1903-07-21

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I wish to call the attention of the government, Mr. Speaker, to the question of the representation of St. James division, and if necessary I shall conclude with the usual motion. In a number of constituencies vacancies occurred since last session, and in all these the vacancies have been filled. There were the division of Argentueil, the north riding of Grey, the district of Maison-neuve, the district of Yarmouth, the north riding of Ontario, the division of Durham and the electoral district of Maskinonge, in which vacancies occurred from various causes, and under your warrant, Sir, writs were promptly issued and these vacancies filled. With regard to the electoral division of St. James, on the 16th of March you, Sir, communicated to the House the report of the judgment rendered upon the contestation of election in that division, and in your communication to the House you stated that ' the trial judges having reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in the election, I have, in conformity with section 48, chapter 9, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, withheld the issue of my warrant for a new election pending action to be taken by the House in the matter.' Subsequently, on the 3rd of April last, and in conformity with the provisions of the statute cited by yourself, a motion was made in this House for the issue of your warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for the purpose of holding a new election. This was done under sections 46, 47 and 48 of chapter 9 of the Controverted Elections Act, Revised Statutes of 1886:
Section 46. The Speaker shall, at the earliest practical moment after he receives the certificate and report or reports, if any, of the court or Judge,' give the necessary directions and adopt all the proceedings necessary for confirming or altering the return, or to except as hereinafter mentioned, for the issuing of a writ for a new election (for which purpose the Speaker may pddress his warrant, under his hand and seal, to the Clerk of the Crown iu Chancery) or for otherwise carrying the determination into execution as circumstances re-auire.
Section 47. When the judge in his report on the trial of an election petition under this Act states that corrupt practices have, or that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the election to which the petition relates, or that he is of opinion that the inquiry into the circumstances of the election has been rendered incomplete by the action of any of the parties to the petition, and the further inquiry as to whether corrupt practices have extensively prevailed is desirable. no new writ shall issue for a new election Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
in such case except by order of the House of Commons.
On tbe 3rd of April I moved, seconded by Mr. LSonard :
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Cilerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ for a member to serve in this present parliament for the electoral division of St. James, in the place of Joseph Brunet, whose election was declared void.
That motion was agreed to unanimously. That was a very considerable time ago, and it seems to me a manifest injustice not to have proceeded to execute the order of this House, especially in a matter of this kind. That it was not carried out is not due to any cause existing in this House. You, Sir, issued your warrant in conformity of the House, agreed to unanimously, and if the election has been delayed, if the writ has not been issued by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, that is due entirely to the action of the government. In other words, the cabinet, which, under tbe modern interpretation of our constitution, is purely and simply a committee of this House, has judged fit to delay the issuing of the writ and to prevent the electoral division of St. James from being represented during this most important session. As an elector iu that division, and as one living in it and knowing public feeling there, I am prepared to state that this delay of the government is condemned by tlie electors. In common with other electors of this Dominion, they claim tbe right to have a representative here, particularly in view of the fact that that claim has been upheld by the order of this House. Since the beginning of, this session we have had under our consideration measures of particular interest to the division of St. James, which is one of the most important of the city of Montreal. It is a division in which there is a large number of representatives of every class-professional men. university men and labour-men-and each of those classes, more particularly the third, is deeply interested in the questions we have had under discussion. Among these 1 might mention the improvement of Montreal harbour, in which the St. James division is particularly interested : the Bill with respect to insolvency, which I have had the honour to submit to tbe consideration of this House, because that division has very large commercial interests ; the Railway Bill, in which it is interested in a very particular degree ; the Bill concerning the Montreal bridge, which touches on the north side of the St. Lawrence, St. James division ; the transcontinental railway line, concerning which we are to have soon a communication from the government, and the Redistribution Bill. In all these measures St. James division is interested in common with other divisions, and in some of them it has a particular Interest. And there is no reason whatever why the election in that division should have been de-

layed for three months and the division deprived of representation in this House and of an opportunity to take part in the discussion and decision of this important question. It is needless for me to say that, under the present custom of parliament in England, the withholding of a writ of election from an electoral division is a very grave punishment of the division, and is very rarely resorted to in modern times. Formerly the Crown abused the privilege of withholding the writs. In times of great corruption, when parliament sought to bring a remedy, writs were withheld by the Crown ; but, in modern times, that extreme punishment, the putting of this stigma, this mark of ignominy, upon a constituency is a very rare thing indeed, though the right still exists.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: And is only exercised in cases of corruption on the part of the people.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, and as my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) very justly says, it is exercised only in cases of very general and wide spread corruption. In the very recent case of Colonel Arthur Lynch, who represented the division of Galway, a very interesting debate took place in the British parliament as to the propriety of issuing the writ. I have not the report of that discussion here, but hon. members who refer to ' Hansard ' will find that the opinion was very generally expressed in the House that the case of Colonel Lynch was not a case for the punishment of the constituency in general. The opinion was also expressed once in the House that the withholding of a writ of election was an extreme measure to which the Crown could resort only under circumstances of very general corruption. These circumstances do not by any means exist in the present case. The story of the election in St. James division, Montreal, is pretty familiar to most, if not all, the members of this House. It amounts to this : A few men-a very few, when you consider the large number of electors in that division -conspired to prevent the free expression of the peoples' will, conspired to seduce and buy some of the agents of one of the candidates, and, having secured the silence, the acquiesence, of these agents in some fifteen or twenty cases, they contrived to destroy the ballots deposited by the electors, and, in most cases, substituted ballots of their own. And there is no doubt in my mind that, had that fraud not been perpetrated the result of the election would have been largely, if not totally, different. That is a fact that is well recognized by those familiar with that election campaign. Why, I ask, should the vast mass of the electors be practically disfranchised through the wilful neglect of this government ? The reason is not far to seek ; it is that there are from eight or nine to a dozen aspirants to the nomination among the Liberal supporters, and the rivalry of these possible candidates, and the difficulty the government find in establishing harmony among them and their factions, is the sole, the unique cause of the disfranchisements of the electoral division of St. James. So, whereas, in the first instance, the will of the people was denied expression by a certain number of unscrupulous supporters of the government, at the present moment the peoples' desire to be represented in parliament is defeated by a group of men who find it impossible to agree upon a candidate for parliamentary honours. Under these circumstances, I think the protest which I have taken the liberty to place before you, Mr. Speaker, and before the House is well based, and should receive the immediate attention of the government.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am sorry to be obliged to observe to my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) that I think his memory is somewhat at fault on this occasion. It is quite true that at the opening of the session, some time after the courts had passed finally upon the election in the St. James division, my hon. friend moved for a writ to be issued for a new election. And my hon. friend should remember that upon that occasion not the slightest exception was taken to the motion, which was passed unanimously, not only without a word of dissent, but even without a word of debate. The long disquisition upon which my hon. friend has entered as to keeping the constituency disfranchised had, therefore, no application whatever. There never was in the mind of anybody on the floor of this House any intention to disfranchise the electoral division of St. James. If there had been any such intention, if it had been supposed that the constituency was in such a position that the Crown would be obliged to apply the punishment which is sometimes applied to the constituencies in England, disfranchisement, that would have been the time to make the observation, and press the exception. But, when the motion was passed without a word of dissent from anybody, that was clear evidence to the mind of everybody that there was no occasion to disfranchise the constituency. Therefore, all the observations which my hon. friend has indulged in, so far as that part of the question goes, are absolutely and entirely without foundation-he has not the slightest cause or justification for them. The reason why the writ has not been issued for the constituency of St. James is rather in the conduct of my hon. friend himself. My hon. friend will remember the motion he moved to have the writ issued, t >
which motion I have just referred, and which was granted. He cannot have forgotten, I am sure, that sometimes afterwards, a couple of weeks afterwards-I have been looking over the debates, bat I have not yet found the e-tact date-my hon. friend gave me

notice from his place that, as the writ had not been issued, he would call the attention of the House to that fact on a subsequent day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My right lion, friend is mistaken, I have never referred to the subject since.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. He certainly referred to the fact that he would call attention to it on a future day, and I have been waiting for him ever since. That is the reason why no action was taken. The reason why the writ was not issued at the time my hon. friend made the motion was this :	I inquired as to the particulars, and I was told then that the lists were being prepared by the municipal authorities in Montreal, and therefore, I thought it was better not to have the writ issued at the time. My hon. friend said he never called my attention from his place to that question. I do not accuse my hon. friend of wilfully forgetting-on the contrary. But, perhaps, I may mention a circumstance which will, I am sure, bring the matter to his recollection. He will remember that he crossed over here to tell me That he would not bring that motion just then, but would wait a little longer ; and I have been under the impression that he would move it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I must correct my hon. friend. He refers to the motion I made on the 3rd of April for the issue of the writ.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, and I have not referred to that subject since.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Either he or I am mistaken. At all events, the hon. gentleman, having called the attention of the government to that matter, we shall give it immediate attention, and see whether the condition of things in Montreal is such that a writ can be issued.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman is joking or in earnest in putting forward some of the reasons that he has just mentioned. I suppose one of the reasons was a joke, and the other one apparently was intended as a real reason. A writ was moved for in this House and it passed unanimously. That was on the 3rd of April, and three months and a half have elapsed. It would have been possible to have a member elected for that constituency by the middle of May. But during two months and a half and well on to three months that constituency has been unrepresented because the right hon. gentleman did not know the condition in which the iists were. With all the powers at his disposal, with all the resources of this government at his disposal, he was not able to ascertain the condition of the lists in St. James division, Montreal, to know whether he should bring on an election. He Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
is inclined to blame my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) for the fact that this election has not been brought on. I suppose the next thing we shall hear from tlie right hon. gentleman is that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is to blame for the fact that the government's railway policy has not been brought down after the session has been going on four and a half months. Such a reason would be about as good in the one case as in the other. Now, this constituency has a right to be represented, unless the government decide, and they say they have not decided, that is should be disfranchised on account of the corruption which prevailed in the last election, and which was wholly due, I am glad to say, to the efforts of some persons in that constituency whose aid has been very much relied upon by the government. From the 10th of May up to the present time, as I am informed, the lists have been ready, and that division has been in a position to have an election properly and regularly conducted. During the whole of that time until near the end of July, the hon. gentleman and ins government have not been able to ascertain that they are in a position at any moment to bring on an election in that constituency. I think we shall lie more inclined to rely upon the reasons which have been suggested by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, and to believe that certain difficulties which are said to have arisen in that constituency with regard to the selection of a candidate are the real reasons for this delay, rather than those which the right hon. gentleman has advanced in the House to-day. There were certain difficulties, we are reminded, in that division just before the last election, and I suppose it is to avoid a repetition of those difficulties, and to arrange the claims of friends who are aspirants for this position, that the constituency of St. James has been without representation in this House of Commons for the last two and a half or three months.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I beg to say a word in answer to the hon. gentleman for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who spoke of the corruption which lie alleges took place in the St. James division when the last election occurred. As a matter of fact, the only corruption which was proved happened in just one poll, and there has been no proof at all that corruption took place in any other. This corruption was of course wholly unwarranted, and was not the act of the Liberal party as a whole. In fact, it was condemned during the election by several speakers belonging to the Liberal party ; and after the election it was also stigmatized-I may use that vigorous term-by the then recognized organs of the Liberal party. As to the present divisions in that constituency, I may say that if an election took place to-morrow, the hon. gentleman would find the Liberal party united and

ready to meet tlie foe. In speaking about Mr. Brunet, who has been unseated, the hon. gentleman might perhaps take the House into his confidence so far as to tell us whether he did not agree to support Mr. Brunet at the beginning of the campaign. For I am told that in the early days of the campaign the hon. gentleman was ready to lend his very valuable assistance to Mr. Brunet.


Mr. J. E. EMILE LEONARD (Laval).: (Translation.) 1 was greatly pleased to hear the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) speak of corruption. The Liberal party are resorting once more to their old tactics. Towards the close of the Hon. Mr. Mer-cier's administration, all the Liberals who had benefited by its mismanagement, forsook him when they perceived that his downfall was inevitable. Now, that the ex-member for St. James (Mr. Brunet) has been disqualified by the courts, the hon. member for GasptS would take the same stand his party has always taken when Liberal scandals were exposed.
As regards the question whether the hon. member for Jacques Cartier had decided to support Mr. Brunet or not, in his electoral contest, I may say that the statement made by the hon. member for Gaspe is wholly incorrect. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier, as leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, never even suggested that the Conservatives of the province of Quebec, or of the Dominion, would support Mr. Brunet's candidature. If the hon. member for Gaspe will take the pains of inquiring from his immediate neighbours, he wfill become acquainted with the circumstances which brought about Mr. Brunet's candidature.
When the hon. member for Jacques Cartier moved for the issuing of a writ for a new election in St. James division, some time past, nobody objected on the other side of the House, and the motion was agreed to unanimously. Since that time we have not heard anything of that writ in the House. However, members who reside in Montreal, and myself, for one, have heard the ex-member for St. James himself state that the right hon. Prime Minister, or some of his colleagues, had promised him that there would not be any election; giving him to hope that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) would introduce a bill cancelling the judgment which disqualified him. I cannot say to what extent that statement is correct; but, at all events, Mr. Brunet states freely that he has the promise from the leader of the government that he will once more be the liberal candidate in St. James. Of course, liberal promises are not to be much relied upon, and I assume that this promise was made for some particular purpose, and in view of that, the issuing of the writ is being delayed.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the motion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier will
be agreed to and that the government will soan have an election in St. James division. This is the more desirable that the government of the province of Quebec will soon have several electoral contests going on. If the statement made by the hon. member for Gaspe has some" foundation, that is, if the government is quite sure of carrying the election in St. James, then that victory will comi>ensate them for the four or five defeats which are awaiting the government of the province of Quebec, a pupil of the federal government.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: One word in reply to the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. LemieUx). Surely he cannot have followed the contestation of the St. .Tames election when he says there was no proof of corrupt practises except at one poll. If the hon. gentleman will read over the evidence he will find the clearest proof disclosed that the agent of Mr. Brunet, in poll No. 37, as to which the revelations were complete, stated to Mr. Bergeron's agent at the time he succeeded in obtaining the good graces of that young man, '.You need not mind acceding to my proposal, because we have carried out the same scheme in fifteen or eighteen polls.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that evidence '/


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is and most conclusive. It was a general scheme and not confined to that poll. My hon. friend suggests that I promised Mr. Brunet to support him in that election. It is true that at the time that Mr. Drouin was the adopted candidate of the government a very considerable number of the friends of my hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) prospective candidates, came to me and assured me that they had become alienated; from the Liberal party on account of its failure to fulfil its pledges and that they had determined to come forward in St. James division as opposed to the government and as supporting the Conservative party. To these gentlemen I stated that if they maintained these good sentiments, if they sincerely had these convictions, we would give them some encouragement. But, I regret to say, that a great change came over the spirit of their dream. Mr. Drouin disappeared, Mr. Brunet came forward as the government candidate, Mr. Bergeron came forward as the true candidate of the Conservative party and I have no doubt that if these frauds had not been carried out to the extent to which they were carried out Mr. Bergeron would have been sitting in this House to-day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) take us a little more into his confidence and tell us if he did not agree to support Mr. Brunet as against the other Liberal candidate on condition that Mr. Brunet would vote, at all events, against the government on its policy in regard to the relations between Canada and the empire ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend insists 1 must tell him frankly that I never agreed to support Mr. Brunet. Although I had the greatest respect for Mr. Brunet I did not think he was qualified to represent that important division in this House, but the approaches were made to me by several confreres of my hon. friend who are professed Liberals to-day and who were opportunists at that moment.
Motion (Mr. Monk) to adjourn, negatived.



YUKON TELEGRAPH.

Mr. AULAY MORRISON (New Westminster).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) to alleged statements made by Mr. J. B. Charleson, in Dawson and also in Vancouver respecting the management of the Dawson telegraph service and line. I wish to draw his attention first to statements attributed to Mr. Charleson in the Seattle ' Post Intelligencer ' of the 2nd July, which appear in the form of a despatch from Dawson dated the 17th June. Mr. Charles m is reported to have said :
The Dominion government made appropriations good until July of last year. But the superintendent did not take advantage of the appropriation, and the appropriation lapsed to the government. Then it became necessary to wait until this year to get the appropriation renewed. It has been renewed and some addition has been made to the fund, but the addition is not large. The original appropriation of a year ago was $25,000.
The men in Dawson took exception, it is true, to having to work without pay; They complained strenuously and refused to work. I would have done the same, and would have done more. I should not have stood such neglect. The superintendent had money wi-th which to pay. Why he did not pay I cannot say.
The employees and the heads of the service have no right to pay themselves out of the revenues of the service, hence it was necessary to await a new appropriation.
A second long period without pay elapsed, but that has reached its end. The men have been paid all along the line to date. I hope they will get their pay promptly in the future. But what they will get remains to be seen.
While I can say the employees suffered neglect which I would not have tolerated, I will not place the blame. I feel that the Minister of Public Works wants to have the service satisfactory and to give the men fair treatment.
Mr. Crean is yet nominally superintendent, but he is not handling any affairs of the line. While I do not know whom the minister will select for the next superintendent, it would not surprise me to' see Mr. Rochester made the man. He is an exceptionally capable and vigorous man.
I have no regular connection with the service.
I was superintendent of construction when the system was built. Since it has been finished I have been at my home in Ottawa. In deciding on this investigation the minister selected me and asked that I serve. I agreed to do so.
Supplies are distributed along the line at all points during the open season. Fourteen miles of cable are to be stretched over some of the Mr. LEMIEUX.
mountains in British Columbia this winter. This cable was not recommended by myself. I think Mr. Crean recommended it. It may be an improvement on the old line now in use on these stretches. I have nothing to say on the merits of a cable for mountain use.
After leaving here Mr. Rochester and I shall go up the Skeena river and into the interior from Katiimiat to visit the line in British Columbia.
All the supplies for the Dawson station and boarding house will be bought in Dawson hereafter. I shall leave for the outside next week.
Then, the Vancouver ' Province ' of 10th July has the following statement by Mr. Charleson :
I have very little to say for publication regarding the reported mismanagement of the affairs of the Yukon telegraphs, but when I have completed my investigations into the condition of affairs, my report to the Minister of Public Works will contain a full statement of things as I have found them, and it certainly will not be very complimentary to Mr. M. W. Crean, the present superintendent of the line.
Then the paper continues :
Mr. Charleson stated that Mr. Crean was still nominally superintendent, but that by virtue of the commission which Mr. Charleson had received from the department at Ottawa, the powers of superintendent had been conferred on him for the time being. Mr. Charleson also took exception to the statements made in these columns by Mr. Crean that when the line had been handed over to Mr. Crean by Mr. Charleson. there were a number of men who worked for Mr. Charileson in the north that had not been paid.
* When I completed the construction of the line,' said Mr. Charleson, ' all the men were paid with the exception of those left in the cabins on the Ashcroft-Atlin section. Vouchers for the pay for these men amounting to about $15,000 had been prepared and given to Mr. Crean to forward to Ottawa, but when I arrived here last August I found these same vouchers in the office of the superintendent here. It was then too late for the appropriation to be passed by the House, as the vouchers should have been sent in May.
Mr. Crean's attention having been called to these statements by Mr. Charleson, he stated that:
He had no reply to make to Mr. Charleson's statements, except that he is still superintendent, exercising the same authority he has had since his appointment, and that he remains in charge of the Yukon telegraphs. Mr. Crean said he considered it improper to discuss official matters in public. Any communication he had to make will be sent to the Minister of Public Works.
I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works to these alleged statements and I wish to ask him if it is a fact that Mr. Charleson was commissioned to investigate the alleged mismanagement of the Yukon telegraph service, and if he has had any report from Mr. Charleson since. he was so commissioned ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: In reply to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Morrison) I may say

that it is somewhat difficult to place much reliance on newspaper reports. At the same time, as I understand it, there was a large number of accounts connected with the construction of the line which seemed to be in dispute in the department, and I thought it best to have these matters cleared up. As Mr. Charleson had been superintendent of construction he was sent out for the purpose of arranging the accounts, getting proper certificates, and looking into the matter generally. There was no complaint made to me in regard to the superintendent of the telegraph line or as to its operation, and X think no authority has been given at all to make an investigation into that subject. There has been no complaint made and all I can do is to say that the whole matter will be looked into now that it has been brought to my attention. I would have more to say in connection with it probably if I had had notice, but I will look into the matter and have a full investigation as to how it stands.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I have no manner of doubt of the authenticity of these reports-


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I shall conclude with a motion.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There has already been one motion disposed of and no other motion can be made. As to those questions which are brought up when the Orders of the Day are called, it would be much more in accordance with the rules of the House if these statements were made on the motion for going into Committee of Supply.



SUPPLY-STOCK EXCHANGE SPECULATION.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['I quite agree with my hon. friend, and there is a great deal of force in what he says. However, we know that it is an easy matter to move the cartridges the moment they are manufactured to points inland and store them in magazines. Two or three places are to be constructed in the present year for that purpose. I agree with him that in the near future it will be necessary to construct another cartridge factory, and when that time comes, I think some inland point should be selected. It has been in my own mind that possibly some point near the city of Ottawa might be a convenient place, where there is good railway communication inland, and where stores of this kind could be moved rapidly and safely.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House a matter as to which I have already spoken. I refer to the operations of the stock exchange ; and in order to indicate clearly what the scope of my argument is, I wish to state that I shall conclude with the following resolution:
That it is of urgent necessity to adopt effective measures in order to control stock exchange operations and check hazardous speculations which impair the financial security of Canada and the prosperity of its trade and industry.
At the end of the financial crisis which Is still fresh in the memory of a good many in this House, the manager of the Bank of Commerce in Toronto stated that this slump was a necessity because people had gone so far in the way of stock speculation that nothing but such an acute crisis would tend to stop the evil. I do not dispute for one
moment the opinion of this gentleman, but I believe that the financial regime under which such condition arose, is an evil towards the suppression of which the attention of the government should be called. In 1888, this parliament adopted 'An Act respecting gaming in stocks and merchandise.' (51 Vic. Cap. 42):	This legislation was introduced by Hon. Mr. Abbott in the Senate and it passed through the House of Commons, then led by the late Sir John Thompson. When introducing that measure in the Senate, Mr. Abbott used words which may well be applied to the present situation. He said :
This evil has attracted the attention of public men. it has been animadverted upon very generally in the press of the country ; and the evil has reached such proportions that it has become absolutely necessary to do something to cheek it.
Of course it may be argued now as it was argued then that we have no right to interfere with individual liberty and that speculation in itself is no crime. I admit that. But if wise speculation be no crime there is not the slightest doubt but that wild speculation is one of the most fertile causes of crime.
I might well repeat the words which Sir . John Thompson, then Minister of Justice, used in the House of Commons when he introduced the Bill:
I know from experience, and from applications which have been before me, that numbers of persons belonging to respectable classes in the community, are in our different penitentiaries now in consequence of bucket shop transactions, which led them on to embezzlement and frauds of different kinds. It is considered, therefore, in the interests of public morality that legislation of this kind should be adopted, and I do think this can be safely adopted.
To which the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) added :
As the honourable Minister of Justice properly says, there are in our penitentiaries today men who have been sent there for crimes committed, the first step towards which consisted of the operations of gambling which are fostered by these bucket-shops, and in a still greater degree by the regular stock exchanges.
I am not here to endorse the opinion of the hon. member for North Norfolk, but I may say that the operations that were carried on at that time by the bucket shops1 are now conducted on a wider scale and in a worse form by the regular stock brokers ; and if Sir John Thompson was right when he said in 1888 that the operations of the bucket shops were a most effective cause of crime, I say that the operations of the stock exchange, as they are carried on now, are an effective cause of crime, and that interference by the government is called for. If it is our duty to legislate against crime when it is committed, it is also our duty to legislate to prevent the commission of crime if we can.
There is not the slightest doubt also that It is our right and duty to legislate even against individual liberty when the exercise

of that individual liberty degenerates into such a license as to imperil the national security of the country. The operations of the stock exchange, carried to the extent they have been carried for the last few years, are a menace to the financial security of this country. In the first place, not only regular banks, but savings banks, that have been established under the credit of the country, have gone so far as to lena money on the security of stocks which have been paid for on a very narrow margin of five or ten per cent. In the next place, a large number of financial or industrial institutions that are organized under joint stock capital have suffered and greatly suffered from the slump that was recently caused by the actual operations of the stock exchange. The result of this is deterrent to the investment of capital which otherwise would seek-security in our industries. Moreover this stock exchange business puts our railways, our banks, our insurance companies and a large number of industries practically in the hands of people who hold shares of these institutions, not with the idea of making profits by the natural development of these industries ; not with the idea of earning interest upon their shares because of the trade carried on by these companies ; but who are simply expecting that the changes in the stock market will give them a chance to speculate on the rise and fall of these shares. Therefore, I say that it puts the titles of ownership of several of opr basic industries within the hands of men who have no interest in the future prosperity and stability of these industries.
This stock speculation under present conditions is also a danger to our fiscal stability. We have had an example of this ' during the present session, when people have come to this parliament looking for a remedy because they had been ruined by wild speculation and had seen the shares which they held on very small margin taken out of their hands as soon as they were not able to put up the balance of the margin. Instead of doing what they would have done had their shares been paid in full ; instead of going to the directors of the companies ; instead of coming to the conclusion that the proprietors of any industry should look to its welfare : they have come to this government and have asked that by changes in the tariff, the decline in the price of their shares should be arrested, and their stock market value increased. I do not want to bring into the discussion the propriety of these changes in the tariff, but I do say that it is not of good omen for the stability of the fiscal policy of a country that a movement might at any time be created amongst the speculating classes, with the obiect of demanding a change in the tariff just to increase their gambling chances.
Mow. Sir, the law of 188S was directed against a thing which is described in subsection fa) of clause 1 of that Act. It says : Mr. BOURASSA-
Every one is guilty of a misdemeanour who
With the intent to make gain or profit by the rise or fall in price of any stock of any incorporated or unincorporated company or undertaking. either in Canada or elsewhere, or of any goods, wares ,or merchandise, makes or signs, or authorizes to be made or signed, any contract or agreement, oral or written, purporting to be .for '.the sale or purchase of any such shares of stock, goods, wares or merchandise, in respect of which no delivery of the thing sold or purchased is made or received, and without the bona fide intention to make or receive such delivery ; and every one who acts, aids or abets in the making or signing of any such contract or agreement.
Now, Sir, what was Mr. Abbott's opinion on the matter ? He was the author of the Bill, and I might say was, on legal as well as financial matters, one of the highest authorities in this country. He said :
The real difficulty in preparing a measure of this description has been to draw a line of distinction between the transactions which are carried on in the legitimate business of a broker, and .the transactions which are carried on in the way I have mentioned in those bucket shops. It is not' alone in Canada that this distinction has been sought for ; it has been inquired into and received the same solution in the United States where this species of gambling is very prevalent. . . . The distinction which I understand is a true one between bucket shop *transactions and legitimate brokerage business is as stated to me by a leading New York
broker who wrote me	The distinction
which this gentleman draws, .and which is to be found in tihe Acts of the States of Illinois and Ohio. is. that in one case the purchase is made with the intention .of carrying it out as a bona fide transaction, the seller to maKe delivery. In the other case, there is no intention of making a bona fide purchase or sale.
Well, Sir, I say that ninety per cent of the operations now carried on under the regular brokerage system may be Justly described as wliat Mr. Abbott in 188S called the illegitimate operations of bucket shops ; and I am going to prove it. I may add to Mr. Abbott's opinion the opinion of Sir ,Tohn Thompson. He said :
I acquiesce fully in one of the opinions that has been expressed, that, if the transaction from which delivery would result, as the natural and legal consequence, it Is not a transaction that would be interfered with by this Bill ; but if the contract is one of which delivery forms no part at all, but which is simply between a pretended purchaser and a pretended seller of certain stocks, as to their rise or fall in a distant market within ,a given number of days, these acts are aimed at by this Bill, and I can confirm to the fullest .extent what hon. gentlemen opposite have said as regards their evil effects.
There was opposition brought against the introduction of that measure. In the Senate, Mr. Abbott said plainly that he thought the measure was just what it should be, and should not be amended. But the opposition was stronger in the House of Commons ; and, as Sir John Thompson said, naturally a good part of it came from the bucket shop owners, who did not want to see their busi-

ness checked ; but he said also that there was a certain amount of uneasiness among the brokers who carried on a legitimate trade. The same argument that will probably be used against my proposition was used then, that it was an attack upon individual liberty. Sir John Thompson gave way to a certain extent, and moved an amendment to Mr. Abbott's Bill, which he preceded with a few remarks, from which I will quote these words :
I may say that the Bill has received the en-dorsation of operators engaged in legitimate business in Montreal and Toronto. A certain portion, however, of the brokers in Montreal, engaged in legitimate business, have pressed strongly to have a few words added to the first Clause of the Bill ; and I am advised that the addition of the following words will meet the objections they raise :
The foregoing provisions (of this Ac.t) shall not apply to cases where the broker of a purchaser shall receive delivery as above of the article sold, notwithstanding that such broker shall retain or pledge the same as security for the advance of the purchase money or any part thereof.
This amendment was introduced into the Bill almost verbatim, and stands now as the second paragraph of subsection (b) of section 1. It will be noticed that Sir John Thompson said that most of the regular stock brokers approved of this Bill. But, I think a great number simply wanted to get rid of competitors so as to carry on under the protection of the law the operations that were carried on by the bucket shops. I might say that one member of the House foresaw very clearly what was going to happen ; I refer to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), who said :
It seems to me that, according to that view, we will stop illegitimate gambling and will recognize legitimate gambling, with a certain amount put up. I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Mitchell) that what we desire to do is to put down the bucket shops, and the only question which suggests itself to my mind is whether we do not leave a wide door open for the evasion of this Act. I am not sure that it is in the public interest to facilitate the purchase of stocks on small margins in any case, and, if we could do it, I am not sure that it would not be just as much in the public interest to stop that kind of gambling in stock on margins of five or ten per cent as to put down the bucket shops.
The only difference between the present situation and the situation at that time is that people are fleeced now just as much as they were then, but that the fleecers are fewer and bigger. They are directors of large companies ; they are donators of hospitals ; they are even members of the parliament of Canada ; in fact, they occupy high positons ; and, with those strange feelings that exist in every community, we pay to them the respect of considering them the basis of our financial status. We have been legislating against the bucket shop operators because they have been doing on 220
a smaller scale and in a franker way what these high gentlemen are doing now. I say that nine-tenths of the operations now carried on upon the stock exchange are, according to the definition given by Sir John Abbott and Sir John Thompson, exactly similar, to the operations then carried on by the bucket shops. I say that nine-tenths of the operations now carried on between the brokers and their clients are performed without the slightest intention of ever carrying their bargains to an end-that the client never takes shares with the intention of paying for them, and the broker never expects that the client will pay for them. I say-and I am going to prove it by the records of one of the leading brokers of Canada-that in nine cases out of ten it is merely a question of bet. The only difference is this. Under the bucket shop system the client knew that he was betting ; but now he does not know when the broker is betting for him or when he is betting against him, and he cannot know.
There was a legal case which created a good deal of sensation, not only throughout the province of Quebec, but throughout Canada, and I might say throughout the brokers' world ; and I am going to refer to it at some length, because it gives us the whole scope of stock exchange operations. It is the case known as Forget vs. Ostigny. The defendant in the case was a young bank clerk of Montreal, who earned a salary of about $900 a year. It was established by the evidence that all he had outside of his salary was $2,100 worth of shares of the Bank of Hochelaga on which there was a lien of $1,400. He was an intimate personal friend of Mr. Rodolphe Forget, the chief accountant of Senator Forget, and now we may say the leader of that firm. Mr. Forget lent to this young man the money he required to buy his first shares; and the time came when Ostigny, who had no money and no more salary than he absolutely required to live on, held shares unpaid to the figure of $28,900 in the hands of Mr. Forget. He got tired of paying up margins and refused to pay any more. He consequently became ruined and insolvent, which perhaps did not matter much. Mr. Forget sued him for $1,927, being balance of account due on margin, commission, and so on. The cause of action originated before we adopted the statute of 1888; but as that statute has been quoted all through that case in the different courts, from the Superior Court of Montreal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it has a direct bearing on our law. The defence was based on article 1927 of the Quebec Civil Code, which says : ' There is no right of action for the recovery of money or any other thing claimed under a gaming contract or bet.' The case came before the Superior Court of Montreal, and the learned judge who presided, Judge Pagnueio, made an exhaustive review of the whole question and the differ-


ent legislation governing stock transactions in France, England and the United States. He concluded by ruling that Mr. Forget's claim could not be maintained, as it was based on a pure gambling transaction. The case was taken to the Court of Appeals, and that court decided, Judge Hall dissenting, that the judgment of Judge Pag-nuelo was a good one. Permit me to read extracts from the opinion given by the Chief Justice of that court, Judge Lacoste :
It is sometimes difficult to draw the line between speculation and gaming transactions. The business done by frequenters of the bucket shops does not leave any doubt. These transactions are always bets on the rise or fall. But elsewhere gambling transactions have often the appearance of serious contracts. Thus, a person sells a stock deliverable on a fixed day ; the contract is lawful, but the circumstances of the case may show that the intention of the parties was not to give and take delivery, but only to gamble. . . .
The learned judge than analysed the evidence, which establishes that Forget bought different shares for Ostigny, lending him the amounts required and keeping the shares which he gave ' with others to a bank as collateral security for a loan which he was obtaining for himself.' He then proceeded to say:	'
It seems strange that the respondent, having instructed appellant to buy for him, did not take delivery, and that the appellant has not offered delivery. Forget, however, appellant's employee, tells us that the usage of the stock exchange permits a broker to do this, and that if the client does not ask delivery within twenty-four hours, the broker may borrow for the client on the security of the stocks which he has just bought and which he holds as a pledge. The client may at any time ask for delivery of the stock, but if he does not do so and neglects to pay the margin asked for, then the broker sells the stock and a settlement is made by the payment of the differences. The witness Forget tells us that respondent was acquainted with this usage. It results from this practice that the client does not take delivery of the shares, and that his responsibility is limited to the payment of the margin and the interest on the advances made by the broker. The instruction to buy, therefore, is not serious, but is only given to permit gaming on the rise or fall. Both parties understood it so.
Then the learned judge went on to show that the two parties, Forget and Ostigny, could not but know the exact situation, that the appellant (Forget) knew that the respondent (Ostigny) would not take delivery, and treated the shares as if they were his own property. He said :
The appellant ought to have known that respondent could not take delivery and that the custom which I have just mentioned would be followed. He understood this so well that he treated the shares as if they were his own property ; he gave them to the savings' bank with other valuable securities as guarantee for loans which he obtained for himself, and he disposed of a number of them before he received res-pondemt'iS order to sell them. His clerk tells us that on the 21st February, on res-Mr. BOURASSA.
pondenit's order, he sold two hundred shares of the street railway company, and that he could not deliver more than one hundred and thirty-five, because he was short of the rest. If appellant really had held the shares as a pledge how could he transfer them to the bank as security for a loan not limited to the amount which he had advanced for the purchase of the shares ? What text of law authorized him to dispose of the pledge ? This treatment of the shares by the broker indicates that he considered himself the owner.
I ask any man who lias any experience of business on the stock exchange, if this is not the history of nearly all the transactions carried on there? The result of that judgment alarmed not only Mr. Forget but all his confreres. What did they do ? The amount at issue was too low to give them the right to appeal to the Privy Council, so they came to terms with Ostigny. They paid all bis costs and even, I was told, gave him a discharge of the amount due, and then obtained his consent to an appeal to the Privy Council. In that case, as in the case of Hoy and the Canadian Pacific Railway, I regret that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should have been made, unwillingly I am sure, tlie instruments of parties whose object was to prevent the operation of Canadian law, and tlie government should see that something is done to prevent the Privy Council being made the instruments' of such shameful transactions and agreements.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would remind my hon. friend that Ostigny was not represented before the Judical Committee of tlie Privy Council.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, he was not. The only party represented was Mr. Forget and he got a judgment ex parte. But although I am very unworthy of appreciating the judgment and common sense of the members of the Privy Council, I feel impelled to say that there are such striking errors in their judgment in this case, that I am warranted in saying that they came to a decision without really knowing the facts. According to the evidence, at a certain moment during the time he was speculating, Ostigny asked for delivery of 200 shares of the Montreal Street Railway, and Forget said he could not make a delivery as he only had 135. Yet in the face of that evidence, which was reiterated in the opinion delivered by the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, what did the Rord Chancellor hold? He said :
When the shares purchased for the respondent were sold they were redeemed from the bank and delivered to the purchaser.
That was contradicted by the evidence.
The contracts made, which were unquestionably within the authority given by the respondent. were certainly not gaming contracts as between the parties to them. They were real transactions ; the shares purchased and sold were in every case delivered, and the price of them paid or received, as the case might be,

So that their lordships of the Privy Council based their judgment on an assumption which is clearly disproven by the evidence of Mr. Forget's employee.
The year following an exactly similar case was taken before the Law Lords. This was a suit taken against a regularly organized company, the Universal Stock Exchange Company, by one of their clients, one David Strachan. But the situation here was not exactly so favourable to the brokers, because instead of being the party taking out the suit, they were the defendants. Strachan sued to get hold of some security, and the case came before a judge and jury. Judge Cave, who presided, said :
A man goes to a broker and directs him to buy and sell so much stock as the case may be. That may be, in the eye of the purchaser, a gambling transaction, or it may not. If he means to invest his money in the purchase of the stock which he orders to be bought, that undoubtedly is a perfectly legitimate and real business transaction. If he does not mean to take up his stock, if he means to sell again before the settling day arrives, that may be a gambling transaction so far as lie is concerned, but it is not necessarily a gambling transaction so far as the broker is concerned: and in order to be a gambling transaction such as the law points at. it must be a gambling transaction in the intention of both parties to it.
Now, the record in that case proved that there was a signed contract between the brokers and the client. Several of the clauses of that contract-I am not going to worry the House with it, though I have it here-provided	that the contract was
made for the purpose of delivering shares, that the natural and legal result of the contract would be the delivery of shares through the broker to the client. Nevertheless, the jury decided unanimously that it was a case of gambling. The case was taken before the Law Lords. The counsel of the client did not appear, and the case was pleaded ex-parte by the counsel of the brokers, and one of the authorities they invoked was the judgment that had been rendered by the very year previous by the Judicial Committee in the case of Forget and Ostigny. But the Law Lords, I must say, did not pay the slightest attention to that judgment. I have here the judgment delivered by Lord Herschel and ratified unanimously by the Law Lords. I may say, before I quote from this judgment that the counsel for the stock brokers invoked that contract I have just mentioned, and said that whatever might be the amount of risk that was run by the client of the broker the contract entered into was an undertaking for the delivery of shares. Referring to this Lord Herschel said :-
It has been said that wherever a contract is entered into between two parties containing an obligation under any circumstances to cause property to pass from one to another, whatever else there may be in the contract, and although neither of the parties contemplated that that 220}
provision should ever become operative, yet, if it ever may become operative, the contract cannot be by way of gaming and wagering. The proposition amounts to this, that parties who intended to gamble with one another, but wanted to have the security against one another of being able in a court of justice to recover their bets, could compel a court of Justice to adjudicate and secure to them their bets by a judgment, if only they inserted in their contract a provision which might in certain events become operative to compel the goods to be delivered and received, although neither of them anticipated such a contingency; the purpose of inserting the provision creating an obligation being only to cloak the fact that it was a gambling transaction, and enable them to sue one another for gambling debts. The proposition contended for by the learned counsel for the appellants would really lead to that result, and I should require much consideration before I gave my assent to a proposition involving such consequences.
I quite understand wby Lord Herschel and his colleagues of the Law Lords' Committee of that day did not refer to the judgment given by the Judicial Committee in the case of Ostigny and Forget. They were opposed to that judgment in toto and therefore passed it over in silence. But what is the difference between the transactions that are carried on here and the transactions adjudicated upon by the Law Lords ? The difference is simply that here there is no written contract saying that the intention is to make delivery. But I have said, and I repeat, that nine-tenths of the stock exchange operations carried on are not carried on, as Lord Herschel said, for the purpose of selling on one side and buying on the other, but for the sole purpose of gambling; and the delivery of the goods is regarded only as an incidental matter. In fact, I am sure that I am within the mark when I say that nine- , tenths of the people who go into stock exchange operations pay their stock in full only when they are forced to do so. In nine cases out of ten they simply pay their money in the hope that it will bring them some return by the rise in the value of the shares.
Now, Sir, I have insisted at length on this case, because, as I have said, it gives the exact situation of our operations. Therefore, in the opinion of the authors of the law of 1888, and ill the opinion of the Court of Appeal of Montreal, in the opinion of the Law Lords of England,-and, I may add, that this would have been the opinion of the members of the Judicial Committee, if, instead of a case of conspiracy, they had had a case legally and honestly and properly pleaded-we ought to legislate now. And I may add that the only Canadian judge who differed from his colleagues on the question, Judge Hall, added these words in his judgment, which, I think, place a heavy responsibility upon us, who have the legislative power in our hands :
The fact that speculation in stocks has been indulged in improperly by those who cannot
. .W i



From L.   J.@: Forget & Co.,
Stock Brokers,
Members of the Montreal Stock Exchange. 325 Notre Dame Street,
Montreal, July 27, 1885. To C. A. Dansereau, Esq.,
City.
To purchase of 225 shares of Canadian Pacific in New York at 378 plus i B.. $8,465 63 By sale of 225 shares Canadian Pacific
in New York at 39i	 8,971 88
Profits-less	$ 506 25
Six per cent interest.. 88 08
Net profits	$ 418 17
N.B.-175 shares bought in London, England, at 383 sold at 47 to be settled when settlement of London broker is received which will !e about August 5th.	'
The translation is as follows :
The photogravure published by your confrere is but a memorandum. It is not a contract

Nobody had ever claimed it was a contract.
-our signature does not appear. It was but a note we gave to Mr. Dansereau, explaining to him the transaction that we had closed for him.
And here is the point to which I want to direct the attention of the House.
One can see the buying up of 225 shares of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I had bought much more than that and had given to Mr. Dansereau the benefit of those 225 shares. This gentleman had realized a profit of $418.17 as the same appears by the memorandum dated the 27th July. 1885.
So this interesting correspondence establishes this fact: that Mr. Forget bought, himself, in New York, for Mr. Dansereau, 225 shares amounting, as I have said, to $8,465.03 and be caused to be bought in London 175 shares, amounting to $6,781.25, the total value of the stock being $15,246.88. In the same correspondence, Mr. Forget says all along and Mr. Dansereau admits it, that Mr. Dansereau was insolvent. So, we are told that Mr. Forget bought over $15,000 worth of shares and that he expected Mr. Dansereau to pay fpr them when he knew he was Insolvent ? That this was a purely gambling operation is clearly established, first, by the fact which I have just stated of the insolvency of the purchaser. Then, according to Mr. Forget's own statement, he bought a great number of shares of Canadian Pacific Railway stock in New York and simply acknowledged a profit on 225 of these shares, which, I suppose, was bis valuation of the ' tuyau,' and gave a credit memorandum which looked as if he had purchased nominally 225 shares for Mr. Dansereau. But, for ordinary clients, who do npt deal in ' tuyaux,' who could not and would not sell important political secrets, what guarantee have they that, instead of making them share in his profits, Mr. For-Mr. BOURASSA.
get did not make them share in his losses, and still worse that sometimes he was not gaining while they were losing ?
There is nothing in the law and there is nothing in the practice to indicate that brokers are not betting and speculating against their clients ; but on the contrary, they may do so with the greatest facility. Although they may be the most virtuous and disinterested class in the community, we should not expose their virtue. Besides, I say, that, in times of slumps, it cannot be otherwise than that they should speculate against their clients.
It is not only in the similar kind of speculations that the regular brokers are emulating the old bucket shops' keepers. In those days there was the ' ticker,' a kind of telegraph instrument which enabled the broker in a small town to pretend that he was keeping in contact with the stock exchange. The ticker has been abolished but some of the brokers in Quebec have adopted a new system. They have commercial travellers going into the country towns and inducing the people to gamble, telling the merchants and farmers to buy shares of this stock or of that, and endeavouring to make them believe that in a few days they will make money. The evils that existed before 188S are existing now, but only to a greater extent and [DOT]with much more serious consequen-C6S.
I may be asked : Why are the authorities not enforcing the present law, chapter 42, of 51 Vic ? It may also be said that if the law at present is not operative it will be difficult to apply a more stringent law. I am going to reply shortly to these objections. First, it must be remembered that the statute as it at present exists was nominatively directed against bucket shops. It says, in the preamble :
Whereas gaining and wagering on the rise and fall in value of stocks and merchandise aro detrimental to commercial and public morality, and places affording facilities for such gaming and wagering, commonly called * bucket-shops,' are being established, etc.
So that many people will be stopped by the very wording of the preamble from using the law against ordinary stock speculation. Then, the circumstances are different. When that law was introduced, Sir John Thompson very properly said that what was aimed at then was the wild speculation on real goods that was going on, that the law was made not with the idea of controlling the exchange of shares of joint stock companies, but with the purpose of preventing stock gambling in merchandise. Under these circumstances it is not operative to a certain extent. Take the statement of Sir John Thompson as to the effect of the law, the amendments that I have mentioned, and still worse the judgment which the Privy Council has given since that time, and which I have analysed and which has rendered the

law perfectly negative. Hon. gentlemen will see that it is inapplicable to the present circumstances. I hope, if another case were brought before the Privy Council, it would be pleaded as it should be pleaded, without being preceded by a conspiracy such as I have described, and that the judicial committee of the Privy Council would find a way to change the jurisprudence ; but as it stands, it is impossible to apply the law of 18S8, in view of the judgment that has been given. Then I add-and I think this is the strongest argument-that so long as we have but punitive laws it will be impossible to stop that evil. You cannot have a punitive law applied to a particular evil unless public opinion admits that that particular evil is a crime. The public at large are not interested in this, and a great number who are interested are something like the gamblers in other things : some of them are not disposed to have the law changed, and others say that evil exists in every country and it is useless to try and stop it_ in this. It is also argued that it will be impossible to convince a great many people, and even the judges themselves, that speculation in itself is a crime and that therefore it is useless to apply a punitive law.
What we need is an administrative law ; a law that will not prevent legitimate speculation, but a law that will minimize speculation ; a law that will regulate speculation and that will establish a basis of some kind for stock exchange operations, and in consequence prevent wild speculation. First of all, I believe that stock brokers should conduct their business under the authority of the law, just as hotel keepers do, and just as in large cities people who keep houses that are not considered to the credit of the community, but are necessary to a state of corruption, must keep these houses under the guidance of the law. Stock brokers should take out a license. I do not say that they should be appointed by the government, because that was tried in France and proved to be a failure. But stock brokers should take out a license so that we may know who is conducting stock exchange operations, and so that nobody else shall be authorized to carry on the same trade.
Then it should be made a provision of the law that no large company, whether incorporated by parliament or under the seal of the Secretary of State, can elect as a director a licensed stock broker. Then again, stock brokers should have no right to speculate for themselves, but should content themselves with the profit arising from the speculation of their clients. If speculation is made by them under a false name it should be assimilated to conspiracy.
Then the question of margin comes in. I must say that I share the opinion which was expressed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce fifteen years ago, that so long as we allow speculation on narrow margins, it
will be very difficult to stop the evil. I believe it would be impossible at the present time to declare that no transfer of shares could be made unless they should be paid for in full, and it might not be wise to enact that now ; but it should be at least declared that no transfer of shares can be made unless they are margined to the extent of at least 25 per cent of their value. This system of purchasing on small margins is the greatest cause of slumps. Shares of good and bad stocks are bought in large quantity by people who put all the money they have on a small margin, and who, therefore, take the greater risk, because they expect the greater profit. They buy on these small margins just for the purpose of selling as soon as the shares rise in value : and this gives the greatest opportunity to the ' bears,' because when they want to run down a stock they know that thousands of shares of that stock are in the hands of people who cannot hold them and who are bound to sell the moment they go down a few points. When the bears make a raid, and the stock goes down three or four points, these people are forced to sell, and then the slump begins. The next day those who are a little stronger on the market will be forced to sell, and within a week or ten days the different grades of these small speculators will be wiped out ; and such wild be the decrease in the value of shares caused by putting so many on the market, that the bona fide holders of the stock, who invested with the idea of becoming part owners in that property, will also be wiped out of their holdings. Therefore, the larger the margin you provide for, the safer you will make the speculation. If the stock is fully paid up, or if it is paid up to a large extent, the stockholders will look to the directors for a profitable administration of the concern. They will look to the directors of the company for their security, instead of looking to Mr. Forget or to Mr. Ames to make them gain upon stocks that perhaps Mr. Forget or Mr. Ames are interested in running down.
In the fourth place, I would advise the Minister of Justice and the government to give some attention to the existing law concerning joint stock companies. I am told, although I hope it is not the case, that at present the Secretary of State issues under the Great Seal of Canada letters-patent authorizing the directors of companies of various kinds to issue paid-up stock to almost an unlimited amount. I need not say what a cursed operation this issue of paid-up stock is. We all know what was the result in the case of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. This company had already obligations for more than its property was worth, and just because it pleased its directors, they made a new issue of $5,000,000 worth of common stock at 60 per cent. It was not because it was worth 60 per cent, but just because they decided, under

tlieir authority, that it was to be sold at 60 per cent. And when two of the kings of the financial world, Mr. Ross and Mr. Forget, decided to quarrel and to make the shareholders pay for their quarrel, the stock was run down to 12 or 13 per cent. I therefore say that there should be no authorization given to any company authorized by this parliament or by the Secretary of State, to issue stock or obligations for anything else than real worth, which would in itself justify such issue of stock or obligations.
I would also advise that the law should provide that no transfer of shares would be valid unless the transfer bore the name of the seller and the purchaser and the date of the transfer, so that we would not have these pretended sales that are now carried on, and so that when the speculator on margin would come to pay in full for his shares he would receive the shares that he bought and not the shares that the stock broker bought when it pleased him or paid him to do so.
Then the law should provide that at least the savings banks, if not all the banks ; at least the savings banks that are authorized by this parliament under the credit of the country and which receive the money of the workingmen and the poorer classes, should be debarred from being a party to these speculations, and while they refuse to accept a good note signed by an honest and solvent man, endorsed by another honest man, for say $500, they will not be permitted to lend $50,000 to Mr. Ames or Mr. Forget, who will give them as security shares that are not their own property, but which belong to other people, and with which they play football all the year round. At all events, no bank, whether a chartered bank or a savings bank, should be authorized to lend money on stocks that are not margined to at least 25 per cent of their value.
It may be said that these suggestions would to a large extent stop the operations of the stock exchanges. I am not a high financier and I cannot say what the result would be if stock exchange operations were limited, but I share in the opinion of the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) when he said, that these operations could be greatly curtailed without any detriment whatever to the community. I have always thought that the idea that people should be left to speculate as widely as they want is a wrong idea, kept up by stock brokers for their own purposes. Even the pe pie who have been fleeced by them are accomplices of such a false opinion. At any rate no damage will be done to legitimate speculation if the hand of the law separates the good from the bad, the robbers from the robbed, and protects those who are fleeced from those who fleece them. I have spoken at great length and it may be that the newspapers will say of me, as they said a month ago, that I speak feelingly because I have been injured by these people. I wish Mr. BOURASSA.
to say, not because it is of any importance, that I have never in my life had any dealings with stock brokers, that I have never speculated, that I do not even know what it is to speculate, except by the sad relations which I have received from people who are just as intelligent, just as honest, just as good business men as those who have robbed them under the protection of the law.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What is the Act ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: The Central Canada Loan & Savings Company, Chap. 97. I do not say on" single word against this company, for I believe it is an exceedingly prosperous and well-managed company.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then the Act is all right ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: No, that company has the power, and it depends entirely upon its management whether it will exercise that power or not. Let me read the powers that are given it:
The new company shall have the power to lend moneys on the security of, or purchase or invest in-
(a.) mortgages or hypothecs upon freehold or leasehold real estate, or other immovables ;
(b.) the debentures, bonds, stocks and other securties of any government or any municipal
corporation or school corporation, or any chartered bank

The only thing I was able to accomplish- and I only succeeded in doing it after a great deal of pressure and after showing the evils that would result if my suggestion were not adopted-was to have these words put in :
-to the extent of not more than twenty per cent of the paid up capital stock of any such bank

That clause has been added to the charter of every other company of a similar nature since then.
-or incorporated company, if incorporated by or under the authority of the parliament of Canada, or of the legislature of any former or present or any future province of Canada; provided that the new company shall not lend upon the security of, or purchase or invest in bills of exchange or promissory notes.
The new company may borrow money and receive money upon deposit, upon such terms as to interest, security and otherwise as may be agreed on, and may issue its bonds, debentures and other securities for moneys borrowed; provided always that the total of the new company's liabilities to the public outstanding from time to time shall not exceed four times the amount paid upon its capital stock; and provided further that the amount held on deposit shall not at any time exceed the aggregate amount of its then paid-up and unimpaired capital and of its cash actually in hand or deposited in any chartered bank in Canada and belonging to the new company.
So long as the new company is indebted for money received upon deposit, the total amount of its real estate and its mortgages or hypothecs upon freehold or leasehold real estate or immovables shall not, from time to time exceed eighty per cent of its total assets
The new company shall transmit, on or before the 1st of March in each year, to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, a statement in duplicate, to the 31st December, inclusive, of the previous year, verified by the oath of the president or vice-president and the manager, setting out the capital stock of the new company and the proportion thereof paid-up, the assets and liabilities of the new company, the amount and nature of the investments made by the new company, both on its own behalf and on the behalf of others, and the average rate of interest derived therefrom, distinguishing the classes of securities, and also the extent and value of the lands held by it, and such other details as to the nature and extent of the business of the new company as the Minister of Finance and the Receiver General requires, and in such form and with such details as he from time to time requires and prescribes ; but the new company shall in no case be bound to disclose the name or private affairs of any person who has dealings with it.
That charter, against the protest of the banks of Canada, was passed by this House, although the evils to which it would give rise were pointed out very strongly by myself and one or two others. I am within the mark when I say that at least fifteen. or twenty other companies have come to this House and obtained the same powers. It was under a similar clause that the two

unfortunate companies in St. Tliomas came to grief. They made foolish investments, under the authority of this clause, which they could not have made had that power not been given them. They had the right under their charters to invest their whole capital and deposits in the wildest of wild cat mining schemes. They could, between the 1st of January and any time one or two months after, invest all their capital, and it would be fifteen months after that date before the shareholders would learn how their money had been invested. You cannot by any law prevent people speculating in some thing or other. People who will not smoke, people who will not indulge In cigarettes or drink, will bet on borse races, and the sooner we will recognize this universal tendency of our human nature, the better. But there is one way in which a government can minimize the evil, and that is by taking great care that all companies, having the stamp and authority of government, shall be subject to restrictions in this respect and be forced-especially all companies which borrow money and invest it in such fluctuating securities-to send out to the shareholders and the public, at short dates, statements showing the condition of their affairs, just as the banks have to do. Just imagine what the condition would be if our banks were not required from month to month to give their statements to the public. That is a check which keeps banking within its proper limits and prevents abuse. How can you prevent men in a town like St. Thomas from buying on margin, when they are told that the directors of this, that and the other company are piling up profits by speculation ? That is what was the trouble in St. Thomas. Those directors gave out that they were making large sums of money out of stocks, and I dare say they did for a time, and the result was a perfect craze of wild speculation in that district, from which it has suffered very seriously, apart altogether from these particular failures. This government has laid itself open to blame by giving a free hand to financial companies applying for incorporation.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Had either the companies referred to authority in its Act of incorporation to buy stocks on margin ?
Mr. OSLER, They could do anything they liked.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would like the hon. gentleman to read the clause which gave them authority to buy stocks on margin.


Edmund Boyd Osler: One need not buy stocks on margin to lose money. As a matter of fact, these companies have the power to buy stocks on margin, because they can lend money to any individual to enable that individual to buy stocks. They also bought Mr. OSLER.
stocks on margin themselves. That is shown by the reports we have so far.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Whether or not the powers given to these loan companies were too great or too little is a fair subject of debate, and I am not going to assert that our legislation is in all respects perfect. But I am rather surprised to learn from the hon. gentleman of the heroic efforts which he made to prevent the government giving certain powers to these companies. 1 have no recollection of any such efforts or of the measure to which he refers, but, according to his own statement, it was a private Bill. Of course, the government, in a sense, are responsible for all legislation, and in that respect we have to accept responsibility ; but the responsibility is not limited to the government, but is shared by every hon. member who votes for the measure. My recollection of the matter in question is that it was in no sense a party measure ; and in looking through 'Hansard' hurriedly, I cannot find that my hon. friend ever opened his mouth against it. It may be that in the Banking and Commerce Committee my hon. friend gave expression to his valuable views ; but I should imagine, if lie had very strong views and thought it a matter so important, he would not have been content to confine his observations to that committee, but would have come before the House and put himself on record against the clause. From the hurried glance I have been able to give over * Hansard,' I cannot find that there was any debate on the Bill. In the index there is no reference, under the name of my hon. friend, to this Bill. If in the Banking and Commerce Committee he expressed the views he has just now given to the House and others differed from him, of course, he is entitled to credit to that extent. But. if he implies that this was a great question as between the government and the opposition, or that on this question the government insisted upon the adoption of a certain course by this legislature against his judgment and that of hon. gentlemen opposite, that is hardly a fair presentation of the case. Many a clause appears in private Bills which is the subject of discussion, and it would hardly be justifiable for an hon. gentleman, years afterwards, to say that they were all the work of the government. The hon. gentleman will have to share with us some of this responsibility, when it does not appear that he made any effort to prevent the passing of the clause, even to the extent of voting agains it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) is right. I do not remember having taken any steps against it in this House. I knew it was useless. A protest, a very strong protest, was made in the committee. But the Finance Minister appeared and championed the Bill a's strong-

ly as I and some others opposed it, so I felt sure it was quite useless to go further in the matter. But to the extent of not raising my voice in protest in this House, I am responsible.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: May I be permitted to contradict the hon. gentleman's statement (Mr. Osier's) on the personal point. He said that I appeared and championed the Bill. Nothing occurred that would justify that statement.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to point out to the Finance Minister that I raised, in this House, during the present session, exactly the same objection as that spoken of by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) as having been raised by him years ago. This was in connection with Bill (No. 24), which is not a private, but a public Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What Bill is that?


Robert Laird Borden: It is an Act to extend the power of loan companies.
I have it before me. The effect of the Bill was to confine its operation to a very few companies ; I think it was stated at the time that it was confined to practically one company. It did not contain exactly the provisions referred to with regard to the power to purchase shares in a bank. But I will read my hon. friend the Minister of Finance the clause, which I think, passed in exactly these words, with the exception I have mentioned :
1. Every loan company, in addition to the powers vested in it. may from time to time leud money on the security of, or purchase or invest in, (a.) mortgages or hypothecs upon freehold or leasehold real estate or other immovables, (b.) the debentures, bonds, stocks and other securities of any government or any municipal or school corporation, or of any chartered bank or incorporated company if incorporated by rhe parliament of Canada or by the legislature of any former or present or future province of Canada, but not including bills of exchange or promissory notes.
I raised the objection that this would enable this loan company-if it applied only to one company-to invest its moneys in the stock of any wild-cat company in Canada, and I did not think that was a judicious power to confer on any such company, as the results, in some case at least, woujd be very likely to be those pointed out by my hon. friend from West Toronto. The hon. Minister of Finance, if I remember correctly, said that the power had been granted to other loan companies, and no evil results had followed, and there did not appear to be any reason for withholding it from this company or the companies to which this Bill applied. I did protest against that policy. I thought it very bad policy to give these companies these enormous powers of investment and purchase. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) asked this question: Is a company of that kind authorized to purchase on margin? If that hon. gentleman had thought for a moment, be would have seen that that did not affect the question we are discussing. The hon. member for Labeile (Mr. Bourassa) also confused the matter very much in the remarks he made. But, suppose this company goes to a broker and says: We want to buy so much stock, and we will pay a margin of 10 or 20 per cent. Or, suppose it buys from the same broker that stock and then takes the stock to a bank and borrows against it all but 10 or 20 per cent. You may call one transaction gambling and the other transaction not gambling if you like. But, so far as the results are concerned, they must be the same upon the person who engages in the transaction.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The transaction is illegal on the part of the company. It may not be illegal on the part of the brokers, who may be incorporated with certain power as a stock exchange, but it would be illegal on the part of the loan company.


Robert Laird Borden: Illegal to purchase the stocks and then pledge them?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, to buy them on margin.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know how my hon. friend is going to make the distinction, so far as the results are concerned. The result to the unfortunate shareholders would be exactly the same.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I admit the result would be


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, the result would be the same. That emphasizes the point made by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier). It is absolutely wrong to confer such wide powers on any loan company, the shareholders of which have the right to assume' that the funds placed in the bands of their directors shall be invested in securities which are not affected b'y the contingencies to which mining companies of various kinds are subject in this country.
My hon. friend from Labeile has taken up a good deal of time this afternoon. I do not propose to direct much attention to his remarks. The first and most important point is that, for the most part, his remarks seem to constitute an attack upon the private affairs of a gentleman in the city of Montreal who is not in this House to defend himself. So far as the speech of the hon. member for Labeile amounts to a personal attack, I am bound to say that I do not think it was in very good taste. I have heard very great indignation expressed in this House with regard to criticism of government officials, even in respect of a public matter, on the ground that they

were not here to defend themselves. But here, in respect not of a public matter, but of a private matter, we have the house of Messrs. Forget dragged before this parliament to the extent of an hour's speech, mainly devoted to the discussion of their private affairs. If these gentlemen are guilty of the dishonourable conduct the bon. member for Labelle has seen fit to attribute to them, the courts of the country are open to any who are aggrieved. For my part, I decline to believe any of the statements reflecting on these gentlemen. I decline also to believe that stock brokers, as a class, are the scoundrels that this bon. gentleman undertakes to say they are. I have no doubt that some stock brokers, as some members of any other class, are not honourable, may be even guilty of fraud. But, even though that is the case, it does not become any lion, gentleman in this House to stigmatize these men as gamblers, perpetrating fraud every day of their lives. When my hon. friend from Labelle talks about gambling he ought' to look at both sides of the case. If these brokers are gamblers, what are the men of whom he talks so sympathetically who give these brokers the instructions under which they act? If these stock brokers carry out the instructions that necessarily involve gambling, the men who give the instructions are as- much gamblers as tiie stock brokers themselves. My hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) was very anxious, some time ago, for an investigation into these transactions. Perhaps he had better not go far away from this House to begin an investigation of that kind. And the investigation should not stop short at stock brokers. So far as the law is concerned, it has been put in operation in some parts of the country. I believe that in Nova Scotia indictments have been found against some stock brokers under the very section of the statutes to which my hon. friend has referred. But as to the remedies which are suggested by my hon. friend from Labelle, I should hardly think that he was very serious in some of those which he advanced to the House. One of the suggestions he made was, so far as I could understand him, that when any gentleman desired to take, as the term is 'a little flyer ' on stock, he should not be permitted to do so unless he put up a larger margin than is the custom at the present time; that is to say, he should be allowed to gamole, as the hon. member termed it, but he must gamble under certain precautions. I do not know whether that remedy would commend itself to the Minister of Justice, or whether he thinks that idea could be carried out. Now, I have no doubt that this dealing in stocks has become a great evil in Canada; but so have many other things become great evils. For example, as the hon. member for Toronto pointed out, we have had land booms in
Mr. BORDER (Halifax.-,
Oic North-west, we have had land booms in Manitoba, we have had land booms in the city of Winnipeg. I think even in the city of Toronto we have had something that was described ten or twelve years ago as a land boom.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) And Sydney, C.B.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Toronto land boom was a reality.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course we all know that when people in any country see their friends making large sums of money by speculative means, by a sudden increment of value, whether in stocks, lauds or anything else, the community as a whole is very apt to' lose its head and to indulge in speculations that sooner or later will bring their logical and legitimate results. That is the condition of affairs in Canada at the present time. Prices of certain stocks in this country went up very suddenly and rapidly, people saw their friends around them making a great deal of money, and men who could not afford to take risks in anything, took risks in stocks. Some people went headlong into stock speculation and many of them most unfortunately lost everything they had. I doubt very much whether you can cure an evil of that kind by legislation. I am not prepared to say that you might not be able to mitigate it to some extent by legislation, in the way of amendments to the criminal code. No doubt, the Minister of Justice will turn his attention to that subject. But as for the remedies which the hon. member for Labelle has suggested, I do not see the slightest adequacy in any one of them. Suppose you licensed every broker in Canada and put him under periodical inspection from time to time, does not the hon. member for Labelle, who is so familiar with this subject, know that people all over Canada could speculate through brokers in the United States, as they do already ? The hon. member for Labelle. who is prepared to say that he knows that nine-tenths of the stock operations in Canada are in the nature of gambling, surely must be familiar with that fact, and I would like to know how he would deal with it. If you license every broker in Canada and put him under the most rigid inspection, you would still have people in Canada dealing with brokers in the United States.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do we not license insurance companies ?


Robert Laird Borden: Well, we do license insurance companies, but I am bound to say that I do not exactly understand the relevancy of the hon. gentleman's question. If you licensed every broker in Canada, even if you abolished every broker in Canada, people in Canada would still have ample opportunity to speculate in stocks with United States brokers. So, I say, I

(Jo not believe that you can absolutely cure this evil by legislation, though, as I have already said, I am not prepared to say that the Minister of Justice might not mitigate it to some extent by" amendments to the criminal code, which would prevent these operations being conducted on so large a scale.
Now, the hon. member for Labelle took occasion also to reflect seriously upon their Lordships of the Privy Council. I have no doubt they will be very much pained when they learn that their decision does not commend itself to his own sound and well considered judgment. I think the hon. member for Labelle perhaps overlooked the fact, when he was contrasting the Law Lords with the members of the Judicial Committee, that those two bodies are composed of exactly the same learned judges. At least that was the case up to a few years ago, I have not examined the personnel of those two bodies lately. But I know that a few years ago every Law Lord was a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I think that is the case still with the possible exception of the Chief Justice. When the hon. member reflects in scathing language upon the legal acumen of the members of the Judicial Committee, he reflects on the legal acumen of the Law Lords who are exactly the same persons.
Mr. BOtfRASSA. I did not reflect on the legal standing of the gentlemen who gave the judgment, but I reflected on their action in that case where they only heard one side, and then gave judgment, ignoring entirely a part of the evidence of the record.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend shows how little he understands about these matters, and how careful he ought to be before he criticises subjects that he is not very familiar with. If he knew anything about arguing a case ex parte, he would know that when a case is argued ex parte the appellant goes to a court to some extent handicapped, because the court in such cases always argues the case for the other side. I argued one case myself before their Lordships of the Judicial Committee where the other side did not appear, and the present Attorney General of England, Sir Robert Finlay, who was the senior counsel in that case, remarked, before we went into court, that it was most unfortunate for us that there was no one on the other side, because the court, in arguing the case for the absent party, is sometimes apt to take a very strong view of the case from the standpoint of the respondent ; therefore counsel always desire the respondent to be represented rather than have to argue the case ex parte with the respondent absent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did you win the case ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and it overruled a long series of decisions in Nova Scotia and two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, but there is not a lawyer
in the province of Nova Scotia at the present time who would be disposed to argue that the judgment of the Privy Council in that case was not a sound and correct one.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the hon. gentleman allow me ? As to that case of Forget and Ostigny to which he refers, I must say that the judgment of the Privy Council being an ex parte judgment has not been recognized by the judges of Quebec, because they say, and I have myself heard the Chief Justice of Quebec say in a similar case, that they cannot accept that jurisdiction because Ostigny was not represented.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course I am not so familiar with the rules of the hon. gentleman's province and do not know what weight is to be attached to authorities of that kind. But if he will examine the English reports during 'the last ten years, he will find the case, which I argued ex parte, to have been cited by counsel over and over again at least half a dozen times, and referred to and relied on by courts of the highest standing in England. That would simply seem to indicate that there is a different rule in different countries. It has been the rule in our own courts, and I know in the courts of England as well, to make no distinction as to the authority of such cases. The hon. member for Labelle, I think, desired to say something to me on that matter.
Mr. BOuRASSA. It is immaterial. I was going to say, that, according to the theory of my hon. friend, it would be better for a party engaging in a lawsuit to have no lawyer to plead for him.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is treason.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not sure that it would not be better sometimes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am afraid that my hon. friend is speaking without consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I must apologize to my hon. friend. I was about to say to the hon. member for Labelle that if he will go to the volumes of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada he will find many cases-I remember one from m!y own province-which have been argued ex-pnrte and in which the appellant has failed. The case of Lane vs. Macdonald from my own province was argued about twenty years ago ex-parte in the Supreme Court and the appellant failed. The court argues the case for the absent respondent and sometimes convinces itself ; and many_ lawyers, as I know, because I am speaking from experience as a( member of the bar and in that I can appeal to the hon. Minister of Justice, would rather, in the final court of apppeal. have the other side represented by counsel than to argue the case ex-parte.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: What has the hon. member to say about that part of the judg-

ment of the Privy Council where they declared a fact which was directly contradicted by the evidence and based" their judgment upon it ?


Robert Laird Borden: I have never heard of the case to which the hon. gentleman referred until to-day. X have not examined it but I would hardly be inclined to think that so important a" part of the evidence had been overlooked by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.


Mr. MONET.: If the respondent had had a lawyer there to represent him he would have pointed that out.


Robert Laird Borden: That may be very true and there may have been some question overlooked. If any measure can be devised for the purpose of"eontrolling stock speculation in Canada I for one would be prepared to give it my hearty support, but I am afraid that I can hardly gather from the hon. member for Labelle 'anything that would contribute very much to that end. Stock speculation is undoubtedlv an evil, but it is an evil that, for the most part, it is almost impossible to cure bv any legislation.


Mr. JABED ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, in view of what has been said on this question by the hon. member for Da-belle (Mr. Bourassa) and the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) I think I shall say a few words. I do not rise to say a woi-d against any private individual. I think we have only a right to speak of those who have inflicted an injury upon the community. I do not know whether my hon. friend from Labelle has proved his case, that an injury has been inflicted upon himself or upon others but in regard to what the hon. member for West Toronto states.
I am sure that the case he made out is correct and that is the case of the two loan companies in St. Thomas in the county which I have the honour to represent. They acted under the authority of this government in dealing in margins and they brought about perhaps the greatest calamity that has ever happened in our county. I think the attention of the government having been (Wiled to section 9 of chap. 01. they should see to it that no other companies are allowed to fall into the same condition ns that in which we now find the Atlas Loan Company and the Elgin Loan Company of St. Thomas. I know that the people there took stock in these loan companies believing that they were doing a legitimate business in loaning money on mortgages on landed property. Of course, there is very little risk in that. When I took stock" in one of these companies I believed that they were doing business in that way, but. I found that they had come to this parliament and got permission to do an illegitimate business, as I think, and the consequence is that there are widowed women, retired farmers, and


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: others who had made a competence for themselves who w ill be obliged to go to work again or go to the poorliouse simply because they have been fleeced of the earnings of their lifetime. I think, the government's attention having been called to this, that they should see that no other companies are allowed to engage in stock speculation as these companies have done with such disastrous results. I have nothing more to say except to express the hope that section 9 of the Act, to which I have referred, will be amended and amended this session.


Mr.   I@: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say that it seems to me that there is a good deal in the argument put before us by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) that we should make some effort to improve the law, and to that extent, for my own part, after what I have seen in the city of Montreal, I would be disposed to support the motion of my hon. friend. Within the last eight or ten years the fever of speculation has developed in the city of Montreal to an extent which has brought ruin to a very large number of people, to a great many families and particularly to a very large number of young men to whom it appears, as it used not to appear when I was a young man, that the best way to' obtain a suitable position in life is to acquire wealth by avoiding the observance of the law of daily work. As a rule, in the hope of acquiring wealth suddenly, they get money in any manner possible, invest that money in paying a small margin upon stock and not infrequently they are ruined and sometimes landed in the penitentiary as a result of this extraordinary tendency which is now so prevalent In Canada. I suppose it is the same in other parts of the country as it is in the city of Montreal, but I speak of Montreal more particularly because I know what is going on there. I am like the hon. member for Labelle. a man who is not given to speculation myself. I have never speculated or bought shares of any kind, but from what I have seen I am very sure that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Labelle would lie a step in the proper direction ; I refer to that part of the remedy which he proposed, that every transaction which takes place upon margin should be made more serious and more difficult by the imposition of a heavier margin. I say this with all due reservation, because I am not very conversant with these operations. I am almost sure that a law of that kind would have a great effect in the way of a deterrent from the reckless speculation which is indulged in in the city of Montreal. The provisions of chap. 42. 51 Vic. may be very good as far as they g,\ but it has not been found possible to apply section 1 to check reckless speculation and I would like to say to my hon. friend, that, being, probably, in the same situation as myself, he has lent too willing an ear

to those of this friends who have gone to the offices of brokers and lost money. He has lent too willing an ear to those who have lost money, probably through the legitimate employment by them of the firm of Mr. Forget, and the consequence of that is that my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) very reck-lesslv has maligned in this House this afternoon a man who in no way deserves the censure directed against him.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have merely chosen Mr. Forget as a most striking example.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend has been reckless in doing so, because he has very nearly coupled with Mr. Forget's name the word ' robber ' and ' despoiler of the poor.'


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It was Mr. Dansereau who did that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend has made a mistake in quoting that controversy between Mr. Dansereau and Mr. Forget, because it was a personal matter, and we have no means of verifying what are the facts. I would say to my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) that he has treated with a great deal of flippancy the case of Ostigny and Forget. That was a case which interested the whole bar, and the dissent of Mr. Justice Hall was considered extremely strong, and it certainly justified the brokers of the city of Montreal-than whom I do not know a more respectable, a more honest and straight-forward and a more loyal set of men-it certainly justified them in taking the steps which they did to bring that case as far as the Privy Council My hon. friend has qualified that step, which is taken every day in the practice of our profession, as a conspiracy to wrest from the Privy Council a verdict favourable to the brokers and their alleged infamous transactions. My hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) must be mistaken. My hon. friend knows that that case was fully discussed before the Privy Council. I have not $een the report lately, but it was considered by every member of the bar at that time to be a very strong judgment indeed, and for my own part I was impressed, as were a great many of my confreres, with the idea that the Privy Council in upholding the dissent of Mr. Justice Hall had interpreted the law as it really is in our province. I think my hon. friend from Gaspfi is mistaken in saying that our courts will not abide by the holding of the Privy Council in the case of Ostigny and Forget.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is all a question of fact.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes. My hon. friend referred to the case of Roy vs. Canadian Pacific Railway. Well, in that case admissions were made which perhaps gave reason to the Privy Council in judging as it did. Very important admissions were made by my friend Mr. Gouin, who argued the case before the Privy Council, and it was upon these admissions' the Privy Council rendered judgment in the case of Roy. At any rate, I have never heard it alleged that the Privy Council made a mistake on the questions of fact as they found them in the case of Ostigny vs. Forget. My hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) is surely mistaken in holding up to this House a man of the position of Senator Forget as one given to speculation with the object of ruining his clients-I think that is a fair interpretation of what my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) said. I do not mean to say that that information has not been conveyed to the hon. gentleman by parties who might have suffered in speculation.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I would not like my hon. friend to go so far as that in the interpretation of what I said. What I said was that, as the law stands now and as the practice of the brokers is, it may be that in times of a crisis they are led and almost forced to speculate against their clients. I never said that that was the object of Senator Forget or any other broker under ordinary circumstances.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very glad to hear my hon. friend say that, because the senator- whom I am not specially charged to defend, but who is an old friend of mine-is a man who occupies a very high position in the city of Montreal. 'He is a governor of our university, and a benefactor of that university, which stands in great need of assistance. He occupies a very high position in respect to all our philanthropic works in the city of Montreal, and I have no hesitation in saying that he generally enjoys the confidence of every class of the community. My hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) is aware of that. I may say also that as one of our French Canadian fellow-citizens who have entered the world of finance and begun at the foot of the ladder, he has attained a position unattained previously by any of his compatriots, and which has reflected a great deal of credit, not only on himself, but on his fellow French Canadians.


Samuel Hughes: Reference has been made by some of the speakers to speculation in respect to land in Manitoba and the North-west, and I wish to say a word as to that. I do not refer to any boom in Winnipeg or Toronto or any city, because lands rise and fall in value in these citie^ regularly. But I want to point out that the records of thirty years in the city of Winnipeg concerning the lands in Manitoba and the North-west show that there has been a steady increase in the price of these lands, and that there never has been any set back in that price. These records show on the average a steady increase of 12 per cent in the value of farm lands throughout Manitoba and the North-west.


Mr. ROBERT HOLMES (West Huron).: I have no desire to follow the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) through his lengthy and eloquent address, but I simply rise for the purpose of endorsing generally what he
*
7039	COMMONS	7040
has said. The argument has been advanced by the member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) that because some people have a tendency to do certain evil acts, there is no use in passing legislation to prevent them from committing these acts. If that argument were followed to its logical conclusion, we might as well do away with all legislation. Some people in their nature have a disposition to steal, and, per se, you should not legislate against stealing ; some people in their nature have a disposition to commit murder, and therefore, according to the logic of the hon. member (Mr. Osier), there is no use putting a law in the statute-book against murder. There are a good many people who are disposed to do immoral things, and according to the logic of the argument of the hon." member for Toronto, you should not legislate against these things. That is surely not a very logical argument, but coming from a man who is a stock broker, I am not surprised at It at all. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Labelle has performed a public service in calling the attention of parliament to this evil. If it is not an evil, then there are a great many people throughout the Dominion who are labouring under a misapprehension, because there are a great many people who are under the impression that speculation on margin, as we ordinarily understand the term, is gambling pure and simple. A great many people are also under the impression that it is contrary to good morals to tolerate this spirit of gambling under the name of speculation, and they believe that parliament should provide a remedy against it. I admit that it is exceedingly difficult to stop people from speculating, but there is a wide difference between speculating in_ real estate, for example, and dealing in stocks on margin, as the term is ordinarily used. There are a good many people who have suffered from stock speculation of one kind or another, and I do think that the people of this country would welcome any legislation that would have for its object the checking of this evil. Even if such legislation does not entirely stop the unwise and improvident spirit of gambling that is abroad in the land. I was somewhat amused at the leader of the opposition, who started out apparently with the object of getting his friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier) out of the hole in which he had landed, and who. for the time being, did not admit that there was any wrong in this system of speculation, but before the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) had finished his argument, he admitted that it was an evil, and he also thought that there might be some possibility of checking it if the Minister of Justice would introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code directed against it. The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) and the member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) both admitted the prevalence of the evil. Now, as to whether the government is or is not responsible for the speculation that was Mr. HOLMES.
carried on by the loan companies in the city of St. Thomas, that is neither here nor there. The hon. gentlemen succeed in establishing the fact that the loan companies in the city of St. Thomas were carrying on an illegal transaction in speculating in stocks, and as a result that they brought ruin and disaster on a good many families in the vicinity. These hon. gentlemen proved the contention of the hon. member from Labelle, although they did not intend to do so. If it is possible for the Minister of Justice to devote some attention to this matter, as I presume he will, by introducing an amendment to the Criminal Code, he will be doing something that will confer a great benefit on the country at large. The gambling spirit prevails to a very large extent, and whilst I admit without hesitation the impossibility of removing it entirely by legislation, I do say that we can check it to a very considerable extent. We have spent a great deal of time in this House, not only this session, but in previous sessions, in passing legislation that was vastly of less importance than the legislation which we have been invited to enact by the hon. member for Labelle.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: Mr. Speaker, when a few evenings ago I briefly referred to the subject which has been introduced this afternoon by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), I did not think that during this session it would receive as much attention from the members of this House as it has. On another occasion I may refer to the matter again, with a view to suggesting some remedy for, or some means of minimizing, the evil complained of. For that reason my remarks on this occasion shall be extremely brief. That an evil does exist has been fully demonstrated by the hon. member who has introduced the motion now in your hands.
I believe it to be a very widespread evil. We speak of the evil of intemperance ; but to my mind stock speculation brings more sorrow, more sadness, more broken hearts, more ruined homes, more suicides, than all the ravages of intemperance. We talk of the evils of the race track. Betting on the race track is nothing as compared with this evil. I have before me a quotation from the ' Canadian Sportsman ' on the subject of the worst kind of gambling. In this brief article, that paper, referring to a recent failure in the city of Toronto, says :
The class of business done by this firm has had much to do with the wild mad speculation that has had so large a number of our citizens in its grasp -within the piast year. Talk about injury being done this community by holding a race meeting conducted by gentlemen for two

weeks in the spring and one week in the autumn. There has been more citizens of Toronto ruined within the past six months and more misery caused by this carnival of reckless speculation than the Canadian turf is responsible for in the fifty years in its history.
We say, then, that it is an admitted fact that an evil does exist, and our duty here is, if possible, to find some means of minimizing that evil. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) says that speculation has long existed and will continue to exist-that it is natural to speculate. I believe there is a great deal in that ; but that should not deter us from finding some means of minimizing what we consider an illegitimate practice. We must be careful at the same time, however, to distinguish between the broker who carries on a legitimate business, and the broker who carries on what may fairly be called an illegitimate or improper business. The business of a broker is just as legitimate and honourable as that of the banker, the merchant, or any other man engaged in the ordinary walks of life ; and no reflection to my mind should be east on that class of the community who engage in a business which is proper and legitimate and a requirement of the country. Even dealing on margin may be legitimate business. Where there is no intention to deliver the goods that are sold on margin or to implement the purchase, then I consider the business becomes a dangerous and illegitimate business. If a man has not the means to implement his purchase, he is sure to become the loser in the end, because when stocks decline, time after time, and he puts up his money until he puts up his last dollar, if he is unable to continue to meet the decline or to take over the stock which he has purchased, he must become the loser and his family will become the sufferers. I said, however, that there is a kind of dealing on margin which I consider perfectly legitimate. For example, a grain merchant of Liverpool may purchase a million bushels of wheat in New York. Knowing that he has a sufficient margin between the price he pays for that wheat in New York and the price he expects to obtain for it in [DOT]Liverpool, provided there is no decline in price in the meantime, it is perfectly legitimate for him to sell short the million bushels, and so protect himself against loss. That is the kind of transaction that is engaged in every day of the year. That man has the goods to deliver, because he has purchased the wheat in New York, and is able to implement the transaction.
I remember very well when the Bill referred to by the hon. member for Labelle was introduced into this House by Sir John Thompson, I believe it was first introduced in the Senate by Sir John Abbott, then Prime Minister of Canada. That Bill was aimed against the small bucket shops which at that time were all through the country 221
doing a large business. It was not intended to operate against the legitimate broker at all. However, means were very soon found of evading that law, simply by changing the base of operations. Instead of consummating the transaction say in Toronto or Montreal, the broker simply wires the deal to New York or Buffalo, so as to have it completed outside of the country, and not commit an offence against the laws of Canada.
Dealing on margin no doubt makes speculation easy, because it is done with less money than would be required if a man were buying stocks and paying the full price for them. To my mind what we must keep in view in discussing this matter is the means by which we can make it more difficult to speculate on margin. I believe that if we can limit the supply of money which the broker controls and which he obtains on the security of the stocks he holds, then we will limit the operations of the broker, and minimize to a very large extent the dealings on margin. It has been suggested that it would be a good thing to license the broker. I would not approve of that. If you license a broker to do this class of busines, you simply make the business more respectable, and create an injury rather than a benefit. To my mind the business at the present time is too respectable. It has been transferred from the small bucket shop to the large broker's office, which at the present time is practically nothing more nor less than a big respectable bucket shop.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: Mr. Speaker, unlimited stock speculation is damaging to the country in many ways. It limits the amount of money available for the legitimate business of the country. That lias been proven over and over again. The money of the country that ought to be reserved for the legitimate business of the country is often sent out of the country to be used for stock speculation. The proof of that is apparent to-day. We have the most prosperous times probably that ever existed in the history of the continent of America ; but by reason of inflated companies, by reason of millions of stock being put on the market, that stock has not been digested, as the term is, and the result is that in the midst of this great prosperity there are many people labouring under financial difficulties brought on by stock speculation. Then, stock speculation is a danger to the loan companies and the insurance companies, the reserves of which sometimes find their way into the stock market. Other great interests are involved in that way. The loan companies have had the public faith in them largely reduced, and the time has arrived when this parliament should do something to prevent their investing the money of their depositors and shareholders- in some cases to the extent of ninety per



cent-in stock speculation and only ten per cent paid in advances on real estate, which is the purpose for which they were specially created. It is said that we cannot make a cure, but I believe some kind of a cure may be effected on the lines laid clown by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) this afternoon and the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) this evening. It is all right for men who have the money to go into stock speculation. People talk about betting on horse racing, but there is this to be said in its favour as against stock gambling, that when a man puts up his money on a horse, he knows how much he stands to lose, but when a man puts up his money on stocks on margin, he never knows how much more he will have to pay and what obligations are ahead of him. If some law could be passed whereby the amount of margin would be increased or which would prevent loan companies from advancing more than a certain percentage on speculative stocks, the evil would be largely reduced. A strong case has been made out, and I think it is incumbent on the government to introduce some kind of legislation in the way of curtailing the power which the loan companies have of lending money on stocks.


Dominique Monet: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has rendered, and will render a valuable service to the public generally, and to several people in particular, by presenting the motion put in your hands this afternoon. The hon. member merely stated aloud what every one in this country has been whispering for several mouths past: that there exists a system of speculation on margin of a most fraudulent character ; a system of speculation which is the more dangerous because it is apparently carried on under the cover of our statutory law of 1888. The facts on which my hon. friend for Labelle has based his argument have not been contradicted by any of the members who addressed the House, either on this side or on the opposite. Indeed, they are taken from the records of two cases looked upon as very famous and which were even taken to his Majesty's Privy Council in appeal. The facts referred to by my hon. friend and which are undeniable aud uucontradicted, are recounted in those cases.
My hon. friend also referred to certain facts in connection with the famous controversy which arose in the months of September and October last between Messrs. Dan-sereau and Forget. The hon. member for Labelle in pointing out with the eloquence and ability which we all recognize, the facts connected with this controversy, showed, I think, that fraud very often enters in these speculations which lie denounced.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) complained that the hon. member for Labelle had repeated some statements iii which mention was made of thieves and Mr. MACLEAN.
swindlers, because these expressions seemed to apply to Mr. Forget. It appears to me we should not be afraid of calling certain things by their name, and particularly of calling a thief a thief. When certain doings are recognized by us as bad, I do not see any reason why we should object to designating as they deserve those who are guilty of them. However, according to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, my hon. friend from Labelle had no right to qualify as he did the conduct of those who commit those acts considered as actual frauds.
I think the hon. member for Labelle might have gone a little further than he has done, in giving out certain facts in connection with this Dansereau-Forget dispute. For instance, if he had carried his inquiry a little further, he might have informed the House of the famous circumstance of the decease of the well-known broker, which Mr. Forget availed himself of to refuse paying to his client Dausereau what he owed him. I think the hon. member for Jacques Cartier would not object to our calling a robber he who actually robs his client.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: (Translation.) I think the hon. member is going a little too far. Rule 13 of the Rules and Regulations reads as follows :
No member shall use offensive words aga'.us: either House, or against any member thereof.


Dominique Monet: (Translation.) I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, when you called my attention to the rule, that the facts elicited by my remarks had taken place before Mr. Forget was a senator. That was the explanation which I proposed giving to the House. In any case I bow humbly to your ruling.
Every one admits that the facts elicited by that famous dispute are true. It is stated that after all the evil is not so great, since two cases only have been found where fraud was apparent. As a matter of fact nobody is very willing to admit having practised that kind of speculation, whether he has succeeded or not. That reminds me of Sir Charles Tupper's answer to the inquiry as to how he had made his fortune. The ex leader of the Conservative party, instead of admitting that he had speculated, merely stated that he had practised as a physician for three, four or five years, and in that way had amassed the immense wealth he possessed at the time.
If those who profit by speculation are in no way anxious to boast of the means whereby they have succeeded, the more so are the losers in the game reticent in this connection. The evil is much more widespread than seemed to think those who spoke after the hon. member for Labelle, and who, while not controverting the argument brought forward by this gentleman, seemingly claimed that it is not expedient to introduce a law regulating speculation on stock in this country.

The contrary is to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I have received letters from friends urging the necessity of a law that would protect these poor victims ; and here are the very words which one of them uses :
* To protect those who are foolish enough to do as I have done.'
It is evident that those who speculate on margin (I mean those who have only a few hundred or a few thousand dollars) are induced to do so by the advice of those who, certainly, control the rise or fall of stock in most cases and thus rapidly build up a fortune for themselves at the expense of the buyers.
The evil exists, and the fact having been brought to the attention of parliament, it seems that the Minister of Justice aud the government should find a means, not of interfering with legitimate speculation, but of putting a stop to that abusive speculation which leads these poor victims to the consequences we know.
I said a moment ago that those who do not succeed are far from being boastful of a practice which has caused their ruin ; and so, we are not made aware of the extent of the evil. But we all know, it is notorious to-day, that even professional men, notaries, Jiave been sent to the penitentiary merely because they had speculated with money put in their hands by individuals, often poor widows, who had only a few hundred dollars savings. These notaries had committed these frauds in an endeavour to meet the calls made on them to cover their margin on account of a sudden rise or fall of the stock, which they had been unable to foresee. In the same way bank cashiers have been obliged to quit the country because they could not refund the money which they had embezzled for purposes of speculation.
It suffices to mention these facts without giving names or entering into particulars, to show that the evil exists. Now, that evil having been brought to the attention of the House, it is its duty, as well as that of the government to try and find a remedy.
In conclusion, I wish to thank once more my hon. friend from T.abelle for having brought up that question. I think he has thereby rendered a great service to the public. The almost unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the members, who admitted that the evil existed, should induce the government, and more especially the Minister of Justice to take proper measures for remedying it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I concur very heartily, Mr. Speaker, in the remarks made by the hon. member for
Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and my hon. friend from Napierville (Mr. Monet) as regards this great evil. I have listened very attentively to that strong indictment made against gambling and what I may term gambling dens, established in our large cities. In my opinion, my hon. friend from Labelle has rendered' this country 2214
a real service, and I hope his speech will be read by all the young men just about entering on their career in this country. It has been my lot to represent in the district of Montreal-the largest judicial district of the province of Quebec and perhaps the largest in the whole Dominion-the Crown in my official capacity of Crown Prosecutor. I have seen, term after term, young men belonging to the notarial profession, for instance, standing indicted for forgery and fraud-for having taken the money which had been deposited with them by clients; and the cause of their being arrested and sent to the penitentiary was this passion to gamble on the stock exchange, even if they had to do it with money which did not belong to them. That is one of the saddest chapters of criminal history in Canada. I have witnessed such cases often, and therefore I can bear testimony to the truth of the picture presented by my hon. friend from Labelle. What does the hon. gentleman propose ? The remedy seems very simple, raise the margin. Go into the city of Montreal or anywhere else, where the stock exchange reigns supreme, and you will be told by young lawyers, notaries, and clerks, that they go to the brokers offices just as they would go to a club to play a game of cards or to a lottery. We have legislated against lotteries because they are based on chance. Why should we not legislate for the same reason against the stock exchange ? The young man with a salary of $500, or even with a salary of $1,000 per year, who goes to a broker and buys shares of say Dominion Iron and Steel or any other stock on a margin of five, ten or fifteen per cent, is nothing else, to my mind, but a common gambler : and if you would raise this margin to twenty-five per cent you will do the young men of this country the best service you can render them. This debate should be a great moral lesson to our young men. I am told by the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that it is better to preach by example, which is no doubt true, but unfortunately the best educated men of this country are addicted to that gambling frenzy. When men lose at the stock exchange, they accuse the fiscal policy of the government as the cause of their losses. Lately we have heard of many thousands of the young men of this country losing money through speculating in stocks, and the government was charged with being the cause of those losses. Well, is it not a fact that the real cause was the depression brought about by the stock brokers themselves ? I believe that the depression was due to their own quarrels, as we have been told this afternoon. I would urge the adoption of this resolution; indeed, this debate will furnish a highly moral lesson, which I hope will bear fruit.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: That there is urgent need of legislation to pre-

vent stock gambling, if you can prevent by legislation, no one will deny. But tbe question is what could you do by legislation to prevent it ? I think that the most effective remedy would be to compel actual transfer and registration at the time a sale of stock is made. X have always thought that every stock broker should have the stock on hand before selling it, and when he sells it, he should immediately put the sale on record and transfer the stock. Monthly returns should be sent the government of actual transactions; and if it be found that a broker has been dealing with stocks not in his possession, he should be punished by a fine. To sell stocks short or stocks which you do not own should be made a punishable offence.
This will pretty effectually stop it, so far as I know. Now, it may be said that the variety of stocks is so great that this could not be done. When stocks are listed they become, in a measure, public property. At least, they are negotiable property and it is an easy matter to take record of them. Stock brokers do not deal in wild-cat schemes, mining speculations and stock of that kind. They handle stocks for which there is a public demand or stocks which have intrinsic value. If a stock broker takes the responsibility of handling stocks at all the first requisite should be that the stock should be registered. Then, a record should be kept of every transaction and a return made somewhat similar to the return made by the banks, so that the government could trace the stock, know whether the broker was dealing on margin or selling something that he did not own. If the transactions were confined to bona fide purchases and sales, it seems to me, not so much harm would be done. I believe that probably it would be an additional safety to compel a purchaser to put up a larger margin. Many deal in stocks on a small margin who would not touch them if the margin were greater. I am not so pronounced on that point as I am in believing that every stock transaction should be registered and that there should be a monthly return of every broker who deals in stocks, and, if it is shown that he is dealing in stocks he does not own. he should be fined.
The ? MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick). I believe that the question raised by the motion of my hon. friend from La belle (Mr. Bourassa) is one well worthy the consideration of this House. I have listened patiently and carefully to all that has been said in order that I might gather suggestions that would be useful in any effort I may make to remedy the grievances which exist. My hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) must bear in mind that this question is one over which we have only a partial control. A transaction in stocks is more a matter of civil contract which is to be regulated, to a large extent, by the law of the Mr. SPROULE.
particular province in which the transaction takes place.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who gives the stock broker authority to carry on his business ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is a matter of local concern. We can only deal with that question here so far as we may make the dealing in stocks a penal offence. I agree with all that has been said about the evils that have resulted from stock gambling transactions. L have in my own experience known of cases of the greatest possible hardship. I am quite within the limits of what I know to be absolutely accurate, when I say that the Yille Marie Bank of Montreal was wrecked as the result of! stock gambling engaged in by persons connected with the bank. I have known cases of young men engaged in banks-I have one before my mind now-a young man who took $40,000 of the bank's money in one month for the purpose of stock gambling. I know a case which resulted in suicide. These are very serious and real evils, evils for which we feel there ought to be some remedy. Yet it is very easy to say that we ought to stop these things. Before we take any action it is better to carefully and accurately consider the method to be adopted to arrive at the end we all have in view. It is idle to call all stock brokers villians and scoundrels. I listened carefully to what was said by my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) and I am sure that he did not use a word that could be construed into a wish to apply such terms to all the members of a respectable calling in the community. All who have had experience in affairs know1 that stock brokers are as respectable as any other class and as well deserving of our consideration. All stock dealing is not criminal ; all stock dealing is not improper ; all stock dealing is not to be discouraged. A man knows of a stock he thinks is likely to rise. He goes to a broker and asks him to buy a hundred shares of that stock. The broker says : I will buy the stock, and yoxi will give me ten, fifteen or twenty per cent margin. The broker purchases the stock ; but, to do so, he must pay the then market value and must supplement the amount advanced by the client by borrowing or advancing the balance of the purchase price. If he charges a commission for this service there is nothing wrong about the transaction, nothing even to be discouraged. He makes the purchase, registers the stock in the name of the client, if the client pays in full, or, if not. he registers it in his own name and becomes responsible to the bank that makes the advance. No doubt, he transfers the shares to the bank as collateral security for the advance. In case the broker pledges his own credit, in addition to the security, to the bank for the purpose of getting that advance to accommodate his client. There is nothing wrong in all this, nothing to

cause us to condemn all stock brokers' transactions. But that which is wrong, that which is to be condemned, that for which we should endeavour to find a remedy, is the case of a man who goes to a so-called stock broker-because these people are not worthy of the name of brokers-and goes through the form of purchasing so many shares when he and the broker with whom he deals knows that there is no intention on the part of the broker to buy a share of the stock, much less to transfer it to his client. In such a case the client simply puts up a certain amount of money for margin ; if the stock rises, the difference between the then current price of the stock and the rise, in addition to the margin, goes to the credit of the client. If there is a decline in the price, then, of course, if it is sufficient, the client, loses his margin. That sort of stock brokerage illustrates the old rule, ' heads I win, tales you lose.-the broker being the man in the position of advantage. If we can reach that form of gambling-for it is nothing else- we shall go far to bring about a remedy for the evils pointed out. I have not considered the matter very carefully, but it appears to me that the statute my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassat referred to this afternoon would go far in the way of remedying the evil, if it had not been amended after it came back from the Senate. That statute to which my hon. friend referred is a part of onr Criminal Code. That article provides :
Every one is guilty of any indictable offence and liable to five years' imprisonment, and to a fine of five hundred dollars, who, with the intent to make gain or profit by the rise or fall in price of any stock of any incorporated or unincorporated company or undertaking, either in Canada or elsewhere or of any goods, wares or merchandise-
(a.) Without the bona fide intention of acquiring any such shares.
But here is the apparently harmless amendment that was made to Abbott s Bill when it came back from the Senate, and which I think makes the whole section inoperative :
But it is not an offence if the broker of t.he purchaser receives delivery, on his behalf-
-remember, it is the broker who takes delivery-
__of the article sold, notwithstanding that such
broker retains or pledges the same as security for the advance of the purchase money or any part thereof.
As was pointed out by the member for Labelie, a broker may have five different clients, each of whom purchases say 500 shares, and he, the broker, may only own 500 shares, he can use these shares so as to evade responsibility if proceeded against under the Criminal Code notwithstanding that with respect to the 2,000 shares the transaction is a mere gamble, and against such transactions we should legislate if
possible. But before applying a remedy we must find out the nature of the disease, then after a little consideration no doubt we will find some kind of a remedy for the disease.
I would like, before sitting down, to make a reference to what was said this afternoon about the case of Forget and Ostigny. I think the hon. member for La-belle went a little too far in his criticisms of their Lordships of the Privy Council. The Forget and Ostigny case was merely one of fact. The question was as to whether a particular contract they were called upon to consider was a gaming contract within the meaning of an article of the civil code of our province. Three judges of the lower court held that, as a matter of fact, it was not, while their Lordships of the Privy Council held as a matter of fact that it was, reversing the decision of the lower court and holding that it was a gambling transaction. That was a question upon which men may differ. I would like to say this, that I consider the right of appeal to the Privy Council as a great safeguard to the people of this country, and to the province of Quebec in particular. The Privy Council are far away from our little local troubles and difficulties; they are men of broad instincts, men of great learning, aud I think I may say, if the hon. member for Labelie will permit me, speaking of one who has passed away, that one of the greatest civil law lawyers I ever knew was a member of the Privy Council, Lord Watson. He had been trained in the law of Scotland, which is to a large extent based upon the same principles as our law in the province of Quebec. He knew his civil law thoroughly. I remember having myself heard him correct a quotation from Pothier that was made by a lawyer from our province, and he corrected him in such a way as to indicate not only that he knew Pothier, but what is far better, that he understood him. Now, there are other great lawyers, Lord Davy, for instance, who also knows something about our civil law, and who is certainly one of the best Roman law lawyers living at present within the limits of the British empire; and a man who knows his Roman law has a very good foundation for the civil law in our province. Let us not be too prone in criticism of the Privy Council. I have been before them, and I know that they care very little about the petty differences and difficulties that trouble us in this country. Their only desii'e is to do what is just and fair. They have got the capacity, they have got the learning, and they have got the desire to do what is fair and just. I may conclude by saying that I think the hon. member for Labelie has drawn our attention to a grievance, to a grievance that requires a remedy. I cannot say that I can do much for him at the present time, but insofar as my limited knowledge and experience go, I am entirely at his service, and I shall en-

deavour, so far as possible to find a remedy for the grievance he has suggested. But I must ask him, if he will permit me, to withdraw his motion.


Hon. J. I. TARTE (Montreal, St. Mary's).: Several lion, gentlemen who have addressed the House have taught a lesson to the young men of this country. They told them that they ought not to gamble. I quite agree with the advice that has been tendered to the young generation; but knowing what I know, and what is well known in this House and outside of this House, I think we should begin our education of the young generation by setting them an example. When Ministers of the Crown, both in this parliament and in local legislatures, when members of parliament, when secretaries of ministers, when men who pretend to know every thing, that is going on, gamble and buy stocks right and left, it is not surprising that young lawyers and young clerks gamble and speculate. I say it again, when members of parliament, when ministers, not one, but several of them-X do not make any personal allusion, I speak of ministers generally of the various parliaments of this country-are known to gamble and speculate, we must not be surprised if the younger generation follow that dangerous example. Let us give the example ourselves. My hon. friend from Gaspf: (Mr. Lemieux) alluded to the case of steel and coal. Well, we have heard very little else but steel and coal during last session of parliament. We could not walk through the lobbies of this House without hearing steel and coal. Everybody was buying. It was not the young men alone who were guilty of gambling, it was men in high positions who were buying stock. My hon. friend will permit me to tell him that gambling is one thing and tariff is another thing. The tariff was not sufficient in the case of steel and iron, and the best evidence that it was not sufficient is the fact that a free trader like my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has at last made up his mind to give additional bounties to that industry. Surely if the Minister of Finance was convinced that the tariff is high enough, he would not for the sake of gamblers, add probably $1,000,000 to the Budget of Canada. Let us deal with gamblers, but let us not mix up tariff matters in a question of this kind. Again I say. and I think I am expressing the sentiment of all those who know what is going on, that it will not be sufficient for us to enact laws here while men in high positions give a bad example by gambling and buying stock *with which parliament may have to deal. I think that is a very improper thing indeed. I do not wish to give lessons to anybody, that is not by any means my intention. But I think it is a very improper thing for members of parliament and ministers to gamble in stocks of corporations that sooner or later may apply to this parlia-Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
rnent for favours in the shape of additional duties and bounties.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: In view of the fact that the city I represent is one of the greatest sufferers in the Dominion of Canada from stock speculation, I feel I would fail in my duty if I were to remain silent on this question which is now before the House. The papers of this country have been tilled for weeks with news concerning the unfortunate calamity which occurred in connection with some of the loan companies in the city of St. Thomas. I can testify that a gentleman who was looked upon as a pillar of the church has confessed that he has been not only taking the people's money, but he has committed forgery, theft and fraud. So, while there may be very little sympathy for the gentlemen whom the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) referred to, ministers and members of parliament and business men who indulge in stock speculation, there can be a great deal of sympathy for the poorer classes of the people who have saved up small earnings and then, induced by a broker or a manager of a loan company, have engaged in stock speculation and lost all their money.
I trust that the hon. Minister of Justice, who has announced that he proposes to take this matter in hand, will be successful in meeting the case that I have pointed out, namely, protecting the small depositors or those who have been induced to go into speculation in stocks. But, I think he will find it is a somewhat difficult task when he undertakes to check hazardous speculation. If I desired to enter into a hazardous speculation, or if I desired to enter into what I thought was a good speculation, and which turned out to be a poor or hazardous speculation, I think I could get over the difficulty. I could buy stocks in New York or Chicago, and I do not see how we could by legislation passed in this House prevent a person from indulging in speculation in stocks in the United States. Perhaps there may be some method known to the hon. minister for overcoming that difficulty, but as far as I can see there will be a great deal of difficulty in framing legislation to entirely wipe out speculation in hazardous stocks. A year ago in my own city not only old men, but young men, married women and young women indulged in speculation in stocks. Many of them made quite large sums of money, but when the slump came they not only lost all the profits they had made, but they lost the savings of many years previous to that. Iam glad to take part in this discussion. I have been asked on many occasions since the misfortunes occurred to the loan companies in St. Thomas by people who lost their money if legislation to prevent a recurrence of such a disaster could not be passed by this House,

and I shall be glad to lend my assistance when the occasion arises.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: With the indulgence of the House and in reply to the statement made by the lion. Minister of Justice, I would like to say that I did not bring this motion in with the idea that legislation ought to be enacted this session, but I brought the question up so as to cause a discussion to be had in this House, and so as to get the hon. Minister of Justice at work on the matter. The hon. Minister of Justice has expressed his willingness to do something, but I would like to get from him a clearer expression of opinion. Of course, I understand that the question has to be carefully studied, not only from a legal point of view, but from a financial point of view as well. I quite understand that my hon. friend will have to put himself into communication with bankers and financial men throughout the country, and if he is prepared to do that so as to be able next session to bring in some legislation on the matter, I am willing to accept that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There will be this session some amendments to the law resxiecting loan companies. I have had occasion to prepare some amendments that will probably be introduced by the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding). In respect to the amendments which are necessary to meet the grievances pointed out by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), I will endeavour as far as possible to introduce such amendments as will meet the difficulty. Of course, it will be necessary to make inquiry, because, with all due deference and respect for the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), I have not that practical experience which comes from actually dealing 'in stocks.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have not either.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am absolutely guiltless in that respect, whatever my other iniquities may be. The short road to fortune has never had any attraction for me, and I think the same thing is true of my colleagues in the government.	*
Amendment (Mr. Bourassa) withdrawn, motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Census, $35,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What time do you expect to elapse before the census is completed ? I understand you have dismissed a number of employees who were engaged on the staff. How many do you still retain ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Svdney Fisher).: It is hoped the work will be'finished before the New Year, and
possibly earlier than that, but certainly by that time. We were able to dispense with the service of 35 or 40 clerks on the 1st of July. There are between 60 and 70 left still in the office at work, and we expect that they will finish the work about the new year or possibly the 1st of December.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. minister tell us, now that he is within measure-able distance of the end, what is going to be the whole cost of the census ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have already placed a statement before the House of what the cost was up to a recent date, and I think it was $1,100,000. This vote ought to finish it. That would make it about $1,150,000. I am speaking from memory, but a statement was made to the House some time ago in answer to a question.


Mr. BLAIN.: I understand that after the instructions had been issued to the enumerators a further supplementary circular was issued to the enumerators in the province of Ontario. Wrould the hon. minister make a statement about that and would he produce a copy of the circular ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was one error in the instructions, but immediately after they were sent out, and before the work of enumeration commenced, the correction of that error was sent to the commissioners.


Richard Blain: Does the minister say that that did not increase the cost of the census?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think it increased it beyond the expenses of the messages that were sent to the commissioners.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the minister settled with the malcontents among the enumerators who claimed they should receive more pay. Did he give them all they claimed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: On the contrary, there was a good deal of dissatisfaction in consequence of their not receiving what they demanded. They were paid according to the schedule rates which were issued with the instructions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: WTere they satisfied with that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I dare say a good many of them were not satisfied when they did not receive all they asked for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the Minister of Agriculture call to his assistance the Minister of Labour to settle the dispute ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I read the instructions carefully, and I must say that it was easy for one to come to the conclusion that the rate of pay was to be $3 per day. I do not think they would have much difficulty in upholding that contention in a court of law. The instructions said that they were to do so much work for which they were to be paid, not to exceed $3 per day, and the natural inference was that they would get $3 per day.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was preceded by the distinct statement that they were to be paid at schedule rates.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What remuneration was paid to Mr. Drolet, who had charge of the census in relation to the industries and manufactures in Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that he was paid at the rate of $125 a month.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How many months did he devote to that work ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that he was at work about eight months.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Had he any assistants ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He had enumerators under him who took the details in each locality ; he having the general supervision and being responsible for their management. He had three in Montreal and others in different parts of the province.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no doubt that $125 per month was the exact amount of his remuneration ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was his pay, but he had travelling expenses when he went about the province.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did the census officers employ any lawyers in the city of Montreal, and if so what was the amount paid to those lawyers ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that through the Department of Justice a case was taken out against a manufacturer who refused to give some information required in the census.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who was the lawyer, and what was the amount of remuneration paid him ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I understand it was Mr. Wilfrid Mercier, who is in charge of the law business there for the Department of Justice. I cannot say what remuneration was paid him, but I presume the costs were taxed in the ordinary way by the Department of Justice.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the minister ascertain before another meeting of the committee Hon. Mr. FISHER.
what was the exact amouht paid to Mr. Mercier ?


Richard Blain: Last session the minister stated that one of the causes of the increase of expenditure for taking this census as compared with the census of 1891, was that the enumerators and commissioners had a greater number of schedules to fill out this census than last. Was that a correct understanding of the matter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not quite. The statement made was that there were a very much larger number of questions to be answered. The word ' schedule ' is rather an indefinite word used in that way. A schedule as meant in the census, is a sheet on which are the questions across the top of the columns and down the side a space for the names of the individuals who are enumerated. Opposite the name of each individual the questions are to be filled in. This is the schedule, but a schedule may have five questions or fifty on it, and it may have ten names or fifty names of persons enumerated. The statement that there are so many schedules in the one census or so many schedules in another census is no measure of comparison between the work of the two censuses.


Richard Blain: The other day I asked the minister, how many schedules were filled in either in whole or in part by census enumerators in the counties of Halton, Cardwell and Peel in 1891. The hon. minister gave this :	Halton, 1,724 ; Cardwell,
1,221 ; Peel, 1,215. Do I understand from the minister now that this does not include all the work to be found on the schedules given to the enumerators in these counties?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. My hon. friend misunderstands me. What I mean is that a comparison of the schedules of 1901 with the schedules of 1891 is no indication of the amount of work done in the filling in of the schedules by the enumerators. The answers given to the hon. gentleman's question were correct as given. The hon. gentleman asked how many schedules there were, that is, how many sheets. The answer gives the number, but it does not tell how many questions or how many persons' names there were on each schedule, and without having these numbers a comparison between the number of schedules is no measure of the amount of work done respectively in the two censuses.


Richard Blain: In so far as the schedules are concerned. If I understand the hon. minister correctly, the enumerators in those counties did more work in 1891 than thev did in 1901.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Richard Blain: Well, let me read the hon. minister's answer to the two questions I put to him this session. The first was : What

were the entries in the schedules in 1891 and in 1901 ? The answer was that in 1891 there were 651 more in Halton, 430 more in Cardwell and 374 more in Peel. What I mean to say is that in so far as the schedules are concerned, the enumerators in those three counties did more work in 1891 than in 1901. There is no question about that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, there is every question about that. My kon. friend's inference from a comparison of the number of schedules, that in 1891 the enumerators did more work than in 1901 is not a correct inference.


Richard Blain: In so far as the schedules are concerned ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In so far as the schedules are concerned it is not a correct inference, because, as a matter of fact, the schedule in 1891 only had 25 names upon it, whereas the schedule in 1901 had 50, that is to say, with every line of the schedule filled ; and there was an answer by every one of these fifty names to every question across the top of the schedule ; and in many instances the schedules in 1891 had not as many questions across the top as the schedules in 1901. Therefore, when my hon. friend counts the number of schedules used by the enumerators in 1891 and compares it with the number used by the enumerators in 1901, the comparison is of absolutely no use to show the amount of work done by the enumerator. You require to have, not only the number of schedules, but the number of questions on each schedule and the number of names entered on each ; and then, by working the matter out arithmetically, you will get a true comparison of the work.


Richard Blain: I am anxious to understand this matter. I took these three counties for the reason that their population is very much less in 1901 than it was in 1891. For instance, in the county of Peel there were mdre than 1,700 people less, though the territory is exactly the same, and I am quite sure there are no more manufacturing establishments. Therefore, it is difficult for me to undertand why it cost nearly double the amount to take the census in 1901 than it did in 1891, and I asked these questions for the purpose of getting the information. If the answers do not afford a fair comparison, would it be too much to ask the hon. minister to lay on the Table a statement of the questions asked by the enumerators in 1901 and the questions asked in 1891, so that a fair comparison may be made ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As I said a moment ago, when these questions were asked I knew that the answers would not give a fair criterion of the work done, and I therefore had a statement made out. which shows that for these three counties the number of forms of schedules in
the census of 1891 was 9 and in the census of 1901 15. But on the 9 forms of schedules used in 1891 there were 216 different questions, while on the 15 different forms of schedules used in 1901 there were 657 different questions, or over three times as many. The number of schedules is no indication of the amount of work. I have here a statement of the questions put by the enumerators and the answers taken down. In the census of 1891, the number of questions put and answers recorded was 2,111,136. In the census of 1901 it was 3,034,529, or practically half as many more.


Richard Blain: Then that would make a half as much more work in 1901 as in 1891.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In so far as the questions and answers are concerned.


Richard Blain: Would you regard that as half as much more work ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Practically.


Richard Blain: Would it not be fair to say that it might be one-quarter as much more work ? It would hardly be one-half as much more to answer a few questions.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When you take everything into consideration, you can take it fairly as half as much more.


Richard Blain: But it costs the government more than double to do half as much more work.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In 1891 Canada was in a period of depression and labour was plentiful and cheap, whereas In 1901 the country was prosperous and labour was scarce and dear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the Public Accounts' Committee, the hon. gentleman's officers refused to bring down the schedules on the ground that they were private. The committee wanted to examine those schedules in order to determine whether certain suspicions were well-founded, which they had entertained regarding the taking of the census. I am not sure that there was an absolute refusal.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That question has been threshed out on various occasions, especially in connection with the census of 1881 and 1891 ; and while it was held that the names of the individuals were not private and confidential, the details of the schedules were considered absolutely so and were to be kept secret. Under these circumstances. I had nothing to do but to refuse to allow the schedules to be made public.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask by what right the minister refused to allow these to come before the committee. The or-

der of reference was for all the documents, and I do not see by' what authority the hon. gentleman set aside that order.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I told my officers that I would take the responsibility on myself of not allowing these schedules to be brought before the committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is the rule which gives the hon. gentleman that authority to control the committee ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not undertake to control the committee. What I did was to control my officers and I take the responsibility.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under what rule ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: None is required. A minister is responsible for the work of his department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To my mind, the minister has taken on himself an authority which is not justified by any rule. His officers are before the committee and in its hands and not in the hands of the minister. It was an improper interference on his part with the rights of the committee to prevent the committee being put in possession of documents ordered by the House. If it is essentially necessary that these papers should be examined in secret, the House can appoint a special committee to examine them, but the minister has no right to dictate to the committee what its duties are.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. minister takes a very strange position. He admits that he gave an order to his officers not to produce certain papers, which the committee had ordered, and says that he is responsible to the committee and parliament. When called to account, the hon. gentleman refuses to give any reasons, but admits his responsibility. For, what my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has done is exactly to call the minister to account under the rule of responsibility and ask him by what authority he forbade the officer of the 'department to produce those papers. The minister says : I did give the order, and am responsible to the House : and he gives no other reason for the arbitrary exercise of his authority. It seems to me. he does not admit his responsibility at all.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) lias entirely ignored the explanation I gave a few minutes ago. I said that this very question of the secrecy of the schedules had been threshed out certainly on one memorable occasion in this House in connection with the census of 1891, and I think a similar discussion took place in connection with the census of 1881. On each of these occasions, the minister in charge took the position that I take now, and the House supported and endorsed the minister. I do Mr. SPROULE.
not remember the exact procedure. But I recollect the fact, and I am acting upon that precedent. I say that this course has been taken by previous Ministers of Agriculture, and that it has been approved by the Commons of Canada. I believe it to be the right course. My hon. friend knows that, under the rules of the House he has the means of calling me to account by bringing up the matter for discussion and moving for my condemnation. I am willing to face that responsibility.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have no remembrance of such a discussion as the hon. minister refers to. It may have taken place, and I not remember. But my view of the duties and authority of the committee leads me to the conclusion that such a position as that taken by the minister would be wrong ; and the fact that the House had declared to the contrary would not change my opinion. As I understand it, all papers and documents relating to matters of public expenditure to be inquired into by the committee the committee may call for. If the committe has not authority to compel the production of them, it asks authority of the House, and that authority is invariably given so far as my memory goes. I know of no rule in Bourinot, May or any other parliamentary authority which justifies the contention of the minister. It is true that a vote of the House would be regarded as a precedent and would probably be held as justification for action on similar lines by the minister. But, as I say, I have no re-memberance of any such vote. I have not had time to look the matter up. I read of this affair in the newspapers when I was on the road. I thought it a most extraordinary proceeding, and decided to bring up the question in the House. I intended to look into the matter before doing so, but have not had time. I am quite clear in the opinion that the committee should not be hampered in its work of inquiring into transactions involving the expenditure of the peoples' money.


Mr. LENNOX.: As the minister has taken a definite attitude, and as he must realize that this is an important question, no doubt he has fortified himself with precedents. Surely the hon. gentleman will go a little further than he has done, and will satisfy the committee, at least to the extent of referring us to the authority lie relies upon, so that we may ascertain, as a matter of fact, that the same point was involved in previous discussions as was involved in this one. I think this is a reasonable request.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not examined the matter in the way my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) indicates, I do know that there was the debate I referred to in connection with the census of 1S9L In fact, I think debates took place

on several occasions on this point. Hon. gentlemen then in opposition inquired with regard to certain points of the census of 1891, and demanded that certain information should he given. The lion. Minister of Agriculture of that time, thinking that this would involve the disclosure of the details of the schedules, would not give the information. I cannot say at the moment whether there was a vote or whether the position of the minister wras approved simply by the matter being dropped. I remember that the position was taken that the list of names or anything of that kind should be disclosed, but business details, particulars with regard to families or property, were to be held secret and inviolate. And that was quite understandable and proper. The questions of the census are more or less inquisitorial. My hou. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) referred to a law case where a manufacturing firm in Montreal contended that they were not bound to give the details of their business. The Census Act required them to give details, but the condition is that these shall be held secret and confidential. Only on that condition are we allowed to exact the information. When the compilation takes place in the census tables, the totals and general results are given, but nobody knows the business details. On that occasion the leaders of hon. gentlemen opposite formed the government, and the position they took is the one I now take. I believe that they were right, and that they followed the spirit and the letter of the Census Act and that any departure from the rule they laid down would be contrary to the law. I do not propose to act contrary to the law if I can help it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I cannot say 'that the explanation of the minister is satisfactory to myself. In the first place, the holding he speaks of seems to have been before he took office, and there has been no holding of that kind since. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he himself had previously taken that position, and the House had exonerated him. But it seems, from what he says, that that is not the case. The question that was 'decided rose under a previous administration. For my own part, I cannot bring myself to agree with the minister on the merits of the question. The minister is not able to invoke any rule under which he was at liberty to refuse to the committee the information which the committee sought, except this vague precedent of a previous administration. He is aware that the members of the committee have a right of access to these documents as well as the minister himself. The meetings of the committee are private, and the public is excluded theoretically from its meetings; but as members of this House we are just as much entitled to take communication of these private schedules, under
such rules as the committee may make, as the minister himself. It amounts to this, as my hon. friend from Grey has said, that the minister took upon himself to refuse to the committee what no rule prevented the committee from having. Upon what principle would the hon. gentleman claim that, because he is a minister, or a member of the committee of this House- for that is what it amounts to-he could exclude from the cognizance of his colleagues certain documents which he may have in his possession? I do not think his position is tenable for an instant, because he could just as well apply that to any other document. Why is it confined to these particular schedules? They may touch upon private matters, but so far as we are concerned, they are public documents. What would prevent him from saying to any clerk in the department, This is a document that may compromise the reputation of somebody, and I forbid you from producing to the committee any document having reference to public accounts. Yet the hon. gentleman, under his interpretation of his right, could do that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman entirely forgets the difference between such a document as he refers to and these census schedules. These schedules were taken under instructions which declared to the people who gave the information that it would be held inviolate and secret; it was a contract between the people who gave the information and the department which got the information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How long is that to be kept secret ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Indefinitely.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Under what law ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Under the Census Act.


Haughton Lennox: It does not say so.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: But the Census Act gives the minister power to make regulations for taking the census, and the instructions of the department did say so, and have said so ever since we have had a census in Canada. I have made no change in this matter, I have followed out the regulations made from time immemorial, and they are necessary for the taking of a census. If you did not make that rule you could not get the people to give the information. As it is, in some instances the people have refused and it is only by reason of the agreement that we would keep the information secret that we are able to go to the courts of law and compel people to give the information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The order of reference instructs the committee to bring before

them all persons and papers, and that order Is above the authority of the minister or bis employees. I want to point out this fact, that in the long inquiry in 1891, when Mr. Connolly came before the committee of inquiry with their books locked up; he said they were instructed by their solicitor that these were their private papers and they had a right to refuse to expose them. What was the order of the House? It was that the books should be laid on the Table, and the books were produced and were examined. The same thing could be done in this case. I never knew an instance before the Public Accounts Committee where individuals or corporations who appeared with their private books or accounts obtained exemption from laying them before the committee. No minister has authority to say, either to an individual or an employee of the government, You need not produce these documents to committee. The authority of parliament is above the minister and should control him. I understood him at first to say that such a discussion took place regarding the secrecy of the census schedules in the committtee, and that the question was afterwards brought to this House and debated.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not say it was before the committee, I said the discussion took place in this House. I do not remember the details.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I asked if the minister would be good enough to point to a precedent, because I have no knowledge of any. I still think that when the House of Commons makes an order of reference to that committee it invests that committee with authority to command any official under the government to produce books or papers that may be in his custody, and the committee has a right to examine them. If a minister was invested with any such authority, it would be the easiest thing in the world for him to cover up any scaly transaction that might take place in his department by saying, This is private, and I will not allow my employees to bring it down.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman knows that there is a procedure by which he can bring the matter up in due course before the House ; and if he can secure an order of the House to override my decision, he is at liberty to do so. But I must tell him frankly that he will have to get such an order before I can recede from my position.


Mr. BARKER.: I wish to recall to the memory of the minister that the discussion in the Public Accounts Committee went a great deal further than the point that has been raised this evening. The hon. gentleman contended there that the committee had no right to enter into the question of these schedules or to inspect them, because the


Thomas Simpson Sproule: commissioner had taken an oath which prescribed secrecy and which he could not break. It was contended on the other hand that the statute gave no authority to the minister or to the Governor in Council to prescribe any such oath. I do not think tihe hon. gentleman can point to one word in the statute that authorizes any such oath to be imposed upon any official. But that is not the point I proposed to deal with. I proposed to point out a matter far more serious. The hon. gentleman, with a great deal of reference to the history of the past, said that previous governments had followed the rule he was following now. Well, assuming that previous governments had followed that rule, I would feel inclined to continue the rule, inasmuch as the public has probably been led to believe that they were giving the information under a pledge of secrecy. But it turned out that although the bon. minister was so particular about secrecy as to the census of 1901, he was not so scrupulous about the information obtained in 1891 by his predecessor. Although the officer in 1891 was sworn to secrecy, the hon. gentleman himself had no scruple whatever in obtaining from Mr. Blue the information that had been then obtained' under a similar oath of secrecy. When does the obligation of secrecy end>
? If the hon. gentleman who has been conducting this census is sworn to secrecy and if the public have been imposed upon, because they would be imposed upon in believing that the information they gave to him was absolutely secret, what may be said, if, in a year or two, all that information is to be brought into the House of Commons, published in ' Hansard,' published in the press of the country and spread broadcast over this Dominion ? Where is the good faith that the hon. minister speaks of ? In 1891 the same oath was prescribed. The information that was then given to the officers of the commissioner of that time was absolutely as secret as this information Which the hon. minister says is secret. By what right did the hon. gentleman get information upon the schedules of 1891 from certain parts of the country and then come to this House and make a statement criticising the returns of 1891 as against the returns of 1901 ? The hon. gentleman surely must be consistent. He uses the precedent of 1891 to justify his oath of secrecy. Surely the information that was then obtained should also be treated as absolutely secret and the documents that were found in the government records were just as much beyond his control as the documents obtained in 1891 are now beyond the control of the Public Accounts Committee according to his own contention. The hon. gentleman had no right to use these. The officer occupying the position that Mr. Blue occupies to-day took the oath of secrecy at that time. The information he had obtained was secret and supposed to be inviolate. By

what right was any information relating to the census of 1891 used by the present minister ? By what right did he obtain information as to schedules of 1891 which a member of the House of Commons cannot obtain in regard to the census of 1901 ? Will the hon. minister answer ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) has asked a question which I think it is quite easy to answer. The census commissioners and the officers of the department in regard to the census are under oath in regard to census matters. The census commissioners of this census, I believe, have the right to investigate the census schedules of a former census.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. gentleman tell me how and where he gets that authority ? Those who -made the farmer census were sworn to secrecy.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As officers of the department-


Samuel Barker: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, the present commissioner is not given any authority in regard to the
preceding commission. He is sworn in regard to all matters coming within hi-s knowledge in taking the census. If he gave any information in regard to the census of 1891, it would be a violation of his oath.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the hon. gentleman will look at the Act he will find in section 20 the following
Whenever the Minister of Agriculture deems it convenient, he may, by special letter of instruction, direct any officer, census commissioner or other person employed in the execution of this Act, to make inquiry und-er oath, as to any matter connected with the taking of the census, or the ascertaining or correction of any supposed defect or inaccuracy therein ; and such officer, census commissioner or other person shall then have the same power as is vested in any court of justice, of summoning an.y person, of enforcing his attendance, and of requiring and compelling him to give evidence on oath. whether orally or in writing, and to produce such documents and things as such officer, census commissioner or other person deems requisite to the full investigation of such matter or matters.


Samuel Barker: Certainly, there is no doubt about that.
The MINISTER - OF AGRICULTURE. The statements that were laid on the Table of the House last session were the result of an investigation in regard to checking and proving the accuracy of the census of 1891. For the purpose of such proof and such checking we had to go to the census of 1891 in order to prove the correctness of the census of 1901. I have explained that on a former occasion, but, for the hon. gentleman's benefit, I can explain again that there were evident certain extraordinary discrepancies, or a startling condition
of affairs shown by a comparison of the results of the taking of the census of 1891 and the taking of the census in 1901. These results are such that there must have been some inaccuracy in one or other of the censuses, or that a very extraordinary condition of affairs had arisen in this country in regard to its progress and development between the two censuses. The first duty of the census commissioner and the officers under his charge was to see whether his own census was correct. That was investigated as far as it could be and there seemed to he no reasonable doubt that the figures and compilation were correct. Then, as an explanation of this condition of affairs, were we to accept it as a fact that Canada had absolutely retrograded during the decade, or were we to try and see whether there was another explanation of the extraordinary comparison between the two censuses. We investigated the census of 1891, I confess, largely in consequence of some allegations In regard to the taking of the census of 1891 which had been common talk throughout the country for many years- the statement that the census was padded, the statement that the census was inaccurate and the statement that the compilation was defective. We were led, perhaps, to a certain extent, by the prevalency of these statements to make this investigation.


Mr. CLANCY.: By whom were these statements made ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were made by all sorts of people and they were made publicly on the floor of parliament.


Samuel Barker: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were made elsewhere through the length and breadth of Canada.


Samuel Barker: If they were made on the floor of parliament they were not secret. The commissioner was bound to keep that information secret.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is talking about another matter. The question I am speaking of was in regard to the public statements of the census of 1891 being inaccurate. These statements were very prevalent in Canada for many years after the taking of the census. I confess I was somewhat guided in my desire to look into the census of 1891 by the prevalency of these statements. I believed that the solution of the extraordinary condition of affairs might be found there. After first of all satisfying myself that the difficulty did not arise from any inaccuracy in the census of 1901. I then caused an investigation to he made. I did not give publicity to any of the facts in the schedules of 1891 which came under the category of those facts which I have stated ought to be held secret. I want my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) to understand that fully.


Samuel Barker: Did not tlie hon. gentleman refer to the names and particulars in various villages ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The names only.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman discovered that there was a family of seventeen in the province of Quebec, and he was astounded at it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, I would not be astounded at that in the province of Quebec. It is quite common there.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman thought it most uncommon.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said a minute ago that I gave nothing to the public except the names. I believe I did give the names of a whole family of seventeen, but it was still only a string of names.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the hon. gentleman gave the industrial establishments.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not give any data of the industrial investigations to the public in that way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did he not name a certain number of industrial establishments and say that actually upon inquiry they found old ladies knittings reported as industrial estimates ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is a little mistaken. I think he is confusing a former debate which he listened to many years ago with what I said on this occasion. What my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has accused me of is of having laid on the Table of this House this information which he now accuses me of withholding. He says ^ that I am now refusing to give information which for my own purpose I gave last year. I say that I am refusing to give information now which has been given to the enumerators on a pledge of secrecy, but the information which I gave last year was merely a string of names which could in no way be considered as confidential. Last year I gave no details of property and no details of private concerns in any shape or way. In the debate which I referred to as a precedent, that question came up and gentlemen on both sides of the House took the position that the secrecy was not violated by giving the names, and that it was only as to details of business and of private property that the secrecy would be violated. It is true that last year, in consequence of the extraordinary condition of affairs which was revealed, I did make an investigation into certain facts in regard to the taking of the population in 1891, but that was all that was given to the public. I should say that the list of names was compiled from the


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: census of 1891 by the census officers under oath, and under that section of the law which enables them to make such an investigation as they may see fit in order to secure an accurate census. I am now asked to place the schedule before the committee, and I contend that that is contrary to the precedent which I have quoted ; contrary to the spirit and letter of the Census Act, and contrary to what is necessary for the taking of an accurate census.


Haughton Lennox: The minister should have been more candid in the statement of his position. We understood from him that he had a precedent to guide him, and which to be a precedent at all must be practically identical with 'the case under discussion. The minister has shown that he has no such precedent. He cannot tell whether the circumstances in the past case are identical with the circumstances in the present case, and he does not know even whether the previous case was discussed in the House or whether a vote was taken upon it. He has to admit that he does not know whether the case which he said was a precedent ever came before the Public Accounts' Committee. The hon. gentleman told us in a very jaunty fashion that he dictated the action that was taken, and if he thinks that he can treat us in that jaunty manner I suppose he must be the judge of that himself, but we will have something to say also in regard to it. The Minister of Agriculture leads this committee to understand that he did not interfere with the public accounts committee, but that he instructed his own officials, and he announces that he has control over his own officials. Upon the minister's own confession extracted from him by the hon. member for Hamilton, the fact appears now that the minister did interfere with the investigation of the Public Accounts' Committee, and that he led the chairman to understand that a precedent existed, when as a matter of fact there is no such precedent at all. I say that the Minister of Agriculture by the presence he exercises over witnesses, and by his influence and blandishments on the chairman of the committee. wlho is susceptible to such influences, did interfere with the investigation by the committee. However willing we might be to bow for the time being to the decision which was come to in the Public Accounts' committee upon a former occasion, and which had been appealed from to the House, and had been sustained by the House In former years : we are not prepared on the mere ipse dixit of the Minister of Agriculture to accept the position which he takes to-night. The minister says that at the time he referred to in 1891 he was not in the House of Commons., He did not hear the debate ; he did not read the debate, but he asks us to accept as evidence something which he says somebody told him.

That is hardly a sufficient reason why we should pass this item. The hon. minister invokes the statute ; he says that under the statute he has a right to make regulations ; but what regulations ? The regulations for the taking of the census ? Will the hon. minister or any of the legal luminaries who support him find anywhere in the statutes one sentence that will bear the construction that for all time to come he is to control the information which we gather through the country by means of the census enumerators ? Why, the proposition is too absurd to be entertained by sensible men, much less by a committee of the House of Commons of Canada. We must approach this matter in some sense of common sense; and when the hon. minister suggests that because he has the power to pass regulations, he is therefore, for all time to come to control the free representatives of the people, and say : ' Thus far shalt thou go, and no further,' I deny the proposition absolutely. The authority with which I understand the minister to be clothed is this, that he can make regulations for the proper conduct of the officials under his control during the census enumeration. Unless he finds within the four corners of the statute a provision which says he is to be the sole confident of the secrets of this country as regards the census, I submit that it is not common sense to say that the Minister of Agriculture is to be the sole repository of the information obtained by the enumerators at the expense and for the information of the people of this country. The hon. gentleman must remember that there is a distinction between making full disclosures and making a disclosure to a committee of the House of Commons. I do not think the hon. gentleman fully appreciates that point. The hon. gentleman seems to think that so long as you are a private member of the House, so long perhaps as you are any minister of the Crown except the Minister of Agriculture, it might not be safe to trust you with a state secret; but as soon as you become Minister of Agriculture, the position changes. I claim that the right to obtain information at all is to be limited to such information as is necessarily required for the uses of the people of this country. You have no right to be inquisitorial beyond that limit. What is necessary in order to put the people of this country in a position to know and judge of their resources, their strength, and the future of this country, is what we have a right to inquire into ; and unless you can make the information available for those uses or similar uses, you have no right to obtain it at all. The House of Commons, in delegating its powers to the Public Accounts Committee, authorizes that committee to be its agent just as effectually and just as cleariy as it delegates to the Minister of Agriculture the duty of presiding over the agricultural affairs of this
country. We have just as much right, when we go into that committee, to get down to the rock foundation of things, and to find out what has been done in connection with the census, as the Minister of Agriculture lias to ascertain what his officials have been doing. Nay, more, I venture to say that if there is a distinction to be drawn, it is in favour of the Committee of the House of Commons, because we are the inquisitorial body in this case, specially charged with the duty of investigating these matters, and finding out, unless baulked completely by the hon. minister. That is what the hon. minister does not seem to like. This being a committee of investigation, presided over by a chairman, with the officials of the Census Department called to give evidence, it differs in no essential particular from an investigation before a court. These are our witnesses; we have a right to call them, I am not sure but that we have a right to call the Minister of Agriculture. I do not know but that it would be a good idea for us to do so. Perhaps he might claim privilege, and say that it might incriminate him to answer. But at all events, we have a right to call the officials for the purpose of ascertaining whether that which appears in the census is as it ought to be, and whether the work of the Census Department lias been honestly and fairly carried out. My hon. friend is not a lawyer, and I - am afraid he has not a judicial mind.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Is my hon. friend a lawyer ?


Haughton Lennox: I am a farmer, I am happy to say.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A lawyer too ?


Haughton Lennox: I am a farmer and an honest lawyer, or a lawyer and an honest farmer, which ever my hon. friend likes. I say that my hon. friend has not a judicial mind, with a disposition to look at both sides of a question evenly. He has one faculty of a lawyer, that of evading a question pretty effectually at certain points-a faculty which many hon. gentlemen on that side of the House possess in an eminent degree. With the experience which my hon. friend has, at all events, he will recognize that it is one of the gravest offences known to the law for any person to tamper with a witness, to approach that witness and instruct him not to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, or to say to him, ' Couldn't you forget ? ' Well, I think it is my duty to tell the hon. minister in a most respectful way that I think intelligent men throughout the country, aside from lawyers and judges, and those specially trained in matters of this kind, will regard the Minister of Agriculture as having committed a very grave offence against the interests of this country when, without, as I understand it, consulting

7071
the other members of the government or any authority whatever, but merely of his own motion he undertook without any authority to order his officers not to obey the instruction of the committee. He acted in an arbitrary manner for which he deserves the censure of this House. The hon. gentleman coolly tells us that we can move an order of the House, but at this stage of the session, in its fifth month, we have not the time to do so. We would have to go to the committee and get its ruling, and then bring the matter before the House and meet all the delays which the government has put in the way of accomplishing business during the last five months, so that it is quite evident that such a course is out of question. The hon. minister has been unable to give us any precedent for the action he has taken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: According to Bourinot, each of the select standing committees ' shall generally be empowered to examine into all such matters and claims as may be referred to by the House, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.' Consequently the committee had the right to bring before it any witnesses it desired and such documents as it deemed necessary. Bourinot goes on to say :
Many witnesses are examined in the course of every session before committees of the Senate and the House of Commons. It has already been stated, in the first part of this chapter, that it is usual in both houses to give committees special authority to send for witnesses or documentary evidence. Witnesses are summoned in the Commons by an order signed by. the chairman and they are bound to bring all the papers which the committee may require ; but the committee can not order the production of documents or the summoning of witnesses unless it has the necessary authority from the House to send for persons, papers and records.
In this instance the House gave the Committee on Public Accounts the authority to send for persons, papers and records. What happens should the witness refuse to obey the order of the committee ? According to Bourinot:
His conduct will be reported to the House and an order will he immediately made for his attendance at the bar or before the committee. Similar proceedings are taken when a witness refuses to answer questions.
We find a case in point cited in this work :
In the session of 1891 the committee of privileges and elections, to whom was referred a very important inquiry, reported that one of the witnesses refused to place under the immediate control of the committee certain documents which he had produced. His conduct was reported t* the House, and he was ordered to appear at the bar. He appeared and was ordered to deliver all accounts and papers to the Clerk of the House. He complied at once with the order, and the committee had consequently full control of the documents in question.


Haughton Lennox: I cite this 'to show that the minister had no right to order his employees to refuse to give information to the committee or to produce the documents which the committee required. Had the refusal been reported to the House, the House could have insisted on tlie witness bringing down those papers and handing them to the committee, or have compelled them to come before the Bar of the House and hand them to the House.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend was not in the committee when the occurrence took place. If he had been, he would have known that the chairman of the committee endorsed the course I had taken. The chairman ruled that Mr. Blue need not bring down those papers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On whose Instructions ? The instructions of the minister, who had no authority ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The minister did not instruct the chairman of the committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister said that he instructed his officers.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I instructed Mr. Blue, 'but not the chairman of the committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister instructed the witness.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, be instructed him not to bring the documents.
Mi-. SPROULE. Which he had no right to do.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The minister has a right to instruct his officer to do anything. But the chairman of the committee rules that Mr. Blue need not bring the documents. The action was the action of the committee. The hon. gentleman is1 harking up the wrong tree.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. minister say that that was reported to the House which is a higher authority-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the hon. _ gentleman will allow me to finish. I believe he was not present at the meeting of the committee-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will tell him what occurred. Mr. Blue had been ordered to appear before the committee and bring certain documents. He appeared but informed the committee that he had not the documents. The committee discussed whether he should be required to bring the documents. Certain members, including the hon. member from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) contended that he should bring the documents. The Minister of Agriculture, who is not a member of the committee, asked leave to explain. He stated that he had

ordered Mr. Blue not to bring the documents and gave the grounds for his position, which I need not repeat. If the committee had referred the matter to the House, the question would have come up in the House. The case which my hon. friend has just referred to in Beurinot says : ' His conduct was reported to the House, and he was ordered by the House '-to do so and so. If the committee reports Mr. Blue's conduct to the House and the House orders him to bring the documents, the House will take the responsibility and the responsibility will be off my shoulders. But the committee has not reported to the House. Should the committee bring the case before the House, we shall see what the House will do. In the meantime, as I said a few minutes ago. the hon. gentleman is barking up the wrong tree. He says the Minister of Agriculture dictated to the committee and gave instructions to his officer contrary to the order of the committee

	'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Contrary to the order of the House.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Well, if the hon. gentleman thinks so. But I have explained the case so thoroughly that I need not go further than to quote from Bourinot, the authority on which the hon. gentleman relies, page 337:
Whilst members have every facility afforded them to obtain all the information they require on matters of public concern, occasions may arise when the government will feel constrained to refuse certain papers on the ground that their production would be inconvenient or contrary to the public interest.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That has no relevancy to this) case. That refers to papers placed upon the Table.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: But the principle is the same.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, It is not.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is only a direct contradiction, and not so courteous as the hon. gentleman usually Is. I think the principle is the same and that the quotation is entirely germane and cognate to the question at issue.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have given the authority that the House delegates to the committee and shown the right of the committee to demand that persons and papers ho brought. I have given the rule that compels the witness to bring with him such documents as are required. I followed this up by showing what was (Jone when the witness refused, no matter who instructed him. The case was reported to the House, which ordered the witness to be brought to the Bar, and then directed him to de-ooo
liver the papers to the House, and the House returned them to the committee. I showed that the House has higher authority than the witness or the minister


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Nobody denies that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have said that the minister undertook to instruct a subordinate contrary to instructions from the committee, that the minister was vested with no such authority, and the witness had no right to refuse to obey the instructions of the committee. The hon. minister says the matter was not brought before the House. I cau only say that if I had been there, I should have tried to bring it before the House, and I have taken the first opportunity afforded me to try to review the matter, for when I saw the course taken by the minister, reported in the newspapers, I thought it a high-handed proceeding, quite beyond his authority as a minister and justified by no rule or precedent.


Samuel Barker: I do not wish to occupy the time of the House, but I desire to call attention to the instructions the Minister of Agriculture gave to his officers on the subject of the secrecy to be observed with regard to names. He now seems to draw some distinction between names and other particulars in the schedules, and claims he had the right to do what he did in sending lists of names of the census of 1891 to different parts of the country, to <persons in no way connected with the census, to obtain information from them, and then use the information gained from them, and the names, in this House for political purposes. I propose to read from his own instructions to show that the names are as much secret as any other part of the information he had obtained and that he has no more right to deal with the names than to deal with the particulars of property given in the schedules. I might remind the hon. gentleman that he sent a special circular all over the province of Quebec emphasizing these instructions and particularly informing the people that everything connected with the census was absolutely secret. We on this side of the House do not admit that the government had any right to Impose the oath of secrecy. The statute certainly does not authorize it. It authorizes the government to settle forms of oaths to be taken by the officers for the purposes of the census, but in no way does it authorize that an officer shall be prevented from giving information as to what the schedules contain when called upon by the committee of the House. This is one clause of the instructions
Many persons imagine that the census schedules may be in some wav used as a sort of advertisement for them or as a reflection upon them. But the fact is that these schedules are never seen except by the commissioners-
If that is so, how does the hon. gentleman get the information upon which he



made a long speech in this House last session ?
-these schedules are never seen except by the commissioner and others engaged in taking and compelling the census, who, besides being sworn officers bound not to divulge any individual information, care very little for, and have no Interest in, the several statements contained in them. The names

So, here the names are particularly mentioned as something secret.
-are taken in the census schedules simply for a check upon the returns, and to afford opportunity to correct any palpable error."


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) reading ?


Samuel Barker: From chap. 1 of the instructions, page 7, the 4th paragraph.
In other words the enumeration of names is a necessary guarantee of good faith and correctness and it has no other object.
Now, will the hon. gentleman tell me that there is anything connected with the census that is not secret, if any part be ? Does not that convey the impression that these men get the information for the commissioners and that the names are held secret, as well as everything else ? The hon. gentleman has issued these instructions to his officials, but he sent a circular throughout the province of Quebec repeating them and informing the people how secret these would be. Here is a paragraph in the instructions, showing that the names are used for a particular purpose, and yet it turns out that the census of 1891 has been used by the hon. gentleman for political purposes, and he made a speech here upon information obtained outside the census officials of 1891, though they were also sworn to secrecy.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman has spoken about the names as being just as secret as other parts of the census. Let me quote from a debate which occurred in regard to the census of 1S91 on this very question. The debate arose in 1893, and in the course of some remarks an hon. member of the House, after quoting the instructions in the census of that date, says :
It will be found that the letter of instructions scarcely goes so far as to prevent the names of persons from being given. There was this view to be considered. Although no wri:-ten instructions were given, the census enumerators and commissioners have found that people are sensitive in giving information which might in any manner become known to competitors in their busines.	[DOT]
Further on he says : ,
It would appear therefor that there is nothing in the instructions, either verbal or written, which would preclude the giving of the nam=s of persons who own and carry on industrial establishments, and I can see no reason-and I think it would be difficult to find a valid reason-why the names of persons who carry on Mr. BARKER.
these establishments should be withheld. When we go further than that to details of the business which a person carries on under his own name. I think we approach ground where there is very good reason why it should be withheld. Great difficulty has been experienced in the case of persons carrying on a single industry, I mean one which in the tabulations is not united with any others carrying on a similar industry. ... In these cases it was found that several were very loath to give the details asked for because they were by themselves and the figures would give information as to the details of their single business.


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: I understand that the hon. gentleman, having looked into the matter is willing to give the names and descriptions.
The reply was :
Yes. I see no objection.
Now, these words which I have quoted were uttered by the then acting Minister of Agriculture in the Conservative government, the Hon. George E. Foster. He took exactly the ground_I am taking here to-night. That ground was based upon precedent, and the ground I talje now is based upon precedent in the census of 1891. Reference was made in that debate to the censuses of 1S71 and 1881, and the same course was taken by tile then existing governments in regard to the question of divulging the details of the census schedules. I have continued exactly the course and policy which were followed by the governments having in charge the preceding censuses.


David Henderson: Before the item is adopted, I wish to ask the minister one or two questions. It is said that the expense of taking the census of 1901 far exceeded the cost of taking the census of 1891, and consequently it is proper for us to inquire why that cost is so much greater. The items that I may mention perhaps are small, but yet many small items put together make a very large one. I find, for example, in the case of Beauharnois, in the province of Quebec, on page D-219 of the Auditor General's Report, the commissioner was allowed $30.75 for meals for enumerators while receiving instructions. This does not seem to have been a general practice, and I have been wondering why this commissioner should be so favoured. However, he was not so much favoured as another commissioner, the one for Chambly and VerchiSres. On page D-222 I find that this commissioner was allowed the sum of $132 for meals for enumerators during instructions. Now, why should this commissioner be allowed to give his enumerators a champagne luncheon when they met together for the purpose of receiving instructions, while the poor enumerators in the province of Ontario had to pay for their own dinner ? It seems to me that is unfair. But that is not the chief point. It shows to me that these accounts have been passed without any care whatever, that no special care has been taken by the department in examining into the correctness of

these accounts, but that every item sent in by the commissioners was allowed by the department.
The MINISTER OB'' AGRICULTURE. An allowance of that kind was made to the enumerators when they went to receive their instructions ; they were allowed their expenses. This particular case, as the hon. gentleman says, is a curious one. I am informed that the commissioner paid for the meals of the enumerators, and they were not allowed anything individually for that purpose. The account appears here as paid to the commissioner. It is the sum of a lot of charges for meals which each enumerator would have been allowed had he sent in the account himself. But instead of that, the commissioner paid for them all and sent in his bill, and on the explanations furnished, the bill was allowed.


David Henderson: I find that enumerators seem to have been allowed expenses of various sums running from $2 up to .$4 and over, notwithstanding the fact that the commissioner had to provide for their accommodation. They also received their ordinary day's pay of $3, as each enumerator seems to have been allowed $9.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The $9 is the pay for three days while getting their instructions, at $3 a day. Then they were allowed their expenses while doing it.


David Henderson: In the county of Hal-ton I notice that meals were not allowed to the enumerators, and that no allowance whatever was given to the commissioner for meals for them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because the enumerators paid for their own meals.


David Henderson: Certainly, and I think they should have done so in Chambly and Vercheres also. However, that is not a big matter, but it was one of the matters that go to swell the increase. There is another matter I desire to draw the hon. minister's attention to. That is the taking of the census in Burrard. My attention was drawn to this through reading an open letter written by Mr. Wm. McCraney, formerly member of this House for the county of Halton, now residing in British Columbia, a gentleman whom I knew very well during his long residence in that county, a gentleman who occupied a seat in this House, I think, for two parliaments, a gentleman whose word would be accepted by any one who had the pleasure of knowing him. Although politically opposed to me, I would say of Mr. McCraney that I knew him to be a gentleman of honour and a man whose word I would accept at all times without hesitation. I believe' he would be incapable of prevaricating or making a misstatement 2224
in regard to this matter. Mr. McCraney draws particular attention to the cost of taking the census in Burrard, and this is one of the places where it seems to me the cost has been swelled enormously. I shall read a part of Mr. McCraney's letter dealing with this matter. On page 3, of the letter, he says


Tilts D.   C.@: McGregor-
I may say that McGregor is described in the letter as 'one of a high smelling confederacy ' that they have in Vancouver.


Tilts D.   C.@: McGregor and Frank Burnett were connected with the late customs collectorship scandal, which created a very had smell here for some time. McGregor could not deliver the goods (customs collectorship) so Burnett could not purchase. Both were willing but the government was not, so the deal fell through for non-delivery of goods (customs collectorship).


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: ' Hear, hear ' says the hon. minister. Mr. McCraney' explains it in this way :
But these schemers, having secret documents relating to this dishonourable business held a Club in their hands-
-that was the club which they held over the hon. minister's head.
-and so demanded a quid pro quo, so to placate them at the last general election, McGregor got the returning oflleership, Burnett got the position of census commissioner in Burrard constituency which cost the country $17,628.15, seventeen thousand six hundred and twenty-eight dollars and fifteen cents through his planning.
Mr. McCraney says further :
I have no hesitation in saying it can be well done for $10,000. (See Auditor General's Report. vol. 1, D-114). I have been all over the territory excepting in the interior of Cassiar and know what I am talking about. I believe this is the most corrupt constituency in the Dominion of Oanadia, of which I can give you much further proof.
In this constituency the commissioners, because there were two of them, namely, the notorious Frank Burnett and Henry Corwin, instead of receiving $75 each, as is customary where two commissioners are appointed for the same riding, these high smelling individuals obtained $9 a day for 210 days, for between nine and ten months of the year, or in all $1,890 apiece, and expenses amounting to $604.39 paid to each of them. Why these men should have been allowed this large sum of money and why they should have been employed for nearly nine months of the year does seem extraordinary, and I think it calls for some explanation from the hon. minister in view of the very strong letter which I have read from one of his own political friends, a gentleman of character who would not represent a matter in the way in which he has done unless he believed it to be strictly cor-

rect. I think this item calls for more than a passing explanation and that it is due to the hon. minister to put himself right in the eyes of his own political friends in regard to it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I, like the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), remember Mr. McCraney very well indeed, when, years ago he was a member of this House representing the county which the hon. member for Halton now represents. I am quite sure that Mr. McCraney would not say or write anything that he did not believe to be true, from the information he had in regard to the matter. I must confess that what is stated in the letter is entirely news to myself. I do not know yet anything of the details that he speaks of in regard to the elections in the constituency of Burrard. As to any club being held over my head, in my absolute ignorance of what is going on there I was not aware of this, and it has certainly never descended.


David Henderson: You did not know the position you were standing in ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
David Henderson: Seventeen thousand six hundred and twenty-eight dollars and fifteen cents.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He may have been in possession of information as to how much it ought to have cost. I do not pretend to know how much it ought to have cost, because I am not familiar with the constituency, except that I know that it spreads along the whole coast from the American boundary to the boundary of the Yukon Territory, and that it includes the Cassiar, Cariboo and Atlin districts, that it is an enormous constituency, a constituency which is as large as an ordinary province, and very difficult to get about. But there is an explanation of this expenditure, which, perhaps, my hon. friend does not know about, and which, I dare say, Mr. McCraney did not know about, and I think, that, probably, if he had known about it, he would have known that a great deal of the work had to done along the coast in the north, that for that purpose our commissioner had to go away up into the Atlin district, and that on his return he was unfortunate enough to be on board that ill-fated steamer the ' Islander ' which, as everybody knows, was wrecked, and in which wreck a great


David Henderson: many people on board unfortunately lost their lives. The records of the taking of the census were lost in the wreck of the ' Islander ' and Mr. Burnett had to go back over the same ground, and retake that part of the country, the most difficult and expensive part of the country to deal with, and I think that alone would account for, and almost, if not absolutely, justify the whole additional expense which Mr. Me-Craney speaks of, and the difference between $10,000 and $17,000. I have not tire details to show whether the retaking of that part of the country cost so much as that, hut I am only stating what I know at the present time off-hand in regard to the taking of the census in that particular part of the country.


David Henderson: I was quite aware of the fact, and I have no doubt Mr. McCraney was also aware of the fact of the ' Islander ' having been lost, of the documents relating to the census having also been lost, and that the census had to be retaken, but the hon. minister is mistaken when he presumes that this accounts for the extraordinary difference between the careful estimate of Mr. McCraney and tire actual cost of taking the census. No, the total cost of taking the census in that district would amount to $4,440. That is the district where the census had to be retaken, and in the Auditor General's Report the cost of the first trip as well as the cost of the second trip is given. Dividing that into1 two equal parts, it would show that the cost of retaking the census, or the additional cost on account of the loss of the * Islander ' would be $2,220. If you deduct $2,220 from the total cost of $17,G28, you would still have a cost, of $15,407 for taking the census, which Mr. McCraney says ought to have been taken for $10,000. I do not think for one moment that the loss of the ' Islander ' explains the matter. Besides the minister is mistaken when he says that the commissioner had to go through this district. I do not think that the commissioner ever went into that district at all. The men who were paid were Geo. Pollard, Robert Patrick and Henry E. Brown, for taking the census in that district where the records were lost, so that the extended time of 210 days for which the commissioner was employed was certainly not on account of his having to go up there a second time, because he does not appear to have been there even once. I am afraid that there is more truth than poetry in the statement of Mr. McCraney when he calls Vancouver the most corrupt constituency he 'can find in the Dominion.


Richard Blain: I find that Wm. Kelly, one of the commissioners for North Hastings, received $653, which is an unusually large amount.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I knpw that Mr. Kelly got a very large
?081	JULY 21, 1903	7082
amount for expenses. I understand that Mr. Kelly took hold of the north part of the. constituency, which is very scattered, and as he had to drive all over the constituency, his travelling expenses were very heavy. The account was submitted to me, and I remember that I passed upon it. It seemed a reasonable account, although very much larger than most of the accounts from the different commissioner^.


Richard Blain: I understood that Mr. Kelly came to Ottawa about his account.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He did.


Richard Blain: Perhaps this extract from .a letter which I will read will throw some light upon the payment of such a large amount as $653.14 to Mr. Kelly. The department was apparently unwilling to pay Mr. Kelly the amount he was entitled to. and so Mr. Kelly came to Ottawa and brought with him the Reform candidate in the approaching local election. Mr. Lott. I understand that the minister had an interview with Mr. Lott.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not remember, but I may have.


Richard Blain: When Mr. Kelly went home he wrote a letter, dated Marmora, 24tli of March, but before I read the letter, permit me to say, we complain that toe minister did not send' out any fixed schedule of remuneration, and that it resulted in the commissioners' coming down here and interviewing the minister, and no doubt if they gave a good account of their stewardship the minister paid the amount they claimed. However. Mr. Kelly says, writing to the Minister of Agriculture :
When I met you In the House of Commons on Thursday last in company with Mr. Lott.
It would therefore appear that Mr. Lott and Mr. Kelly met the minister. Mr. Kelly very innocently says in this letter :
The Ontario elections are coming off the end of May or the beginning of June. Mr. B. O. Lott is the unanimous choice of the Liberal convention. I have made up my mind to do some hard work in this north riding of Hastings. Mr. Lott is the best canvasser and the hardest worker ever went into a political contest. Relying on the fair and honourable way laid down in your circular re the payment of the commissioner I feel sure I will be fairly dealt with. I have the honour to remain,
Yiour old servant,


WM. KELLY.
[Stage Direction]
There was not much trouble about the account after the Minister of Agriculture got this letter. Writing to Mr. Blue some time afterwards, Mr. Kelly says :
You siay the Minister of Agriculture has fully considered my account and that an additional amount of $300 has been allowed me. I will accept the $300.
WM: KELLY.
Mr. Lott, the Reform nominee, and Mr. Kelly, the commissioner, had a personal interview with the minister at Ottawa, and then the minister allowed $300 more, and Mr. Kelly says that is all he wanted. It would seem as if the minister did allow politics to enter into the census.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.
Richard Blain: Well, perhaps not. hut the letter is very suspicious. I have some other interesting correspondence, but I will not trouble the House with it now, further than to say that there is a good deal of the same kind of thing in other counties. One gentleman writes from West Hastings
I certainly feel I am entitled to the full amount of my account anid I urge you to look more carefully Into the matter as it will injure our cause here.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: What is before the House ?


Richard Blain: My hon. friend from Victoria wants to know what is before toe House.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I am asking the Chairman that question.


Richard Blain: I will wait until the Chairman answers.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It is the census ; it is a very wide question.


Richard Blain: If toe hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Ross) would stop writing and listen to what is going on he would understand.


William Ross: There is not so much Interest In it as to cause any one to listen.


Richard Blain: I can inform the superannuated gentleman that I am within my rights before this committee. I am reading a letter addressed to the minister in respect to the payment of a census account, and that is about as close up to the mark as we generally get in this House. I am pointing out that this Mr. Kelly came down here with the Reform nominee whom he promised to support, and he is paid by the country to the tune of $053.14. I complain that the minister has left himself open by the Instructions he issued to this kind of thing. If the commissioner gives a good account of his stewardship, the hon. minister instructs the department to pay the account, and it is paid.	.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot remember the letter in question. I may have seen it or I may not have seen it; but I can assure toe hon. gentleman that Mr. Kelly's account was carefully scrutinized, and when he was paid the extra amount, it was on the explanations furnished by him when he came down and interviewed me. Mr. Kelly's statement was supported by Mr. Lott, as appears on the face of that letter,


Richard Blain: It is a copy of a letter from the hon. gentleman's own department.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I take it that the hon. gentleman is reading a copy of a letter which is authentic. I do not remember the letter, and I cannot say anything about it.


Richard Blain: Do you remember the interview ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I remember the interview with Mr. Kelly; I do not remember seeing Mr. Lott. But it is quite a common thing for people who want to get their accounts straightened out to bring friends with them. In that case my heart seems to be softened. I have no doubt Mr. Kelly gave satisfactory explanations to show why he should be paid that amount of money. I am sure I would not have paid it for any political reasons.


David Henderson: When does the minister expect to complete the taking of the census-I mean collecting the information V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The enumeration is practically completed. There are a few items scattered about which we have to write about. But practically the whole enumeration is completed, and the accounts in connection with it are all closed. There are a few complaints still in existence, some of which may on investigation be conceded, but I think they will be very few.


David Henderson: Within the past month information was being collected in my county, and I wondered if that was a very general thing.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may say that when anything appears on a schedule inconsistent with some other statement in it. it is the duty of the officers here to communicate with the enumerator who made the schedule and obtain explanations. That is part of the work of compilation and checking. Occasionally letters are sent to enumerators who took information which on the surface is not quite explainable. and when it is explained, the information is complete.


Samuel Hughes: The minister promised that he would explain the item on page D-184 concerning an assistant commissioner in North Ontario. This is the gentleman who some time ago was concerned with a little ballot stuffing there in the interest of the Liberal party. He is paid for fifty-eight days at $3.50 a day. I would like to know what that is for.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Roach was appointed to assist Mr. Graham in consequence of the great length of the constituency.


Richard Blain: Have all the accounts in connection with the county of Lisgar, Mani-Hon. Mr. FISHER.
toba, been paid, or are there any disputed accounts there ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTUDE.: All the Manitoba accounts have been settled.


Richard Blain: I understood the minister to make a statement a few days ago with reference to a proposition to keep a permanent staff of officers for the census. Has he decided anything in regard to that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I made the suggestion that it would be a wise thing to keep a very small permanent staff for census work and to prepare certain statistics between the census years. I believe it would be very advantageous to the country, but I have not been able to submit any such scheme to my colleagues, and they have not yet considered it. Consequently it is all unsettled as yet.


Richard Blain: I am quite sure that the taking of the census for 1901 has not been satisfactory to the people of Canada. The cost of taking that census, as stated by the hon. minister, will amount to about $1,150,000 before it is completed, a good deal more than double the cost of taking the census of 1891. I find that the enumerators were instructed to take some of their figures from the assessment rolls of the province of Ontario. It is well understood that the municipal assessors do their work in the spring in every township of Ontario. I have here a copy of the assessment blanks put in the hands of every assessor of Ontario, and the number of columns is very large, thirty-four. In many of these columns are found exactly the same questions as are asked by the enumerators, and in case of death the enumerators were instructed to verify their figures from the assessment rolls.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Richard Blain: I understood that that was done in some parts of Ontario.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Richard Blain: How did they get the details ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They got them from the people they were questioning. They asked them what death occurred in the family. In Ottawa the death returns were compared with those in the assessment rolls, but the enumerators-did not in any case take their information from these rolls.


Richard Blain: Why were instructions given to compare them ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Simply to see how they compared.


Richard Blain: In the correspondence some of the enumerators have said that they took
the deaths from the municipal clerks and the assessment rolls in the different counties. I read the letters myself, so that I have personal knowledge of what I am stating. If the hon. minister feels it to he his duty to make a comparison between the reports of his enumerators and the returns by the different assessors in Ontario, and if he proposes to keep a permanent staff, I would suggest that he could reduce the cost of taking the census In Ontario very much by utilizing the assessment rolls in the different municipalities. Here are the people in these older counties, who are decreasing in population every year, in every municipality the assessor every year goes over the same farms, interviews the same families, fills in the same columns, and these are returned to the provincial government and no doubt also to the Dominion government. And! it would be worthy of the hon. gentleman's attention to see if a large reduction could not be made in the taking of the census by utilizing these assessment rolls, which are always up-to-date.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the suggestion a very good one, and I am glad to find that my hon. friend has such confidence in my continued tenure of the office.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There were certain disputed accounts in the county of Lisgar, when were these settled ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A long time ago-nearly a year back.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that they were settled at the time of the by-eiection ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We discussed that last year.


Haughton Lennox: Is there any Information in the published census returns which is compiled from any source except from the returns of the enumerators ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is not.


Haughton Lennox: Waiving the question of our right to get these secrets, are we to understand that the printed document corresponds in every instance with the returns of the enumerators?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.
ill-. LENNOX. Has it been brought to the knowledge of the minister that the opinion widely prevails that certain liberties have been taken with the returns made by the enumerators? For instance, that the sex of the individual has been changed?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That has never been brought to my attention.


Haughton Lennox: That is, a person returned as a woman was converted to a man
and vice versa. I do not know which is the greater offence. Although I am not able to prove the fact, I have reason to believe that the opinion is fairly well founded.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: There is a very large and important item with regard to "cold storage and dairying, $220,000, an increase of $10,000. What is this increase for, and in what way does the hon gentleman divide this large amount of money among the various branches of his department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not got the papers under my hand, and therefore cannot give the figures exactly with regard to the division, but in general terms I may say that that vote, which is under Professor Robertson's management, is divided in this way. We have what we call the fruit division, the poultry division, the live stock divisou. the cold storage division, the pushing of our commerce in foreign markets, and then the general office expenses here at Ottawa for that division. I would not like, off-hand, to give the figures, hut the cold storage division takes the largest amount. That covers not only cold storage work in the country, which comprises the bonus paid to the creameries and the refrigerator car service in the railways. I do not think that this year there has been a bonus of any kind on cold storage warehouses in Canada. I think these are finished, and also the cold storage and cool chambers on board the ocean steamers. I omitted a number of divisions. There is the dairy division proper, which includes the running of the creameries in the North-west Territories, the management of one or two creameries in Nova Scotia, the management of the cool curing rooms for cheese which were established last year, and the general instruction work with regard to dairying. The live stock division, under Mr. Hodson, includes work in connection with the live stock associations in the different provinces, work in connection with the fairs and exhibitions, assistance to the institute work in the various provinces, and also work in relation to the great agricultural gatherings of the year, such as the Guelph' Fat Stock Show, the fat stock show at Amherst, and the various sales of live stock which have been organized and carried on more or less under the control, though not under the actual administration, of the live stock commissioner. The fruit division includes the administration of the Fruit Marks Act, including a certain amount of supervision of, and investigation into, the growth of fruit in the country ; the management of packing, and suggestion and instruction in regard to it, and "also some slight investigation into the condition in which our fruits arrive in foreign markets and how they are handled there, as well as the gathering of informa-

tion which will aid our shippers in packing and the management of shipments. The poultry division deals chiefly with the business of eggs and poultry meat in the country, trying to show that our people here can successfully and properly fatten poultry for the home and foreign markets ; and we have also been gathering more or less information with regard to poultry management for the production of both eggs and meat. The headquarters staff includes Professor Robertson's own salary and travelling expenses, the main officers here at Ottawa and the accountant work for the whole of these different branches. The increase of $ 10,000 is due to a general expansion of the work almost entirely. About $3,000 or $4,000 is additional for the live stock division, [DOT]and another portion is additional for the foreign markets division. Speaking offhand and from memory, I think we are not proposing to spend more during the coming year on the cold storage division or on the dairy division than we did last year. The fruit inspection, I think, is costing a little more, chiefly in travelling expenses, due to the fact that the fruit inspectors are asked for the year round, while we originally intended to have them only during six or seven months of the year." I do not recall any other increases that are at all considerable. But, of course, in this, as in all other branches, there is a constant slight tendency to increase salaries. And I may say, in explanation, that there is a constant effort on the part of people to tempt away the men who are engaged in this work who have expert knowledge. I am constantly being brought face to face with the fact that in the United States the colleges and experimental stations and large business concerns want to get our men, offering them high salaries and advantageous positions. And it is only by raising the salaries to a certain extent that I am able to keep the men. But I want to do credit to our officers by saying

and I say it with the greatest pride and satisfaction-that the officers of the Department of Agriculture are interested in their work, are patriotic in their work, and are willing and glad to stay here at prices much below what they could get were they to desert Canada and go to foreign lands. By reason of their interest in their work and their patriotic feeling in the development of the country, the best of them have refused advantageous offers rather than leave the service of Canada.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The minister has gone over the subjects treated of in the different divisions. But I am bound to say that the answer as to the amount of money to be spent on any division is not very clear. We do not know, for instance, what is to be spent for the extension of markets or what amount for cold storage.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am sorry I can not give that this evening.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But I shall be glad to give the hon. gentleman an opportunity later on to get all the information he wants. I have the information prepared by officers of the department but the papers are not here. If the hon. gentleman would like, I would suggest, if the discussion of the census is closed, that we might call the census item carried but the House will have every opportunity discuss the vote my hon. friend from Wentworth (Mr. Smith) lias referred to. And i would call that vote to give Him every opportunity to learn whatever details he may wish to know.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I understand that the hon. minister will, call this vote for the cold storage division again V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


James Clancy: I am sure that the hon. minister knows the inconvenience of an arrangement of that kind. This is a very imp irtant service, and the committee will certainly require to have the information in considerable detail. The minister has told us in general terms something about the service. But as my hon. friend from Wentworth (Mr. Smith) says, no details are given. I should suggest that, so far as the census matter is concerned, that item may be considered as dealt with for the present at least. But this other matter should stand until the hon. minister is prepared to give us the information. I mean by that that this item relating to cold storage does not pass at all to-night.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is what I proposed. Let the census item be declared carried, if my hon. friends opposite say the discussion-


James Clancy: My attention has just been called to the fact that all the items have been passed with the exception of the census. Therefore, I am afraid we shall have to hold that as a hostage a little longer until the hon. gentleman is prepared to give the information we are asking for.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I was suggesting to pass the census item-let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) not shake his head until he has heard me-and I will ask the Chairman to call the item of $220,000 for the express purpose of affording a full discussion on that item. And I pledge myself to have here the information asked for. If that is agreeable, I will propose it; if not I am in the hands of the hon. gentlemen. When that item passed some weeks ago I gave a pledge that an opportunity wrould be given to discuss it, and I do not wish to depart from that pledge.


James Clancy: When will the matter be taken up again ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would not like to take it up this week,

because the chief officer of that division is away. I may take it up some day next Week, when I will have all my papers with me.
Dominion arsenal, $150,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir F. W. Borden).: This item is for the* Dominion arsenal at Quebec, where cartridges and ammunition for artillery are manufactured in, a government factory. This money will be used in the payment of wages and the purchase of material chiefly. The amount of wages is estimated at about $72,000, and the materials over $100,000 for the manufacture of cartridges. In the shell factory the wages amount to about $12,000, and materials to $5,000. In the artillery workshop, the wages amount to $10,000 and the materials to $8,000. I may say generally with regard to 'this factory, that it has recently been greatly improved and increased in capacity. While we were manufacturing a million rounds a few years ago. last year we manufactured about 7,000,000 rounds of ball cartridge. The capacity of the factory for the present year will be something like 12,000.000 or 13,000.000. For the present year it is expected that over and above the ordinary requirements, there will be manufactured 2,000,000 rounds, which will go towards making a reserve of ammunition.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister explain about the miniature ammunition, and how it is distributed 1


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Last year of that there was manufactured 415,000 rounds. As my hon. friend knows, the old exploded shells of cartridges are used for that purpose, and a very much smaller quantity of powder is used in making them. This ammunition is found to be very valuable for practice at short range, I think only twenty-live yards distance is necessary to practice with this ammunition. It is found very useful at camps and places where the ranges are not safe for the use of long range cartridges.


Samuel Hughes: I understood the minister was going. to supply it to the cadet schools free. I am informed they cannot get any.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Because we have not yet been able to make a sufficient quantity. Small quantities have been supplied to the cadets Within the last month or two. I hope next year we will be able to supply it free in large quantities.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are there any items coming up in the supplementary estimates on which we can discuss the militia question '1


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, there will be in the supplementary estimates an item upon which
the whole condition of the militia and the question of defence can be discussed, and upon which I expect to make a statement to the House with reference to those matters.


Samuel Hughes: I may point out to the minister that our friends across the way have set us an example.that it might be well for us to consider. I do not find any fault with the Dominion arsenal being stationed at Quebec, except that from a strategic view point, in case of invasion of this country, Quebec would certainly be one of the first places invested. If our enemy could possibly control the approach to the river, he might possibly control the approach by land also. Our American cousins have their main arsenal at Springfield, quite a distance from the seaboard, and they also have another one at Rock island, on the Mississippi river. I had the privilege of going through both of them, and they make no secret of stating that the object of having them so far inland and away from the seacoast is to make them practically absolutely safe in time of war from attack. I would suggest to the minister that in case he proposes to erect a larger arsenal, it might be well to consider the advisability of placing it further inland.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I quite agree with my hon. friend, and there is a great deal of force in what he says. However, we know that it is an easy matter to move the cartridges the moment they are manufactured to points inland and store them in magazines. Two or three places are to be constructed in the present year for that purpose. I agree with him that in the near future it will be necessary to construct another cartridge factory, and when that time comes, I think some inland point should be selected. It has been in my own mind that possibly some point near the city of Ottawa might be a convenient place, where there is good railway communication inland, and where stores of this kind could be moved rapidly and safely.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What will be the order of business for to-morrow.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will consider one or two Bills, and perhaps resolutions, and if time permits we will go into supply. There are a number of scattered items in the estimates which we may take up. The Minister of Agriculture has arranged with some hon. gentlemen opposite

that his Bill respecting the inspection of seeds will be discussed during the afternoon, and perhaps the Criminal Code Bill may come on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 22, 1903.