1903-06-12

INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to direct the attention of the lion. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) to the order passed by this House on the 30th March in reference to some papers concerning the Woodstock post office. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the hon. minister in the absence of my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Hale). Two and a half months have elapsed since the order was passed, and surely the resources of the clerical department of my hon. friend's administration cannot be so severely taxed that these documents cannot be brought down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: I will make another investigation. There is no delay in bringing them down, but I think some mistake must have occurred in regard to the papers. They may be in the Department of the Secretary of State. I made inquiry, and it was reported that they had been brought down, but the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Hale), informs me that the papers which are brought down are papers in regard to some other building in Woodstock. I will inquire about it, and see that these papers are brought down at once.


Mr. CLANCY.: 



YUKON TERRITORY - INSTRUCTIONS TO GOLD COMMISSIONER.

Mr.   I@: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. leader of the House whether any recent instructions have been sent to the gold commissioner of the Yukon in regard to the Treadgold concession ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Not to my knowledge. I will ask the acting minister, but I do not know that there have been any.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would be good enough to make inquiry of the acting minister when he comes into the House, and if there have been any instructions, perhaps he would be good enough to let me know at a later hour during the sitting, if convenient.



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.
On section 155,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Biair).: I move to strike out the words ' and is not the arbitrator named.'


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that idea should be abandoned as part of the Act. Do you insert these words elsewhere ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I will explain that when we come to it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to add the words at the end of that sub-clause ' or is within the limit of deviation allowed under this Act.'


Robert Laird Borden: Why do you insert these words ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Because we have already passed a clause which allows a deviation of 100 yards if the board approves.


Robert Laird Borden: This gives two alternatives; one that the land shall be required for the railway and the other that it shall be within the limit of deviation. Would not the expression ' is required for the railway ' cover everything ? It is of no importance whatever that it is within the limit of deviation unless it is required for the railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Under the Act the deviation may be allowed by the board without requiring that they should file plans, and if

within the limits of deviation more land is required, they could be allowed to take it without going through all the formalities necessary to secure the right of way in the first place.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that we should not use any language which enables a certificate to be given merely because land happens to be within the range of deviation. You cannot take it without some authority given in the Act, and yet you put that language in as an alternative cla.use to the other.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Although the words are left out in the Bill as submitted, these words are found in section 147 of the existing Act. In conference with the legal gentlemen who represent the various railway companies and who have given me the benefit of their views with regard to many of the clauses, they expressed a strong opinion that we had better restore the language of the old Act.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I can understand that legal gentlemen representing the railway companies should want these words in because the railway company gets the whole benefit. It would not be necessary with these words in the Act, that the lands be required for the railway, but only that they should be within the limit of deviation. Although there might be a serious question as to whether the railway really required the land, yet they would contend that as it was within the limits, the onus was taken off them. Although It is presupposed that the board will not allow them to enter on this 300 feet deviation unless they think it necessary, yet they might say that the alternative was given and that they could take the land because it is within the limits of the deviation, just as well as If they needed it for the railway. Unless it is really absolutely necessary for the railway, they should not be allowed to cut into a private owner's property. We must not allow the landowner to hold up the railway company, but, on the other hand, we must not allow the railway company to hold up the landowner. Because the railway company had a right to take one part of a man's land, it might wantonly take another part which it did not require for the purposes of the railway. Sometimes directors of railway companies are interested in other ventures besides railways; and if they could, by virtue of using their rights as a railway company, make the landowner give land which was not needed for the railway, they might work serious injustice to the landowner. I would suggest that the word ' aud ' be used instead of the word * or.' That would be my second choice, but my first choice would be to insert the words ' on the terms permitted by this Act.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The section does limit them. It
is not the case that the railway company is allowed, on its own free will, and without the sanction or authority of the board, to take anybody's lands in the form of a deviation. The bon. gentleman will remember that the board is vested with jurisdiction for such purposes. This clause does not make provision for the taking of the land, but simply provides what the notice shall contain. I do not think it would help matters to substitute the word * and ' for the word ' or.' This language is in the existing law, and I do not think it has occasioned any difficulty or is likely to leave the way open to any serious outrages.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 156,
Edward Arthur Lancaster: The other night the hon. minister, In making the arrangements about the judges and the courts, agreed to add the judge of the county court; and I would suggest that it should be the judge of the county court where the lands lie, the same as in the Ontario Act. There is a different county court judge in every county. We do not contemplate that either party would go to a county a long way from where the lands are. That would be worse than compelling a man to go always to the headquarters of the province, whether the superior court is sitting. The language of the Ontario statute, which I would use as a guide, is that the judge will be the judge of the county court where the lands are.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Has the county court judge of one county jurisdiction in another county ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, any county county court judge has jurisdiction over the whole province, but, of course, either party may apply for a change of venue.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would not do to put that in the interpretation clause.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As long as the hon. minister accepts the suggestion, I care not where it is put.
On section 158,
If within ten flays after the service of such notice, or within one month after the first publication thereof, the opposite party does not give notice to the company that he accepts the sum offered by it, or does not give notice to it of the name of a person whom he appoints as arbitrator, the judge shall, on the application of the company, appoint a person to be sole arbitrator for determining the compensation to be paid as aforesaid. 51 V., c. 29, s. 150.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move that on the sixth line, after the word 'company' the following words be added : ' Six days notice of which shall be given the opposite party.' We have adopted the procedure laid down in the

existing law, but I am now proposing to change it somewhat, and I am quite sure that the result will be that there will be much less expense. I also propose that the following words be added after the word ' aforesaid ' :	' Provided that the judge
shall at the request of the third party on such application appoint three arbitrators to determine such compensation, one of whom may be named by each party on such application.'
Mr. JABEL ROBINSON Can you insert a clause limiting the expense of the arbitration ? This expense often debars farmers from going to court. They find that arbitration often costs a great deal more than the high court. The hon. minister should put in a clause limiting the cost of the arbitration, or leave it to the county judge or some parties who would not charge so much. I have in my mind the case of a neighbour of mine, who, if he had not been a rich man and the case had gone against him, would have been ruined by the large amount of money that the arbitration cost. It is the duty of the government to try and give us cheap arbitration. I know parties to-day who have not settled with the railway companies and who are afraid of going into arbitration owing to the costs.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is very much in what the hon. gentleman says. Very serious instances have come to my own knowledge such as the hon. gentleman has mentioned. I do not see, however, how I can make any improvement, but will be happy to accept any suggestions. If people were content to allow the judge to determine the question of value, that would do away with a good deal of expense. We provide that the judge shall do it unless one of the parties asks the appointment of two additional arbitrators. It would be rather extreme to say that the parties shall not have that right, but it is almost certain to entail additional expense.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before that section is adopted, I would suggest that this is the place where the qualification should be inserted clearing up the question for the judge. The judge should be the judge of the county where the lands lie. We do not contemplate that either party will deliberately seek to make expense, but it is well to reduce the chances for expense as much as passible. I would suggest that after the word * judge ' should be inserted the words ' of the county wherein the lands lie.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am well disposed towards limiting it in that way. But should it be done here ; should we examine the whole subject and consider the insertion of a subsection declaring that the county court judge of Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
the district shall be the judge referred to in these clauses ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Better let the section stand.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it would be better to prepare a subsection rather than repeat the words in each case.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: So long as it is not forgotten


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will look into it.
On section 159 :
If the opposite party within the time aforesaid, gives notice to the company of the name of his arbitrator, then the two arbitrators shall jointly appoint a third, or if they cannot agree upon a third, the judge shall, on the application of the party, or the company, after notice of at least six clear days having been given to the other party, appoint a third arbitrator.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move that this be struck out altogether.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to know if I am right ill thinking that the object is to do away with the two arbitrators, meeting to choose a third. The minister proposes not that each party shall appoint one arbitrator, and, if necessary, the two so elioosen meet to try to agree upon a third, but that each party shall name one and the judge name the third 7


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That will save expense.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and clause struck out.
On section 161-compensation for lands and damage.
The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose to substitute for section 161 the following :
The arbitrator or arbitrators, in deciding on such value or compensation, shall take into consideration the increased value that will be given to any lands through or over which the railway will pass, by reason of the passage of the railway through or over the same, or by reason of the construction of the railway, and shall set off the increased value that will attach to the said lands or grounds, against the inconvenience, loss or damage that might be suffered or sustained by reason of the company taking possession of or using the said lands as aforesaid.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is the wording in tlie old Act ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: While that is being discussed, I have an amendment which I

intended to propose to the section as it appeared in the Bill, hut it will be applicable to this amended section, except that the lining will be different. This is an important matter, and I think I had better mention the amendment I propose and explain the reason for it, in order that the minister may consider it, and, if he agrees with me incorporate it in the Bill. There are two sorts of increases in value that appertain to lands taken for railway purposes. First there is the increase of value common to the whole locality due to the construction of the railway and the opening up of the section of country it traverses. The second is a special increase and is involved also in the existing law, which the minister proposes to re-enact.
But, I am sorry to say that in the province of Ontario the judges do not agree on what the law means. The best opinion- if I may say so ; I mean what seems to me the best opinion-is in accordance with what I attempt to make clear by my amendment ; and that is that no farmer or other owner of property shall be charged, as a set off against the damages to which he is subject, with any increase in the value of his land which increase is common to himself and others by reason of the construction of the railway, but only such increased value as attaches to his land and not to neighbouring land. The late Chief Justice Burton was strongly of opinion that the law is as I have suggested by my amendment to make it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is not the recognized law.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, I am sorry to say it is not, and that is why I am going to make it safe in this Act, so that people having these cases may not have an appeal from the arbitrators. I have had perhaps as much experience as any lawyer in Ontario of my age with regard to these railway arbitrations. I have lately been an arbitrator, as well as counsel in such cases for fifteen or twenty years, and I have found many a time there was an appeal owing to the disagreement of the arbitrators and coming down from the price it was really thought the man would be entitled to, because they could not otherwise agree upon what they thought the law was as to what was to be set off. The late chief Justice Burton was strongly of the opinion that the law was as it is made by my amendment, that it meant what I am saying now, that the man should not be charged against the damages to which he was clearly entitled any set-off for increased values to his remaining land which value was common also to his neighbours. But other judges have not agreed with him, and I find arbitrators, among whom are county judges and lawyers of good ability, disagreeing on that point. I had the misfortune to sit upon an arbitration myself in
Hamilton, where the arbitrators had to disagree; they could not agree whether they should allow as a set-off for damages the benefit the party received for the increased value of the rest of his land when that value was common to his neighbours, because, it was argued, that man could get to market quicker, he can ship fruit easier, and so on. But it was stated on the other hand, well, but that is a benefit common to his neighbours who do not give any land, and there the arbitrators, I am sorry to say, were not able to agree upon how they should put that point. I think we ought to make it clear, and that a man should not be charged with the benefit to his property against the damages which he suffered through the passing of a railway across his land, unless it is a special benefit not common to every one. If the minister does not agree with me, I am prepared to debate the point at considerable length, that a man should not be charged against for any increased value unless it is the value special to him over that which his neighbours receive.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would like to hear the opinion of the leader of the opposition on this question. I do not know that the proposition will strike the committee favourably. I am under the impression that in my own province the law is generally accepted as stated by the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster). I would be inclined to accept the amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not familiar with Ontario decisions on the point. The idea in my mind was, how would you deal in that case along similar lines with the inconvenience, loss and damages to the lands traversed ? I have no particular case in mind, but the general principle is that a man can recover damages where his lands have been taken, or some of his lands. Then he can also recover damages in respect to other lands not taken but being part of the same lot ? That is to say, you may have two lots side by side, one lot owned by A and another lot owned by B. Taking into consideration the detriment which is occasioned to the land of A because a portion of his land has been taken, you take into consideration the circumstances affecting the value of that land as a whole; whereas the land of B immediately adjoining may be affected in the same way, but you cannot grant him any compensation at all because no land is taken. My hon. friend from Lincoln wishes to put the man whose land is taken on the same basis as every one else, in respect of increase to the value of his land. But how are you to deal with the corresponding principle. All the community alongside of you is affected exactly in the same way as you are, so far as detriment is concerned, and if you are to be put on the same plane as every one else with re-

gard to advantage, are you not to be put on tlie same plane as every one else with regard to detriment ? It seems to me if you are to equalize the question of advantage you ought also to equalize the question of damage. The object of my hon. friend's amendment is to say that a man whose land is taken must not suffer any reduction of the price on account of increased advantage if all his neighbours have an exactly similar advantage to that which he receives. If the principle is good to that extent should not the converse be good.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the arbitrators have generally proceeded upon the principle that a man whose lands are not taken by the railway dees not, in the case put by my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax), sustain quite the same damages. It is the severance of a man's farm that creates the trouble. If a man's lands are not taken by the railway they are not severed at all. In the abstract, as put by my hon. friend, it appears to be one and the same question, but It does not work out iu that way once in a hundred times as a matter of fact. The man whose lands are not taken is not damaged because they are not severed. The railway does not cut him off from his woods or his pasture field, it does not run between his house and his barn or his house and the highway, and therefore it does not damage the remainder of his land. The man who is not damaged has all the advantage of the railway running there and perhaps a greater advantage than the man whose lands are taken because he is almost as near to the station as the man whose lands are taken, and he does not sustain any damage by the severance. I do not therefore think he is in a position to say that the other man is getting more than is given to him when he gets his damages in respect to the severance.


Robert Laird Borden: The illustration the hon. minister referred to a moment ago is on the same principle. The Intercolonial Railway was running along Water street in the city of Halifax. The railway went along that street under the terms of a special statute enabling the highway to be used for that purpose and also by permission of the corporation of the city of Halifax. It took up one half of the street from the curb, the result of it being that the land on the other side of the street was reduced in value by at least 50 per cent and some of it by 75 per cent. The people went to the Exchequer Court and they could not recover a dollar. I think that is what the Exchequer Couft held, although it may be that their petition was dismissed by that court under the statute of limitations. I think that is what the court would have decided in any case. If the land of one of these proprietors had extended across the street there would Mr. BORDER (Halifax),
have been a different condition of affairs under which the man who owned this land which had been taken would not only have had damages for the land so taken, but damages for the injury to buildings on the other side of the street ; whereas, this land did not extend across the street, the land was not taken and the owners had no status in the court at all. 1 think in all fairness from one standpoint that the amendment which my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara suggests has something commendable in it, but I would like to see whether or not, if you are going to amend the law, you could not adopt some principle which would deal in an equitable manner with the converse condition. I suppose from the standpoint of the public it would be the fairest not to regard the principle which has prevailed in the past, that damages cannot be recovered unless the land is taken, but I suspect that it would be very difficult for the railway company to know just where matters were going to end if a principle of that kind in respect of line through any thickly settled district were adopted. You remember the question which arose in New York when the elevated road was constructed. Damages were recovered on account of vibration and everything of that kind and the litigation extended over many years. I think the amendment of my hon. friend is well worthy of the serious attention of the committee, but we had perhaps better think of it a little before adopting it.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would be very reluctant to undertake to make any material changes in the principle upon which the courts have been acting heretofore in respect to these valuations. We would not know where we might land ourselves. A very long course of judicial interpretation as well as of legislation throughout the English speaking countries, I think, has pretty well synchronized in a uniform way, and I would not care to take the responsibility just now, when dealing with this Bill, to make what might be thought to be a progressive movement. I would feel like agreeing to my hon. friend's amendment to-day, because it seems to me to be in accord with the doctrine which obtains generally in our courts, if it were not a departure. I should like to have an opportunity to consider it, and I think I would prefer not dealing with it in this form, but defer consideration until some later session when we might deal with the subject separately.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is not intended as a departure. I do not think it has that effect.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If it were felt to be desirable to make some provision to meet the case which the hon. leader of the opposition has

referred to, we would find it a very large undertaking. These things ramify in such extreme directions that we cannot anticipate where they are going to carry us. We cannot establish uniformity any way. I think, that, having gone as far as we have, we ought to stop. I would agree that the words should be added if the committee approve the amendment which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) proposes.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I think it is dangerous to alter the wording of the Act as it is. The only advantage which the landowner whose land is taken can have over another neighbour is better access to the station and better drainage for his land on account of the passage of a railway over it. These advantages are allowed at present and changing the wording of the Act would lead to confusion.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I quite agree with the member for Lanark that drainage and access to a station are the two things that are generally brought forward. I know where it has worked hardly with the landowners, because in order to get the award of two of the arbitrators there has had to be a compromise which would not have been the case, if it were established what their rights were.


Mr. LENNOX.: The amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) is within reasonable limits, and I think it would meet the difficulty. No deduction should be made from compensation because of benefits from the passage of a railway that are common to all the lands in the neighbourhood.


Mr. GILMOUR.: Would this amendment have the effect of preventing compensation being given to other lands, not taken by the railway which are not damaged.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It does not affect them at all. I move that section 161 be stricken out and the following substituted :
The arbitrators or arbitrator in deciding on such value or compensation shall take into consideration the increased value which will be given to any lands through or over which the railway will pass by reason of the passage of the railway through or over the same, or by reason of the construction of the railway, and shall set off such increased value that will attach to the said lands or grounds against the inconvenience loss or damage that may be suffered or sustained by reason of the company taking possession of or using the said lands as aforesaid.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I beg to move to amend the section by inserting after the words ' increased value ' the following words : ' beyond the increased value common to all lands in the locality.'
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16S, proceedings upon application for disqualification, struck out.
On section 169, subsection 2, appeal from award,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I move to add after the number two at the very beginning of the section, the words ' whenever the award exceeds $1,000.' The present law limits these appeals to amounts exceeding $400, but this Bill strikes out the limitation and allows an appeal in any case, no matter how small may be the award. The old Act provides a limit of $400, but in my opinion, we should not allow an appeal except in cases where the award is over $1,000. As my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Robinson) said, the expenses of arbitration are considerable, and by the time the three arbitrators have come to a conclusion they know pretty well all about the case and what the damages really are. I may be a little influenced by the fact that the landowner can stand an appeal less easily than the railway. A railway company, having an award of $500 or $600 against it, might worry the landowner into accepting $200 or $300 rather than have an appeal. The costs of an arbitration, which he cannot collect from the company, are considerable. What he can collect are the witness fees and the arbitrators' and other fees, which are principally disbursements, but he gets a very small portion of what he has to pay his counsel for preparing his case. And if the railway company should take the case to appeal to the court in Toronto, the landowner must have the case argued over again, and the appeal may go against him or the amount be reduced, and in any case he will be considerably out of pocket. Even if the appeal should be dismissed with costs against the railway, the landowner would not be able to get as much as he would have had if there had been no appeal, because there is a large amount of work which the lawyers have to do and for which they cannot charge in the bill of costs against the company. I think, therefore, that if the award do not exceed a thousand dollars, the railway company should not be allowed to bring it into review. I first thought of making the amount twice as large, but on reflection I thought that the amount of $1,000 would be more acceptable to the House. If the award of the arbitrators is not more than $1,000 against the railway company, selected as the arbitrators are by this Act as arranged by the minister-an arrangement with regard to most of which I entirely agree-I think there can be little doubt that that award will be substantially just, and that to allow an appeal would be inadvisable. For, if an appeal from the award is allowed in the case of say $800, the owner may be persuaded that it is better to take $600 or even $700 than to face the expense of an appeal. He is forced to

take it, not because the law obliges him to, but because he feels it would be more profitable to him in the end. In some cases property owners are inclined to regard this almost as a species of blackmail. The agent of the railway company says :	We
can make you pay a great deal out of this award, if you do not accept a reduction. And so, as the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) said, the farmer is compelled to sustain a loss which he ought not to be called upon to sustain. I submit with confidence that the line should be drawn at $1,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The difference that arises is as to the amount. I had intended to suggest that the minimum should be something less than $1,000. I confess that I did not view it as the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) does, entirely as a question' of appeal on the part of the railway company. I think we may very well consider that either party or both parties may be dissatisfied with the award and may desire to have the subject reviewed. If we are to view1 it as the hon. gentleman does, I think I would be prepared to go as far as he proposes. But are we justified in so doing ? I have not had great experience with respect to these matters, not nearly so much as the hon. member has had. Therefore, I should be very much disposed to be influenced by his views. If we are to take for granted that in only a very small percentage of cases are these valuations complained of by the landowners, and in the great majority of cases by the railway company, I am prepared to say that the amount should be a good deal larger than I had in mind, and I do not say I would not be willing to make it as high as $1,000. It might be well, perhaps, to consider the point further. Where lands are being taken for railway purposes in country districts, one would hardly find one instance in fifty, I suppose, in which the valuation would run as high as $1,000. The effect of this, therefore, would be to allow no appeal in the great majority of cases. I do not think that would be a serious objection. I am. quite sure that the tribunal referred to would be likely to reach a fair result, so far as the farmer is concerned, and I would not be particularly sensitive with regard to the other. Of course, I would not like to see any system which would be manifestly likely to result in gross injustice to the company. They are entitled to fair treatment, and, of course, we depend on the arbitrators, one of whom is to be named by the railway company, to do what is reasonable and just. I think this clause may stand as it is for the present.
On section 169, subsection 3-practice and proceedings on appeal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This subsection provided :
Upon such appeal the practice and proceedings shall be, as nearly as may be, the same as upon an appeal from the decision of an inferior court to the said court, subject to any general rules or orders from time to time made by the said last mentioned court, in respect to such appeals, which orders may amongst other things provide that any such appeal may be heard and determined by a single judge.
I have an amendment to propose, a copy of which I have just submitted to the hon. minister. When I drew this amendment I assumed that the meaning of 'court' there was the Superior Court. Of course, I do not pretend that they should appeal to the county court. This subsection treats the award of the arbitrators as the decision of an inferior court. Now, speaking for the province of Ontario-and I think the same applies in other provinces-you never appeal from any court to a single judge. The present law in that respect says, among other things, that the court may provide that appeals shall be determined by a single judge. That is the principle I am assailing. My contention is that no one judge, I care not who he may be, should set aside, upon law and fact the decision of three arbitrators in which at least two must have agreed. There is no other case within my knowledge of the courts, where one judge can do that. It is a bad principle, and it does not work wellspeaking for the province of Ontario-in these arbitrations with railway companies. This appeal in railway arbitration is wider than the ordinary appeal. Speaking as a lawyer, I think the appeal from an inferior court is not to be set aside as easily as an award can be. The award here can be set aside if the court determining that appeal think the judge erred on the question of fact, or on the weight of evidence, or the weight to be attached to either class of witnesses. Now, those liabilities to attack do not exist in the ordinary jurisdiction of an appellate court. The law at present is that one single judge can do more than is the result of an appeal from an inferior court. He is allowed, upon a hearing of an appeal, the same power as in the case of original jurisdiction. That is, the court has a right to read the evidence over without seeing the witnesses in the box, or hearing their manner of giving evidence, which properly guides the lower court. The appellate judge can disregard all that, and determine from the written evidence just as if he was accorded original jurisdiction. Now. on principle, I do not think it is right that one judge should have all these wide powers to set aside a decision on a question of fact as well as on a question of law. There is no other appeal, so far as I know, from a lower court, at least in the province of Ontario, that is heard and determined by a single judge.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Exchequer Court judge.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: His is an inferior court, and a party can appeal from him to the Supreme Court of Canada.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I may say to the hon. gentleman at once, to save him the trouble of arguing at greater length, that I think I would entertain his suggestion. But instead of providing that the appeal can be dealt with by one judge, I would provide that such appeal should be to a Superior Court judge.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: To which of the courts of appeal would you appeal to ? To the divisional court or the court of appeal ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Act says that upon such appeal the practice and proceedings shall be as near as may be the same as upon an appeal from an inferior court to the superior court. In Ontario that is to a divisional court. In Ontario the appeal goes to the divisional court of the high court of justice, because the high court of justice is a superior court.


Mr. GERMAN.: Under the practice in Ontario and under the rules, an appeal can go either to a divisional court or to a court of appeal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not from a county court.


William Manley German: Yes, the section provides that the superior court can make and change the rules whereby an appeal from the board of arbitrators, in cases of the appraisement of land taken for railway purposes, can be to a single judge ; but unless the superior court in the province of Ontario, and I apprehend in the other provinces as well, makes an order different from any order that exists at present, there can be no appeal except to a divisional court.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We do not appeal to a single judge in these arbitrations. There has been a standing rule of the high court for ten or twelve years, under which all these appeals do now go to a single judge.


William Manley German: This is a section altogether different from the section in the general Railway Act, which says that upon such an appeal the practice and proceedings shall be as near as may be the same as upon an appeal from the decision of an inferior court. Now, the practice and proceedings at present, on an appeal from an inferior to a superior court, are that the appeal shall be either to the divisional court or to the court of appeal. You appeal from the county court to the divisional court, and from the divisional court to the court of appeal.


William Manley German: You appeal from the county court to the divisional court and from the divisional court to the court of appeal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not in a county court. You are limited to one appeal.


William Manley German: I quite admit that. We understand the practice in Ontario as well as the hon. gentleman. Under the provisions of the subsection the practice in an appeal from the board of arbitrators would be exactly similar to the present practice in an appeal from an inferior to a superior court in the province of Ontario, and that is either the divisional court or the court of appeal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am afraid this is going to introduce some complications. It is not going to be easy to arrange for this unless you make special references to the various courts in the different provinces. I understand that in the province of Quebec the superior court is constituted by one judge, and that is a court of appeal from inferior courts.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would not be so simple a matter as it appears at first sight.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What I object to arc the words in the subsection which provide for an appeal to a single judge. What my amendment provides is that such an appeal shall be heard by at least two judges. If the committee thinks the amendment should not be made, I would propose that we should strike out the words :
Which orders may amongst other things provide that any such appeal may be heard and determined by a single judge.
Because there is a distinct understanding that such an appeal shall go to a single judge, and it might create mischief.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is not an appeal properly so-called. It is a question of supervision or control by the court over the award of the arbitrators, and when that supervision is exercised by a judge of the court in the first instance, then there may be an appeal to the court of appeal afterwards. But, that is to be taken under the ordinary procedure which exists in the different provinces and I do not understand why we should seek to depart from the rule which has existed heretofore under the Railway Act. This section of the Bill is a mere reproduction of the old Railway Act. Why distinguish the word ' court' in the different provinces ? It is a court of original jurisdiction. What necessity is there for changing it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The necessity is that I do not think any one judge should sit in appeal over these arbitrators.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The arbitrators are only enlightening the conscience of the court. When an appeal is taken they are merely expert witnesses.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Surely the lion. Minister of Justice does not contend that a man expects to go to a court. Surely it is intended that people will get their rights settled by the arbitration. They do not expect that they will have to go to a superior court.


The MINISTER OE JUSTICE.: What is the object of the section ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The object of the section, as I understand it, is that if the arbitrators go wrong upon some principle upon which they have decided there shall be au appeal.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Exactly.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If it were limited to a matter of law I would not have so much to say about it, but a single judge could say that the arbitrators had erred on a question of fact as well as on a question of law. I do not think any single judge ought to be able to do that. I know it has been so until now. I know, as I said at the outset, that I am amending the law as it stands to-day, irrespective of the Bill which is before the committee. I do not think the law is good in its present form. I am saying when you are allowing an appeal from three arbitrators, two of whom must agree that it ought to take more than one man to set aside the decision of these two. I think the decision of these two ought not to be set aside on a question of fact without more than one judge to do it. An appeal from the county court goes to at least two judges. I have drawn the amendment in this way so as to make it consistent with the text of the section relating to inferior courts.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You could not make it to have universal application because one judge will review the verdict of the twelve men.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not like this parliament to say when we are providing a tribunal for settling these disputes between the railway and the landowner that we will allow the province of Ontario, or New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia, or Manitoba to say what tribunal shall sit in appeal over these arbitrators. This section says that you can take this appeal from these arbitrators to a single judge or to more than one judge, because, in all of the provinces there are courts of appeal with more than one judge. This says that no matter what may be the usual practice in an appeal from an inferior court in any province you may make a special rule which is not the general rule to allow an appeal to one judge alone.


Mr. COWAN.: That is exactly the procedure that prevails in this province. You can appeal from the arbitrators to one judge in Ontario.


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is exactly what I say. That is what I understood the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) to dispute.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Not at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I object to this appeal going to a single judge, and if that is the practice now, I think this parliament ought to correct it. The fact that it is so now'does not make it right. We are here to make these laws correct. The hon. minister of Railways and Canals would not listen to me if he were to suggest an amendment and I were to offer the objection that he was changing the law as it exists to-day. We would not be making provision for this railway commission if the railway law was all right. We are dealing with the Railway Act and amending it as far as we can to make it proper as far as relates to the railway commission and other matters. The hon. minister is amending this section and he has amended several other sections relative thereto. I am not going to dispute with hon. gentlemen opposite about what is the existing state of affairs because we agree on that point. We agree that in Ontario to-day this appeal goes to a single judge, and I am contending that it ought not go to a single judge.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Then why not amend the provincial procedure ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is where my difficulty is.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You can say that there shall be no appeal, and if you say there can be no appeal you can also say that there shall be an appeal, and you can therefore say what kind of an appeal there shall be.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: How would my hon. friend amend this section so as to make it applicable to the conditions existing in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I thought that in all the provinces no appeal from an inferior court went to less than two judges ? If I am wrong in that, my amendment is not quite right. That is why I made it at least two. I know that in the court of appeal in Ontario there are five judges. That is more than two, and therefore my section would apply. I am not'wedded to the words of my amendment, but I think it should be provided in some way that one judge should not sit in review. I do not think we should indicate that it is proper that a single judge should review all the questions of fact and determine from a typewritten copy of what the evidence was in a case of original jurisdiction, better than two or it may be three arbitrators who have seen the witnesses. We expect the arbitrators to do their duty, and I do hope that there will not be many appeals,

but if there is an appeal it should be decided before more than one judge.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The more the suggestion is studied the more difficulty it presents. We have already declared that the court shall mean a county court as well as superior court, and if we give the county courts jurisdiction you could not make a proviso that there must be two judges. In Quebec, for instance, you could not go to a superior court because one judge constitutes that court, and therefore you would have to go to the highest court in the province. I do not think the jurisdiction of such a court should be invoked in such a case. If the limitation is $600 or $800, there would be few appeals. I should think that a county court judge, experienced in the consideration of evidence and the knowledge of the law, would be competent to decide if necessary that the award of the arbitrators may be set aside.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We seem to agree that if possible we should have this decision reviewed by more than one judge. Of course appeals will be limited if you increase the amount, but I am contending for $1,000. The appeals may be few, but every appeal is an important appeal. Even though my amendment be not accepted it would be better to strike out all the words after 'appeals' on the third last line, and then we have the province in each case providing the court of appeal from the inferior court, and we have these appeals from the arbitrators going to whatever court that may be in each province. Is not that safer than to provide that in each case it shall be an appeal to a single judge ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would prefer that, to the other suggestion you have made.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the section is amended by merely striking out those words which my motion provides for striking out, the result will be that in my province, whatever the proceeding for an appeal from an inferior court may' be, that proceeding will prevail. Perhaps that Is safer than specifying the number of judges. In drawing my amendment, I thought I was safe in saying two judges, because I thought that there could be no appeal in any province to less than two judges. I think we ought to fix what in our opinion ought to be the constitution of the court, and if there are appeals in any province to less than two judges strike out the words which indicate that the appeal may go to a single judge.


Mr. WADE.: This section would be workable in the province of Nova Scotia if the Bill had not been changed to include the county court. With that change, I do not think it is workable. If we say that in the province of Nova Scotia the appeal shall lie 1444
to the Supreme Court, that will meet the difficulty.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would suggest to the'' Minister of Justice that, with the assistance of gentlemen from the different provinces, on both sides of the House, a section might be drawn providing that in the province of Ontario the appeal should be to such-and-such, in the province of Quebec to such-and-such, and so on for the different provinces.


Mr. RUSSELL.: I think the 2nd subsection would be a great deal better if it said ' a superior court ' instead! of ' the court.'
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved that the word ' the ' before the word 1 court ' in line 44 be struck out, and the words 'a superior' be inserted in lieu thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved that in the third subsection the following words be struck out: ' which orders may amongst other things provide that any such appeal may lie heard and determined by a single judge.'
William Manley German: I do not think it is wise to strike out those words. In the province of Ontario at present an appeal must be taken from the arbitrators either to a divisional court or to the court of appeal. Unless the rules of the province are changed, an appeal cannot be taken from an inferior court to a single judge.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I argued two appeals last year from arbitrations to a single judge.


William Manley German: I am not talking about what the hon. gentleman did last year. I am talking about what is allowed to be done under this section if it is passed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is the hon. gentleman proposing to allow a single judge to hear the appeal ?


William Manley German: No, I am not, but I think that it is perfectly right that a single judge should, under certain circumstances, entertain an appeal. The expenses would he considerably less, and under the practice of the province of Ontario at present, and the provisions of this section, an appeal would only lie to the divisional court or the court of appeal of the province. Then if the courts of the province desire to make a change in the rule and send an appeal of this kind to a single judge, that would be for them to say.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not see any objection to a superior court judge hearing the appeal.


William Manley German: I may add that in the province of Ontario our courts are getting very considerably congested. Any body go-

mg to the court of appeal has to wait months for a decision. Even in the divisional court, you have to wait many months, whereas if you can go to a single judge, you will save this delay. The judges of our Ontario courts consider that it is equitable, that an appeal should be given to a single judge, and they make an order to such an effect. That would work out a larger measure of justice than by going to a court of appeal and having your award held up for a year and perhaps longer. I have a case of appeal now standing a year and a half.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I have one which has been standing for six years.


William Manley German: That is even worse. When a farmer is granted an award, he wants to get his money as speedily as possible, and the appeal should be to a court where speedy justice can be obtained.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What I want is sound justice and not speedy decisions which might not be sound justice. I prefer to wait six months and get a sound decision than go before a tribunal which I did not tliink the one best fitted to give a decision. The congestion mentioned by my hon. friend from Welland is being cured. They are now constituting another court in Toronto, and endeavouring to have two more judges appointed. They are proposing to make four divisions of the high court of justice, so as to relieve that congestion, and that will no doubt be accomplished if the hon. gentleman will bring his eloquence and ability to bear on the government to have more judges appointed. My object is to have the section amended so as to provide what the minister contemplates, namely, that this appeal should be as nearly as possible like an axipeal from an inferior court to a superior court. What I contend for is that we should have at least two judges to determine. If this parliament is not going to decide that there must be at least two judges, I think that the amendment of the Minister of Railways is the best remedy we can have, and this to provide that whatever the provision may be in each province for an appeal from an inferior to a superior court, that provision will apply to this appeal from the arbitrators. But, as I have suggested already to the hon. Minister of Justice, I think that we could manage to draw a section designating under little sub-heads to what court the appeal should lie in each province. It does not seem to me that hon. gentlemen are wedded to the one judge idea. In my opinion, the preponderance of evidence is that we should have more than one judge to review the decision of two arbitrators.


Benjamin Russell: What is the practice in Ontario ?


William Manley German: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: At present the one judge holds the appeal, and that is why I have moved to amend


Benjamin Russell: How does that work as a matter of fact ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have been trying to explain that it does not work out well.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has worked perfectly satisfactorily.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am giving evidence that it does not work out satisfactorily. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to say that it does.


Mahlon K. Cowan: In what respect has it not worked satisfactorily 1


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Because awards are set aside by one judge who views the evidence in a different light, reading it from a typewritten copy, from what the arbitrators did who heard the witnesses.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Is not that the same in every case ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The principle is what I am contending for. Does the hon. gentleman think, as a general principle, that one judge who has not heard nor seen the witnesses is a better judge of the facts than two judges would be ?


Benjamin Russell: If you had a half a dozen judges they would be under the same disability as regards the witnesses.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. member perhaps has not noticed the particular appeal that is given here. This is not a case of an ordinary appeal. In the case of an ordinary appeal the judges who have not heard the evidence and observed the demeanour of the witnesses, cannot reverse the decision of the lower tribunal on a question of fact. We are providing a special appeal here, the widest appeal that can be known. We are saying in this Bill that you shall not only appeal like an ordinary man from the inferior to a superior court, but you shall be subject to have the decision in your favour reversed upon grounds upon which it cannot be reversed in an ordinary appeal. You are using language here to take away the benefit a man gets in the decision of a tribunal that saw the witnesses and heard their evidence, and more than that, you are proposing that oiip judge shall do that. I think we can_ draw a section that will get over that difficulty. If the amendment that such an appeal shall be heard and determined by at least two judges does not work out properly, we can draw a section in the interest of making these appeals satisfactory, so that justice may be done with as little'expense as possible, and a speedy decision may be accelerated. I am not in favour of so-called quick justice unless it is sound justice. I am contending that no one judge ought to

be allowed to reverse the decision of two arbitrators appointed in the careful way the Minister of Justice has arranged to appoint them by this Act. I would suggest that this section stand until we make it right, and provide that in the province of Ontario the appeal shall be to such and such a court, that in the province of Quebec it shall be to such and such a court, and so ou through all the provinces.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Don't strike out those words in the latter part of the section but let it stand as originally drafted, then the whole section will be perfectly workable. I think the appeal should be such a court of appeal for hearing these claims, as will be found most advantageous. In our own courts, if_ we struck out those lines, the appeal will' have to be heard by at least four judges, and that might not be necessary in the case of small claims. I think it would be better to leave the control of the constitution of the appeal court in the hands of the superior court.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The question I think is not well stated by the hon. gentleman from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). He wants to change the existing conditions for the province of Ontario. I do not apprehend any question will come up in that province. We have had a court operating there which has enabled these appeals to he entertained by a single judge. In all human probability this clause has been very well considered, because it would be necessary there to invoke a court consisting of more than one judge. There being such a clear difference of opinion among the legal gentlemen from Ontario, and the appeals likely to be taken under the Act being very few in number, I think we had better leave this clause as it stands and pass on.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I cannot withdraw my amendment. I am not talking here idiy in what I have* been saying. Of course I will have to be hound by the majority of the committee, but I think my amendment is proper.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have no doubt the hon. gentleman thinks so, but there is a difference of opinion.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have not heard any arguments showing that the principle that I am contending for is wrong.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I want to ask the hon. gentleman a question. Is there in the province of Ontario -under the Judicature Act they have there, such a system as we have in our province, by which a judge in a given case may appoint three arbitrators for the purpose of determining certain issues that are raised between parties ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No. There is a rule stating distinctly that the courts will not refer cases to arbitration. But it often happens that counsel agree that a case is proper to be referred, and then a reference is made to a judge of a county court. But there is no board of arbitration in civil cases. When a case comes to trial counsel may agree that it may he referred to a county judge, or perhaps to the Master in Chancery. I persist in moving my amendment that subsection 3 of section 169 be amended by striking out all the words after the word 'appeals' in the fifth line, and inserting the following in lieu thereof: 'And such appeals shall be heard and determined by at least two judges.'
Amendment negatived.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


Mr. COLIN F. McISAAC (Antigonish).: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the chairman of the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines (Mr. Hyman) I move :
That the order of the House for Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company be discharged and the Bill be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines for further consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: What effect will this have on the notices that have been given of amendments to this Bill in committee on third reading ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: They could stand until the Rill comes back.


Robert Laird Borden: We could have an understanding that these notices stand until the Bill comes hack.


Mr. SPEAKER.: It Is not necessary that notices that have been given once should lie given again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 145) respecting the Quebec Bridge Company, and to change its name to 'The Quebec Bridge and Railway Company.'-Mr. Power.
On section 3,
The undertaking of the company is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the i ground on which the undertaking is de-

dared a work for the general advantage of Canada ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: This bridge crosses the St. Lawrence to allow the Intercolonial the Grand Trunk and other railways to enter Quebec. The purpose is to enable the company building the bridge to have terminal facilities, that is, short spurs of railways to connect with the bridge of the Grand, Trunk, the Intercolonial and the Canadian Pacific railways.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



HAMILTON. GALT AND BERLIN RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 149) to incorporate the Hamilton, Galt, and Berlin Railway.-Mr. Cowan.
On section 9,
Robert Laird Borden: Twenty-five thousand dollars a mile seems to be a high bonding power for this railway. Has the hon. Minister of Finance considered it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 1 have not given very much attention to these Bills in the Railway Committee. I presume my hon. friend the Minister of Railways has given his consent to it, and has seen that the powers given here correspond with those granted to other companies.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. gentleman who is promoting the Bill can tell us whether the amount per mile for which bonds are authorized to be issued, was considered in the Railway Committee ? It seems to me it is a large amount.


Mahlon K. Cowan: It, is not a large amount for building a railway through that section of the country. There are several ravines and gullies to be bridged, and it is a populous . section where the purchase of the right of way is expensive. The capital stock has been cut down to $500,000 for sixty miles of road. Besides, it runs through several villages and towns.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the estimated cost ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Between $30,000 and $35,000 per mile, exclusive of rolling stock.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



VANCOUVER AND COAST-KOOTENAY RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 87) to incorporate the Vancouver and Coast-Koot-enay Railway Company.-Mr. Macpherson.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the length of this line ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is nobody here who can give the informa-


Robert Laird Borden: tion and I think that the committee will have to rise.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly hon. members who have charge of Bills ought to show sufficient interest to be present and give any information required.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The hon. member who has charge of the Bill spoke to me about it. He said that it was impossible for him to be here and he asked me to see that the Bill came up in committee. I, however, am not) aware of the details.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend from New Westminister (Mr. Morrison) may be able to give the information


Mr. MORRISON.: I think that the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Finance 's a good one, and the Bill should stand. I was not in the committee when the Bill was up. This line will traverse another route, for which a charter was granted some years ago, and it might be ivell that the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill should be present to show that it does not conflict with any existing road.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Unless my hon. friend can give the information required, the Bill will have to stand. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 123) to incorporate the Huron, Erie and Buffalo Railway Company.-Mr. Cowan.
On section 9,
Robert Laird Borden: That gives a total bonding power of $35,000 per mile. What is the length of the line ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: About a hundred miles.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This question of bonding power received a good deal of attention in the committee and the amendments were agreed to.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The intention is to double track the line. It is an extension of the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway, now acquired by the Here Marquette system. The intention is to make it equal to the Trunk line of the Michigan Central.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



ST. MARY'S RIVER RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 139) respecting the St. Mary's River Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.

On section 4,
Section 8 of chapter 79 of the statutes of 1900 is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor :-
The company may issue bonds, debentures or other securities to the extent of fifteen thousand dollars per mile of the railway and branches, and such bonds, debentures or other securities may be issued only in proportion to the length of railway constructed or under contract to be constructed.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the capitalization of this company ?


Mr. OLIVER.: The company was organized some years ago, and the capital fixed at that time. I have not the Act of Incorporation before me, so cannot give the capitalization. This Act merely provides for extensions of the company's already existing line, and provides for a bond issue on the extension, but not for any increase in the capital stock.


Robert Laird Borden: This section covers the whole line, and authorizes a bond issue of $15,000 per mile. I do not say that this is additional to wliat was already authorized. I wanted to know the length of line and the capital stock, so that we might have some idea of the total capitalization. I hoped to hold this Bill up as an object lesson to the committee, because I felt that the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) would not promote any Bill authorizing a large capitalization, for I know his strong views on that subject. I hope to have an example to point to for the benefit of the hon. members who promote Bills authorizing a capitalization of $35,000 or $40,000 per mile. But the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) does not seem to have made very close inquiry into the matter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have here the statutes of 1900, chapter 79, of which relates to this Bill. It authorized a capital stock of $500,000 and has bonding powers of $10,000 per mile. This section changes it to $15,000 per mile.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the length of the line ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is not stated here.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the hon. member for Alberta might know.
Mi-. OLIVER. I believe the length of the line already built is thirty miles. This authorizes extensions, the two main ones being thirty miles each.


Robert Laird Borden: That is sixty miles with a capital of $500,000 ?


Frank Oliver: Ninety miles, including the thirty miles already built. That is, of course, a rough estimate. But I have travelled the country, and I think I am about right.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) is satisfied that the capitalization is not excessive or likely to interfere with the proposed control of rates hereafter.


Frank Oliver: Inasmuch as this is a narrow-gauge line, and, with its branches, only ninety miles in length, I did not take the rates into as careful consideration as I would have done if it were a trunk line.


Robert Laird Borden: 'Little drops of water, little grains of sand '-you know. If you have a number of small lines brought together, you may find that their total capitalization inflicts a burden upon the people which might have been prevented if we had looked carefully at the capital of each small concern when it was being chartered.


Frank Oliver: I am very glad indeed to find that the position I have taken meets with such approval from the leader of the opposition. With the support of the opposition for the principle I have always upheld, I should be glad to receive suggestions from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and support any wise amendments to the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I am very glad that the opposition for once, has won the commendation of my hon. friend from Alberta.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: I would say on behalf of this company that I think they are doing splendid work in the west. They have a large irrigation scheme and have done a great deal of work in that way. The object in asking for these branches is to extend the road from place to place through that territory. A great deal of the land belongs to the company, and it is being settled very fast. I am satisfied that the bonding powers are not too large for the enterprise they have undertaken. They are doing the work practically with their own capital. I think the committee can feel perfectly satisfied that it is justified in granting the powers asked for.


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of fact, the bonding privilege asked for is very much smaller than many of the railways whose Bills have been before us to-night, and I have no reason to think it is excessive. But I have been making a practice throughout the evening of asking what is the total capitalization, and also of making some inquiry as to the cost of the road, that I might judge whether or not it was wise to grant the powers asked for.
The difficulty with most of the charters applied for in parliament is that the bonding powers demanded are usually enough to construct the road without regard to the capital stock. That I am not inclined to regard as a very good principle. I think in that respect my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and myself are pretty well

agreed. I was only trying to get a statement of the cost and the capitalization of this road, in order that I might hold it up as an example in contrast with some of the other Bills which have passed, and the capitalization of which seemed to be very ample.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe that charters have been granted where the bonding privilege was probably too large. But of companies which actually intended to do the work, to complete it and put the road in good shape, I have hardly ever known a case yet where that company was incorporated and built any amount of the road, that they have not had to come back to parliament for increased powers in this direction. However, I think the principle of keeping down to a reasonable amount the bonding privileges is a very good one. But what I wanted to say in this connection was that this road is, as my hon. friend says, a narrow gauge road ; so it is in some pieces, but the powers granted here are with the intention of making it a standard gauge road. That was explained in the committee. I understand that part of the road has already been constructed of the standard gauge, and that it will take fully this amount and more to make it a standard road.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



THE CARDIFF RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 140) to incorporate the Cardiff Railway Company.- Mr. Oliver.
On section 3,
Robert Laird Borden: What is the length of the line ?


Frank Oliver: About eight miles.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a pretty large capitalization for eight miles.


Frank Oliver: The solicitor who had the Bill in charge asked that the subsequent provision relating to bonding powers should be struck out, so that the company only depends on the stock to build the road.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman would consider that a fair amount.


Frank Oliver: I am not prepared to be responsible. The committee seemed to think it a fair amount. In fact, I believe the chairman suggested that the stock should be increased from $200,030 to $250,000, which I believe was also declined by the solicitor.


Mr. HYMAN.: It is a peculiar Bill in that the promoters do not require any bonding privileges. It is intended to build the whole road out of their own money, and for that reason the stock was left at this amount.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax!. That is so unusual that I do not think we ought to say much about it.	'


Robert Laird Borden: 


Frank Oliver: I am sure I have the approval of the leader of the opposition on this occasion.


Charles Smith Hyman: We ought to .adopt that as a model Bill.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
NIAGARA, QUEENSTON & ST. CATHARINES RAILWAY COMPANY.
House in Committee on Bill (No. 154) to incorporate the Niagara, Queenston and St. Catharine's Railway Company.-Mr. German.
On section 4.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the capital stock of this company has been cut down from $1,000,000 to $250,000. It is an expensive road to build in so far as it is to be built from St. Catharine's to Niagara, and then along the banks of the Niagara river crossing the ravines as far as Queenston, and then coming back on the third side of the triangle, as it were, to the city of St. Catharine's. The right of way is very expensive; the construction along the banks along the Niagara river is expensive and the promoters of the Bill say that in cutting the capital stock to $250,000 it will not enable them to build a first class road in first class condition. I move that the capital stock be increased to $500,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What does the chairman of the Railway Committee say to that ? I presume that all these arguments were submitted to the Railway Committee.


Charles Smith Hyman: When the Bill was before the Railway Committee the promoters were asked as to the cost of the road and taking into consideration the capital stock at $250,000 and the bonding privileges which were given in the Bill, the Railway Committee considered they were quite sufficient. I think $250,000 capital stock is quite sufficient and 1 cannot agree with the motion made by Mr. Cowan.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Then, I suppose 1 might withdraw it.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I do not see that it makes any difference whether the capital stock is $250,000 or $500,000, because I do not suppose they intend to put a dollar of stock into the road. I understand from the Minister of Railways that railways are not built that way. I presume they intend to build the railway by the issuing of bonds, and it does not appear to me that it will be an expensive road to build. I asked the promoter of the Bill if they were going to ascend Queenston Heights and he replied, no, that he was going to keep down below in coming back to St. Catharines. In that way the cost of construction will be very

much less. I think the .judgment of the committee should be sustained.
Motion (Mr. Cowan) negatived : Yeas 9, nays 34.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 85) to incorporate the Berlin, Waterloo, Wellesley and Lake Huron Railway Company.-Mr. Clare.
Bill (No. 125) to incorporate the Guelph and Georgian Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 142) respecting the Elgin and Havelock Railway Company.-Mr. Fowler.
Bill (No. 171) to incorporate the Chatham, Wallaceburg and Lake Erie Railway Company.-Mr. Stephens.
Bill (No. 177) respecting the Klondike Mines Railway Company.-Mr. Mclsaac.
Bill (No. 63) respecting the London and Fort Stanley Railway Company.-Mr. Mc-Gugan.
Bill (No. 144) respecting the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Belcourt.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['Better not start too late.']
Mr.   I@: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I would like to bring to the attention of the government a communication I have received from Dawson City, referring to a supposed declaration by the government that the Treadgold concession is not in force, and stating that the gold commissioner is enforcing section 14, which exempts from representation Mr. Treadgold's private holdings. Is that covered by the communication which the acting Minister of the Interior, the lion. Postmaster General, sent to me this afternoon ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I only read it casually, and passed it over to my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: This is a second communication, it may be, referring to the same thing. It will be covered, I suppose, by the communication which I received from the hon. gentleman ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have no knowledge of the matter beyond what I had in the memorandum.



Robert Laird Borden: I would like to point out to my hon. friend the
Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works, that I think the hon. minister was mistaken in informing me, as he did when I brought the matter up in the House this afternoon, that the order of the House adopted on the 30tli of March has been complied with. An order of the House asking for certain information in respect to the drill shed at Woodstock has been complied with, as is shown on page 385 of the ' Votes and Proceedings.' That is not the order to which I called the attention of the hon. gentleman. The order, which was passed on the 30th of March, is as follows :
Order of the House for copies of all papers, letters, telegrams, contracts, specifications, and correspondence of every description whatever, between the Minister of Public Works, or any other member of the government, and the contractors, sub-contractors, and other parties, in connection with the repairs to the post office, and the building of a new retaining wall, In connection writh the post office, in the town of Woodstock, N.B.
Since I brought that matter to the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works, I have received a letter stating that thg return was brought down. I And that the hon. Minister of Public Works is mistaken and there is some misapprehension about it, for I can find no trace of it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I shall call his attention to my hon. friend's remarks.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Census, $35,000.
James Clancy: I notice that in the third volume of the census there are parallel columns showing the number of schedules in 1891 and 1901. Take the first item appearing in those schedules under the heading of ' Living Persons,' in 1891 there are twenty-five questions and in 1901 thirty-four. Will the hon. minister tell us what these questions are ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I would require to have a copy of the schedules here to give that information in detail which' the hon. gentleman asks for.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman had better send and get them. It is very important that we should know.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: While we are waiting for the information asked for by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy), I may explain briefly the reason for the reduction in the census vote for the ensuing year. The current year's vote was .$120,000, and, from present appearances, that will not all be used, but very .nearly. The vote for the ensuing year is $35,000. The reduction Is due to the fact that the work of compilation is drawing to a close. The end of the present fiscal

year will see it brought to a stage where, so far as can be estimated, very large reductions in the staff will be possible. It is anticipated that the vote for the ensuing year will complete absolutely the whole compilation. It is probable that the work of compilation will be finished by the month of January, although, there will be some slight work in closing up that vote. I am now able to give the information asked for day my hon. friend. I believe he desired to know what questions were asked in the census of 1901 with regard to living persons that were not asked in the census of 1891. I find in the book! the hon. gentleman himself quoted a paragraph at the bottom of the first page, showing that four questions which were asked in 1891 were not asked in 1901. There having been nine questions more in 1901 than in 1891, the absence of these four would mean that thirteen questions in all' must have been asked that were new in the census of 1901. There was an inquiry to ascertain the country or place of birth of each person, and the year of naturalization, if not a British citizen by birth, and the racial origin and nationality. There were also inquiries to ascertain the trade, occupation or profession, and the time each person was employed in the same, and the amount of his earnings in the year. Then about education and language, in 1901 there were additional questions as to the time at school in the year, and the language spoken, and whether a person spoke both English and French or only one, and his mother tongue. Those, I think, cover the whole list of extra questions.


James Clancy: The schedule states there were twenty-five questions in 1891. What the hon. gentleman is reading from the introduction does not explain what I was endeavouring to get. There were twenty-five questions asked in 1891 and there are thirty-four asked in 1901. I wanted to know if any of those asked in 1891 were dropped, and if not, what were the additional questions that were put in 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There were four questions dropped which were asked in 1891; the place of birth, of father and mother, the origin if French Canadian-that question was not asked whether he was a French Canadian-third, whether he was unemployed during the week preceding the census, and fourth, whether he was an employer and the number of hands employed during the year. Now, to balance those four there was a question to ascertain the country or place of birth of each person. That was not asked in 1891.


James Clancy: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that four questions were dropped, and a substitute for them is to give the place of birth, that is the same question as one of the four.


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, the place of birth of the father and mother is not the same question as the place of birth of the person himself. The question I am speaking of is the country or place of birth of each person other than the question of the place of birth of the father and mother. Another question asked was the year in which the person came into Canada, if he was born outside of Canada. That was not asked in 1891. The year of naturalization, if foreign born; his racial origin and nationality. Then there were inquiries to ascertain the trade, occupation or profession of the person, and the time he was employed therein, and the amount of earnings in the year. Then, under the head of education and language, there were additional questions as to the time at school in the year, if he was of school age, and the language spoken. Then there was a question whether he spoke both English and French, these being the official languages of this country. I have just had handed to me the whole list of questions in 1891, also the list of questions in 1901.


James Clancy: I was anxious to get the additional questions.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To do that 1 would have to read over the list of questions in each census and compare them, and work out those which were asked in the one which were not asked in the other. In 1901 the list figures up 34, and in 1891 only twenty-five. The order of questions is not quite the same in the two censuses and I would have to go over every question and compare it to give the hon. gentleman the information he asks. The general statement I gave a few minutes ago from the introduction of the census, shows practically what the hon. gentleman asks.


James Clancy: I am sure the hon. minister will recognize the fact that the committee ought to be in possession of the changes that I have asked for. Although it may involve some work, I am sure none will appreciate more than the hon. gentleman himself the importance of giving us that information. I suggest, as we cannot hope to get through the item conveniently to-night, the hon. gentleman should have an opportunity of getting that information. It is Friday night, there is a thin House, and this is a very important question as the hon. gentleman will see. I think it will be well to allow him an opportunity of getting that information.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not think of the House adjourning at the present time. This is a good opportunity of discussing this vote and putting it through. The hon. gentleman has had these schedules before him for a long time, and if he had chosen to look at them he could have compared them and made out

exactly what he wants. I could work it out myself with fifteen or twenty minutes study, hut I do not think my seat in the House of Commons is the place to do that. When 1 consider that the schedule of 1891 has been published for twelve years and that the other has been published for two years, it does not seem quite reasonable that a work of that kind should be asked for in the House of Commons by the minister who is endeavouring to pass his items. I think it is hardly fair to expect the minister on a vote of this kind, to go over the information which is patent on the face of the returns which have been published for years, and which can be obtained at any moment with a few minutes work if any body chooses to go at it.


James Clancy: I might be able to agree with the hon. gentleman that the hon. minister would not be expected to work out at his desk in the House of Commons such information, or in fact any other information that is asked in getting a vote like this passed, but the hon. gentleman, I am sure, will assent to the proposition that his deputies should be prepared with the work, and if they are not prepared with it the hon. gentleman has no right to ask for this vote. The hon. gentleman surely cannot ask this committee to pass these estimates involving thousands of dollars of expenditure unless we know what the value of this expenditure was. I agree that it is not the time now for the hon. minister to sit down and work out these tables, but he should be prepared through his deputies to give such information to the committee, and X appeal to the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) if it is a fair thing to ask us to go on at the close of the week with other parts of the estimates and say that we have no business to ask such questions, when there are records that we may appeal to. The hon. Minister of Finance usually gives the information that is required of him. He does not ask us to go and hunt up the information that the minister ought to have. It is the minister's business to know through his deputies and give that information to the House. I think 1 am not at all unreasonable in asking this. There has been a large increase in the cost. If the money has been well spent, the minister should have credit for it, if not the committee has a right to criticise it and it has a right to the information.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that we ought to be prepared to give all such information. I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me, on the other hand, that it is quite possible in committee for any hon. gentleman to ask questions that a minister cannot be ready to answer offhand, and if he gives the assurance that later on such information will be brought down, the committee should be content with that.
If any hon. gentleman wanted to do so, he could ask a series of questions that would embarrass a minister and which he could not possibly answer offhand. The only protection the minister has is to give the member the assurance that the information will be brought down in due course, but I do not think we should delay the proceeding of the House on that account. There will be ample oppoi'tunity to get this information later on, and if the hon. minister gives the assurance that it will be brought down, I think that ought to satisfy my hon. friend.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have asked one of my officers to get that information. I think he can get it in half an hour. In the meantime the hon. gentleman can go on with other questions, so that we can proceed with the business of the House. I do not think I am asking anything unreasonable in asking the hon. gentleman to wait for half an hour for the information which he requires and which is being prepared.


James Clancy: The hon. minister knows very well that it is not this side that is delaying this vote. No minister can complain if questions are asked which the committee are entitled to have answered. I want to say a word to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.- I should have to be much more reasonable than the hon. gentleman is, and I think he is a very reasonable man, if I were satisfied with the proposition he has made. The hon. gentleman surely was not hinting that the questions which are being asked this evening have the slightest embarrassing effect upon the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I should rather judge, from the intimation of the hon. gentleman, that embarrassing questions are put. They are not embarrassing unless the minister is unprepared. If the minister is unprepared all such questions are embarrassing. Large sums of money have been expended and I am sure the hon. Minister of Finance will not be so unreasonable as to press the question unless we are prepared to get all the information in detail. The hon. gentleman is a very busy man. I think he can see that members of the opposition cannot be idle men. They have very much to do. The proper stage at which we should have information, as the hon. gentleman knows perfectly well, as an old parliamentarian, is when the item is under consideration, and when the subject is fresh in our minds. To bring down that information afterwards, at a time when there is no opportunity to pay attention to it is utterly useless for a fair and intelligent criticism. I do not desire to ask unreasonable questions.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid the hon. gentleman has used the word ' embarrassing ' in a sense different from what I have used it. These questions are not embarrassing except as questions

to be answered at tlie moment. These questions will be answered within a reasonable time. They are only embarrassing in the sense that my hon. friend insists upon the hon. Minister of Agriculture answering them at a particular moment. If he gets the assurance that the information will be furnished I do not imagine that he would wish the business of the House delayed while we get it.


James Clancy: It is an unfair thing to ask the opposition not to press for an answer when the vote is under consideration. The hon. minister should be ready with his answers right now, and it is not the fault of the opposition that he is not ready. [DOT]


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 have informed my hon. friend that I will have the answer within half an hour, and it may be within a few minutes.


James Clancy: ' Deaths in public institutions.' Thirteen questions were asked in 1S91 and thirty-five were asked in 1901.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend has not read it quite correctly. In 1891 ' deaths in ^niblic institutions ' comes second and not first, but in 1901 it comes third. The difference in the figures is the difference between thirteen and fifteen.


James Clancy: I am very sorry that the minister has chosen this time to bring up this estimate when there is a very thin House. The hon. gentleman is not responsible for that, but he does take responsibility if he presses the matter to a vote unless we have the information. Why should not the minister come down to the House at the next sitting prepared with answers to such questions as may be asked regarding the meaning of the schedules. I am sure the hon. gentleman will save time if he does that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I regret that the hon. gentleman did not move for a return because it will involve an elaborate calculation and take considerable time. If the hon. gentleman thinks for a moment that we wish to burk inquiry or refuse information, I shall be very glad to leave this vote and take other votes in my department, and I ask the hon. gentleman's assistance to pass these votes tonight so that the House will make reasonable progress. We can take the item for exhibitions.
Exhibitions, $150,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The vote for the current year of $195,000 has not been all expended. It was expected that the Louisiana Purchase Exhibition at St. Louis would open in May of this year. It has been postponed until 1904. The vote included also the exhibition at Osaka, Japan, which opened on the 1st of March last and will close on the 1st of August.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: The Osaka exhibition has been provided for out of the current year's vote except a comparatively small amount which will have to be expended between the 1st ot Juiy and the 1st of August. The St. Louis exhibition is to be held in the ensuing year, and I am asking $150,000 to have Canada properly represented there. The exhibition will open on the 1st of May next and will continue until the 1st of December, so that next year I will have to ask for a portion of the expenditure. The vote taken now will prepare the exhibits and the accommodation necessary and enable us to carry on the work until the 1st bf July, 1904. It is represented that the St. Louis exhibition will be a magnificent one. There is always a rivalry between Chicago and St. Louis and (lie St. Louis people are endeavouring to eclipse the great Columbia exhibition at Chicago in 1904. The people of the state, the citizens of St. Louis, the national government, and a number of the states have combined to contribute large sums of money, one circular representing that $30,000,000 would be spent by the people of the United States on the exhibition. Under these circumstances I feel that it is very important indeed that Canada shall make a creditable exhibition there because I believe it will help to make-or rather to sustain, because it is already made-the reputation of our country as a place of glorious production, immense capabilities, and splendid possibilities.


James Clancy: What will be the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have spent about $0,000 out of the current year's vote on preparations. I hope the .$150,000 will carry on the work during the ensuing year, although I cannot be positive of that until next spring when the exhibition opens. If I find it to be necessary I would be disposed to ask for a supplementary vote. We hope now that the $150,000 will carry us to the 1st of July, 1904. with the probability of spending $60.000 in the following fiscal year ; say $225,000 altogether in round figures.


James Clancy: Are we erecting buildings.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The exhibition provides the buildings. The arrangement is that the exhibits shall be classified according to their character and they refuse to allow any national exhibition in any one building. In explanation of that I may say that at Glasgow, at Wolverhampton. at Cork, and at Osaka, we concentrated the exhibits in one building, and in that way made a more effective display, and one more economically and efficiently managed. I think it is a much more effective way of displaying our resources, and directing attention to our country. But in St. Louis, the plan and scope of the exposition will not admit of that. We have to put our

agricultural exhibits in the agricultural building, our horticultural exhibits in the horticultural building and so on through all the classes. But it is proposed to have a Canadian building there, which will contain offices for our commissioner and staff, and which will be a rallying point for Canadian visitors and for persons desiring to obtain information about Canada. That would probably involve the erection of a moderate sized Canadian building.


James Clancy: I suppose the hon. gentleman will be able to give to the committee some idea as to how this sum of money, which he is asking for, is to be spent-how much in buildings, how much in exhibits, aud so on.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have not yet had plans submitted for the building, but it will probably cost $20,000 or $25,000. The space for our exhibits in the large buildings is given free, and the ground for our own building is also given ifree by the authorities. As our exhibits will be scattered in a large number of buildings, we shall be obliged to have a large staff to watch over them and keep them in order and explain them to visitors. If we had them all in one building, we would not require more than one-third or perhaps one-fourth of the staff that will be required. There will be considerable expense incurred in collecting the exhibits. We have found it desirable that the government should collect and manage exhibits of natural products-agricultural, horticultural, mineral, and forest exhibits-as we cannot get individual exhibitors in these lines to work up creditable exhibits. That has been our course at all the great expositions. [DOT] That work requires a considerable amount of preparation and a considerable expenditure of money. One part of that exhibit, in which we have been uniformly very successful, is a cold storage establishment, in which our products are displayed behind glass throughout the whole exhibition. That is an expensive exhibit, but it is a very striking and attractive one, and has always attracted an immense amount of attention. Then there will be the maintenance of the staff, the carriage of the exhibits to the exposition and return, and the incidental expenses. The estimate which is here made has been made upon our experience of other exhibitions.


James Clancy: Can the hon. gentleman give us approximately the cost of the cold storage plant, the salaries of those employed, and the cost of transportation ?


The MINISTER OF AGTICULTURE.: When we were fixing the amount of this vote, I discussed with the exhibition commissioner the amount that would probably be required, and he made a set of figures which were quite approximate, as my hon. friend will understand. I have not them at the moment in my mind ; but, speaking
from memory, the cold storage plant, including installation, carrying on and management, will probably cost $5,000 or $6,000. Salaries and wages fer the whole year, roughly speaking, will come to $20,000 or $25,000, that is for the Canadian staff, in addition to which we always have to employ temporary labour from day to day ns we need it. The collection of exhibits in the four classes that I have spoken of would come to at least $50,000 or $00,000, which, I think, is an inside figure for all the work of searching, collecting and preparing them. I have been requested by some of those interested in Canada to make a live stock exhibit at St. Louis. If that should be undertaken, it would involve an expenditure of $250,000.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman propose to make a live stock exhibit at the expense of the country ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not answered the request. But even supposing the country would not pay the expenses of the individual exhibitors, if Canada does make a live stock exhibit, the management of that will cost the department probably $50,000. I have not yet decided on that, as there is an objection to a live stock exhibit in St. Louis, owing to the fact that it is extremely hot there in summer and many of our best breeders would not like to send their best atiimalg to St. Louis in that season. If we cannot get their best animals, it would be useless to have an exhibit of live stock there at all.


James Clancy: In the $60,000 required to defray the expenses of placing an exhibit in St. Louis, is any expenditure on live stock included ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not in that item. That is just the item of the four classes-agricultural, horticultural, forestry and mineral exhibits. These have to be collected from all parts of the country. To-day the farmers are growing grain for us by special arrangement to be sent to the exhibit at St. Louis. We are making every effort to make our display an impressive one. In days gone by we have been very successful at the different exhibitions, and as this exhibition is still more important than those which preceded it, we must do everything possible to give our country a very effective showing.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: How will the building compare with the one we had at the Pan-American ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It will 'be much finer. The building at the Pan-American cost us $14,000 or $15,000. . We expect to spend on this $25,000, and perhaps more, as the cost of building will be much heavier. The labour people in St. Louis are making arrangements to charge very high rates.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It is to be hoped that we will have a much better buildiug than the one we had at the Pan-American. From the expression I have heard from a number of Canadian visitors, that buildiug was totally unworthy of this great country. Even if we should have to spend two or three times ithe amount we should not hesitate to do it in order to have a proper building. Has the site been selected ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, a very favourable site has been allotted to us, not far from the exhibition office and close to the agricultural exhibition building. Our exhibition commissioner went all over the ground and located the site in conjunction with the president of the exhibition association there.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That is an import-amt item. The site of the buildiug at the Pan-American was very detrimental to the appearance of the building itself and it is to be hoped that a better location will be found at St. Louis.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: At the Pan-American the site was very much injured by a large restaurant being built just opposite, and another inferior building just along side, but that was not understood when we secured our site.


James Clancy: I do not think that there will be any disposition on this side to oppose any reasonable vote that will enable Canada to take at this exhibition the proud place she has taken at other exhibitions. I think it would be a great mistake to count too closely the cost. I join with my hon. friend from South Grey in pointing out that there was a general expression of, disappointment on the part of Canadian visitors to the Pan-American, both at the location and the character of our building. As regards the location, the government made the reasonable excuse that they had to take whatever they could get, but I am glad to hear that we are to be better treated at the St Louis exhibition. While dealing with the question of the Pan-American, perhaps the hon. gentleman will tell the committee what was the winding up of that exhibition, and what disposition was made of the buildings and the large outfit we had there ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman has spoken of the furniture. That did not belong to us, but was an exhibit made and loaned by the Canada Furniture Company, a combination, I might call it, of the furniture manufacturers with headquarters in Toronto. They wished to show their furniture, and loaned it to us in the understanding that it was to be used in the Canadian building.' So we spent nothing on it, except some .$200 at the end of the exhibition to make good some little damage. The building was, I Hon. Mr. FISHER.
might say, simply got rid of. At the end of the Buffalo exposition we had almost to beg people to take the building off the grounds, as was required of us under the contract we made with the exhibition people. We sold the glass and some other parts of the building for $622.50, and the building itself for about $200 or $250. The contractor had to take it down and remove it. In the case of many of the other buildings, those who had built them were called upon to pay large sums to have them taken away and so fulfil their bargain with the exhibition authorities, which was similar to ours. My hon. friend can understand that, with so many buildings thrown on the market at the end of such an exhibition it would be practically impossible to get anything for them. At the Wolverhampton and Glasgow exhibitions our buildings were put up by contractors under agreement that the contractors should take them back at the close of the exhibition. So we got the buildings for the purpose for which we needed them for a less price. But we could not make such a contract in Buffalo, although, I am satisfied that the system is a good one.


Mr. BLAIN.: I notice among the items of expenditure in connection with these exhibitions that many purchases have been made in the country where the exhibitions have taken place. Would it not be better to buy Canadian furniture and fittings throughout, so as to have everything as far as possible of Canadian manufacture V This would help our producers and would be likely to attract more attention at the exhibition. Would it not be worth while also for the hon. minister to consider if we could not make an arrangement for the designing of a building in Canada and the preparation of the material here ? For instance, the roofing material, whether tin or galvanized iron, could be manufactured in Canada as we have large producers in that line. Of course, the lumber could be Canadian. Then, the carpeting, fittings and furniture could be supplied here. The arrangement of the hon. gentleman made with the Canadian Furniture Company for the supply of furniture at the Pan-American was, I think, a splendid arrangement. It filled every purpose from a Canadian standpoint. I would like information with regard to one particular item of expenditure for the Pan-American. There is an item here-the W. C. Edwards Company, two oak stands for grain exhibits, $745. This seems a very large item for such a purpose. What has become of the stands referred to ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Let me answer the hon. gentleman's last question first. The stands lie refers to are at the experimental farm waiting for the St. Louis exhibition. They are large erections, and the two stood in the main hall

at Buffalo. They are of hardwood, polished, and elaborate in their construction.


Richard Blain: Were they made under contract ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A bargain was made before they were ordered.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. minister regard that as a good plan for-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, I think so. I may explain that 1 have been very fortunate in having the services of a gentleman who has been most successful in the decorative work of our agricultural exhibitions. I refer to Mr. Hay, who used to be accountant at the experimental farm, but whom I may now call a permanent officer of our exhibition staff. For live years, ever since the Paris exhibition, he has been engaged in decorative work in connection with the agricultural displays we have made at the various exhibitions. He has made a most wonderful success of this work. Our agricultural decorations at these exhibitions attract great attention and win universal admiration, and have been the means of our gaining a great deal of credit. I may say that Mr. Hay designed the Canadian arch in London on the occasion of the King's coronation, and succeeded in making a display of grain and other agricultural products which attracted the favourable attention of the millions present. The stands referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) were designed by Mr. Hay for the express purpose for which they were used. The hon. gentleman spoke of Canadian materials in our buildings. These buildings are made of rough lumber covered with staff or stucco, and must be made on the spot. The wood being entirely covered, there is no particular object to be served in having it taken from Canada, particularly as the expense of taking Canadian material to cities where the exhibitions are held would be very heavy. If we were to follow that course, we should also have! considerable difficulty with the contractors. We have found it best to put up these buildings by contract, and the contractors themselves wish to furnish the materials, as they find it most convenient for themselves. Even at Buffalo, so near Canada, we found it impossible to supply the material ourselves. For instance, we have in Canada firms that supply a very fine metallic roofing, which has been widely exhibited. But that concern would not undertake to supply the roofing for our building in Buffalo for anything like what we could get it done for there. I believe their price was something like four or five times what the contractors put the roof on for. The roofing concern wished to exhibit, but they did not want to roof our building, and to have got them to do it would have greatly increased the cost. I grant that the hon. gentleman's idea is a taking one, and it is
one which possesed my mind on the occasion of the Buffalo exhibition. But it was not found feasible.


Richard Blain: On the question of the two oak stands supplied by W. C. Edwards & Company for $745, I do not think that the hon. gentleman's explanation will be wholly satisfactory to the committee. The objection I raised is this, that you spend $745 for stands to put grain upon, and you take them around to the different exhibitions, first at the Pan-American and now at St. Louis, and the people who go to these exhibitions see just the same thing.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE That is only a part of the exhibit.


Richard Blain: It is a very important one. Here is an appropriation of $745 for stands to put grain upon. I say that no matter what decorator yon have, you send him to the Pan-American exhibition and he puts grain upon these stands, they are decorated in one way. The minister says they are now in Ottawa waiting to be sent to St. Louis. Now, the exhibition in St. Louis must be very similar to the Pan-American. I look upon that expenditure as too large altogether. It would be better to make such changes as advancement would require. The fact is that.these stands, no matter how well they are constructed, will be covered up with some decorating material.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman's idea is quite correct. Those stands are made so that they may be adapted to circumstances. They were in one shape at Buffalo ; they are made in sections, and can be so set together as to present a different shape of stand according to the necessities of the building in which they are put. I may say that our designer. Mr. Hay, has worked out designs for an exhibition of agricultural products for several years, and he has never yet had two exhibitions which were at all similar.


Richard Blain: I notice an item here in connection with the	Pan-American-
James ~XV. Woods, Ottawa, flags for decorating purposes, $422.' I do not object to the item. But I notice that when tlie hon. gentleman came to sell these flags, which were only used for a short time, he onlv got $20 for them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is confusing two items, because we have those flags yet. We have hundreds of flags for decorating purposes!


Richard Blain: If that be correct, then the Auditor General's Report is misleading. I repeat that under the head of the Pan-American exhibition we have the item 'James W. Woods, Ottawa, flags for decorating purposes, Pan-American exhibition, $422.55.' Turnin g over the page we find ' Less sales of goods, and refund in connection with the

460S
Pan-American exhibition.' I see an item of .$20 for sale of flags.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Those are some that were injured and were old. But I can assure the hon. gentleman that probably ninety-five per cent of the flags that lie alludes to as having been bought from Mr. Woods, are here to-day, and will be used for the same purpose.


Richard Blain: 
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That includes all the glass in the windows of the building. We bought that in London and sent it over to Buffalo, instead of buying more at the latter place. We sold it when the exhibition was closed, and I think we got $622. A large reduction, but the hon. gentleman can understand that glass that had been taken out of the frame and carried away from the building, could not be expected to sell very well.


James Clancy: I suppose no duty is paid on goods that are taken over there ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No duty was paid until they were sold.


Richard Blain: One other item, page D- 17 :
' William Hutchison, commissioner, living allowance, 76 days, $10 a day.' Is that expenditure all right ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think so, quite. The commissioner had to live at Buffalo when the exhibition was going on, as representative of Canada. He had to live in a respectable manner, and I think an allowance of $10 a day was perfectly reasonable.


Richard Blain: That means entertaining, I suppose?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is what he was paid for his living expenses. He could do what he liked with it.


James Clancy: Was he supposed to do some entertaining ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was no special allowance for entertaining. but knowing Mr. Hutchison's cha-acter, I am quite sure he would entertain.


James Clancy: Mr. Hutchison was at Buffalo, Mr. Scott was at Glasgow. There was some difficulty about the buildings at Glasgow, was there not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not aware of any.


James Clancy: I understood that either the city, the British authorities, or some other parties, had borne a certain share in the erection of the buildings.


Richard Blain: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman must be thinking of Paris. There has been nothing of that kind, either in Glasgow or Wolverhampton, since the Paris exhibition. We have done all the work by ourselves, and after our experience we have made up our minds to have nothing to do in conjunction with any other authority.


James Clancy: How is the building constructed at St. Louis ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We propose to let it by contract.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman will not be subject to the alien labour law ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I suppose we will be subject to whatever laws are in force in St. Louis.


Mr. BOYD.: During what months will the exhibition be open at St. Louis ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: From the 1st of May to the 1st of December.


Nathaniel Boyd: In connection with the matter of a live stock exhibit I would like to know what association representing live stock breeders asked the hon. minister for the amount that he says they have asked him for.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All live stock associations in Ontario had a joint meeting not long ago at which they passed a resolution, and I am informed that in other provinces they have done the same.


Nathaniel Boyd: Whence comes the protest that the stock would likely be injured by the heat at St. Louis ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was no protest from an association, but a number of breeders themselves told me that while they had no objection to an exhibit being made they did not think they would like to send their best animals to the exhibition at St. Louis during the heated term.


Nathaniel Boyd: It was only some individual breeders who said that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Nathaniel Boyd: You have no protest from the association that asked for the money ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: None.


Nathaniel Boyd: You are influenced by individuals as against the request of the association.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said that the question was an open one and that I had not decided. I did not say that it had been settled. I simply stated the diffi-

culties there were in connection with the live stock exhibit.


Nathaniel Boyd: I can see no objection at all in the fact that one or two men do not see fit to send their animals to such an exhibition as the St. Louis exhibition is to be. Because a few men are not disposed to do that why should the whole exhibition be stopped ? I think the Breeders' Association which has asked for this grant will require some more lucid explanation than has been given in that respect.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Explanation as to what ?


Nathaniel Boyd: An explanation as to the reason why the minister would not give an answer to this association ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not say that that was the reason why I did not give an answer. I said I was discussing and considering the question, and I shall be prepared to give an answer. I pointed out that certain people had said that they did not care to send their best animals to St. Louis during the hot weather and that weighed with me to a certain extent.


Nathaniel Boyd: May I ask the hon. minister when a decision will be arrived at ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Before long, I hope.


Nathaniel Boyd: Is there any exhibit that can be taken to St. Louis that will bring greater profit to this country than an exhibit of live stock ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think, if a successful exhibit can be made there, it will be most advantageous to the country.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the hon.
minister if there is any strong intimation given by the breeders by way of protest, implied or otherwise, or in the way of suggestion of the difficulties of taking valuable stock there, and if that objection were adhered to by the breeders in Canada it would go so far as to affect the character of the exhibit, or to interfere with our placing the best stock that can be produced in Canada on exhibition. If it had that effect I think it would be a great mistake for Canada not to have the best stock there and that we should either have the best or none.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Quite so.


James Clancy: My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) has pointed out to-night that it would be a serious thing if our Canadian breeders should draw the line too closely. People would be wanting in loyalty so to speak, in presenting the case of Canada not to assist the hon. minister in every way, even at some slight risk, and an exhi-145
bition from Canada devoid of that branch would, I think, be very much impaired. But, on the other hand, if there is a possibility of not making the show that Canada could make there, it would be equally as great a mistake. I must admit the gravity of the question and I hope the hon. minister will succeed, as my hon. friend from Macdonald suggests, in inducing the Canadian breeders to assist him in carrying out what no doubt is the wish of Canadians generally.


Richard Blain: I would like to ask the hon. minister how the selection of live stock was made in connection with other exhibitions, for instance, the Pan-American exhibition.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: By the Live Stock Association. There was a dairy contest at Buffalo and in connection with that work of selecting and obtaining the cows to go into it it was left in the hands of the live stock commissioner of my department. He worked in co-operation with the Live Stock Association but he did most of the work of selecting the animals.


Richard Blain: If the hon. minister decides to have a live stock exhibit at St. Louis, will the same policy be pursued ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I should say so. It was successful before and I think it ought to be carried out again.


Nathaniel Boyd: Is the hon. gentleman seeking to procure any information as to the months in which the live stock is to be exhibited ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The authorities of the exhibition have been asked over and over again to give ns information in regard to that, but we have not been able to obtain it. I do not think they have yet formulated their own plans. In consequence of the representations that were made to me by the Live Stock Association, I am arranging for a delegation to come down and discuss that question.


Nathaniel Boyd: I suppose the hon. minister recognizes the importance of such an exhibit in that particular portion of the United States ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly.


Nathaniel Boyd: I suppose he understands the enormous amount of high grade cattle that have been taken into Missouri, Kansas and Illinois. I cannot understand why the hon. minister should for a moment entertain the proposition of any individual breeders as against the proposition of the association which represents all the high class breeders in the country. I trust the hon. gentleman is seeking information as to the months during which the live stock exhibit will be held, and also as to what the mortality would likely be or has been in that state of Missouri during the months when the fair is likely to be held.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The mortality in the state would be no indication of the work of an exhibition. It is well understood how severe exhibition work is on the animals exhibited, because, during an exhibition, the difficulties in a hot place like St. Louis would be very much accentuated. If these breeders will pledge themselves to send their stock, nobody will be more pleased than myself to make an exhibit that will be creditable to Canada, but, as the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) says, if we find a considerable number of live stock breeders who say that they cannot afford to send their best animals it would be a misfortune to be represented by second rate animals.


Nathaniel Boyd: Who are the breeders who have made these representations ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot give the names at this moment.


Nathaniel Boyd: I think we should have that information later on so that the Breeders' Association which has made the request for a grant may know. The least the hon. minister owes to this association is that he should let them.know who the men are who are objecting.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not said any men are objecting. I have said that they have represented to me the danger and difficulty of sending stock to St. Louis during the hot weather and I doubt whether they would be willing to send their best animals. I am not setting that against the representations of the association. but merely putting it forward as one of the difficulties in connection with the live stock exhibit which I conceive it my duty to consider.


Nathaniel Boyd: The minister left the impression on my mind that it was his intention to do it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is entirely a wrong impression, because I stated positively that the matter was under consideration.


Nathaniel Boyd: The association should know from what source these protests come.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: If the minister is not in a position to tell the House during what particular months the live stock will be exhibited there, I do not see how individual breeders could object when they do not know themselves. I agree with the minister that if it was the general opinion among the breeders not to send their first class animals there, it would be much better that we should have no exhibition at all. If this objection emanated from some gentlemen who are not yet aware as to what particular months they are expected to send their animals there, it can only have come from q few of them at the most. Can the minister tell us what pro-Mr. BOYD.
portion of the breeders have objected ? Every consideration should be given by the minister to the representations of the Breeders' Association both in the east and in the west.


Mr. BENNETT.: Who is going to be the commissioner and the secretary at St. Louis?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Hutchison is the commissioner and Mr. Brodie is the acting secretary. Mr. Burns is acting secretary at Osaka.


William Humphrey Bennett: At the Glasgow Fair there was more than one commissioner.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There has been no arrangement made as regards honorary commissioners.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not know they were honorary or not at Glasgow, but they drew considerable salaries. The Hon. A. Boyer got $5 a day, and Colonel O'Brien also. Will there be representative gentlemen sent to St. Louis ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There has been no discussion on that point yet.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is Colonel O'Brien connected in any way with this exhibition ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: I might put in a word on behalf of Colonel O'Brien. He is a faithful follower of the government, and I think it would be acceptable to him if he were to get employment ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He is a very good man.


William Humphrey Bennett: It would only be fair return for the political services he reuders to the government.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is not the way we do this work.


Richard Blain: I see some very familiar names here. A. N. C. Treadgold got $491 for interest and expenses on gold exhibits at the Glasgow exhibition.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Treadgold had a collection of Klondike nuggets and he offered it to ns and we undertook to pay the interest on the value and the insurance.


Richard Blain: Who is Mr. Treadgold V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman knows as much about him as I do.


Richard Blain: But I am asking for the information. I thought perhaps hp might be some connection of the gentleman in tiie Treadgold concession.


Tlie MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I imagine he is the same man.


Richard Blain: Has this anything to do with the concession ?
The MINISTER Oh, no.


AGRICULTURE.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Nothing whatever.


Richard Blain: The Bank of Commerce got $1,000 for a similar exhibit at Wolverhampton.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They have a branch in Dawson and we took their nugget and gold-dust exhibit aud paid the interest and insurance.


Mr. BLAIN  J.@: Egan, of Halifax, was paid $G00 damages done to his natural history exhibit. What is the explanation. It would appear to be carelessness on the part of the government employees.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In sending these natural history specimens from Paris to Glasgow they were damaged by sea water in such a way that they! became practically worthless. We were responsible aud we paid the value.


Richard Blain: How were these exhibits selected ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The selection was made on the authority and advice of Colonel Gourdeau, deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


William Humphrey Bennett: There are other familiar names besides Treadgold here. The Diamond Baker Lumber Company, of London, got $171 for fruit cases. How are these purchases made ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are made where the articles can be obtained to the best advantage. Those in the fruit trade consider this to be an eminently good package and they were purchased for sending our fruit exhibits. .


William Humphrey Bennett: Among other familiar names we have McPherson and Schell of Alexandria, who got paid for cheese boxes. Is that Mr. Schell the member for Glengarry ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot tell whether he is or not.


William Humphrey Bennett: Perhaps some of the minister's officials could tell him.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say just who the gentleman is. He is Mr. Schell, of Alexandria. Whether he is the member of parliament for Glengarry or not, I do not know.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister tell us at the next meeting of the committee ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will try to do so.


William Humphrey Bennett: In case he proves to be tlie member for Glengarry, may I ask whether members of parliament will be preferred in future for supplies ?
145$


Richard Blain: I see that for decorating and dressing exhibits Cl. Damond was paid $803. Is that the gentleman who the hon. minister said had charge of the decorations in connection with the different exhibitions ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, Mr. Hay was the man I mentioned. I should imagine that is for the supply of materials, but I do not know.


James Clancy: Is the minister able to say what form that gold exhibit took 1' Was it in the shape of nuggets ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was almost altogether nuggets, but there was a little dust also.


Mr. EARLE.: Did these nuggets come from the Yukon or British Columbia ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Those I refer to came from the Yukon. There were others that came from British Columbia, which were supplied by the provincial authorities.


Thomas Earle: What other exhibits had you from British Columbia ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We had a large mineral exhibit, given, I believe, by the provincial Department of Mines. We had also forestry and wood products, grains, foods and fish from British Columbia.


James Clancy: I suppose it is not usual to pay interest on gold-dust and nuggets. The gentleman would scarcely expect to deposit them and get interest on them from the banks.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Oh, yes, gold-dust may be turned into money at any time. We asked to have the use of them just as we might ask to have the use of so many dollars and pay interest on them.


James Clancy: Had Mr. Treadgold any interest in that exhibit other than that, as I suppose, he had a concession that he was advertising at the time ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not aware of it. Mr. Treadgold owned the nuggets and loaned them to us, and we paid him for the loan of them.


James Clancy: Had he a concession in the Yukon at that time ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know. I had nothing to do with the concessions.


James Clancy: Was he the same man who had the concession ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I believe he is. I know him personally, aud I always took for granted that he was the man who got the concessions.


James Clancy: He was at that time, I suppose, attempting to float some scheme ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I do not know the dates of Mr. Tread-gold's various Investments or schemes. But bis name never appeared on those nuggets. Nobody who saw them knew that they came from him, or knew where they came* from beyond the fact that they were from the Yukon. All that appears on them were the names of the creeks or mines from which they came.


James Clancy: Who owned the mines from which they came ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I cannot tel! the hon. gentleman that. I haven't them in my mind, and I do not know that we have a list of them ; but they were all in the Yukon. I may add that the transaction was arranged through the high commissioner's office in London.


James Clancy: It does not change Mr. Treadgold's interest in the transaction whether it was arranged in the high commissioner's office or in the hon. gentleman's.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, but the fact that bis name did not appear on the exhibits would dispose of the idea that they were used by him for advertising purposes.


James Clancy: Perhaps the hon. minister can recall what mines were mentioned and who was associated with the mines ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that there was no name of any individual claim or mine. There was simply the name of the creek, such as Bonanza or Eldorado, over the specimens which came from that creek ; but the individual claim or mine or washing from which they came was not put on.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman say that they bore the name of any creeks or localities that are in any way associated with the Treadgold concession ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I confess I do not know .lust now what those creeks are, and I cannot tell exactly what creek the specimens came from, and consequently I cannot tell whether the names of those particular creeks were over the exhibits or not. But I believe that some of the richest claims were on the creeks whose names were mentioned.


Richard Blain: Did the department or the high commissioner decide to make the exhibit of the gold nuggets, or did this whole matter originate with the High Commissioner in England ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say exactly where it originated. We were discussing our mining exhibit, and the question arose where we could get at reasonable cost some gold exhibits. Speaking entirely from memory, it seems io


Sydney Arthur Fisher: me that I received a letter from the High Commissioner stating that this exhibit was in London, and that we could get it on reasonable terms, and that I replied asking the High Commissioner to arrange to get it.


Richard Blain: The fact is that Mr. Tread-gold had these exhibits in the old country, and was advertising them in the interests of his mining speculations, and I suppose he suggested to somebody representing the Canadian government that it would be a good idea to have those nuggets exhibited at the expense of the government.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When the arrangement was made this gold was in transit from the Yukon to London, and was not in London. It arrived after the arrangement was made.


Richard Blain: When the nuggets were in transit an arrangement was entered into by the High Commissioner to pay Mr. Tread-gold $491 for the use of them as an exhibit. Will the hon. minister regard that as a proper way to make a collection of the gold of the Yukon ? Would it not have been better for him to have made the collection on his own behalf ? Evidently Mr. Treadgold made a selection of the nuggets to advertise his concession, the government paid him $491 for the use of that collection as an exhibit, and Mr. Treadgold got all the advantage of the advertisement without any expenses, and made a profit on it beside.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As a matter of fact, this collection was not made for the purposes of the exhibition. But the government seized the opportunity of getting hold of a good collection of nuggets from the Yukon, and was fortunate in having had the opportunity. The arrangement was made to pay five per cent interest on the value of the gold and the insurance, and it seems to me that the government is to be congratulated for having been able to get a good collection of nuggets at that low price. To have made a similar collection ourselves would have entailed a good deal of expense. There was no advertisement of Mr. Treadgold's nuggets.


James Clancy: Could the hon. gentleman not have borrowed the money on the credit of Canada at as low a rate ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


James Clancy: Then there can be no question of the saving of interest in that case. Does it not occur to the hon. gentleman that the government was made use of by Mr. Treadgold for the purpose of advertising his mining scheme ? The excuse offered by the hon. gentleman, namely, that these nuggets were accepted because Canada would have had to invest a good deal of money and lose the interest on it in making a collection of its own, is the last reason that

should be offered in a case of that kind. Has the hon. the Finance Minister brought the treasury into discredit by permitting such a transaction ? He is fond of boasting about his surplus of millions, and yet we have to capture an individual on the road and get him to part with his nuggets for the purposes of exhibition. The government accepted Mr. Treadgold's nuggets and paid him the interest ; that was not done in the interest of Canada, but for the special advantage of Mr. Treadgold and his scheme.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 1 suppose it is because I am not blessed with such a lively imagination as my hon. friend, that I cannot see the evil in the transactions that he does. I cannot see any criticism he has made on it which would not apply to the obtaining of gold from any other living being. The government does not keep a stock of nuggets on hand. It will be generally admitted that the resources of Canada should be represented at these exhibitions. If we are making an exhibit of minerals, would it not be desirable that we should have an exhibit of gold from the Yukon and British Columbia and Nova Scotia ; and if we are to have such an exhibit, how are you going to get the gold ? The government do not keep it in stock. They must buy it or rent it, and wherever they get the gold they have to take the representation of those who own it as to the part of Canada from which it is taken ; and if on this particular exhibit the name of that portion of Canada from which it came was placed on it, where was the wrong ? The hon. member insisted that the name of Mr. Treadgold wa| on it.


James Clancy: I did not, from first to last, say or insist that his name was on it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman said it was used to advertise Mr. Treadgold's concession, but how could that be done if his concession was not mentioned in connection with it ?


James Clancy: I will tell the hon. gentleman later on.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It seems to me utterly impossible. If gold nuggets are accepted and they come from British Columbia, or the Yukon, or from some particular creek in Canada, is there anything wrong in our saying so ? In all our mineral exhibits, the place where each exhibit comes from is always indicated. We have dealt with this as we would have dealt with any other mineral exhibit. We placed it as a specimen of the wealth of Canada, and put on it a label telling what portion of Canada it came from. As to paying the interest, if we bought gold sovereigns we would have to pay the interest. And I think that when the Minister of Agriculture was able to make an arrangement for which he got the gold at simple interest at five per cent, that
was a reasonable and fair and honourable arrangement ; and any person, including my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), if he were serious, would congratulate the Minister of Agriculture upon making such an excellent arrangement for exhibiting the gold of Canada.


James Clancy: I am quite ready to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture upon the simplicity which led to his being imposed upon. I do not attribute anything wrong to the minister. He has stated, what is, no doubt, the fact, that the arrangement was made not through him but through the High Commissioner.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He says it is a good arrangement.


James Clancy: Then, come to the other part of it. I stated that Mr. Treadgold's concession was advertised through the machinery and at the expense of Canada. His specimens were accepted and he was paid interest on them. When this is objected to, the answer was given that specimens had to be had somewhere. But let us see whether Mr. Treadgold or Canada was advertised. Mr. Treadgold was, naturally, anxious to bring his concessions to the notice of the investing public-these concessions that he had bought-no, I should almost apologize for saying that he bought them-the concessions that were given to him. Mr. Treadgold himself fixed the places where these specimens came from- there was no other way. Of course, every one of them would be announced as coming from some spot within the limits of his concession, and the.effect of the arrangement was to advertise the specimens from Mr. Treadgold's concession at the expense of the country. So, I do not retract one word that I said, that Canada paid a sum-not enough to bankrupt the country, being only $400-for the use of specimens which were exhibited at our expense for his benefit. I think it would have been better had he paid Canada some thing to take charge of his exhibit. Of course, Mr. Treadgold did not take specimens to England to advertise other people's claims, but to advertise his own, and every one would be marked as coming from his concessions. I am not sure that no one can see more clearly than the Minister of Finance that Canada not only advertised Mr. Treadgold's concessions, but, in the form of interest on his specimens, paid him for the privilege of doing so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As I view the matter, there is not the slightest foundation for the statements the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is making. Every word he has said against the marking of these specimens with the locality of their origin would apply equally to a piece of stone, a column of coal, or a specimen of silver-lead ore. The origin of these things had to be marked upon them. When I go

through the Imperial Institute in London, I see specimens of Canada's mineral wealth, all marked, showing the portion of Canada from which they come. No doubt, Mr. Treadgold's specimens were treated as the other specimens were. Mr. Treadgold was the only person who could tell where they came from. Those who furnished specimens, being responsible people, would be looked to for that information and their statements would be accepted. If these specimens were labelled as coming from Eldorado creek or Bonanza, that would be following precisely the same course as would be followed in the case of a piece of silver-lead ore marked as coming from Rossland. I have no knowledge of the case except what has been stated here to-night, but I understand that these specimens were not labelled with Mr. Treadgold's name or with anything to associate them with his concession.


James Clancy: Is the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) prepared to say that these specimens were not associated, in the way of being labelled with the locality of origin, with Mr. Treadgold's concession ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have already said that I have no knowledge of the case except what has been furnished by this discussion, and I presume that most members of the committee are in the same position. I say that, according to the information furnished by the Minister of Agriculture, these were not associated with Mr. Treadgold's concession or Sir. Treadgold's business venture, but they were marked with the place of origin, just as any other mineral specimens were. It would be as reasonable to say that because a specimen of ore was marked as coming from Rossland, B.C., you were trying to promote the interest of some speculator in Rossland. The whole thing is utterly absurd.


James Clancy: It is quite usual for people from the province of Ontario and elsewhere to exhibit as private persons or companies. We found such exhibits at the Pan-American, and they are to be found at every exhibition. It is perfectly right to use such exhibits for the promotion of business interests of the exhibitor. But does anybody suppose that Sir. Tread-gold having these concessions, that he was endeavouring to place upon the English market, would give as the place of origin i of any of these specimens any claim that was not covered by his own concessions ? Sly hon. friend may be imposed upon in some other way, but I am sure that he sees how Canada was imposed upon in this case.
I wish to point out the difference between specimens of gold and specimens of coal or any other mineral. Though Sir. Tread-gold was probably in the way of making his own exhibit, the government received Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
his specimens, marked, no doubt, as coming from claims in Sir. Treadgold's concession, and allowed him interest upon them. The expense involved was a small sum, but to that extent, Canada was used entirely for Mr. Treadgold's purposes.


The SIINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will admit, for the sake of the argument, that every specimen furnished by Sir. Treadgold was marked as coming from some mine in Sir. Treadgold's concession. But that makes no difference whatever. They were treated in exactly the same way as other mineral specimens, so far as that was concerned. The only difference between specimens of gold and specimens of other minerals is that gold is an article of value, and, while you have it, you must pay interest on it, whereas the owners of coal or other less expensive products are ready to offer specimens without charge.


James Clancy: Yes, but the hon. gentleman was advertising Mr. Treadgold's concession as against the concessions of other people.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then, if a specimen furnished by some British Columbia mine owner, say Mr. Dunsmuir, or some other, were marked as coming from the place of origin would that be advertising the owner's business at the expense of Canada ? The only difference, as I say, is that gold is a valuable article, and represents so many gold sovereigns, and, you can only get it by paying interest.


Robert Laird Borden: Has any statement been made as to what has been paid to my fellow townsman (Mr. Egan) for his exhibit ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) was not in the House when I explained that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The cases of birds were damaged.


Robert Laird Borden: But surely Mr. Egan must have been paid interest, because his specimens were articles of value.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But not valuable articles in the same class as gold.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to claim that the amount paid was not enough ?


Robert Laird Borden: No, I dare say that was all right. What was the value of Mr. Egan's exhibit ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was sent to Paris, and, though somewhat damaged there, it was furbished up and sent on to Glasgow, but was so damaged that it was not fit to be used again.


William Humphrey Bennett: There is one consolation in this matter, and that is that if Mr. Tread-

gold's scheme was advertised at the expense of the Dominion, it did not cost as much as another famous exploitation of the Yukon. It will be in the recollection of hon. gentlemen that when the famous Mackenzie & Mann exploitation of the Yukon was launched on the British public, it was advertised at the expense of this country, for Mr. Ogilvie went over there and lectured throughout Great Britain while under the pay of Canada in order to capture the public there.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mr. Ogilvie was an official of the people of Canada long before this government came into jmwer, and was generally regarded as a most honourable and capable officer, and I do not think he would engage in anything which was inconsistent with his duty. I cannot contradict my hon. friend's statement, because he may have facts which 1 do not possess, but I do not think Mr. Ogilvie would take such a step at variance with his duties.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This exhibit was not the only gold exhibit, as a matter of fact there were other gold exhibits there, treated in the same way. The Bank of Commerce had a large exhibit at Glasgow and also at Wolverhampton. There were a number of other persons treated in the same way as Mr. Treadgold, and had just the same advertisement. But there was no advertisement in any shape or way. The whole mineral exhibit, wltether gold! or otherwise, is labelled showing the places from which it comes. We get the ibest specimens we can collect to show the minerals of Canada, and we label the places from which they come, just as these gold exhibits were labelled. That is the only advertisement there was, and it cannot be called one.


William James Roche: Would this particular exhibit of Mr. Treadgold have been exhibited! had it not been taken over by the government ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. It was on its way over to be sold in London, and the moment the exhibition was over it was taken by Mr. Treadgold and melted down and sold.


Nathaniel Boyd: The most, important item the minister is asking for now is to pay for the exhibit that is to be taken to St. Louis, and the most important part of that is the live stock. Therefore I think the minister should be prepared to give the names of these individuals who object to taking live stock, which the minister says has not yet been decided on.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is not the reason it has not yet been decided.


Nathaniel Boyd: I think until it is decided upon, the committee should rise and this
item should not pass. At any rate, I must appeal to the Mipister of Finance and protest against the way he is forcing us to go on when so many members of the House are absent. I appeal to him, because he comes from one of the outlying districts whose members are compelled to remain here and do business, while those living nearer go away every Friday night. We find that every Friday night this HBuse is practically without representatives from the province of Quebec, and largely from Ontario. There are only two men from the province of Quebec in this Chamber tonight, and every Friday night from four o'clock onwards there is scarcely a quorum of members here. Indeed there would not be a quorum if it depended on members sitting opposite. Every Friday night these important questions are brought forward, and it is only members from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories and British Columbia who remain here. If we could get away as easily as those other men do, there would not be a quorum in the House. I protested earlier in the session at the late date at which this session was called together. Here we are now well on into June, and I am told we are to be pressed into three sessions a day in the course of another week, that we are to have ten o'clock sessions. The chief business of the session has not yet been taken up. It is well known that the most important issues that were to engage the attention of this House were the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill, the Redistribution and the estimates. The Grand Trunk Pacific Bill and the Redistribution have not yet come before us. The important departments of the Minister of Railways and the Minister of the Interior have not yet been touched. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the Minister of Finance who is leading the House and who comes from one of the outlying districts, to say to his followers :	All right gentlemen, if you must go home on Friday evening or Friday morning, we will adjourn at six o'clock.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot agree with my hon. friend's conclusions, though I may sympathize with much of his reasoning. I do not think lie is in a position to throw any stones at the province of Quebec. The province of Ontario has a larger representation than the province cf Quebec, and if you count the members you will find that the province of Ontario, that sends the largest number of gentlemen to either side of the House, is not much better represented in proportion than the province of Quebec. Therefore, the hon. gentleman should not single out Quebec in respect to the absentees. There are always a few faithful Tories and a few good Liberals present to attend to the business. But. I sympathize with what my hon. friend said in regard to members being absent not only

on Friday night, but sometimes on other nights. We are not much better off on Mondays than we are on Fridays. But, I cannot agree that that is a reason why we should not do any business on Friday night. There are only three, or perhaps four, days in the week during which we can have a full attendance, and if we are not to do any business except on those days we will be'here till October next. In regard to what my hon. friend said about three sessions a day, I have not heard any resolve on the part of the government to have three sessions a day, but I must say that I would rather have three sessions a day than adjourn on Friday. As to the question of government business, there has not been a session within my experience, and I have no doubt within the experience of other hon. gentlemen, when the government business has been more ready for the House than it has been at this session. There has never been a moment when there was not ample business to engage the attention of the House. In regard to the statement of my hon. friend that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mi*. Sifton) have not asked for anything, the complaint is, on the other hand, that we have been asking too much. When we bring on the estimates we are told we must bring on Bills, and when we bring on Bills we are told that we are afraid to face the opposition by moving supply and that, therefore, we bring on Bills. It is exceedingly hard to please hon. gentlemen opposite. It seems that whatever we do is wrong. I want to appeal to my hon. friend-he and I come from those outlying parts of Canada ; we belong to the faithful few who are here day and night-whether the best way to punish the absentees is not to stay and go on with the work so that they will lose the opportunity of participating in the discussion. Seriously, I am quite sure my hon. friend cannot ask this item to he held over simply because he has misunderstood an observation made by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. TALBOT.: The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) has found fault with hon. members representing Quebec for being absent on Friday night and he says he is here because he cannot get away. I do not think he should find fault. It is the members who can get away that are away.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (Essex).: The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) during the past couple of weeks, has been almost entirely absent from the House. Doing what ? Is it not an awkward situation for him to be in to be lecturing other hon. members for being away when he has been absent for two weeks ?


Nathaniel Boyd: I have not been absent for two weeks, or one week. The statement I made is correct, and I think I have a right to protest in the manner I have done. Nothing that the hon. Minister of Finance has said has relieved the situation so far as the real business for which we were brought here is concerned. Tile three important questions that we were brought to this House to consider have not yet been brought to the attention of the House, notwithstanding the late day at which the session was called. I still have to say that if we are to be treated as we have been treated in the face of the absence of so many members we should not be expected to sit until the early hours of the morning.


Mahlon K. Cowan: You are not accustomed to going to bed early.


Nathaniel Boyd: I understand all that. If we are to be treated in this way we should not be forced to sit on Friday evening and to continue until the early hours of the morning.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman is addressing the wrong audience. Instead of scolding those present he should try to get an audience of the absentees and read that lecture to them.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) is not making any mistake, because this same thing prevails in church. It is only those who are there that get the lecture.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I hope you are not insinuating that the hon. member for Macdonald belongs to that congregation.


Richard Blain: At page D-26 of the Auditor General's Report I find this item :
Alex. Carder, Winnipeg, mounted heads and birds used for decoration,$1,015.
Would the hon. gentleman give us an explanation as to how these were selected, and by whom ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were selected in the same way as the Egan collection was for the Paris exhibition, and they were sent from Paris to Glasgow. I believe they are now in the High Commissioner's office.


Richard Blain: The minister states that this collection of birds and heads together with the collection which was made at Halifax was sent from one exhibition to the other in the old country. I wish to take exception to that system of exhibiting specimens from Canada. I would like the hon. minister to give us a statement as to what classes of goods were sent from one exhibition to the other in the old country and whether he proposes to follow the same system at the St. Louis exhibition. If he does the people who attend and see the Canadian exhibit, will come to the conclusion that we have just one set of samples, and that we send it around to exhibitions in the same way as the ladies show their quilts at the fall fairs. If the hon. minister wishes to make a creditable display at the St. Louis exhibition, he should not get the exhibit up


William Stevens Fielding: out of old exhibits, but he should make a new selection even if it costs a little more money. Notwithstanding what the hon. minister has stated, I wish to say that I think that some agreement should be entered into between the government and the manufacturers whereby the government could expend a large amount of money in the preparation of a building so that they might be able to make an exhibition of Canadian goods within the Canadian building. I should like the hon. minister to make a statement that whatever furnishings are purchased in connection with the St. Louis exhibition will be Canadian goods. It would be well to make a Canadian gold exhibit, that if $491 is to be paid out of the Canadian, treasury it shall be paid to some Canadian, rather than to Mr. Treadgold, who lives in the old country. In looking at the detailed expenditure in connection w'itli the Paris exhibition, I find that there are thousands of dollars paid to people living in the old country for the furnishings that were put in the Canadian building. There could not be a better opportunity of exhibiting Canadian goods than to take Canadian goods over there even if it cost more money. The building in itself, if it is Canadian, will represent Canadian shingles on the roof. Canadian siding, Canadian furniture, and even printing material. All this will stand for Canada and show the people what we are doing in the way of manufacturing, &c. The minister has stated that he will consult the Live Stock Association as to that exhibit, and he might very well consult with other representative bodies as regards other exhibits. It would save a great deal of expense if he did so and it would result in a much more creditable exhibit on the part of Canada.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A large industrial buildin.g will be erected in St. Louis in which all the manufactured goods will have to be exhibited under the rules, so that the Canadian building will not be for exhibition purposes but will be furnished and arranged so as to illustrate Canadian products. For instance, there would be no use taking Canadian nails to use in the erection of the building. If we drove them into the boards on the floor they would make no sort of an exhibit, and if I can get nails in St. Louis at one-third the price of buying them here and sending them there it would be folly not to buy them in St. Louis. I hope of course to have a splendid exhibit of Canadian nails at St. Louis and I merely use that as an illustration of what I mean.


Richard Blain: If the minister has an exhibition of Canadian nails he might use some of them in the construction of the building. In my humble opinion every particle of the material used in the Canadian building at St. Louis should be of Canadian product. If the employees could say that everything in the building was manufactured or grown
in Canada it would be in the interest of Canada, and it would be a pride to Canadians and the friends of Canada who visit that exhibition. The minister cannot pretend to say that it has been the practice in the i>ast to use goods of Canadian manufacture, because at the Paris exhibition thousands and thousands of dollars worth of even furniture not of Canadian manufacture was purchased. In one case $1,000 was paid for carpets which were not of Canadian manufacture.


William James Roche: Was any portion of the expense of the Manitoba exhibit at the Pan-American exhibition borne by this government ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All we did with regard to the provincial exhibits was to facilitate their arrangement through our commissioner. The Dominion government did not make a special exhibit at the Pan-American beyond the decorative exhibits of the Canadian building.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister made any general remarks on the benefits of these exhibitions to Canada and more particularly the Japan exhibition, which he has had the pleasure of attending, and which prevented his presence here during the ei^ly part of the session ? It would be of interest to the House if the minister told us about that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Do you not think it would be too bad for the absent members to miss that lecture ?


Robert Laird Borden: It might have the effect of punishing them for not being present.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is the first question that has been put to me in regard to this exhibition. I will not at this late hour of the evening detain the House at very great length.


Robert Laird Borden: If the minister proposes to speak at some length, I would not ask him at this late hour of the night. He might do so on some other occasion.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think there would be any other opportunity for it, but I may tresspass on the patience of the House to say a word or two with regard to our opportunities and the hopes for trade with the empire of Japan. I suppose I may say that I am myself personally responsible for the fact that we took part in that exhibition. For many years I have been reading about and studying the orient and the question of transpacific trade. I felt that in the future, I believed in the near future, there would be an enormous expansion of trade between this continent and the continent of Asia. Believing that, I have been looking into the progress of the nations on the other side of the Pacific ; and it seems to me that

there was every indication, from the enormous development of Japan during the past sixty years, since the revolution there, of a most magnificent trade between the western coast of this continent, and even the eastern part of this country, and the orient, especially the empire of Japan. Japan is a densely populated country, with over 40,000,000 people, very thickly settled in a country which can hardly feed them, even under the old conditions, when their food was of the simplest character. They are how opening their gates to foreign countries, and they are adopting the methods of an enormous industrial development. Heretofore, their industries have been what are called home industries, the people doing their work in their own homes or in small workshops. They are now establishing enormous factories and works all over the country according to the method of occidental nations, and consequently the people are being taken away from the production of food to these industrial centres. As an illustration, I may mention that the city of Osaka, where the exhibition was held, increased in population in the last four years from 700,000 people to over 1,000,000, the city of Tokio increased in the last ten years from 700,000 or 800,000 to 1,500,000, and the population of Japan has increased in the course of the fust ten years by over 5,000,000. The result is that the people of Japan can no longer feed themselves ; and, as they ask for better food and more of it, they must go abroad for that food. Up to the present time our American neighbours have had practical control of the market there. It lias not been an extremely large market. They have not been asking greatly for foreign food ; but now they are doing so, and I believed that it was very important that Canada should make an entry into that market in this early stage of its development and show what we could do in competition witli our neighbours. Therefore I urged on my colleagues the importance of making an exhibit in Japan, and I rejoice to say that the result of that exhibit and of my observations there has most amply justified that view. I believed that the best things for us to exhibit in Japan were the class of goods which seemed most likely to find a market there. Flour is one of the chief articles of trade between America and Japan. Heretofore what Is called Oregon or Washington flour has held the complete market there. That is very far inferior to our Canadian flour, not only in quality, but in strength to make bread ; and I was quite sure that any intelligent people who could see the bread made from Canadian flour, and how much more could he made from a barrel of Canadian flour than from a barrel of Pacific coast American flour, would be glad to get our flour.


Robert Laird Borden: There were tests made at the exhibition, I suppose ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: -


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We made tests years ago. We have known for years that Canadian flour contained a much greater proportion of gluten than any other flour in the world, especially than the flour made from the soft wheats grown in the United States. Knowing that, I asked Mr. Hutchison, who is himself an old miller of long experience, to have comparative investigations made or the flour sent from the United States, and the flour that we would send. We were so satisfied with the results of that investigation that we felt convinced that a special exhibit of the qualities of Canadian flour at the exhibition would yield good results. WTe not only arranged to send an exhibit of flour, hut appliances for baking, and we had bread baked in the exhibition from Canadian flour. The result was one of the most enormous successes in the whole exhibition. People were simply wild and crazy to get samples of the bread. We had orders from hotels and restaurants throughout Osaka, who agreed to take all the bread that we could give them. We gave it to them on condition that they would state on their bills of fare that it was Canadian bread made from Canadian flour. We were able to supply them with bread of a quality such as they had never seen before. The result of the exhibit is that we have been already besieged with orders for Canadian flour, and I am glad to know that two of the great milling companies have arranged to send special agents to Japan. I may say in this connection that while we have done that, Canada will not reap the benefit of that expenditure and work unless the men engaged in the business in this country will make the necessary sacrifices to push their trade in the face of the energy and activity of their rivals in the United States. As confirmation of what I say, I may state that in American journals there have been letters from Americans in Japan most sever-ly criticising the government of the United States because it allowed Canada to get ahead of it in the way we did at the Osaka exhibition. I have been most gratified at the result of this exhibit. Not only for our western farmers and millers, but even fot eastern Canada there is to-day, as a direct result of the exhibition we made there, a market for an enormous trade in flour, in the empire of Japan, in China, and in the whole orient ; because visitors from China, Hong Kong, Manilla, the Straits Settlements and Singapore, were at that exhibition, and were all attracted by our Canadian exhibits and the excellence of the arrangement. On the very day that I sailed from Japan, the first of May last, a special messenger was sent from Osaka to Yokohama to present to Mr. Hutchison, who came with me, a medal for the best arranged and most artisticallj designed exhibit at the exhibition. That was awarded to the Canadian exhibit by the unanimous voice of the jury of awards for the whole exhibition, and it has been

brought here and placed in the department as a trophy of our victory. I have spoken of this flour exhibit. It was, however, only one of several. In addition to that, I venture to say that there is also a good chance for developing a large market for lumber and all the products of the forest in Japan. Japan is a forest country, but the demand for lumber is increasing and its forests are becoming exhausted. I was rather disgusted, I must confess, to And first-class Canadian lumber sold as Oregon pine. The people took for granted that it came from the United States, and it was handled by the merchants of Seattle, Takoma and Portland, and not by the merchants of Victoria and Vancouver to any great extent. If our lumbermen from the western provinces will only undertake to push their goods in that market, there is abundant scope there for a large and profitable trade. Among other things we showed was a small furniture exhibit. When we were arranging the exhibit, the Consul General of Japan advised us to rent a furnished house as there was not much accommodation at the hotel for European and American travellers, and in that connection I may say that the Japanese methods of living and the arrangements of their houses are entirely foreign to us and very inconvenient and uncomfortable.


Robert Laird Borden: Occasionally they are described as picturesque.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Yes, but not comfortable. We did not succeed in renting a house, and my commissioner made arrangement with a hotel to take our people on a reasonable basis. This furniture was put on exhibition and attracted a good deal of attention. We could have sold it fifty times over at prices that would have given plenty profit after paying all the charges, duty and commission. To-day that furniture is all sold to people of prominence who were eager to get it and to show it as a trophy of the Canadian exhibit, and it will be an advertisement of Canadian furniture for a long time to come. I have been urging the same organization which sent furniture to the Buffalo exhibition to immediately send an agent to Japan, and if they do they will get a large trade of a most profitable character. We also had another exhibit of pulp and paper which ought to result in a large trade. It may be rather new to many people that the Japanese are extremely fond of newspapers, and that there is an enormous press circulation there. They get all their paper from Europe and I believe that a great deal of it is made from Canadian pulp, which is sent to England and France and then exported to Japan in the shape of paper. In the city of Osaka, there are two newspapers with a circulation each of over a 100,000 daily, besides a large number of newspapers with even greater circulations. We had an exhibit of pulp in its different stages of
manufacture as well as the raw wood and the different kinds of paper made from it in Canada. This attracted great attention and many inquiries, and if to-day our paper and pulp manufacturers can meet the demand, they will find a large market in Japan. We had in addition a cold storage exhibit of our fruits, which excited great interest. There is undoubtedly a market in Japan for British Columbia green fruit. In that respect Japan is rather backwards. They grow very little of the fruits we are accustomed to. They have cherry trees without cherries, plum trees without plums, and peach trees without peaches. We hear a great deal of the cherry trees of Japan, but they are grown from blossoms and have no fruit, and the same may be said of their plums and peaches. They have been growing apples in recent years in the northern part of the island, which were introduced from Europe and America, and are doing so most successfully, but they cannot meet the demand of the people for fresh fruit. Our British Columbians can send over there fresh fruit to large extent and find a good market. Canned meats, fruits and vegetables would also find ready sale. In salmon there is already a considerable export from British Columbia and that trade is steadily increasing. Under these circumstances there is evidently a great opening for trade with Japan. The ordinary labouring class there are getting better wages 'than ever before and they are beginning to understand European and American ways of living; they are asking for the thing used by us. The Americans are active in the propaganda of their own trade, and if we are to reap the advantages to be derived from an exhibition of this kind, our people must wake up and push their work. Trade is not going to fall into our mouths while we lie on our backs. The people who want to take advantage of the Japanese market must wake up.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman any suggestion to make as to any particular step we should take ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The first thing is for us to send our agents there. Our furniture organization ought to send our agents, so ought our paper mills. Our smaller industries could combine together and send out agents. They should do so at once, and as the name of Canada gets better known there will be more and more trade to be done and better facilities for doing it. I may say to my hon. friend that until this exhibition took place, there were scarcely any people in Japan who knew of the existence of Canada. Everything that came from the American continent was credited to the United States, even in the case of goods from British Columbia. British Columbia was not known to Japan except as a country which tried to legislate against the Japanese. I may

tell my hon. friend that the chief difficulty I had in dealing with the people there was the fact that British Columbia was attempting to legislate against the Japanese. The Japanese are proud and rather sensitive. They are a nation in the sense of coming lately into the comity and family of a nation of the world though their civilization extends back a thousand years. Amongst the people of the western world they are a young nation, and they are proud of the fact that recently they have been accepted as the ally of the British empire and have been received among the civilized nations of the world. They resent extremely the idea of being classed with the barbarian Chinese, and of having any special legislation against them in any country with which they are asked to trade, I say this because it is the only one thing that interfered in any way with the desire on the part of the Japanese to trade and to open up more friendly and more extended relations with us. X may say that, in consequence of the fact that I was a minister of the Crown here-partially at all events, but not altogether perhaps, because the exhibit had been arranged before I reached there and the impression had been largely created-I was received with the greatest cordiality and courtesy by everybody. Every facility was placed at my disposal to present the views and ideas of Canada, and every opportunity to let the people know what we had to sell and how we could open and improve the trade there.


James Clancy: Did the hon. gentleman deliver any addresses in Japan ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I was entertained at three or four banquets, and spoke at them, dwelling a little upon these matters. That was not, however, the only or the most important fact. Perhaps it is a little difficult for "us in this matter of fact country to understand the point of view of the oriental mind. They are a people of ceremony, a people very largely impressed with titles. And when the Minister of Agriculture from Canada was received by the Minister of Foreign Affairs or entertained by the government of the country or presented personally at a special audience to the Emperor and Empress, that created an impression amongst these people which we here can hardly appreciate or understand, because we do not think so much of these things as the people in the orient do. These facts were circulated all through the country, and people who had never heard of Canada before began to ask where Canada was and what it was. Then, I must say that the authorities at the exhibition and everybody connected with it, were most kind and courteous, and gave us every facility, if I may say so, to advertise our wares and our country. In that way, perhaps, an impression


Sydney Arthur Fisher: was created greater than could have been created in any other way. I know that Americans and Europeans travelling through the country were immensely impressed with what Canada had done. They were astonished, and not only did they congratulate us, but they went so far as to criticise and condemn their own governments for having let slip an opportunity of which Canada had taken the greatest advantage. I am afraid I have rather wearied the House by speaking so long on the subject. But personally I believe there is a great deal in it, I am satisfied that great benefit will accrue to Canada through the expenditure made in this service, if the people wilio are engaged in the lines of trade affected will take it up and push it now while the impression that Canada has made is fresh in the Japanese mind, and when they can do the best work.


Robert Laird Borden: Did the hon. gentleman come to any conclusion as to the future of the industrial life and activity started in Japan in its effect as to the export of the manufactures of that country V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I watched that very closely and investigated it as far as the time at my disposal would allow. I spoke, a few moments ago of the fact that only recently the industrial production of Japan was what might be called home industry. That system of production results in individuality of product, but not in uniformity. They have now adopted the factory system in textiles and in all matters of iron production. In some other respects, they have refused to adopt that system. As a matter of fact, the government found that the change was so rapid and produced such crucial effects that it was almost shaking the foundations of their society. Therefore, a check has been deliberately put by the authorities upon the change that was taking place in the direction of adopting the factory system. In their factory production we see the effects of the old training. A thousand pieces of cotton turned out by a Japanese factory are not so perfect or so uniform as a thousand pieces turned out by one of our factories. The old inherent quality still remains with tile present generation of their people, and I think it will be some time before you can get as uniform and as generally perfect production as those of our old established industries and well-trained operatives. I think it will probably be a generation or two before Japan can reach that point. At the same time she is making great progress in that direction, producing great quantities of goods, which, though not quite as good as can be produced in the United States or England or Canada, still are fairly good. I do not believe that Japan is going to enter into competition with the occidental nations in the market of the world for some time to come. But there

are certain lines of goods that we cannot sell them now. Cotton we sent. Silk goods, of course, we cannot pretend to send. They make the best silk goods in the world, and send out large quantities, this being the largest article of their trade. Iron goods we cannot sell to them. They make wonderful tools, with marvellous temper and edge, and In ordinary castings, &c., they have been very successful in adapting themselves to the American and European methods of production. They show wonderful facilities in organizing new industries. I visited several of these and w'as astonished to find great establishments employing thousands of operatives, without a single European or American among them; organized from top to bottom by Japanese, managed by Japanese, the work-people all Japanese, and turning out-especially in the iron industry-most excellent work. When I say most excellent work, I do not say that it is quite up to the best work in America and Europe, but still very good work. I had the opportunity of visiting a large ship-building yard in the town of Kobe. At the head of it was a mao of about thirty-five, a graduate of Cambridge University. He had taken the scientific and engineering courses, and had spent seven years in Europe preparing for his work. Returning to Japan he organized this industry. The concern employs four thousand operatives, and has a most complete organization. He had organized a savings bank for his operatives, established reading rooms and museums, in short, had as complete and modern am organization as any I know of in Europe or America. That concern was completely organized and carried on by a Japanese, for Japanese, with Japanese capital. That is only one instance of many. For that reason, I have not dwelt so much on the general possibilities of trade in ordinary manufactures there. Still I am not prepared to say that there is no opportunity; I think there is in certain lines.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the hon. gentleman sits down, I would like to ask if he was able to make such observations of the social and economic conditions as would justify him in coming to a conclusion with respect to the effect that extensive emigration from Japan might have upon our conditions in Canada.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am satisfied, in the first place, that there will be no such emigration from Japan. The Japanese are a home-loving people, and they have abundant opportunity for progress and industry in their own country. The Japanese government itself forbids the emigration of anybody from the country without a permit, and for several years past, they have refused to issue a permit to affy Japanese to come from Japan to Canada who is a labourer or of the ordinary labouring class. Permits are issued only to merchants, students and travellers.


James Clancy: Did that extend to emigration to any other country than Canada 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The system extends to every country, no Japanese can leave his own country without a permit from his government. The government there, in accordance with negotiations with our government, have issued orders, I think, about two years ago, that for the future no permit should be given to a Japanese, except the classes I have mentioned, to go to Canada, and that has been strictly maintained to the present time. I had the assurance of the 'government there, personally and in writing, that that policy would be maintained.
My hon. friend spoke about the possibilities of industrial invasion. I consider that there is no prospect of that. The Japanese are a home-loving people, proud of their nation, proud of their empire, and a most devoted patriotism seems to inspire them from top to bottom of every class, men, women and children. The one thing that strikes a visitor is the intense and devoted patriotism of the Japanese for their own country. That means that they do not wish to leave it, they want to stay there. To be sure, some enterprising people go out, but generally speaking the people remain at home. They have now, with their industrial development, an abundant opportunity for labour in their own country, and consequently there is no great inducement for them to go out. Wages are improving, and they are satisfied apparently with their condition.


James Clancy: What is the hon. gentleman's opinion as to the articles of food now entering into general consumption by the masses ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Among the articles of food they are going to take up first, will be bread. They ate rice before, and bread is beginning to take its place. The ordinary labourer uses bread only as a luxury, while the well-to-do people are beginning to eat it as we do. Flour therefore is the first thing. They are beginning to eat more meat, they do not produce much meat in that country. They have very few animals, so few as to be hardly noticeable. They eat a large quantity of fish, very good fish, and they have great fisheries. I believe there will be considerable trade with them in canned meat. I do not believe we can send mutton there, because the Australians are sending in large quantities, and we cannot compete with them. But we ought to be able to send beef there, and hog products. They are beginning to eat pork and bacon, although at first, when Europeans began to go there, they did not seem to care much for them. They have a good deal of poultry there, I

do not think we will be able to send much poultry or eggs for some time to come.


Robert Laird Borden: They have extensive fisheries of their own, I suppose ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, but still they buy considerable fish from British Columbia, and their purchases are increasing.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Have they any native dairy products ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Practically none. We can send them butter and some cheese. I may say my department has been sending them butter for two or three years. But since I have been there the trade, I think, will decidedly improve. As a rule, however, they do not eat butter. They use a great deal of rape seed oil instead, for cooking. But as they begin to eat bread they will want butter with it.


Richard Blain: What about their tariff regulations ?


The SIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They have got a low tariff.


Richard Blain: What would be the duty on furniture ?


The SIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think 10 per cent or 12 per cent; on flour about the same, but I am speaking from memory only. It is a decidedly low tariff, and we stand in the same position with respect to all these articles as everybody else. They have treaties with certain countries giving them the most-favoured-nation advantages which those countries give them on certain articles, but it happens that nearly all those articles are things we do not produce. Now, I wish to say to my hon. friend from Bothwell (Sir. Clancy) that I am ready to go back to the census item and to give him the information that he asked for.


Robert Laird Borden: It is so late now I think we had better stop. * I am sure we are all very much indebted to the hon. gentleman for the very interesting account he has given us of the exhibition and the people of Japan.


The SIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not want to be unreasonable, but in the early part of the evening the hon. member for Bothwell refused to let me go on with the census item because I had not certain information. I have that information now, and I would like to give it.


James Clancy: I do not object to the Information but there is a great deal more that the committee will want to get.


The SIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have asked my officers to stay here and get this information, and I propose to give it to the committee. The hon. gentleman Hon. Mr. FISHER.
wanted information as to the questions asked in the schedules of the census of 1S91 and of 1901. In schedule 3, are questions relating to houses and constructions, houses inhabited and houses uninhabited. These are in schedule 2 of 1901, but were not in the schedules of 1891. Then questions in relating to the French Canadians and place of birth of father and mother, and persons unemployed during the week preceding the census, the employer to state average number of hands employed during the year, were not asked in 1901. The questions relating to colour, to the month and the day of birth, to the year of birth, to the year of immigration to Canada, to the year of naturalization, racial or tribal origin, nationality, living on one's own means, working on one's own account, working at a trade, in a factory or in the home, months employed in trade in a factory, months employed in trade in the home, months employed in other occupations than at a trade in a factory or in the home, earnings from occupation or trade, extra earnings from other than the chief occupation or trade, months at school in the year, whether can speak English or can speak French, which is the mother tongue, if it is spoken-were all in the census of 1901, and not in the census of 1891.


James Clancy: That relates to schedule 2 in 1901, as compared with schedule 1 in 1891.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As compared with schedule 1.


Nathaniel Boyd: How long is this going to take to read ?	.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It will take some time.


Nathaniel Boyd: There is no quorum in the House.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think there is.


Robert Laird Borden: There are only nineteen members in the House.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) will find that there is a quorum in the House. There were five questions in 1S91 which were not asked in 1901, and there were nineteen questions in 1901 which were not asked in 1891.


James Clancy: In connection with what schedule 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In connection with the schedule I have just l'ead over.


James Clancy: That is No. 1 schedule ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, schedule No. 2. There were questions asked in 1901 that were not asked in 1891-place of habitation, name of municipality

or township, or parish, range or concession, number of lot, street and house number, or other description. Then there were also the number of families in the house or institution, number who remained in the house or institution, religious denomination and number of communicants, capacity of the edifice or church. Under Sunday schools, there were religious denomination, number of officers and teachers and number of scholars. All these are questions that were asked in 1901 and were not asked in 1891. That is in schedule No. 2.


James Clancy: Were there any questions in schedule No. 2 of 1S91 that were asked in regard to deaths in public institutions ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, there were none in schedule No. 2. In schedule No. 3 there was one question in 1901 that was asked in 1891, that is as to whether they were single, married or widowed, and there was also a question in addition as to whether they were divorced.


James Clancy: How many were dropped in 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was one additional. There were none dropped in schedule No. 3. In schedule No. 4


James Clancy: The hon. minister has not finished No. 3. Schedule No. 2 in 1S91 corresponds partly with schedule No. 3 in 1901. Schedule No. 3 in 1901 would seem to correspond to some extent with schedule No. 4 in 1891. The hon. gentleman has not given a comparison between No. 3 in 1891 "and No. 3 in 1901.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Schedule-No. 3 in 1891 included real estate, orchard products, vineyards and market gardens. Schedule No. 4 in 1901 includes farm land, fruits and plantations. That corresponds with schedule No. 3 practically.


James Clancy: How many were dropped in 1891, and what was the increase in 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There were none dropped in 1901, but there were several added. In schedule No. 4 there were sixteen questions asked in 1901 that were not asked in 1891.


James Clancy: None in No. 4 of what census ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: During the last census there were sixteen questions that were not in any schedule in 1891. I have them all marked here. I can read them if the hon. gentleman wishes it.
Mr. CLANCY'. The hon. gentleman had better read them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All right,-number of fruit-bearing apple trees, number of non-bearing apple trees ; and then there is the same question in regard to peach trees, pear trees, plum trees, cherry trees, grape vines ; and besides that there was a question as to the acreage of trees planted, the plantations of forests and the number of trees planted.


James Clancy: Does that include Nos. 3 and 4 in the census of 1891 ? The hon. gentleman will see that there is a question as to farm products.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There were none of these questions that I have just read out in the schedules of 1891.


James Clancy: Were any dropped that were asked in 1891 ? If hon. gentlemen are becoming unruly it must be that they are impatient with the Minister of Agriculture. We cannot hear anything. There are fifty-three questions in Nos. 3 and 4. Are they covered by the thirty-seven items in item 4, in 1901 ? '


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Schedules 3 and 4 in 1901 cover real estate, orchards, nurseries, vineyards, market gardens and farm products, and that included item Nos. 4 and 5 schedules in 1891 in part. There are in these two schedules of 1901, seventy-four questions, while in the corresponding schedules of 1891 there are only fifty-three. In 5 there is question as to the number of acres of buckwheat, beans, forage crop for summer feeding, for winter feeding, for winter fodder, acres of tobacco, acres of hops.


Richard Blain: Is there a column for fallow land ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Richard Blain: Was there a column for fallow laud in the census of 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.
Mr! CLANCY. Does the hon. gentleman intend to press this item through to-night ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not see why we should not.


James Clancy: I can tell the hou. gentleman that it involves a good deal of discussion, and I do not think he ought to press it.


Tlie MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the early part of the evening the hon. gentleman asked me a question in regard to this vote, and I told) him it would take a little time to get the answer. I asked him while I was getting the answer to ask any other question, and 1 would give him the information. He said he had nothing more to ask.


James Clancy: I did ask other questions.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We sat here for ten minutes, and the hon. gentleman did not ask another question. I

got up and made a few explanations, and after I sat down X gave him another opportunity to ask questions, and he did not ask any until the information came down.


James Clancy: That is the fault of the hon. gentleman himself. I never knew a minister before not to have the information the House is entitled to, and then to rebuke members for not asking questions. If he took time to get the information we desired, it was his fault for not having the information. And now the hon.- gentleman attempts at half-past one in the morning to lecture the committee for his own neglect. X do not think he will be acting in the best interests of the country to urge this item when there is so much in it that must be discussed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not lecture the House at all. I am ready to wait a while longer and answer the questions which the hon. gentleman wishes 'to ask.


James Clancy: The members of the committee are their own judges as to the questions they ask, and the hon. gentleman should be ready to answer them as they are asked.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is wherei I take issue with the hon. member. I have looked down from the gallery on Conservative ministers who have not been able to answer questions as they were asked, and promised to bring statements later.


James Clancy: What ministers in the past have done is no answer. We have not yet touched the fringe of this very important question. Surely the hon. gentleman is not going to press it at this hour.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am quite willing to let the hon. gentleman go on and discuss the question, and when the time comes to adjourn, we will adjourn.


James Clancy: Then the hon. gentleman may go on. Perhaps he will give us No. 5 schedule.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I gave the hon. gentleman the question in No. 5.


James Clancy: What was in the corresponding schedule of 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The corresponding schedule of 1891 did not contain these questions.


James Clancy: There was live stock in both of them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. 5 of 1891 does not correspond with No.
5	of 1901. No. 5 of 1891 is live stock; No.
6	is live stock in 1901.


Hon. Mr. FIS  HER@: 


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman give what corresponds in these two columns?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In No. 6, live stock and animal products. The question is the number of pure-bred horses, pure-bred cattle, pure-bred sheep, pure-bred swine, and pure-<bred poultry; poultry slaughtered, or sold for slaughter or exported; and the dozens of eggs. These questions were in No. 6 in 1901, and not in the census of 1891 at all. Schedule 5 in 1891 asks for the number of working oxen. That is asked, with a question about other horned cattle, in schedule 6 of 1901. Schedule 5 of 1891 asks for the number of swine over one year and under one year. That is contained in question 8 of schedule 6 of 3901. Schedule 5 in 1891, question 20, asked for the (production of home-made cheese. This question was not asked at all in 1901; practically the product of homemade cheese has ceased in this country. In schedule 5 of 1891, question 25 asks for the quantities of home-made fabrics; that is not asked in 1901 at all.


James Clancy: What about furs ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Furs are included in the forestry schedule No. 9 of 1901, and there are three questions asked in regard to them.


Richard Blain: I notice a great many changes in the different columns, and would like to have a general explanation.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the introduction of the census volume No. 1, the hon. gentleman will find each individual change explained.


Richard Blain: Why is it that the fallow land was not taken down ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because there is not much fallow land in Canada.
air. BLAIN. There is a great deal in Ontario.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Compared with the quantity of cultivated land, it is very small.


Richard Blain: I may say that there is hardly a farm in western Ontario of a hundred acres in which there is not some fallow land every year. It seems to me rather strange that in the taking of the census you have the number of acres of wheat and oats, but not the number of acres of fallow land.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman's statement is worthy of every consideration. That question was not asked in 189,1 nor in any of the former censuses in Canada. I believe that amount to be inconsiderable.


Richard Blain: In western Canada and in Manitoba and the Territories, on every farm

there is a considerable amount of fallow land. Did the department give instructions to the enumerators when they began their work and afterwards withdraw those instructions and send out new ones ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that there was one item of instructions sent out in which there was a mistake, and we then sent other instructions in its place.


Richard Blain: This would cause increased expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the printing probably, and in the corrections.


Richard Blain: It was found that the totals would not correspond, and that the instructions were consequently not correct. If that be true, there must have been some change, and it would cost something to send out fresh instructions.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It did cost a few dollars.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. gentleman tell us how fresh instructions wrere sent out ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Telegrams were sent to the commissioners immediately with the amended instructions.


Richard Blain: Why was the mistake made ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was not noticed when the instructions were issued.


Richard Blain: How did the enumerators receive their instructions. As I understand it, there was a commissioner for each county and an enumerator for each polling subdivision ? The enumerators were called together and the commissioner gave his instructions. Is that correct ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Richard Blain: And did the commissioners call the enumerators together a second time to correct the instructions ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that the correction was made before the commissioner had given the instructions, so the correct instructions were given to the enumerators at first.


Richard Blain: In every case ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that the correction was made in almost every case.


Richard Blain: That was not the impression given when this matter was discussed last year. The impression given was that the enumerators had to be called together again to receive fresh instructions.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was a wrong impression.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has not completed the schedule.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I read No. 6 of 1901. What else does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) want now ?


James Clancy: I want No. 7.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is a schedule of agricultural values. All the questions except two are new. Shall I read them ?


James Clancy: Yes, better get them on ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are as follows :
Value of : Land, buildings, rent of land and buildings, field crops, fruits and vegetables, nursery stock sold, horses, cattle, young cattle, sheep, swine, poultry, pure bred stock, bees, live stock sold in the year, cattle sold or slaughtered, sheep sold or slaughtered, swine sold or slaughtered, poultry sold or slaughtered, eggs, honey and wax.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman read the corresponding schedules for 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They did not exist. There were no farm values. That is one of the great blots on the census.


James Clancy: What was the nature of the questions as to land values ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have just read the list.


James Clancy: I did not ask for the list, but what is the nature of the questions ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The value of the land was asked. I do not know what I can give more than that ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman should keep a better temper. Assuming that an enumerator went to a house and found the husband or wife absent, what means did he take for obtaining the information ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He went back again and again until he found somebody who could give it to him.


James Clancy: Those were the instructions, but is the hon. minister warranted-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am warranted in saying that, because it is the absolute truth. Enumerators went again and again to get the information.


James Clancy: How does he know they went the second time ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because, in hundreds of cases, they complained of the trouble of obtaining the information and said they were not paid enough for their trouble.


Richard Blain: There has been a good deal of discussion over the census item during the last few years. Will the minister please



give a full explanation of the reasons of the increased cost of the taking this census as compared with the cost of taking the census of former years ?


Mr. SCOTT.: Does the hon. gentleman want that to-night-or rather this morning V


Richard Blain: It seems that we are in no particular hurry. We are not responsible for the time when this item comes up. I was surprised, as a new member of the House, when' the minister asked the committee to enter upon a discussion of this item at one o'clock.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: At nine o'clock.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman commenced his estimates with the census item, but when some questions were asked he could not answer them, but sent for the information. Then, after some consultation with the Finance Minister, he said he would pass over that item.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said I would take up another item until I got the information.


James Clancy: But the hon. gentleman said it would take-


Some hon. MEMBERS: One at a time.


James Clancy: I wish to set the hon. gentleman right. We have several hours to remain here, and hon. gentlemen opposite had better be good natured. The hon. minister said that the information I required would take a great deal of labour and suggested that I should call for a return. And he intimated to the House that there would be no reasonable probability of the information reaching here to-night.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have got the information here to-night.


Thomas Walter Scott: Let the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) move for a return, in place of asking for this lengthy explanation at this hour of the morning.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we had better rise unless we can have better order. So far as information is concerned, the Prime Minister himself suggested to us the other day when he took Mondays and it was pointed out to him that no returns could be moved for, that we could get the information during the course of the estimates. But that is not a reason for sitting here all night, that the minister does not have it until half past one o'clock in the morning. If the minister does not have the information ready at a reasonable hour, he can give it on another day. The only reason for our sitting so late to-night is that some information was asked for which the hon. gentleman said be did not have at the moment; then the House, on the suggestion of the government, proceeded to take up another item. Then the minister himself


Richard Blain: entered into somewhat lengthy remarks at my own suggestion, and at the conclusion of those remarks the item under discussion passes, but then he tells us that his information has come and he proposes that we shall sit here for hours afterwards.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend has not put the matter quite fairly. I was quite ready to go on with the census estimate and discuss it, and if it had been discussed in a reasonable manner, we would have gone on and passed it. But the hon. gentleman refused to go on discussing that question until certain information of a special character was obtained. That information I have now got which the hon. gentleman wished to have. I have not got away from that information yet.


Robert Laird Borden: Because the hon. gentleman has the information now at nearly two o'clock in the morning, that is no reason why we should sit here until four o'clock.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would have given it if I had been allowed to.


Richard Blain: I would like the minister to give us a full explanation of the reasons of the increased cost of taking the census. For example, I might say that in the county I have the honour to represent-if hon. gentlemen opposite will not make less noise I can wait for them to quiet down.


Robert Laird Borden: I move that the committee rise.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Question.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is impossible for us to continue unless we have better order. There seems to be some disposition on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to prevent the progress of business, and I do not much wonder at it at this hour. We are sitting here at an unusual hour to gratify a whim of the Minister of Agriculture. Unless the Finance Minister who is leading the House can keep better order, I think we had better rise, unless lie can assign us adequate reason for continuing to sit.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am as anxious as my hon. friend to get home, but when a considerable portion of the evening is occupied in questions which, in our judgement, are unreasonable, we may be pardoned if we want to sit a little while and overtake some of the business. As to the question of order, I quite agree with my hon. friend that as long as we are to remain here we should have perfect order.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not the case at the present time, we are not being heard. If the Minister of Finance cannot control the House he should move that the committee rise and report progress, and ad-

journ the House. He does not seem to be able to control the House very well this evening. There has been a great deal of interruption and noise during the latter part of the evening, conversation has been going on in an ordinary voice all over the House. I do not think the Minister of Finance should insist on going on at this hour of the morning.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend saved me the trouble of moving that the committee rise, he has made the motion whieh is now before the Chair.
Motion that the committee rise, negatived.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman asked for a certain answer and I am ready to give it. I am happy to give all the information I can. But, the hon. member for Peel asked me another question which I will answer.


Richard Blain: I would be very sorry to interfere with the general statement on the schedules which the hon. gentleman is making and the answer to my question may remain over.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I was not giving any general statement of these schedules but I was giving details to the hon. member for Bothwell. In general terms the reasons for the increased expenditure are such as have already been explained, the very great number of increased questions asked and the consequently greater time required to be spent and the greater work to be done by the enumerators. The fact that there were large areas in this country In which a great number of the enumerators had to be employed, where in 1891 very few indeed were employed and in some cases none at all added to the expense. I refer to British Columbia and the North-west Territories, Manitoba and the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec. Another reason is the fact that in 1901 the general scale of living and the expense of work were much greater than in 1891. The result was that we had to pay the men more to do similar work and more of it. In addition to the fact that a great many more questions were asked, the enumerators had in consequence of that not only to ask more questions but they had to do more work in working up and preparing their schedules and sending them in. Some of these questions were more complicated and the result was that the enumerators were obliged to go back more frequently and ask questions than in 1891. In consequence of the more extensive nature of the schedules they have required greater attention and a larger number of clerks have been employed in the compilation which has been going on since the census has been taken. These circumstances have contributed to make the census very much more expensive. I frankly admit that it has been much more expensive than I hoped it would be.
146$


Richard Blain: Perhaps the hon. minister could give an explanation in regard to the county of Peel. It is very difficult to understand why it is that the census of 1901 in the county of Peel cost almost double the amount expended on the census of 1891, notwithstanding the fact that there were 1,700 less people in that county in 1901 than in 1891.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The cost of living affected the whole rate of pay throughout the country. Everything we required to get was more expensive in 1901 than in 1891. In 1901 the rate of pay for the enumerator of each living person was five cents per head instead of three cents per head in 1891, for each death five cents instead of three, for each farm, twenty-five instead of fifteen, and for each factory, thirty cents instead of twenty cents. This made an increase in the neighbourhood of fifty per cent, so that half of the increase to which the hon. gentleman alludes is accounted for through that alone. We found it necessary to allow horse-hire at the rate of $1.50 a day in the country parts. That cost a very considerable item and added very considerably to the expense.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. minister regard that as a sufficient explanation when he takes into consideration that there were so many less people in the county of Peel to enumerate in 1901 ? Perhaps the hon. gentleman could give us the names of the enumerators, the name of the commissioner, and the livery bill which the hon. gentleman has referred to.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The census in the county of Peel cost $1,102 in 1891 and $1,961 in 1901.


Richard Blain: What is the total horse-hire ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will have it added up.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the hon. gentleman could give us the population while he is hunting up the other information.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 13,687 in 1901 and 15,466 in 1891. The horse-hire was $457.25.


Richard Blain: Was every enumerator in the county paid horse-hire ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not in the towns.


Richard Blain: Was an enumerator paid if he used his own horse ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We did not inquire.


Richard Blain: Was horse-hire allowed for taking the census in the county of Peel in 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Richard Blain: I cannot understand liow it cost twice as much to take the census of Peel in 1891 as in 1901 when the population *was less.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It did not cost twice as much. It was $1,102 in the one case, and $1,991.81 in the other.


Richard Blain: That is a large increase.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is, but it is not double.


Richard Blain: I understand that a considerable number of the staff in Ottawa were dismissed. Can you give us a list of those who are retained ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot. I have not decided on whom I shall retain.


Richard Blain: How many are proposed to be laid off ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say until I find out the exact state of the work. Last fall sixty or seventy were laid off and there are now 117 employed altogether. I have stated that fully 75 per cent of those would be laid off, but I will not bind myself to that proportion. They will be laid off on the 1st of July.


Richard Blain: Is it the intention of the minister to keep a permanent census staff 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not given any positive statement of that kind.


Richard Blain: But that matter is under consideration 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is under consideration in a sense. I believe it would be a good thing, and if I could see my way clear to organize it properly, and if I get the assent of my colleagues, I think I shall propose it.


James Clancy: In the town of Brampton one enumerator was paid $4.50 horse-hire.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That might be to go to meet the inspector to receive instructions. Some divisions were partly in the town and partly in the country.


James Clancy: Mr. Peeker an enumerator in the town of Brampton got $4.50 horse-hire.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have these accounts certified by the commissioner of the county and if the commissioner certifies the account as proper, it is paid.


Richard Blain: Was there an enumerator appointed for each subdivision as organized for municipal purposes 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No; for Dominion election purposes.


Richard Blain: I understand the minister to say that horse-hire -was allowed to the Hon. Mr. FISHER.
enumerators in the country districts, and not in the towns and cities.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Generally, that is correct.


Richard Blain: Then I would inform the hon. minister that it is not correct for Peel, because Mr. Peter was an enumerator for one polling subdivision in Brampton, and he was allowed for horse-hire.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was probably allowed to him to go to meet the commissioner to receive instructions.


Richard Blain: I understood the hon. minister to state in the early part of the discussion that the enumerators were called together and the commissioner gave them instructions in a general way. They were called together in the town of Brampton, and the commissioner gave the instructions there. Mr. Peter would not drive twelve miles from his residence to receive the instructions.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot tell the hon. gentleman. I have not the account of Mr. Peter for horse-hire. I will be glad to give the explanation on concurrence.


James Clancy: Take the town of Botli-well, having a population of about 900. For that there were three enumerators, and I find that one received $1.50 and another $6 for horse-hire. Is the hon. gentleman able to tell what the horse-hire was for 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think it was probably for going to the commissioner for instructions. The enumerators were allowed travelling expenses for that purpose, and if they drove instead of going by train, they would be allowed for horse-hire.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman know that to be the case 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know this particular instance.


James Clancy: I will take the town of Wallaceburg. One Isaac Little was paid $60.10. The enumerators for Wallaceburg were paid, one $60, another $54, and the other $49. What was Isaac Little paid that $60 for 7 He was not one of the enumerators 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not the account. It is in the possession of the Auditor General.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman can get it, I suppose.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It seems to me that the proper place for the discussion of the details of that account is in the Public Accounts Committee. It is impossible for the minister to have the de-

tails of every little account in the Auditor General's Report. I can get an item of that kind and lay it on the Table.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman seems to prefer to have it discussed here. That is a matter that needs explanation-what was Little employed for ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know whether Mr. Little was an enumerator at Wallaeeburg or in some part outside of Wallaeeburg.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman ought to know.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not a list of all the enumerators in the country just now.


James Clancy: I am only asking about Wallaeeburg at this moment.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not able to supply the hon. gentleman with the information he requires, but will bring it on concurrence.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman expect that we will have the money voted without this information being given now ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is not possible to give it. If the hon. gentleman takes up item by item and requires information on every little detail, he cannot expect me to have it all at hand. If I were to allow this vote to stand until another night, we would have all this questioning into the most trifling details gone into over again.


Richard Blain: I have been trying to get from the hon. minister some explanation for the increased expenditure in the county of Peel. He said that it was the policy of the department to allow livery hire in the rural districts, but not in the towns and villages. But taking up the Auditor General's Report, I And that in the town of Brampton three or four enumerators were allowed horse-hire, and coming to the village of Streetsville in the county of Peel, which is not part of any other municipality, the enumerator was allowed horse-hire. Thus, in four cases out of five, horse-hire was allowed in towns and villages against the policy of the hon. gentleman and in contradiction of the statement he has made to-night. If that be the ease in one county, what must it be in other counties ? I would also require explanation of another strange item. The commissioner's allowance is $100, and he is allowed besides $130.91 for revising the returns.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The $136.91 is a per capita allowance to the commissioner for his work as census commissioner. He was allowed so much per head of the population. The $100 was to cover extra expenses.


Richard Blain: What about the livery bill ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot give the exact explanation, but the bill of $6 was probably the livery hire for bringing the enumerator from Switzer to Brampton. Considering that the commissioner had to revise these bills and initial them, and that then they had to pass the accountant of my department and the Auditor General, I take it that they were reasonable bills. I cannot explain as to the three enumerators in Brampton, unless some of , the people lived out of town and had property in town and the officers in Brampton had to take their trip to the country to get the information. Of course, that is only a conjecture.


Richard Blain: I see that $13 is allowed for expenses for one enumerator and nothing for the others.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That item has a foot note ' instructing enumerators.' This gentleman, I believe, was a sort of superior .enumerator, who was doing extra work in assisting the commissioner.


Richard Blain: Does that mean that Mr. Bracken, the commissioner, did not understand the work, or does it mean that the commissioner was overworked and had not time to reach the different enumei'ators ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can only say that this is for work done in assisting the commissioner, I do not think it necessary to infer that the commissioner was incompetent. I have to turn to this gentleman for information. But I suppose he required some assistance.


Richard Blain: Then the hon. gentleman cannot give the details of this item of $13.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Nothing further than the foot note in the Auditor General's Report ' instructing enumerators.'


Richard Blain: Does this item appear in other counties generally ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not find it charged for other counties.


Richard Blain: It seems to be a special case, and I think there should be some special explanation.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As I have said, I have not the details of the bill, and cannot give the explanation.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Agriculture stated that the correction of instructions to enumerators involved only a trifling cost to the country, for the reason that the imperfect instructions did not reach the counties until the amended instructions were ready. Can the minister say whether Peel was one of those in which no expense was involved by this mistake ?

4652 .


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that there was no delay in the county of Peel.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the minister can give some explanation with regard to the neighbouring county which is really a part of Peel, Cardwell. Why is there an increased cost in that county with a decreased population ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can only give the same explanation as already given with regard to Peel. I think that also applies to Cardwell.


James Clancy: Can the hon. minister tell whether there was horse-hire paid in Dresden ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, $1.50 a day for each enumerator. I take it for granted, though I do not know positively that this was to meet the commissioner and receive instructions.


James Clancy: Take the township of Cambden. The hon. gentleman will find that horse-hire is allowed to the enumerators as follows Mr. Forshie, $22.50; Mr. Sturges, $12; Mr. Shaw, $31.50; Mr. Fetherson, $22.50; and Mr. Law, $25. I know this part of the country and am acquainted with the enumerators and know where they reside. There is no reason in the nature of the country for the disparities shown here.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) knows the commissioner.


James Clancy: Yes.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can only say that the commissioner endorsed
and recommended payment of these amounts, and, as he knows the locality, I take it, there must have been some justification for these charges.


James Clancy: But the commissioner may have been mistaken. The minister ought to be able to show what the number of days is in each case.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The number of days would be :	Mr. Forshie, 15 days ; Mr. Sturges, 8 days ; Mr. Shaw, 21 days; Mr. Fetherston, 17 days; and Mr. Law, 16f days.


James Clancy: Why is one man allowed $31 and another only $12 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot explain that, I am sure. It is not possible to explain every detail of every bill. These bills are sworn to and certified by the commissioner, then they pass under the scrutiny of the accountant of the department; after that they go to the Auditor General and are scrutinized aud passed by him.


James Clancy: What is the nature of the special allowances ?


Richard Blain: :


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The special allowance here was for receiving instructions. They were allowed a certain time to go to the commissioner and receive instructions, and were allowed pay for those days.


James Clancy: But there are many eases where the special allowance is not charged at all.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The law says that the remuneration should not exceed more than $3 a day for approved service of eight hours. When the charge per head of the number of people they recorded came to more than $3 per day, they could not make a charge for receiving instructions, because the whole remuneration was not to exceed $3 per day.


Richard Blain: 
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was an unorganized district where we had to deal with the enumerators on a different principle, away in the north part of the county of Pontiac. There we had to allow them so much per day without reference to the number of people that they enumerated, where the population is very scattered.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will give us a full explanation of the difference between organized and unorganized districts, and the instructions that were given to the different enumerators.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the unorganized districts where it would not be fair to pay them by the head because they often had to travel long distances, we paid them $3 per day and travelling allowances according to the vouchers supplied for their expenses. This man seems to have claimed seventy days, but he was not paid for seventy days because he only received $199.60.


Richard Blain: Who checked the amount and struck off the sum that was deducted ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It may have been the commissioner in the county when he sent up the account, or it may have been the accountant here.


Richard Blain: How were the absentees taken down in the census ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The census was taken on the de jure system. When a person was not actually living in the place where he was taken, the question was asked whether he was going to return, and If the answer was that he was only away temporarily, his name was taken down. The limit of temporary absence which justified his being counted, was one year ; that is to say, if he was expected to be away more than one year he was not counted. That is the same as the
,1 TTlSrE 12, 1903
limit of time in 1891. If his parents or friends answered that he intended to be away less than a year, then he was counted as being a resident.


Richard Blain: If there was a family of four living in Ottawa and the enumerator found that three had been absent for nine months in Chicago working, they would be taken down as residents of Ottawa ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, if it were stated by the parent or person giving information that they had not been absent more than a year and were considered as residents of Ottawa.


Richard Blain: In that case the census would not be correct ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No de jure census is absolutely correct in that sense. Of course these people would have to say their absence was only temporary.


James Clancy: I see that in the town of Paris, county of Brant, Mr. Kent charges for horse-hire $10.50. Mr. Wilson charges precisely the same, while Mr. Iloey does not charge anything, but charges $3.50 for expenses. Mr. Shannon charges $10.50 for horse-hire, Mr. McCammon $9 and Mr. A. W. Rousell $10.50. There seems to be a general agreement fixing the charge at $10.50. There is uniformly $9 charged for instructions.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They drew $9 each because the commissioner kept them three days giving instructions.


James Clancy: How does there come to be this uniformity in regard to horse-hire ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I suppose the men had to pay about the same price to go over the same distance with their horses. If they went from Paris to Brantford, I presume the price would be the same for one as for the other.
Mi\ CLANCY. We are not asking for the hon. gentleman's supposition. Why not produce the accounts ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have explained that so often, I do not think it is necessary.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman ought to give a better reason than that it is not convenient for him to do so. 1 will take the case here of Mr. Hoey. Mr. IToey does not get anything for horse-hire. How did the others get it, while he does not get it V Mr. Hoey gets $3.50 for expenses. What were the expenses in that case ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I explained a little while ago that if the charges amounted to more than $3 a day they could not be allowed. Mr. Hoey's charges may have amounted to more than $3
a day and consequently he could not be paid for horse-hire, or Mr. Hoey may possibly have driven with one of the other enumerators from Paris to Brantford and not have charged for it. I cannot tell the reason myself. The only way would be to ask Mr. Hoey why he did not charge for horse-hire.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows that their earnings must appertain to the recording, so that it did not arise in that way. I have just pointed out a case where one enumerator got $23, another $20, another $29, another $27, another $26 and another $38. I am presuming that the populations in that case were not the same in different polling subdivisions and therefore- the differences would arise there. But, the other must have been for horse-hire actually used by each of them and the instructions must have been uniform. We have paid the enumerators $3 a day while getting their instructions. What were the instructions on that point ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A special allowance was made for the time spent in receiving instructions of $3 a day. Apparently nearly all of the enumerators in Brant county spent three days receiving instructions. One of them appears to have been absent part of the time and consequently he did not charge for three days.


James Clancy: What were the instructions given the recorder in regard to how they should be paid as to the days employed taking instructions and the days they were employed enumerating? When they were at the work of enumeration they were not to earn more than $3 a day. What instructions were given to the enumerators as to how they should be paid. for their services ? The chief commissioner is sitting there and he could tell the hon. gentleman and the hon. gentleman could probably read the instructions to the committee. Was any alteration made in regard to the allowances made to the enumerators from the first intimation they had.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was no alteration made after the first table of allowances.


James Clancy: There were complaints in the newspapers'that the minister had misled them as to the amount of compensation. If a man went to a farmhouse and asked a number of. questions it should not cost much more expense than if he asked a dozen questions. Many of these schedules are worthless if they are ever to be used. We have for the first time a record of divorces. That is rather a delicate question. Did the enumerator put that question to the minister himself ? Does lie think that such a thing as that should be put on record ? Some of this is the most trashy stuff that ever went to the country. How many vol-

umes will there be in this census and the number of pages ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The first volume has already been issued) and the matter for the second volume is, almost ready for the printer. If we put only the information in the second volume that was in the second volume of 1891 it would be ready now.


James Clancy: Will all these tables be published.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly.


James Clancy: When will the part containing information with regard to the industries be ready ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I expect it will be ready for the printers in a little over a month.


James Clancy: If I remember rightly, it was out in 1892. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman why that has been so long delayed, so much longer than it was in 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is not correct in his statement. The third volume of the census of 1891, which contained the returns of manufactures, was issued on the 20th of February, 1895. I expect that the returns of the industries of Canada will be out in July, 1903, or about twenty months earlier than those of the census of 1891.


James Clancy: I spoke somewhat subject to correction. I heartily congratulate the hon. gentleman upon being right for once. How did he take the census, say, of the district of Alberta and the other outlying districts of the country-the Indians and so on?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The census of the Indians was generally taken by the officers of the Indian Department.


James Clancy: How is the population taken in Alaska and in the country around Hudson's Bay V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: So far as I know, the population of Alaska was taken by the census commissioners of the United States. With regard to the districts around Hudson's Bay and the other unorganized territories, we sent some of our own commissioners for that purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: How does our progress compare with that of the United States and the mother country in the compilation and publication of the census returns ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Our census is taken a year after that of the United States ; but independently of that, I think our census is not quite as far ahead as that of the United States in compilation. We have not so large a staff, even in pro-Mr. CLANCY.
portion to the area of the country, as they have.


Robert Laird Borden: Do they not use some mechanical devices for the purpose of tabulation ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, very largely. We discussed that point, and came to the conclusion, and it was the experience in 1891, that it would take so long to train people to do the work, and the machines are so very expensive, that it would involve more loss than gain to use them.


Robert Laird Borden: I have read descriptions of their work, which seems to be wonderful.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is quite true. Some years ago, when I was in Washington, I visited the Census Bureau and saw the working of these machines, and Mr. Blue, the chief census commissioner, went down there to see what was best to be done. These machines have been of great value in expediting the work of the American census, but for a small work such as ours is in comparison with theirs, we made up our minds, for the reasons stated, that it would not be advisable to adopt these machines. I may say, however, that we use six adding machines. As a general rule, the permanent employees do more of the intellectual work in connection with the census than the work of compilation.


Robert Laird Borden: It is purely mechanical ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: For a person who is an expert it is.


Robert Laird Borden: Are they very expensive ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: About $1,500 a machine.


Mr. HACKETT.: I called the attention of the hon. minister two years ago to the fact that the cost of taking the census had been largely increased in the province of Prince Edward Island. I also called his attention to the fact that one Doyle, who was appointed enumerator, had sold out his job to another man named Broderick for $30, and Broderick was appointed in the place of Doyle. Did that $30 come out of Broderick's pocket, or was it paid by the department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was no money paid to Doyle by the department. Broderick was appointed from here in Doyle's place on the recommendation of Sir Louis Davies.


John Graham Haggart: The amount paid Broderick was twice that paid the enumerator in 1891, and one would judge therefore that the payment to Doyle by Broderick came indirectly from the. department. It may be that the increases generally in the

cost of taking the census was due to matters of that kind. Two years ago 1 brought the matter before the House, and the hon. minister said he would make an inquiry and give me the information I desired, hut none has been forthcoming yet. I have seen both the men since. All that Doyle would say was that he had $30 in his pocket for doing very little work. In all the other districts increases have taken place, despite the fact that the population of the island was 5,000 souls less In 1901 than it was in 1891. What is the explanation of that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can only repeat the explanation I have given already. A great many more questions were asked, and more time had to be spent by the enumerators. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, three questions were asked in 1901 for every question asked in 1891, in round figures. That took more time and the enumerators had to be paid more. Again, the whole scale of wages and of living is higher than in 1891, and people would not work at the same pay. Consequently we were compelled to make allowances for horse-hire and for the time spent in receiving instructions and returning schedules. These taken together make up the difference.


Edward Hackett: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) I presume, has taken a fair census in the province of Prince Edward Island. He will notice that there has been a decrease in population there, and, in consequence, the province is losing one representative in this parliament. I would ask the hon. gentleman if the same system of taking the census was followed in the province of Quebec and in the province of Prince Edward Island. This is a very important question in connection with our representation.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Exactly the same system was employed all over Canada.


Edward Hackett: Did not the hon. minister refer to the cures for information ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) mean ? I asked the same question of everybody in the province.


Edward Hackett: Did not a certain Mr. CotS issue a circular to the priests of the province of Quebec asking for a return with regard to the census taken by the priest in that year, and was not our census largely based on the returns made by the clergymen ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly not. The enumeration taken by the parish priests of the province of Quebec was obtained only after the census returns were made up and complete. It was obtained for the sake of comparison and information, but our schedules were not
changed in any consequence of that information.


Edward Hackett: That is somewhat different from the statement we had two years ago, when we were told by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself that this means of taking the census in Quebec had been resorted to because of the timidity of the people of the province with regard to census enumeration. When approached by the enumerator they imagined that it was a matter of additional taxation, and were afraid to answer the questions asked by the enumerators. In consequence of that, Mr. Cote, the assistant commissioner, issued a circular to each of the Roman Catholic priests of the province of Quebec asking them for a return of parties who had left the province in their respective parishes, not only those who had left temporarily but those who had left intending to remain away. So, parties who had left the parish within the year were enumerated as residents of the province. If that was the system adopted in the province of Quebec, it must have had the effect of increasing the unit of representation, and relatively depreciating the enumeration in the province of Prince Edward Island. I have not time at the present, it being a little early in the morning, to refer to ' Hansard,' of 1901, yet, if the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fisher) will take the trouble to read it, he will find that his leader made the statement I have just referred to. The Cote circular was sent not only to the parish priests of the province of Quebec, but it was sent to certain clergymen in Prince Edward Island in the districts where there was known to be a French population. The Rev. Dr. Ohas-son, of Palmer Road parish, where there is a large Acadian population, received a copy, and so did the Rev. Mr. Gallant, of Bloomfield, another gentleman at Itustico and Father Boudreault, at Egmont Bay. The Rev. Dr. Chasson was the only one to reply to the circular, and, as he said, he did not think it right that the priests should interfere in the census in any respect, but should leave it to the enumerators and the people. Now the taking of the census in Prince Edward Island in 1901 cost a hundred per cent more than the taking of the census in 1891. I find no fault with the census on the ground of correctness; it may have been correct. But it has resulted in showing a falling off of 5,000 people in the province of Prince Edward Island. While the schedules with regard to nationality, race, religion and other matters were strictly applied in the province of Prince Edward Island, yet, it would seem that a different system was applied in the province of Quebec, the pivotal province, upon which rests,the representation from all the provinces of Canada. I wish the hon. gentleman to be definite and say whether his leader, the Prime Minister, was incorrect when, in 1901, he made the statement I have

repeated to you. But if the Cote circular was distributed as tbe first minister stated and the enumeration of the people of the province of Quebec was based upon that circular, I say that a gross injustice has been done to the people of Prince Edward Island. The highest privilege of any people is the exercise of the franchise for the election of representatives to parliament, and that sacred right should not be tampered with. I would ask the minister to make it perfectly clear whether this right has been tampered with or whether the same system has applied to Prince Edward Island that was applied to Quebec. I believe that if the system had been the same, there would not have been shown a decrease of 5,000 in Prince Edward Island, with the resultant loss of one member in this House, but a large increase. I ask the hon. gentleman to make a clear statement because the people of Prince Edward Island are very much excited over the loss of one representative in this parliament.
It should be fully stated in this parliament whether the same system of counting the people has been applied to the province of Prince Edward Island as was applied to the province of Quebec.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Absolutely the same system, the same regulations in every respect were carried out in every province. The circulars the hon. gentleman refers to, one of them was sent out for the purpose of asking the priests, not only in Quebec but wherever there was a French population, to explain to the people that they must give full and ample information to the enumerators. The other circular was sent out to make certain inquiries in regard to the number of people in each parish who were away to stay away, so that they would not be improperly counted. The people who were not coming back were not to be counted. It was desirable to check the work. But the replies to that circular were never put into the hands of the compilers here, and were only compared with the schedules by the superior officers, and the result was no change in the schedule returns.


Edward Hackett: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if this circular was sent out to the clergymen of any other denomination in Canada at that time ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Edward Hackett: Then it was simply confined to the province of Quebec, and a few circular letters were sent to the parish priests in the parish of Prince Edward Island ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, No, it was sent to others besides.


Edward Hackett: 


Edward Hackett: To which of the other provinces was the circular sent 5


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To all the French districts all over Canada.


Edward Hackett: Sent exclusively then to the French districts ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Edward Hackett: There was some reason then for sending out that circular. He says it was sent out to receive information for the purpose of checking the work done by his sworn officials ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The first circular was sent out for the purpose of asking the parish priests to impress upon their people the necessity of answering freely. It is well known that among the French population of the country there was more or less fear with regard to the answers to the census enumerators, and this expedient was adopted to remove that fear. The second circular was sent out, as I have explained, because it was understood that a large number of French Canadians who had gone away to the United States, and we wished to check the numbers of those who had gone there to settle and not confuse them with those who had gone there temporarily.


Edward Hackett: So it was sent especially for the purpose of ascertaining the number of French Canadians who had left Canada in previous years and gone to the United States ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, That was the purpose.


Edward Hackett: Then why should the hon.. gentleman endeavour to keep the run of, the French Canadian people any more than the English speaking people of Canada ? .1 cannot see why he should incur this extra expense for the purpose of ascertaining the drift, the current, or the movements of the French people in the province of Quebec, when the same thing had not been done with regard to the English speaking people of the other provinces. I say there must be a deeper reason than that. The hon. gentleman appears not inclined to answer that question. It is a question that affects the sacred rights of the people of Prince Edward Island and their right of representation in this parliament, and I insist that the hon. gentleman answer it. When he adopted such a mode of counting the people of Quebec, the province that fixes the unit of representation in the other provinces, in justice and fair-play to the other provinces, the same means should have been taken to count the English speaking people of Canada.
In consequence of this, I believe that in Quebec, according to the hon. gentleman's

own statement, ascertaining the current of immigration from Canada to the United States, they counted thousands of people in Quebec who had left during the previous year that were not counted in the other provinces of Canada, and as a result of this unfair system of counting the people of Prince Edward Island are asked to submit to the loss of representatives in this parliament. I would like to have a definite reply from the hon. minister, if he found it necessary in order to have a f-air count of the people to issue this circular, why he did not send a similar document to the clergymen of other denominations in order to ensure a fair count of the English speaking people.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The same circular in regard to the French population was sent all over the Dominion. The hon. gentleman has asked another question. There was not a single name added to the list of the population of Quebec as a result of the answers which came in reply to that circular.


Mr. BELL.: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he authorized the issue of the circular which was sent to the curds of Quebec?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman asks me if I authorized it. I cannot say I gave any orders to have it issued.


John William Bell: When did the hon. minister learn of the purpose for which it was issued ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I knew about it, but did not see the circular before it was issued.


John William Bell: I will read what the hon. minister said in the House of Commons in 1901. Mr. Barker was speaking :


Mr. BARKER.: I would like to ask the hon. minister 11 he is aware that Mr. Cfltd has issued another circular, one that is quite as improper, apparently, as the .one issued in Ontario, in which he asks that returns be made direct to him as assistant commissioner of matters wholly outside his duty as commissioner ? Does the hon. minister know that Mr. Cdte has asked to have returns made to him of French Canadians who do not live in this country at all, but who live in the United States ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will answer the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Barker's) question first. I am not aware of such a circular as the hon. gentleman indicates.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My bon. friend is now referring to the second circular. The answer.I gave a few minutes ago was in regard to the first circular.


John William Bell: That cannot be possible. It is impossible. The hon. gentleman says that he knew of the circular issued to the curds before it was issued.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Pardon me. What I said a few minutes ago was


John William Bell: What the hon. minister states now is that he knew of the circular before it was issued.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Which circular ?


John William Bell: The second circular.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not state so.


John William Bell: The hon. minister stated so a few minutes ago. Two years ago his recollection should have been much better when he stated that he did not know of the issue of such a circular. Now, he is in direct contradiction of himself. He says he did know. The first circular did not refer to the French population at all. The first circular that was brought to the attention of the hon. minister was brought to his notice by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). This was the circular brought to his notice in 1901, and it was issued apparently for the purpose of getting political information.
The MINISTER OF 'AGRICULTURE. I have made no reference to that circular to-night.


John William Bell: During the discussion of the question of the circular issued to the French cures, the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) asked the question :
I would like to ask the hon. minister if he is aware that Mr. C6td has issued another circular. one that is quite as improper, apparently, as the one issued in Ontario, in which he asks that returns be made direct to him as assistant commissioner of matters wholly outside his duty as commissioner. Does the hon. minister know that Mr. C6td has asked to have returns made to him of French Canadians who do not live in this country at all, but who live in the United States ?
That is the French curds' circular.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What was my answer ?


John William Bell: The answer of the hon. minister was :
I will answer the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Barker's) question first. I am not aware of such a circular as the hon. gentleman indicates.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Exactly.


John William Bell: Just a few moments ago he said that he was aware.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said I was not aware.


John William Bell: I understood the hon. minister to say he was aware.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said that in regard to the circular issued to the parish priests of Quebec asking them

to impress upon their parishioners that they must give full information to the census enumerators which is another circular altogether. There were two circulars issued to the priests of Quebec, one before the enumeration asking them to get their parishioners to give full and complete returns, and another six months after the enumeration which the hon. gentleman has just referred to and in regard to which I answered Mr. Barker at that time.


John William Bell: I understand that there were at least three circulars issued by the Department of Agriculture.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There were two circulars issued. I know nothing of any other circular issued by the department or any officer of the department.


John William Bell: Two circulars were issued to the French cures ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


John William Bell: Has that gentleman a copy of these circulars here ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not got them here. They were laid on the Table of this House when the question was up before.


John William Bell: It seems to me that the hon. minister should lay on the Table of this House a copy of the circulars, because it is quite clear that there have been circulars Issued which are entirely outside of the usual understanding of what is the purpose and the work of the census commissioner.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They have been in possession of the House for more than a year.


John William Bell: What did the minister say as to the circular regarding political leanings.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No such circular was ever issued by my department.


John William Bell: When was the minister aware that such circular was issued ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When I was informed of it later on.


John William Bell: What was done with that circular ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know.


John William Bell: Did the minister take any action in reference to that circular ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When I heard of it I immediately gave instructions that such a circular had not been issued on my authority and that they must not pay attention to it.


John William Bell: Did the minister come into possession of copies of the circular?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was read on the floor of parliament.


John William Bell: It was issued by some one in connection with the department.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was not.


John William Bell: It was acted upon by certain enumerators and it evidently imposed on them. Did the minister take any steps to ascertain who they were who were guilty of what was practically a forgery.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My name was not forged to it.


John William Bell: Does the minister feel that he has done his whole duty in the matter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


John William Bell: If the minister holds such opinions I would not wonder if more of such circulars would be issued. How many schedules were issued in the census of 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Fifteen.


John William Bell: How many questions were included in the first schedule ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the hon. gentleman had been here during the sitting, he would have heard the answers to the questions he is now asking, and I am afraid I shall have to refer him to ' Hansard ' if he asks any more questions about matters which have been discussed this afternoon. In the first schedule there were thirty-four questions.


John William Bell: I do not think there is any justification for the minister refusing to answer a question of a member because lie has been absent from the House for a time. Have all these thirty-four questions been answered ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


John William Bell: How many questions were there in the second schedule ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Twenty-five.


John William Bell: Have all these been answered ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


John William Bell: How many questions in the third schedule ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Fifteen.


John William Bell: What is the total number ?


The AIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman can add up as correctly as I.
.TUNE 12, 1903


John William Bell: How many questions in the fourth schedule ?
The* MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. Seventeen.


John William Bell: How many questions in schedule number five.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Thirty-seven.


John William Bell: To what do these questions refer to.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To field products.


John William Bell: What field products ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, the field products usually grown in Canada.


John William Bell: I do not wish for a general answer by a detailed list.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have read those questions in detail to the House and will not do it again.


John William Bell: I am sorry for the county of Pictou. This is the second time the hon. minister refuses to answer a question. Might I ask the hon. minister at what date these questions will be completed by the officers in his department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The compilation will be completed about the middle of next month.


John William Bell: How many schedules in all were asked ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Fifteen.


John William Bell: Of these we learn that four have been compiled, and the hon. minister expects to have the compilation of all the schedules completed in the course of the year.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said in the month of January next.


John William Bell: In seven months the hon. gentleman expects to complete the compilation of eleven schedules and it has taken his department twenty-four months to complete four, or an average of six months each. He now expects to complete the work of compiling eleven schedules in seven months.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman shows that he has not been following the debate for his statements are not in accord with what has been said.


John William Bell: I must admit that, to a certain extent, I have not been following the debate, because I was not aware of the rare intellectual treat the chamber was having. I understood from the hon. gentleman that there are fifteen schedules. I understood further that his department has completed four. The census was taken in April, 1901, and we are now at the end of June. 1903. If has. therefore, taken twenty-four months to compile the answers to four questions, and the hon. minister expects to complete that whole work of compiling the census in Januafy, 1904. Now, from June, 1903. to January, 1904, is seven months. So, the hon. minister will find my estimate correct when I say that he expects to compile the answers to the eleven schedules in seven months, whereas it has taken him twenty-four months to compile the answers to four. If he impugns my accuracy, may I ask him on what ground ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman's statement as to four schedules is incorrect.


John William Bell: The hon. gentleman informed me that the fifth schedule is not completed. I inferred that four were completed. Perhaps that is not the impression that he intended to convey. Was I mistaken ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is not accurate.


John William Bell: We shall have the opportunity of referring to ' Hansard ' in a few days to see what the hon. gentleman said.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman asked me a question whether the answers to these four schedules were completed, and now he is asking about a compilation that I know nothing about.


John William Bell: Then we may begin over again. Have the answers to the fifth schedule been compiled ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The compilation is not yet finished.


John William Bell: Have the answers with reference to the preceding four schedules been compiled ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In some cases they have and in some they have not.


John William Bell: Then it appears that I was crediting the minister with too much when I said that the answers to four schedules had been compiled. Will he tell me how many of the six hundred odd questions in the schedules have been completed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Schedule 1, schedule 2 and schedule 3 have been compiled. Schedules 10 and 11 are also finished. In the rest the compilation is under way. Schedules 4, 5, 6 and 7 are verging towards completion, and schedule 8 will be completed before the end of next month.


John William Bell: What is the number of the schedule referring to manufactures ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. 8.


John William Bell: How many questions were in that schedule ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Sixty-seven.


John William Bell: There was a limitation with respect to manufacturing establishments in the census of 1901 as compared with that of 1891. Will the hon. minister state what it is ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In 1891 every room or shop in which one or two persons were employed was called a manufacturing establishment. In 1901 the rule was followed that five hands must be employed before an establishment could be considered a manufactory.


John William Bell: Can the hon. gentleman form any idea of the number of establishments that have been struck off the schedule by adopting the form of question he adopted for the census of 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: An establishment not having five working people in it is not taken as an establishment and could not be struck off. We have not reached any point in the compilation that will indicate a fair estimate of the difference brought about by this different mode of taking establishments.


John William Bell: How many questions were asked under schedule No. 6 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Twenty-six.


John William Bell: The twenty-six classes into which the live stock of Canada is divided
must include, I suppose, poultry ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


John William Bell: Does it include the eggs of the farmers ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Eggs are included in farm products.


John William Bell: Has a distinction been made between different breeds in this classification ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is a distinction made in the different breeds in pure bred stock but not in grade animals.


Edward Hackett: Does the hon. minister expect that this amount will complete the taking of the census and when will the second volume of the census be put before the public ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is expected that this amount will complete the compilation of the census and that the second volume will be issued before the end of next month.


William Humphrey Bennett: The presence of four Cabinet Ministers in the Chamber this morning is the best proof that the Grand Trunk subsidy has been settled because there will apparently be no meeting of the Cabinet on this 13th day of June. My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) who is Hon. Mr. FISHER.
not present in the Chamber now but who will be here in a few minutes, stated last night that we were going to have' three sessions of the House per day soon and although the Minister of Finance contradicted that the Minister of Agriculture seems bound to have an all day and an all night sitting too.
I find by the Public Accounts that the census of 1871 cost about $400,000. the census of 1881 considerably under $500,000, and the census of 1891, not much over the half million mark. I wrould ask the Minister of Agriculture what the present census has cost up to date ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The expenditure up to June 1, 1903, was $1,137,533.37.


William Humphrey Bennett: When the people see these figures, and compare them with the cost of previous censuses, they will be rather staggered. What further sum will it take to complete the taking of this census ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am asking for a vote of $35,000 for the ensuing year, and I suppose it will take about $8,000 for this month of June. They will make about $43,000 more.


William Humphrey Bennett: Do I understand that when the amount is spent, it will complete the census in its entirety 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: I should think the people will be rather thankful that the census is at an end. I think the minister should explain why this census has cost so much. I am going to give some of the reasons. First and foremost, I think it was due to his bringing Mr. Blue here as an officer of this department. Not that I lay anything to Mr. Blue personally ; but he had been a government officer in the province of Ontario, that land where the grafters thrive, but where, thank God, their day seems to be nearing an end. Mr. Blue was brought down here, and what has been the result ? The published reports of the province of Ontario are printed by a private concern, on the ordinary terms on which business is done by the Ontario government, without tender ; and, of course, the greater number of reports published, the greater the profit to those party friends who publish the reports ; so any one can understand that they print any number of them. In every one of these reports we see the name of Mr. Blue, and when it was known what salary he was to have, one can imagine the feeling of envy that ran through the mind of every Ontario official. Then if the hon. minister will look at the names of those who are engaged as enumerators, more particularly in Ontario, he will find

there his old friends, the Ontario government heelers. Take the riding of East Simeoe, where the cost of taking the census is simply enormous, when I look at the names of the grafters who got in their work there, I can congratulate him in getting off so safely. Are there any complaints of non-payment to the enumerators by the officers in charge ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not aware of any.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am glad that these sub-enumerators got their money paid to them at last. Politically, these sub-enumerators have done the government no good in East Simeoe because they complained that they could not get paid. In 1891 the cost of taking the census in East Simeoe was $5,473, and in 1901 it was $10,949.	1
find there were two enumerators appointed there at a total of $614, where in the previous census there was only one and the cost $386. How many ridings in the province of Ontario had government commissioners appointed in order that the government might reward its political heelers ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not aware of any who were appointed for any such reason.


William Humphrey Bennett: Why was Mr. Duncan McNab allowed $13.50 for horse-hire at $1.50 a day for the town of Orillia ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Ir. some cases the enumerators charged horse-hire when they went to get their instructions. If that was not the reason, I cannot give any reason.


William Humphrey Bennett: I can give the lion. Minister the real reason. Mr. McNab is a very warm political friend of hon. gentlemen opposite, now engaged in the Public Works Department in connection with a work going on in the riding. I notice that Mr. J. B. Henderson did not get any bore-hire. Yet he is a very important portion of the party machine. It will afford amusement to the people of East Simeoe to find that Mr. Henderson, in his innocence, did not put in a claim for horse-hire, while Mr. McNab sends in his bill for $13.50. What member of the hon. gentleman's staff directed to whom these allowances should be made for horse-hire ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were made on a well defined principle, and the commissioners for each locality had to certify the bills.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am glad to have the hon. 'gentleman's statement. But what instructions were given by the commisssion-ers to the enumerators on this subject. I would like to have something in my hand by which to go to the electors of East Simeoe when I discuss this question.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No instructions except that the commissioners were given latitude, and were to certify the account.


William Humphrey Bennett: If you take these- accounts all through you will find that wherever the political party hacks were at work they got all the allowances, whereas the man who was merely attending to the work of enumerating got little or nothing. Has the schedule been completed showing the return of crops ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The compilation has not been completed. We hope it will be completed about the middle of next month.


William Humphrey Bennett: With regard to the schedule for manufacturers, the effect of the change the hon. minister has made has apparently been disastrous to the flour industry. Ten years ago there were a number of flour mills in practically every riding in Ontario. But it is a large flour mill that employs five men, so many flour mills have been left unenumerated. One comparing this census with that of 1891 would suppose that the number of flour mills in Ontario had greatly decreased. Can the hon. gentleman tell what will be the effect of the method of taking the census upon the showing of the flour mills of Ontario 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The compilation is not yet completed.


William Humphrey Bennett: I hope the hon. minister will be able to give us some pertinent information next week when we go on with this item, because such an interesting item we cannot hope to dispose of at this forenoon session. I may say in passing the advantage is going to be taken of hon. gentlemen who are not present because the hon. leader of the House has not given notice that there would be a sitting to-day and consequently hon. gentlemen who are absent will not have an opportunity of taking part in this discussion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the suggestion is calculated to bring us all to serious reflection. There are two large items remaining on this page of the estimates, and I am going to suggest to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that we should agree, if the committee are willing, that we should reserve the remaining discussion of the the census item and take the other items remaining on the page-that is item No. 56. That will clear up that page of the estimates except the census.


James Clancy: That stands ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That would have to stand, of course.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that would be a reasonable suggestion at this hour. Possibly it might have been reasonable at an earlier hour, but we will not say anything about that. The only stipu-

lation I would like to make is that, if we pass the next item, and as there cannot be very much discussion now if we are going to have any breakfast, anything that would be open for discussion under that item shall be open for discussion either under the census item or some other convenient item.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly.
Item No. 52 allowed to stand.
For the branch of the Commissioner of Agriculture and dairying, including live stock, dairy, bold storage, extension of markets, poultry, seed and fruit divisions ; employees' pay from this sum not to be subject to the Civil Service Act, $220,000.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. Minister of Agriculture might just briefly explain the increase of $10,000 if it is convenient.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is due to some enlargement of the work in connection with what I may call the outside markets division in connection with the sale of our goods in the old country. This has been pretty successful but there seems to be an opportunity of increasing the market.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask what business will be taken up on Monday.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will take up the consideration of the Patent Act, The Diseases of Animals Act, perhaps the Criminal Code, the Bill concerning Dry Docks and the Bill Respecting the Good Shepherds. I do not anticipate that on any of these Bills there is likely to be very much debate, and if not we will have time to resume the consideration of the Railway Committee Bill. If we reach Supply we will continue with the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture.


Robert Laird Borden: Better not start too late.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 6.20 a.m- Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 15, 1903.