has been any unwise expenditure or not. It does not prove anything for the hon. member for Peel to show that it cost more to take the census in his county in 1901 than it did in 1891. It cost more to run a hundred-acre farm in his county in 1901 than it did to run a fifty-acre farm ten years ago. You must compare things that are similar. Having given some attention to the question of the census, and having studied the American census, 1 devoted a little of my time since Saturday to looking into this matter, and I have found facts that .satisfied me that the government were not extravagant in taking this census ; while, on the other hand, I find that the census will answer the requirements of the people and give useful information. The charges made are not in accordance with the facts. And that is true of the charges contained in the campaign document of hon. gentlemen opposite which has been sent out from this House by the carload, by the train load. And I hope that those gentlemen of honour and respectability who sit on the other side-and there are many of them-instead of allowing such documents to go out by hundreds of thousands-and some destroyed because they are not untruthful enough-will take only ten minutes to look into the matter, and that will convince them that nearly every statement made in this campaign literature with regard to the census of 1901 is absolutely untrue.


Mr. D. HENDERSON (Halton).: I shall not detain the House long. The case has been so well presented by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), who lias given a good deal of consideration to the question, and who, I think, has made out a very strong case for the resolution he has placed in your hands, that I need not dwell upon the matter at length. With reference to the leading argument of the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd), I find that he does not agree with the Minister of Agriculture. Tile minister was candid enough to tell us at the outset that the .main reason for the increase in the expense of taking the census was the higher cost of living. But the hon. member for South Brant, not being satisfied with that, endeavoured to show by a series of quotations from the various schedules of the census that there was an increase in the amount of work, that the volumes issued were larger and contained more information, and that this was the cause of the increase in the cost of taking the census. I will leave these two hon. gentlemen to settle this matter - between themselves. The hon. member for South Brant instances the taking of the censuses in cheese factories as a reason why there should be an increase in the expenditure. Now, if I understand it right, the mode of



taking tlie census of a factory requires the manager of the factory to be supplied, with schedules that he tills up, and practically the enumerator would not be employed for three minutes, much lfess for one day, in talcing that census.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Would it not involve more expense in the statistical branch ?


David Henderson: Well, I will explain that. If a cheese factory turned out 100,000 pounds of cheese in 1891, and in 1901 it turned out 200,000 pounds, I would' like to know by what course of reasoning my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Heyd) anaves at the conclusion that the cost of taking a census of 200,000 pounds should be double that of taking the census of 100.000 pounds. I fail to see that the cost even of making the totals, of adding up these various reports of the cheese factories, would be any more in 1901 than it was in 1891. Possibly there might be a few more factories, but that would not account for doubling the cost of taking the census, which the Minister of Agriculture has confessed to.
The Minister of Agriculture tells us that one reason for the increased cost of taking the census on this last occasion was the employment of a larger number of enumerators, and consequently there was a larger number to be instructed. I think he is quite correct, and that is just what we complain of. He employs two or three times the number of people to take the census, these men all have to be instructed, and every one has to be paid his day's wage during the course of instruction-not only his day's wage, but I find, in some instances, that he is actually paid for his board. Some enumerators are given lunches when they meet together, as they were in VerchSres and Ohambly, down in the province of Quebec. Why were not the enumerators treated to lunches in my county as well ? I do not know why there should be any partiality shown. It goes to show the extreme carelessness with which these accounts are made up, when I found that in one county a man is allowed for an item that in another county another man is not allowed for.
Now, the Minister of Agriculture complains that in the census of 1891 the law was not complied with, and that enumerators were paid on a flat rate instead of by the day. I want to draw attention to this, because I think that in making that argument the minister was not as fair as he generally attempts to be. He took for example the county of Addington, the county of North Bruce, the county of North Renfrew, and the county of Frontenac. Now, we all know that these are counties where the population is sparse, where the enumerator in many instances would have to travel long distances between settlements in order to find the people living in that section of the country. But the Minister of Agri-Mr. HENDERSON.
culture did not mention a county like Peel, which is more thickly populated; like the county of Halton, which is well populated ; he made his reference entirely to counties that are sparsely settled, and where it would be an absolute necessity, to be fair to his enumerator, that some other plan should be adopted than that which would apply to counties with more dense population. I would not be surprised, if he analysed his own pay-sheets, if he found the figures to bear out my contention. Therefore, I think his argument in that respect was somewhat misleading. However, I fail to see that there is much in it, because he has told us that the cost of taking this census is practically double that of taking the former census, and I presume that it was doubled in those counties that he mentioned as well as in other counties.
Now, the Minister of Agriculture tells us that the cost of taking the census per name was three cents in 1891 and that was not enough. In 1901 he allows his enumerators five cents, an increase of 66f per cent for taking names. For taking farms, in 1891, the cost was 15 cents, and in 1901, 25 cents, still maintaining the same rate of increase, 06 per cent. Then, for taking the census of a factory, 20 cents was paid in 1891, and 30 cents in 1901, an increase of 50 per cent.
Now, he tells us that this increase was all owing to the extra cost of living. I wondered, when I heard him say that, where the boasted preferential tariff came in. Why, these hon. gentlemen were going to make everything cheap, they were making this a cheap country to live in, giving us cheap clothing, cheap food, cheap boots and shoes, everything the people have to buy was going to be cheap on account of this preferential tariff. Yet they tell us that they have had to pay their census enumerators more because the cost of living has been increased. What is the increase ? Did, the Minister of Agriculture, before he made that statement, look at the facts ? I doubt very much if he has; I think he has just spoken in a random sort of way. The Minister of Justice told us the other day that the salaries of the judges had to be increased because the cost of living had increased1, and they had to pay more for clothing and other requisites. But this preferential tariff, they told us, would make clothing cheap, that it would make boots and shoes in this country cheap to the consumer. I cannot reconcile the two arguments. Let me take some particular item and ask where the cost of living has been increased. Let me take as a basis of the whole thing the price of what. I look upon wheat as being a fair index of the respective cost of living in 1891 and 1901, because, to my mind, as the price of wheat varies so would the price of butter, so would the price of eggs and other articles that we consume. If the cost of wheat was less in 1891 than 1901 than would

be la 1901, and there would be something in the argument of the hon. gentleman. But what do I find ? Since the hon. gentleman made that statement about the cost of living being increased within the decade, a statement that almost staggered me, I went into the library and looked up the ' Globe ' newspaper to see what wheat sold for under the Conservative regime of 1891, when the farmers of this country enjoyed good government, when their interests were carefully looked after by the government of the day. I find that in 1891 wheat was selling for $1.08 per bushel, whereas in 1901 it is selling for the miserable price of 77 cents, 30 cents less. Yet the hon. gentleman tells us that he has had to pay his enumerators more because of the increased cost of living, a difference of 60 per cent, while the cost of wheat was reduced by 30 per cent. Does that not mean extravagance ? Is that not evidence sufficient to condemn the hon. gentleman out of his own mouth for the large amount that the census has cost ? I contend that the facts d'o not at all bear out his contention that the increased cost of living is the reason for the increased cost of taking the census. We may take other articles just as well as wheat. Take woollen goods. Under the preferential tariff hon. gentlemen opposite told us that the people were going to get their woollen goods cheaper. The complaint of the woollen manufacturers is that their industry has been destroyed by reason of the preferential tariff, which makes clothing cheaper, but it appears that the preferential tariff does not give the benefit to the consumer at all. It must .give it to the importer or middleman. 1 do not think they have reduced the cost to the consumer, because, the Minister of Agriculture tells us, the cost of living has increased. Therefore, the preferential tariff is not at all what the people expected it would be and does not result in the benefits that we hoped would accrue from it. j Until the hon. minister has given us a bet- i ter reason than the increased cost of living to justify this enormous increase in the cost of taking the census, this extravagant cost of taking the census. I shall be compelled, for one, to vote condemnation of his action, of the policy that he adopted and of the result of what he did in 1901.


Robert Holmes: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) who has just taken his seat has made a somewhat laboured argument to try and prove that the cost of living has not increased and that there should be no additional expense connected with the cost of taking the census. Whether the cost of- living has kept up to the price of wheat or not, I think that the hon. gentleman will admit that the cost of labour has increased. I venture to make the assertion, that, taking his own personal expenses as a criterion he will admit in 430}
private conversation, if not publicly, that the cost of living has very materially increased. If he will take up the volume of the census he will find an explanation of some of the reasons for the increased cost of taking it. The explanation was given by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), and it was enlarged upon by him, so that it is not necessary to go into that. But, I simply want to allude to the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite can be all things to all men. They can adapt themselves to any condition of circumstances. It is not necessary to bring the tariff question into the discussion at the present ; but we have heard a good deal in this House in the past from hon. gentlemen opposite as to there being no advantage under the preferential tariff. We have been told by hon. gentlemen opposite that the preference was a delusion and a snare, and that we were imposing upon the people of the motherland as well as upon our own people in trying to convince them that there was some advantage in the preference. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), by his extravagant language, and extravagant manner has admitted what the Liberals believe and have always contended, that the preference has been a decided advantage to the people. However, that is neither here nor there, as far as the census is concerned. We, on this side of the House, are prepared to admit that the cost of the census of 1901 has been greater than the cost of the census of 1891, and that was the only point made by the hon. member for Pe*l (Mr. Blain). Without being disrespectful to him at all, I would like to say that I think the mountain has conceived and brought forth a mouse. The charges which he has made against the government do not amount to very much. I should also like to refer to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). Our friends opposite are willing to swear to the accuracy of. the census of 1891. They say that there were no inaccuracies in connection with them, and the hon. gentleman made the statement


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to say that I made no such statement at all ?


Robert Holmes: I did not say you did.
I said that hon. gentlemen opposite said so, that they said this upon the other side of the House. However, the hon. member for East Grey said that he knew


Richard Blain: My hon. friend (Mr. Holmes) says that it was not the hon. member for East Grey who said that, but it was some other hon. members on this side of the House. Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to say who it was ?


Robert Holmes: I alluded to the hon. member for East Grey as referring to his own riding and as stating that the census of 1891 in that riding is much more accurate

than the census of 1901, but I said that hon. members on the other side of the House were willing to swear that the census of 1891 was fairly accurate. However, I happen to have before me the report of the Bureau of Industries of Ontario, in which is given, of course, the results of the census in every municipality, and I find, that, taking the Dominion census of 1901 and comparing it with the municipal census of the same year, and taking the Dominion census of 1891 and comparing It with the municipal census of that year, the last census is much more accurate than the previous one. For instance in the township of Glenelg, in Grey county, I find the difference between the municipal census of 1901 and the Dominion census to be 53, while in 1891, the difference between the local census and the Dominion census is 281. In Osprey, I find the difference in the first instance 44, and in the second instance 133. Do hon. gentleman opposite consider that the census of 1891 was an accurate census when there is such a disparity ? Do they not agree with me that the census of 1901 is much more accurate ? I do not want to weary the House with too many details. The hon. member for Peel is the mover of this resolution, and I propose to devote a little attention to a series of questions which were asked by him in the House some time ago as to the questions asked by the enumerators and the information returned in connection with the present census. One of the hon. members on the other side of the House, in the course of this discussion, has stated that the cost of the census of 1901 is double that of the census of 1891 for the same work. This has been contradicted time and again, and merely to show that our contention is the correct one, I will quote a few figures for the benefit of the hon. member for Peel. The hon. member for Peel asked certain questions in the House in reference to the questions that were asked in Cardwell, Halton and Peel. In 1891 the number of questions asked in Cardwell, as far as population is concerned, was 384,000, in round numbers, in 1901, 444,000; Halton, 1891, 549,000, 1901. 664,000; Peel, 1891, 386,000, 1901, 465,000. In the matter of agriculture, taking real estate, orchard products, nurseries, vineyards and market-gardens, the number of questions asked in Cardwell in 1891 was 66,000, in 1901. 88,000; Halton in 1891, 96,000, in 1901, 111,000; Peel in 1891, 70,000, in 1901, 71,000; the total number of questions asked in the three counties in 1891 was 1,320,000, while in 1901 it was 1,500,000. The number of questions was much greater in 1901 than in 1891, and this is conclusive evidence of the number of questions asked. Continual reference has been made to the accuracy of the census of 1901. The hon. minister dwelt upon the desirability of having accurate statistics in the census. In order to show that the census of 1891 was
not as accurately taken as it should be let me call the attention of the House to one or two points.
For example, in 1891, the area of land in crops as published in the second volume of the census (Table XYI) was ascertained, not by addition of areas under crops as recorded in the schedule, but by an abstracting process which consisted in taking from the area of improved land the areas of land in forest, in pasture and in orchard and garden-the remainder being land in crops. The total area of the land under crops is in this way shown by volume II of the census, to be 19,904,826 acres; but when the area is reckoned up by the details of crops as given in volume IV (published in 1897) it is found to be only 16,139,295 acres, which is 3,765,531 acres less than the area shown in volume II. The excess in the maritime provinces is 627,522 acres, in Quebec, 966,894 acres; in Ontario, 2,233,957 acres; and in the Northwest Territories, 4,421 acres; but in Manitoba there is a deficiency of 2,270 acres and in British Columbia 64,993 acres. Our friends opposite are convicted out of their own mouths as to the inaccuracies in the census of 1891, and I only give these facts in order to show that while they charge that the present census is inaccurate and unreliable, there is no doubt at all that the census of 1891 in which they place so much confidence is without question inaccurate. In order to show the difference in the number of questions, I may point out that in the census of 1891 there were only 216 questions asked, While in the census of 1901 there were over 600 questions asked or nearly three times a s many. I have under my hand here the schedule relating to farm values upon which there are a series of twenty-seven questions. A good many of these questions involve considerable labour in getting information with respect to them, and that schedule was not used at all in the census of 1891. The department showed* its wisdom in taking these statistics in connection with the last census, because I need hardly point out that information as regards our agricultural standing amongst the nations of the world, is of very great importance indeed to the community. It is apparent on the face of it, that a great deal more work was required from the enumerators in 1901 than from the enumerators in 1891, and that additional work is a complete explanation for the extra cost. If gentlemen on the other side of the House have no greater grievance against the government than they have charged in this campaign, or, than they have charged in this House to-day in connection with the census; then the Liberal party has nothing to fear when they appeal to the electors of Canada. I am satisfied that when the intelligent electors of the Dominion look at the importance of the census of 1901, and its superiority over the census of 1891, they will conceive that the additional money has been spent wisely and well. I may say in


Robert Holmes: conclusion sir, that the Liberals are quite willing to go to the people of the country on this issue, as on any other issue which has been raised by the Conservative party.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. JOHN SHERRITT (North Middlesex).: Mr. Speaker, I do not purpose at this late stage of the session detaining the House very long, but I feel that it is my duty to make some comparisons of the expenditure of the census of 1901 as compared with that of 1891. Before recess the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) was reading from a newspaper which he claimed had made some erroneous statements and had misrepresented the expenditures of the government in this matter. I was somewhat amused when listening to him reading from that paper ; I thought that the man who printed that paper was putting himself in the position of the boy who would tell a lie although the truth would serve a great deal better. My own opinion is that there was enough that could be truthfully said in criticism of this expenditure without resorting to any false statement. Like any other business men we on this side of the House would not expect that the census of 1901 would be taken as cheaply as that of ten years ago. We all know that new parts of the country have been settled, tbit there are difficulties in taking the census in certain localities that would entail more expense than was required ten years ago. Some progress has been made by the country. When listening to the statement of the lion. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) 1 did think that he had a bad case. Notwithstanding his ability to handle such a question the only excuse that he could advance for this enormous expenditure, compared with the expenditure under the Conservative rule, was that the cost of living had increased. It has been argued by the hon. member for Huron that the extra expenditure would be accounted for by the fact that there were more questions to answer, and that there were one-third more questions to answer, and that therefore it should cost one-third more money. I do not agree with that ; I should think that in taking a census the most difficult and tedious part would be getting from house to house, as we have to-day very large farms and a good deal of time is lost in this way. However, for argument sake we will allow that it is good logic to say that because there are one-third more questions to answer we should except an expenditure one-third larger. That and the argument advanced by the hon. minister as to the additional cost of living are the only tw arguments that have been put forth to justify the fact that this census cost twice as much as the other. I will take for illustration my own riding of North
Middlesex. In 1891 East Middlesex had a population of 25,509 aud the cost of taking the census in that year was $1,646.85. In 1901 we had a population of 26,609 and the cost of taking the census was $3,380.09. You will notice that there Is ah increase in population of 1,040, but it w'ould not be fair to assume that that would be sufficient to offset the additional cost entailed by the one-third extra questions. That being the case the only argument that is left is that of the increased cost of living which my hon. friend from Halton (air. Henderson) has exploded fairly well. But the difference in the cost of the two in this census riding is $1,733.24. As the hon. gentlemen from Brant and from Huron have failed to advance any argument to justify this fact it will be necessary to put forward some one else, and they may have to call on the hon. member from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who could possibly advance the best excuse in defence of this expenditure. Allowing that there are one-third more questions to answer and that this should entail an expense one-third greater, and allowing the extra cost of living, on which the Minister of Agriculture has based his argument, there is still a discrepancy which, as I have said, the hon. member for North Norfolk might be able to explain, but I do think he will have a difficult task. We have in North Middlesex a number of independent men. Trior to the election of 1896 the hon. gentleman who leads the House and his colleagues went up and down this country decrying the Conservative party and declaring that an expenditure of $38,000,000 was bleeding the people white, and that Canada could not stand it. So much was said about this expenditure that the people in my riding really came to the conclusion that there must be something wrong with the Conservative party, and in the election of 1896 they returned a supporter of the government. But, Sir, what did they find ? As soon as the present government got into power it was found that none of the pledges which the people conscientiously believed would be carried were carried out, and they found that the expenditure was not $38,000,000 alone, but it went up and up and up, and the result was that when they came to cast their ballots again in 1900 they sent your humble servant to represent them. That I think is sufficient evidence to show that you cannot hoodwink the people of North Middlesex, so I think that we must have a better explanation of what has become of that extra amount of money that has been expended.
Then let us look at South Middlesex. In 1891 South Middlesex had a population of 18,806, and the cost of the census under Conservative rule was $1,389.53. In 1901 South Middlesex had a population of 18,803, practically the same population, a difference of only three ; but what was the cost of the census under Reform economy ? It was $2,982.84, or in other words

$203.78 more than double what it cost under Conservative rule. I do think that this is a state of affairs which requires some explanation ; and although the hon. member is not in his place to-night some other hon. minister, I hope, will get up and explain how the expense came to be so heavy in this instance. I notice that the arguments have been chiefly of a rather lame Character, and I should like to have some hon. member on the opposite side get up and endeavour to make some kind of a frank explanation. When looking into the Auditor General's Report, I did expect some explanation from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, to account for this Increase of $1,593.31, or more than double what the taking of the census cost in the particular riding under Conservative rule, other than the extra cost of living. I have no doubt that the cost of taking the census was big enough under Conservative rule, but it has been doubled by hon. gentlemen opposite. Next I come to North Middlesex, which, in 1891 had a population of 19,090. Under Conservative rule the census there cost $1,299.92, whereas in 1901, when the population was 17,455, it cost $2,428.55. In other words, there was a decrease in population of 1,535, and an increase of expenditure of $1,128.63, or almost double that under Conservative rule. That certainly demands explanation. Then in West Middlesex, which in 1891 had a population of 17,28S, the cost under Conservative rule was $1,302.31 ; and in 1901. when it had a population of 15,843, the cost under the Reform regime was $3,113.37, being a decrease in population of 1.445 and an increase in expenditure of $1,811.06. In other words, the cost was more than double under the present regime what it was under Conservative rule. No doubt the majority of us in this House are men who had a good deal of experience in municipal life, and I ask those hon. gentlemen how long would they expect to be returned by the different municipalities if, once they got into office, they were to raise the salaries and increase the expenditure more than double and have nothing more to show for the increase except the rise in the cost of living ? How many hon. gentlemen have known of an assessor in a rural municipality, whose salary has gone up in the last ten years 20 pen cent ? I do not know of any such case. How many directors of insurance companies are there whose salaries have been increased, or school teachers or other men in public employ ? I do not know of any increases corresponding to those in the taking of the census. I do not intend to take up much more time, but I have here the figures from South Huron, the riding in which I now live. The cost of taking the census in South Huron, under Conservative rule in 1891. when it had a population of 19,144, was $1,255.59, and in 1901, when it had a population of 17,448, the cost was $2,090.41. So that there was a decrease in Mr. SHERRITT.
population of 1,696-an increase in the expenditure of $838.82. I think that hon. gentlemen opposite will find it hard to justify that increased expenditure in the county of South Huron. In that county the people are getting a little awake to the condition of things, for they have had the extravagance of this government brought home pretty closely to them in the matter of the dock as well as in the taking of the census. I have no doubt that they will insist on more satisfactory explanation than that we have had here before they will condone these items of expenditure by a party which they have looked upon so long as the champions of economy, working in the interests of the country. I think it is due to some of the members belonging to rural municipalities to offer some explanation on these particular items, and I have not selected any particular counties. I took the ones that first caught my eye, and I find by the statements of. other gentlemen that in the other counties we have a similar record. We should have something else to justify this extravagance besides the increase in the cost of living. Some time ago the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) asked why there was no record of summer fallowing in the census records, and the Minister of Agriculture replied that that was a thing of the past. Surely he could not have been sincere in such a statement ? I must say that in our part of the country the farmer who does not summer-fallow is not considered up-to-date.


Adam Carr Bell: This question of
the census, Mr. Speaker, has naturally attracted particular attention, both because it has proved very expensive and because a great many opinions have been expressed reflecting on its accuracy. The public have certainly not that confidence in its results which the Minister of Agriculture has sought to prove to exist. In the first place, as to the cost of the census, it has been very much larger than that of any previous census in Canada. I find that, according to the resolution submitted, the census of 1881 cost $450,000, that of 1891 almost exactly $550,000, and that of 1901, though not yet completed, $1,200,000. How much more work is to be done upon it, of course, the House cannot learn at this time. The fact remains that the last two censuses, those of 1881 and 1891, together cost $1,000,000 completed, and the census of 1901 has cost $200,000 more than the two censuses that preceded it, and it is not yet completed. It will be clear at once to any one who looks at the census returns that the increase in the population does not account for this increase of cost. The population of Canada has increased at the rate of about 10 per cent for each decade. Therefore. while the increased cost of the census of 1891 over that of 1881 was just about in agreement witli the increase of population, that is, about 10 per cent,-it really was 20

per cent more. In the case of this last census, where there was an increase of 10 per cent in the population-there has been an increase in the cost, of considerably over 100 per cent. Now, it is natural, it is inevitable, that the members of this House and the people of this country would seelf to learn why the census has cost so much. The Minister of Agriculture has set up a plea that is not, in one respect, an unfair one-that the census has cost more because it is necessary to pay more to employees now than before. He has argued that the cost of living has increased in Canada to such an extent as to account for the increased remuneration, and I presume that the concluding part of his argument would be that this would account for the enormous increase in the cost of the census. As the increase in the cost of the census has been over 100 per cent, if the hon. minister is right in his argument, the cost of living must have increased over 100 per cent in Canada. If that were precisely correct, I suppose we should find an increase of 100 per cent in the wage or remuneration paid to employees by persons, corporations and governments over what was paid ten years ago. But, as a matter of fact, even with the employees of the government themselves, there is nothing to show that those outside the census bureau are receiving 100 per cent higher salaries than they did ten years ago. If it be true that in the Census Bureau they are receiving 100 per cent increase that Bureau must be the envy of all the departments in Ottawa. I know that the men employed on railways in Canada are receiving 15 or 20 per cent more than they were receiving in 1891. I think the employees of the post office are not receiving, in many cases, any more than they were in 1891. Of course, it must be remembered that, in some cases, these employees are complaining that they are not paid enough. But the government of which the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is a member, for many years did not act at all upon this principle that we should give increases of remuneration to employees of the government. He, with the others, is responsible for the fact that for many years they persisted in refusing to give the civil servants even the statutory increases which, I think, might be properly looked upon as part of the salaries of those officers. So, it seems to me, the minister will need , to suggest to the House some better argument than the increased cost of living and the increase of salary that is being paid, and justly being paid, by the departments of the government to civil servants, in order to account for the increased cost of the census which we are now considering. That argument, to a certain extent, is an ingenious one ; I think that even on a cursory examination it will be found to break down completely.
Now, it is very evident that, while the Minister of Agriculture has some ground
for saying that there is an increase in the wage rate being paid for work in Canada, and that he could not get enumerators to work for tile department if he did not give an increased wage rate, yet, taking the figures, he fails to account for the increased cost by developing that idea and showing that he had paid more for the enumerators. 1 took down the figures given by the hon. gentleman as to the cost of enumerators. Those figures show that the enumeration in 1891 cost $682,000, while that for 1901 cost $878,000. Of course, there must be some mistake, because the whole cost of the census for 1891 was only $549,000. I must have taken the figures down wrongly or the minister must have read them incorrectly from his notes. It is not necessary to labour the point. There is evidently some discrepancy. The great increase in the cost of the census is, to a certain extent, accounted for by the increased number of the enumerators employed. That would come about in this way : It is true that two men ought to do in half the time what one man did before. But if the government pays, and pays so liberally as I think we can show they did, for the time occupied in instructing the enumerators-fairly enough-every additional enumerator would add to the cost of the census. If gentlemen are paid $2 or $3 a day during the time they are receiving instruction, and the number in 1901 is double the number in 1891, that portion of the cost will be doubled. It is not hard to show that the cost of instructing the enumerators has been very considerable. I think it has been unjustifiably large. We find, from the testimony given before the committee of this House, that enumerators who came to meet the commissioner of their census districts were allowed $3 a day during the time they were receiving instruction from the commissioner. Moreover the'y were allowed their expenses, though the testimony given may show that they were at' home at the very time they were receiving instructions. They received $3 a day though the sworn testimony of an officer of the government shows that in some cases they spent only one hour on some of the days they were receiving instructions. So, a man running away from his office or the factory in which he was employed to meet the commissioner appointed by this generous, large-hearted, large-souled administration, received for his well-spent time of one hour, $3 as remuneration and $1.50 or $2 for ' expenses.' Now. if you multiply that by the 8,888 enumerators who were employed by the government in making up this census, I think it will be seen that I have got at a very much more satisfactory reason to account for the enormous increase in the cost of the census than the suggestion'made by the Minister of Agriculture that it is owing to the increased cost of living in Canada, or to any increased rate paid to the enumerators for doing their work.
But not only are the enumerators paid

very handsomely, paid for almost nothing, but in some cases in which they failed to receive a sufficient amount of information in the course of the days spent in the company of the commissioner and were unable to do their work at a later period, they were allowed to visit the commissioner at his home or in the neighbourhood; and these gentlemen who had been paid at the rate of $4 or $5 for one hour on the days on which the commissioner was giving the enumerators information, were paid at the same rate with expenses at an enormous advance over the actual cost, for attending the commissioned again at his home. So that it is quite easy to see that this practice of allowing unreasonable prices, unreasonable remuneration, to the enumerators during the period in which they were receiving their instructions, would account for a great part of the cost of this census. Now, who is responsible for this increase ? Clearly I think the Minister of Agriculture must be held to be entirely responsible. The Minister of Agriculture had ample time in which to prepare his work, he had ample time in which to arrange all these details, he had ample time in which to provide for everything that might transpire ; and if the result goes to show that the Minister of Agriculture, or the gentleman to whom he entrusted this work, did not anticipate all possible sources of loss, all possible chances of increasing unduly the cost of this census, then clearly, to my mind, the Minister of Agriculture must devise some far better defence than suggesting flaws in the preceding census before the people of Canada will acquit him of responsibility for the unduly increased cost of the census of 1901.
But the enumerators are not the only persons who have been paid very liberally. We have it on the sworn testimony of an official of the government that a commissioner who was a particularly favoured gentleman-I do not know that all the commissioners who were employed in taking the census were equally favoured-but we know that in the case of one gentleman at least he was allowed to make an addition of $50 to the bill of costs which he prepared to submit to the department, and that account was passed. There was no audit in the case at all of a satisfactory character, and there was no warrant, no justification, for the increased expenditure. After, the commissioner in question had charged for every day upon which he had been employed, even in writing a letter, or sending a telegraphic message, or receiving a parcel, it could only be shown that he had been employed some fifty days. But he was a generous man, and he added fifty per cent to the fifty days and charged the government for seventy-five days. He made up his bill, and having made it up, on subsequent consultation with some other commissioners appointed by the government, he discovered that he had failed to realize all the advantages Mr. BELL.
that might be derived from his position. He realized that he was far in the rear of what had been attained by some others of his brother commissioners, and he coolly added to that bill $50 more. He charges in the first pl8.ce for every hall he had occupied, he charges for every moment of horse-hire, and he deliberately adds a lump sum to this bill later on. Charges for hall rent, for horse-hire, and for stationery, by which he adds something like $50 to that which was already a most liberal bill, and the whole amount is paid.
Now, if the people of Canada want to find out how the census has cost so much, all they have to do is to take the few occasions in which it has been possible to get at these accounts, and they will see why this census has cost so much. It is simply because the only limit to the size of the bills rendered by the commissioners and paid by the government, was the idea of what the government would stand on the part of the commissioners. The measure of the bite was the appetite of the man, and there is no evidence to show that in any case was there any restriction or control exercised, but throughout all the census accounts, so far as they can be understood by a cursory glance, and particularly so far as they can be better understood in view of the evidence taken before the committee, the man asked and received what he pleased. That accounts very easily for the enormously increased cost of the census, and it goes to show that the government did not exercise any particular control. They certainly started off in the most liberal fashion; they increased the cost of taking the census by their own act, in the first place, by advancing the remuneration from' three cents per name to five cents per name; from fifteen cents per farm to twenty-five cents per farm; from twenty cents per factory to thirty cents per factory. There is an increase all round averaging over fifty per cent; and still, in addition to these enormous charges, all the accounts throughout. in the eyes of men who were familar with the locality and with the circumstances, go to show that after being paid these enormously high rates, the enumerators and1 the commissioners as well, were allowed to make irregular additions to their bills and these bills were honoured.
Now, a good part of the census commissioners may not have been quite as highly favoured as was the gentleman whose conduct was investigated before the committee. The facts were brought out that he was already an official of the government, employed, but I do not think very busily employed, in a different class of work altogether under different departments. In the case of Mr. Hurley, of Bast Hastings, it is seen that during the period in which he was engaged in taking the census he drew from his work under the Fishery Department, $441, and for his work under the census commissioner, $330 more, or a total

payment of ?771. Now, why was this gentleman favoured so much ? I suppose the reason was that he was a defeated candidate. He had been a candidate at the preceding election, and although defeated by tbe people, not only is the whole patronage of his riding placed in bis hands, but he is also appointed to supervise the officials of the provincial government in connection with the fisheries, and on top of that he is appointed a census commissioner, and above all he is allowed to pass accounts of the liberal character described, in which he is paying a man $3 a day for one hour's attendance, and is allowed to add fifty per cent to the lump sum claimed on his own account, and the whole thing is paid by the government. Under these circumstances, if it is necessary for the minister to raise the *question of inorelased cost, of increased remuneration, of increased wages, the whole thing is, it seems to me, quite clear, it is an occasion in which the spoils system was in full operation. No man need apply for a position who was not a good staunch party supporter, and having become a good staunch party supporter, he could depend upon getting the most favoured nation treatment when he came to do business with the government. There was no question whatever as to his account-simply present it and have it paid.
I find in my own county, the county of Pictou, in one comparatively small polling section, a compact section in which the houses are all along the main roads, one man is allowed twenty-four and a half days horse-bire for taking the farms in that one polling section. There were no factories, simply a farm settlement. Well, I would think it a very pleasant pastime to visit on foot every house in that polling section in two or three days; still a man is allowed to get twenty-four days and horse-hire.
Now, the criticism which has been addressed by this side of the House generally against the census, has been to the effect that it has been enormously costly, unreasonably costly; and, in the second1 place, we are inclined to believe that it will prove to be not only a very costly census, but when the whole matter is completed and all the .accounts are closed, it will be found to be not a very satisfactory census. In reply to that the minister goes on to show that there were some errors in the census of 1891. He says that in some cases in 1891 the enumerators' schedules were not very carefully made out. He refers in particular to the schedules in connection with the fisheries, which he says were not available and which were not produced by the compilers. That may be. A further statement of the bon. Minister of Agriculture is that in some cases in 1891 exceptions were made by tlie commissioners in favour of the enumerators. That may be. The hon. minister rend a list in which he said that in North and South Waterloo, Frontenac. East Sim-coe and elsewhere, the commissioners, or
managers, in 1891 departed from their rule of paying three cents per name and allowed $3 per day. It struck me while listening to that statement that in most cases where this had occurred, the sections were comparatively small, and the probability was that it was impossible to get any men to do the work of enumerating the census in these districts for three cents a name. It was likely that the population was so small that it was necessary to make some concessions. But admitting that there were irregularities in 1891, that simply increases our surprise at, or perhaps our admiration of, the fact that in the case of the census of 1901 the Minister of Agriculture is enabled to distance the performances of the bureau in 1891 by over 100 per cent. But admitting that there was a possibility of some irregularity in that case, we are led to believe, from the very statement made by the hon. minister, that there must be some enormous irregularities connected with the census of 1891. There is one difficulty about the form of criticism that the hon. gentleman has employed. It will be remembered that last year this same matter was brought up in the House in connection with the discussion on the budget, and a great many different parcels of census returns were laid upon the Table. It was charged that irregularities had occurred, and in fact it was insinuated that worse than irregularities had occurred. It was practically stated that the census of 1891 was padded. The impropriety of introducing any such evidence into this House lay in the fact that it was an ex-parte statement. It was a statement made by the parties who had possession of all the documents, which were withheld from those who were opposed to them, and there was no possibility for those thus opposed availing themselves of that evidence. The hon. Minister of Agriculture has referred to some persons in different counties in Quebec, a lot of schedules to have them examined there by persons who were friendly to the census of 1901 and hostile to the census of 1891. This was giving an unfair advantage, and there could be no satisfactory outcome from such a decision unless the government were prepared to grant our request that there should be a full inquiry made into the position of tbe census of 1891 and the census of 1901 by some disinterested and competent party.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They would not allow the Public Accounts Committee to see the schedules, but they would cart them all over the country for others to examine.


Mr. BEBL.: That being the case, it is very clear that the hon. Minister of Agriculture cannot expect 1o secure the assent of this House to the course which he has followed. He cannot expect to bring conviction to the mind of any hon. member on this side of the House by the criticism to which he has resorted. ' It is very evident from the

defence which the hon. minister has put up that he has devoted a certain portion of the staff which is employed by him in the census staff not to the work of making the census of 1901 as perfect and complete as possible, but to the work of criticising, examining and seeking to find flaws in a census that is ten years old.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Trying to discredit it.


Adam Carr Bell: Trying to discredit the census of 189.1. That is the work to which the officers of the census bureau have been devoted, and it is not so hard to understand! how a considerable addition has been made to the cost of the census of 1901. Not only has the hon. Minister of Agriculture engaged in taking a census, but, recognizing tiie fact that his census does not have the confidence of the people of Canada, recognizing the fact that it has been exposed to a great deal of hostile criticism, and realizing that he must make some defence, it is very clear that a great deal of industry has been devoted, not to perfecting the census of 1901, but to an endeavour to make it appear better by pointing out defects in the one that precede(Tit. That would be a perfectly fair and legitimate comparison if it could be made from both sides. If the friends of the census of 1891 were in the position to join the hon. minister in the investigation and compare these two censuses. If we were in a position to go and see what was good and1 what bad gnd to judge for ourselves, then it would be perfectly fair, but the hon. minister comes forward and produces this evidence which has been collected by him, but which-and I do not assume that he has not been perfectly honest in the matter, or that he is making statements that he does not believe true- is entirely ex-parte. He is simply playing the game with loaded dice, and he cannot expect that any such defence as he is making is going to satisfy the House or the country as to the_ merits of the census of 1901. The hon. minister has said a good deal about the comparative time in which the work of compilation and enumeration has been completed. He has drawn a great many comparisons very much to the advantage of the census of 1901 and very much to the disadvantage of the census of 1891. This all comes under the same category as that to which I have referred. We must leave these matters for full and satisfactory consideration until the time has arrived when the two censuses have been completed and can be compared as completed. It is impossible to judge them any sooner than that. If the hon. minister has succeeded in having a perfectly satisfactory census made in 1901, we will be glad to know it when we have had time to study it fully. At this moment, after two and a half years have elapsed, only the first volume of the census has been published, and the schedules which relate to the industries of Canada, and the schedules for which the hon. minister claims 1


Adam Carr Bell: a great deal of credit as having been taken in addition to those prepared in 1891, have not been compiled or submitted to this parliament, and we are not in a position to judge of the advantages of the census in that respect. It appears from the claim made by the hon. minister that a great many more questions were asked in the census of 1901 than in the census of 1891. That is, I suppose, up to a certain point, in the right direction, but, when the census bureau undertakes to collect more information than can be reduced within a reasonable time into tabulated form, it is submitting the country to an expenditure from which the country is not likely to derive any substantial benefit whatever. Although the questions in the schedules have been increased from 216 in 1891 to 561 in 1901, the fact apparently remains that we have not at this moment derived any more advantage whatever from this large number of additional questions, because they have not been compiled, and if the answers are permitted to remain in the forms of schedules uncompleted and uncompiled and inaccessible to the public, of what value is this large number of questions ? It would have been better far for the country, if the government had been satisfied with a smaller number of questions, and if they had collected the information in such a manner as to enable them to have it in tabulated form at the earliest possible moment. We are at a disadvantage in not having the two censuses completed, because we cannot compare them. I was rather amused at the criticism of my hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd), who apparently found a great deal to excite his criticism in the fact that the census-takers of 1891 had devoted a good deal of time to ascertaining how many rooms were in the homes which were occupied by the people of Canada, and particularly when he came to tell the House about the statistics relating to those who only occupied one room, he seemed to look upon that as the most idle and improvident, and ridiculous thing that could be imagined. The idea of spending time over these poor people who could only afford to live in one room. Was that the idea he had in his mind ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: No.


Adam Carr Bell: Then, I would like to know what was in that great mind possibly like the judge who shook his head, there was nothing in it. There is nothing more important in the census forms, as a portrayal of the condition of the country than a return showing how many families have to live in one room. There is uo greater indication of the need of social reform, and occasionally of governmental and municipal interference, than that anything like a large percentage of the people of the country should have to live in one room. There is nothing that marks more distinctly the progress of the people and their advancement, than that the number who live in one room is diminish-

ing. There is perhaps no feature in that census to which the reformer of a future day, who is trying to get an idea of what Canada was in 1891, would attach more importance than to that very statement. He would want to know how many of the people of Canada were obliged to live in such a poor condition, that they were compelled to live in a dwelling of one room. These facts relating to our population, are to my mind of high importance. They give us a picture of our country as it is ; they show what the requirements of our country are at a given date, and they measure the progress of the people more correctly even, than the statistics relating to the creation of wealth and its development In industrial pursuits. I cannot understand why my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Heyd) should criticise the census of 1891 on the ground that it had devoted a great deal of attention to the humbler classes of the people. It seems to me that a census could not he better employed, than in that very work. We have the fact remaining then, that the census of 1901 has been an enormously expensive census ; that it has cost us at least $500,000 more than it should have cost, and so far as I can judge, there is no prospect of its being completed within the very near future. An enormous part of the figures secured by the enumerators have not been compiled yet, and judging by the amount of money voted this year, it is not unreasonable to say that it looks as though that census would never be completed. I believe that when two or three years have passed, and we have ascertained more closely what the census of 1901 have brought forth, we will be able to say that it has not only been a most costly census, but a most defective one as well. My hon. friend (Mr. Heyd) treated with a great deal of scorn, certain criticisms which he found in a broad sheet, on the compilation of this census in the department. The hon. gentleman ought not to be too quick to pledge his word and his standing in this House, in the positive assertion that these statements are absolutely unfounded. He may have to swallow a good many of these statements before he is much older. So far, it has not been possible to secure evidence on some of these points. But the day is not far distant when evidence will be secured.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Why make the statement before you secure evidence ?


Mr. GOTJRLEY.: You would never make any statement if you followed that rule.


Adam Carr Bell: The time will come when these statements will be verified.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: There are three deliberate statements made in that sheet, which on the authority of the census commissioner are absolutely untrue. What are you going to do about it ?


Adam Carr Bell: We are going to prove it.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Go on and prove it. I would rather take the word of the census commissioner.


Adam Carr Bell: We know, although we cannot prove it to a demonstration yet, that the schedules, in the Census Department have been changed ; that in some cases figures have been altered by the compilers ; that the returns as compiled are not the returns as received in the census office from the enumerators ; that the census compilers have corrected what they thought to be errors, and in some cases they committed errors in altering what was actually correct. I do not know exactly to what extent this has gone. We did not know until recently to what extent the government had gone in allowing enumerators and commissioners to pay themselves. We only succeeded in getting one or two witnesses before the committee but so far as it went, I never heard of any lead or vein that seem to give better promise of great returns, if it could be worked out. There can be no doubt that it will be worked out. The manner in which the government have tried to discredit the census taken ten years ago ; the manner in which they have done it in the dark to a certain extent; the manner in which they have made use of their position to take census documents out of the custody of the department and to distribute them in the hands of partisans in order to discredit the census of ten years ago, is a sufficient warrant that the moment the opportunity arises a complete investigation into the census of 1901 will have to be made in order to satisfy the people of the country. The cost of this census, let it be borne in mind, is not paid by the members of this House alone, but by the people of Canada, and if the census is not satisfactory, the people of the country will demand an investigation. They will want to understand how it is possible, that whereas the census of 1891 contained a large number of questions in excess of those asked in 1881, it entailed a comparatively small increase of cost. They will want to know how it is that the census of 1901, containing in the same way an increased number of questions no man can possibly account for the increased cost. A large number of these questions apply only to those engaged in certain trades and avocations, like the fishermen, and the enumerators are not required to visit every man in the country in order to get these questions answered. All the factories in Canada are comparatively few, and all the fishermen of Canada are few compared with the whole population. The great cost of enumeration must manifestly be in visiting, individually, the people who are enumerated. You may increase questions by the hundred and not add much to the labour of an enumerator.
The addition of 100 per cent to the number of questions could not possibly, under a fair and honest management, add anything like 100 per cent to the cost. It might

add only a very limited amount to the cost of the census. All these things being taken Into consideration, the fact remains that the census has been enormously costly and there is a grave suspicion on the part of those who looked into it most carefully that it will prove to be an unsatisfactory census. The government refused to employ a man of recognized ability, I might say of eminence, as a statistician ; they passed him over to take into their employment a man whom they selected, simply on the ground of his party allegiance. They passed over a trained statistician, a man who has a continental. a world-wide reputation, and they took an untried man, with the result that might have been expected. Then in regard to the work of enumeration, instead of employing the old enumerators who had had experience. they employed an altogether untrained and inexperienced body of enumerators. No man who was employed in the previous census was employed in this one.


An hon. MEMBER.: Shame.


Mr.   BELT@: My hon. friend says shame. He is pleased with that act and why is he so gratified with the fact that not one of the men employed in 1891 was employed in 1901 ?


Mr.   HEID@: We wanted a better quality.


Adam Carr Bell: Wanted a better quality ; if the measure of quality has been the cost of the service, then evidently the qualifications were very high. Not one of the old enumerators was employed, no matter how competent he might be, because he was of the wrong party stripe. Members of the House of Commons who are saying to me across the House that this was quite right are simply proclaiming that they took advantage of their position here to make a present to their party supporters throughout Canada of $750,000. on the good and satisfactory ground that they were good party supporters and would vote the Liberal ticket. The result goes to show the people what it costs them to have in power a government that views matters in this way. If the government had taken the experienced census manager whom they had at their call and had employed the experienced census enumerators whom they could have found throughout the country, there can be no doubt that the census would have been better taken and taken at a much reduced cost. I would not have thought it proper on my part to enter into any defence of the Dominion statistician from the charges that were made against him by his minister to-day ; I thought that when the Minister of Agriculture said so positively that the officer who took the census of 1891 had committed such blunders and done such bad work in that census that he would not allow him to take this one, it was no part of mine or of any member on this side of the House to say a word in condemnation of the minister's ac-Mr. BELL.
tion. However, the very errors in the census of 1891 which the minister was using and advancing as the reason why he should not employ the statistician to take this census were discovered by him after the present census had been taken. He could have had no knowledge of these errors up to the time and until long after the time he commenced taking the census of 1901.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman forgets the errors that were pointed out in this House in 1893 and 1891.


Adam Carr Bell: Those were not the errors cited by the hon. minister on this occasion.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They( were quite sufficient.


Adam Carr Bell: The only errors pointed out on that occasion were errors not on the part of the head of the census bureau, but on the part of some enumerators, particularly I think of one in the county of King's, N.S.; no charge was made against the head of the statistical department. I think it would be admitted that a very much better and more satisfactory defence will have to be made by the Minister of Agriculture and his supporters before they will convince the people of Canada that this has been a cheap or economical census. And yet we are perfectly willing to be reasonable and fair and wait until time gives us the opportunity to know exactly what the present census is. I think they will require to produce some very valuable volumes and excellent results before they can persuade the people that it is a good and well-taken census. There is one little fact by which we can judge of the comparative merit and ability of the men managing the two censuses; that is the fact that while the first results were given to the people of Canada by the census bureau at about the same length of time after the enumeration in 1891 and 1901, I think in the month of August in each ease, the census department in 1891 gave the population exactly almost, with an error of only 500, less than 600, while in the case of the census taken in 1901, the first returns of population, made about the same period, were in error to the extent of 44,000 ; the error in the census of 1901 was nearly one hundred times as great as that of the census of 1891. We know that. ; we can only guess at what may be revealed by the publication of the later volumes of the census. But we know that so far as the census returns of the population of Canada are concerned, the head of the census bureau in 1891 came within less than 600 of what was found in the end to be the exact population, and that in the present census the error is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40,000 or 50,000. That is a .simple fact, but it is a test case, and goes to show that there was more accuracy and speed in compiling the returns in 1891 than in 1901, and I will

be agreeably surprised if it does not prove true as to all the succeeding volumes that there Is tbe same measure of inaccuracy to be found in 1901 as compared with the census of 1891, in every other respect as there was evidenced In that first estimate of the population made in the two successive censuses. I think enough has been proved to show that in every part of the census work there has been an enormous increase of cost, and it has not been shown, so far as I can discover-and I am sure I approached the subject with an open mind- that there was any increased efficiency to compensate the country for the increased cost. Therefore it strikes me that Canada has every reason to be dissatisfied with a census whose only merit is that it has put an enormously large sum of money into the hands of the good supporters of the party now in power.


Mr. G. McEWEN (South Huron).: I had no intention, Mr. Speaker, of addressing the House on this subject, and consequently have not followed the example of hon. gentlemen opposite and collected material for a speech, I shall not trespass on your patience to any great extent. The only reason why I do obtrude myself into this debate is because the county which I have the honour to represent has been referred to by the member for North Middlesex (Mr. Sherritt), in such a way that I can hardly afford to allow his remarks to go unchallenged. The hon. gentleman, in comparing the labour of taking the census of 1901 with the work done in 1891, argued that as the population was less in the later period, the work of taking the census must have been correspondingly decreased. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that does not follow at all.
I find, on looking at the census of 1901, that in some cases over 400 more questions were asked than in the previous census. In the farmers' schedules 127 questions were asked in 1901 as compared with 75 in 1891. In those of the latter are included four questions relating to farm buildings, twelve to classified areas of farm land, twenty-two to orchard trees, vines and fruits, thirty-seven to field crops, twenty-six to live stock and animal products, and twenty-three to values of lands, buildings, field and fruit crops and labour. And no system of agricultural enumeration is satisfactory which does not take account of the areas devoted to agricultural purposes, the schedules are framed to procure as far as practicable the acreage as well as the production of every crop. That shows that the work done in 1901, in this particular item, is over three-quarters more than what was done in 1891. To my mind, that certainly, supposing the cost is more than double, fully justifies that expenditure. I find also that with reference to the forest industry, fifty questions were asked in each case in the census of 1901 as compared with twenty-two in the

volume was published in 1897, so that we on this side have got a few years yet to j wait before we will have reached the length of time taken by bon. gentlemen opposite to complete their census. They are therefore a little premature in saying that our census will never be completed. As regards the total cost of the census, I think any increase in the expenditure is amply justified by the much more complete and accurate information obtained and by the greatly increased work that had to be done at headquarters to compile and collate all that information, and we have the satisfaction of knowing that we have a. census upon which we can rely, and not, as in the case of the last one, a census in which much of the information given was absolutely unreliable. And we have, in addition to that, the fact that the population has increased very much, which, of course, added to the cost as compared with 1891, not only in the enumeration, but in the work of compilation here at Ottawa.


Mr. J. CLANCY (Bothwell).: I should at any stage of the session despair of bringing hon. gentlemen to vote for the motion of my hon. friend from Peel-


Archibald Campbell: Hear, hear.
Mr. CLANCY-and I still further despair of convincing my hon. friend who says :
' Hear, hear '-but I especially despair on this occasion of hon. gentlemen opposite doing what is right. I am not going into the discussion of this question generally-


Archibald Campbell: Hear, hear.
Mr. CLANCY-and I am glad to have the approval in advance of my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Campbell). I promise the hon. gentleman I will be only a few minutes.
1 want to deal mainly with one constituency, and 1 choose that of the whip of the Liberal party (Mr. Calvert) certainly a distinguished gentleman to occupy so distinguished a position. I think that constituency would be a fair sample of Liberal morality. It would be an abomination to suppose that there was anything worse in the riding of the whip of the Liberal party in connection with the taking of the census than in any other constituency. That hon. gentleman recommended all the officers and knew all about them, and I say that no one would imagine that any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House could maintain a higher standing with regard to these appointments than the whip of the party. I meed hardly say that every hon. gentleman on the other side who recommended the commissioner in his riding and even went so far as to recommend that every one of the enumerators must be held responsible. Now, the constituency represented by the whip of the Liberal party is West Middlesex. The population of that riding in 1891 was 17,288, and it costs $1,302.21 to take the census that year. In 1901, the riding did not have so large a population.
It will be remembered that the Liberal party


George McEwen: were in opposition during a very considerable part of the decade, and it will be remembered also that they were among the most active immigration agents of .the United States during that period and lost no opportunity of assuring the people that Canada was not a country fit to live in. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) made the statement in this House a session or two ago that the London ' Advertiser ' had within that period some 900 subscribers in the United-States, all of whom had left Canada. This kind of thing may account for the population of the riding having shrunk from 17,288 in 1891 to 15,543 in 1901. But what does the House suppose it cost to take the census during this year of lower population ? Instead of $1,302.31, the cost was $3,113.37. Let me give you some instances of Liberal economy. I am not quoting from mere hearsay. We bad an examination into this matter before the Public Accounts Committee and I have before me the evidence taken in that examination. Take the case of the village of Glencoe, a little place of about 1,000 inhabitants. The recording in that village cost $57.40 and the horse-hire was $63. Then, take the little village of Newbury, the population of which is about three or four hundred. The recording there cost $29.50 while the horse-hire in the village cost $27. Then, take the town of Strathroy, the town in which the Liberal whip resides. The recording in the town of Strathroy cost $173.50 and the horse-hire $186. Putting it all together the recording cost $260.15, and the horse-hire $276 of these places. Let me give you some of the evidence. I am sorry that my hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) is not in his place. But, as I have said, I shall not give mere hearsay, but shall quote from the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee. Of course, it will be understood that we have merely touched the fringe when we have investigated West Middlesex. Here is the evidence of Mr. McDougal, the commissioner for the riding :
Q. Do you know Mr. Alex. Leach of Strathrov' A. I do.
Q. What does he do ?
A. I do not know what he does.
Q. Never inquired I suppose. Does he live in the town ?
A. He lives in the town.
Q. How old is he? Seventy?
A. I would Judge that he was probably more, he is a good age, an old gray-haired man.
Q. Is he a delicate man?
A. He is.
My hon. friend from South Brant said they had selected the best men.
Q. Do you think he would be able to walk from house to house to take the census?
A. I could not say, although he is very crippled.
Q. Does he use crutches ?
A. No sir. not that I am aware of.
Q. But would you feel bound to allow him horse-hire on account of his age ?

A. If he put it in his account I certainly would allow it.
Q. Well, you seem to have allowed Mr. Leach twenty-two days' horse-hire ?
A. Yes.
Q. Aggregating $33 ? and you say if he put it in, you would have allowed it to him on account of his age ?
A. Not altogether on that account ; I would have allowed it because he had it in his account.
Q. All you had to do was to find it in his account and you allowed it ?
A. I allowed that part of it.
Q. Is Mr. Duncan Patterson an old gentleman seventy years of age?
A. He is quite an old man.
Q. Does he reside in Strathroy ?
A. I think he does, or very near it on the town line.
Q. What is he-a healthy rugged man ?
A. I would not call him so.
Q. He is able to go about from house to house?
A. I would judge so.
Q. Is he old enough now to elicit your sympathies ?
A. I did not have any sympathies.
Q. You have none. ?
A. No. sir.
Q. If he put in horse-hire, you allowed it because it was in there ?
A. Yes, -sir, because it was in there.
Q. Do you know Mr. John R. Olarke ?
You see, Mr. Speaker, I take them in consecutive order.
A. I do, sir.
Q. How old a man is he ?
A. I could not say, probably more than sixty.
Q. Is he a vigouroUs man ?
A. I would not call him so.
Q. Delicate is he ?-A. Fairly healthy I think, although he has a delicate appearance, but I could not say whether he is delicate or not.
Q. You would think he was able to go about at sixty taking the census in a place like Strathroy?-A. In part of it.
Q. Now he is allowed fourteen days' horse-hire, $21. You allowed the others partly on account of age ?-A. I beg pardon, I did not say so.
Q. Well, because Mr. Clarke was fortunate enough to put it in there ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is the reason ?-A. Yes, sir.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I could read pages of that kind of history in West Middlesex. I shall not detain the House further than to say that Mr. McDougal-and I take It as a fair sample-declares in his evidence that he did not make any declaration nor did he receive any declarations as to the accuracy of his accounts ; all he had to do in every instance was to put in the account and it was paid.


Mr. BROCK.: And to vote right.


James Clancy: And to vote right. We have there in evidence that whatever account was put in it was paid, although the law requires that a declaration should be made in every case, the commissioner stated upon oath that he took no declarations, contrary to law, and contrary to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture who, in his place in this House, when he was defending the cost of the census, declared that in every instance the solemn declaration of
the parties was taken in regard to the matter. Yet we find in that single sample selected, that the commissioner states that in no case did he take any declarations from the parties who had been employed on the census. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough to make it perfectly clear that the most wretched conduct prevailed throughout the whole of Canada in the taking of this census, and one evidence Is the fact that the census of 1891 cost $449,991, while that of 1901 cost $1,19S,26S. I have given you a fair sample in the only case which I had occasion to examine, and it was a fair sample of the system that pervaded the whole thing from start to finish. Is it any wonder that this alarming cost should be saddled upon the people of Canada for useless purposes ? Why, Sir, the census in many cases are utterly useless, they are crowded with the most useless tables, and these are given as a reason for having such an enormously increased cost. But you can see the folly at once. These are mere pretexts for that condition of things. I have given you a fair sample of how the accounts have been padded out. It was stated by some gentlemen that the census have been altered. If any hon. gentleman now is prepared to dispute that I will read from the evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee, that they were altered, that the schedules were changed, that slips were put in, and that this was of general occurrence. There is no use for hon. gentlemen to deny these facts, they are here in evidence and can be produced, and they know it perfectly well. Now I have nothing more to say in conclusion but this


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


James Clancy: Well, I know my hon. friend is impatient. I sympathize with my hon. friend. I am astonished at his moderation, under such circumstances, that he did not say ' hear, hear ' long ago.	,


Mr. BOYD.: Read him the evidence.


James Clancy: Well, I will not weary the hon. gentleman, I will not put such a strain upon him. I can only tell Mm that the record of the government in taking this census is a perfectly scandalous one, it is one over which the hon. gentlemen opposite should hang their heads in shame. I shall have much pleasure in supporting the amendment of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), and I shall expect that our friends opposite will do the same. If there ever was a motion brought up iu this House that invited the courage of hon. gentlemen, it is the motion of my hon. friend to censure the conduct of the government in making this census. Not only have they cost this enormous sum, but they are of little value in many respects. They were made in some cases by men declared to be so old that they could not walk about the streets, men as stated by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. COMMONS
Bell) who were mere voters'and were nearly past the voting age. I repeat that I shall be astonished if hon. gentlemen opposite do not support my hon. friend's motion.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Blain) :
 YEAS :
Messieurs
Hughes (Victoria),
Kidd,
Lancaster,
LaHivi&re,
Lavell,
MacLaren (Perth), McGowan,
McIntosh.
Northrup,
Richardson,
Robinson (Elgin),
Roche (Marquette), Sherritt,
Sproule,
Thomson (Grey),
Tolton,
Wilson.-35.
NAYS :
Messieurs
Bazinet.	Lovell,
Beith.	Loy.
Belcourt,	Macdonald,
Bernier,	Mackie,
Blair,	McCool,
Brown,	McCreary,
Brunean,	McEwen.
Bureau,	McGugan,
Campbell,	Mclsaac,
Christie.	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Copp,	Matheson,
Davis,	May rand.
Demers (St. John),	Mignault,
Desjardins,	Morrison,
Douglas,	Mulock (Sir William),
Emmerson,	Paterson.
Erb.	Prefontaine.
Fielding,	Proulx,
Fisher.	Reid (Restigoucbe),
Fitzpatrick,	Roche (Halifax),
Fortier,	Ross (Ontario),
Gallery,	Rousseau.
Gauvreau.	Russell,
Geoffrion.	Schell.
Gibson,	Scott,
Gould.	Stephens,
Grant,	Stewart,
Heyd,	Sutherland (Essex),
Holmes.	Talbot.
Kendall,	Tolmie.
Lang.	Tucker.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Turgeon,
Laurier (L'Assomption),	Wallace.
Lavergne,	Wright.-69.
LeBlanc,	
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Calvert,	Taylor,
Logan.	Lefurgey,
Hyrnan.	Gilmour.
Johnston (Lambton),	Simmons.
McColl.	Ward,
Fraser,	Bell,
Guthrie.	Porter,
Cowan,	Pringle,
Parmelee,	Pope.
Costigan,	Hale.
Tobin.	Ball.


James Clancy: Ross (Victoria),	Wilmot,
Oliver,	Culbert,
Harwood.	Maclean,
Champagne,	Casgrain,
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Kaulbach,
Lewis.	Vrooman.
McCarthy,	Barker,
Sifton,	Kendrey,
German,	Ganong,
Ethier.	Morin,
Lemieux,	Lennox.
Thompson (Haldimand and Monck),	Ingram,
Cartwright (Sir Richard)	Tupper (Sir C. H.),
Dyrnent,	McCormick.
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Harty,	Reid (Grenville),
Wade.	Smith (Wentworth),
Riley.	Earle,
Marcil (Bagot),	Monk.
Maclaren (Huntingdon),	Rosamond.
Sutherland (Oxford),	Haggart,
Delisle.	Johnston (Cardwell),
Borden (Sir Frederick),	Osier,
Hughes (P.E.I.),	Bennett,
Eickerdike.	Roddick,
Macpherson,	Kemp,
Ross (Yukon),	Bruce,
Smith (Vancouver),	Robinson (Northumberland),
Archambault.	Seagram,
Power.	Broder,
Girard.	Leonard.
Amendment negatived, motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
To cover cost of the extension of the coast service and surveys on the northern coast of Canada, $100,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do I understand that the government are still carrying on their expedition to ascertain the navigability of Hudson bay and straits ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is going on.
Department of Indian Affairs-contingencies -further amount required, $3,500.	[DOT]


The PRIME MINISTER.: This item of $3,500 is divided under two heads. The sum of $2,500 is required for printing the treaties which we have made with the several bands of Indians. These treaties have been collected in book form, but the edition is exhausted, and it is for the purpose of supplying a new issue of these treaties that this vote is required. Then there is the sum of $1,000 for printing and stationery generally. The amount provided for it at the present time is insufficient, and this additional amount has become indispensable.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I correct in understanding that the right bon. gentleman proposes to collate all the treaties in book form ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that would be a very convenient and a very proper thing to do.
North-west Mounted Police-salaries-to pay A. V. Joyce, junior second-class clerk, for one optional subject, $50.
Alcorn,
Avery,
Birkett,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyd,
Brock.
Calvin.
Carscallen,
Clancy,
Clare.
Clarke,
Cochrane,
Fowler,
Gourley,
Hackett.
Halliday.
Henderson.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This Mr. Joyce has passed the examination in one optional subject, and is therefore entitled to an increase of $50.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is he paid a certain sum for one optional subject ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Under the Civil Service Act, if one of the clerks passes an examination for a subject which is optional, such as typewriting or stenography, he becomes entitled, not as a matter of course, but in the discretion of the government, to an increase of $50.
To provide for the salary of a second-class clerk, E. P. Drake, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $1,200.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The circumstances under which this vote is required are as follows : Mr. Drake is a staff sergeant in the mounted police. He enlisted on the 14tli August, 1888. He has done work in the inside service, and is a very good officer. At the present time he receives $1,131.50, and it is proposed to give him an additional salary, which will raise liis salary to $1,200.


Robert Laird Borden: What service is he now in ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: He is In the inside service. He enlisted formerly as a constable and then became a sergeant, after which he was transferred to the inside service at Ottawa. He performs clerical work.


Robert Laird Borden: Does he take the place of any other clerk in the inside service, or is he an additional clerk ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, he is taking nobody's place. He has been transferred. At the present time he is not permanent. We intend to make him a permanent officer and give him a salary of $1,200. The increase will be the difference between $1,131.50 and $1,200.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where did he get $1,131 ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: At Ottawa. He has been in Ottawa for seven years.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not the appointment of an additional officer at all ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: And only a trifling addition in salary ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.
Department of the Interior-salaries-amount underestimate! in two junior class clerkships, $212.50.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This $212.50 is to provide for increases in the salaries of Mr. Beauchamp and Miss Mary Guthrie. Mr. Beauchamp was appointed a junior second-class clerk on the 1st July, 1902, at a salary [DOT] of $600 per annum. He had passed, prior 431
to his appointment, in two optional subjects, stenography and typewriting, and therefore it was decided to grant him $50 for each optional, in accordance with the rule of the service. That will raise his salary from $600 to $700. Then, the same explanation applies to the case of Miss Guthrie. Miss Guthrie was appointed by Order in Council on the 1st April, 1903, as a junior second-class clerk, vice J. P. Dunne, promoted, and as she then had passed in two optional subjects, stenography and typewriting, her salary was fixed at $700 per annum. When preparing the main estimates for the next fiscal year provision was made to fill the position left vacant by the promotion of Mr. Dunne by a second-class clerk at a salary of $600, and it is necessary to ask for $100 to be voted to cover the amount of her salary. Miss Guthrie will, on . the 1st April, 1904, be entitled to the statutory increment of her class, and in three months from the 30th June, 1904, she will be entitled to an extra amount of $12.50. This makes up the amount of $212.50.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are starting with pretty good salaries.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The statute provides that the initial salary should be $600, and the statute gives her $700, she having passed two optional subjects. It is a statutory right.
Pour additional second-class clerks, one at $650, and three at $600 each, $2,450.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This amount is required as follows : S. W. Hobart, who has been on the temporary staff since January, 1900, and who has passed in one optional subject, $650 ; J. B. Duhamel, employed as temporary messenger and clerk since September, 1903, $600 ; M. P. Morris, appointed February, 1900, $600 ; Wm. Bailey, new appointment, $600.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many of these are new appointments ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is only one who now comes into the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the rest have been appointed quite recently ?


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose as the business of the department increases the number of clerks will have to be increased, but it is desirable that we should know exactly what additions have been made during the past six or seven years.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will allow the item to stand for a moment, and perhaps the deputy minister will be able to furnish me the information.
Item allowed to stand.
Salaries and, expenses of mines branch,


The PRIME MINISTER.: The general and immediate object of the work of this branch to be the collection and publication


Robert Laird Borden: Is it proposed to avail of the present staff of the department for this branch ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think it is to be an annex of the Geological Department. This is the memo, placed in my hand by the minister before he left for England. To accomplish this object we require a staff of experts to collect data, make reports, and furnish reliable assays and analyses of the economic minerals of the country. I presume the staff would assist the technical


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: officers, but I also presume it will require some addition to the present staff.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this branch to be under the head of the Geological Survey 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, Dr. Haanel, superintendent of mines, will be at the head of this branch.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is the creation of a new branch. Will the right hon. gentleman tell us how many will be employed in that branch and the salaries they will get 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not more than two or three besides the superintendent, all experts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And next year you will require two or three more.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Possibly, but although this is a growing time, it is our intention at present to limit it to the superintendent and not more than two or three experts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What salaries do you propose to pay these experts 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who will be the man in charge 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: Dr. Haanel, the superintendent of mining.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is his salary to be ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The vote now asked will not go to pay his salary. He is already employed in the department, but it is proposed, in addition to the duties he now has to perform, that we shall establish such a bureau and place under him two, and perhaps three experts and no more.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is his salary now 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: How far is it permissible to establish a branch like that without any amendment to the law 7 Have you the right to establish all the branches you think it wise to establish without the authority of law, simply making it a departmental matter 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no doubt that with this amount of money voted by parliament the government has perfect authority to create such a work, but it will last only one year. Unless it is provided next year it will lapse, ipso facto; it cannot be continued from year to year as it could if it were established by statute.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take it that the more proper way would be to establish a branch by statute.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think it would be preferable to establish it this way. It is experimental and may not prove conclusively satisfactory and therefore I think it better to do it in this way. If it works well perhaps the idea of my .hon. friend will then be adopted but at the present time I think my hon. friend will agree that it is better to have it as it is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We already have a statistical branch and as this is simply collecting statistics along another line I do not see why this should not be added to the statistical branch.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is collecting statistics on another line of a very special character, and as it is stated in the memorial I presented to the House it is proposed to issue a volume to be entitled : ' The Mineral Resources of Canada.' I doubt very much if we would have in the Department of Agriculture a staff of' such special knowledge and competence as to collect the information which is to be included in this volume. It will require the services of expert mineralogists to perform this work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me it would be the easiest matter in the world to appoint an expert on this subject to the statistical branch.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not say my hon. friend may not be right.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that if you are to create a sub-department of the Department of the Interior called the mines branch, it would be necessary to have a statute eventually; I think the hon. member for East Grey is perfectly correct about that. I would like to know what Dr. Haanel's position is at present; what are his duties in the Department of the Interior, how long has he been in the department and what have been his duties up to the present time ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Dr. Haanel has been in the employment of the government as superintendent of mining for three or four years, my impression is four years. He has been performing duties, an account of which will be found in the report of the Minister of the Interior, he has been collecting material, looking after the different interests in mining, looking after the establishment of an assay office in Vancouver and cognate subjects. He has made an annual report of his work.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as mining iii my own province is concerned I have not heard of any efforts on his part; it may be that he has done something about the assay office at Vancouver. My hon. friend's description of his duties seems to be rather vague; the mere fact that he is superintendent of mining does not convey much information unless we know his duties and what he has accomplished. Has he superin-431*
tended the construction of the assay office or what has he done in connection with it V


The PRIME MINISTER.: He established the assay office, bought the machinery, had charge of the work of construction and has carried on everything in regard to the establishment of the office. I am sorry to say that I am not as familiar with his report as 1 might be.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I quite understand that it is very hard to become familiar with the work of the assay office at Vancouver. I tried to gain admission to it, and although I disclosed my identity as a member of this House I was refused admission.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That I suppose was under regulations.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I do not know that there should be any such regulations.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the condition of your office at iiresent, is it in operation '!


The PRIME MINISTER.: It has been in operation about two years.


Robert Laird Borden: What has Dr. Haanel been doing during the two years since the office was completed ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: He has full charge of it and superintends its management. The duties of Dr. Haanel are certainly; more important than my hon. friends opposite are disposed to believe. The mining development of this country is increasing very fast and Dr. Haanel, as I am informed, is very often communicated with by people from all parts of the country to examine samples and mines, and his labours I understand, have been of great value and assistance.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not finding fault with his labours; I am trying to find out what he really has done, and I realize that my right hon. friend is not familiar with the department as the Minister of the Interior would be, but he has the information at his hand and possibly we can succeed in getting at something. I have not heard anything that this gentleman has done in my province, but he may have done a great deal somewhere else, and I would like to know what it is. The work which my hon. friend has described has, so far as I am aware, hitherto been done by the officers of the Geological Survey, and I do not know that this gentleman had taken any part in it. Will my right hon. friend tell us what the qualifications of Dr. Haanel are for the work ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: He was at first professor in the University of Victoria at Cobourg and then at Syracuse, N.Y. The report of Dr. Haanel will be found on page 17 of the Sessional Papers of 1902, No. 25.

1376S


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Wliat impresses me is the fact that you have no authority for the organization of this branch.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The office of superintendent of the mining branch was established three or four years ago, and we are not creating a new office.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I remember correctly, the office established was that of superintendent of the mines, which has no connection with this.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am informed by my deputy that Mr. Pearce was for many years superintendent of mines. It is not a new office. Mr. Pearce, who has a very wide range of knowledge of the geology of the territories, has been made chief inspector of the surveys there, and Dr. Haanel was appointed in his place.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know Mr. Pearce very well and he appears to be a sort of itinerant in his duties, as he has held many offices. He has now assumed the dignity of head of a branch office, and no doubt he will soon be surrounded by a dozen clerks.
Mi-. BORDEN (Halifax). It seems to me that the head of a branch of this kind should have practical knowledge. I would ask my right hon. friend what practical experience or training Dr. Haanel has had 1


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My recollection of Dr. Haanel is that he is a distinguished graduate of a university in Germany and was professor of mineralogy and geology in Victoria University, when that university became affiliated with Toronto University, it ceased to maintain the chair of mineralogy and geology, and in that way it lost the services of Db. Haanel. I have heard the late Chancellor Nellis of Victoria University speak in the highest terms of Professor Haanel.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 do not know anything thing about Dr. Haanel. I do not think I have ever heard of him before, and that was why I was anxious to find out what were his qualifications to preside over this mines branch. What you require in that position is a man that has not only theoretical but practical knowledge, and a man, in the prime of life at least, and I would prefer a young man. We should not be satisfied with selecting some gentleman who has occupied a theoretical chair at'some university, but who would not be likely to give the practical service which a branch of tin's kind demands. If we are to spend money for this very important service, it is, of course, desirable, as my right hon. friend will recognize, that we should have the very best man we can procure at the head of it. It is of no use to establish it otherwise. This is the reason I make these inquiries.
I shall be very glad to recognize Dr. Haa-nel's ability w-hen I understand that he possesses the qualifications necessary for the I Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
office. But it is our duty to find out something about him as this vote contemplates a very important addition to the service, and that is the reason why I think we should have a little more knowledge as to his qualifications than has been given to us this evening.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am obliged to my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) for giving information which I had not myself. I know Dr. Haanel, having met him once or twice. As things go, he is in the prime of life-I think about fifty-five or thereabouts. According to the Postmaster General, he has a good record. All the information I have of him is that he is an excellent man for the place, that, none better could be found.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that he was not even a British subject, but a naturalized citizen of the United States.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He has been in the United States a long time.


The PRIME MINISTER.: He is a Canadian.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He lived here for many years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But he Jived in the United States afterwards.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I know nothing about his career since he separated from the University of Victoria. But for many years he was one of their strong professors, as I have stated.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose my hon. friend (Hon. Sir William Mulock) is a graduate of the University of Victoria ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I graduated from that university, but I never heard of Dr. Haanel. Of course, that was many years ago.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) suggests the flight of years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the employees in this branch come under the provisions of the Civil Service Act ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is just where the trouble comes in. It seems to me that [DOT]when you establish an additional branch, it ought to be established under the law, and its employees should come under the Civil Service Act, and be in every sense a branch of the civil service.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) knows that in the Railway Department and in the Public Works Department there are officers, engineers especially, who have been in the department

for fifteen or twenty years and do not come under the Civil Service Rule. We know Mr. Douglas, engineer of the Railway Department is one of these. Such officers do not contribute to the pension fund, and do not belong to the civil .service regularly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Civil Service Act provides for technical branches.


Tlie PRIME MINISTER.: These officers are provided for from year to year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My recollection is that such officers are included under the Act.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, I am satisfied that more than half the engineers of the department are appointed from year to year or from half year to half year.


Edward Cochrane: When was the report made from which the Prime Minister quoted ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: This report was submitted to the minister on the 1st of December, 1902.


Edward Cochrane: Is this the first report he has made ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.
Four additional junior second-class clerks, one at $650 and three at $600 each, $2,450.


The PRIME MINISTER.: With regard to the question put by my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax), I am informed by the deputy minister that the number of permanent appointments made to the service in the Department of the Interior during the last four years is between fifteen and twenty.


Robert Laird Borden: What are the duties of the officers appointed-are they entirely clerical ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Entirely clerical.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the cause of so great an increase in the mere clerical work ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am informed that the work has doubled up in the last three years. I am satisfied that in the lands branch alone the business has more than trebled, more than quadrupled.


Edward Cochrane: Where has the Prime Minister located his new officers ? He used to tell us years ago that the departments were full.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am very sorry to say that we have been obliged to rent a great many buildings in the city.


Edward Cochrane: Yes, unfortunately- we know that.
Geological Survey-to provide for the salary of one second-class clerk, $1,100.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is to provide a salary for a second-class clerk, Mr. McKinnon. He has been fourteten years in the department and was engaged until three years ago in a clerical capacity, though officially of lower rank. He was promoted to second-class clerk, July, 1900. For the last three seasons he has been assistant to Sir. Hugh Fletcher in surveys in Nova Scotia, and during the winter compiled the work done in the field. Mr. Fletcher recommends him as a good surveyor and draughtsman. This item is to provide his salary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is promotion for him. Who takes his place ?


Edward Cochrane: Some greenhorn, I suppose.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Nobody, that I know of-unless some greenhorn, as the hon. gentleman suggests.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I presume his place will be filled. What was his salary before ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: He was at the maximum of his class, and was receiving $1,000. This will give him an additional $100. He is transferred from one class to another which necessitates the voting of his salary. I am glad to say it will not be necessary to put even a greenhorn in his place, as he simply continues with a higher salary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the office he occupied abolished ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: He is not abolished.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the government have already provided in the estimates a salary for this position. The Prime Minister says that is not to be filled, yet another salary is being provided.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The salary will not be paid if the place is not filled.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But why vote money that is not wanted ? That is not a businesslike way of making up the estimates.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I admit that.


Robert Laird Borden: Accordiug to the facts given by the Prime Minister, we shoidd be asked to vote only $100.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That seems a fair objection. Let the item stand.
Item allowed to stand.
To pay A. P. Low, a technical officer, 12 months from July 1st, $2,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Low was formerly attached to the Geological Survey, and resigned some years ago. He has recently been reengaged, but his engagement was subsequent to the date that the main estimates were approved of, and his salary could not then be provided for. He was for twenty years employed in the Geological Survey, and resigned in June, 1901. In

February last lie returned to the Survey in order to take charge of the Hudson bay expedition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have here the Civil Service Act, and I am inclined to think that the First Minister puts a strained interpretation on it. It says that the ' Civil Service Act shall include and consist of all classes of employees in or under the several branches of the executive government and in the office of the Auditor General,' and included in subsections. A and B. Subsection A mentions deputy heads and officers who have special qualifications, including in that term, I suppose, draughtsmen and civil engineers. But I understood the right hou. gentleman to say that half the men employed in the public works do not coine under the Civil Service Act.


The PRIME MINISTER.: They can come under it, undoubtedly, but what I had in rny mind was the regular service, in which all the officers are admitted to the responsibilities and advantages of the Act, participating for instance in the retirement fund. I repeat that there are many officers, engineers, in the Public Works Department and in the Railways Department, who do not contribute to the pension fund, and who properly do not come under the terms of the Civil Service Act. A good many do, but quite a number do not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They come under it so far as promotion and salaries go, though they do not participate in the retirement allowance. But as I always understood the Act, it does not say they ' may.' It says that all classes of the employees in the government of Canada or in the office of the Auditor General, appointed by Order in Council, ' shall ' come under it. Schedule A mentions the deputy heads and officers who have special technical qualifications, chief clerks, first, second and third-class clerks, and messengers. Then, going on, schedule B mentions the officers in the Customs and Inland Revenue. I always understood that not only they must come under it, but all the promotions must be made under the Act.
The PRIME MINISTER, No, the Civil Service Act, as my hon. friend knows, is full of mysteries, and for my part I have never had time to undertake to master it. There are a certain number of engineers who do not come under the terms of this Act so far as salaries, promotions, and pensions are concerned. They are technical officers so-called, who have been appointed long ago, some of whom to my knowledge have been in the service for more than 35 years, and are still there, and have to be appointed evex-y six months.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the reason my right hon. friend put in so many of these expressions ' Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,' is that he


Wilfrid Laurier: has always regarded that Act as a mystery. That is an explanation of it that I never quite appreciated before. In regard to this Item for Mi'. Low-, was not provision made for these technical officers in the vote for the Geological Survey ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No. The estimates were prepared before Mr. Low returned to the service. He came back to the service for a special object, that is, to take charge of the expedition to the Hudson bay. His salary was not provided for in the main estimates, and that is the reason we ask for it now. As to this there is no mystery.
Additional amount required to meet the salary of one technical officer, $350.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is Mi'. Joseph Kelly, who has been employed in the department since 1897. This increase, with the $50, voted in the main estimates, l'aises his salary to $1,500.
Office of the High Commissioner for Canada in England-to increase the salary of C. J. Taylor to $1,700, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $100.
To pay E. Churchouse, a junior second-class clerk, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $750.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is to carry out a l'ecommendation made to me by the High Commissioner. One of the officers, Mr. Reynolds, has been superannuated, and this is to promote Mr. Taylor. The High Commissioner writes me that Mr. Taylor's salary last year was $1,550, and Mr. Col-mer, befoi'e his resignation, recommended him for an addition of $50, making his pay $1,600 for 1903-4. But in consideration of his becoming assistant seci'etary, the High Commissioner recommends that his salary be made $1,700. He also recommends that Mr. Churchouse be appointed. Mr. Churchouse has been in the office for eleven years, and is expei't at shorthand and typewriting. The government think it well to carry out these recommendations of the High Commissioner. We could not do so unless wTe made use of this expression ' Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Sex'vice Act.' If we followed the Civil Service Act, we could not give an increase to Mr. Taylor of more than $50.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you use the same expression in regard, to Mr. Churchouse ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Because he has passed the age of 35, at which he could be appointed under the Civil Service Act. He is now 36 years of age. We appoint him on -the recommendation of the Hifeh Co-missioner.
Dominion lands chargeable to income-further amount required for salaries for outside service, $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are you doing in the Dominion lands service this year ? Is

it intended to send out as many surveyors as last year or more ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: More. When the estimates for the next fiscal year 1903-4 were framed in October last it was thought, according to the then existing condition, that the sum of $105,900 would be sufficient to pay the salaries of the Dominion lands outside service officers for the fiscal year 1903.
Since then a great many changes have taken place owing to the large number of settlers coming into the North-west. New clerks were appointed to the several land offices to enable them to keep pace with the increased work and sub-agents were placed at the different points to facilitate government transactions with settlers. I can give the detailed information, but perhaps I shall not be required to do so. I have a statement here showing the amount that is required to pay salaries of the Dominion lands outside and inside service for the fiscal year 1903-4 according to the pay-list as it existed on the 25th June last. It is as follows :
J. G. Turriff, commissioner.. ..$3,000	00
T. R. Burpee, chief clerk.. .. 2,300	00
F. F. Dixon, clerk	
1,500	00S. Maber	
1,200	00A. Kemeys-Tynte	
800	00A. C. Kelly	
480	00


Miss   L.@: May	 527	Q0


Miss   J.@: Orme	 467	50


Mrs.  M. E.@: Mullhall	
497	50Miss Mabel Campbell	
467	50


Mrs.  M. E.@: Haanel	 3,000	00


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is not that the gentleman we have been taking the vote for in connection with the mines branch ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, the salaries of all these officers have been voted in the main estimates, but I am giving the details in order to show that beyond the amount in (he main estimates we require $10,000 which is necessitated by the increased work in the department.


Robert Laird Borden: This is the outside sendee ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is all outside service.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend was reading the salaries of a number of ladies. What have they to do with the outside service ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I was giving to my hon. friend the salaries which had been already voted in the estimates, but to give a full explanation of what is required I would have to read about three pages of statistics showing item by item all that is required for the inside and outside service. What we require now for the outside service is $10,000 more, but I was giving the total expenditure which is to be made in the department for both inside and outside service. The outside and inside service will require this year $115,000 instead of $105,000
which was at first estimated. This is necessitated by the additional work that has to be performed in the Department of the Interior chiefly on account of the increased development in the lands branch.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The right hon. Prime Minister in reading that list gave us the name of Dr. Haanel who is provided for as the head of the mines branch. I drew attention to the fact that in the mines branch we voted his salary but the right hon. gentleman said ' no.' I understood the list of salaries which the hon. gentleman read was for the lands branch.
The- PRIME MINISTER. The salaries, the list of which I was reading are not at all salaries to be voted. I was giving the salaries which had been voted in the main estimates. In order to make this letter intelligible I commenced to read the list but it would take too long to give all the details of the expenditure which is to be made in the Department of the Interior upon this special branch of work. The amount which was estimated for this branch was $105,000 but it is now found that the branch will require $115,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The right hon. Prime Minister mentioned amongst those that are in that branch the name of Dr. Haanel and his salary is voted in the main estimates. Now, he is transferred to the mining branch and we have voted his salary again.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We voted $10,000 for the mines branch and Dr. Haanel is at the head of the mines branch for which we voted salaries.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That $10,000 is to cover the salaries and expenses in connection with the mines branch, but it does , not provide for the salary of Dr. Haanel. Dr. Haanel is already provided for.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the right lion, gentleman must be a little in error in bis figures. We have an increase of $10,000 for the outside service. It would not be unreasonable to ask for information as to how this money will be applied. I think we should know for what purpose this money is to be expended. I would gather from what the right hon. gentleman said that the vote this year is to be only $10,000 more this year than last year. If my right hon. friend will look at the main estimates he will see that there is an increase of $12,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Possibly.


Robert Laird Borden: So that by adding that to his further $10,000 we have an increase of $22,000 for this service of the Department of the Interior. If you go back to last year you will find that the amount voted was $168,782, and you have increases aggregating $53,000 for Dominion lands ' chargeable to income. I am not including

Dominion lands chargeable to capital. It seems to me that an increase of $53,000 upon an expenditure of $168,782 is one that demands more explanation.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am sorry to say that I cannot give more information than I have given already as to why this amount is required. I am informed by the department that the increase of business has been such as to require this additional service. I am sorry that the information which has been placed in my hand has not been placed perhaps in such a manner as I would have liked to have had it. I have here information with respect to the total vote of $115,000, whereas I should have had the detailed information with regard to this $10,000. I can give the names of the gentlemen and all the details.


Robert Laird Borden: That would not afford much information, because we would not know whether-these gentlemen were additional officers or whether their salaries are increased. What we want to know is : To what purpose are you going to apply the $12,000 that has already been voted in addition to the vote of last year, and also details as to the additional vote of $10,000? My right hon. friend would not add anything to the information given by the Minister of the Interior on the previous vote. The officers of the department must know what they are going to do with the money.


The PRIME MINI STER.: I have no fault to find ; we will let the item stand and 1 will get the information.
Item allowed to stand.
Further amount required for protection of timber and tree planting, $15,000.


Robert Laird Borden: We have al-.ready voted this year an additional sum of $10,000. Last year the total vote was $15,000; this year we have already voted $25,000, and we are now asked for $15,000 more. The purpose of this vote commends itself to most hon. gentlemen in the House, but we would like to have details of the increased expenditure. I saw some of the work which is being done in the west las't year, and I was much impressed with it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will let the item stand to get the information.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I am glad that the right hon. the Prime Minister is disposed to give the details. On Friday night one of the ministers refused to give us any details as regards the expenditure of a vote. I claim that the minister should tell us what he expected to do with the money, but he absolutely refused.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think he was so much to blame, because I think he did not know.
Item allowed to stand.
Mr. BORDEN CHalifax),
Further amount required for surveys, examination of survey returns, printing of plans, &c., $320,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I would remind the right hon. gentleman that we have already voted $430,000, and now we are asked for $320,000 more. The vote last year was $360,000, so that the total increase this year is $390,000, or about 110 per cent more than was voted last year.


The PRIME MINISTER.: When the main estimates were prepared last fall, it was thought that $430,000 would be sudlcient, but the great influx of settlers from the United States and Europe, has made it imperative upon us to provide homesteads, and it was decided that this $320,000 should be inserted in the supplementary estimates, to sub-divide a sufficient number of townships to meet the wants of immigration. It is proposed to survey 500 new townships during the next fiscal year. At present, in south-eastern Manitoba there is one party under daily pay ; in the Yorkton district, one party under daily pay, renewing surveys ; between Lake Winnipeg and Manitoba one party under daily pay ; north of Battleford, two parties under daily pay ; in the Edmonton district, one party renewing surveys; in the Red Deer district, one party ; McLeod district, one party ; Rocky mountains, one party ; in British Columbia, two parties; and on unforeseen surveys, five parties. In the division of townships between Fort Perry and eastern Assiniboia and Edmonton, there are 60 contracts at $8,000 each, making $612,000 in all. The balance is for the following purposes :	Inspection of
surveys, $10,000; irrigation surveys, $20,000; Yukon surveys, $45,000; employees at Ottawa. $60,000; miscellaneous, $10,000. The total, $750,000. During the last twelve months 120,000 immigrants have gone in, and I think all will agree that this expenditure is absolutely Imperative.


Robert Laird Borden: How many immigrants did the right hon. gentleman say have gone in ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Over 120,000 during the past fiscal year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are these sixty contracts let on schedule prices.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are they subdividing, or just blocking out townships ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Subdividing. The pay varies according to the country, from $7 to $25.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have raised the minimum pay $2.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I dare say, but it is a growing time.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that immigration which the right hon. gentleman speaks

of in the territories alone, or in Manitoba and the territories, or in the whole of Canada ?	_


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is for the whole of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any estimate by the officers of the department as to how much of this immigration went to the territories ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: About and over 110,000 for Manitoba and the North-west Territories.	.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no estimate, I suppose, as between Manitoba and the North-west Territories 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have a very distinct recollection of some animated discussions in this House with regard to the extravagance of using less than $300,000 for surveys. It was then said that lands were being surveyed that were not occupied and that it would be necessary later on to hunt uip the lines; yet now we are doing exactly the same thing. The salaries are apparently higher than those then paid and there are now sixteen government parties out and sixty contracts, seventy-six all told.


Mr. SCOTT.: And imore are called for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And more are called for; well, it is a very good thing the hon. gentleman is so well satisfied now; his friends were not so easily satisfied a few years ago.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend would admit that we would be liable to be accused of being remiss in our duty if we did not provide facilities for incoming immigrants so that they may at once locate on homesteads. It may be that we have some divided lands that are not occupied, but I do not think we can very well cease surveying. All of the lots divided are not fit for settlement and the immigrants have a right to choose their land ; but on the whole we cannot go back on this work and I think my hon. friend will admit on reflection that it is a work of imperative necessity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have practically no information with regard to the salary or as to the value of the contracts. They are from $7 to $27. That is a sliding scale which is practically equivalent to no information at all and on which you cannot make any calculation. What do you give your surveyors now for a day's work 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And found ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I noticed in a western paper the other day an allegation that the iron stakes which are used to mark the corners of the lots for settlement were being used for certain culinary purposes by
parties who are camping out; they were being used for the purpose of hanging camp kettles and things of that kind and, if as my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) says, the stakes are sometimes pulled up, attention should be given to this by the department. I do not know' that the officers of the department have had information or not.


The PRIME MINISTER.: They have had information and have been obliged to give notice of prosecution if this is not stopped.
To provide for engraving, lithographing, printing, &e., to bring out maps of work already done, $10,500.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This item is explained by the words of the resolution; it is to cover the cost of engraving and lithographing maps, some of which are now in the hands of the engraver and others yet to be sent. These maps are chiefly of the Haliburton district, the country around Pembroke, Brockville, Sudbury, Copper Cliff, Boundary, the Klondike, and so on, different parts of the country of which maps are prepared.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where are your maps made 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: They are lithographed here by the Federal Press Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are any of these made in the United States 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am not aware of any and I do not think so, but I can inquire.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I heard a remark to that effect; I know the Minister of the Interior got out some of his maps in Chicago and it seems to me we should have brains enough to get them out here in Canada.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think so, and this vote, so far as I know, .contemplates Canadian and not American work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the right hon. Prime Minister be good enough to ascertain whether it will be so 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will.
To pay for metallurgical, petrographical and clerical assistance. (Salaries greater than $400 per annum may be paid from this vote, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act), $5,300.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is to pay the salaries of the metallurgist and the as-sayer, Mr. Connor, and Mr. O. E. Leroy, the petographer. Both of these gentlemen do technical work. The balance of the vote is to meet sundry clerical work in connection with the department.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is the assayer employed ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: He is here in the Geological Survey.


Robert Laird Borden: Has he anything to do with the assay office ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Who is in charge of the assay office at Victoria ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. McCaffrey.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes. The next item is.$600, to pay the expenses of an inquiry into the cause of the disaster at Prank. Messrs. Connell and Brock made this inquiry.
Indians-Ontario and Quebec-to provide an amount for the repair of roads, $2,100.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why are these roads being built ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: To explain that, I must explain also the next vote :
To provide an amount for squatters' improvements, Doncaster reserve, $11,325.
The township of Doncaster, in the county of Montcalm, district of Terrebonne, was set apart as an Indian reserve in 1853, for the Iroquois, of Oka and Caughnawaga. But, strange to say, the Indians never took possession of the reserve. They have never lived there, never made any settlement-have not even exercised the right of hunting there. As the country developed, squatters settled on the lands. These squatters applied for a title to the government at Quebec. When the matter was looked into the government at Quebec were obliged to inform these applicants that they could not give them a title, as the township was an Indian reserve. So, the squatters applied to the government at Ottawa for a title. We applied to the Indians at Caughnawaga and Oka to see if they would surrender their rights and take another reserve. But the Indians would not grant a transfer of the land. They insisted upon their rights, even to the extent of the dislodging of the whites. We made several applications to the Indians and the question was the subject of several conferences. We offered them land in some other parts of the country. Still, they insisted that the land belonged to them and would not surrender it, but called upon the Indian Department to dislodge the white settlers. We came to the conclusion that we were helpless in the matter, and would have to dislodge the whites. We could not do so without compensating the settlers. That is why we ask this appropriation of $11,325-to compensate the settlers for their improvements. This item with regard to the building of roads arises out of the same difficulty. The condition of things is particularly unfortunate, because there is a settlement all around the reserve as well as in the reserve itself. To keep faith with the Indians we must dislodge the white settlers in the township and to do that we must compensate the settlers, and also we must cut roads across Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the reserve for the benefit of the people around the reserve.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who valued these improvements ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We sent first an officer of the department who made a valuation ; then sent another officer to review the work of the .first. The second officer we sent was Mr. Samuel Bray, chief surveyor. I have here a total statement of the valuation as follows :
Israel Thouin.-Lives at the north-west angle of the reserve. The boundary line Is indefinite. It is quite probable that all the buildings and a great portion of the clearings are not on the reserve.
Log house on stone foundation, clap-boarded in front and one side plastered and well finished ; driving shed.
House and shed together	$1,000
Barn 65 x 42	 400
Butter factory building	
[DOT] [DOT]	100Sixty-two acres cleared and	well	fenced.	930Orchard	
75Clearing on range 5	
100Allowed for moving ' butter-making machinery	
150Allowed for water conduit and special fencing	
245
This is the amount Mr. Israel Thouin gave Mr. McKenna, and it appears to be a very fair valuation.
Isidore Legault.-This claim is now occupied by ex-Councillor Frank Tiiez from Caughnawaga. The owner was absent. He has returned ; Tirez refused to let	him	have	the
building. The improvements are on lots 33 and 34, range 5 :
Log house and small outbuildings. $130
Barn and shed	 100
42 acres cleared	 570
Total	$800
This is the same valuation given to Mr. McKenna.
Napoleon Constantineau.-Improvements are
on lot 36, range 6 :
Log house and small addition.. .. $100
Barn	   100
Land, 15 acres, well cleared.. ..	180
12 acres, clearing	 320
Small clearing	at the rear of lot.. 4u
Total	540
The valuation given to Mr. McKenna was $700.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think we get a great deal of information from that. The valuation for clearing land would be about so much and the buildings would be valued according to their quality.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I was giving this information to show that the department has taken every precaution, the first valuation having been confirmed with very slight variations by the second valuator. As I said a moment ago, there is nothing else that we can do but what we are doing. We

have to keep faith with the Indians. The land is theirs. On the other hand the settlers have gone* in on good faith, and, if they have to he removed, we have to ask for an appropriation to compensate them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could you charge anything to the Indian Department for the improvements made ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am afraid not. these Indians have but a very small fund.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Prime Minister told us that the Oka Indians were interested in this land. Are these the Indians of Oka, whom the government have been removing to another locality for the last twenty years ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: A number of them were removed to a reserve on the Georgian bay, but they have all returned to Oka.
Contribution on behalf of the Rama Indians towards expenses on roads and bridges in the township of Rama, $2,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is the old settled municipality-it has been settled for forty or fifty years. Does the government still keep up roads there ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is one of the cases where we have to keep up roads. It so happens that the reserve is not a compact block, but separate blocks, with Intervening blocks settled by white men. Where alternate parcels of land are occupied by white settlers and Indians, the municipality have no control over the reserve, and it is found impossible to maintain the regular system of roads. The same influence operates against a regular school system, as the children of the whites have to cross part of the reserve to reach the school, and this makes it difficult, practically impossible to maintain the schools on account of the inconvenience and extra expense.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know the locality very well, and, no doubt, the difficulty with regard to the road is very considerable.
Nova Scotia-to provide an amount for the purchase of lands for reserves, $800.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is for the purchase of 76 acres of wood land in Colchester county which the Indians require for cultivation and for fuel.


Robert Laird Borden: I think more attention might be given to some of these matters in Nova Scotia. I informed the department two years ago that certain lands reserved for Indians in the county of Halifax, and which were not used by the Indians, could be disposed of for a fair sum, but in the meantime they were being cut over by lumbermen and no precautions were being taken to prevent it. It seems to me that it would be better for the department to look after lands of that kind and see
that they are not used for lumbering operations by other people. If it is considered too expensive to provide safeguards for that purpose, it would be better to sell the lands. For example, you are buying land in Colchester county and paying a certain sum of money for it, and if I am correctly informed, there is land in the county of Halifax reserved for the Indians but which is not used by them, and the value of which is being materially depreciated. It is better to do something with it, exchange it, sell it, dispose of it, but do not let it be ruined.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The department would like to follow the suggestion of my hon. friend, but he knows that the first condition is to ob'tain a surrender of the land from the Indians. They are always averse to surrendering anything they have. I understand they are scattered all over the territory, and it is difficult to get them to agree. The question has been taken up several times by the department and they find that difficulty.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that the case with regard to the lands that are not occupied by the Indians, and are not actually in use 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: It applies to all reserves. The land cannot be disposed of without their consent.


Robert Laird Borden: It is an awkward state of affairs, because in the meantime the land is useless and is deteriorating.
Indians-New Brunswick-to provide an additional amount for salaries, $100.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is to provide an increase of salary for Mr. W. B. Carter, who has charge of a large number of Indians. He is an active and competent officer.
To pay for damages by fire on the Indian reserve, Bdmundston, $100.


The PRIME MINISTER.: While clearing lands the Indians started fires on three occasions. in 1893. in 1894 and in 1895, which spread on to the property of Mr. Bernier, and destroyed his farm-house and fences.
Indians-Manitoba and North-west Territories-to provide an additional amount for implements, $1,500.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is to purchase seed drills for the Touchwood Hills agency, and one threshing machine for the Duck Lake agency.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the main estimates that vote was reduced by 84.288 and there was some jubilation in consequence. The amount of agricultural implements there was $7,540, instead of $12,237 the year before. Now you come again in the supplementary estimates and ask for an additional amount. This has occurred so many times that I think a little more common sense and business methods might be exercised in the

preparation of tlie main estimates. We have to take a vote over twice, both in the main estimates and the supplementary estimates, that ought to appear in the main estimates alone, and then we would know the full amount we are giving. It would save time and make the book-keeping much more simple.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I agree with what the hon. gentleman says, and I shall report it to the minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I am complaining of is that we make the work double for ourselves. The main estimates ought to contain all that is required for the year. The main estimates this year must have been made up from the experience of last year, they were all submitted to council some time last winter. Surely it ought to be known from the experience of last year about what was required in every one of these lines? I could understand that accidentally something might he overlooked. But I find with regard to these items in Manitoba and the North-west Territories that the very same lines, agricultural implements, seed, livestock, clothing, cattle, surveys and schools, all appear in the main estimates.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The explanation is that the demands come early in the fall when the main estimates are prepared, but other demands come in afterwards. In the case of these agencies at Touchwood Hills and Duck Lake, I understand the applications came in too late for the main estimates. But we cannot leave them unprovided for, and hence the necessity for the supplementary estimates.
Additional amount tor triennial clothing,


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is provided for under treaty No. 8. This estimate came after the main estimates had been prepared. They were made after the inspector's return and could not have been provided for earlier.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You give the Indians a supply of clothing every three years. Can the minister say what Indians have been supplied each year, because they are not all supplied the same year ? Surely it Would have been as easy to take those who have not been supplied and send them in altogether?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The deputy commissioner informs me that it would be impossible to know the number of outfits that have to be provided until the inspector makes his report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But he makes two reports.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The inspector leaves in the spring and does not return to civilization until late in the fall. That is the reason why we cannot obtain his report earlier.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To provide an additional amount for surveys, $2,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For surveys ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Owing to the large amount of survey work being done iy Manitoba and the North-west Territories, tilt vote in the main estimates, $5,000, will be completely exhausted at the close of the year's operations. It is proposed to use the $2,000 to get the surveyors into the field early in the spring of 1904, so as to make the best possible use of their services.


Robert Laird Borden: Are not the reservations all surveyed before this ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The reserve is set aside in a general way and we may not be required to make a survey for a long time until approaching settlement makes it necessary. That is the reason why surveys have been made from time to time.
To provide an additional amount for schools, $3,736.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where are these schools that require an additional amount ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: To provide an amount to build a laundry at Rupert's Land Industrial School to replace the one destroyed by fire, one thousand dollars is required. To provide for the rebuilding of the laundry at the Battleford Industrial School lately destroyed by fire, $1,500 is required. To provide a grant towards the maintenance of a boarding school at Albany, on James' bay, $300. To provide for eight extra pupils at $75 at the Isle a la Crosse boarding school. $576 ; and to provide for five extra pupils at Thunder Child boarding school, $360, making altogether $3,736.
To provide an additional amount for general expenses (from which payments may be made to Dr. C. H. West, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act), $2,200.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you put it in that way ? Dr. West does not come under the Civil Service Act, does he ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Dr. West is an inspector of the North-west Mounted Police in charge of the Athabasca district, and as such receives a salary of $1,000 per annum. It is proposed to continue his services ns medical attendant to the Indians of Treaty No. 8, and to pay him a salary of $1,200 therefor. Dr. West accompanies Inspector Conroy on his trips and gives medical relief to the Indians attending the treaty payment. Being a resident of the district he also attends all cases of sickness which are brought to his attention amongst those Indians.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does that cover medicines as well as attendance ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, the $1,200 covers all services.

British Columbia-to provide an additional amount for salaries, $200.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is this necessary ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Vowell was appointed Indian superintendent on the 4tli November, 1899, but before that date he had long been in the service of' the provincial government in the province of British Columbia, which renders his knowledge of the country especially valuable to this department. Since his appointment he has received no increase of salary and as there has been during the past few years a very considerable increase in the volume of work at the Victoria office it is thought that the proposed increase is merited.
To provide an additional amount for medical attendance and medicines, $9,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Medical attendance and medicines are provided for Indians who cannot afford to pay for it themselves. The physicians are either on salaries which represent a fair remuneration for their services and the medicine supplied, or when paid by accounts, they are allowed the lowest possible charges made to poor white patients. Medicines are supplied to medical missionaries to distribute them to Indians under their charge.


Robert Laird Borden: There has been $11,000 voted for medicines already. It seems a curious thing that you nearly double that amount by a supplementary estimate.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The sum which has been voted already is for medicines only.


Robert Laird Borden: No, it is for both. If my right hon. friend will turn to page 67 of the main estimates, he will see that, the item is :
Medical attendance and medicines, $11,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many medical attendants have you employed, and what do you pay them ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have medical men in different parts of the province. British Columbia is a very large province and the Indian population of British Columbia is larger than that of any other province. In the Babine agency there is a medical attendant at Hazleton, Kishfyak and Hagincyet. In the Comox agency, Che-mainus, Nanaimo, Cowichan ; Fraser agency, Vancouver, Harrison, Hot Springs and New Westminster ; Kamloops and Okanagan, Fair View, Yale and Cariboo district, Ke-fowun and Cariboo district, Vernon and Cariboo district, Spallumcheen, Nicola, Kamloops, Dead men's Crest, Thompson and Shusliwap. , In the Kootenay : St. Mary's and Tobacco Plains ; on the west coast, Uculelet, Olayoquot ; on the north-west coast, Bella Bella, Port Simpson and vicinity, Port Essington, Williams Lake, Ques-nelle and Alexandria, Alkali Lake, Kenim, Soda Creek, Clinton.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What salaries do you pay ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: They vary ; $300, $500, $400, $700, $1,200 at Westminster and Vancouver.


Robert Laird Borden: Two months ago we voted $11,000 as sufficient for this purpose, and why should we require $9,000 more now ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The estimates were prepared last fall on the reports in the department at that time, but new demands have been since made.


Robert Laird Borden: That does not seem to be a very satisfactory explanation. Unless there is some sudden outbreak of disease amongst Indians, surely the officers know the number of Indians in British Columbia, and they ought to be able to calculate within 20 per cent of what medical attendance they will require ; but this is double the vote of last year.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am informed that the total vote last year was $20,000, the same as this year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the main estimates it says that last year's [DOT] vote was $11,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Perhaps it would be better to set out the total amount voted, but as a rule you will find that was only the amount voted in the main estimates last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under what kind of a contract are these medical men working ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: There are 1,000 reserves in British Columbia, and as we have not a doctor for each reserve some of the doctors have to travel a good deal. They are appointed on a salary which is calculated upon the probable amount of work they will have to discharge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have heard it said out there that if a doctor wanted a holiday trip, lie goes round with the parties distributing the money and vaccinate some of these Indians, and makes a charge for it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Oh, that was in the olden times.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I heard it last fall, and I do not think it is so very ancient.
To provide additional amount for schools,


The PRIME MINISTER.: This vote is distributed as follows :	Grant for rebuilding and equipping of the girls home, Met-lakahtla, destroyed by fire $3,200 ; to provide for an increase in the per capita grant to the Clayoquot school, $3,500 ; grant to-

wards the erection of boarding school at Ahonsaht, $1,500; to provide for repairs and addition to St. Mary's boarding school, $3,200.
Additional amount for steam launch, $2,500.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This agency includes 91 reserves, and to visit these the agent has to travel from 1,000 to 1,400 miles by canoe. If provided with a launch, the time at his disposal for visiting the Indians would be more than doubled, and his transportation expenses would not be materially increased.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do they confine the mse of the launch to that purpose, or do they make a ferry boat of it ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know what he does with it, but I presume it remains idle when it is not being used for the purpose indicated. I do not think it would be used as a ferry boat.
Grant towards hospital at Hazelton, $1,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The Methodist mission board, which has applied for this grant, states the cost of the building will be about $(5,500. It is proposed to apportion it as follows :	Local subscriptions, $1,000 ;
grant from Methodist mission board, $2,500 ; provincial government, $2,000 ; Indian Department, $1,000.
Government of the North-west Territories, $255,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars of this is voted under circumstances with which the House is already familiar. The other $5,000 is required for registrars consequent upon the increased immigration.	,


Robert Laird Borden: What further facilities are to be provided ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It simply provides for more clerical work and more assistance in the different registry offices.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It says :
Additional grant for schools, clerical assistance, printing, &c.
Why is the grant for schools made V


The PRIME MINISTER.: That item of $250,000 has been discussed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This was discussed in connection with the Bill to make an advance to the North-west Territories. In connection with that Bill it was pointed out that we had increased the ordinary grant last year by $250,000 and this item is to make corresponding increase this year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think you gave any detailed information as to how this money was to be spent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a general increase, equivalent to an increased subsidy to the North-west Territories.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Robert Laird Borden: Is this the vote in regard to which there was some discussion as to whether it should toe on capital or revenue account ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is on account of ordinary revenue. We added a quarter of a million last year under precisely the same conditions and We are now adding a quarter of a million dollars. The advance on capital account was made by a special Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is it that everything has to be doubled '! There has been no material increase in the population that would necessitate additional schools or anything in the last year. In fact there has been a great reduction in the population 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In the North-west Territories ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was thinking of the Yukon.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this to be expended by the government of the Northwest Territories ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.
Some resolutions reported.
The PRIME MINISTER moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman wliat business will be taken up to-morrow ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: To-morrow we will take up the Civil Service Bill and some other Bills and then go into Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: When we go into Supply I will move the resolution with regard to granting provincial autonomy to the North-west Territories of which I have given notice.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.25 a.in., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 13, 1903.