1903-06-16

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 202) to incorporate the Church Missionary Society of Canada.-Mr. Russell.
Bill (No. 203) respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.-^Mr. Calvert-by Mr. Campbell.

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: Mr. Speaker, as requested by the hon. leader of the opposition, I may mention that the government have considered the two tenders for the fast Atlantic service which I laid on the Table the other day, but they do not see their way to accept either of them, although it is quite possible they may be of use as a basis of further negotiations. '



THE TRANSPORTATION .COMMISSION.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would ask whether or not the personnel of the transportation commission has yet been settled ? I think the right hon. leader of the government mentioned some two weeks ago that it had been proposed to appoint three gentlemen whom he had named, but he was not quite certain whether all of them would accept. I would like to know whether he has any more definite information on that subject now ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The only change contemplated is that Mr. Fry is to take the place of Mr. Kennedy.


Robert Laird Borden: Would my right hon. friend say -whether or not there are three gentlemen who have agreed to undertake the work and when the commission may be expected to begin its labour ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I cannot give the information to-day, but I will take a note of my hon. friend's request and let him know.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I also inquire whether or not my right hon. friend can announce the names of the gentlemen who are to compose the commission for inquiry into certain matters connected with the Treadgold and other concessions in the Yukon, and whether or not the gentlemen who were named in the House some days ago have accepted, and when that commission may be expected to begin its work ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will give my hon. friend the information at the same time as the other.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I desire to call attention to an order of the House made about Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
three weeks ago for a return of papers with regard to the Macnee fishing license, which has not yet been brought down.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They are being prepared.



THE RAILWAY ACT, 1903.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 21 to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways.-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I allowed a section or two to stand aside at the request of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). Is my hon. friend prepared to submit an amendment ?


Mr. CLARKE.: After the House adjourned I met the hon. minister and he asked me about the clause. I said that, as the Bill was not likely to get through to-day or to-morrow and as the solicitor and the mayor of the city of Toronto will be here to-morrow morning, I preferred to await their coming so as to have a clause drafted to meet their approval.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: There are rural municipalities which ought to receive some consideration too.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I hope that my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) will possess his soul in patience until he sees the clause I propose to submit. I have not the slightest desire to place the city of Toronto in a better position than the other municipalities.


Samuel Hughes: The interests of the city of Toronto have always been well looked after in Dominion and provincial legislation, but if any special power is to be given Toronto or any other city over rural municipalities, that must be watched very carefully.


Mr. MONK.: As I understand my hon. friend from Toronto, he wished to have time to draft a clause which will protect not only the municipality of Toronto but municipalities generally.
On section 194,
Whenever any municipality desires to obtain means of drainage, or the right to lay water pipes, or other pipes, temporarily or permanently, through, along, upon, across or under the railway, or any works or lands of the company, such municipality may make application for leave therefor to the board, and upon such application, shall submit to the board a plan and profile of the portion of the railway to be affected, and the board may grant such application, and may order how, when, and on what terms and conditions such drainage may be effected, or pipes laid, and thereupon such municipality may construct the works necessary to carry out such order under the supervision of such official as the board designates, or, at the option of the company, if>
communicated to the board upon the hearing, the company may be

ordered by the board to construct such works, and carry out such directions, under the like supervision.


Mr. COWAN.: Before that clause is adopted, I desire to draw attention to the fact that last year, as well as this year, I introduced Bill No. 19 respecting drainage on and across the property of railway companies. Neither clauses 194 nor 195 meets the requirements which that Bill is intended to meet. Under the law, as it now stands and as proposed by this measure, before you can effectually drain the lands of a municipality or an individual land owner, the parties must go before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council or before the Board of Railway Commissioners. I venture to say that there are very few' applications, either by a municipality or private land owner, made to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council for permission to drain across the lands of a railway company. In Essex and the western counties, an enormous amount of money has been invested in drains. I make the statement, and defy a successful contradiction, that in the county of Essex to-day there has been more money invested in private and public drains than in railways, and be it remembered that there is more money invested in railways in that county than in almost any other county in the entire province of Ontario. That county is cut east and west by the three great trunk lines, the Michigan Central, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, as well as by the Lake Erie, which is now a portion of the Pere Marquette system. In addition there are two cross roads, one along the western and one along the eastern portion of the county. So that the county is cut by five railways. Yet there has been more money invested in public and private drains than in railway construction. The land in that section is thoroughly flat land. There are but a few acres in any township which are not under assessment for outlet in addition to their own private drains. In fact the county is cheekboarded with ditches every twenty or thirty rods, and the assessment raised from seventy-five cents to $3 per acre for the drains to carry the water off to lake St. Clair or some other satisfactory outlet.
In addition to that, on account of the silt and natural accumulations that will get into a drain, these drains must be renewed once in from five to seven years, or ten years at the outside. The result is that the land of this county, at a fair average is under taxation of $1 per acre. If it were not for a most favourable climate and a prolific soil, it would be left an absolutely barren country to-day by reason of the immense amount of money that is levied on the farmers annually to pay the drainage taxes. Now. the fall of the land generally is toward the north and east. The great trunk lines of railway run along the northern
border of the county. It may be said that the railways are not entitled to block up a natural watercourse. But you must remember that the railways went through that country many years ago before the land was cleared, and in addition to that, it is a flat country, in which the water-courses are miles and miles apart. You will travel fifteen miles, perhaps, and not find a natural water-course running into lake St. Clair, that is a natural water-course as defined by the courts of this province. The water flows gently over the land in depressions or swales, and when the land commenced to be cleared up and cultivated, these watercourses-what would then be called natural water-courses under the law-were wiped out of existence. Thus, when a municipality or farmer wants to find an outlet to the drain, he must come before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. I venture to say there are not fifty per cent even of the members of this House, or fifty per cent of the members of the legal profession in this province or any other province in the Dominion, who know the procedure necessary in order to come before that tribunal. I know of but very few applications that have been made from the counties I speak of to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council for permission to drain under the lands of the railway companies. And, under section 195, it is only as an outlet for drainage works that application can even be made to that body by a landowner. So. where a man's farm is cut in two by a railway-the land everywhere in that section having a fall of from three to nine feet to the mile-it is absolutely impossible for him to drain under the line of railway without coming before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, and no farmer, or, at all events very few. will make that application. The result is as I saw when coming down here a few weeks ago. All along the lines of these railways, almost as far southward as the eye could reach, the land was submerged because of the imperfect drainage under the lines of the railway companies. I do not desire to take up the time of the committee by multiplying examples, but I wish to make the statement that the person whose land is cut in two by a railway corporation stands in an entirely different position from the man who has made a sale of his land to an individual. The railway company expropriates a man's land : the man has no option, but is compelled to sell. And I can name instances in the county of Essex to-day in which, after a railway company had gone through the land of a farmer, and the farmer desired to get drainage under that railway, the amount demanded by the railway company to allow drainage of the upper half of the property was a greater amount than the company paid for the entire portion of the land they took. The result is that these men are taxed thousands and thousands of dollars to carry the water in

a lateral direction, east or west, whatever way the water tends to flow, until it strikes a natural water-course, which then passes under the railway. The effect is that, supposing the fall of the land is to the north, at say, six or seven feet to the mile, when you have to take the water in a lateral direction, you find the land almost a dead level, and, in case of a freshet or heavy fall of rain there is not sufficient fall to take the water off the crops before the crops are materially damaged. This is a matter of most vital importance to the western counties. There is no question of tariff, no question of railway bonus, no question of railway construction or government ownership that can commence to affect those parts equally with the question of drainage.
Now, I find, in looking over the laws of tlie different states of the Union, that their procedure is much more simple than ours. In nearly all these states they have what is called a county drainage commissioner, so that a person does not have to make application to the federal authorities, or the state legislature, or even the state railway commissioners, but the county commissioners generally have jurisdiction over matters of that kind. Now, I find in the laws of the states of Michigan, by Act 254, section 10, as follows :
Whenever it is necessary to run a drain across the right of way or road-bed of any railroad, the same proceeding shall be had throughout in all respects, as in all cases provided in this Act for obtaining private lands for the construction of drains except as hereinafter provided. It shall be the duty of the railroad company when notified by the county drain commissioner so to do. to make and maintain the necessary opening through said road-bed, and to build and maintain a suitable culvert. Notice in writing to make such opening, and to construct such culvert shall be served upo_n such company by leaving a copy thereof with the ticket or freight agent, or general officer of such railroad company, at least thirty days before such railroad company shall become liable.
And section 17 provides that if the railway company fails to comply with the provisions of section 16. it shall pay a fine of $10 for each day's refusal or neglect to make such opening and construct such culvert, and the prosecuting attorney shall prosecute the complaint. It will thus be seen that drains can be constructed across the land of a railway in the state of Michigan by the same procedure as is followed in making a drain across the land of a private citizen, and that the necessary culverts must be made by the railway companies at their own expense and for ail time maintained by the railway company at their own expense. Now, I know of no state in the Union which affords a better comparison with the western counties of Ontario, so far as the lay of the land is concerned and so far as the quality of the land is concerned, than the state of Michigan. It lies contiguous to the western counties, and the very same conditions very largely prevail,


Mahlon K. Cowan: at least in the southern portion of the state of Michigan as prevail in the western portion of Ontario.
Then, I find that in the great state of Illinois, the provision is even more drastic. The fifth subsection of the twentieth section of the statute respecting the incorporation of railways says :
Provided that in no case shall any railroad company construct a road-hed without first constructing the necessary culverts or sluices as the natural lay of the land requires for the necessary drainage thereof.
So that, in the state of Illinois in the construction of their road-bed the railroad companies are prohibited from completing the construction without first making the necessary openings or culverts for the proper drainage of the land such as the necessities of the case require.
Then, I find in the state of Minnesota that chapter 34, section 2697, is as follows :
That whenever a railroad is now laid out, opened or fenced through the farm lands of any such owner thereof, leaving a part of such farm lands on both sides of such railroad, such owner is authorized to construct a crossing under, over or across such railroad for the necessary passage of stock therein ; and whenever any owner of lands adjacent to the right of way of any railroad company finds it necessary to drain the same and to continue such drain or drains across the right of way of any railroad company, such owner is hereby authorized to construct such drain through the right of way and under the track or tracks of such company ; but said crossing and drains shall be constructed at said owners' expense, and after so constructed the said crossing or crossings shall be maintained and kept in good repair at the expense of the owners of such railroad. In all cases before constructing such crossing or drain, the owner of the land shall serve upon the railroad company a notice in the manner provided for serving a summons in a civil action. stating in detail the work which the owner desires to perform under the provisions of this Act. Within sixty days from the service of notice the railroad company may do such work at the expense of such owner.
So that in the state of Minnesota the law prevailing is that the culvert must be constructed by the railroad company, but at the owner's expense, within sixty days, and failing that, the owner of the land shall construct it, and the culvert or drain afterwards must be kept in repair by the railway company. The procedure is hy serving a notice on tlie railway company the same as in a civil action. I find in the state of Missouri section 1110 is as follows :
It shall he the duty of every corporation, company or person owning or operating any railroad or branch thereof in this state, and of any corporation, company qr person constructing any railroad in this state within three months after the completion of the same through any county in this state, to cause to be constructed and maintained suitable ditches and drains along each side of the roadbed of such railroad to connect with ditches, drains or watercourses. so as to afford sufficient outlet to drain and carry off the water along such railroad

whenever the draining of such water has been obstructed, or rendered necessary by the construction of such railroad.
And if they fail an action shall be commenced in the court having jurisdiction to compel them. So that every railroad in the state of Missouri must, within three months from its construction, not only drain its own road-bed, but shall construct lateral drains affording sufficient outlet to drain and carry off the water along such railroad whenever the draining of the water lias been obstructed or rendered necessary by the construction of such road-bed, and this must be done at the expense of the railroad company. Then I find in the state of Texas, under the heading ' Right of way ' article 4430, is as follows :
In no case shall any railroad company construct a roadbed without first constructing the necessary culverts or sluices as the natural lay of the land requires for the necessary drainage thereof.
This is an exact copy, I may say, of the law of the state of Illinois, by which, when the lay of the land is such that the natural drainage is towards the line of the railroad, the company is compelled to construct and maintain all the necessary culverts and sluices to permit the water to pass through, and those culverts and sluices must be of sufficient dimensions and so constructed as properly to drain the lands.
Then, I find in the state of California that while there is no statute law there, the railroad companies exercise the same control and dominion which any other owner of land has a legal right to exercise. This precise question was decided by the Supreme Court of the State of California on the 2nd day of June, 1902, in the case of Sanguinettl vs. Bock, in which the court held that :
The owner of upper lands has an easement for the discharge of surface water caused by rainfall as it is accustomed naturally to flow over the surface of lower adjacent land, and the owner of the lower land has no right to interrupt such flow to the injury of the upper owner.
Thus in the state of California the railroad company, if they construct a roadbed preventing the natural flow of water, is liable to damages, and they are therefore compelled to provide proper drainage at their own expense, or pay damages to the farmer which he lias sustained by reason of that construction. I may say in passing that this is what is known generally as the law of dominant and servient tenement. That does not prevail, even in the province of Ontario. The province of Ontario, therefore. is that much worse off than the state of California. In the state of California the owner of the upper lands is entitled to the unimpeded natural flow of the surface water across the land of the adjoining owner lying further down. In the province of Ontario no such law exists, ns the hon. member for Hastings well knows,
for in a late case decided by the Court of Appeals in 1897, Ostram vs. Sills, it was expressly held that no such law exists in this province. Then I find in the state of Iowa :
When any person who is the owner of any swamp, marsh or wet lands which, on account of its condition, may endanger the public health, or is not for that reason in a proper condition for cultivation, shall desire to construct any open ditch or other underground drain for the purpose of draining such swamp land through the land of another

Then follows the procedure, which is a local procedure, and practiced by serving a summons as you would iu a civil action, which is the cheapest and most effective kind. Then it goes on to state :
Whenever a railroad crosses the land of any person or persons who desire to drain their lands for any of the purposes set forth in this section, the party or parties desiring such drain or drains shall notify the railroad company by leaving a written notice with the nearest station agent, stating in such notice the starting point, route and termination of such drain or drains, and if the railroad company refuse or neglect for a space of thirty days to dig across their fight of way a drain of equal depth and size of the one dug by the party who wishes to drain his land, the railroad company shall be liable for the cost of the construction of such drain, to be collected in any court having jurisdiction.
So that in the state of Iowa a railroad company must construct a drain across their lands the same as a private individual, but at their own expense, to connect with the drain on each side of the railroad, to allow for sufficient drainage to properly cultivate the land, even though that land may be marsh or swamp land, and the drain must be as large and as deep as the drain with which it connects. Then I find that in the state of West Virginia, while they have no statute law, the general law is that the railroad company must at all times leave the drainage as free as it was before the construction of the road, and if, by reason of the construction of the road through lands, they obstruct the drainage, they are liable to him who is damaged thereby.
Therefore, practically in the state of Virginia the law of dominant and servient tenement is in force. Then in the state of Colorado, under article 15, section 8, of the constitution, it is provided that no corporation has a right to conduct their business in such a manner as to infringe the equal rights of individuals, or the general well-being of the state. As the state commissioner of Colorado, in a letter to me says, the railroads were the pioneers in that country in putting in drainage crossings, and by section 3 of the article of the General Assembly of the state of Colorado, the charter of any railroad company can be revoked by the assembly in the event of their so conducting their business as to result in-

juriously to the proper development of the state and the proper development of the farming lands.
Now, in all the states a railroad company is prohibited from blocking up the watercourses. In a large number of the states there is special legislation compelling them, not only properly to drain the land under the roadbed, but to construct drains to connect with the drains on either side, and they must do it at their own expense and must subsequently maintain these drains at their own expense. In the United States there are a large number of states in which no drainage legislation is necessary, as in some provinces of Canada. Take, for instance, British Columbia, I venture to say that the drainage question does not affect probably a hundred acres of land in that large province. In the province of Quebec you hear little or nothing of it. There is no drainage in the province of Manitoba, or throughout the North-west Territories except for irrigation purposes. For instance, the states of Idaho, Utah and Montana, and some others, are arid states, and the only drains necessary to construct in those states are drains for the purpose, not of carrying water off, but for the purpose of carrying water on to the lands for the purpose of irrigating it. But, in every state in the American Union, wherever it is necessary to construct drainage works for the proper cultivation and tilling of the soil, the private landowner or the individual, has exactly the same rights as against the railway company which be has against any other landowner who seeks to block the How of water, and if it is necessary for him to invoke the municipal or any other machinery in order to enforce that right, then, that machinery is of the simplest and most effective kind and he does not have to knock at the door of either the House of representatives or of any of the state legislatures, but he can take the same proceedings to carry drainage across the lands of railway companies as to carry drainage across a farm or other land the property of the private owner. Without taking up tihe time of the committee, the amendments which I propose are to be found very largely in Bill No. 19. Bill No. 19 is a Bill by which I proposed to>
amend the Railway Act, but as this general Railway Bill was coming before the House I thought it advisable not to press the matter before the railway commission, because, then, if my Bill did become law before this Bill of the hon. minister became law, it would only be law for a few days. I therefore thought the better course would be to seek to amend the Bill now under consideration. I propose to strike out sections 194 and 195 and to substitute the following sections which will be numbered 194, 195, 196, 197 and 198, as follows :
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires :-*
(a.) The expression ' engineer ' includes a civil Mr. COWAN.
engineer, provincial land surveyor, and any person authorized by the law of the province to lay out, report upon or prepare plans, specifications or estimates of a drain or drainage work ;
(b.) The expression 'judge' means any judge of a court of record having jurisdiction in the county or district in which the proposed drainage work or any portion thereof is situated ;
(c.) The expression ' drain ' or ' drainage work ' means and includes every kind of ditch, drain, or sewer, open or covered wholly or in part, and whether in the channel of a natural stream, creek or water-course or not, and also the work and material necessary for bridges and culverts :
(d.) The expression ' railway company ' means a railway company subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
195.	Subject to the provisions of section 195 to 19S of this Act, .municipalities and landowners shall have the right of drainage on and across the property of any railway company to the same extent and by the same proceedings as they have by the law of the province in which the property is situated on and across the property of any other landholders.
196.	Where no provision is made by law for
hearing the parties interested

That does not apply to the province of Ontario, because we have a very clearly defined ditches and water-courses Act and in this province notice is necessary.
Where no provision is made by law for hearing the parties before the laying out of the drainage work, and for an appeal to a judge or other officer, the engineer shall, before making his report or laying out the drain, notify, in writing, the railcvay company, by serving notice upon the agent of the company nearest to the proposed work, of a time and place convenient to the proposed drainage work to consider the location of the drain on the railway company's lands, the specifications and cost of the work to be done on the railway lands, and the proportion of the cost to be borne by the railway company.
2.	Such notice to he given at least ten days before the time appointed for the meeting.
3.	If the engineer and the representative of the railway company agree upon the matters aforesaid, they shall sign their agreement, and it shall be incorporated into the engineer's report and shall be given effect to in the construction of the work.
4.	Should they fail to agree, they shall refer the matters1 in question to a judge, who shall, after such notice as he deems reasonable, determine the matters in question ; and the decision of the judge shall he final, and shall be incorporated into the engineer's report, and shall be given effect to in the construction of +he work.
5.	The costs occasioned by the meeting and by the reference to the judge shall be borne by the drainage work, or shall be apportioned between the drainage work and the railway company, as agreed upon or as decided by the judge.
6.	The proportion of the cost of the drain across or upon the railway to be borne by the railway company shall be based upon the increase of cost of such work caused by the construction and operation of the railway.
7.	In the event of no representative of the railway company attending pursuant to the engineer's notice, his decision shall be final and binding on the railway company.

197. Whenever any drainage work


Mr. LENNOX.: I hope that the Minister of Railways and Canals will see his way to adopt substantially the amendments proposed by tlie bon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan). I am well aware that there is very great necessity for a change in the law in this matter. I know it from cases that have come within my own personal knowledge, and I know also that a strong feeling exists in the country in favour of a change in the law. I have had a great many letters urging this both last session and this session, and I do not know what the significance of it is, but the greater number of these letters were from supporters of the present government. I do not know that they are entitled to quite so much



weight on this account, but at all events,
I replied to these gentlemen that the member for South Essex had brought the matter up ; that I had given his Bill some consideration, and that I believed it would bring about a very necessary change in the law. It is quite true that in the province of Ontario we have what I might call fail drainage laws. We have the ordinary drainage law, adapted to the larger drainage undertakings, and we have the Ditches and Water-courses Act, and, supplementing this, as applied to railways, we have what is called the Railway Ditches and Watercourses Act, which is to be read as part of the ordinary Ditches and Watercourses Act. The difficulty is that we have not been able to apply these Acts to railway companies incorporated by the Dominion parliament.
More than this, and increasing the difficulty, we have this circumstance, that from year to .year we have been declaring that other railway undertakings are ' works for the general advantage of Canada,' and wherever this has been done the provincial drainage laws have ceased to apply. Only a few months ago a municipality in my riding was confronted with a very serious difficulty in connection with the drainage of lands, having brought down its drainage works to the railway, and being prevented, without the permission of the railway company, from finding an outlet.
I have no charge to make against the railway company in this instance, or against railway companies generally. They have a right to stand behind the statute laws which we give to them, and as long as they only do this, we have no right to complain ; but we were met with this difficulty, that we had to submit to the terms which the railway company saw fit to impose. Now, we have the proposition of the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) that we shall place the government of this matter under the various provincial statutes. That, in the main, is, I think, the remedy required. There may be some need of improvement in provincial legislation : but it is absolutely necessary, I think, that we should give landowners and municipalities the advantage of the provincial statutes in the various provinces. Instances have been given by the hon. member who introduced the amendment, and a great number of other instances may be given, of the disadvantages people have laboured under in this regard. In all cases where a railway passes through a rural section of the country, it is sure to pass over valleys where there is natural drainage from one part of a man's farm to another, which, by reason of the construction of the railway, becomes blocked. The law as quoted by the hon. member, as being applicable to several states of the American union, seems to be what should have been the law in force from the time we commenced to construct Mr. LENNOX.
railways. I know, in connection with the pioneer railway of this country, the Noith-ern Railway of Canada, now owned by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, that instances occurred as far back as tool, in which the drainage of a man's property was so cut off that he was absolutely unable to cultivate sections of his land adjoining the railway property, and this difficulty m several instances exists to the present day. What is true in reference to that railway is true in reference to a great many others. What I submit is, that the true principle has been read from quotations this afternoon, that is, that the natural flow of the water, the natural drainage, whether this is what we regard as ' the common enemy,' namely, the surface water that falls on land adjoining the railway, or the ordinary streams of the country, should flow unimpeded by any works executed by the railway company. At the time the railway company carries through its works, the farmer has his lands, and the_ railway company comes in and occupies a certain portion of them. He has the means of drainage without impediment of any kind. When a railway is hereafter constructed. it should be constructed m such a way that it shall cause no impediment to the natural flow of water ; that wherever it is necessary, a culvert or other opening shall be in the first instance constructed by the railway company, and thereafter maintained at its expense ; that as regards a railway now in existence, it shall, as nearly as possible, be put upon the same basis ; that the provincial Act in force and such provincial legislation as may be from time to time enacted shall apply ; and that the railway companies shall be put on the same basis as other landowners in that regard. With reference to the amendment, It seems to me in the main to coiei the ground. There is a provision however as to the expense of the work which as the mover pointed out, only applies where there is no provincial legislation. This provision should be, not of limited but of universal application. It is provided in subsection 6 of section 4 :
The proportion of the cost of the drain across or upon the railway to be borne by the railway company shall be based upon the increase of cost of such work caused by the construction and operation of the railway.
I do not understand that the provincial Acts put it on this principle, because, in the main, thev are not dealing with railway questions, and this is a phase of the question which I submit the hon. Minister of Railways will require to consider. In the provincial Acts the basis on which the expense is apportioned is mainly on the con-structionof the benefit which each party will derive from the construction of the drainage work and in this case it is perfectly manifest that this would not be a fair principle upon which to assess the cost. The railway eom-

pany could very justly say, we derive no benefit from the construction [DOT] of this work beneath our railway or to or from our railway lands, and therefore, as we are only to pay in proportion to the benefit we derive, we have not to pay at all.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: Does not subsection 6 of section 4, as proposed by the hon. member for South Essex, cover that ?


Haughton Lennox: That is the section I have just referred to. If that were of general application, of course it would cover the whole case as suggested by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), but that is a provision which only applies in those cases where there is no provincial statute, and in Ontario, where we have provincial legislation, we have to refer to that legislation in order to ascertain our rights. In the province of Ontario we assess the parties in proportion to the benefit they derive. If you leave the legislation exactly as it is in that province, you will be apt to be met with this difficulty, that however we may view the amendment proposed, we will be in this position, that the railway company, as regards the most expensive part of the work, namely, carrying a drain under the railway property, will escape. Whereas the true principle is that the railway which causes the obstruction should pay a proportion of the cost of the drainage, based on the increased cost of the work caused by the construction and operation of the railway. Again I submit that what we require is not that we shall always have to go to the board of commissioners for redress, but that the principle of decenter-aliz'ation, or the local administration of these matters-the doing of the work at home as much as we possibly can-is the one that should be followed ; and I therefore argue that in adopting the amendment of the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan), you not only introduce useful legislation, by incorporating the provincial laws governing railway drainage, but you bring these matters before a tribunal better adapted to deal with them than the one proposed by this Bill. In my opinion, it is not wise or necessary that parties who have grievances in this regard should be compelled to come to Ottawa and submit them to the railway commission. It is true, as the hon. member for South Essex says, that all the objections and all the difficulties which obtained with regaikd to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council would apply to the railway commission.
Mr. McCarthy. In the greater part of what my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has said I entirely agree. There is no doubt that demands are being made very strongly by landowners whose properties are adjacent to railway lands for a remedy or a measure by which thev
can obtain the right to drain under railway lands. The machinery at present is too cumbersome for them to take advantage of it. That is proved by the fact that the rights now given them are so seldom exercised. It entails very serious expense to present a case before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council in respect of a drain which might only cost $100 or thereabouts. I do not say that the machinery is any more complicated than it should be, but the expense of coming to Ottawa and presenting the case before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council is greater, in many cases, than the remedy sought would justify. In saying that, I wish to acknowledge that the Railway Committee of the Privy Council has been very satisfactory as a whole, and the only reason why there is a demand for a railway commission is because the people living in distant parts of the different provinces find it too expensive to come to Ottawa. I understand that this commission will be an itinerary one, and it might be suggested that the commissioners should travel about from place to place and hear the different complaints. I fear, however, that that would not be a satisfactory solution, because the travelling expenses of the commissioners would not often be justified by the amount in dispute, and the landholder would be deprived of a remedy. Therefore, I am heartily in accord with the amendment suggested by my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Cowan), namely, that the reference be made to the local judge of the county. That would be the easiest way of disposing of the matter. Both parties can be represented, and the machinery is simple and inexpensive. I quite agree with the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), if his conclusion with regard to the suggested amendment is correct. I have not had sufficient time to consider it, to say positively that it is incorrect, but I go this far with him, that I think section 6 ought to be made to apply to all drainage works on or across railways, and that if a railway company should only be assessed in proportion to the benefit it derived from the work, inasmuch as it would be practically of no benefit to a railway to have that drain underneath its line, the adjacent landowner would have to pay the whole expense. In most of the states of the Union, the railway companies have to bear the cost of such drainage works. The reason is plain. They are the cause of the obstructions which prevent the natural flow of water, and should bear the expanse of carrying off the water they have obstructed. If that be admitted, then in the majority of cases the railway company should bear the largest proportion, if not the whole, of the expense. I do not think that I need further take up the time of the House, especially in view of the exhaustive speech made by my hon. friend from South Essex, who has so well represented the cause of the landown-

er. Suffice it to say that representing my constituency, a certain portion of which is aggrieved by reason of the obstruction caused by railways, I am heartily in agreement with the amendment.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have followed the observations of my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Cowan) with a great deal of attention and interest and I recognize that there is a good deal of force in much that he has said in support of the amendments suggested by him to this Bill. The committee, however,
I think, would not expect me to be prepared to express any definite opinion as to the advisability of incorporating these amendments either as a whole or in part or in the form or language which the hon. gentleman has chosen. The question is of very great importance indeed, and I think that every one of these sections would need to be thought over .a good deal before we should be justified in reaching a conclusion upon them or making them the law of the land. I am sorry to know, from the remarks which have dropped from all the speakers, that there is such an unwillingness to utilize the machinery that has already been created by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to afford relief to the people in these cases. For I am very strongly of opinion that a more effective, simpler, less expensive and prompter means of affording relief cannot be devised. It is true that the people who wish to have drainage facilities under railways have not applied to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council in any considerable number. I believe that only in three or four instances have applications been made since we passed the last amending Act in 1900. But, though the applications have been few, the facility with which the people got just what they wanted without coming to Ottawa, without sending lawyers to Ottawa, and the satisfaction which they have had has been expressed to me in very strong terms by the people whose cases have been disposed of. The results have led me to conclude that if the people generally would only avail themselves of the means the existing law affords them, what they wanted done would be done satisfactorily and inexpensively. Novy, we have provided -and we have acted upon the proviso- that if anybody communicated with the department stating that they desired to have drainage facilities under a railway, we would send an engineer immediately to the locality to verify the necessity. Then the two engineers get together, ascertain the facts and conditions and find out what can be doife by agreement if possible. An agreement has been arrived at in every one of the cases we have had before ns under our amendment Bill. The parties were able to settle and settle promptly. It is very simple indeed to send an engineer to investigate such matters. And, In cases of this kind, Mr. McCarthy.
involving questions of the character of the structure of our great railways, the matter should be entrusted to a railway engineer. The road-bed of the railway must be maintained in all its solidity and strength if life and property are to be protected. My hon. friend (Mr. Cowan) proposes that a land surveyor shall determine what the character of these works shall be. We cannot realize,
I think, the gravity of the responsibility we are assuming when we provide that a land surveyor shall be chosen to determine a matter of that kind. In fact, it need not be a land surveyor under my hon. friend's proposal, but any person authorized by the law of the province. So, it would be left to the law of the province to decide who was the proper person to prepare plans for the construction of drains under railways. We must seriously consider that before we make it the law of the land. It seems to me a matter of very great regret that it has become necessary in the opinion of so many people, as expressed by my hon. friend from Essex, that we should incorporate provincial machinery as a means of affording relief, when relief is so easily obtained under the machinery already provided. Suppose my hon. friend had a piece of land that he wished to drain under a railway. All he would have to do would be to write a letter stating the case and asking the attention of the department to it. An engineer would be sent at once. The expense could hardly be less, for it only requires a two cent postage stamp to pay for the letter,-in fact, it does not require even that, for you can write to the department for nothing. Can any one conceive of provincial machinery that will be more efficient or less expensive 1 When you have an engineer of knowledge and experience he can tell at once what kind of works can be adopted for the drainage of land under a railway without danger of weakening the road-bed.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I would like to say at once to the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) that there is no intention on the part of myself or the people who seek drainage under railways to do anything that would lead to the impairment of the strength of the road-bed of anv railway. The people are quite willing that plans and specifications for the construction, even of private drains shall be submitted to the Railway Department. But they want to be able to deal with the initial machinery at home and carry on the inspection and argument there, without being obliged to pny counsel to come four or five hundred miles to Ottawa. I admit that parliament has done all that lay in its power to simplify the machinery, consistent with maintaining the procedure and allowing the argument to take place before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. But, notwithstanding that they have done that, that procedure and these attempts have resulted in absolute failure. And I say that there
4746

are thousands of acres of land that are at times inundated and will remain inundated to the end of time, if the owners must use the machinery of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council for the simple purpose of securing the construction of a drain that may, perhaps cost fifty dollars. As long as that cumbrous machinery exists the people will lie under this injustice rather than travel here to Ottawa or ask counsel to c-ome here to plead for special drainage.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: While I have every desire to give effect to what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) says, to understand it and to yield to his argument, I am at a loss to know what he means by talking about 'cumbrous machinery '. If there can be a machinery simple to a fault it is machinery provided by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. The only trouble is that the people will not write, will not express a wish, will not ever! state what they desire. It is not that that any desire they have expressed has not been acted upon. There is no question of counsel being compelled to conie to Ottawa.


Mahlon K. Cowan: They know that the railway companies will be represented at Ottawa, and I venture to say that no lawyer will institute proceedings and take his chances before a tribunal where the other side is represented and his client is not represented. He will not start the proceedings unless he can carry them through. Speaking with the experience of some little drainage practice, I say I would not institute proceedings before any tribunal, even in a matter involving .$25, and let the railway be represented before the tribunal and my client not be represented. I understand that, as the minister says, he has done all in his power, but, these people who will pot take advantage of the door that the minister has sought to open. They will not seek in that way the drainage of their lands.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot, understand what the bon. gentleman means by the railway being represented. An application made by any person for drainage facilities would be heard in the way such applications have always been heard; the application has been heard in the locality, when the engineer is there, and the persons interested were not asked; to come to Ottawa.


Mahlon K. Cowan: There is no provision of that kind in the Bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is a general provision, and it will be carried out exactly in the same way, whereby the board is authorized to appoint anybody for any special purpose under the Act to report and decide upon questions, subject to the sanction of the board.


Mahlon K. Cowan: What section is that ?


Mr. IIEYD.: I would like that point to be more clearly defined. Where would the argument take place, in Ottawa or on the spot ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In the few instances which have occurred where applications have been made to us for a drain under railways, there was no argument at all. and no contest. We sent one of our engineers to the locality, after notifying these people and the railway company that lie would be down at such a date, and notifying all parties to be present. Two engineers met and looked the situation over, and came to a conclusion, and the railway company agreed to put the works through, the parties were satisfied, and we beard nothing more about it.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Supposing they would not come to an agreement ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If there was a difference of opinion between the engineers, we would get a report from our engineer, and after hearing the report of the company's engineer, as it would be largely an engineering question, it would be decided by the chief engineer, in all probability. The parties would not be called upon to appear and argue upon an engineering question. Sometimes a question arises as to the amount of the charge that ought to be imposed upon the respective parties; that would be a matter of controversy, but it would not be necessary to bring the parties to Ottawa to discuss that question either. An engineer could go down and hear what they had to sav. and the Railway Committee would decide.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Where do the lawyers coroe in in that case ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think there would be much opportunity for lawyers. They might appear on the ground locally if they wished. The hon. gentleman from Essex asked me to tell him where that section was. It is section 48 of the Bill.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The minister will agree that if you have not got any application yon never will get one. It may be right, but if these people do not think it Is right, you cannot convince them. We have tried and failed. Wliat we want to do is to try and relieve them from this trouble without doing injustice to any one. Surely we can get down to that point and still permit full supervision of the road-bed by the government engineer.


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I see my hon. friend proposes in liis Bill that a judge shall determine these questions. I do not know What exceptional quality a judge may have to determine questions of engineering.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The question can be easily settled so far as the question of costs is concerned, that were these people fail to agree they shall he borne by the railway company. So far as the plans or the manner in w'hich the work is to be done are concerned, X am quite willing, and these people are willing, that they should be approved by the Railway Committee before the matter is submitted to a judge.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. That might be the only way of solving the alleged difficulty. But it strikes me that a judge is not endowed with the qualities of adjusting questions of that kind. I see that my hon. friend proposes :
The proportion of the cost of the drain across or upon the railway to be borne by the railway company shall be based upon the increase of cost of such work caused by the construction and operation of the railway.
Now in many instances where lands have been expropriated and damages have been awarded, they have been awarded having regard to the question of the cost of drainage, and compensation has been made upon that basis.


Mahlon K. Cowan: So far as the Grand Trunk and the Michigan Central are concerned, they were built through that country when it was largely wild land, the question of drainage was not thought of. I can understand that where a road is going through an old settled country that question might be taken into consideration, and if that had been taken into consideration on the land proposed to be drained that would be considered by the judge.


Mr. BROCK.: Where a railroad Is built through wild lands of little value, and the building of the railroad made those lands valuable, do you mean to say that the railroad should bear the total expense of the drainage, and that the land should be free from it altogether '-because this land has been made valuable by those who had the enterprise to build the railroad under these circumstances ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Not at all.


William Rees Brock: I thought the whole argument of the hon. gentleman was that this drainage should be paid altogether by the railroad company and maintained by them. I think that would be most unfair wihen the lands have been made valuable, as the hon. member for Essex says, by the railroad being built through them when they were of little value.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I want to set the hon. member for Toronto (Mi-. Brock) right. While I did state that the road was constructed through these lands when they were wild lands. I did not state that the railroad had made these lands valuable' at all. It is the drainage which has made them valuable.


Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.: 


William Rees Brock: I did not say that, but I did say that had not the railways been built the land would not have been as valuable as it is.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Prior to the perfecting of the Municipal Act which enabled corporations to drain land, to construct large tap drains, to borrow money and issue debentures extending over years against the laud benefiting, these lands were absolutely7 unfit for cultivation. Prior to that law coming into force no one man could drain his own land, because he had no outlet. He was only dumping the water upon the land below him, and there was no natural water course. But, when they constructed large artificial drains on the same principle as they improve the sewage in a city, they were enabled to drain their lands, and that is what has made these lands valuable-the drainage which the railways obstruct.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think it is quite clear that the drainage laws, having regard to the way in which the railway companies interfere with the property of landowners, are not what they ought to be. I see that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals does not dispute the contention that some remedy is required, but as I understand the hon. minister, he thinks the present machinery is applicable for the purpose if properly applied. I am bound to say, after listening to what has been said, that, in my humble judgment, the amendments proposed by the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) provide the best remedy. I think if he will make subsection 0 of section 4 in his original Bill-section 190 as it is proposed to be inserted in the Bill now under consideration-a separate section, it will carry out the effect which is intended better than if it is allowed to remain a subsection of section 4. That subsection, I think, might be held, perhaps, in construing the statute, to have relation to the beginning of section 4, and it might be said to be dependent upon that, which provides that:
Where no provision is made by law for hearing the parties interested.
And so on. There is provision in Ontario, and yet nothwitstanding, it is important that we should have an enactment such as this subsection applying. That is :
The proportion of the cost of the drain across or upon the railway to be borne by the railway company shall be based upon the increase of cost of such work caused by the construction and operation of the railway.
I think it is admitted by all parties who know ; at all events, it is my opinion, that as a rule tribunals decide these questions of cost in accordance with the benefits received by the parties, and as far as the railway receives no benefit, the railway can very well indeed say :	We should not pay
any portion of the cost, because we get no benefit. That argument might prevail in Ontario, because of there being a state of

affairs that is not quite within the meaning of section 4, of which subsection G is a part.
I would suggest to my hon. friend that he make a special section of subsection 6, so that it will apply to all cases, irrespective of whether there is provision in the province for drainage or not. In regard to what the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has said, I think the argument of the hon. gentleman shows that the proceedings before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council must be very cumbersome or they would have been used to a greater extent. There is no doubt that a grievance does exist in regard to this matter. When I was in the neighbourhood of the constituency of my hon. friend from Soutli Essex (Mr. Cowan), in speaking to the farmers in regard to another question of railway law which will come up in a day or two-I refer to the question of cattle-guards-I found that the farmers were greatly interested in it. They buttonholed me on several occasions and urged me to support the hon. member for South Essex in trying to do what he is trying to do here now. They impressed upon me the very views which my hon. friend has impressed upon the committee to-day, and they paid me the compliment of asking that I would do what I could to assist my hon. friend. I promised that I would do everything possible to assist him, and I am trying to carry out my pledge, not to my own constituents, but to my fellow countrymen, who, although they live in a far part of the province of Ontario, are equally as good Canadians. The procedure of which the hon. minister has spoken, must of necessity be so cumbersome that it cannot be used in such a way as to be efficacious, or to accomplish justice. The hon. gentleman admits in his argument that to carry out what he proposes it will be necessary to depute the duty to an engineer, or two or three engineers. These engineers would not live where the property is or near the situation which requires attending to. The county judge, to whom it is proposed to delegate this final power, is to be found in every county, and it is proposed by this amendment that a land surveyor or engineer shall make observations, inquiries, and report as to the question of cost, and if not finally agreed upon between the parties, it shall be left to the county judge. The hon. minister says that if they write a letter to the department it will be attended to. No doubt it will be attended to in some way, but I do not think it will be attended to in such a way as to accomplish justice. It will be impossible for the department, or for the railway commission, which will now take the place of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, to go to every locality and conduct an investigation upon the spot without incurring enormous expense. I do not think that the hon. minister contemplates that they should do that, but I think he contemplates that
they should send an engineer. I do not think that is a proper delegation of authority in order to have these matters satisfactorily attended to. If the machinery provided by the hon. member for South Essex is adopted, it seems to me that the proceedings will not only be much cheaper, but the question will be much more satisfactorily and correctly inquired into, and the result will be more sound, just and quickly arrived at. The hon. minister says that the people have not taken advantage of the fact that they can appeal to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. I think it is very pertinent to ask why. It must be for some such reason as that suggested by the hon. member for South Essex that they do not think it will pay them to do so. They know that there will be railway lawyers to look after the railway side of the case, and they will feel that it will be hopeless to expect to cope with them unless their side is presented by counsel, and unless they have their evidence there. If the proposal of my hon. friend were adopted-the matter would be decided in the locality. If the railways were not satisfied with the report of the local engineer they would send their own engineer and he could give evidence before the county judge as to what he thinks the cost of the work should be. The county judge could hear the evidence of the railway engineer, and as the county judge is accustomed to dealing with questions of drainage, he could apply the same judicial mind to the question of railway drainage as to other questions of drainage under the Ditches and Watercourses Act. and I think if this procedure were adopted it would be found that the expense would be 25 or 50 per cent less than it would be if the procedure proposed by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals were adopted, and that the judgment given would be many hundred per cent better and more satisfactory. More than that, when the county judge decides one or two of these cases the people will be apt to say :	We
know what he will do, and there will not be so many cases arising. I think if the hon. member for South Essex had two or three of these cases determined, if the railway engineer were present, and if the case of "the railway were presented by counsel, if after reserving judgment for a day or two the county judge gave such a decision as the county judges are in the habit of giving, sound, and equitable, the railway company and the owners of property would be found agreeing much more frequently than they previously have done. The railway company would have their attention drawn to the fact by these two or three cases that they were not able to do as they liked. People do not get them to agree, and cannot force any decision upon them, and the very thing that the hon. minister wants to accomplish is an agreement between the parties, but it is not accomplished

now because the railways know that an individual cannot afford to make them come to an agreement. If the procedure proposed by the hon. member (Mr. Cowan) is adopted, the railway will be compelled to do it, and as the county judges will give reasonable and just decisions the railways will submit to them and there will be very little litigation of any kind.


Mr. STEPHENS.: A portion of the county which I have the honour to represent is very deeply interested In this matter of drainage across railways. I quite agree with what has been said by the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan), but I may say that the farmers have still more grievances than he has enumerated. When the Erie and Huron Railway was built in my riding, they put in culverts which were supposed to be large enough to drain the lands, but after the road had been in operation for, a few years it was found that these culverts were not sufficient to carry off the water. I went to the railway company myself on one occasion and asked what it would cost to enlarge the culverts, and the answer I got from the manager of the company was, that they would not enlarge them at all unless they were compelled to do so by law, and that they would do just what the law compelled them and nothing more. The farmers in that county have suffered ever since that time, and great loss has been inflicted upon them. In the spring, and sometimes as late as June, when there is a freshet, the water backs through under these culverts into the fields and it will remain there for several days. When the water begins to fall the railway culverts are so small that it takes quite a number of days for it to run off the land, and the sun coming out in the meantime and heating the water, there is great damage done to the crops. There should be some law compelling the railway companies at their own expense to open up drains sufficient to carry away the water. When a farmer has gone to a great deal of labour and expense in cultivating his land, he finds himself subject to great loss and damage because of the water remaining in his fields on account of the railway being between him and the outlet. In days gone by the Grand Trunk Railway was willing to accede to the wishes of the farmers, and they frequently agreed to provide a remedy without a lawsuit, but of late they seem to have got it into their heads that they will give the farmers no relief whatever. The fact of the matter is, that in the counties of Kent and Essex the farmers have got to dread the idea of a railway coming through that part of the country, because they know that their lands will be drowned out for want of drainage, that the cattle-guards are Insufficient to protect their cattle, and so they would sooner do without a railway altogether than put up with the nuisance that a railway causes. I think the mem-Mr. LANCASTER.
hers of this House should take the matter in hand and provide in this Bill now that some relief should be given to the farmers ill this respect. There are not many members in the House who really know the great inconvenience and loss that farmers owning low-lying lands are put to because in the majority of ridings the land is rolling, and the farmers do not suffer to the same extent as we do in Western Ontario. I hope that the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) will be adopted.


Samuel Hughes: When the minister spoke of the simplicity of an appeal to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, he forgot that the farmers are accustomed to regard this as a matter of property and civil rights, to be dealt with by the provincial legislatures, and that they look to their own municipal and provincial laws to provide the remedy. But when they find that they have to come to Ottawa and embark on a procedure which is not familiar to them, the chances are that they will bear their wrongs rather than go to that trouble and expense. That is the reason why more appeals have not been made to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council in relation to drainage. I believe that these amendments if adopted would be in the best interest of the people of the country. The trip to Ottawa alone would cost these farmers a comparatively large sum of money, and when you add to that the cost of a lawyer, the procedure is prohibitory.


Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: The opinion of many hon. gentlemen seems to be that we do not suffer from this grievance in the province of Quebec. It is quite the reverse. Our farmers are constantly complaining of the treatment they receive from the railway companies, and I have been obliged myself on many occasions to ask railway companies to provide drainage for farmers and they have always refused. It has been said that when the lands were expropriated, the farmers were compensated for this damage, but that is not so. If a farmer files a claim at the expropriation for damages by reason of his land being flooded, he will be answered that the law provides for drainage and that the companies are compelled to drain the land. But in order to oblige them to drain the land we must come before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, and that procedure is absolutely not available for the vast majority of farmers. These amendments should be supported by every member who represents a rural constituency.


George Stephens: When they start to acquire the right of way for a railroad, they go up and down the country for miles trying to find a man who will sell his land cheaply. Then they get one after the other, and finally the remainder of the land own-

ers are obliged to sell out at a low price. I know that some men in my county did not get as much per acre for the land taken for railway purposes as they could sell their whole farm for, while they should practically get ten times as much. They have sold land for railway purposes as low as $<>0 or $70 an acre, when the whole farm has been sold at $80 an acre.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: It is singular to hear the Minister of Railways define how exceedingly simple it is for a man to get his grievance against a railway company redressed. He told us that all the farmer had to do was to write to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, when an engineer would be sent out to meet the railway engineer, the two would adjudicate upon the evidence, I suppose, and if they disagreed there would be a report to the chief engineer, who would make liis award, and the whole thing is done. If the procedure is so simple it is rather a peculiar thing, that according to the statement of the minister, only three or four people have availed themselves of this simple remedy during the past three years. It strikes me that there must be an immense lot of ignorance throughout Canada, and amongst the farmers particularly, as to this means of redress which is so exceedingly simple. If the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) and the Minister of Railways would clear up this little darkness that rests upon that phase of the question, it would illuminate the minds of a great many of us who are not railway lawyers and who have not had drainage cases in court.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I might just say, for the benefit of the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) that no engineer sent by the Department of Railways and Canals has any power to settle the matter, but the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, on an application being made to them, can send an engineer, who can inspect the premises and make a report to the Committee. I have never known the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to decide a question of the right to cross a railroad without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard; and I venture to say that no Railway Committee of the Privy Council that has ever sat or ever will sit. will ever say to a railway corporation on the one hand or to a farmer on the other, our engineer has been on the ground, and we will take his report and swallow it holus-bolus, and you will not be heard. When that is the case, the railway company will be heard every time; its lawyers will be on hand; but where does the poor farmer come in ? As long as I practice at the bar I will never advise any client of mine to submit his case in that way, unless he is prepared to back it up by facing the corporation lawyers. So that while the present
procedure is simple, it is just as complicated as any other legal process.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (North Essex).: The Bill submitted last session by the hon. member for South Essex, and again this session, meets a crying want of the community, as must be evident from the fact that Bbth last year and this year, in the press, by petition, and by letters to members, we have all been apprised of grievances existing. The minister seems to think that the present mode of procedure is a simple one; but the fact is that, far from considering it simple, the community believe it to be complex, dilatory, and expensive. These are the things they seek to rectify, and I believe the amendment introduced by the hon. member for South Essex will go a long way to rectify them. They desire a remedy which will be simpler, speedier and less expensive, and I believe there has been no amendment introduced during the long discussion which has taken place on this Railway Committee Bill, which will meet with greater approbation particularly on the part of the people of the province of Ontario, and the western section thereof, than the amendments proposed by the hon. member for South Essex. I have heard no valid objections to those amendments on the part of the minister or anybody else, and the whole trend of the argument is entirely in favour of it.


Mr. SCHELL.: With reference to the question of easy decisions by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, I will just take time enough to instance a case in my own riding. Any person travelling past the village of Glen Robertson may notice that to the, south there is a range of hills, and that the railway embankment makes another obstacle to the north. As it passes the village the road curves to the right into the bank, making an artificial dam, and it is impossible to drain the land, because there is no culvert under the track at the foot of the valley. The result is that there is not a cellar in the lower part of the village, simply because the water is on a level with the top of the land. I have been told-I cannot give this as a fact-that some years ago application was made to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council through counsel for a remedy and that an engineer was sent to Glen Robertson to inquire into the matter, but no further action was taken. The people were not able to invoke the provincial drainage Act, because the railway is a work for the general advantage of Canada. The result is that for the last ten or fifteen years, although there are several hundred people living in that village, it has been impossible to have a cellar in the lower part of the village, owing to there being no means of draining the lower end of the valley; and having applied to the Railway Committee

of the Privy Council, and having received no redress, the people do not feel like applying again. I propose to support the proposition of the hon. member for South Essex simply on the ground that the people in this instance tried that very simple process of appealing to Ottawa, and were not successful.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. member for South Brant seems to think that the plan which I intimated was so simple and so easy is scarcely consistent with the facts presented by the hon. member for South Essex, who does not understand just what the foundation of my statement is. I am afraid that I cannot make it any clearer than I have to the hon. gentleman. All I will say is that neither of the hon. gentlemen will say that they have heard or known of any instance in which an application has been made to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to drain under the road-bed of a* railway, and the application has not received attention or been satisfactorily dealt with.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: How does the minister account for the fact that notwithstanding this exceeding simplicity and these grievances that we have heard of, there have been only three or four applications for redress to the Privy Council in four years ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not profess to account for it. I say, however, as a fact, that the applications have not been made, and therefore nobody can claim that they are not entertained.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Is it the lawyers they are afraid of, and not the committee ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It must be. It is very evident that the general sense of the House is decidedly in favour of the adoption of some such local plan as has been proposed here, and that the reasons which I have assigned for continuing to vest the jurisdiction in the Railway Committee or in the Railway Commission under this Bill, do not appear to have impressed'themselves strongly on the gentlemen who are representing these districts. It will therefore be necessary, I take it, that we should consider and make any proper and necessary alterations in the proposed amendments, to make them workable. I shall give the very best attention I can to the whole subject, and I hope that, not at the next meeting of the committee, but an early meeting, I may be able to suggest some substantive sections, or these sections somewhat improved, to the consideration of the committee. I would like, however, to have the sense of the committee on the proposition contained in the sixth clause. It looks to me at first blush to be a very drastic proposition to say that ' the propor-Mr. SCHELL.
tion of the cost of the drain across or upon the railway to be borne by the railway company shall be based upon the increase of cost of such work caused by the construction and operation of the railway.'
It simply means that the railway companies shall pay a very much larger portion, perhaps five-sixths or four-fifths of the cost of the works. The excavation under the road-bed will necessitate an arch or some other solid support for the road-bed above, and that will be certainly a very large portion of the cost of a proper arch under the roadway sufficiently strong to carry the weight of the embankment above. Is the committee of opinion that it would be well for parliament to make a flat-footed declaration that all the extra cost should be borne by the railway. It may be that the ditch could be just as well made in some other direction and that the fact that the railway company have to bear the greater portion of the cost might stimulate unnecessary demands by land-owners to have these drains made under the road-beds when they might just as well be made elsewhere. We" are desirous of being just and fair to the farmers, but at the same time we owe a duty to even a railway company, and should see that it is not going to be unduly penalized. We should only exact from railway companies what would be fair. I do not know myself just what to suggest to the committee at present. If you had a tribunal like the railway committee, which would have knowledge of the peculiar facts and conditions and have acquired a good deal of training, as it would be bound to do in a little while, and experience in these matters, if seems to me , that you could very safely trust such a tribunal to evolve some principle and act upon it in the settlement of questions of this kind. I am not prepared to make anv proposition to the committee now. but I think it is a matter which calls for serious reflection before we declare what principle should guide us in determining the proportion of these costs that should be borne by the railway companies. If the other members of the committee have any suggestions to offer I shall be very glad io receive them.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I can tell the hon. minister my opinion as a farmer. Why should not a railway company bear the expense of draining the lands adjoining its line ? In the section of the country from which 1 come, most valuable land for pasturage is very seriously affected by improper drainage. The clearing away of the woods lias had this effect, that there is nothing to control or contain the water in the woods and swamps. The water rushes down in greater volume in the spring and floods these lands adjacent to the railway. I cannot see why a county court judge, who is competent to deal with questions of drainage in the province of Ontario, would not be competent to deal with the same questions

under this Bill. The hon. minister, who knows all about it, says that the methods of dealing with these matters in the Railway Committee of the Privy Council are very simple, but they a re not so simple to our rural population. These questions get mixed up with politics, and the people in the province I come from do not think that any private individual can get any justice from the Railway Committee of the Privy Council sitting in Ottawa. Whether that opinion be well founded or not, it prevails. Besides the expense is enormous.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I had no idea there was such widespread ignorance.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Perhaps the people are not so ignorant as the hon. gentleman thinks. The hon. gentleman must see it illustrated in the Railway Committee every day that there is the opinion in the public mind that the minister himself is not free from the influence of railway corporations. Whether it be due to ignorance or not, that opinion prevails. I do not see why a judge, who has to do with such cases all through the province of Ontario, is not competent to deal with similar questions between railway corporations and private individuals. No man is in doubt'when a judgment is good. Some cranks may feel aggrieved, but the people of Ontario are well satisfied with the decisions given by their county court judges. Speaking for the county I represent, the people and the municipality are perfectly satisfied with the decisions rendered by the county court judge, and that court is much less expensive than either the Railway Committee of the Privy Council or this board of commissioners. If, as the hon. minister says, people do not go before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, it is because of the expense. A farmer coming to Ottawa must have a lawyer and witnesses and the cost of these are out of proportion to the amount at issue.


George Stephens: Since the hon. minister has asked for the sense of the members on this question, I have no hesitation in saying that the railway companies should pay the extra expense of putting drains under their railway lines. These railway companies are given the privilege of building railways, and in many cases, if they took the precaution of making culverts or outlets for drains, when they built the line, sufficient to do for all time, there would be no dispute. It is not the fault of the farmer if the railway is there.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: In the settlement of this particular phase of the question, we do not need to be drainage lawyers. An element of justice comes in here which all are equally competent to decide. Should a railway company be called upon to pay for benefits that are conferred upon other people and not upon themselves ? I have a particular case in which I am interested to a considerable
extent. In the city of Brantford, in which I live, there is a piece of ground crossed by the railway. The railway bought the right of way through a swale forty years ago. They paid the owners of the land compensation and took over the property they required, and I presume that involved all" conflict or troubles that thereafter might ensue. Since then that swale has become part of the city of Brantford. The drain that the railway put through that land answered the purposes of that time, and it still answers all the purposes of the railway. But there are hundreds of acres of land that could be used for building sites if the drain were deepened. Upon whom should the cost fall ? Upon the property benefited by the improvement or upon the railway company, which has no earthly interest in it ? If I understand the proposition of my hon. friend from Essex (Mr. Cowan), under such circumstances the railway company will pay all the cost, while the other people will reap all the benefit. I think there is an element of injustice there. It seems to me that, under such circumstances, the property that is to be benefited should bear a fair proportion of the cost, to the extent that it is benefited, and the railways should not be called upon to bear all the expense involved in putting a stone drain underneath the railway.


Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).: This question is one that affects other portions of the Dominion besides the province of Ontario. I am very glad that my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) spoke on the subject, and I also would like to say a few words, for two reasons. In the first place, I do not want the world to think that all the grumblers came from Ontario. And, in the second place, the people of my own county are deeply interested in the subject. In my own county of Huntingdon we have two railways, one crossing the northern part of the county throughout its entire length, about thirty miles, and another angling across. The first railway was built in the year 1880. It runs in a peculiar way and cuts off the drainage of the whole back part of the county from the rivers Chateauguay and Trout river, which afford the natural outlet for the drainage for that part of the country. When the road was built by the Grand Trunk Railway they put in such culverts as were necessary at that time, that is wherever there were ditches or water-courses. And here I might say that I have heard it said by those who have knowledge of such matters, that we in the province of Quebec have the simplest drainage laws of any province of the Dominion. If the committee will allow me, I might state the procedure. In the first place, a petition is presented to the municipal council by those requiring drainage of their land. The municipal council appoint a special superintendent. The superinten-

dent calls a meeting of tlie parties interested and hears what they have to say, and prepares his proces verbal. The parties are given notice and are invited to come before tile council to have it holomogated. Of course, there is a right of appeal from the decision of the council to the Circuit Court. Our trouble is that we cannot get at the railway companies in the same manner. I do not see why a railway company, building a road through a county should not be treated the same as any other owner of land. In other cases notices are posted up in certain places fixed by the council, and the interested parties are invited to appear on a certain date before the superintendent. And the superintendent, by the way, is not necessarily or even usually an engineer. He is very often a farmer who has had a good deal to do with drainage matters. I must say that, so far as the railways are concerned, the question of compensation has never come up with us. Any work requiring to be done that has been done by the railway has been paid for by the railway. Our trouble is to get the railway to do the work. Another difficulty which has arisen in our county is that, as the country is opened up, we find it necessary to deepen the water-courses which cross the railway track. They have built, in the first place, wooden culverts, in which they have what they call mud-sills ; and, when we try to deepen the drain, we find these culverts not deep enough. We do not want to interfere with the work of the railway, yet we have found great difficulty in getting the railway companies to do that work. But when they do it, they pay for it themselves. I think that is fair. I do not see why a company should build a bank across a county to interfere with the drainage ; and when it is necessary in order to drain the land behind them to put a drain across their track. I do not see why it should not do it at its own expense. This interferes with the drainage of Huntingdon very much, because, as I said, our natural' drainage for several concessions north of the Grand Trunk Railway has been to the Chateauguay and Trout rivers, these flowing into the St. Lawrence. We find it necessary sometimes, as the country is cleared up, to change the line of the water-course, and then the difficulty arises with the railway company. It becomes necessary to apply to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. We in our county have much the same feeling with regard to that body as has been expressed by lion, members here. The fact that it is so far away, that it is such an important body, and that it has such a big name as 'The Railway Committee of the Privy Council,' have a tendency to make people feel that they do not want to have anything to do with it. And so, through time and patience-waiting. and waiting, and waiting- we have been able, so far as I know, to get Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).
our difficulties remedied one by one. It would be a great benefit to the province of Quebec, as well as to the province of Ontario, if some simpler way was provided. And I do think it should be by some person on the ground. In the province of Quebec we must have drainage, we cannot raise crops otherwise. If the drains are stopped the people suffer. We have the valley of the Chateauguay,' the valley of the St. Lawrence and the valley of the Richelieu. All these have to be drained, and if the farmers do not drain them they cannot raise crops. We would like to have some simpler process by which we could deal with the railway companies as easily as we can deal with other persons owning land. As to the question of compensation, I am clear in my own mind that whatever obstruction to the drainage of the country has been caused by the railway, when an opening has been made through the railway to provide drains, it should be at the expense of the railway whose works have caused the obstruction.


William Rees Brock: I think that we all agree that we need only consider in this matter what is fair and just, I do not think that the railway company should be allowed to build a line like that in the county of Huntingdon or any other county against the will of the people. But if the farmers want the road built, give bonuses towards it and do everything they can to secure the construction of it


William Scott Maclaren: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) allow me to ask him a question ? Is it not a fact that the railway can push the line through by expropriation without asking the consent of the landowners ?


William Rees Brock: Quite true, but if the drainage is required, the time to get it is at the time when the road is built.


William Scott Maclaren: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) will excuse me. There were areas of land not cleared that did not require to be drained when the railway was built. But as the country is developed these swamps require to be drained.


William Rees Brock: All that is wanted is what is fair and just. The railway is built through a province or through a country, through waste land that is of little or no value, and the building of it benefits the land and increases its value. As the hon. member has said the laud in Huntingdon is no good unless it is drained. But that country has been opened and settled for the last fifty or sixty years. The proper time to apply for drainage is when the road is built. As they neglected to do it, and their lands have been benefited by the building of a railway, the question is : What is a fair compensation ? Who should build the drain ? At whose expense ? I agree with those gentlemen who say that
47G1

the county judge is, iu most cases, tlie best man to refer cases of that kind to. He would give the greatest satisfaction in most cases. A case might arise of such importance that the judge would prefer to refer it to the Committee of the Privy Council. But we are told that would entail expense.
I think a great deal too much has been made of the expense of going to the Privy Council. They are a body appointed to settle matters of this kind, and they are doing it every day, they are very approachable, they are responsible for settling matters of this kind, and should he held responsible. Under these circumstances I think we should take as little out of their hands as we possibly can. This creating courts all through the country for settling these trivial matters, lion, members will find a very expensive piece of business. The government are here, these matters could be brought before them at no expense, or if the government chose to delegate their power to an engineer and send him to examine the line of road, and the circumstances, they can get a report from him and act upon it at . very little expense. But certainly I think that land which has been largely improved by the building of the railroad on it, land which was worth nothing before the railroad was built, should bear the expense afterwards of improving its own drainage, particularly when the railroad company has paid for the right of way through that land. Under these circumstances I think it would be a great injustice to penalize a railroad company. It is so easy to get up a feeling against a railroad, that is a popular thing all through the country, particularly when people expect an election. Hon. members can go back and say :	See what great
things we attempted to do for you. Let us be fair, we can afford to be fair and do what is light. The right thing to decide is who shall bear the expense of these drains. I think that can be done to a large extent by referring the question to the judges in the counties which the railroads run through. I do not think there need be much discussion on this question beyond making it clear that the aim is to do what is fair, and not penalize the railroads more than they deserve.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I feel sure that my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) did not refer io me when he spoke about trying to make political capital by waving the red right hand against the railroad companies and rousing up the people. I quite agree with a great deal of what he has said. I quite agree that there is a feeling in the country against railway corporations. I car tell the hon. member for Toronto that if he lived in the county of Essex he would say that his neighbours were the most patient and the most long-snffering people on the face of the earth, and he would be surprised that their animosity against railway corporations is not greater than it is.
I admit that certain agitators may try to work up a feeling against railway corporations, but so far as the county of Essex is concerned, no agitator or any one else has been quite as responsible for working up a feeling against railway corporations as the railway corporations themselves. I say here with a knowledge of the county of Essex, and as having been engaged in these drainage questions for ten or twelve years, I never asked a railway company to make an opening underneath their road for the drainage of land, even after they had double-tracked the line and stopped up the ditches the farmers already had, that I did not have to fight it to the last ditch in order to get even meagre justice at the hands of railway corporations. Further than that, I say my own opinion is that the farmer ought to pay for the cost of the construction of a drain across the lands of the railway company, that is the lands in the shape in which the company found them, because if there had been no railway they would still have had to construct that ditch across the lands now covered by the railway. But where a railway company comes upon my farm and says, I will take a portion of your land, peaceably if you like, forcibly if I must, then upon that land which they compel you to sell they erect an embankment, thereby increasing the cost of the drainage of the land lying above the railway and which to properly drain I must cross the railway, then I think in all justice, at least as far as agricultural lands are concerned, the increased cost occasioned by the construction of that roadbed ought to be borne by the railway company that constructed it, under the power which parliament gave them to construct it against my will. That is only fair and just. As I have already stated in my opening remarks on this section, I can point to you farmer after farmer in the county of Essex whose lands the railway has gone through. Supposing they only take an acre or two worth from $40 to $100 an acre. The farmer does not want to go to an arbitration for expropriation, and the result is that damages for obstructing the drainage of the lands is not taken into consideration, it never has been in any case I have known in that country. But the company has power to take his land without his permission. I can name one whose name has appeared in the newspapers. Mr. Thomas Uunmore, of the township of Tilbury. The Michigan Central Railway went through his farm about 1885, and to-day the company want more money from Mr. Uunmore to put an ordinary sewer under the railway than they paid for the land that they took from him. When he goes to a lawyer about it he is told that he must go to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. That settles it. One word in answer to the Minister of Railways

and my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Heyd). When a farmer comes to you and you tell him that the Railway Committee of the Privy Council will send on an engineer to make a report, he then wants to know what becomes of the report. You tell him that it goes back to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to be there adjudicated upon, and that the railway lawyers can appear and be heard. He thinks he has got a mighty slim chance with the lawyers of a railway corporation before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council five hundred miles away, and he ploughing in the field.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock) has introduced a new element into this question, that is, its bearing politically. Now I am of opinion that railway companies exert a more powerful influence at the time of election than any other corporate body in the Dominion of Canada. I think if w'e consulted our own interest we would be careful not to say anything contrary to the views of the railway companies. But there are great interests at stake, and the Minister of Railways has asked us to give this question consideration this afternoon. He wants to know what our feeling is with regard to making the railway company liable for all the expense of putting through a ditch, beyond what would have been incurred if there had been no railway there. Now speaking for myself and endeavouring to look upon this matter in a fair way, recognizing the wrongs the farmers have had to so suffer, recognizing too that we must have railways, that they serve a useful purpose, and that their interest must be protected as well as the interest of other people, I think the provision that we have in subsection 6 is such as will give substantial justice in this matter. It may be that a word or two might be introduced to the effect that, subject to any special circumstances affecting the same, the cost occasioned by the railway being there should be borne by the company. If there are any speciai or peculiar circumstances such as the hon. minister suggests that, for instance, the cheapest line for the ditch has not been selected, but one that will impose a very large amount of expense upon the railway company where a cheaper course could have been selected, it seems to me that this would be a fair element to take into consideration, and that if we frame it in some such way as this :
Subject to any special circumstances affecting the same the proportion of the ccst of the drain across or upon the railway to be borne by the railway company shall be based upon the increase of cost of such work caused by the construction and operation of the railway

We will have an equitable provision all around. The hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) said that this was probably a matter that was taken into consideration at the time the railway was con-Mr. COWAN.
structed. I venture to say it has not been so in the majority of instances. I venture to say that almost universally the opposite rule prevailed. There may be some instances where this principle was adopted and where the increased compensation was given at the time, and if it can be established that it was given that would be one of the special circumstances to which I have referred. But, if hon. gentle-meu will take into consideration the circumstances attending the expropriation and valuation of property at the time they will come to the conclusion very readily that this is not likely to be the case. At the time the land Is expropriated the line is merely located and no work has been done on the ground. The farmer has no idea at the time that there is to be an immense embankment built across bis property. All he knows is that there is to be a railway run through his property. He has no anticipation that there will probably be a frog pond created, as there have been in several instances to my knowledge in the riding of South Sirucoe, to the prejudice of the health of the farmer and his family, and the destruction of his land.


Samuel Hughes: Even the surveys are not made then.


Haughton Lennox: As my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) says, in instances the surveys are not made at the time the settlement is made for the land. So that, what I submit as to the hon. member from South Brant is that his argument is not a matter that stands in the way of our arriving at a fair conclusion upon this question. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has spoken this afternoon, as it is his duty to speak, in reference to the question of the safety of the public. That is a matter, that, of course, must not be lost sight of. It would not be right that the strength of the railway should be impaired by the reckless putting through of any ditch or culvert or anything of that kind, tout, the Ditches and Water-courses Act, and the General Drainage Act of Ontario, and I presume, the drainage Acts of other provinces, provide that the railway companies shall have the first right to construct the drainage work if they think fit.


Mahlon K. Cowan: This amendment makes special provision for that.


Haughton Lennox: And as my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Cowan) states this amendment makes special provision in reference to that. These are matters of final adjustment that we can deal with after settling the broad principle. There will be no objection, I presume, to leaving the matter of the class of structure that would be put under a railway altogether to be determined by the railway engineer. All that the municipality or the individual is interested in is that it shall be sufficiently large to give a free

flow of water beneath the railway property. Whether it shall be an extra substantial work or not is a matter that may be left to the railway engineer. General jurisdiction in the matter of determining the proportion of cost and the cost of the proceedings is a matter which eminently comes within the jurisdiction of the county judge. Now, I followed the remarks of the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. MacLaren), who outlined the procedure in the province of Quebec, and who emphasized the fact that in the province of Quebec they have an exceedingly simple and satisfactory procedure, a procedure which the hon. gentleman ventured to think was probably more simple and satisfactory than that in the any other province. I am glad to be able to tell the committee that the procedure outlined bv the hon. member for Huntingdon is' identical with the procedure under the general drainage law, not the Ditches and Water-courses Act, of the province of Ontario with the exception, that, of course, we have different names for the officials, but, it is exactly upon the same principle and I can certify that it has been exceedingly satisfactory, inexpensive and expeditious. So that, the hon. minister in taking this matter in consideration and framing provisions upon the lines that have been moved in the amendment by the hon. member for South Essex will be able to introduce some most valuable amendments in reference to this drainage question. There is just one matter that I intended to speak of when I said that in the main I agreed with the propositions of the hon. member for South Essex, and that is the last section of the amendments that he introduced. In dealing with railway companies I recognize, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock), that probably we are liable, because there is a great deal of agitation, to adopt extreme views. I am not at all sure, as far as that last section is concerned, that a special provision for a dredge is required to be enacted in this legislation. That, of course, would naturally come from the hon. member for South Essex in his desire to help his constituents, but, we must submit ourselves to some inconvenience for the benefit of having railways traversing different parts of the country, and as regards that I would be glad enough to see that provision omitted. I would like to see the other provisions substantially carried out.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will have these matters gone into very carefully and we will defer further consideration of these clauses relating to drainage until a later meeting of the comufittee.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Eecess.



SUPPLY-DUTY ON GARDEN PRODUCTS.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the House go into Committee of Supply-
['And will the hon. minister please bring the account with respect to West Middlesex.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. J. E. E. LEONARD (Laval).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I move in amendment that all the words after ' that ' be struck out and the following substituted therefor :
It is greatly in the interest of the market gardeners and the farmers, that the duties on the products of our Canadian gardeners be so readjusted as to assure to the Canadian farmer an adequate protection against foreign competition.
I do not propose to revive the discussion which took place last year in the House on this subject. Some hon. members on the other side stated at the time that I had postponed moving a resolution to the same effect as this amendment, in order to embarrass the government and make political capital out of the question. That was so far from my thoughts that 1 offered to withdraw my resolution if some one on the government side should rise and declare that the government would undertake to have it passed.	.
This year again, I delayed answering the speech made during last session by the hon. member for West York until the last moment, until the latter part of this session. in order to enable him to keep the numerous promises he made on the hustings in the course of the last electoral campaign and to redeem the pledge he took when, at tlie head of a numerous delegation of gardeners from the province of Ontario, he nrged the hon. Minister of Finance to revise tlie tariff in the sense he had pointed out.
If I remember rightly what he said last year to argue himself into voting as he was told and setting aside his promises to His electors and to the gardeners throughout the country, he claimed that having put the resolution on the Qrder paper at the vei .v beginning of the session, I then delayed bringing the matter up for discussion until the government had made known their decision not to change the tariff.
Well. I hope that this year the hon. member for West York will support the amendment. to be consistent with himself and to show his electors that he is willing at least when an opportunity offers, to make good the promises made in election time.
Last year several hon. members took part in the debate on that question. Those who spoke in favour of my motion took the view more especially that the gardeners in the vicinity of Montreal should be more highly protected. I admit that in a question of that kind, both sides should be considered, the interests of the producers as well as those of the consumers. I remember an hon. member saying that for one he was in

476S
favour of the consumer anil would remain so, so long as s me means had not been devised of increasing the production of our gardens in winter time ; so long as the course of the stars had not been changed and a warmer sun given to Canada towards the close of winter.
Mr. Speaker, the number of gardeners in the vicinity of large cities, such as Montreal and Toronto, is larger than is imagined. In the census bulletins, these gardeners do not appear as such ; they are entered as ordinary farmers. In the neighbourhood of Montreal, there are between two and three hundred gardeners, each one of whom employs between five and thirty people. I may say that there are at leas't five or six hundred families who subsist on gardening in the counties of Laval and Jacques Cartier alone. I am told that about Toronto there are at least two or three thousand people who support themselves on gardening.
All these farmers and market gardeners, have to pay heavy duties on everything they consume. They pay duty on the tools they use ; on the clothes they wear. Why should they not in turn be protected like others, as stated in their petition forwarded to the Customs Department ? All they ask for, is that their industry, their business, their labour should be protected as those of other producers. It seems to me they have a right to be heard and to obtain protection from the government.
Last year (April 2S, 1902), the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) made a similar statement On page 3059 of ' Hansard,' I find him quoted as follows
Now, I say, that to my mind is a hardship, and I believe it would be wise for the government carefully to consider this question. I would like to see them increase the duty a'little. I don't think we need go very far, because if the effect of the increase in that duty is to advance the price of these vegetables in the early spring, it is only the well-to-do people who consume them. If you pay a cent, or two cents more for your cabbages to get them in April or May, it is only the wealthy classes that use those goods at that season, it is not the poor people that consume them. Then when our own vegetables come into the market our people will be able to supply the market of Canada with all the goods the consumers require and there is sufficient competition among the market gardeners in Canada themselves to keep the prices right.
These few words suflice to meet the objections raised against my amendment by the bon. members on the other side who are free traders. What do the gardeners ask by their petition, which I have looked into? They request that a specific duty be put on foreign products similar to theirs. At present there is an ad valorem duty ; 25 per cent is paid on the value of vegetables imported from the United States, and in most cases these vegetables are entered as damaged products, and instead of the government getting the full revenue from the duty, Mr. LEONARD.
an insignificant amount only is collected therefrom. Market gardeners request that asparagus be submitted to a duty of three cents per pound ; cucumbers, 20 cents per dozen ; lettuce, 25 cents per dozen ; cauliflowers, 3 cents a piece ; spinach, 25 cents per bushel ; potatoes, 25 cents per bushel ; cabbage, 3 cents a piece, and so forth. I submit to the House this request of the market gardeners, because it appears to me to be fair and reasonable, and because .under the United States tariff, which specially provides for the protection of tlieir farmers against foreign or Canadian competitors, the rates are about as high as those I have mentioned.
As already stated, every feature of this question was discussed in the course of the session. If I remember aright, the hon. Minister of Finance did not say at the time that he was adverse to an increase of duty on these products. He was content with informing the House that the government had not as yet made up tlieir minds as to changing the tariff, and thereupon he moved the adjournment of the debate. Since last session, the hon. Minister of Finance has had plenty of time to study the question, and make inquiry from parties interested and even members who are in favour of an increase in the duties ; and I trust that this year he will comply with the request of the gentlemen I have the honour to represent tonight. My hon. friend, the member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa) is nodding to me just now, and I infer from his action that he does not agree with me. However, I was pleased to hear him last week in this House state over and over again that he was a protectionist.


The SPEAKER.: I wish to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to tile fact that he is not allowed to refer to a previous debate.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: At all events, Mr. Speaker, I know of a good many members who, though unwilling to give themselves out publicly as protectionists, admit as soon as they are outside this House, that they are in favour of protection, and I have heard an hon. member on the other side proclaim himself in this House a protectionist, though he considered he was bound for party reasons to vote in favour of free trade. 'However, it is likely that the hon. member 1o whom I have referred a moment ago will once mere follow his leaders and vote against his principles.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to join in the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Laval, and I would not have done so, had he not thought proper to mention my name and to recall my views in favour of protection. I may repeat to the hon. member what I have already said, that actually I am a protectionist : lint for the very reason that I believe in protection,



[Stage Direction]
I do not think it a good plan to convert our fiscal policy into a system of political speculation. I do not wish to question the lion, member's good faith. I am willing to admit that he lias an absolute confidence in the efficiency of the proposal he submits. But I think that had he considered the question from the standpoint of political economy rather than from the point of view of the member for Laval, he would have come to another conclusion. He would have realized that even if the government were to adopt his views, the condition of the farmers in his country as well as that of the gardeners in the vicinity of Montreal and other parts of the country, would in no way he changed. In fact, under what conditions would an increase of the duty on garden truck from the United States have the effect of shutting off these products from our markets ? It would at the time of the year when our own products not being as yet available, early vegetables from the United States come in naturally, because consumers require them. But as soon as the natural products of the counties of Laval and Jacques Cartier, or of any county in the vicinity of Montreal, can be taken to the markets of that city, at no great expense for transportation or production, the competition of United States producers is no longer an impediment. In other words, as far as local consumption goes, competition on the part of United States producers does not count ; in fact, if we go back to the original meaning of the word, it can be hardly termed competition at all. Consequently, the motion of my bon. friend, however good his intentions, does not attain the object he has in view. He certainly cannot, at certain seasons, as in winter, prevent the people of Montreal from buying cabbage or asparagus when they are so inclined, and his 'intelligent and faithful ' electors are not in a position to produce them.
Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) Does the hon. member know at wliat time of the year vegetables from the United States arrive in Montreal and Toronto.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: (Translation.) United States vegetables may reach Montreal at all seasons ; but from the standpoint of the market gardener, such competition affects him only during our own season of production and during our season of production in Canada, vegetables from the United States are not forthcoming, for the very good reason that our own production is superabundant, and that competition on the part of the former is not to be feared. The same thing happens the world over, as a consequence of differences in climate.
There are market gardeners in the vicinity of large cities in the United States. At certain seasons of the year, the cities of Boston and New York, for instance, receive vegetables and fruit from California. Do gardeners in the vicinity of those cities complain of the competition they are sub-150
jected to ? Not at all. Large quantities of fruit are also received from Florida, Havana and Mexico. But as soon as local production is abundant enough to meet the requirements of consumers, that competition necessarily ceases. So that I do not see any good reason in support of this motion ; and I must admit that it seems preposterous that we should be asked to pay a higher price for these commodities when our market gardeners are not in a position to supply the needs of the market.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) Would my hon. friend be disposed to support a resolution providing for an increase of the duty during that period of time only when our Canadian gardeners are in a position to supply the market ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: (Translation.) No ; as I think such a measure would not be workable, and moreover would be of the kind 1 have referred to, calculated to mislead the public.


Mr. E. D. SMITH (Wentworth).: I sympathize, as do a great many members on both sides of the House, with the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard). I have noticed that whenever a motion of this kind is proposed asking for increased protection there are always some members on the other side of the House of high protectionist views who like the hon. gentleman for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) try to argue themselves into not voting for such a resolution. Sometimes it takes time to do it, but they generally wind up by convincing themselves. The market gardeners of Canada are a class of men who are particularly in need of whatever assistance the government can give them in the way of protection. Their calling requires a great deal of industry, a considerable amount of skill, and a market gardener with four or five acres will employ almost as many hands as a farmer with 200 acres. It is such a labour employing industry as this that we ought to protect. There is invested in this market gardening industry many thousands of dollars in greenhouses and other necessaries to the enterprise, and I am quite sure that that investment would be doubled if legitimate and reasonable protection were given to the products of the market gardeners. It is contended that the price will be advanced to the consumer by a duty on these articles. It is possible that for a short time, until the industry gets well on its feet, that will be the case, but it is also a fact that it is only the rich who indulge in these high priced early vegetables and the consumers consequently are well able to pay a little money into the treasury. The Minister of Finance has always a place for any extra revenue lie can get, and if protection in this case should result in a slightly increased price I am sure that no one, not even the

rich consumer of vegetables will object. The tax will be but a trifle compared with the benefits it would confer on the market gardeners of Canada. Time and again the government had been petitioned to grant this protection. Two years ago a large deputation was headed by the member for Jacques Cartier (air. Monk) and the member for AVest York (Mr. Campbell) and I expect to see the hoii. member (Mr. Campbell) speak and vote in favour of this resolution to-night. I know that last year lie argued himself into the belief that he was obliged to vote against the resolution, because the conference of the premiers in England interfered with the granting of a duty on vegetables, but now that that difficulty has been removed, and now that the government has doubtless taken the matter into their serious consideration, I have hopes that the bon. member for AYest York (Mr. Campbell) will give us his support. I take it for granted that the result of the consideration of the government is, that they have absolutely refused to grant the request of the market gardeners of this country. It is a mistaken policy, because there is no valid reason why some assistance should not be given to this industry which would in no way hurt anybody, and which would be of very great assistance to the market gardeners. In the neighbourhood of Hamilton there must be 200 or 300 men engaged in the industry and supplying not only the city of Hamilton but the northern part of the province as well. The importation of American vegetables in the early part of the season hampers their industry, and if they were protected even only for a short time at the beginning of each season, it would be of great benefit to them. The practice is to start these vegetables under glass and then grow them in the open air, and our market gardeners are not able to compete with the cheap labour of the southern states. Indeed when our early vegetables are about being transplanted the vegetables in Delaware and the Carolinas, grown in the open season are fit for market, so that our farmers could not even compete with these. There should be a duty on these vegetables in the early part of the season at ail events, so that the keen edge of the first taste for vegetables may not be dissipated before our early vegetables are ready to be placed on the market. I am sure that if the hon. member for AAhist York (Mr. Campbell) would appeal to the government once more, they will even at this late date reconsider their determination and give the market gardeners some assistance.	_


Air. R. HOLMES (AYest Huron).: AAThile this is a resolution that most largely affects the cities, there is a principle underlying it that ought not to be overlooked. .Judging by what the hon. gentleman (Air. Smith) said one would think there is no duty on vege-Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
tables imported from the United States. Even if that were so, 1 do not know that it would be a good reason for imposing a duty on these vegetables, but nobody knows better than the hon. member for AVentwortli that the American market is availed of by the market gardeners and fruit growers of the Niagara district which the hon. gentleman has the honour to represent, and while he is attempting to shut out the importation of vegetables from the United States, I presume he wants to retain the American market for himself. I have here a letter from the wholesale fruit and vegetable dealers of Toronto which was published in the newspapers some time ago, and which I understand was sent to the Minister of Finance.
I find that there is at the present time a duty of 25 per cent on cucumbers, 25 per cent on asparagus, two cents per pound! on strawberries, which is equal to $486 per car; one cent per pound on peaches, or $240 per car; 25 per cent on lettuce, onions, and radishes; 25 per cent, or from $75 to $100 per car, on celery; and $125 per car on tomatoes. It seems to me that a duty of 25 per cent ought to be enough to protect the growers of vegetables in Canada. If the gardeners in the neighbourhood of the cities are not satisfied with that amount of protection, it is pretty hard to know what will satisfy them. I was surprised to hear the bon. member for AVentworth (Mr. Smith) admit that there would be any- increase of price if the duties were put on.'but he was candid enough to make that admission. I do not see why the people of Canada, in the spring, when it is impossible to obtain Canadian vegetables, should be compelled to pay more for the early vegetables which come from the south than ordinarily; and we must remember that the poorer people in the city households appreciate the advantage of replenishing their tables with early vegetables as well as the wealthier citizens. This letter, which purports to be signed by all the wholesalers in Toronto, as well as by retailers, claims that the introduction of American vegetables and fruits 'does not interfere with the sale of Canadian products, because they come in early in the season when the Canadian products are not available. I think it would be wise on the part of this House to refuse to increase the duty on vegetables. I think 25 per cent is high enough.	.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Air. Speaker, I may recall the fact that at the time my hon. friend from Laval (Air. Leonard) was elected a member of this House, he pledged himself to do all in his power to forward the idea that gardeners should be put on the same footing at least as are manufacturers in this country. Indeed he has made good his promise ; for, besides joining, with all who have that cause at heart, in the move-

meat which went on outside this House, he introduced, at every session, in a constitutional and judicious way this motion which is of the greatest interest for the electors of his county and of several other counties, not only in the vicinity of Montreal and Toronto, but I may say in the vicinity of all large cities in the Dominion.
The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Holmes) read a kind of certificate, from which we may surmise what is the real nature of the war continually waged in this House against a policy which, to my mind, should commend itself to the attention of the government. The document he read comes from a few individuals, worthy of respect, I admit,-I mean the dealers in vegetables from the United States, and there are some in Montreal-who realize enormous profits, while our farmers suffer from an unfair competition ; and that document purported to show that we are not in a position to grow these vegetables in winter time.
My hon. friend, the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) also addressed the House, this evening. He started out by saying that he had not studied the question. It is only proper, therefore, that we should excuse him for the ignorance he showed in regard to gardeners. It may be that in the county of Labelle-which is not in the vicinity of a large city such as Montreal- the need of protection such as my hon. friend from Laval asks for, is not so keenly felt. However, Labelle has fairly good transportation facilities to Montreal, and is close enough to Ottawa where quantities of vegetables from the United States are sold. So that, with some thought and study, my hon. friend would readily have come to the conclusion that even his county would be benefited by the adoption of the thoroughly national policy which this motion sets forth.
The hon. member stated, however, that the United States garden truck came to this country at a time when Canadian truck could not lie found on our markets. Why, has my hon. friend not followed the discussion which went on for weeks in the Montreal papers, whereby it was shown, not from the statements of lawyers or professional men. but from those of gardeners and agriculturists, that the production of vegetables in the United States was at a certain time in the spring of the year concurrent with ours, and consequently interfered with the sale of our home grown vegetables ? Is it not to the knowledge of my hon. friend from Labelle that two or three delegations discussed that important point with the hon. Minister of Finance and showed to his satisfaction and that of some of his colleagues, by the testimony of competent men representing the Gardeners' Association of Ontario and Quebec, that this theory, lightly put forward. I must say. by my hon. friend from Labelle, has no foundation? It was shown that we are successful in raising 150}
early vegetables and that this competition on the part of United States products is very harmful to us.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not speak of Toronto, as there are in this House several members who are acquainted with the situation there ; but within twenty-five miles of Montreal, there are large numbers of market gardeners interested in this policy. It will enable our farmers, producers of grain over large areas, to improve their condition by taking to market gardening. That policy is of interest also to the county of Laprairie-Napierville, so well represented here by my hon. friend (Mr. Monet). It interests the county of VerchSres, and the county of L'As-somption, although somewhat distant from Montreal ; but I am sure that my hon. friend who represents that county would rejoice should the government at last adopt a wise policy on that question.
The counties of Cbambly-Vercheres and Terrebonne are also greatly interested. Today the county of Terrebonne is in close communication with Montreal ; and I heard it stated in that county, last winter, that should market gardening be protected, the people there would be in a position to provide for Montreal's enormous consumption of vegetables. The county of Vaudreuil, which adjoins my own, is also greatly interested. as well as the county of Hochelaga, worthily represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Madore), whom I notice just now at his seat. The county of Hochelaga stands high as regards this specialty, and supplies the Montreal market with a large quantity of the early vegetables for which the gardeners claim from the government as much protection as is granted to other industries, and no more. A great deal was said last year concerning protection for the farmers ; my hon. friends who are seated on your right. Mr. Speaker, had much to say on the subject. Well, here is a proposal thoroughly in the interest of the farmers, a most favourable opportunity is offered for granting them some measure of protection. We will find out who are the farmer's friends. The market gardeners in this country are those who go in for extensive farming, to which very little attention has been given heretofore. But to-day, through the efforts of noted agriculturists, that type of farming, particularly in the province of Quebec, and more particularly in the district of Montreal, at the hands* of the descendants of the first settlers of the country, is being remarkably developed.
I did not mention just now the county of Laval, and my reason for omitting to do so was that my hon. friend (Mr. Leonard) had. this evening, very well spoken on behalf of that county. Laval, which extends even over a small part of the island of Montreal, is very highly interested in this question. The county of Jacques Cartier, whose representative I have the honour to be, has never ceased since I have been a

member of this House, to claim that protection, which is so necessary to its welfare. My hon. friend from Laval spoke of the development of that industry ; he said that in his county, that agricultural specialty was carried on a large scale. I may say without exaggerating that the capital invested in the production of early vegetables amounts at least to $150,000. We showed all that to the satisfaction of the members of the government, and among others, the hon. Minister of Finance, when we called on them with the joint delegation of the gardeners of Ontario and Quebec representing the interests of that class of gardeners which is so important and so worthy of our solicitude.
Mr. Speaker, should you fancy the notion, some day, it might be well to visit Cote des Neiges, Notre Dame de Grace, or some others of our important parishes in the vicinity of Montreal. You would be surprised, I am assured, at witnessing what our gardeners have accomplished in the way of liot-beds, in order to supply Montreal, in tiie months of March and April, with the products required for consumption, and to use the words of Mr. Legare, with an abundance of all that the city requires, at reasonable prices. Yourself, Mr. Speaker, were it possible for you to vote on this motion, you would be the first to do so, as the county of Rouville is close enough to Montreal as to be in a position to take advantage of such a measure of protection. Early vegetables are raised in that county on a large scale, and X believe that if a policy of protection were to be applied to that industry, the county of Rouville, which may be reached from Montreal in an hour's time, would take due advantage of it.
Two important delegations interviewed the government and submitted petitions to which my hon. friend from Laval referred. These two delegations consisted of gardeners from Ontario and Quebec who were unable to understand one another, as they did not speak the same language ; but a strange and very noticeable fact was that they all agreed as to the proper course to follow. They all agreed as to the rates of duty to be levied ; they all agreed in the answers to questions put by the ministers. On two occasions, then, did these gentlemen submit their representations to the government, and in each case, did the government promise to take their requests into serious consideration.
After waiting two years, is it not fair, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend from Laval, who takes such a lively interest in this question, should have recourse to the simple and constitutional means which he is taking this evening in order to obtain from this House an expression of opinion as a guide to the government in any action they may think fit to take regarding that policy which appeals to us so strongly ?
That class of men, the gardeners, have


Frederick Debartzch Monk: to pay duty on all that they use in the pursuit of their calling: agricultural implements, harness, wagons; even the clothes they wear to do their work are subjected to a duty by the government. Why should not the latter afford some protection to the products which through their arduous labours are extracted from the soil ?
The hon. member for I.abelle stated that we paid duty on vegetaules from the United States at a time when our people were not in a position to grow them. My lion. friend loses sight of an important point : even if his statement were correct- and the contrary has been proven-even if it were so, we should through respect for ourselves and for our benefit, retaliate against the people of the United States. We should not submit to paying the high duties they impose, and not levy any ourselves.	'	.
Had my hon. friend studied the question, he would be well aware that formerly, previous to the enactment of the United States tariff, we exported across the line, during autumn and winter, cabbages, celery and several other kinds of vegetables, which to-day we cannot sell there on account of the prohibitive duty which lias been enacted.
That is the evil which we wish to have corrected through the imposition of duties on products from the United States, in the same way that our products are taxed by them. By that means, that is by holding up our heads to our neighbours who wish to exclude our products from their markets, will we succeed in having the evil remedied. In this respect again, the motion now before us is eminently wise.
This is not a party question. It may be stated that under previous governments the duty was the same. That is possible ; similarly, under previous governments other things have happened which should not have happened. Had it been otherwise, these governments might have remained in power and would not have undergone the fate of all governments which deteriorate and perish through wrong doing. The evil I have referred to is undoubted. In the spring and until July 15, our gardeners are deprived of the profit which would bo ensured by a fair and reasonable rate of duty.
When the delegation of farmers from Ontario and Quebec submitted their views to tiie government, the following question was put : Do you intend to raise the prices of vegetables which we buy on the markets in our cities ? What was the answer to that question ? The president of the Gardeners' Association of the province of Quebec-and his testimony is worthy of consideration-answered at once : Give us a fair measure of protection and we guarantee that the products we shall offer for sale will not be dearer than those we have now to compete against.

While my hon. friend from Lnbelle (Mr. Bourassa) was speaking, the member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) asked him a question regarding which 1 deem it incumbent oii me to say a few words. On two occasions it was suggested to the government: by the delegations which came to Ottawa, in case it was not thought advisable to grant absolute protection throughout the year, to establish a sliding scale of duties. That was certainly a wise suggestion, and the Minister of Finance remembers, no doubt, that the question was discussed at the time. That suggestion is a practical one, and I think a sliding scale of duties could lie worked in such a way as to offer sufficient protection to our gardeners. In the opinion of the delegates, there was no question as to the practicability of such a suggestion. I believe it would be possible to lower the duties during the months of November, December and January, and subsequently to increase them to the proposed amount in the spring as soon as our products come in again, that is at the time when these protective duties would benefit the growers. Such a system could lie applied here as it has been elsewhere. In the spring, our gardeners could produce abundantly and at reasonable prices the vegetables we require ; but it is not fair to abandon them without protection to the competition of the negroes and the Chinese who till the lands in Carolina and Virginia.
Mr. .1. A. C. ETHIER (Two Mountains). (Translation). Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Finance, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, moved, a little while ago, Jliat the House go into Committee of Supply, and the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) moved in amendment :
That it is greatly in the interest of the market gardeners and the farmers, that the duties on our Canadian garden products be so adjusted as to guarantee the Canadian farmer an effective protection against foreign competition.
I must say, at the outset, that although l had the privilege of listening to the remarks offered by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard), I could not catch the meaning of the last portion of his argument. It was also my privilege to hear what I may call the political harangue of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who has just resumed his seat, and who is the recognized leader of the opposition in the province of Quebec. It is not my intention. however, to say anything as to the merits of bis remarks, as I must admit that I have not the necessary knowledge and information to deal properly with the matter.
I had occasion to meet the hon. gentleman at several public assemblies in the rural constituencies of the province of Quebec, which be lias just referred to, namely, Hoehelaga, Laval, Chambly and Vt relieves and Terrebonne. I may add that I also met him in February last at St. Eustacbe, in the
county of Two Mountains and at Ste. Seliol-astique, the chief town of the Terrebonne district. Upon those several occasions, he stated that the greatest agricultural county in the province of Quebec was that which I have the honour of representing here, and which I won for the party, in spite of all the efforts put forth by my opponents. Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman, this evening, failed to mention the county of Two Mountains as an agricultural county, and I hope the electors of my constituency will not forget It. The hon. gentleman thinks that the county of Two Mountains is not an agricultural constituency, and that in the province of Quebec, the only agricultural counties are those of Hoehelaga, Terrebonne and Laval, the last of which is represented here by the mover of this resolution.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Let my hon. friend allow me to tell him that I was well aware that he was here to represent his county.


Mr. ETHIER. (Translation).: My hon. friend knew very well that the other members referred to were also here. He knew that the hon. member for Terrebonne was in liis sent. Why did he omit mentioning the county of Two Mountains V It is because he knows that the electors of that county voted, in 1900 and on the occasion of the by-election held in February last, against the policy which is now being advocated by the hon. member for Laval and himself. They were also well aware that, on the 28th of April, 1902, a similar motion to the one now before the House was voted down by a majority of 38.
The House remembers, no doubt, that last session, on the 28th of April


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: Is the bon. gentleman warranted in stating that the electors of the county of Two Mountains declared against my amendment, at the election of 1902 ? My hon. friend did not vote on that motion.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: My hon. friend wants to know whether the electors of the county of Two Mountains declared against his amendment, at the election of 1902. He ought to know that, when that by-election took place, 1 had not the honour of representing here that county, as I had resigned my seat.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: On the 28tli of April, you were the member for Two Mountains, and you did not vote.
Mr. ETHIER, (Translation). I would certainly have voted against the motion, and if I did not do so, it is because 1 was absent from my seat in this House. But had the hon. gentleman been in his seat, Ills vote would have helped to swell the majority of thirty-eight, which was recorded against the motion brought down by the

lion, member for Laval. Now, this motion comes up again, after having gone through many changes. I think the mover of this resolution, if he had been sincere and had the interests of the market gardeners at heart, would not have pursued such a course. I presume he took that course, lest the resolution which he had put on the Order Paper should meet with a similar treatment to that meted out to the motion brought down by him last session, which was voted down by a majority of thirty-eight. My hon. friend from Laval put his motion on the Order Paper, this year, and it was allowed to stand for three months through his being absent, although it was called over and over again. Now, as the hon. gentleman has thought it fit to rebuke me for being absent from my seat in this House during the electoral contest in my constituency, let me ask him why he did not proceed with his resolution, although it was called over fifteen times by you, Mr. Speaker, and why he did finally withdraw it ? If my hon. friend had been sincere and anxious to advance the interests of the farming community, he would not have withdrawn his resolution.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: In reply to the hon. gentleman, I may tell him that if I withdrew the resolution which I had placed upon the Order Paper, it is because I was anxious that the House should deal with it on its merits, so that an adequate expression of the House should be had upon it, and further to prevent it from being shelved by the government and their followers, through their proposing the adjournment of the debate, as was done last session. I am sure the hon. gentleman will record his vote in favour of my amendment, if he wishes to voice the opinion of his faithful and intelligent constituents.
Mr. ETH1ER. (Translation). The faithful and intelligent electors of the county of Two Mountains have rendered their verdict in the by-election, as you are aware.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I may remind the hon. gentleman that he should address himself to the Chair and not to one of his colleagues.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: What I blame the hon. gentleman for is that, after having placed his motion on the Order Paper, he deliberately allowed it to remain on the motion paper for two months, and then withdrew it. Now he comes forward and presents it in the form of a non-confidence motion, in amendment to the usual motion presented by the government for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Let the hon. gentleman deal with the resolution before the House on its merits.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: My hon. friend seems to take exception to my re-Mr. ETHIER.
marks, just as he took exception to what I said at the time of the election in Valley-field. But as I stated at the outset, I do not wish to pay to his high-flown rhetorical efforts more attention than they deserve, and than I paid to them during the election contest in Valleyfield. Let me only remind him that, upon that occasion, he entered the lists with an hon. member who now sits alongside of him in the cold shades of the opposition, and who, on the 28th of April, 1902, did administer to him a well deserved castigation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: You are not in favour of vegetables ?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: My hon. friend should not forget that the hon. gentleman whom he is now extolling to the skies from one end of the county to the other, did, upon that occasion, administer to him a well deserved rebuke, as I am going to show. In reply to the hon. member for Laval, the hon. Mr. Tarte made the following statement, which will be found on page 3642 of ' Hansard ' :
We should bear in mind that the present tariff is the same as was in force in former years.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: Which is right, the minister or the tariff ?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: In those days the tariff was no good, and the minister was wrong. Now, the ex-minister is right, but the tariff is all wrong.
Then it should not be forgotten that the articles on which they want us to impose higher duties are the very same products which we cannot grow all the year round.
The ex-minister was right then. I do not know whether he would still express the same views, if he were in his seat to-day. At any rate, his remarks were sound. One would be led to believe, from what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) said, that in the whole Dominion there are only four counties in which vegetables are grown, namely, Hochelaga, Laval, Chambly and Vercheres-and Terrebonne. He did not mention that of Jacques Cartier?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: You forgot to mention two counties, and I must protest against such an omission.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: The hon. members for Jacques Cartier and Laval know very well that the hon, member for Labelle, in bis remarks, gave due credit to the market gardeners of the counties referred to. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has also referred to the deputations that had waited upon the Minister of Finance. Now, my hon. friend knows very well that lie did not state the case fairly. I affirm that he did not say the whole truth. He did not say that certain deputations which he had organized and which consisted of several prominent market garden-

ers-I may mention here that Mr. Des-Rosiers, one of the leading market gardeners in the district of Montreal, was one of them, and that 1 was also present-did wait upon the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier), and that they obtained from him a satisfactory reply.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, I must protest against the language used by the hon. gentleman. He states that 1 did not say the whole truth. I appeal to the hon. Minister of Finance whether I did not have, last year, a long- interview with him on that very matter. I am now referring to the two deputations that waited upon the government. We first had a delegation which waited upon the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue, and later on another delegation which waited upon the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Postmaster General. If my hon. friend was not there, he has no right to use such language, and I appeal to you, Sir, for protection.


Mr. EITHER. (Translation).: I do not think I have denied the hon. gentleman the right of saying that he had interviews with the Finance Minister ; but I did state that, prior to that latter interview, he had two other interviews with the Minister of Inland Revenue, in which I had the honour of participating, and that we were accompanied by Mr. DesRosiers, of the Cote des Neiges.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I rise to a point of order. A year ago, we had the interview referred to by my hon. friend, and it was only later on that we waited upon the Finance Minister. My hon. friend ought to have sense enough to admit that those interviews took place in that way.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Whether those interviews referred to by my hon. friend did really take place in that way, matters very little ; but the fact is that, in his previous remarks, he did not mention the delegations which had waited upon the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier).
As I said at the outset, it was not my intention to deal with the merits of the remarks offered by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and the hon. member for Eaval. In my opinion, our market gardeners do not suffer from the competition of the American market gardeners. Therefore, I think the position taken by the hon. member from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is the right one, as I also approve of the course pursued by the hon. Minister of Finance. To my mind, that attitude is perfectly fair and reasonable. Eet me tell my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) that we are perfectly satisfied with the policy adopted by the government on that matter, and that 1 feel bound to vote against the amendment brought down by the hon. member tor Eaval.
Mr. 1>. HENDERSON (Halton). I regret that I am unable to reply to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Ethier). not being able to follow the discussion of the question in French. I have no doubt, however, that the hon. gentleman has satisfied himself that the gardeners in the neighbourhood of the city of Montreal are -not entitled to protection. The question raised by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) is, I have no doubt, one of deep interest to his constituents, as it is to mine, as well as to many other people throughout the province of Ontario. During the present session a large deputation, introduced by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell), waited upon the hon. Minister of Finance and I think the hon. Postmaster General in the room of the Minister of Finance, in regard to this question, and on that occasion the hon. member for West York stated that there were upwards of 4,000 people engaged in this industry in the neighbourhood of Toronto. If I have misstated or overstated the figure, I am quite sure the hon. gentleman will correct me. His statement on that occasion deeply impressed me with the importance of the industry in and about the city of Toronto. If that number of people are engaged in it, it is certainly something that should command the attention of the government, and these people should be put in the position of securing that market and thus receive a fair return for their labour and for the money they have invested in lands in and about the city of Toronto, which are very costly indeed ; and the same may be said with regard to Montreal and all the other large cities of Canada. The hon. member for West York appears to have given this question a considerable study. In fact, when lie appeared before the electorate on the occasion of his election in West York, it was largely on the line of increased protection to the market gardeners in and about the city of Toronto. What he says on that question, therefore, I take to be pretty well thought out and perfectly reliable. When he introduced this deputation to the ministers, I understood him to say that the increased cost of the vegetables to the consumers resulting from increased duties would be a mere trifle, amounting to not more than five or ten cents per family per week, which he regarded as a very insignificant matter compared with the great advantage of having this industry fostered and protected in such a way as to give to that large number of people a' profitable return for their labour. The ordinary objection has been raised tonight to an increase in the duty on vegetables-an objection which I regret to say is often raised by the hon. Minister of Finance when proposals are made to increase the tariff-that an increased duty would enhance the price to the consumer. As I have said, the hon. member for West York treated that suggestion as a very insignifi-

cant matter. But if t)je hon. Ministei of Finance would regulate liis tariff in such a way as to foster the industries of this country, I see no reason why any family should be called upon to pay any more if the duty on vegetables were increased. It would be a very easy matter for the Minister of Finance to materially increase the duty on vegetables, even if it did add something to the price, if at the same time he reduced the duties on some things which we cannot produce in the country, such as raisins, currants, figs, and other dried fruits. We do not and cannot produce these dried fruits in Canada, and any taxes imposed upon them are direct taxes for revenue only, and not for the purpose of fostering any industry. The Minister of Finance could take the duty or part of the duty off these articles, and enable the various families throughout the country to get them at less cost, and at the same time he could put an increased duty on vegetables, and give the people who are engaged In that industry a larger market and a better chance of making their livelihood, while the consumers would not have to pay out any more for their living during tlie year.
I notice that the total duty on vegetables - and these do not include potatoes which we do not propose to interfere with at present- was 8815,074 but the total duty which we pay on prunes, raisins and other dried fruits amounted to $304,640, making a slight reduction in the duty on dried fruits would very readily make up for the increased duty on our vegetables.	The same may
be said of small fruit.	The hon. gentlemen who preceded me. having spoken in French, I am not sure whether they included small fruit in tlieir proposition, but I would like to see the duty increased on small fruits, such as raspberries, strawberries and gooseberries, which are grown largely in the county I have the honour to represent. I do not consider that it would hurt the people if we increased the duty, because we might at the same time reduce the duty on sugar. In this way we would encourage an industry which employs a great deal more labour than people imagine, and by reducing the duty on raw sugar produced in Germany, you would not hurt any one. I do not therefore see that It would enhance the cost of living to the families of this country if we should increase the duty on vegetables and give our market gardeners that protection which is so desirable, as the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) has pointed out. We were told a short time ago that the Americans wanted our markets for their small fruits, but as they do not take any small fruits from us, or scarcely any, we gain nothing by the exchange, and it would be quite immaterial, as far as our people are concerned, whether they raise the duties on these articles cr not. With reference to the duty on vegetables going to the United Mr. HENDERSON.
States, as compared with the duties on vegetables coming to Canada, I think we might well come somewhat nearer what the Americans charge us when we endeavour to send them vegetables. I shall only take one article as an illustration of how unfairly our market gardeners are treated. We have to meet keen competition from the other side at a low rate of duty, because I think that 25 per cent on a low priced article is a very low rate. It can scarcely be said to be a revenue producing duty and it certainly cannot be called a ihgli protective duty, whereas the Americans, on the other hand, make their duty practically prohibitive. Take tlie article of cabbage, at three cents per head, the duty on. cabbage going into the United States from Canada is practically 100 per cent, and we admit it at 25 per cent. Why should we not mete out to tlie Americans the same kind of treatment that they do to us ? If they want our market, let them treat us fairly. If they want to come in here in the early season with tlieir vegetables before ours are ready, surely they ought in return to give us similar access to tlieir markets in tlie later season. A 100 per cent against a 25 .per cent is altogether unfair, and tlie Minister of Finance would lie perfectly justified in acceding to tlie request of the hon. member for Unval (Mr. Leonard) by giving adequate protection to the market gardeners around the city of Montreal. Toronto and elsewhere, so as to enable them to make more profit out of tlieir calling, and I may tell you, Mr. Speaker. that there is a larger number of people employed in the production of vegetables and small fruits than any of us Imagine. If the hon. Minister of Finance could see his way clear in granting relief to these people, lie could do so. without imposing any burden on tlie country in tlie shape of increased taxation, because, whilst increasing the duty on the articles we can produce, he c >uld take off a certain amount of duty from articles which we cannot produde and thereby maintain a level < f taxation. I hope therefore that he will not turn a deaf ear to our appeal but will see his way to granting some relief to this hard-working section of our community.


Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word or two In reply to a remark by the hon. member from Jacques Cartier. He first vouchsafed to inform the House that in bringing forward this amendment, tlie lion, member for Laval was redeeming a pledge given to bis constituents during tlie election campaign in liis constituency. Tlie lion, gentleman forgets, no doubt, that another election was taking place at tlie same time in the division of St. James, of Montreal. Those two counties are almost adjacent to each other, and in tlie division of St. James, of Montreal, there was nothing said about garden products, while in

tlie county of Laval, it was the great election cry. The reason is, indeed, that the market gardeners are not the only class concerned. I doubt very much whether the majority of the Laval electors are interested in market gardening. Besides, I think the hon. member for Laval has failed to show that the market gardeners were in as desperate a position as he would have us believe.
I have always been of the opinion that the market gardeners in and around the city of Montreal were among the most prosperous people in the country. I believe that the market gardeners in Montreal are the class of people who have made most money within the last few years. Under the circumstances, with a tariff of 2.1 per cent on their products, is it fair for them to come to parliament and ask for an increase in the customs duties, when tin y are enjoying a prosperity of such, an exceptional character ? It ill becomes them to come come down here and ask for an increase of from 30 to 100, per cent in the duties. They have grown rich under protection, and the least they could decently do, would be to show that their position warrants them in asking for such an increase.
When I go to the market in Montreal and 1 have to pay twenty-five cents for three small tomatoes which I can hold in the hollow of my hand, it strikes me that the price charged is high enough.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Those are American tomatoes.


Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation). I agree that those tomatoes come from across the line, because there are no Canadian tomatoes for sale in that season of the year. So with cucumbers. We have to buy cucumbers imported from the United States, because our market gardeners cannot grow any in that season.
Although the county of St. John and Iberville be twenty-five miles distant from the zone referred to by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, if it could be impressed upon the farmers of that county that the produce grown by them could fetch such a price, 7 am sure they would engage in that industry.
If our markets were flooded with American products, which were sold at a low price, the hon. gentleman would be justifiable in claiming some measure of protection, on the ground that the Canadian market gardeners were unable to enter into competition with the Americans, owing to the demoralized state of the market. As I said, the prosperity enjoyed by the market gardeners in the vicinity of Montreal is si*c-li that it ill becomes them to complain about the prices of the market. For these reasons, I cannot support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Laval.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Whatever else the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) expects in bringing forward his present motion, at least he cannot expect to win the favour of that class of hon. gentlemen who usually differ from him. Of course, it would have been possible for the hon. gentleman to present his motion in a different form, and at one stage of the affairs of this session it seemed that he desired to present it in a different form. I have on another occasion called the attention of the House to what may be called the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding in this particular way in dealing with tariff matters-I mean by a motion in amendment to the usual motion presented by the government for the House to resolve itself into committee of supply. One of the advantages of this form is that it enables the hon. gentlemen who move the motion to have a direct vote on certain matters on which they wish to have a vote, and I cannot blame them for using that form. On the other hand, one of the disadvantages is that it prevents that free and open discussion of the question hon. gentlemen ordinarily desire to have. Now, at an early stage of this session, on the 3rd of April, my hon. friend from Laval placed upon the notice paper a motion in substance the same as this which he presented to-day. That motion, if presented to the House, might have been dealt with ns an open question, for it did not take the form of a non-confidence motion. But my hon. friend, for his own purposes-and I do not at all question his right ; he is the best judge of the method to be used-deliberately allowed that motion to remain on the notice paper for five or six weeks without moving it Ultimately he dropped that motion, and now he comes forward and presents what is in effect the same motion, but he presents it in the form which is the most obnoxious form in which it could be presented to the government and to those hon. gentlemen who are good enough to favour us with their support. I cannot suppose that the hon. gentleman expects the motion to pass, or even to win many votes. He has, by following this method and putting the motion in this form, done his utmost to prevent hon. gentlemen on this side from voting for the motion. The question which the hon. gentleman raised is not new. It was dealt with in a general debate that took place this session, and it was also dealt with last year. Whatever may be said as to the merits of the motion if it arose in connection with a general, or even considerable, revision of the tariff, it has no merits if it is to be selected as one class of imports to be dealt with by the hon. gentleman to-night. If we were dealing with various items of the tariff, making either an extensive or a general revision, the hon. gentleman's views would be entitled to more consideration than we feel we are able to give them now. He lias referred to the fact that my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Campbell) introduced

a large deputation to me early in the session, who urged that some increase be made on the duties on vegetables. I must say, in justice to my hon. friend from West York, that, if we have not made this change, it is through no fault of his, for he has been most zealous in presenting the matter to us, both by the deputation and otherwise. But we have not thought that, at a time when we are not dealing with the tariff, there is any special reason for selecting this particular branch of industry as the subject of special legislation. I think it would not be too much to say that this branch of industry, important as it is, is not likely to be suffering to any large extent. I will not go so far as to say that there is nothing in the contentions of the hon. gentleman, for all these matters are fair subjects for consideration ; but I think that those hon. members who live in large cities and have the pleasure of seeing the market gardeners coming in to the market will agree with me when I say that the market gardeners living near large cities are probably amongst the most prosperous farmers in Canada. They have advantages and opportunities which are not given to many of those in distant rural districts ; and my observation is that the market gardener near a large city is, as a rule, a very comfortable and prosperous person. That is one reason why we do not now select the market gardeners1 as objects of our special consideration or regard.
My hon. friend from Haiton (Mr. Henderson) has referred to the small amount of duty we have collected on vegetables. And very properly so. Why is the duty so collected such a comparatively small amount ? Because the importations are comparatively small. These goods only come in at certain seasons of the year, when our farmers are not producing the goods. If there are seasons when people in more southern climes can produce these things by the hand of nature on more favourable conditions than we, I do not think we should endeavour to shut them out altogether. I venture to think that, even if we increased the duty we should not shut them out altogether; and I doubt if the market gardeners would be substantially benefited, even if the duties were increased. I will say for the hon. member for Haiton that, when he discusses matters of this character, he does not fall into the error into which so many hon. members on his own side of the House do, of thinking that increased duties do not increase the tax and the burden. He accepts the conclusion of his own logic and admits that there will be an increase. But, he says, I will show you how to lessen the burden in some other direction; you may have to pay more for your vegetables, but you can square the account by getting cheaper grapes and figs. These are commonly regarded as luxuries; and I am inclined to think that the working man will hardly agree to make his vegetables more Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
expensive that he may get his compensation in buying his grapes and figs at cheaper rates.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has never been in the grocery business, or he would know differently.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) has been in the grocery business, I infer from what he says. But, in spite of his superior knowledge, I venture to say that for one man who buys figs and grapes, there are ten men who buy the common articles of vegetables. Therefore, any attempt to increase the price of vegetables and square the account by making the price of figs and grapes cheaper will, I think, hardly be the popular policy that he believes it to be. There is another point in which the hon. gentleman is ready to make a reduction-and I would like to hear the hon. gentleman on these matters, for he is always ready with proposals. He is not lacking in fairness. He says :	I want to do this, and if there is a
disadvantage in it, I will show you how to make it up. Well, he is going to cheapen figs and grapes-


David Henderson: Currants and raisins.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. in justice to the workingman, I must put in currants and raisins; I certainly would not keep them out of his cake even if I could. The hon. gentleman says : Tl ere is another duty you can reduce. In proposing it. he wants to get even with the people of the United States and put a check on something that they send us. But what he proposes is to reduce the duty on German sugar. At the very moment when this country is ringing with admiration for the policy of this government in increasing the tax on German goods, the hon. gentleman coolly comes in and makes the proposal that we shall reduce the duty on German sugar. Apart altogether from the lack of logic in the hon. gentleman's position, apart from his failure to appreciate the national sentiment in the policy of this government, apart from his failure to appreciate the policy which has not only won the admiration of the people of Canada, but has won the admiration of the people of the whole empire, for we have asserted our right to be a portion of the empire free from any action that Germany may take ; apart from all this, there is another question which the hon. gentleman has forgotten. At the moment when he is pressing us to reduce the duty on German sugar, deputations from his own province of Ontario, consisting of those interested in the beet-root industry, are asking us to increase the duty on German sugar.


David Henderson: Give them a bounty.
47S9


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am bound to tell the hon. gentleman that they have asked not only a bounty but an increase of duty also, and, of the two they would prefer the increased duty. So, my hon. friend in his proposal-and I give him credit for readiness in replying-met the difficulty arising out of giving the workingman dear vegetables by saying that he would give him cheap figs


David Henderson: No.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, and at the moment when we are bound, in the interests of the country to resent the action of Germany, he comes forward and proposes that we go back on that policy and reduce the duty on German goods. At the very time when the beet growers of his own province are coming and asking us for increased duty on sugar, my hon. friend, who thought he was a high protectionist, comes and asks us to reduce the duty on German sugar. However, I do not wish to go into a general discussion of the tarif. Be it wise or be it unwise, the government have said that they do not regard it as expedient for the present session that we should enter into any extensive tariff changes; and unless we were entering upon general or extensive tariff changes there is no good reason for selecting this particular item as the subject of special consideration. If it were necessary to make comparison, there are other interests in Canada, probably not so well off as our friends the market gardeners, who, I think, as a rule, are by no means the least prosperous of Canadian citizens. However, since the hon. gentleman from Laval has withdrawn his original motion which would have allowed a general discussion of the question and has brought it forward as a vote of want of confidence, he will hardly expect any hon. gentleman on this side to vote for it. At all events, with every desire to appreciate the position of the market gardeners of Canada, I am bound to tell the hon. gentleman that I am unable to vote for his motion.


Robert Laird Borden: It is becoming difficult for my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fielding) to keep his followers in line. The only way he has been able to do it for some weeks past is by appealing to them to vote down motions of want of confidence. Yet, only three years ago, there was a motion introduced by my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Russell) with regard to the British preference which was not regarded as a vote of want of confidence, though it possessed every element in that respect of the motion of my hon. friend the member for Laval (Mr. Leonard). It is very difficult indeed to please the bou. Minister of Finance. Introduce a general motion with regard to the tariff, and he tells you it is too general; he may even tell you that he does not know what it means; he
cannot understand it. Speak, for instance, of adequate protection, and the hon. gentleman cannot understand it; it is a meaningless phrase to him. But he has no trouble whatever in understanding legitimate protection when that expression is used by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine). And a few years ago, he assailed a former Conservative government because it had not given to the c-oal mines of Nova Scotia anything that could be regarded as adequate protection.
Well, he is not satisfied with a general motion, and you would think you might satisfy him with a specific motion, but when you come with a specific motion it satisfies him too well, it is too specific, and because it is not general, because it does not deal with every article in the tariff, he calls upon his followers to vote it down. In what way is this motion of my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Leonard) inopportune ?-I think that is the proper expression, every one of these specific motions is inopportune. If it is a motion of a general character it is vague and indefinite ; if it is a motion of a specific character it is inopportune. Why. Mr. Speaker, I suppose that every hon. gentleman in this House, every one who looks over the history of this country during the past twenty-five or thirty years, knows that motions with regard to the tariff have been introduced almost invariably as amendments to motions to go into Committee of Supply. If I am not mistaken, the policy of the Conservative party in the time of Sir John A. Macdonald between 1874 and 1S78. was presented to the country by a motion in exactly the same way in which the hon. member for Laval has presented this motion to-night.
But there is another very curious thing in connection with this. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance says :	Why did you
not put this motion on the Order Paper in the ordinary dourse ? He says that my horn friend from Laval had such a motion on the Order Paper. Well, it is true he had that motion on the Order Paper, and he also had one of a similar kind last year. But what became of that motion ? Why, the Minister of Finance shelved it himself by a motion to adjourn the debate, knowing it would never come up again, in order that certain followers of his who did not care particularly to vote against that motion, might not be put in an awkward position by having a vote taken upon it in the House. To-night he calls upon them to vote this motion down because it is a motion of want of confidence, and because, I suppose, it is inopportune. Well, the Minister of Finance does not put himself in a very good light, it seems to me. If my hon. friend from Laval had proceeded with his motion this year, the Minister of Finance, after a certain amount of debate had gone on, would have risen again and moved the adjourn-

ment of the debate, and the motion of my hon. friend might have been shelved. That would have been his procedure, and I challenge him to say that he would not have done exactly what he did last year.


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Very likely I would.


Robert Laird Borden: And yet he complains.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not complain.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what you would call complaining. It is something very much like it. He seemed to tind fault-let us put it in that way-he seernd to lind fault with my hon. friend from Laval because he has put this motion before the House in the only way in which be could do it for the purpose of obtaining and having recorded the votes of hon. gentlemen in this House on the merits of that motion. Now the motion is specific, it is true. Hon. gentlemen on the ether side have been shouting for specific motions, have been declaiming against the so-called vague motions that have been made in the House with regard to the tariff, they have been clamouring and thirsting for these various specific motions which are being presented to them during this session. When they get these specific motions for which they have been thirsting so much during the past two or three years, they do not seem to be any better satisfied with them than they were with the motions couched in more general terms which have been presented to the House during the past two or three sessions.
The Minister of Finance seems to think that no labouring man in this country lias a right to be in a position to use figs or grapes ; he seems to think these articles of food should be reserved for gentlemen in the position of cabinet ministers, or in a similar high scale of life. Well, I can tell the hon. gentleman that I think the labouring man of this country fcr the most part have a right to aspire occasionally to buy a basket of grapes containing ten pounds for twenty-five cents, and I think as I am reminded by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) that those grapes which are grown in Canada and sold at a very small price, are a very good article indeed.
I do not know that there is any reason why these articles should not bo protected in accordance with the terms of the motion presented by my hon. friend from Laval. The Minister of Finance,-although he thinks the labouring man has no right to aspire to grapes or figs, seems to think that he may aspire to the luxury of early vegetables, or strawberries in February, and tomatoes in February or March. Well, I should lie very glad indeed to see the labouring men of this country in a position to have these articles, but for the most part these articles, at that season of the year, are in every sense Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
of the term luxuries, and are only used by people in this country who are in a position to command luxuries. A tax such as that proposed by the hon. member for Laval to-night would not bear upon the working people of this country, because these articles at that season of the year when they cannot be produced in Canada, are not used to any extent by labouring people.
There was not anything else in the remarks of the Minister of Finance, as I recollect them at this moment, which are deserving of any answer. I can only say that my hon. friend from Laval is perfectly justified in placing this motion before the House in the way which he has done to-night, by reason of the tactics employed by the Minister of Finance in this House last year to avoid the taking of a vote upon this very question, and if he had taken the course suggested by the Minister of Finance, that gentleman, according to his own very candid avowal to-night, would have adopted the same tactics to prevent a vote being taken upon this motion to-night. Therefore there can be no possible excuse for the government complaining of the conduct of my hon. friend, or saying that this motion calling for a certain reform in the tariff should necessarily be regarded as a motion of want of confidence.


Mr. ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL (West York).: Before the vote is taken I would like to say a word on this subject. The leader of the opposition complains of the course taken by the Minister of Finance, in reference to the motion which was presented last year, in moving the adjournment of the debate and thus shutting off a vote on the original motion. Now it will be remembered that last year the hon. member for Laval put his notice on the motion paper, I think on the second day of the session. It was called week after week and month after month, and either he was not here, or it was allowed to stand for two months and a half before he brought it up. In the meantime the budget speech had been delivered and the government had come to the conclusion, and parliament had agreed with them, that there should be no changes in the tariff last session. Then during the last days of that session, when no possible good could come from the motion at all, the hon. member for Laval brings it forward, not with the hope of benefiting the market gardeners at all, but with the hope of making a little cheap popularity for himself at the expense of some of those politically opposed to him. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) and some other members during the recess had a good deal to say about the course pursued by me last year in voting for the adjournment of the debate. I approved of that course, and I am prepared now to justify my course, and will be prepared to justify it at any time the hon. member for Peel or

any other hon. gentleman on that side chooses to come and debate the question with me, I justified the course I took then, and I am satisfied that the electors of West York sustained me in the course I took. Not only that, but there is not an hon. gentleman in this House who has advocated the cause of the market gardener more earnestly and more sincerely than I have done. I did it at the right time and in the right place. * It is true that so far I have not been successful, but the time is short. This is only the second session that I have had the honour of representing any of the market gardeners of this country and this session is not over yet. There will be plenty of time, and I still hope that some justice will be done to the market gardeners. What do we see now ? Here, we find, as the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) says, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) comes forward again with precisely the same motion-that he put upon the Order paper on the 3rd of April. This motion was called over and over again. Where was the hon. member for Laval ? Absent from his place in this House before the budget speech was delivered at a time when he could have impressed upon the government the justice of liis cause, when he could have given sufficient reasons and perhaps could have influenced the government to grant the redress which he now so earnestly advocates. He allows three months to pass by from the time that he put his motion on the Order paper on the 3rd of April. He drops his motion and now he brings it forward at a time when no amendment can be moved and when no adequate expression of the House can be had upon it. If he had brought it forward in the ordinary way. if he had proceeded with his motion it would have been open for every hon. member in the House to vote as he sawT fit. But, now. what does it mean ? No matter how friendly a member may be to the market gardeners, no matter how anxious he is to see their condition improved it involves voting for this motion of want of confidence in the government, and putting the government out and putting whom in their places? -that outfit over yonder. From the market gardeners standpoint how would their position be improved ? To whom do the market gardeners owe their present condition ?. To thei Liberal party ? No, the Liberal party came into power in 1896. They revised the tariff but they left the tariff exactly as it was before.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Archibald Campbell: So far as vegetables are concerned they left the tariff exactly as it was before. They made no change at all. The tariff was higher on vegetables. Who reduced it ? The Conservative party in 1894. When they revised the tariff, and it was the very last revision they made, they
reduced the duty on vegetables. Di,d the hon. member for Haltou raise his voice in protest against it then ? Did the horn member for Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) V


Matthew Henry Cochrane: No, did you ?


Archibald Campbell: They were in power, and they supported the reduction of the tariff in 1894.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Did you not ?


Archibald Campbell: The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) was not here then, but, I suppose, if he had been here he would have supported his party too. The hon. member for Laval was not here then. But, I say that if the market gardeners are suffering in any particular they owe it to the Conservative party and not to the Liberal party. 1 believe that a readjustment of the duty should be made. I think it would be in the interest of the people of this country if the duty on vegetables was raised somewhat.


William Rees Brock: Why not vote for it ?


Archibald Campbell: I believe that the benefit that the market gardeners are to this country is very great indeed. I have no fault to find with the argument that has been advanced by the hon. member for Hal-ton with which I largely agree. There is no doubt that the market gardeners are helping to build up this country. We are endeavouring to get immigrants to come to this country, we are offering inducements to people to come and take up land and settle and build up the country. It is a fact that a market gardener with four or five acres will employ perhaps more help than a man will on 100 or 200 acres of land. They are a very industrious, economical and hard working people. Their remuneration is not very great to-day, and I believe that we can increase their prosperity without, as I said before, increasing the price. It may be that certain times in the year, particularly in the early spring when vegetables are scarce, that the price would be a little advanced if the duty were raised, but, as I pointed out before, at that season' of the year it is very largely the wealthy classes who use vegetables and a little advance in the price would not signify very much. But, the trouble is that when our own market gardeners are able to supply the market they find it flooded with foreign products, and therefore they are deprived of a market they should enjoy. They do not complain so much about the price as that they have not the market. I think if we could increase their market by shutting out the large quantity of vegetables that come in from the United States, it would be better for them. Another point is that the inspection and appraisement of vegetables are not as they should be. Indeed, it is a very difficult thing to arrive at just what the proper value of some of these vegetables

is, and I would ask the lion. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) particularly to see that in the appraisement of vegetables coming into the city of Toronto the importers are compelled to pay the proper duty upon the real value of the article introduced. I had the honour in the early part of the session of introducing a large deputation to the lion. Minister of Finance and some other members of the government, and I thought that we made out a very strong case. We presented the arguments in favour of an increase in the tariff ns strongly as we possibly could. We pointed out many things wherein there seemed to be an anomaly. For instance, we pointed out to the government that the American duty on beans was forty-five cents a bushel, while our duty was only fifteen cents a bushel. We pointed out that on prepared pease the Americans have a duty of two and a half cents a pound, on cabbages, three cents per head; hops, twelve cents per pound, onions, forty cents per bushel; pease, forty cents per bushel dried; pease, thirty cents per bushel, split pease, forty cents per bushel; potatoes, twenty-five cents per bushel and on many other things we find that the duty imposed by the United States is very much larger than the duty imposed upon these articles when imported into Canada. Our market gardeners, especially those in West York, hold that if the United States duties were as low as the Canadian duties they could send a good deal of their fruits into the cities of the State of New York, and they complain, and with reason, that they are unable to send any of their products to the United States, while the American gardeners are able to take advantage of the Canadian market. I have strongly pressed, not only upon the Minister of Finance but on other ministers, the advisability of increasing the duty. I believe that if the government, as was stated by the Minister of Finance to-night, had gone into a general revision of the tariff our representations would have had effect, but whether wisely or unwisely they decided they would not make any changes in the tariff this year and we had to abide by the decision they arrived at. I am still in hopes that the tariff will be increased on these articles. I am not going to give up yet; I am going to continue, and I warn the Finance Minister now that I shall be after him again and again. I believe the duty should be increased to help the market gardeners. It would be a grand thing for the country, it will be a grand thing for all those engaged in that trade when the duty is inereased.-So far as I am concerned, I am not going to vote for this motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear. hear.
Other hon. MEMBERS. Oh.


Archibald Campbell: I am not going to vote against this government.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Other hon. MEMBERS. Oh.


Archibald Campbell: I am not going to vote against this government and put the Conservatives into power.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Archibald Campbell: I have no confidence in these gentlemen opposite; I do not think they possess the instinct of government.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Archibald Campbell: They made a very bad mess of it when they were in power. They were in power too long and the people of Canada spewed them out of their mouths.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Archibald Campbell: They will be in opposition a good many years yet before they get the reins of government. When I look around and see the enormous progress that has been made in this country for the last six years-our manufacturing establishments going forward by leaps and bounds, our Great North-west filling up with hundreds of thousands of settlers; the Order Paper of the Railway Committee loaded down with applications for charters to build railways; no country in the world, no British possession making such progress; when I see all this occurring under the wise administration of this government and under the business ability and statesmanship they have shown, I would be foolish indeed to vote to put this government out and to put in power a set of men who have Shown that they were incompetent to manage the affairs of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear.
Other hon. MEMBERS. Oh.


Archibald Campbell: And so, Sir, while I believe in increased protection for the market gardeners and will support their claims in season and out of season, I do not believe I would benefit them by voting against the government. I hope, Sir, that I will be able before long to impress upon the government the necessity for taking some action in that regard. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Leonard) put a motion on the Order Paper on the 3rd of April, and he has allowed it to lapse for two and a half months through his being absent, although it was called over and over again; if he had gone forward with that motion I would have supported it, but he has placed me in a position to-night, so that I cannot support him, much as I believe the market gardeners should get protection.


Mr. A. BRODER (Dundas).: The hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Campbell! has taunted my hon. friend (Mr. Leonard) with trying to make political capital out of this, but if there is any man in this House who has benefited by political capital more than another, it is my hon. friend from


Archibald Campbell: West York (Sir. Campbell). It is known all over Canada tliat in the by-election in West York he made a direct promise to the market gardeners that if he came to this House they would get protection, and the reason he gave for that was that he was a friend of the government. I question if he would ever have been returned but for that promise. But the government have turned him down, and turned him down frequently, and still he eulogizes them. Well, that is the kind of man the government will turn down and that is the kind of man whose representations will have very little weight with the government. He is a much smaller man to-night than when he came to this House several years ago. What apology does he make to-night for going back on his promise ? He says that if this motion were in proper form he would vote for it. Well, there is nothing to hinder him from implementing his promise-sincere promise supposed to have been-to the market gardeners of West York, and moving a resolution in any form he pleases.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Andrew Broder: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) tells us that if this motion had been moved on the 3rd day of April he would have voted for it-if it were moved on the first of April it would have suited him better.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew Broder: The hon. gentleman says that the miserable set of Conservatives that were spewed out of the mouths of the people in 1896, left the tariff so that the Liberal government could not improve it. Well, Sir, the Minister of Finance has stated to-night that the market gardeners are among the most prosperous people in the country, and if they are prosxierous they are prosperous under the tariff that was adopted by the Conservative government, to whom the member for West York has referred in such undignified language. Any sensible man knows-I do not know whether the member for West York does or not-that the tariff on these garden products should be high, for the reason that the market gardener does not know but that the market which he meets in the morning will be demoralized before ten o'clock in the day by a large importation of American products. The market gardeners of Canada are willing to accept the same tariff that protects the American gardeners, and if the government acceded to that demand, then the radius of market gardening around the cities would extend from twenty miles to thirty miles and even greater, because of the facilities which the railways afford for shipping this produce to market. But what do we find ? We find that when there is a surplus of these articles on the market, they virtually become worthless, because they are perishable articles and must be sold ; and that is why this class of
people should get greater protection than others. The people engaged in this business are willing to invest their capital for the purpose of putting on the market earlier in the spring such articles as lettuce, celery and radishes, if you will secure to them the market against the American product. There is nothing to hinder them raising these articles under glass and putting them on the market at a comparatively low price, except the fact that you allow the American producer to come in with his southern stuff, to a certain extent, decomposed-and I question whether it is yrise to let much of that class of articles come in at that period of the year. The hon. member for West York says : These people ought to have more protection, but I cannot vote for it ; I cannot do my duty to my constituents-oh, no ; I would rather support hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches than do my duty to my electors. So long as we have a sentiment of that kind guiding members of this HousS, this eouutry will suffer : and I am afraid, from what we see here, and from what has been thrown out by the Finance Minister, that is the kind of stuff most of them are made of. Well, we will have to put up with it-their principles are nowhere.


An hon. MEMBER.: For a long time.


Andrew Broder: Do not be so sure. There are a good many of you uneasy to-night. You are more afraid of lettuce, carrots, 'mangolds and cabbages!, than you may think you are. Every mother's son of you is a little afraid that the radish will l>e too hot. With all the prosperity we talk about, our hon. friend could not show that tlie cabbages of West York grow a bit bigger than they did before he represented them. The hon. member for West York says he would vote for this motion if it came at the proper time. If the hon. gentleman put himself right with his constituents, I suppose lie would not be sure whether the market gardeners of West York would be left out of the redistribution or not ; and he throws out this sprat to these people, and says : We will perhaps do right by you at another time. The hon. gentleman should be prepared to stand up and carry out his promise to his constituents. He has been here ever since the by-election in the last parliament, and he has never yet moved a resolution to carry out that promise, and it is quite time that he put something on the Order Paper along that line, or cease eulogizing the men he supports.


Mr.   MAOPHERSON@: I would like to ask the hon. member for Dundas if he would be willing to allow the same kind of protection to the market gardeners of British Columbia, to those around my own city, for instance, as he would to the market gardeners around Ottawa and Montreal ?


Andrew Broder: My hon. friend is altogether too provincial. I am speaking for

Canada, not for British Columbia or Montreal.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: The hon. gentleman specified Toronto and Montreal. The hon. gentleman has not answered the question entirely to my satisfaction. I think he should answer it.


Andrew Broder: I can easily put the hon. gentleman's conscience at rest, if it is troubling him. We are advocating a law that will affect all Canada. That ought to cover British Columbia.


Robert George Macpherson: I accept the hon. gentleman's answer. As he is quite in favour of protecting the market gardeners of British Columbia, I may say that our market gardeners are Chinamen. We have practically no white men in our country engaged in that business. I only wanted to know the hon. gentleman's policy on the Chinese question.


Andrew Broder: I think I ought to say in reply to our hon. friend that it is a pity that the people he speaks of have not a representative here.
House divided	on amendment of Mr. Leonard.	
	YEAS:
	Messieurs
Alcorn,	Kidd.
Avery.	Lancaster,
Barker.	LaRivi&re.
Bell.	Lavell,
Bennett,	Lennox.
Blrkett.	Leonard.
Elain,	MacLaren (Perth),
Borden (Halifax),	McIntosh.
Brock,	Monk.
Broder,	Morin.
Bruce.	Northrup,
Cargill.	Osier.
Carscallen.	Pringle,
Clancy,	Reid^Grenville),
Clarke,	Richardson,
Cochrane.	Roche (Marquette),
Culbert,	Shierritt.
Earle.	Simmons.
Fowler,	Smith (Wentworth),
C-ilmuur.	Taylor.
Gouriey,	Thomson (Grey),
Hackett,	Vrooman,
Henderson,	Ward.
Hughes (Victoria),	Wilmot.
Johnston (Cardwell), Wilson-51.	
Kendall.	
	NAYS :
	Messieurs
Bazinet.	Lavergne,
Beith.	Law.
Bel court.	LeBlanc.
Blair.	Loy.
Borden (Sir Frederick), Mackie.	
Bourassa.	MacKinnon.
Eourbonnais.	MacLaren (Huntingdon)
Brown.	Macpherson,
Bruneau,	McCarthy,
Bureau.	McColl.
Calvert.	McCook
Campbell,	McEwan.


Andrew Broder: Carb. nneau.	M cGugan,
Champagne,	Mclsaac.
Christie.	McLennan.
Oopp,	Madore,
Costigan,	Malouin.
Cowan,	March (Bonaventure),
Davis.	Martiaeau.
Delisle.	Mat'heson.
Demers (Levis).	M ay rand.
Demers (St. John),	Meigs,
Desjardins.	Mignault,
Douglas,	Morrison,
Dugas.	Mulock (Sir William),
Emmerson.	Oliver.
Erb.	Paterson.
Ethier.	Prefontaine,
Fielding,	Proulx.
Fisher.	Puttee,
Fitzpatrick.	Reid (Restigouche},
Fortier,	Roche (Halifax),
Fraser.	Ross (Ontario),
Gallery.	Ross (Rimouski).
Gauvreau.	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Geoffrion,	Rousseau,
German.	Russell.
Gibson,	Schell,
Girard.	Scott,
Gould.	Stephens.
Harty,	Stewart.
Harwood,	Sutherland (Essexl,
Heyd,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Holmes.	Talbot,
Hughes (King's. P.E.I.)	Tucker.
Hyman,	Turcot.
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Turgeon.
Johnston (Lambton),	Wade.
Lang.	Wallace.
Laurier (L'Assumption),	*Wright-100.
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Thompson (Haldimand	Ingram,
and Monck).	
Cartwright	Ttipper (Sir Charles
(Sir Richard).	Hibbert),
Charlton.	Tisdale.
Tobin.	Ball.
Parmelee.	Pope.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Oasgrain,
Tolmie,	Hall id-ay.
Ross (Yukon),	Sproule,
Power.	Kaulbach.
Lemieux,	Rosamond.
Lewis.	Hale.
Bernier,	McGowan.
Carroll,	Calvin.
Logan.	Lefurgey.
Dyment.	McCormick.
Guthrie.	Porter.
McCreary.	Boyd.
Sifton.	Haggart,
Kendall.	Ganong,
Grant.	Clare.
Farquharson,	Maclean.
Bickerdike,	Roddick.
Lovell.	Kemp,
Archambault,	Seagram.
Smith (Vancouver).	Tolton.
Riley.	Robinson (North'd.),
Amendment (Mr. Leonard) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Census, $35,000.
Mr. CLANCY.: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Whatever understanding there was, we shall carry out, but it should not interfere with this item. There are other items on which wTe can discuss the cold storage question, but I think it would be better to deal now with the census.


James Clancy: I have no objection provided we may discuss it on any other item.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am quite willing, but in the meantime I would ask that we get through with the census.


Robert Laird Borden: There is not the slightest doubt about the understanding. The arrangement was that anything which would be open for discussion on the item we consented to pass, should be open for discussion on the census or any other convenient item.


Mr. FOWLER.: Has the hon. minister had any correspondence with any person in New Brunswick with respect to the census as it relates to the different religious denominations in that province.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, I have had one or two letters on that subject. The other day I received a letter from the Rev. Mr. McLeod of Fredericton, in which he says that he had proved certain mistakes in the census with regard to the Baptist denomination in New Brunswick, and asked whether any steps would be taken to investigate. I have not yet been able to answer that letter.


George William Fowler: Was there not considerable correspondence between the Rev. Mr. McLeod and Mr. Blue, with respect to that particular denomination ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Y'es, Mr. McLeod had quite an extensive correspondence with Mr. Blue, and Mr. Blue showed successfully that the census was exactly in accord with the information given the enumerators by the people. He also pointed out that in certain comparisons which were made between the returns of the Baptist community in the census of 1891 and 1901, the grouping of that denomination in the census of 1891 comprised other branches than were comprised in the grouping in the census of 1901. Consequently the apparent decrease in numbers of the branch which Doctor McLeod referred to was not due to any difference in the figures of the two censuses.


George William Fowler: The denomination of Free Baptists is a very considerable denomination in New Brunswick and the other mari-'lol
time provinces as well. In the county I have the honour to represent it is a very considerable body, yet according to the census its numbers are very inconsiderable. There was a considerable amount of correspondence between Doctor McLeod and Mr. Blue in connection with the parish of Kars, where a very small number of persons were given as belonging to this denomination, whereas, as a matter of fact, the larger portion of that parish belongs to it. The enumerator for that parish admits that he did not put those people down as he should. Doetor McLeod asked that the census be remedied in that respect but could get no satisfaction from Mr. Blue. In the city of St. John, this same religious denomination has a large number of adherents, and so dissatisfied were the ministers of that denomination in that city with the census returns that they numbered their congregations themselves and I have here a statement which shows what little reliance we can place on the census.
Commissioner Blue could find only 410 Free Baptists in St. John city. The. Sunday school census takers found 1,826. In the north end where the census reported 130, ltev. D. Long, pastor of the Victoria street church, has discovered over 700. On the west side, where the census returns report 95 Free Baptists, Rev. Mr. Ferguson has a list of 597. In St. John, south, Rev. C. T. Phillips finds 529, whereas Mr. Blue refuses to allow more than 176. The two-priced census would seem to he a rather poor affair, even at half price.
If this census of Mr. Blue's is not more correct with respect to other matters, it is rather a blue affair. It does seem to me that this is a matter of some importance. It is of importance to a very considerable number of people throughout the province of New Brunswick at least. I do not know whether the same defects occur in other provinces, but, it seems to me that these people hare rights that this government is bound to respect. And if this denomination has lost so much ground by the census of 1901 as compared with the census of 1891, I think it is incumbent upon the minister to show how this has occurred, and also to have another census, even at the very expensive rate of the one he has taken.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may say, in general terms, without going into the details, that the Rev. Mr. McLeod wrote to Mr. Blue and was replied to. He drew attention to certain apparent discrepancies in the returns of the two censuses. It was pointed out, however, to the Rev. Mr. McLeod that, in the census of 1891 the term ' Free Will Baptist ' was used. The section or branch of the denomination to which Mr. McLeod referred, and to which, I believe, he belongs, used to be called the ' Free Christian Baptist,' but they are row called ' Free Baptist.' In the census of 1891 'Free Will Baptist' and 'Free Baptist ' were used as well as the term



' Baptist.' Certain portions of the Baptist denomination were placed under the heading ' Free Will Baptist,' but others were placed under the heading ' Baptist,' without any further designation. In the census of 1901, the same course was pursued. But in the census of J.891, as I understand it, there were five different branches of the Baptist denomination placed under the head of ' Free Will Baptist ' ; but in the census of 1891 only three branches were placed under the head ' Free Will Baptist ' or ' Free Baptist ' ; and the discrepancy which appears so great in the number of Free Baptists in the province of New Brunswick .is entirely due to that fact. In the explanation sent to the Rev. Sir. McLeod, Mr. Blue drew attention to this fact, and gave figures which showed clearly, that not only had there been no decrease in the numbers of the branch of the denomination to which Mr. McLeod belonged, but, as a matter of fact, there had been an increase of fifty per cent, and that the complaints made of discrepancies which showed a discrimination against that particular branch were not justified by the facts. I merely reply in these general terms, but I have all the details of the correspondence under my hand and could give them to the House if lion, gentlemen desire it. But, of course, it would take a little time.


George William Fowler: I think the hon. minister is wrong in his statement. In the first place, though I do not profess to be well posted theologically, I think I am safe in saying that there are not five branches of the Free Baptist Church. I do not know that there are any branches of that particular church; it is a church by itself known as the Free Baptist Church. There is also the Baptist Church. If the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) were here, lie could give more definite information with respect to the denomination. But the Free Baptist Church is as distinct from the Baptist, as is the Methodist, the Congregational, the Presbyterian, or any other branch of the Christian Church. So, the explanation that the hon. minister gives is not an explanation that at all fits the case. As I understand it, in this correspondence that took place between the Rev. Dr. McLeod, who is chief editor of the newspaper organ of this church, and Mr. Blue, Dr. McLeod's complaints were treated rather curtly, and I do not think that Mr. Blue used him with the courtesy which liis position and the cause he was championing called for. I think the correspondence between Dr. McLeod and Mr. Blue should be laid upon the Table, so that we may have the advantage of wliat was set forth on either side.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I assure the hon. gentleman I shall be very glad Indeed to lay the correspondence on the Table, and even to have it printed, if Hon. Mr. FISHER.
necessary. Unfortunately this controversy arose, and the statements concerning it which appeared in the paper of whicli Rev. Mr. McLeod is the editor, were accompanied with only meagre extracts from that correspondence, the effect of which was to misrepresent the actual facts. I do not say that this was the design, but that was the result, as shown by perusal of the articles whicli appeared in the newspapers, which certainly gives a false impression of the correspondence and of the facts of the case. But, for the information of the hon. gentleman, I think it is perhaps just as well that I should read the statement which was sent to Rev. Mr. McLeod, which will show, I think, pretty clearly the facts of the case.


George William Fowler: If the hon. gentleman is to read that, perhaps he had better read also Mr. McLeod's side of the correspondence, so that we may have both sides together.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can read Mr. McLeod's letter, to which this is an answer, and, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) wishes, I can have copies of the whole correspondence laid on the Table.


George William Fowler: That would be better.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To place the matter before the House, I think it well that I should read this statement. Mr. McLeod wrote the following letter, and in it raised this whole question. There were several letters between it and the one I have just offered to read, but the one I have just offered to read is in reality a summing up of the case. He drew the attention of the Census Bureau to the matter in these terms :
Census Bulletin No. 5, dealing with the religions of the people is before me.
In the classifications of nominations I find ' Baptists (free will),' 24,229-a falling off of 20,887 since 1891.
Permit me io call your attention to two or three things :
1.	There is no body of Christians in Canada whose name is Free Will Baptisis.
2.	There is a denomination whose corporate name is Free Baptists, and of this body there is a conference in New Brunswick and one in Nova Scotia.
3.	I speak especially for the Free Baptist Conference of New Brunswick, of which I am the corresponding secretary.
4.	The figures you announce for New Brunswick Free Baptists are certainly wrong. The reports from churches in 1890- the last year of the decade with which the census deals-gives us a church membersnip of 12,352 in this province. Yet the census gives us only 15 .'02 adherents in the provioee-3,150 more than we have church members reported. A fair estimate (two and a half times as many adherents as church members) would give us over 30,000, instead of the 15,502 with which the census credits us.
5.	Is there a way by which we can get a more correct showing in the census returns ?
4S05

6. Will you kindly furnish me with a copy of the form on which the facts about the religions of the people were taken by the enumerators t
There was an answer to that on June 3rd from Mr. Blue, and in that he sends back the instructions Mr. McLeod asked for, Mr. McLeod wrote again on June 5th, and Mr. Blue replied on June 15th. Mr. McLeod wrote again on January 16th, 1903, and Mr. Blue replied on February 5th. Then Mr. McLeod wrote again on February 7th, and Mr. Blue on March 21. Mr. Blue writes to Mr. McLeod on March 21, 1903 :
I have spent some time in an investigation of the records with the object of ascertaining as accurately as possible the cause of the apparent discrepancy in the number of Free Will Baptists aud Free Baptists in the Censuses of 1891 and 1901.
Our schedules and compilation sheets ot the 1901 census have been very carefully revised and the result is the discovery of two mistakes made by one of our clerks in preparing the final table from the compilation sheets. In oEe case 472 persons recorded as Free Calvinistic Baptists in the town of Marysville, were added to Calvinistic Baptists and grouped in the table with Baptists. In another case, in King's county, twenty-nine persons recorded as Calvinistic Baptists (presumably Cresrite) and one Old Baptist were added to Free Baptists instead of to Baptists. These corrections would give the total number of Free Baptists in New Brunswick, in 1901, as 16,116, of whom eleven are recorded in the scnedules as Free Will Baptists.
In your letter to myself, as well as In your contribution to Dr. Saunder's History of Maritime Baptists, you have claimed that the total Free Baptists in New Brunswick, according to the recent census, shows a falling off in the number of about 10,300 and for the whole .Gnm-rion about 20,000 since 1891, and it is only reasonable that you should seek to ascertain the cause of this change. In your letter of June 5, 1902, you wrote :
' We are very anxious to discover the cause of the falling off which1 appears on the face of the returns, hut which we do not believe exists in fact. Kindly let me know if there is not some way of having the schedules which show the strange state of things which you mention pass under the eye of some one who knows the people as classified.'	.
I sympathized with you in your desire in this matter and although I could not under the regulations governing the census office allow the schedules to go into other hands, I took all reasonable means .to investigate the cause of the discrepancy in the number of your people for the two census years. But before proceeding to state the result, I think it is proper to mention a few facts which bear upon it.
1. An examination of the schedules showed that there were many kinds of Baptists in the maritime provinces and in the other provinces of Canada, and for publication purposes if was necessary to resort to grouping. Referring to the previous census reports since confederation we found that Baptists were classed under two general heads, namely, Baptists and Free Will Baptists. A few of the names of Baptist sects were unfamiliar to myself, as are indeed many of the 160 odd religious sects des-ribed in the schedules. For the bulletin on religions we followed the old headines, and I have to thank yourself for calling attention to the fact
that in the maritime provinces Free Baptist is the proper designation of the body formerly classed as Free Will. In Ontario, where I have always lived, persons of that belief have been known as Free Will Baptists, and I have known of them from my earliest years. Your letter, however, led me to make careful inquiry.
2.	I have found that in Nova Scotia the Free Will Baptists and the Free Christian Baptists agreed to unite into one body under the name of Free Baptists in 1867, and that in 1870 they were incorporated as one body under that name by an Act of the legislature.
3.	I found that the body known as Free Christian Baptists in New Brunswick was incorporated in 1854 under that name by the legislature of the province and that the name continued down to 1898, when by an amending Act it was changed to Free Baptists.
4.	I found that about the year 1874, under the leadership of Rev. G. W. Orser, a number of churches of Free Christian Baptists in New Brunswick separated from the parent body and assumed the name of Free Baptists, but commonly known as Orserites. This body applied for incorporation also in 1898 unaer the name of the Free Baptist denomination, and in their petition to the legislature they represented that they had existed separate and apart from the Free Christian Baptist General Conference for the previous twenty-three years as an organized body under the name of the Free Baptist denomination. But the legislature saw fit to deny them this title and incorporated them under the name of Primitive Baptists. In their treaties of faith published in 11S86, they are described as the Free Baptists of New Brunswick, Maine and Nova Scotia.
5.	I found also that another body had been formed out of the Free Christian Baptists under the name of Reformed Baptists, whose leading doctrine was belief in entire instantaneous sanctification, that they had been expelled from the Free Christian Baptist Conference of New Brunswick, and had ieen joined by a number of Free Baptists in Nova Scotia, and that in 1894 they secured incorporation from the parliament of Canada under the name of the Alliance of the Reform Baptist Church of Canada.
These facts must be familiar to you from your position as a leader in the body now known as the Free Baptists of New Brunswick, and no doubt it has often occurred to you as strange that in the successive censuses of Canada prior to 1891, the name Free Will Baptist was used to designate all Baptists of Armenian faith in the maritime provinces, although the large majority in the bodies there have for many years been known either as Free Baptists or Free Christian Baptists, but wh'at does not appear to have occurred to you is the probability that all these bodies were grouped together as Free Will Baptists including the two which had separated from your own conference, one by voluntary act and the other by expulsion. This probably did not occur to myself until recently, and then I proceeded to revise the census of Baptists in New Brunswick as taken in 1891. The work has been completed, and I will give you the results insofar as they concern your own body.
The schedules of the census of 1891 show for New Brunswick fifteen bodies of Baptists according to their descriptive names, and in the census volume they were grouped under the common heads of Baptists and Free Will Baptists, in our revised compilation we have separated these several bodies and the table which follows gives by census districts the number of Free Christian

Baptists and o! free Baptists. (The new name of the body given by the Act of 1898) with the otiect of showing exactly the relative strength of this body in the two census years.
Now, this is taken from the schedule of the two censuses of 1S91 and 1901, the exact statement of the people given to the enumerators of the church to whicli they lie-longed. In 1891 there were 10,072 who told the enumerators they belonged to the Free Christian Baptists in 1891, and in 10CL there were 16,105 who told the enumerators that they were Free Baptists. This shows therefore that in the particular branch about which Mr. McLeod is corresponding, there was an increase from 10,072 to 10,105, though by the grouping of other branches with the Free Christian Baptists of 1891, there appeared to he in that branch of Baptists, 24,000.
We have discovered .two errors in the tabulation of 1901 (as I have already stated), both due to the carelessness of a clerk in making up the . table from the compilation sheets. The first is in King's county, where 290 (Orserite) Baptists and one Old Baptist were added to Free Baptists instead of two Baptists. The second is in York county where 472 Free Christian Baptists were added to Calvinistic Baptists and grouped in the table with Baptists. These last are in the town of Marysville. Eleven persons were recorded in the schedule as Free Will Baptists and were added to Free Baptists in a. printed volume. But they are not included in the foregoing table.
In the census of 1891, the number of Free Will Baptists in the province as shown by the revised compilation of the schedules was 8,549, and all but eleven have disappeared by the showing of the recent census. We have, of course, no means of ascertaining what has become of them, but. the probability is that they have been merged with other Baptist bodies in the pio-vince. In the province of Ontario in 1891 there were 7,869 Free Will Baptists, and in the census of 1901. there were only thirty-nine.
I think Sir, it must be obvious from these statements that you have no just cause of complaint. You are certainly mistaken in assuming that the Free Baptist body of New Brunswick (formerly the Free Christian Baptist body) numbered 24.674 in 1891, and consequently you are mistaken in stating, as you have done in the letter to myself of May 3, 1902, and later in a chapter contributed to the Rev. Dr. Saunders History, that in our census they are made to lose about 10,000 in New Brunswick and in the Dominion at large about 20,000 in the ten years. The table I have given shows that in New Brunswick your body has made a gain of 5,433 instead of a large loss.
We had no other object than to give the numbers as they were collected by enumerators, and the instructions to enumerators for taking the religious census of the people were so clear and definite that I think it could not he misread or misunderstood.
Letters received from many enumerators state that great care was taken by them to record the religions of the people as they were given, and if mistakes have been made the strong probability is that the people themselves are to hlame. One fact deserving of special mention is that 1.338 persons counted in our volume as Free Baptists were recorded in the schedules as Free Christian Baptists, although the Act which


Sydney Arthur Fisher: changed the name of that body was passed three years before the census was taken.
That is, I think, a complete explanation of the situation, and accounts fully for the apparent discrepancy which the Reverend Mr. McLeod complained of.


George William Fowler: One of the results, evidently, of this trouble is that the theological knowledge of Mr. Blue seems to be considerably extended. He has evidently made some study of the Baptist denomination. I do not think that this statement at all answers the case that Mr. McLeod has made out. Take the parish of Kars, in the county of King's, X.B. In that parish there are no persons given as Free Baptists in the census, although there are two churches of that denomination in the parish. There are 100 communicants, and as the communicants are, as a rule, the heads of families, it would mean a population of at least 300 people professing that faith or belonging to that denomination. Yet, according to the census returns, there are no persons of that denomination in the parish. It seems that something should be done to remedy this defect. What right has the census commissioner to group these different denominations under one heading, no matter how small a denomination may be ? That denomination In the province of New Brunswick comprises some 20,000 souls, and I do not think it is so very insignificant that it does not deserve to be mentioned in the census returns. It seems to me that these people have not been treated with that justice which they should have received at the hands of the census commissioner. If he has made a mistake, and if his enumerators have not done their duty, it is his duty to remedy that mistake. It casts a certain amount of suspicion upon the genuineness of the whole census when we find such a glaring error as this cropping up, and it accentuates still more_ the errors that have been made in the taking of this census, for which we have paid over a million dollars, and the end is not yet.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: They have not got through with the census yet.


George William Fowler: No ; and if they undertake to correct the errors which have been made, it will take them until the time for a new census arrives before they get through with it. I think it is the duty of the hon. minister to go into this matter. Now that lie has returned from foreign parts and is once more with us, I think he should devote his great mind to the straightening out of this affair. Evidently the commissioner is not equal to the task, and I think the hon. minister should take a hand in it, and see that this province down by the sea gets justice.


Tlie MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is no desire to obtain anything except the truth in regard to these census returns. When the instructions were sent out

the enumerators were asked to study them carefuly and to carry out their requirements. When the compilation was made in the bureau at Ottawa the information supplied was the information contained in the schedules. That information was acted upon, and the compilation was made strictly upon the information supplied by the enumerators. If, when an enumerator went to a person in New Brunswick and asked him the religious denomination to which he belonged and he refilled that he was a Baptist, he would be put down as a Baptist; if he replied that he was a Free Will Baptist, he would be put down as a Free Will Baptist, and if lie replied that he was a Free Baptist, he would be put down as a Free Baptist.


George William Fowler: Does the hon. minister suppose that these people in the parish of Kars, who are very intelligent people, gave their religious denomination as Baptists, knowing that they belonged to the Free Baptist denomination ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can only suppose that the people gave the answer to the census enumerator which they considered to be correct, and if they gave themselves as Baptists, the enumerator would put them down as Baptists.


George William Fowler: These people know the sharp distinction there is between the Free Baptist denomination and the Baptist denomination, and that the only thing they have in common, as I understand, denominationally, is the general belief that ail Christians have. So far as church government is concerned, and except so far as the ordinance of baptism by immersion is concerned, they are as distinct from the Baptists as the Methodists are from the Presbyterians, and that these people would give themselves as Baptists is an absurd contention. The difficulty arose out of the ignorance of the enumerators that were appointed. These people, of course, gave themselves as Free Baptists, but the enumerators did not think it made any difference, and they put them down as Baptists.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is an explanation which, I confess, I never believed possible. I never believed that when one person said that he was a Free Baptist and another person said that he was a Baptist, the enumerator would ignorantly put down the person who said that he was a Free Baptist as a Baptist.


George William Fowler: Is it not more reasonable to suppose that than that these people were so ignorant that they did not know the denomination to which they belonged 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 am just informed of what I did not know before, that, as a matter of fact, in the census return there is not one single Free Baptist put down in Kars.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) stated that.


George William Fowler: Yes, that is what I have stated.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot explain that, except upon the supposition that the people there who call themselves Free Baptists called themselves merely Baptists to the enumerator without putting in the adjective.


George William Fowler: No ; the two denominations exist there, and those people who are Free Baptists would not call themselves Baptists.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) know that they are what are called Free Baptists now, because, as the lion. Minister of Agriculture pointed out, there were a number of divisions of the Baptist body and it occurred to me that perhaps one of these divisions did not amalgamate with the body now known as Free Baptists ? It does seem a most extraordinary thing that if there were two churches known to belong to the Free Baptist body, the enumerator failed to find a single Baptist in that district, That is beyond understanding. It occurs to me that perhaps these churches were attached to other bodies that did not amalgamate, but of course I do not know the facts.


George William Fowler: I had the honour of a seat in the New Brunswick legislature at the time the Act was passed, and there was a Free Baptist body and this body that the minister has spoken of calling themselves Orserites, a sort of off shoot from the Free Christian Baptist body which was the old name. By the Act of the legislature in 1898 the name was changed to Free Baptist, and I think the Orserites went under the name of Christian Baptists. These two churches belonged to the Free Baptist body having one clergyman for the two churches, and he is a Clergyman of the Free Baptist denomination. The census of Kars was taken by a man named Jenkins and knowing Mr. Jenkins as well as I do, I am satisfied that he is the mail who made the blunder and put these people down as Baptists although they told him they belonged to the Free Baptist denomination. As I understand, Mr. Blue was written to especially nbout this case and he said he would call the attention of Mr. Jenkins to this, and that there was going to be a revision of the whole census relating to the religion of the people of New Brunswick. The Rev. Dr. McLeod wrote afterwards to this man Jenkins and Jenkins refused to make any change.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Jenkins was perfectly justified in that because under his oath of office he is forbidden to divulge any information lie got. I am informed that Mr. Blue received no letter from the Rev. Mr. McLeod in relation

to this particular parish of Kars, and that there is no letter in relation to this particular matter in the department at all. There have been references to it in a paper which is edited by Mr. McLeod, but neither Mr. McLeod, nor any one else drew Mr. Blue's attention to this particular case.


George William Fowler: I will read from a letter
which I have received from Mr. McLeod.
In the parish of Kars, King's county, there are two Free Baptist congregations. The communicants in the churches number over one hundred, and the adherents number probably three hundred, or more.
The census fails to record a single one of them. Mr. Blue's attention was called to the matter some months ago. He professes to have made a revision of the whole census relating to the religions of the people in New Brunswick, but has made no change in the Kars enumeration.
Since Mr. Blue reported the result of his so-called revision, I have had correspondence with Mr. M. Jenkins, the Kars enumerator and he tells me he entered all Free Baptists as Baptists. I concluded, therefrom that Mr. Blue did net. as he pretends, ask Mr. Jenkins to revise his enumeration. Either Blue did not ask Jenkins to correct his returns, or Jenkins refused to do it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. McLeod possibly refers to what lias appeared in tlie * Religious Intelligencer,' but I can state positively that Mr. McLeod did not draw Mr. Blue's attention to the parish of Kars in a letter. He did draw Mr. Blue's attention to the general question of the Baptist denomination in New Brunswick, but be gave no details with regard to Kars. He made general statements the substance of which is in the letter which I read.


George William Fowler: Have you published the revised statement ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will explain that Mr. Blue went to work to revise the compilation, and the revision that Mr. McLeod refers to in the letter was a revision of the compilation. Mr. Blue did not undertake to make inquiries from every enumerator in every instance. He did in several instances, and the replies were that the information contained in the schedules was exactly what the people gave them. It would be an entirely different thing to go to the people and take a new enumeration, and I confess that I am not prepared to say that ought to be done in any case. If the people did give information to the enumerators which they wished to change afterwards, or which other people wished to pursuade them to change, it is not the duty of the census bureau to get the whole work done over again by the enumerators. If the information given is not correctly set down by the enumerators then there would be a case for investigation. If the people called themselves Free Baptists, and were entered as Baptists


Sydney Arthur Fisher: then the enumerators did not do their duty and the schedules being incorrect the compilation would also be Incorrect. What investigation we have made would go 'to show that the enumerators did actually put down what the people told them. Nothing has been brought to the attention of the department, beyond the general statement by Mr. McLeod, that indicated that the people had been misrepresented in the schedules.


George William Fowler: The people do not see the schedules and consequently they could not tell that they were misrepresented. In the city of St. John the Free Baptist denomination has two large churches, and some of the members of that denomination occupy foremost positions. They are a very intelligent and cultured people-one of the judges of the Supreme Court belongs to that denomination, and they are not ashamed of belonging to the denomination and St. John being the centre of culture and of light and learning in our province, it is clear that they would tell the enumerators to what denomination they belonged. Nevertheless we find there are only 410 Free Baptists in St. John according to the census. Yet the actual population as taken by the clergymen amounts to 1,826, or about one twenty-fifth of the whole population of the city. So that there is clearly some error.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am perfectly prepared to say, in consequence of what the hon. gentleman has said tonight about the parish of Kars, that I shall certainly see that a thorough investigation of the condition of affairs there is made, and shall try to get at the actual truth. If the enumerator has done as the hon. gentleman states, misrepresented the statements as given by the people themselves, he certainly has not fulfilled his duty as an enumerator, and has done a wrong to the people there. I shall try to find out the facts of the case.


George William Fowler: As a matter of fact this letter states :
I have had correspondence with Mr. M. Jenkins. the Kars enumerator, and he tells me that he entered all Free Baptists as Baptists.
He does not claim that these people represented themselves as Baptists, but be says he entered all Free Baptists as Baptists, which was clearly a wrong, because it was his duty to enter these people as they called themselves. I have no doubt the enumerators in the city of St. John have done exactly the same thing.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I say I am perfectly prepared to make an investigation into any matter, which comes before the department, in the form in which the hon. gentleman brings it up, for the first time to-night. The statement made In

4S14
that letter that Mr. McLeod had drawn Mr. Blue's attention to this particular parish is not correct. I have looked over a file of the 1 Religious Intelligencer,' and the first reference I find in it to the parish of Kars is on May 13th. It was only yesterday that I first saw that. But the statement that Mr. McLeod had himself drawn the attention of Mr. Blue to that particular parish is not correct. There is nothing in the correspondence between Mr. McLeod and Mr. Blue with reference to the parish of Kars at all.


George William Fowler: Perhaps you have not seen that part of the correspondence. Perhaps Mr. Blue has not called your attention to that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have seen the whole of the correspondence.


George William Fowler: Mr. McLeod, in his letter to me, says :
The census fails to record a single one of them. Mr. Blue's attention was called to the matter some months ago.
I take that to mean the parish of Kars.
The context would seem to make it mean that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: But that does not accord with the facts.


George William Fowler: What steps does the minister intend to take to remedy this ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I shall have to look into the matter. I shall take that particular parish, find what the enumerator's statement is in regard to it, and examine him and see whether he put down the people under the name of the Christian denomination which they gave him. If. as that letter states he says, he entered them as Baptists when as a matter of fact they called themselves Free Baptists, he will show that he did not fulfil his duty as an enumerator.


George William Fowler: Suppose you find that he did that, what will you do with him ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not quite know what I will do with him. I shall have to look into the matter, and if I find that to be the case, have the census return corrected. Of course, the census volumes the past year have already been published.


George William Fowler: Is the census complete now ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That portion of it is completed, and is published. I may have to issue a supplementary report.


George William Fowler: The same thing occurred in St. John.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will do the same with reference to St. John,
and in any other case in which a definite statement is made in regard to the conduct of the enumerators. I am going to defend my officers, but if any accusation is made against them, I will investigate it, and if they are proved to have done wrong, they will have to suffer the consequences. I propose to have the census made as correct as I can.


George William Fowler: Of course, it is important that we should have a correct census. If it was considered important to have a question asked as to the religious denomination of a person, it is important that the answer recorded should be the correct one. That is even more important than that the hon. minister should defend his officers.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly. What I mean is that I do not want my officers to lie under an imputation, and for that reason alone I will make an investigation.


George William Fowler: The hon. minister will see that somebody has blundered, and I would suggest that when he comes to make a thorough investigation into this matter, if his officer states that he has done right, and has actually put down in the schedules the religious denomination given by the people themselves, he should give the people who complain an opportunity of proving that officer is now making a wrong statement to the department. You must not take the statement of your officer, in whom you have explicit confidence-and rightly so until you find that he is wrong-you must not take his statement as being correct without giving the other party a chance to show that the officer is making a misstatement.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Of course, if my officer stands in the position of the accused party, I am not going to take his statement as conclusive.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I take a deep interest in this matter because, in the first place, in common with all the members, I desire that we should have an accurate census, and in the second place because I represent a greater number of Free Baptists than any other member from the maritime provinces.


An hon. MEMBER.: Do they vote for you ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are a very intelligent body of men, and I think they vote right. They are the second largest religious body in my constituency, and I am glad to know that I have heard no complaint whatever from them about any difficulty in connection with the census. I did have a letter from one who said that there was some complaint in New Brunswick, and hoped that it would be made right. There is another reason -why I should feel much

interested in this matter. A portion of | this correspondence occurred while I was acting for the Minister of Agriculture during his absence, and I took occasion to look over it, and I certainly had the impression, not that Mr. Blue was curt towards the reverend gentleman, but that he endeavoured to meet his views and give him all the information possible. It is quite evident that in the census of 1891, a number of religious bodies were grouped together, thereby giving a larger number than should have been given under one head. Therefore I am afraid that a comparison with the census of 1891 does not help us. Our concern is not with the census of 1891, but with the census of 1901. The statement with regard to the parish of Kars is new to me, and if there are two churches of that body there and the census enumerator does not return a single member, I cannot conceive of any explanation of the matter. I quite agree that the minister should look into that and try to ascertain the cause of complaint. It would be very strange indeed if the enumerators scattered over New Brunswick should particularly err with regard to that body. The case of Kars needs investigati n and also St. John, but I think that the -hon. gentleman will find that the general reduction which caused the correspondence must be due to the fact that in 1891 there were grouped under that head a number of people who did not call themselves Free Baptists.


George William Fowler: I do not think that this grouping business will account for the falling off, because the people who are called Free Christian Baptists in 1891 and are now Reformed Baptists, represent seventy-five or eighty per cent of the whole. I trust that the hon. minister will have this matter looked into and a correction made.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As regards those other bodies being inconsiderable, they were fully one-third of the whole number of 24,000 odd. A little over one-third were reported as Free Will Baptists in 1891. The Reformed Baptists and Alliance Baptists bodies were not included under the head of Free Will Baptists in 1901. In making this investigation, Mr. Blue took the evidence he had under his hand in the schedules of 1891 and 1901. When he investigated the schedules of 1891, he found 24.000 under the head of Free Will Baptists, and he found that the two denominations of Baptists, which were not included in that same heading of 1901, comprised just a little over one-third of the whole number. In the complaint made by Mr. McLeod to Mr. Blue, there is nothing to show that the enumerators had not correctly entered the people they enumerated. Mr. McLeod drew attention to the extraordinary apparent decrease of that particular branch of the Baptist denomination in ten years, but in the investigation which Mr. Blue carried on, that decrease was en-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
| tirely accounted for and the Census Bureau did not deem it necessary to go further.


George William Fowler: Does the census of 1901 show this Reformed Baptist body V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, they put it under the head of Baptists and not Free Will Baptists. They are grouped with the other Baptist denominations and not with the Free Will Baptists.


Mr. BENNETT.: On looking over the cost of taking the census in the county of Sim-coe in the year 1891, as compared with the year 1901, I find the following figures :
1891.	1901.
North Simeoe	$1,728	$2,890South Simeoe	
1,341	2,794East Simeoe	
2,304	4,465Total	$5,423 $10,149'North Ontario	$1,614 $3,463
I find that in the riding of East Simeoe there was in 1891 only one so-called commissioner, whose fees were about half the fees of the two commissioners in 1901, and in North Ontario we find also two commissioners in 1901 as against one in 1891. Can the hon. minister explain why there is this enormous difference in this one county of nearly 85,000, and will he assure the House that the census of 1901 will have information which will justify this increased expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think that my hon. friend was answered already on several occasions in connection with the census. I am satisfied that the mass of information we have received in tliis census is quite sufficient to justify the difference in the cost. I have explained the reasons and am afraid I cannot add very much to them now. The first reason applies to almost every county in the Dominion.


James Clancy: Can the hon. gentleman state any particularly valuable information in the census of 1901 which is not in the census of 1891V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can give one instance on the spur of the moment. We have in the census of 1901 the value of all our agricultural products and that was not in the census of 1891.


George William Fowler: What proportion of the increase would that account for ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is difficult to say what proportion:	The
number of questions was largely increased by that fact as well as by a large number of other facts. I have already explained to the House over and over again the much greater number of questions that we asked, and these are some of them. There are other things on which the number of questions was largely increased. That accounts for the large proportion of the increased

expense, for it took the enumerators more time, and caused them greater labour to get the answers to these questions, and they had to be paid on a larger scale. The other details I have given. While I am on my feet I would like to answer the question asked by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor). In 1891 there were 79,634 of all Baptists in the province of New Brunswick, and in 1901 there were 80,874, a trifling increase in the whole Baptist denomination in tiie province of New' Brunswick.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Were the enumerators paid by the day or by the questions they asked ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Neither, but by a schedule of rates, which rates were increased because of the number of questions.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: A schedule of what ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A schedule of rates for the names they took, the houses, farms, factories, and so on.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: If they were not paid by the questions they asked, how was it they got more ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The schedule of rates was higher in consequence of the number of questions asked.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Exactly what I say- they were paid by the number of questions
they asked. Was there a rate for horse-hire or were the enumerators allowed to charge as they liked ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was a rate.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Was the same rate allowed in all the towns and villages ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, wherever the rate was allowed at all.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What are ive to understand hy that ? I asked the minister a plain question-was the same rate allowed in all the villages and towns ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot answer that question, because, as a general rule there was not a rate allowed in the towns or villages.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Here is an illustration of how the country is being fleeced by some of the enumerators. What check was there on unscrupulous men charging nearly as much for horse-hire as for their own wages 7 Take the village of Brighton. We have three enumerators there. One of them, whose wages amounted to $24.05, charged for horse-hire, 822.50.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Will the hon. gentleman give me the page from which he has quoted 7


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The Auditor General's Report, page D-183. In the village of I
Brighton there are only about 1,300 people. Then we have the village of Campbellford, a much larger place, with a large enough population in fact, to be incorporated as a town, and you find that only one enumerator was allowed horse-hire, and that one was allowed $1.50. Go through the Auditor General's Report and you will find the same thing-you will find some charging as much for horse-liire as for taking .the census, while others are allowed nothing. Why should a man be allowed horse-hire for taking the census in a little village 7 I am satisfied that thousands of dollars have been spent in this way for the benefit of Grit heelers. I know' this man well.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Is he a good Grit 7


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Yes, if there are any good Grits. I know a good many Reformers, and I respect them; but when you call a man a Grit, I do not think there are any good ones. They are good at fleecing the public, that is all they are good for. Mr. Smith, to whom this allowance was made, is a farmer in the township of Brighton, and he was appointed to take the census in the village of Brighton. Why 7 There are intelligent men in the village of Brighton who could have taken the census, but, instead, this man is taken out of the township to take the census of Brighton village, and I suppose he had to drive in and put up his horse in the stable and the people of Canada pay for it. We see the same kind of thing in many other cases, and this, to my mind, is the real reason why the expense of taking the census is so great.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not under my hand the account rereferred to by the hon. gentleman. Horse-liire vras allowed to enumerators who had to leave their homes in order to take the census. As a rule there was an enumerator for each polling subdivision, and the rule was to appoint a man for the polling subdivision in which he lived. The polling division in a village might extend into the country, or a part of the division be in the village and the enumerator live in the country. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) said that this enumerator lived out in the country.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Yes, and why did the hon. minister appoint a man who lived o*ut in the country to take the census in the village 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Then, what does the hon. minister suppose the inference will be 7 It looks very much as if this man were a Grit heeler. Among the people of Brighton are men quite competent to take the census, far more intelligent than this man who urns appointed, no doubt to reward him for

some of the dirty work he had done for the party.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was not the purpose, certainly, whatever he may be. The rule laid down was-


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Why did you not carry it out ? What is the good of a rule if you do not carry it out ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My information is that it was carried out. The commissioners had to pass upon the accounts after they had been submitted with a declaration by the people who made them, and they had to be passed upon by the commissioners for the riding, who knew all the circumstances. When they were sent ill approved in this way they were gone over by the accountant of the department, before being paid. Then they were sent over by the Auditor General to be further scrutinized. And, so far aa I know, no fault has been found with these accounts.


George William Fowler: Did they make sworn returns ?
The' MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. They took an oath that all their returns would be in accordance with the facts. That general oath would cover their accounts.


George William Fowler: That was their oath of office ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


George William Fowler: Did they submit their statements under oath ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They made a declaration as to the truth of their accounts and that declaration is attached to the account. It was sent to the commissioner for the riding, who made a declaration and sent it to the accountant.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: How does the hon. gentleman account for there being this high charge for horse-hire in the village of Brighton ? The other men living in the village, men that I know well, got only $7.50. How could there be any scrutiny of the accounts at all, or any rule, when we see that discrepancy in two villages in the one riding, and the little village of Hastings, with less than 1,000 inhabitants, where these gentlemen get horse-hire ? They did not get any more information in Campbellford than they did in Brighton, or any more in Brighton than they did in Campbellford. Yet we find that $22.50 is paid for horse-hire in Brighton and none at all in Campbellford.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In addition to their work as enumerators, they were allowed horse-hire when they went to receive their instructions from the commissioner of the county.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: 


Matthew Henry Cochrane: That is a uniform rate all through the census, $9.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were allowed $3 a day and their travelling expenses, and if they travelled with a horse they were allowed $1.50 for the horse. They were also allowed travelling expenses in going to make their returns to the census commissioner.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The special allowance all through this volume is $9.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is mistaken, the uniform allowance is $3 a day, but sometimes they charged for three days where they were entitled to do so.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: On both pages here I find it is $9 for expenses in East Northumberland and West Northumberland-it is uniform.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Why were they paid $9 in some places and $6 in others ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In some cases they took three days to receive their instructions and in some cases two days.


John Dowsley Reid: In the county of Frontenac $0 is the uniform allowance paid, while in my county $9 was paid.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is evident the enumerator took two days to get his instructions in Frontenac and three days in the hon. gentleman's county.


Mr. BLAIN.: I see an item on page D-282, ' Investigating census of 1891, $1,480. D. F. Macpherson, Clinton, Ont., expenses of trip to Ottawa to receive instructions, and in riding obtaining information, including payment to persons consulted, $73.95 ; 57 days time at $5, $358.95.' I would like the minister to give us an explanation why a gentleman was invited down from Clinton, Ont., to Ottawa, and how it comes that he was allowed to pay people in his county for information they were asked to give him.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He was brought down to Ottawa to be given instructions as to what he should do, and for the purpose of going over the schedules that were in the department here, which would be a guide to him in his investigations.


James Clancy: What was the nature of these investigations ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To see whether the census returns of 1891 included the names of people who were not in the country, but who were permanently away.


James Clancy: What was the object of that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because statements were made very generally that the census of 1901 showed that the census of 1891 could not have been correct, therefore it was necessary to investigate the census of 1891 to see whether the error was made then or in 1901.


James Clancy: In how many counties did Mr. Macplierson make the investigation ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think in four or five ridings in Ontario. There was a report laid on the Table last session.


Mr. WILMOT.: The hon. gentleman said that he proposed to revise the census of the religious denominations in some parishes of New Brunswick. I would like to know if he is going to apply that revision to the province of New Brunswick generally, or only to the parishes indicated to the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler). I may say that in the parish of Lincoln, where I reside, I believe that nearly 70 per cent of the population belong to the Free Baptist denomination. From the best authority I can get, they have not been classified as Free Baptists. As the hon. member for King's has stated, they are an important denomination, there being 20,000 of them in that province, and I think they should have some recognition in the census. I do not think there has been any wilful wrong done in the matter, but a mistake has evidently been committed. In the case of so important a denomination, the enumerators should have been instructed to classify them. From the information I can gather, the enumerators went through their districts and asked the religious denomination of the people, whether they were Free Baptists, or Close Communion Baptists, or any other kind of Baptists, but they did not classify them, and they put them all down as Baptists. I think the department, in view of the standing of that denomination, should have provided a distinct classification for them. The Finance Minister has stated that he also has a large portion of that denomination in his constituency.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are both very fortunate.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: I think I can vie with the minister in that distinction as a very large portion of my constituency belong to that denomination, and in the county of Sunbury a large portion of the people are Free Baptists. As I said before, in the parish of Lincoln, I venture to say 70 per cent of the people belong to the Free Baptist denomination. I will add that when the minister revises his list he had better include the county of Sunbury and Queen's, and indeed I would recommend him to extend his investigations over the whole province.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am ready to investigate any place where a '
definite statement is made that there has been an inaccurate return.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I would draw the attention of the minister to the township of Ilaldimand, West Northumberland, containing twelve polling subdivisions.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What page ?


Matthew Henry Cochrane: D-184. The polling subdivisions are very small. In the township of Haldimand it is not much larger than Seymour, and there are items here of $26.65 for services, and $44.50 for horse-hire. There was no supervision of these charges at all. They put in their bills and got their money. The polling subdivisions are no larger than they are in the township of Seymour. There are 12 in Haldimand and in Seymour there are 5 or 6. There are no such charges in Seymour as-there are in the township of Haldimand.


George William Fowler: I was going to say that I do not quite agree with my hon. friend from Sunbury and Queen's (Mr. Wilmot) that this was not deliberate and wilful. It is my opinion that the error on the part of the enumerators was both deliberate and wilful and that they should be very severely reprimanded by the hon. minister. If there is any punishment or reprimand in the power of the hon. minister I think these enumerators should be punished. I understand that the hon. minister proposes to extend the examination to the whole province of New Brunswick. Rev. Dr. McLeod is the editor of the organ of that denomination in New Brunswick, and I would suggest that the hon. minister communicate with him and get a statement from him as to the portion of the province which he thinks has not been properly enumerated, as regards the denomination which he represents and that he should extend his investigation into every portion of the province.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I would like to hear from the hon. minister if he has found that item ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, I see it here.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: How does he account for that ? Did the horse get more information than the enumerator ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can only account for it by the fact that the enumerator must have gone over a very sparsely settled part of the country. I do not know the country as I never was there.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I do.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Then the hon. gentleman can account for it better than I can.
Mi-. COCHRANE. No, I cannot account for it except upon lines upon which I accounted for this other. The township Is

4S24
thickly populated. Tliis house did not travel any farther than any other horse in the township. The polling subdivisions are as equal in regard to size as they can be made by the municipal council. If the expense is to be judged by the information, and this is the reason the census costs nearly double the census of 1891, then, the only explanation is that the horse got more information than the enumerator did.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that the township has SI ,000 acres of land and that it only has a population of 3,900.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: That is a mistake.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is the result of the census.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I think it goes to prove that the census returns are not correct. I drew the hon. minister's attention to the fact last session that in the town of Gan-anoque where we had the town assessor doing his work at the same time as the enumerators were taking the census, the assessor made the population 178 larger than the enumerators did and every person knows that the town assessor does not take the total of the residents.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In tlie town of Gananoque in 1001 the assessors made the population what ?


George Taylor: 178. The hon. minister will find by reference to 'Hansard' of last session that I read certified statements from the town clerk that the assessment roll showed 178 more population than the enumerators' returns showed, and the count was taken practically on the same day. What I rose particularly for was to draw the hon. minister's attention to the fact that I think he should take a new census not only for New Brunswick but for the whole Dominion, because, comparing the returns of the Free Baptists and the different branches of the Baptist denomination in New Brunswick for 1891 and for 1901, lie shows a very slight increase in the membership of that important church in the province of New Brunswick. The church must in the last ten years have made progress and it must have added some thousands of adherents. These additions are not in the census. This proves conclusively to my mind' that the census in New Brunswick is not correct in regard to these religious denominations and in regard to the total population. It is patent to any person, and and I think the hon. Minister of Finance, himself, will surely admit, that the Baptists have made some progress within the last ten years. Surely the church is not labouring there without making some progress. Ask the Rev. Dr. McLeod what increase has been made in the last ten years and he will make a showing very different from the in-


Matthew Henry Cochrane: crease that the census shows. I am satisfied that the Baptist church in Canada has been making progress within the last ten years and that it has been gaining new adherents. I asked the hon. minister what was the total number of adherents of that church in 1S91 and in 1901 and lie gave a very few hundred of an increase. I cannot believe that the Baptist church or any other church professing to be a religious denomination in this country has not made progress greater than that shown from the census, because, otherwise, it would shut up shop and go out of business.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not intend to misquote me but the impression which he would leave would be an unfair one. The statement I read a few minutes ago showed that the Baptists in New Brunswick had increased by 1,000. The whole increase of population in the province is only 9,000.


George Taylor: Which proves that the census returns are not correct.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, no.


George Taylor: I am satisfied that the Baptists have increased more than that.


George William Fowler: I find that this charge for instruction is not general. In King's County, New Brunswick nothing was charged at all for Instruction.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I notice that in King's, New Brunswick, there are no special allowance charges. There are no charges for horse-hire.


George William Fowler: Very small charges.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know why it was that there was no such charge sent in. We did not invite charges when they were not sent in.


George William Fowler: How is it that the commissioner received $100 while in other counties, Kent for instance, the commissioners received $150.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Where there was one commissioner he was paid $100 and where there were two they were paid $75 each.


George William Fowler: In Northumberland you paid $112 to each. What was the rate of pay in 1891 as compared with that in 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In 1891; 3 cts. per name, 3 cts. per death, 15 cts. a farm, and 20 cts. a factory. In 1901; 5 cts. a name, 5 cts. a death, 25 cts. a farm, and 30 cts. a factory. No allowance for receiving instructions in 1891 and no liorse-hire.


George William Fowler: Why were these additional allowances made.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The country was so prosperous and the rate of wages and the cost of living so much higher, that we could not get the work done without making this allowance.


Mr. R. JOHNSTON.: In our county they were tumbling over each other to get the job.


George William Fowler: Did the minister find any difficulty in getting people to act ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Quite a little in places.


George William Fowler: Name the places.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There were a number of people who refused.


George William Fowler: It was not in the county of King's, New Brunswick, because they
were quarrelling for months before hand about it.


George Taylor: The Liberal committee had to ballot for them.


William Humphrey Bennett: In East Simcoe there was an open fight as to who should be the commissioner, and the result was that two of them were tumbled into the job in order to bring about peace at an additional expense to the country. Why was Mr. Storey one of the commissioners, allowed a lump sum of $25 for expenses. If this money is given for sweet charity sake the people ought to know it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Storey's account shows that he was allowed $75 as a commissioner and $25 for postage and the rent of a hall for instructions to the enumerators.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the rent of the hall.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The postage and hall rent are included together at $25.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the minister know what the rent of the hall was.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am glad the hon. minister told me that. If that is a sample of the way in which the country has been swindled out of its money the people should know it. This man is a practising lawyer and a police magistrate in the town, and so far as his hiring any hall goes it is absurd. It is a good deal on a par with a certain gentleman who, when they were taking the returns for the plebiscite-that old friend of the Minister of Agriculture-attempted to work in a grant of $25 for the rent of his office. I am glad to learn this from the minister and thank him for the information, because the people there will know they have been swindled out of their money.
Will the minister allow me to see that account for $25 for the rent of a hall for this commissioner.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: In North Ontario a gentleman named Duncan Graham, commissioner, got an allowance of $100 and $206.95 for revising the returns, and I understand that he can neither read nor write.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I should hardly think that is true.


Samuel Hughes: He had a grit heeler as assistant commissioner, a gentleman that was concerned with ballot boxes in North Ontario on one occasion, a friend of the Postmaster General; a grit lawyer.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know that gentleman.


Samuel Hughes: He is a Grit lawyer of the name of Roach.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The commissioners are entitled to one cent for every name returned to them by the enumerators, and I find on looking up the matter that $206 is the payment for the names for that county.


Mr. THOMSON (North Grey).: That be-iug the case, I desire to draw the minister's attention to the Greys. For revising the returns of North Grey, the commissioner, R. B. Miller, received $188. The population of North Grey is 27,000 or more. The com-missoner of East Grey, Mr. Carruthers, received $253, and the population of that riding is 2,000 less than the population of North Grey. If they each received one cent per head, how do you account for that difference ? The cost of taking the census of East Grey was $3,592, while the cost of taking the census of North Grey, which has 2,000 more population, was only $3,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: According to the population of East Grey the payment to the commissioner is correct, at one cent a name. The reason the commissioner of North Grey did not receive so much in proportion to the population of the riding is this : While each commissioner was entitled to receive one cent a name, no commissioner was allowed to receive more than $4 a day for every day of service. The commissioner of North Grey had forty-seven days of service, which at $4 a day made up the sum he actually received.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: There is another matter on which I would like an explanation. J. Frost, of the town of Owen Sound, is down for $12 for horse-hire. I would like to know why he required horse-hire in taking the census of Owen Sound ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say what that particular charge was for; but in some instances enumerators

in a town have been obliged for certain reasons to go out of town, and for that purpose have hired a horse. I remember one instance in which an enumerator in a town found that two or three people whom he had to enumerate were in the country, though properly residents of the town, and he had to drive out of town two or three miles to obtain the information which he was required to get. In such a case he would be justified in charging for horse-hire, and the case the hon. gentleman refers to may have been something like this.


William Humphrey Bennett: This paper is an old-looking document. This man made out a bill for $100, and by somebody the $100 was changed to $75.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because when there were two commissioners they could each receive only $75.


William Humphrey Bennett: And then, it being found that he was going to be short, some person wrote in : ' Postage and hall rent, $25.' That is not in his handwriting, but was written in by -somebody else. He had to be placated, and somebody in the department here hit on this happy idea. Who does this grafting here ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It does not appear to be in the same handwriting.


William Humphrey Bennett: I should like to see that correspondence.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister explain what is the meaning of an assistant commissioner 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In certain large areas the commissioners were given assistants, and it practically amounted to having another commissioner.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were there many of these gentlemen having money thrust on them as this gentleman seems to have had 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: On the contrary, there was a very careful scrutiny of the accounts.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the hon. minister consider this a case of close scrutiny ? The commissioner sends in a bill for $100. It is impossible to allow him $100, so somebody in the department runs his pen through the $100 and makes it $75, and then adds $25 for lease of hall and postage. The other commissioner, Tudhope, was paid $125.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister said that each could only get $75, but here is one getting $75 and the other $125.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I shall have to investigate that.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would call attention to another difficulty in that famous riding of North Ontario. Mr. Duncan Graham was Hon. Mr. FISHER.
allowed $100 and a Mr. Roche $203 for fifty-eight days as assistant commissioner. Each of these got over $100.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: North Ontario had only one commissioner.


George Taylor: Probably Graham could neither read nor write and required an assistant.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know him, but I do not believe that he can neither read nor write. Mr. Roche was paid $203 for fifty-eight days' work.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. minister let us have the Bill of Mr. Roche ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will look up the account and furnish it.


John Dowsley Reid: Are we to understand that $75 was the outside limit which any one of these commissioners was to get 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was a regular allowance of $75 where there were two commissioners, to each one for expenses. In addition each got one cent per name for all the names returned in the riding, but could not get more than $4 for

a day's work.


John Dowsley Reid: Did the hon. gentleman instruct Mr. Blue that no commissioner was to get more than $75 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is the allowance for expenses, and in addition he got one cent per name but could not get more than $4 per day.


John Dowsley Reid: Why then did the department pay more 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know that it did except in the case of one commissioner, and he got $10).


George William Fowler: In Northumberland county, N.B., two commissioners got $112 each. See page D-134 of the Auditor General's Report.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that there were one or two counties which were difficult and large, in which the allowance was increased. In Northumberland it was made $225 for the two commissioners instead of $150.	.


George William Fowler: Northumberland is not the largest county in New Brunswick, Westmoreland has one-third more population than Northumberland.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Has it as large an area 7


George William Fowler: Quite as large. A large portion of the county of Northumberland is forest.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that the county of Northumberland has an area of over 3,000,000 acres, and Westmoreland has about 1,000,000, so

that Northumberland is three times as large.


George William Fowler: Will the hon. minister say whether his enumerators went through the forests of Northumberland ? Seventy-five per cent of Northumberland is forest, whereas Westmoreland is almost entirely settlement. The population of Northumberland is 30,000 and that of Westmoreland 45,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman may be perfectly correct, but in a settlement where there is so much forest, the enumerators would have more difficulty in going through the forests.


George William Fowler: But there is no population there.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There must be some population in every parish, and there are twelve different parishes.


George William Fowler: There must be a population in every parish or it would not be a parish. A parish is a municipality. There is a vast forest, of course, which extends over the whole western portion of the county. The different parishes of the eastern part run into the west.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is some settlement in the west ?


George William Fowler: None at all. The enumerators would not go to the lumber camps.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, if the lumber camps were in existence when the census was taken in April.


George William Fowler: No, they would not be in the lumber camps then.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not know as to that, but if there were people in the camps, the enumerators would go there.


James Clancy: As a matter of fact where there are two or three commissioners, it is a mere matter of party exigencies. Is there not a uniform allowance in Ontario and Quebec of $100 for the commissioner for one cent per name for the commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Where there was one. But where there is two, it was $75 and one cent a name.


James Clancy: Will the hon. minister say that two commissioners were appointed only where there were large areas to be gone over ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There were various reasons-sometimes large areas, sometimes difficulty of access from one part of the riding to another, sometimes two nationalities in one constituency calling for the appointment of one commissioner for each nationality.


James Clancy: And sometimes none of these existed. Take, for instance, the. county of Elgin. There are uo mixed nationalities, no difficulty of areas, and it is ail old county and a small county, yet there were two commissioners.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I suppose one for East and one for West Elgin.


James Clancy: No, for West Elgin. The hon. gentleman has no escape of that kind. Then, what about the county of Wellington, what about the county of Wentworth ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the case of West Elgin part of the riding is in the county of Elgin and part of it is in the county of Kent, and a commissioner was appointed for each of these.


James Clancy: The hon. minister surely is beside himself. Does he not know that no notice was taken of municipal counties ? Does not he know that the census was taken by. electoral districts ? Surely his commissioner did not make the suggestion he has just communicated to us.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The reason is correct. In some cases where the electoral division was made up of two or three counties, two commissioners were appointed.


James Clancy: Then, take the county of Botliwell, which is made up of part of the county of Kent and part of the county of Lambton. Yet there was only one commissioner.	_


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There might have been two.


Samuel Hughes: North Victoria is made up of parts of three counties, yet the hon. minister appointed only one commissioner. He left out two heelers there. The hon. minister stated to the hon. member for King's, New Brunswick (Mr. Fowler) that he took the census for the lumber camps.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: So, these people will be counted twice.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Samuel Hughes: If, at a given house the enumerator were told that the husband and sons were working at a lumber camp, they would be enumerated there, and again in the lumber camp ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: Then, why go to the lumber camp ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If they were enumerated at the lumber

camp, the schedule of the lumber camp would be watched and, if the entries were duplicated they would be struck out in one.


George Taylor: I think the hour has arrived when we should rise.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) but some hon. gentlemen wish to get information, and I would ask them now to state what they want so that I may try to get it.


George Taylor: 
William Humphrey Bennett: 
James Clancy: And will the hon. minister please bring the account with respect to West Middlesex.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.
George Taylor: What will be the business for to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We shall probably take up several minor bills standing in the name of the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick). At an early stage of the sitting there will be a motion for Supply to enable the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to move his amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.10 a.m. Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 17, 1903.