1911-05-15

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 214) respecting the Sault St. Louis Light and Power Company.-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 215) for the relief of William Francis Currie.-Mr. Pardee.

Mr. FOSTER.: Before the orders of the day arfe called, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he can give any information to the House as to the exact situation at the present time of the proposed negotiations between the Bahamas and Canada for admission to the confederation. It is stated in the press that papers have arrived at Mr. LEMIEUX.
home, and that the matter is being taken up. by the premier in London during his present visit.


Mr. FIELDING.: There are really no negotiations whatever. We are aware from public discussion that the people of the Bahamas are interested in the matter, and it is not improbable that the question would arise in England and would be discussed between the Prime Minister and the authorities of the Colonial Office; but nothing official whatever has occurred on the subject.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 170) to incorporate the New Ontario and Quebec Railway Company-Mr. Gordon (Nipissing).
On section 7, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Lancaster.
Mr. PUGSLEY.: When this Bill was last before the committee, my hon: friend from Lincoln was desirous of ascertaining the opinion of the Minister of Railways upon it. As the Minister of Railways is not able ! to be here this morning, he has left a mem: orandum with my hon. friend the Secretary of State in which he says that he sees no objection whatever to the Bill, as the gentlemen who are promoting it have given him the assurance that they intend to build the principal line proposed as well as the branches, and he is of opinion that the Bill ought to go through with an amendment changing the name to the New Ontario and Abitibi railway, so that it will not conflict with the name of another company already in existence.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I must insist upon my amendment, because there is a very serious principle involved. The government and the House of course can take the responsibility of rejecting it. I cannot see any force in the minister's statement that he sees no harm in this Bill. It undertakes to incorporate three lines of railway, two of them 25 miles each in length to connect with the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, a provincially-owned and operated railway, with the assets of the province of Ontario involved in it and the taxation of the people of Ontario behind it, for the purpose of developing an undeveloped portion of the province. These two lines of railway provided for in clause (b) and clause (c) of this Bill, are purely local works, entirely within not only the province, but one electoral district of the province. The third line named in clause (a) is a line that, if it were going to be built, would have to have a Dominion charter; but the two other little lines ought not, under any circumstances.

to be incorporated toy this parliament. It would be in absolute conflict not only with the British North America Act, but with our own Railway Act, which provides in section 8 that a railway owned by any provincial government shall not be subject to Dominion legislation with respect to through traffic without the consent of such government.
The Ontario government sent a protest to our committee against our giving a charter to build the two twenty-five mile railways, _<which are f* connect with the Ontario government railtway now being operated and thus putting these two small	lines	under federal	jurisdiction.If we do that our Board of Railway Commissioners cannot control the provincial	line	with which	we connectthese two little railways and the provincial	Board	cannot control	these twolittle	railways which we	incorporate.
Besides under the British North America Act we have no right to incorporate any railways which are entirely within one province unless we go the length of saying, for some special reason, that they are for the general advantage of Canada. No such declaration, however, is made in this Bill, and none such could be made because it would be utterly opposed to the facts. There is nothing to prevent these two small lines getting a charter from the province, and thus coming under the same jurisdiction as the line with which they propose to connect. I have been asked why in the railway committee I did not move to strike .out these two clauses. But assuming that the company are going to build east and west and run across the boundary line into the province of Quebec to Lake Abitibi, I would not object to their 'having a Dominion charter in that case, because that would not be an unfair interference with provincial rights. Therefore, I moved an amendment that they should not be prevented building these two twenty-five mile branches, provided they first build their main line, 160 miles east and west, which is their only excuse "for coming here. So that instead of moving tio strike out these clauses, I moved that the company might be allowed to build these two short lines provided they first 'build the main line across into Quebec, which is their only excuse for coming to this parliament at all.
The Minister of Public Works says that the Department of Railways has been assured by the promoters of the Bill that they intend to build this line of railway mentioned in section (a) to connect with the Transcontinental. If that be the case, no harm can be done by .saying: You shall do that before building these other two.


Hon.   W@: These two branches will connect
with the National Transcontinental as well as with the Ontario and Timiskaming. Will he inform the committee how they will in any way interfere with the Timiskaming and Ontario any more than with the National Transcontinental?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Clause (c) begins at the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario, runs northerly and easterly along the Abitibi river to a junction with the line described in paragraph (to), being a distance of twenty-five miles, and the line in paragraph (b) connects with the National Transcontinental.


William Pugsley: Does not that make one line connecting with the Transcontinental and running around to the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It would make a line connecting the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway with the Transcontinental railway if they are both built. But even so those two little lines are entirely within the province of Ontario, and within the one judicial district, and we have no right to charter them at all unless we take the responsibility of saying they are for the general advantage of Canada. But we do not say that, and it would be absurd to do so. The fact that these two lines, if built, would connect the National Transcontinental with the provincial railway does not give us jurisdiction. But because they want a Dominion charter, the company apply for a charter to build a road to run across into the province of Quebec to Lake Abitibi. The Minister of Railways implied toy his statement the other night repeated by the Minister of Public Works to-day, that he had an assurance from the promoters of the Bill that the company are going to build that line of railway provided for in clause (a), which is an interprovincial railway and therefore should have a Dominion charter. If that is the case, what possible objection can there be to my amendment which simply provides that they shall be compelled to build that part of the railway before they build the two branch lines of 25 miles each, which are really the most outrageous interference with provincial rights in the sense of interfering not only with a prov-ineially controlled but with a provincially owned railway, which is under the control of a different railway commission from our Board of Railway Commissioners. Without my amendment the assurance which the minister has received does not amount to a snap of the fingers.


Mr. NESBITT.: The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) has admirably argued his point, and surely he would now be willing to trust to the vote of the committee to see whether they think with him

or against him. Let ns have a vote and get rid of the Bill. I am not interested in the Bill in any way.


Mr. SMYTH (Algoma).: I have just discovered that a great part 01 this proposed road is in my riding. It is unnecessary for me to tell the committee where I stand in regard to provincial rights, and the requirements for railways throughout New Ontario. The minitser says he has an assurance from the promoters that they are going to construct the proposed main line. The difference made by the amendment of the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara is that the amendment will compel them to build the main line first, while the statement of the promoters is that they will build the main line.


William Pugsley: Not first, they want to build them simultaneously.


William Ross Smyth: The amendment says they shall build it first, and the statement made to the Minister of Railways says simply they will build it.


William Pugsley: Where is the objection to letting them build simultaneously if they want to?	.


William Ross Smyth: I know that the provincial government are opposed to this company receiving a charter from this parliament for the part of their line which is exclusively in Ontario, but if I had some assurance that the main line was going to be built, and that the project was not purely and simply a provincial matter, I would certainly favour the Bill, because I cannot see what harm it would do to the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway if this road connected both with the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario and with the National Transcontinental railway. If it opens up that country it will do great good to the people of that part. I also understand that one of the reasons for asking power to build one of the branch lines is that they want to connect some water-powers which they own with the Timiskaming -and Northern Ontario railway, and by that means, after having it completed, will be able to get their machinery and other plant into their water-powers. They should have applied to the provincial government for that right, there is no question about that. But if we are given a substantial assurance that they are going to build the main line, and you can hold them down to that assurance, I would certainly vote for the Bill because we require all the railways we can have in that northern country.


William Pugsley: I might read a letter, a copy of which has been placed in my hands from one of the promoters of the Bill to the Mr. NESBTTT
hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Gordon) who, I regret is unable to be present this morning. The letter reads:



NEW ONTARIO AND QUEBEC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Toronto, May 13, 1911. George Gordon, E-q., M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-As one of the promoters of this Bill, I desire to impress upon you that the objection which has been raised that the company should be incorporated by the provincial legislature is unfounded. It is absolutely necessary, as you will see from the map, that about twenty miles of the railway should be in the province of Quebec in order to get around Lake Abitibi. It is the intention to proceed with the construction of the railway as speedily as possible, and for that purpose the promoters desire to carry on the whole of the work, including that of the so-called branches, simultaneously.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
I do not know what stronger assurance one could have than that positive statement of what their intentions are.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: The letter contains a statement that they intend to do all this simultaneously. My motion is that they shall do part of the work, the part which is properly the subject of Dominion legislation, first. We know that in practice a railway in course of construction is not all proceeded with at the same time. There would be no wrench to the assurance they have given if they were required to proceed with the Dominion controlled part of the road before proceeding with the part that is purely a matter of provincial concern. Now 'I appeal	to	the	Minister	of PublicWorks as	a	business man.	He	hasread here a letter; should not he put [DOT]the effect	of	that	letter in	the	bond[DOT]where it will	have	some meaning	and
effect?-which is the very intention of my amendment.. I discussed the form of this amendment with hon. members, and the draftsmanship is the result of that conference. I think the language is correct and adequate but, if it can be changed with advantage I do not object. If they are going to work on both these lines simultaneously we know, as practical men, that they do not have their derricks, their teams, their men at two points at the same time. Then why not provide that they shall begin with the Dominion railway before they begin with that part which, standing alone is a purely provincial work. They must begin somewhere, and if they begin on the twenty-five mile line and stop there-which I have not any doubt is .their real intention-


Mr. EMMERSON.: Had we not better knock it out altogether?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No. I admit that clause (a) ought to be in the Bill. If they are
89e:

going to build into the province of Quebec they have a perfect right to get a Dominion charter; but clauses (b) and (c) should not pass except with the qualification I suggest. Talk about ' assurance,' I do not want to be pernickity, as has been suggested, nor unduly uncharitable, but I want to be a little businesslike. Look at the names connected with this charter. The first is E. A. Wallberg. What does this government think of E. A. Wallberg, in view of the disclosures made on his contracts.


Mr. CARVELL.: The Supreme court decided that he was all right.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Oh, yes; the initials are all right. ' E. A.,' my children would probably say, were thoroughly respectable initals in view of the initials of their father's name. But it is the surname that *is wrong, for proof of which I refer to the records of this House. The ' E. A.' is all [DOT]right, but the ' Wallberg ' is not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is not the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) aware that the Supreme court has said that Mr. Wallberg is all right?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I was speaking of what transpired in this House under the contracts Mr.Wallberg had. I have a list of them here. If the Minister of Public Works would show a disposition to be something of a business man where provincial rights are concerned, I would not trouble the House with this matter. But, he proposes to take the statement of the promoter of this Bill instead of putting the condition in the bond. He is going to take a mere letter which he knows, as a lawyer is not worth the paper it is written on, and cannot be enforced or dealt with in court. I have here a list of contracts by which this man had made thousands of dollars out of the people of the country-contracts with the Railway Department, with the Marine and Fisheries Department, and with others; a contractor working as close to the line as he dare, making all sorts of money out of the people of this country. And when this man seeks to go into the province of Ontario with a Dominion charter behind him and interfere with a railway owned and operated by the people, a provincial railway run by a business government, this government ought to establish reasonable, businesslike conditions in granting privileges. I think the more that is said on the subject the more reason there is why my amendment should carry.
Amendment (Mr. Lancaster) negatived.


William Pugsley: In accordance with the suggestion of the Minister of Railways I would move that section 1 be amended so as to make the name of the company ' The New Ontario and Abitibi Railway Company.'


William Ross Smyth: What is the reason for that?


William Pugsley: There is a company already chartered known as ' The Ontario and Quebec Railway Company.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is not the effect of the minister's amendment to put this railway under an entirely provincial- name?


William Pugsley: No. But the name given in this section might be confounded with that of * The Ontario and Quebec Railway Company.' Lake Abitibi, I understand, is not wholly in the province of Ontario; there is part of it in the province of Quebec.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The part that this railway runs to is in the province of Quebec. Why not, as I suggested to the Minister of Railways, leave out the word 'new'? The Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway is developing New Ontario- that is what it was built for. It does not make much difference what the name of a railway is in one sense, but if you are going to change this name why not call it ' The Ontario and Lake Abitibi Railway Company.'


William Ross Smyth: Besides, the people in Northern Ontario object to the name ' New Ontario.' It is the same old Ontario.


William Pugsley: I see; Northern Ontario will soon swing the rest of Ontario-that is the idea. I should be glad to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) I move that section (1) be amended so as to make the name read the ' Ontario and Abitibi Railway Company.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am not objecting. But as I understand it the title of the Bill cannot be amended in committee. If the title is to be amended it should be on the third reading.


William Pugsley: This only amends section 1 by changing the name.
Amendment (Mr. Pugsley) agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. WHITE moved that the Bill be now read the third time, and that its title be an Act to incorporate the Ontario and Abitibi Railway Company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before the Bill is read a third time, I want formally to move my amendment, which has been discussed and turned down by the Committee of the Whole:
That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions to add to section 7, as subsection 2, the following



The powers of construction granted by paragraphs (b) and (c) shall not be exercised until the line of railway authorized by paragraph (a) shall have been constructed to the respective junctions on that line to which the lines authorized by the said paragraphs (b) and (c) are to extend.
I just wish to say that in view of the provisions of the constitution with regard to provincial rights, in view of our own statute providing that we shall not interfere with government owned and operated railways in any province, in view of what I said a few moments ago and last week, and the week before, I want again to protest against the House passing the third reading of this Bril, and T warn the House that, if it does pass it, it will establish a very dangerous precedent. It is all very well for some people to say that it does not make any difference whether a railway is under the Dominion or under a province. It does make a difference, until the British North America Act is amended. I might join in petitioning the home government to amend that Act, and to place all railways under this jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament; but as the constitution stands to-day the provincial authorities have the sole right with regard to lines of railway wholly within the province; and in this case the province has a special right, recognized not only by the British North America Act, but by our own Dominion statute. In view of the fact that the lines of railway mentioned in subclauses (b) and (c) are to have connection with the prov-ineially-owned and operated railway, this legislation is a most undue and unwarranted interference with provincial rights. Some of the other provinces, as well as the province of Ontario will be sorry in the future that this legislation has passed. We do not know when some other province may be struck at in the same way, and if we pass this Bill, as it stands to-day, we shall be making a bad precedent or else fish of one and flesh of another. The amendment I propose cannot hurt this charter if the company does what it promises to do. Under the circumstances, [DOT]I ask the House to vote for the amendment, so that this improper interference with the province of Ontario will not I>h perpetrated.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Might I ask the Minister of Public Works what serious objection he has to this amendment?


William Pugsley: The motion is that one part of this road shall be built first. Now, what the promoters say is that they want Ho proceed at different points upon all parts of the line as may be most convenient for them. This is the memorandum which has been left for me bv the Minister of Railways:
Mr. LANCASTER
This railway runs twenty or twenty-five miles through Quebec (not one mile, as stated by Mr. Lancaster). There is, therefore, no doubt about the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament.
There is no reason for assuming that the Quebec part of the railroad will not be built or for questioning the good faith of the promoters. A glance at the map would show that the railroad must run through Quebec. The easterly portion serves the country south of Lake Abitibi, a country which has been surveyed by the Transcontinental and which is a very fine agricultural count ry. Lake Abitibi is fifty or sixty miles long and the easterly end of it extends ten or twelve miles into Quebec. The Transcontinental is to the north of Lake Abitibi and to get to it at the easterly end of Lake Abitibi it is necessary for the present railway to go through Quebec.
Mr. Lancaster's motion would have the effect of delaying the completion of the railway by about two years. It would take between two and three years to finish what is called the main line. If Mr. Lancaster's motion carried, it would mean, therefore, that the promoters could not commence the so-called branch lines for between two or three years, and it would then take perhaps two years to finish them.
The promoters are anxious to get the whole road built as soon as possible. They want to be able to commence at different points at the same time.
If the amendment of my hon. friend was carried, they could not strike a blow on any one of these branches until the portion mentioned in paragraph (a) was competed, which would take about two years. They must have in view the most convenient points to get in their supplies, and I understand that the construction of these branches is necessary in order to get in their supplies for the construction of the main line. It seems to me unreasonable that we should say what part of this road should be built first. If parliament is going to incorporate the company at all, surely it ought not to hamper them by saying that they shall first build one part of the line, which will take two years to build, and must not touch any other part of the line until that is completed.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Can the minister give any reason why they ought not to go to the local legislature for a charter to build the two branch lines?


William Pugsley: When those lines are completed they will all be parts of one system of railway. One portion of the line could only be authorized by this parliament, because it extends into the province of Quebec. Does not my hon. friend see how inconvenient it would be for the railway company to have two charters, placing one portion of its system under the jurisdiction of the province, and another portion under the jurisdiction of the Dominion? It would be under the control of

two Boards of Railway Commissioners, and be subject to two jurisdictions. It would be entirely inconvenient, and I can see no possibility that any public interest could be served by putting the company in that position.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman is well aware that the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario is a provincially-owned railway, and these lines are to connect with it. This company is asking a charter apparently with the sole object of having Dominion authority to build branch lines as well as a main line connecting with the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario. Would it not be reasonable to say that, so far as the branch lines are concerned, they are a matter for the province to deal with. The provincial government are opposed to the Dominion granting this charter, and their interests should be given some consideration.


William Pugsley: That was all thoroughly threshed out in the committee.


Mr. BLAIN.: When does the hon. minister expect that this road will be begun and completed?


William Pugsley: I have no personal knowledge, but I have the assurance forwarded to me through my colleague, the Minister of Railways, from the promoters, that they are acting bona fide and intend proceeding as rapidly as possible with the construction of the whole system. We have also the assurance of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Gordon) that the promoters are acting in good faith. All these assurances had weight with the special committee which dealt with this matter, and ought to have weight with the House.


Mr. ARTHURS.: Is the minister aware that any application has been made to this government for a subsidv for any part of these lines, or the whole?


William Pugsley: Not aware of any.


James Arthurs: The reason I ask is this: The Ontario government has built the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario, of which these branch lines will be practically feeders. The Timiskaming and Northern Ontario was built absolutely without any subsidy from this government, and it would be unfair to assist any company in building lines, which should be practically branch lines of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario, by giving this company Dominion subsidies.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend explain why?
Amendment negatived on division; motion agreed to; Bill read the third time.
283*
Mr. PUGSLEY moved that the Bill do now pass, and that the name of the company be changed to that of the Ontario and Abitibi Railway Companv.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill passed.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 158) to incorporate Revillon Freres Trading Company, Limited.-Mr. Devlin.
On section 8: description of property and assets transferred.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, you have some amendments to the Bill, have you not?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: There do not appear to be any proposed amendments to this section.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that the objection has been met by a recital which has been placed on the notice paper to make the matter clearer. With that recital, section 8, I understand, will be quite clear.
On section 10,
The majority of the directors of the company need not be residents of Canada nor subjects of His Majesty, provided, however, that at least two of such directors shall have these qualifications and a minority of the directors, being non-residents and not more than two in number, may vote by proxy at meetings of the directors.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: There are some proposed amendments. The law clerk has attached to the Bill a memorandum in regard to section 10 which I will read:
Section 127 of the Company's Act, which requires that the majority of directors of the company shall be residents in Canada and subjects of His Majesty, does not apply to this company. (See clause 12). In the third line of clause 10, the words 'of such' are ambiguous. Probably any two directors are meant, and the words 'of such' should be struck out. The last two lines of the clause as amended are either ambiguous or not what is intended. The matter has been explained to Mr. Miller, chairman of the Banking Committee. I would suggest the following as clause 10 of the Bill as covering what is apparently intended :
10. At least two directors shall be residents of Canada and subjects of His Majesty. Two non-resident directors may vote by proxy at meetings of directors.
(Sgd.) A. H. O'BRIEN,
Law Clerk.


George Eulas Foster: Just what is the difference between this and the company's Act requirement?


William Stevens Fielding: Under the company's Act the majority must be British subjects. This is a company with an organization already established in Paris, and probably it would not be possible to apply the company's Act to it. This firm has been established in Paris and has been operating throughout the world for a long time, but it is a French firm.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to require a pretty good reason why the company's Act should be departed .from. I do not quite understand from what the Minister of Finance says why it could not be so arranged that the majority would be British subjects.


Mr.   BAEKER@: The proprietary interest in this company is really in France. Re-villon Bros, are a French firm who started a company here to carry on business in Canada. By some- mistake made in the chartering they found that they could not really incorporate themselves and the business has been going on for some years. This Act is intended to properly constitute and organize the company, it being thoroughly well known that the proprietary interest is in old France. But they propose to have an incorporation here with at least two directors resident in the province of Quebec. I would suggest, however, that if there is no danger of interfering with the Bill, we allow it to stand for another day. I was asked by the committee to take some part in revising the Bill and I did so, but since then there have been other words introduced by the law clerk and I would like, if I am to have any responsibility in regard to it, to have an opportunity of looking at them. It is very important that this Bill should be free from blunders. They have twice attempted to put themselves right, and while no doubt the law clerk may be perfectly correct in his wording, I would prefer to let it stand until the next meeting.


Mr. DEVLIN.: We have tried, to follow as closely as possible the wording of section 9 of the Act to incorporate the Alberta Railway and Coal Company. As the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has pointed out, this Bill presently arises through a misunderstanding in the incorporation of the company in the first instance. Revillon Brothers sought incorporation by letters patent, and were incorporated as Revi'llon Brothers, Limited, and in the letters patent they are also called Revillon Freres a Responsabilite Limitee. They were also incorporated by Act of Parliament under their letters patent, but they could not organize in any shape or form, so the attorneys in charge of the present Bill have made out the Act which is now before parliament in order to regulate the whole thing, and I think that if Mr. FOSTER.
possible it would be well for the committee to leave the clause as originally suggested, as it would save a great deal more trouble than trying to right matters here.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my hon. friend
may accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker). The words added by the law clerk are probably correct, but I know that words added without much consultation in that way are sometimes found to be otherwise. * This firm is of world wide fame and of the highest reputation and standing, and I am sure there is nothing in the Bill but what is there for good purposes.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think there is any objection to the matter being made satisfactory. It was the desire of the committee to meet the wishes of the promoters.
Section 10 allowed to stand.
Progress reported.



CONTINENTAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
_ House in committee on Bill (No. 196) to incorporate the Continental Fire (Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Molloy.
On section 7,
Richard Blain: How far has the government control over the rates of insurance?


William Stevens Fielding: There is no such control-competition.


Richard Blain: I think this question of rates should receive some consideration by the Finance Department. We are chartering companies every day giving them the right to insure plate glass. The government should have some general control over the rates.


William Stevens Fielding: The suggestion of my hon. friend is worthy of consideration; but I do not think that up to the present time abuses have been brought to our notice that would call for the intervention of the government.


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest to the promoter of the Bill that before the word * subscribed ' in this section the words 'bona fide' be inserted.


William Stevens Fielding: Does that add anything to it?


George Eulas Foster: I think so. At least, the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) thought it added so much that in his outline of the new Banking Bill the word 'bona fide' was placed. The subscription might be a fake subscription, as was actually the case in the Farmers' Bank.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no objection to the insertion of the words. They would not do any harm.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to. .
Section 7 as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 192) to provide for increasing the capital stock of the Kichelieu and Ontario Navigation Company.-Mr. Bickerdike.
On motion to report the Bill.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 
Mr. BICKERDIKE.: 
Mr ARMSTRONG.: This is in preparation for a large merger?


Robert Bickerdike: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I thought mergers were tabooed under the present regime.


Robert Bickerdike: Only the name. 3
wJ*y this legislation is necessary. We snoukl like to know that he approves it.

hui Li	o 1 cannot gJve the details,
but before the Senate Committee the deputy commissioner appeared and went into the matter, and he reported to me that there was no objection to it.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



TRUSSED CONCRETE STEEL COMPANY OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
nouse m committee on Bill (No. 188) to confer on the commissioner of patents certain powers for the relief of the Trussed Concrete Steel Company of Canada, Limited.-Mr. Clarke (Essex)
Mr. FISHER.: The reasons for this Bill are set out in the preamble. The case is peculiar. This concern has a company in Michigan and also one in Canada. They obtained a patent in the United States. The head office in Michigan thought the Canadian office was looking after the patent in Canada and the Canadian office thought the Michigan office was attending to the matter. The time expired during which they had a right to obtain a patent. The* Bill was before the Senate Committee, the deputy commissioner reported to me that there was no objection.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



MUNDERLOH AND COMPANY, LIMITED

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the promoter of tbe Bill made any investigation to see whether or not we are likely to have a repetition of such results as those of the cement merger?


Robert Bickerdike: This is not at all on the same line. The Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company are taking over the Northern Navigation Company and the Inland Navigation Company and are about to acquire other companies as well. They have not sufficient capital stock to take them all over and simply ask for authority to make new issues.
House in committee on Bill (No. 203) respecting certain patents of Munderloli and Company, Limited.-Mr. Rivet.	]


George Eulas Foster: What is the explanation of this?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The same as that of the Boiler Flue Cleaner and Supply Company, The first term of the patent expired and they desire to have it extended for a second term. The matter has been before the Senate.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: All right, we will take your word for it.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



BOILER FLUE CLEANER AND SUPPLY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 187) respecting a patent of the Boiler Flue Cleaner and Supply Company, Limited.- Mr. Clarke (Essex).
['1.\tYes.\n; 2. (a) Frame building; (b) $15,609.75.\n3.\tYes, plans are now being prepared.']
George Eulas Foster: We ought to have from the Minister of Agriculture an explanation



[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 206) respecting the Chatham, Wallaoeburg and Lake Erie Railway Company.-Mr Gordon (Kent).
On the preamble,
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the extension of time granted to this company?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The said company may, within two years after the passing of this Act, commence the

construction of its railway and expend fifteen per cent of the amount of its capital stock thereon, and may, within five years after the passing of this Act, complete the said railway and put it in operation; and if, within the said periods respectively, the said railway is not commenced and such expenditure is not so made, or the said railway is not completed and put in operation, the powers of construction conferred upon the said company by parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said railway as then remains uncompleted. .


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is the promoter of the Bill present? Could he give us any assurance that they are going on with it? My reason for asking is that there is another company that is considering extending in that direction, and I merely want to get an assurance from the promoters of the Bill that they intend to carry out the instructions contained in that clause.


Mr. CLARKE (Essex).: I would say to my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) that the promoter of the Bill will not be back again before the adjournment, and, therefore, I do not think there is any one who could give the assurance which the hon. gentleman asks. From my knowledge of the road I know they are very desirous of making the extension, but beyond that I cannot go. This is a road which, I am sure, my hon. friend will be very glad to get. They have a line running from Wallaceburg to Lake Erie and it is well equipped.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I may say that in so far as Petrolea is concerned, the people there are interested in this road and anxious to have it. But, there is another company that is extending in the same direction. I was anxious to know whether these men intended to proceed with the work that would be necessary.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At one o'clock, the House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


RELIEF OF GERTRUDE MARY GRANTHAM.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 200) for the relief of Gertrude Mary Grantham.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.: Mr. Chairman, I do not consider that I am charged with any greater responsibility than each other member of this House in respect to Bills for divorce, though I generally look over the evidence when these Bills come to this House. In the case of this particular Bill my attention was specially drawn to the circumstances from the fact that, as I understood it, the Private Bills Committee felt considerable hesitation as to reporting the Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER
Bill. At the first sitting, at any rate, when it was considered by that committee, the decision to hold it over for further consideration was made instead of the usual course of reporting it being followed. On reading the evidence, I must say that I was not astonished that the Private Bills Committee should have felt considerable hesitation in the matter, because, speaking for myself, after having read the evidence, I think this case is certainly going as far in the w'ay of granting a divorce without there being any distinct evidence of any particular or specific act of adultery as any case that has ever come under my notice. I want to call the attention of the members of the committee to what the evidence exactly is, and to all that there is in the way of evidence. The application was not opposed by the husband. It is the wife's application based on the usual grounds. The evidence in support of the application consists of the testimony of three witnesses-the wife, the family doctor and the wife's father; that is all. No one of them speaks of anything within his or her own knowledge, but each speaks of occasions when the husband made to him or her certain admissions or statements in regard to his conduct. Without further preface I want to read to the committee exactly what each one of these witnesses says, and that is all the evidence presented here, upon whioh this Bill is supported. The wife was the first witness examined. She w'as not cros.s-examined at all, but was merely examined by her own counsel; and in reading the evidence I ask the attention of the committee to the form in which the questions are put, that the committee may consider to wrhat extent these statements were the statements of the witness, the wife herself, and to what extent they were suggestions made to her by her own counsel. After the usual preliminary inquiries and the establishing of the marriage, which took place in 1898, and the statement that the husband and wife had lived for some years in the city of Newr York, the counsel says:
Q. You lived with your husband in Toronto tor some time?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you continue to hear stories about his infidelity?-A. Yes.
Q. His going about with other women and cohabiting with them?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you finally challenge him about it?- A. Yes, he told me.
Q. What did he tell you?-A. He told me about a certain woman living in Buffalo.
Q. Do you know her name ?-A. No, I do not quite remember her name.
Q. What did he tell vou?-A. He said he met her at hotels.
Q. Slept with her, do you mean?-A. Yes.
Q. Cohabiting with her?-A. Yes.
That is the wife's testimony. The next is the family doctor:
Q. Did you attend Mr. Grantham at his home while he was living with his wife or

while they were living in the same house together?-A. Yes, on Balmoral avenue.
Q. Are you able to state to the chairman and members of the committee what his habits were as to sexual relations with women?-A. Yes. I think he had very free sexual relations with other women than his wife.
By Hon. Mr. Tones:
Q. You think that?-A. I know it from his own statements to me.
Q. He said so to you?-A. Yes, many times.
Finally, the evidence of the wife's father:
Q. Hid you have any talks with Grantham about his faithfulness or unfaithfulness towards his wife?-A. In the course of conversation he admitted to me at one time that he was not.
Q. What did he say?-A. That lie was not and did not propose to be.
Q. That is, that he would cohabit with other women?-A. That is the meaning I took from it.
Then, a little further down:
Q. Can you tell us his language when he said he proposed to continue that method of living?-A. He said that men were different from women, that they were polygamous in their habits.
A little further:
Q. It was at that time that he referred to his past infidelity and his intention to continue those infidelities?-A. It was just a general conversation, and he said that a man was constituted differently from a woman.
That is the whole of the evidence. Now, if this were a legal proceeding, an ordinary suit between two parties, in which the one sued to collect a debt from the other, I fully concede that it would be not merely prima facie evidence of the debt, but conclusive, if witnesses deposed to the court that the defendant had admitted to them on different occasions that he owed the money. Any court, any jury, or any man would be quite justified in acting upon such an admission. But it seems to me that it is a different state of things altogether when you are considering whether or not there is evidence upon which a divorce ought to he granted by parliament. A proceeding for divorce is not in the nature of a mere private proceeding in which the parties themselves are alone interested. There is a large public interest in preserving the sanctity of marriage relations. In the old country that interest is recognized by the appointment of an officer known as the King's Proctor, who frequently intervenes under direction of the court in cases where there is any reason to suspect that the husband and the wife may each wish to be free of their marriage obligations, to that extent concurring if not actually colluding in promoting the effort to separate them. Apply that idea to the situation here. Speaking for myself, I think it is very likely that this lady is entitled in fact to be
divorced, that her husband has in fact committed adultery, probably done so repeatedly ; but the question for us, it seems to me, is, has that been here proved? It may be that the evidence exists, and that with a little difficulty it could be found and produced. If that Is the fact, there will be but little hardship upon the parties if this measure is not passed, and they are left to apply at the next session of parliament, and then to produce the evidence which might have been, I venture to think, obtained if there had been the proper effort to secure it before the present application was made. Everything here rests upon what the husband stated to his wife, his wife's father, and the doctor. I do not question for a moment the exact truth of what these witnesses have said that he said; but if one may suppose that this husband is as anxious to be free from his wife as his wife is to be free from him, may it not have been that he said these things for the very purpose of inducing her to make the application which she has made. His statements were not made under oath. He may have been boasting-that is the language of counsel. not my language-of his exploits.
I think our experience is that a man who would boast of such a thing is not one upon whose word much reliance is to be placed, but rather a man desirous of furnishing evidence upon which his wife might procure a divorce. However that may be, here at any rate is an instance in which the House is asked to decree divorce without any pretense of being able to conclude that at a certain time, with a certain woman, the offence of adultery was committed. We are asked to give judgment simply because this husband is a man of such moral character as his statements to his father-in-law would indicate, a man who would not hesitate, upon the opportunity offering, to commit adultery, but who, even upon his own statement, in the evidence we have, is not shown to have at any particular time or with any particular woman, or at any particular place, committed the offence with which he is charged.
Mr. BARKER I have not read the evidence very carefully, but I did read it, and it appears to me that, in the absence of any probability of collusion between the husband and the wife, there was here made as strong a case against the husband as it is possible to make, unless you can get eye-witnesses. The argument of the Minister of Justice goes almost as far as to say that unless you can get eye-witnesses of the offence, you cannot get a divorce. What are the facts here? We have three witnesses. First of all, we have the wife, who swears-and there is no reason to doubt her testimony-that her husband confessed to her misconduct and cohabita-

tion with a woman in Buffalo at a hotel. She did not recollect the woman's name, but there is nothing very strange about that. Probably she never asked. The husband admitted to her cohabitation with this woman more than once in a Buffalo hotel. Then we have the evidence of the private doctor of the husband, who has been treating him and his family and a brother for a considerable period. Of the character and standing of this doctor there is not the slightest question, and he says that this man confessed to him-and confessed not merely on one occasion-that he had frequently given way to the commission of adultery. Any one who reads the testimony cannot fail to come to the conclusion that it was a frequent habit of this Mr. Grantham to cohabit with women in such a way that the doctor said it was impossible for his wife to live with him. Then we have Sir William McKenzie, the father of the complaining wife, who says that he spoke to his son-in-law about this, and the son-in-law not only admitted it, but claimed that as a male he had a right to do so. He distinguished the right of the husband from the right of the wife, and held the theory that what would be wrong in a wife was right on the part of a husband. He not only admitted this to the father of the wife, but he refused to say that he would reform. He boasted of his right as a man to go on and sin. So we have the wife who swears that her husband told her that he was in the habit of cohabiting with this woman in Buffalo, and we have the husband's doctor declaring that he had been treating him and his brother for some sexual or mental trouble, saying that his conduct had come to be ai disease, that the man admitted again and again his offences, and made no pretense of concealing them. Then the father-in-law approached the husband to see whether there was any possibility of reform on the part of the latter, and the husband said 'No, as one of the male sex, I consider that is my right; we have our rights, and I intend to exercise them. I would think a good deal of the argument of the Minister of Justice if there were on the face of this case anything to create the suspicion of collusion between the husband and wife, but there is not. I do no see, therefore, why the evidence of eye-witnesses should be indispensable.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pietou).: I had the opportunity of being before the Private Bills Committee when the evidence given before the Senate Committee was fully considered and discussed, and I cannot agree with the Minister of Justice in the conclusion he has arrived at. While it is no doubt the right of the Committee of this House, to which these Bills are referred, to reverse the decision of the Senate Committee, that power is one which is rarely Mr. BARKER.
exercised. I only know of one case in a long period of years when the House of Commons did interfere in a decision at which the Senate arrived. In this matter we _ are very largely in the position in which a court of appeal would be in reviewing the action of a subordinate court, which has seen all the parties connected with the matter, has heard their evidence, and has arrived at the conclusion with all the advantages furnished the court in the first instance. I think that this House should not lightly overturn or interfere with a decision arrived at by the Senate Committee under these circumstances. There can be no doubt about the integrity of the tribunal which determined this matter in the first instance, and there can be no doubt that they gave it every attention in order to arrive at a conclusion in the interests of justice. The Minister of Justice frankly admitted that, in an ordinary (case, the evidence submitted would be sufficiently strong to result in a judgment for the plaintiff on the question of fact, but he thinks there should be additional evidence in order to enable a finding to be arrived at. But there is a point in connection with this matter which we are apt to overlook.
The question as to the weight of evidence has nothing to do-as the Minister of Justice knows full well, and will readily appreciate what I say in that regard-with the matter of collusion. If, as to the matter of fact, we have proof here-and we have the finding on that point of the competent tribunal appointed to deal with the matter -there is evidence sufficient to warrant a separation of the parties. With the evidence that is submitted and the statement of my hon. friend, we are bound to believe we have that evidence. If that is so there is no use in theorizing as to what is possible in regard to collusion. Besides, it is shown that, after the admission of the facts made that there "was cohabitation and relation with other parties, the wife never lived with her husband; and consequently there could not be that collusion (between them which might exist and which if it did exist would destroy the full effect of the admission. On page 8 of the evidence given by the wife is the following:
Q. You have never lived with him since he really admitted that to you?-A. No.
Q. No collusion between you, no arrangement?-A. Oh, no.
Thus we have the admission of facts sufficient to enable the finding to be made, together with the total absence of any relation-even, apparently, speaking relation -between the parties until the time of her appearing before the Senate Committee. All possible theory of collusion is thus repudiated. Besides, we have the sworn evidence of the parties. And I do think

that we should at all times hesitate in this House about overturning the decision of the Senate and its committee in these matters. That is a practice to be resorted to only in extreme cases or where it is evident that great injustice is being done to some one. My hon. friend says frankly that he thinks this is a case in which the parties ought to be .separated. That being so, the general considerations of policy and duty which this House should adopt in this class of cases lead us to the position that we should support the decision of the Senate Committee and the action of the Senate.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I have been entirely misunderstood by my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou), and possibly by other members of the committee, if it has been supposed by others than my hon. friend that I was suggesting that there was collusion between this husband and wife. The circumstances all demonstrate the contrary. I do not suppose there has been any communication between them on the subject. But I think there is a very strong probability that, without communicating with each otheT, and without colluding on the subject, each of them equally desired to be free from the other; and I think it is entirely possible that with that idea in each mind the husband made this statement to his father-in-law, his wife and the doctor.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In this case I must agree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) in the main. It seems to me this is a case where, for the sake of not doing an act of disrespect to the Senate committee, as urged by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), we are asked to strike a blow at the social condition of this country and to do a great injury to young people who have marriage in view, by granting a divorce on the grounds involved here. I have no doubt, as a matter of common sense and human nature, and after reading the evidence, that this young woman, after conniving at her husband's conduct, now applies for this divorce because she has some other man in view whom she wishes to marry. Her father's evidence shows that she must have been suffering for months and for years under the miseries she now speaks of if her story is all true. But she did not then tell her father about it at all. But on the eve of the application for the divorce for the first time, she tells him of the condition of affairs under which she says she has lived for years. As a matter of common sense, I do not believe her. When a person wants to change his or her mate, to make an exchange of one husband or wife for another -instead of trying to cure the faults complained of or ito repair the character that
is thought deficient, and so maintain the vows that were made, and build up the social condition of the country-when they think they can make a pretty'fair exchange of one husband or one wife for another they come to this House and ask us to advise the King to dissolve their marriage.
I cannot vote for this divorce, because it sets a bad example, and is a step in the direction of a most dangerous state of things for this 'Country. We are telling people that if at any time their marriage does not please them, then on evidence of general admission of wrongdoing sworn to by the one who wants the divorce, corroborated in this case by the wife's father- if it is corroboration-parliament may be petitioned and will advise the King to dissolve the marriage. There has been in effect connivance and agreement in this case. It is not a case of disputed facts. It is not the case to which my hon. friend from Pictou sought to compare it, the case .of the court of appeal feeling bound to accept the decision of the lower courts as to disputed facts because the lower courts had had the advantage of hearing the evidence given by the parties. In this case the facts are not disputed. The facts do not show that there is any bona fides on the part of this young woman in seeking this divorce. She is taking advantage of the condition of affairs, the loose way of granting divorce in the other chamber. Thirty or forty divorces are going through every session. It being the fashion to get a divorce, she thinks she might as well, while it is the fashion, take advantage of it. And as she wants to break her marriage vows, and perhaps change her mate, she petitions this parliament to grant her this divorce. I do not think that any good purpose can be served by passing this Bill under the admitted facts of the case. It is a case in which this House, if the Senate did not do so, ought to advise the King not to grant the divorce, and I shall vote accordingly.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I desire to say a word or two in regard to the effect of the evidence. The fact in question here must be proved by admissible evidence, just as any fact would be proved in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) has illustrated -the view he takes of this case by suggesting that a husband desiring to be free from his wife might make admissions the acceptance of w'hich would be the proof of the case against him. And he has argued therefrom that such evidence ought to be sufficient to justify a decree for the plaintiff in a proceeding of that kind. If the argument of the Minister of Justice means anything, it seems to me to mean that. I never had the advantage of appearing before a committee

of the Senate in any such proceeding as this. But I have acted as counsel in a good many divorce actions in the province of Nova Scotia where we have a King's Proctor as well as they have in England, where every precaution is observed; and I have never known such evidence to toe refused. It always is accepted; and if it is accepted by the court or by the divorce committee of the Senate, and if it is proper evidence-as it is admitted to be-then you must either give weight to it or not give weight to it. You have ,to consider, in that case, whether the witnesses are telling the truth or not, and if you come to the conclusion that they are telling the truth you must conclude that the defendant in the proceedings was guilty of that particular act.
That is the law as I have always understood it, and I have never known any judicial pronouncement which is in consistent with that view. Therefore, if it be true that this defendant did, on three different occasions, to his wife, to the physician, and to his wife's father, admit that he had been guilty of infidelity to his marriage vows, it is simply a question as to whether or not you believe that these persons were telling the truth. The Minister of Justice says you must have more direct evidence than that, that the husband may have been making this statement because he desired that a divorce should be procured against him. You could say exactly the same thing if the petitioner had proved absolutely the act of infidelity. It might be said that he had committed that act because he desired to have a divorce procured against him by his wife. The argument would be as valid in the one case as in the other. In the present case it touches only the question of collusion. So far was the effect of admission carried' on in one English case, as every lawyer in the House will remember, that, in an action against a respondent and	co-respondent the
admission of the respondent was regarded as evidence against her, sufficient to enable the court to make a decree, although the co-respondent with whom the act was alleged to have been committed was absolutely discharged, because there was no evidence against him. That is to say, the evidence of the respondent was evidence against herself, but it was not evidence against the co-respondent. It was alleged that the act charged had been committed with the co-respondent, and it was held upon the admission of the respondent that the act of infidelity with the co-respondent had been proved as against her, but as against the co-respondent there was no evidence whatever. It was a perfectly logical deduction from the principle that the admission of the defendant was evidence against the defend-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)
ant, but was not evidence against the corespondent. Under the circumstances it is purely a question as to whether or not the persons who gave this evidence were telling the truth upon their oath, and there is, of course, the further point which the Minister of Justice has suggested rather than raised, the question as to collusion. So far as collusion is concerned I am sorry there is not the same precaution before the Senate Committee that is to be found in the courts which are charged with the decision of these matters, and I entirely agree with the Minister of Justice in one respect, that there ought to be the most careful scrutiny of the evidence, there ought to be every possible safe-guard against collusion. I do not know whether it would be practicable or not to have the Senate pass a standing order by which the taking of evidence upon all these Bills would be relegated to a judge, say the judge of'the Exchequer Court, upon whose finding of fact the Senate might afterwards grant or withhold a divorce. I think that would be a better method than the one at present adopted. If that course were adopted you would have all the safeguards of King's Proctor, and everything of that kind which are usual, and most proper safeguards in proceedings for divorce before the courts.
So far as the present case is concerned, the circumstances do not seem to me to point to collusion. In the first place, the woman, after the confession of her husband ceased' to cohabit with him. In the second place he was guilty not only of very outrageous, and threatening conduct towards her, but of actual violence, as I gather from the evidence, which I had an opportunity of looking over a moment ago, and the relations between the husband and wife from first to last since the confession have not been such as to justify the idea that she was colluding with him in any way for the very reason that there was no object or purpose in her colluding with him. He had made his confession to her admitting his adultery with a certain woman at an hotel in Buffalo, he had made general admissions to his physician and to her father of his infidelity on many occasions. There was no reason for collusion, because his confession and admission given in that way were perfectly admissible 'evidence against him in the absence of his own testimony to the contrary, which was not given. While I entirely agree that the evidence should be most carefully scrutinized I still think this is a question as to the admissibility of the evidence. The evidence being admissible, and leading to the conclusion that the husband was guilty of the offences charged, I do not see any reason why we should not concur in the view taken by the committee of the Senate in the first instance.

Bill reported, on division, read the third time, and passed.


CANADA NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 201) respecting the Canada National Fire Insurance Company.
On section 2-extension of time.
Mr. McCRANEY.: I have a few remarks to make with reference to this Bill. On June 11, 1908, a company having its head office at the city of Saskatoon, was incorporated by the Saskatchewan legislature under the name of the Canada National Insurance Company. In the following year, 1909, an Act was passed by this parliament, incorporating the company which is now applying for this Act under the name of the Canada National Fire Insurance Company. The names are so similar that I am sure no one in this House will contend that, had it been brought to the attention of parliament in 1909, when the Dominion incorporation was given, this name would have been given to the Dominion company in view of the fact that it so closely resembled the name which had already been given to the provincial company by the Saskatchewan legislature. It is pointed out, I understand, by those who are applying for the present legislation that subsequent to the passing of this Act i.y this parliament the provincial secretary of Saskatchewan, was asked if there was any company having a name similar to the Dominion company, and the reply was that there was none. In that connection I would only point out that that inquiry was made of the provincial secretary, and the answer was obtained subsequent to the incorporation of the applicants by this parliament. The action of this parliament was not in any way founded upon the letter of the provincial secretary of Saskatchewan. The effect of the letter, so far as the incorpora-ed, is simply nil. It could not repeal that Act nor affect any right which the Saskatchewan company had to its name. The Saskatchewan company is in the hail and fire insurance business. I understand that it obtained its license from the Saskatchewan government in the fall of 1909, and issued its first policy on the 3rd of January, 1910. I would move, Mr. Chairman, the following resolution:
That the Bill respecting the Canada National Fire Insurance Company be referred back to the committee on Banking and Commerce for amendment by changing the name of the company to one which does not conflict with the name of the Canada National Insurance Company, the head office of which is in Saskatoon.
The only reason, it seems to me, which can be urged for the pressing through of
this Bill without any clause amending the name of the Dominion company is that the Dominion company have already made some considerable expenditure in the way of printing and organization. I would only point out the fact that if they have made any considerable expenditure this is only the beginning of a situation that will become more strained, more money will be spent, and now, therefore, is the time to make the correction in the name and to give this company another name before it has begun business which does not conflict with the name of the company already incorporated by the province of Saskatchewan.


Richard Blain: I would ask, you Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is in order?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The amendment is not in order at this stage. The amendment is that the Bill respecting the Canada National Fire Insurance Company be referred back to the Banking and Commerce Committee for amendment. That is a motion that can only be made when the , Speaker is in the Chair.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Was there any notice given of it?


George Ewan McCraney: I could not give notice because the Bill was only reported this morning.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Notice is not required. Is the motion tnat the committee report progress?


George Ewan McCraney: I move that the committee report progress.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is quite true, as my hon. friend (Mr. McCraney) has stated, that the letter from the provincial secretary of Saskatchewan was written after this charter was obtained by the present company from the Dominion parliament. _ The company were chartered by the Dominion House in 1909. Before they started to sell their stock they wrote to the provincial secretary of Saskatchewan and asked him if there was any company chartered under that name, and he replied that there was not. They went ahead, sold their stock, and got the money ready to deposit. Whether it is deposited or not I do not know, but I think it is. It was only by accident that they did not get their license. They were a day late. They have prepared a very large quantity of advertising material, they have got their policies all written, they have their signs up, and their agencies all arranged for. Then, the names are not exactly similar. The name of the other company is the Canada National Insurance Company while the name of the company asking for an extension of its charter is the Canada National Fire Insurance Com-

pany, one located at Saskatoon and the other at Winnipeg. When they get doing business, one will be known as the Canada Natinal of Winnipeg, and the other as the Canada National of Saskatoon. That will be the practice if we may judge from our experience of other similarly situated companies^ It is no fault of this company that they did not get their license, and I would ask that the committee do not rise and report progress, but pass the Bill now.
Bill reported.
On the motion for third reading of the


George Ewan McCraney: That the Bill be referred back to the committee on Banking and Commerce to change the name of the company to one which does not conflict with the name of the Canada National Insurance Company, the head office of which is in Saskatoon.
Amendment negatived, and Bill read the third time and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 174) to incorporate the Casualty Company of Canada.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 190) for the relief of Violet Jane Dakin.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 191) for the relief of Hugh Samuel Bell.-Mr. Tolmie.	g
BUI (No. 199) for the relief of Fanny Mary Healey.-Mr. Clarke (Essex), r S?°- 186) respecting the Joliette and bake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.-Mr. Dubeau.
Bill (No. 195) to incorporate the Western Canal Company.-Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 204) respecting the Cariboo, Barkerville and Willow River Railway Company.-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).
T BUI (N°- 193) respecting La Sauvegarde Insurance Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 166) to incorporate the Hudson Bay, Peace River and Pacific Railway Com-pany.-Mr. Rutan.
repair, and liable to be carried away in any severe storm?
3.	Is the government aware that the carrying away of such breakwater would leave the boats fishing out of Centreville without protection and the fishermen without means of landing their catch?
4.	Is the government aware that the lack ot a suitable breakwater at Centreville will seriously handicap fishermen, and those engaged in fish curing business, and compel them to discontinue or restrict business operations at that place?
5.	Is the government aware that the prosperity of the village of Centreville is said to be dependent upon the construction at the earliest possible time of a breakwater suited to the needs of the port?
6.	What action, if any, is the government going to take with respect to the said matter and when?
7.	Will an appropriation be made during the present session for the erection of a suitable breakwater at Centreville? If so, when will the work be commenced?
Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) Five, (c) December 21, 1907; January 21, 1910; February 17. 1910; February 24, 1910, and March 9. 1911.
2,	3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The department is making a careful examination into conditions at Centreville, and the situation is having most earnest consideration.


THREE RIVERS POST OFFICE.
Mr. CLARE:: 1.	Did the government erect a temporary wooden building to be used as a post office -it Three Rivers, or any post office building after the fire at Three Rivers, about two years ago?
2.	Of what was the building constructed, and what was the cost of it?
3.	Does the government contemplate replacing this building by a permament one at an early date?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
; 2. (a) Frame building; (b) $15,609.75.
3.	Yes, plans are now being prepared.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No 214) respecting the Sault St. Bouis Light and Power Company -Mr Bickerdike.	'

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Have any petitions been received asking for the construction of a breakwater at Centreville, Digby county, N.S.? If so, how many and when?
2.	Is the government aware that the public breakwater at Centreville is said to be out of
Mr. NESBITT


GRAIN AND HAY IMPORTS.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What were the quantities and values of barley, oats and hay imported into Canada from the United States during the fiscal years 1910 and 1911?
2.	At what ports of entry was such grain and hay admitted into Canada, and what was the quantity and value of such grain and hay at each place?


Mr. PATERSON:: 
IMPORTS OP SHEEP, LAMBS AND HORSES.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 
Mr. PATERSON.: above years on which duty was paid, and what was the value and the amount of duty collected ?
4. How many horses were admitted into Canada in each of the above years from the United States for the improvement of stock, and what was the estimated value of same in each year?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	The number and value of sheep entered for consumption in Canada from the United States during each month of 1910, and each of the first four months of 1911, by ports, was as follows:

Port.	Date.	Number.	Value.
		1,348 520	$ 4,382 2,549 3,637 11,871 30
	April, 1911			
March, 1911	
April, 1911	831	Yarmouth, N.S	2,344 2	9	61540	1,215 1,902 1,587 2,694 1,909 7,129634	July, 1910	529	923	September, 1910	
November, 1910	687 2,742 1,594 248	December, 1910	4,728 1 348New Westminster-	October	. 320	1,432Number. Value.	November	. 460	2,0951910.	December	. 380	2,906February	.... 28	232	1911.	May	
130	365	January	. 326	1,619June	.. .. 11	55	February	. 225	1,074July	
1,912	4,588	March	. 450	2,107August	
260	1,092	April	. 296	1,426September	
427	1,460	tossland-	October	
3,486	8,838	1910.	1911.	March	. 32	150January	
2	38	Lethbridge, Man.-	Vancouver-	1910.	1910.	August	. 1,966	4,315January	
230	921	October	. 7,430	14,002February	
497	2,005	November	. 4,222	7,425March	
380	1,737	December	. 15	150April	
357	1,552	1911.	May	Tanuarv	. 1,203	1,203June	
4.084	20,397	Winnipeg-	July	
2,854	12,845	1910.	August	
1,433	6,299	March	.. 440	2,227September	
1,805	7,898	1911.	October	
2,620	11,573	April	.. 221	1,138November	
3,183	13,469	Moosejaw-	December	
3,135	14,110	1910.	1911. *	February	.. 1,199	2,990January	
500	2,250	September	. 310	680February	
1,570	7,0GG	October	. 4,958	16,371March	
2,490	11,209	November	. 1,837	3,674April	
1,150	5,166	i9ii.	Victoria-	January	.. 1,174	2,9581910.	January	.. .. 495	1,933	2. Impracticable to determine the	num-February	
417	1,765	ber of horses admitted	into Canada	fromMarch	
323	1.235	the United States free with	settlers effects.	April	3. The number and value	of horses enter-	May	1,845	ed for consumption in	Canada, from the	Tnl v	1 fiOfi	United States, and the duty collected there-	
437	L79t	on during the fiscal years	1908, 1900	1910September	
440	2 060	and 1911, was as follows	-	Horses over 1 year old, value $50.00 or less	Horses, n. o. p.	No.	Value.	Duty.	No.	Value.	Dutv.1908	849	39,653	10,612 50	3,167	263,021	65,755 251909	360	17,665	4,500 00	3,090	268,040	07,010 001910	86	3,600	1,075 00	6,518	397,908	99,475,751911	70	2,700	875 00	7,351	613,265 1 153,316 25	
4.	The number and value of horses entered for consumption in Canada from the United States for improvement of stock was as follows, during the fiscal years, 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911.
Number. Value.
1908	
591	$366,6661909	
582	325,0551910	
631	378,1531911	
568	350,769
HASSETT, HAVELOCK AND NEW TtTSKET POST OFFICES.


Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	What are the respective distances between the following post offices, viz., Hassett, Havelock and New Tusket?
2.	Has the post office at New Tusket been moved recently? If so, upon whose recommendation, and why?
3.	When was the late postmaster at Havelock appointed, how long did he serve as such, and when did he cease to officiate?
4.	Who was the acting postmaster after the former postmaster ceased to perform the duties of the office, and how long did he serve?
5.	Who is the present postmaster at Havelock, when was he appointed, and upon whose recommendation ?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Distance between Hassett and Havelock is 3f miles; between Hassett and New Tusket is 54 miles; between Havelock and New Tusket is 1} mile.
2.	No change has recently been made in the site of the New Tusket post office.
3.	The late postmaster of Havelock was appointed on the 1st of November, 1872. He was in charge of the post office until his death on the 25th of September, 1904.
4.	The post office remained in charge of the assistant postmaster, Mr. Charles R. Nowlan, from the death of the late postmaster until the appointment of the present postmaster.
5 The present postmaster is Mr. Herman Mullen. He was appointed on the 24th of October, 1910, on the recommendation of the Hon. W. S. Fielding.


THE NAVAL SERVICE.
Mr. MADDIN:: 1.	What are the names of the medical ex-hSvaP Scotia ?aval recruits in the Province of
2.	When was each of them appointed, and what salary does each receive?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1. ^mherst, Dr. Ross Millar; Annapolis Dr. R. Withers; Antigonish, Dr. J. J Ca moron; Anchat H. I. Fixott; Barringtor Passage, Dr. H. H. Banks; Canso, Dr. P 4 McGarry,; Digby, Dr. L. H. Morse' Liver pool. Dr. H. G. Farrish; Lunenburg Dr a' A Uorbes; North Sydney, Dr. T. H smith; Pictou, Dr. Smith Anderson; Pori Hood, Dr. R. St. John Macdonald; She!


William Paterson: burne, Dr. J. S. Morton; Windsor, Dr. J. V. Reid; Yarmouth, Dr. C. A. Webster. At Halifax recruits are examined by the surgeons on board of H.M.C.S. * Niobe,' who receive no extra remuneration.
2.	After arrival of H.M.S.C. ' Niobe,' at Halifax on 21st of October, 1910.
These gentlemen receive as remuneration, a fee of $2 for each recruit examined.


PURCHASE OF CARRIER-LAINE WORKS.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MONK:
1.	What was the price paid by the government for the Carrier-Laine establishment at Levis, P.Q. ?
2.	Upon what date was the purchase price paid?
3.	From whom did the government purchase the Carrier-Laine works or establishment at Levis?
4.	Has the said property been leased by the government? If so, to whom?
5.	What is the duration of the said lease?
6.	What is the rental payable to the government by the said lease?
Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	$380,000.
2.	Final payment made on 7th of August, 1909.
3.	From the Bank of Montreal.
4.	5 and G. Part of the property leased to the Canadian Shoe Machinery Company, for thirty years at $4,000 for the first ten years and $6,000 a year for twenty years; a store to S. Paradis at $240 a year, and the Barras wharf to the Quebec and Levis Ferry Company, at $500 a year; the two latter are subject to cancellation at any time.


QUEBEC EXPERIMENTAL FARM.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	From whom did the government purchase a farm in the county of Quebec?
2.	What was the amount paid for said farm?
3.	In what parish of said county is said farm situated?
4.	Did the government, before making the said purchase, obtain a report upon the proposed acquisition? If so, by whom was said report prepared, and what is its date?
5.	For what purposes has the said farm been so acquired by the government?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	Gustave A. Langelier.
2.	$45,000, including the implements and all other movable property on the farm with the exception of the "live stock and the furniture in the house.
3.	Parish of St. Felix-du-Cap-Rouge, county of Quebec.
4.	Yes. Mr. J. H. Grisdale, director of Experimental Farms, of date the 6th of October, 1910.
5.	To be used for experimental farm purposes.


TRADE COMMISSIONER TO MEXICO.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	When was Mr. Bouley appointed Canadian Trade Commissioner in Mexico, and upon whose recommendation was he so appointed?
2.	What is Mr. Bouley's salary?
3.	What were the total expenses of his office last year, and how are these expenses made up?
4.	What is the date of Mr. Bouley's last report, and how many reports has he made since his appointment?
5.	Have any complaints been received by the government in regard to Mr. Bouley? If so, from whom?


Mr. KING:: 1.	There is no Canadian Trade Commissioner named Bouley. Mr. A. W. Donlv is the Trade Commissioner in Mexico. Mr. Donly was appointed January 1, 1905, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
2.	Mr. Donly'a salary is $3,200 per annum,
3.	The total expenses for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1911, were $5,454.10, made up as follows:
Salary as Trade Commissioner $3,100 00
Rent	
600	00Postage	
50	00Salary of assistant	
1,200	00Stationery	
70	14Office furnishings	
51	00Fuel, light and janitor	..	..	159	30Sundries	
188	16Newspaper subscription	....	35	50

4.	The last report published was dated March 30, 1911. The last weekly _diary report was dated April 29, 1911.' Since Mr. D only's appointment he has made 41 regular reports. In addition, he has made 68 weekly diary reports since January 1, 1910, at which date the weekly diary reports were established. This report consists of a daily record as to interviews held and notes of miscellaneous information.
5.	No.


ECHO LAKE POST OFFICE.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Has any application been made to the Post Office Department for the establishment of a post office at Echo Lake, in the county of Frontenac?
2.	If so, when and by whom was such application made, what action has been taken by the department, and what is the intention of the department in regard thereto?


Mr. KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A petition was received from Mr. William Alport on the 27th January, 1908, and was duly reported upon by the inspector, who stated the locality was not
well settled, and not likely to improve, and that, in his opinion, there was no need for another office. Recently an application was received from Mr. C. Cox, which was acknowledged, and referred to the inspector on the 9th March, but the inspector has not yet reported, and he has been instructed to make an immediate report.


CANSO AND GUYSBQROUGH MAIL SERVICE.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the contract for carrying the mail between Canso and Guysborough been let? If so, who was successful in obtaining same, what was the price paid and the number and amount of all tenders.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: (a) Yes. (b) Wm. McDougall, $2,270 per annum, (c) Three tenders received, viz.: Wm. McDougall, $2,270 per annum; James Sullivan, $2,290 per annum; John C. Myers, $2,375 per annum:


ROCKLIFEE RIPLE RANGE.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Referring to the item of $75,000 in the
further supplementary estimates for the purchase of additional land at the Rockliffe rifle range, how many acres of land does this embrace ?	_
2.	Where is each lot or parcel of this land located, and who are the present owners, respectively ?
3.	From whom was each lot or parcel of land purchased by the government, if purchase has been made, or from whom is it intended to purchase?
4.	What is the purchase price per acre paid,
or to be paid, by the government for each parcel of land?	'
5.	How many transfers or assignments of each of the parcels of said land have beea made within the past four years, on what dates, from whom, to whom, and for what consideration in each case?
6.	What options were obtained from the owners on any or all of the prospective parcels of said land, by whom were such options obtained, and on what dates, respectively?


Mr. KING:: As negotiations for the purchase of the land required are still in progress, it is considered that it will he inadvisable to make public, at the present time, the information now asked for. It may, however, be stated that valuations have been obtained, but that the prices asked by the various owners concerned are so much in excess of these valuations that it will, in all probability, be necessary to take expropriation proceedings. None of the properties have yet been acquired.


MOTION AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, papers, reports and'other documents in any way r*
[Stage Direction]


lating to the proposed extension of the Rock-liffe Rifle Range and the acquisition of land. -Mr. Jameson.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['A notice of motion is already in the hands of the clerk, and will appear in the Votes and Proceedings to-morrow morning. It is to give the Governor in Council power to continue to Japan the tariff privileges which she now enjoys, Canada to receive similar privileges, for a period not exceeding two years. In all other respects the treaty is permitted to lapse. The two years is fixed to allow time to negotiate a special treaty, should one be deemed advisable.']
Mr. W. O. SEALEY (Wentworth).: Mr. Speaker, before going into committee, and pursuant to my statement on the morning of April 22, that I would re-mould my remarks respecting an experimental fruit and vegetable farm for our district, and submit them to the House at a later time, I would like to say that, in view of the failure of my amendment to carry, I have hoped the hon. Minister of Agriculture would see his way clear to establish an experimental fruit and vegetable farm in our midst, as well as a pre-cooling plant, and a pest-destroyer department. The hon. minister has frequently said that the production of the highest quality of fruits, vegetables, &c., would command the best market prices under all circumstances, and it seems now to be up to him to assist in helping to produce this highest quality. True, he has done a great deal along this line, but he has done more for general agriculture, and has not particularly specialized in horticulture. He may say that this will cost money, and so it will, but not very much. However, if there is any serious complaint about expenditure in the Agriculture Department, it is not that the present expenditure is not well and judiciously made, and has not brought excellent results, but that there is not sufficient money spent along agricultural and horticultural lines, and that an increased expenditure under his department would bring greatly increased results. I notice in the supplementary estimates brought down last week, an item of $25,000 ' towards the establishment and maintenance of additional branch stations.' I also notice a further sum of $25,000 'for experiments in cold storage for fruit.' I do hope that these items, or part of them at least, are intended for a beginning in our district.
This is about all I had intended saying at that time, but since the present opportunity has afforded I will explain that I am not sectional or selfish on behalf of Wentworth only in this matter, but I submit for the consideration of the Agriculture Department and the House generally that I believe a most practical thing for the Agriculture Department to do would be to establish an experimental farm of, say, 10 acres, in every county in the Dominion, and if not practicable for the whole Dominion, then I feel that it would be for Ontario anyway, as I may not be capable of speaking with personal knowledge for a wider area. This, of course, could not all be accomplished in a Mr. KING.
day, but a beginning could be made at once with that end in view.


Richard Blain: May I be permitted to ask my hon. friend a question? I understand that the local government of the province of Ontario established, some few years ago, an experimental fruit farm in the county adjoining that of my hon. friend. Is that correct?


William Oscar Sealey: interests may be more effectually advocated and safe-guarded before parliament, commissions, in the public press, &c.
Technical education in drainage-a most important factor in farming.
Within a radius of ten miles of Hamilton there are sufficient apples, pears and other fruits, left on the trees and on the ground unpicied and unpacked to supply the requirements of the whole of Hamilton's 75,000 population during the winter, that annually go to waste, the same is largely true of vegetables, &c. Cannot the technical commission evolve a plan of educating at least a portion of the indifferent city population to gather these fruits on shares or some other way, so that want and downright hardship and suffering during the winter months would be unknown, or at least greatly modified, and, besides, avoiding this shameful waste of a bountiful Providence ?
The same is partly true of grain and other far in products. Educate the farmer to save his 'waste,' which would make a handsome additional profit to the average producer.
Educate the public to make the tilling of the soil so profitable that the non-prosperous city population will forsake the towns and become prosperous agricultural producers, and in this way solve the most difficult of social problems. 'Back to the farm.'
Trusting the above may interest you and that your commission will evolve a system of technical education therefrom along agricultural lines, in addition to mechanical lines, that will place Canada, 'the leading agricultural country in the whole world to-day,' so far ahead of its present self that not only will our own people become more prosperous, happy and contented, but that the world will be attracted to Canada, and tbat millions more of the best people will flock to our fair Dominion and share our blessings, particularly in this respect.
With best wishes for yourself and the commission, yours truly,



Mr. BURRELL.: May 1 ask, from what document is the hon. gentleman reading?


William Oscar Sealey: From the letter I addressed to Dr. Robertson, the chairman of the Technical Education Commission.


Martin Burrell: The hon. gentleman Mr. Sealey's own letter?


William Oscar Sealey: Yes. It certainly reads well, and it is on a matter of great importance. I am glad the House is taking so much interest in it, and I hope it will benefit the House as well as the country.
I took the opportunity of writing again a few days ago, and as I believe the matter is of considerable importance, I will read the letter:
Ottawa, Ont., May 2, 1911. Dr. Jas. W. Robertson,
Chairman Technical Education Committee, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Pardon me for again addressing you, but this is merely to mention, that if your report is published in one volume, it will be so large that distribution will be in-Mr. SEALEY.
convenient, and readers will have so much difficulty turning to the sections specially interesting to them, that it may be little read, and not appreciated.
Now if it were published in 4 or 5 volumes it would also be cumbersome, inconvenient, and expensive to distribute. But if it were in 20 or 10 volumes, as the case may be, a volume for each heading or branch of work dealt with, one complete volume would serve to distribute to say 40 people, the sections they were particularly interested in, and they would be more likely to read that particular volume, and profit greatly by it (a few might be bound in whole for libraries or other public references), and this suggests a further idea:-
That the report be drafted with a view to educational as well as descriptive matter, re the various items of observation as well as suggestion, so when the report was printed, it would be suitable for a primary text book for schools, such as the ' Atlas of Canada,' published by the Department of the Interior, which has been adopted by many county school inspectors as an ordinary text book, and I venture the opinion, that the children in these counties, as well as their parents, have acquired more knowledge of Canada in the short space of say three years, since the Atlas was first published, than they ever learned or knew during their whole previous life, and m this way, these text books have been supplied by the government free.
Now if your report be published in small volumes, each dealing with a particular class, and printed by the million, they could be used as free text books in a temporary way. and perhaps a more suitable text book evolved therefrom, and in this way, without much expense, the principal of technical education could be adopted and initiated at a much earlier date, without waiting for the country to digest the report, and discuss for a year or two the advisability of adopting the principal (because I believe the utilizing of the report in this way would prompt the adoption of the principal), and then wait for another year to get a suitable text book edited and authorized.
Then, if adopted (which I feel certain it would be), a more suitable text book could be evolved by the joint effort of the teachersj who are daily by way of teaching, experimenting practically with it, and thereby save the usual heavy copyright royalty, on the newly authorized text book, that would belong to Canada as a whole, and also make this part of the educational system in Canada uniform throughout the whole Dominion.
Again hoping you will pardon me, and trusting you may find something of value and usefulness in the suggestions.
Yours truly,



Edward Arthur Lancaster: What reply did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sealey) receive? Will he read that?


William Oscar Sealey: A very nice reply to the first letter-very appreciative.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How about the
second?


William Oscar Sealey: My letter was forwarded to the commissioner in the old country, and there has been no time for a reply as yet. I feel there is considerable merit in it, and I hope the House will feel the same way about it. If not, it is my opinion anyway.


Richard Blain: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the Atlas sent out by the Dominion government has been adopted as a text-book in certain counties? If so, will he say in what counties?


William Oscar Sealey: Wentworth, anyway.


Richard Blain: By the authority of whom?


William Oscar Sealey: The inspector.


Richard Blain: I thought the provincial government were the only ones who had power to adopt text-books for the public schools?


William Oscar Sealey: I think the inspector has the authority


Richard Blain: No, he has no authority. My hon. friend knows that.


William Oscar Sealey: However, it is important
at this time to consider this phase of the question, because I rather fear that the Technical Commission are inclined to give most of their attention to technical mechanical education, rather than to technical agriculture education which is more needed and would benefit a much larger number of people, and, I believe, result in far greater advantage to the country. However, they can serve both purposes well. I do not remember exactly what instructions they were given in the matter, but, so far as I can gather from the reports of their inquiries and from personal attendance at one of their meetings, they were giving their attention rather to technical mechanical lines than to technical agricultural lines.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sealey) is mistaken in assuming that the commission will give more attention to one industry than to another. As I understand, the chairman and members of the commission, are trying to take in all industries. And the chairman himself is a special expert in agricultural industry, and I am sure that in his hands the subject of agriculture will not lack attention.


William Oscar Sealey: I am glad to be corrected in that matter by the minister (Mr. King).
I trust and feel satisfied from his statement that the agricultural side will receive careful consideration.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have listened with great attention and interest to what my hon. friend from Wentworth (Mr. Sealey) has said in favour of the establishment of a branch farm of the experimental farm system in the Niagara peninsula, among
the fruit and vegetable growers there. A deputation of fruit growers, introduced by my hon. friend (Mr. Sealey), some time ago, laid before me two requests. One was for the establishment of a farm or station in that vicinity for the special purpose of illustrating fruit and vegetable growing, but the delegation rather laid stress upon their other proposition, that it would be well to make an experiment in what is commonly called the pre-cooling of fruit before shipment. My department has been looking into that system of precooling of fruit for some time. A year ago Mr. Ruddick, the Cold Storage and Dairy Commissioner, was in the west and visited California for the express purpose of investigating the system adopted there by which the fruit when packed in the cars for shipment is thoroughly cooled, and then the cars closed up and sent forward. The system is there carried on on a very large scale at central points, the cars being brought in from the fruit growing districts to the central plant and cooled before being forwarded. The suggestion was made that something similar might be adopted m the Niagara peninsula, which is probably the largest individual fruit growing section of the Dominion of. Canada. I authorized Mr. Ruddick to look into the possibilities of establishing something of this kind there and thought that the principle as to assistance which we have applied to cold storage warehouses might be applied to this service also. I am asking in the supplementary estimates for a vote for the purpose of carrying that out, I have been urged by the people' there to give them early advice as to the possibility of doing this, so that they might be able to take advantage of it for this season. All I could say was that I am recommending to parliament a vote for this purpose, and that if parliament grants that vote, I shall be very glad to establish such a system.
In regard to the establishment of branch experimental stations in the Niagara district, I accept with pleasure the remarks of my hon. friend as an evidence of the value of these branch stations in the different parts of the country. I have had abundant evidence of the value of these stations, not only from the people in the different localities, but from members of the House who have been asking for the establishment of such branch stations in their respective districts. I am very glad of this because it quite coincides with my own policy and my own views. I would be glad to see branch stations of this character scattered broadly over the country. As an evidence that this is my view I would point to the fact that in the last five years or so, I have actually acquired no less than eight such stations, in addition to the original five experimental

farms, which have been in existence now for about 25 years. I would be glad to go on with that. I am asking parliament this year for a vote for this purpose. I am glad to say that last year parliament accorded me that vote, and I am asking a vote in the main estimates and a further vote in the supplementaries, because the demands and requests made to me have been so general and so insistent that I did not think the amount I had asked in the main estimates, which were made up last fa'll, would be sufficient to meet the requirements. I trust that parliament will grant me this money, and I will take steps immediately to see that it is expended to the very best advantage. In picking out the place where one of these branch farms may be established, two or three things must be kept in mind, first, that the conditions of the situation are similar to the conditions in a pretty considerable area. We could not at once, or perhaps for a long time, establish these farms in every locality, even supposing parliament was to vote large sums of money to establish them. Therefore, we must first choose the place where the benefit from the individual station will be spread over as large an area as possible. Secondly, we ought to consider the accessibility of the individual places to as large a public as possible. I would be very loth indeed to establish any farm which would be far from a railway station, and from easy means of communication. Thirdly, I think it would be proper and right, in view of the enormous influx of people into the western country, many of whom are at least indifferent farmers, and many quite without experience, that we should try rather to give them the benefit of these examples than to place the stations in portions of the country where there has been and is first-class farming to-day. For this reason I have rather added to the number in the west in larger measure than to the number in the east. In the fourth place, I want to recognize the different parts of the country, not to devote the whole time or the whole labour, or the whole money, to one particular portion of Canada, widespread as the Dominion is, but rather to thoroughly distribute this money which comes from the whole people of Canada. It is with these objects in view that I first of all, some years ago, established such a station at Lethbridge, where there was a comparatively dry area needing irrigation, and also needing example of what is called dry farming. I also established one in Northern Alberta, at Lacombe. Then came one down in the east in Prince Edward Island, where people were a little cut off from the advantages of other farms. Then came one at Rosthern, in northern Saskatchewan, where the country is a little different from the prairie country, an!


Sydney Arthur Fisher: where there is a considerable element of foreign population, who do not perhaps understand our agricultural conditions and methods as well as our own people. The next one was in Scott, also in Saskatchewan. The Nova Scotia government bought a property at Kentville, Nova Scotia, in Kings county, for the purpose of establishing a special station for fruit experiments, as well as for other operations. That is just now being organized. Last fall I purchased two in the eastern portion of Quebec, where agriculture is certainly backward, and where it is very desirable that something should be done. I also got an establishment in British Columbia, in the Columbia Valley, at a place called Wilmer, where we have a small area of land in that valley, which was presented by a company there, and we are now preparing to commence operations.
I have had my officer examining sites in British Columbia, in order to secure one on Vancouver Island and one in what is called the fruit belt of the interior-perhaps in the Okanagan country or thereabouts. I have been a little delayed in being able to do anything there partly because of the difficulty in the choice of a really suitable situation and partly also because of the high prices which are asked for any land which seemed at all suitable. In Ontario I also have been hoping that just as soon as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is accessible we will be able to find out where the proper situation would be to establish one or perhaps more in what is called the great clay belt of northern Ontario. I confess that in the southwestern part of Ontario, where my hon. friend lives, I have not felt so much the necessity for the establishment of these branch stations for two reasons. In the first place, from the point of view of agriculture and horticulture, that region of Canada is the best on the continent of America and the farmers there need less help or example. The ordinary farmers are thoroughly well up themselves. Secondly, the Ontario government has been doing a very considerable amount of work. As my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) said a few minutes ago, they have stations somewhat similar in character in this Niagara district and several other places in the southwestern part of Ontario. Under these circumstances, while I would not for a moment say that we should not go on in that part of the country it seemed to me that the establishment of these branch farms was less pressing, less insistent, there than it was in other parts of Canada. In view of the fact that the people represented by my hon. friend from Wentworth and others in the Niagara peninsula have pressed for this other thing, which I think will be of great value to their industry, and that we are trying an experiment which will be of service to all

other fruit growing and fruit shipping parts of the country, I have rather felt that I was called upon first to do that, and doing that, perhaps other expenditures of public money would be better in another part of the country than just alongside of this experiment with regard to fruit shipping and at a place where the Ontario government have an experiment station at which they are doing very good work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Excellent work.


Mr. BARNARD.: I am sure the House is very much interested and pleased at the somewhat laboured attempt of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) to pull the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Sealey) out of the hole he has got into by reason of the reciprocity pact.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No reason for it at all.


George Henry Barnard: In the somewhat rambling remarks of the minister he told us of experimental farms in the Kootenay Valley, in the province of Quebec, in the Ontario clay belt and a number of other places, but he did not, in so far as I could hear, give the hon. member from Wentworth very much satisfaction in so far as that particular constituency is concerned. I do not wish to take up the time of the House but there is a question that I would like to obtain some light upon from the Minister of Agriculture and it is as to what provision he is making for a farm on Vancouver Island. I can assure him that if he is desirous of pulling anybody out of a hole he could very probably get busy in the constituency of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) because that constituency has been promised an experimental farm for the past two or three years. The minister has had an official of his department on the ground who has reported upon several sites. The Hudson's Bay Company offered a certain property to the minister for the purpose of establishing an experimental farm at a considerably lower price than it could be purchased for in the immediate neighbourhood and yet he has never gone on with the project with the result that the minister might find that he would now have to pay two or three times as much for the land than the figure at which lie could have purchased it at that time.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was too high to buy for such a purpose then and I certainly could not think of buying it now.


George Henry Barnard: Under those circumstances I suppose we are to take it that the minister does not intend to establish -an experimental farm there'on account of the high price of land?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not say so.


George Henry Barnard: Possibly when his reciprocity pact come into operation and the
price of land has gone down he will be in a better position in regard to it.


Martin Burrell: I would like to say that I thoroughly agree with the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) in the enunciation of his general policy with regard to these experimental farms and I would also like to suggest to him that he rarely gets criticism from this side of the House for asking too much money to tie expended in the .interest of .agriculture. On the other hand, it is generally for not having asked enough for agriculture. I have never noticed on this side of the House any disposition to criticise the minister harshly on account of the extravagance of the Department of Agriculture. It is rather the niggardliness of the department that we complain of. I need not call the minister's attention to the fact that two years ago I took the opportunity of pressing upon him the necessity for the establishment of an experimental farm in the semi-arid belt of British Columbia where some $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 have been invested by a large number people who are absolutely dependent upon horticulture and who are looking forward very anxiously to see the promise which the minister made on that occasion implemented. I would be very much gratified if the minister could give us an assurance that the promise which he made on that occasion would be carried out at a very early date.
TAKING OF CENSUS IN MAiniTOBA.


Mr. W. D. STAPLES (Macdonald).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair I desire to call the attention of the House and more particularly that of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) to some of the questions which I asked him upon Friday last, his answers thereto and to some others that he refused to answer. I am not Irish; therefore, I cannot assume the attitude of the Irishman who was kicked by a mule. I purpose for a moment or two to consider the impolite, undignified and unusual manner in which the minister undertook to answer my questions on Friday night. I can tell the minister that in so far as the yaps and sneers which he threw across the floor of the House are concerned they are not going to quiet any person not even myself. I pay no more attention to his yaps and barks than a locomotive does to a sky terrier as it rolls over the rails to the next station. I would suggest to the minister that it would have been much to his ad vantage if he had kept cool, slicked his silver beard, spoken more calmly, and not flown off the handle when I put these questions to him on Friday last. I did not ask them from mere curiosity. I had a reason for asking these questions and the constituency that I have the honour to represent had a reason in desiring that they should

be asked because they wanted to know how things were moving along in so far as the census taking of the constituents I represent is concerned. I asked the minister some questions with regard to the activity of the Liberal organizer of Manitoba. He knew then and he knows now that he has been actively engaged in taking a census of Manitoba. When he made the denial he was stating what was not the fact.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Order.


William D. Staples: You may call order, but I will support what I am saying by evidence, and direct evidence with regard to the facts of the case. The question asked the Minister of Agriculture will be found reported in ' Hansard ' as follows:
Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if the enumerators for the taking of the census in the province of Manitoba have been appointed ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think they all are; if not, with very few exceptions.


William D. Staples: By whom were they recommended?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They were recommended by men in whom I have confidence.


William D. Staples: I do not think that is an answer to my question.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I cannot allow a debate on the orders of the day.


William D. Staples: I have a further question to ask. Had the Liberal organizer in the province of Manitoba anything to do with tb appointment or recommending of the enumerators for that province?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a question which I decline to answer.


William D. Staples: Has the Liberal organizer of the province of Manitoba anything to do with the schooling of the enumerators before they begin their work?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.
The Minister of Agriculture answered, ' No,' in a very sharp voice. I want to tell the minister that the enumerators have been going to the office of the Liberal organizer for Manitoba in the city of Winnipeg, on his invitation, and the first witness! will call to substantiate that is Mr. Perry himself, the Liberal organizer. This is a letter signed by the Liberal organizer in whom the Minister of Agriculture has every confidence, and no doubt he has reason to have confidence in him, because this man has been very beneficial to the Liberal party in Manitoba as well as in Saskatchewan, in by gone days. The letter reads:
MANITOBA LIBERAL EXECUTIVE. Confidential circular.
Organizer's Office,
Winnipeg, Canada.
April 17, 1911.
Dear Sir,-Re census in federal constituency of Macdonald. I beg to advise you that you Mr. STAPLES.
have been recommended as enumerator for the following official census enumeration division of the above constituency:-
Sec. 54 That part of the parish of St. Charles north of the Assiniboine river.
I inclose copy of rates as officially announced in the ' Canada Gazette ' of April 15, 1911, and would be pleased if within ten (101 days of date hereof, you would acknowledge receipt of this letter.
Yours in the good cause,


H. E. PERRY.
[Stage Direction]
(Whenever you are in the city, we shall be pleased to have you call.)
Catch on to the words ' Yours in the good cause.' Now, who is Mr. Perry, and what do we know about him? He has been a great actor who has played some very important parts on various political stages, always for the Liberal party, not only in Manitoba, but in Saskatchewan, and in order that the House may understand how he plays his part on these political stages, I will recall just one instance out of many which will be sufficient to satisfy the House, and it should be sufficient to satisfy the Minister of Agriculture that Mr. Perry is not a man in whom he should have the utmost confidence; that is, if he wishes to play the game of politics fairly. It will be remembered that there was an election in the constituency of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, on the 13th day of December, 1905, and the Liberal party had as their candidate Mr. Tyreman, and Mr. Donaldson was a candidate of the Provincial Rights party. Mr. Donaldson was recognized as much the stronger candidate, and dhe Liberals decided to beat him at any cost, and something had to be done. What was done was to call into play the Grit machine, and after it was sufficiently oiled and greased it was put into operation. The first move was to select the battlefield, and if the House will take the trouble to look at the map, they will find that the constituency of Prince Albert runs far into the wilds of the north, and so the northern wilds were selected by the Grit machine for its handiwork and robbery. Mr. Moberley, the Liberal organizer, made application to returning officer Sinclair for three polls to be opened in the north, and needless to say the application was immediately granted. It was understood that Mr. Donaldson, the provincial rights candidate, was to know nothing of it then, and in order to jockey time, Mr. Sinclair, the returning officer, rode forty miles into a little town called Shell Brook, from which the mail only leaves twice a week. On the 5th of December, after the mail had left, Mr. Sinclair, the returning officer, mailed a notice to Mr. Donaldson that there would be three polls opened up in the north, and it was absolutely impossible for Mr. Donaldson to get this notice until the 7th of December, or six days before the election.

when he could not possibly get there himself or send a representative on that short notice to protect these three polls. The next move was for Mr. Sinclair, the returning officer, to select three deputy returning officers and he procured the efficient services of a Mr. McLeod, a Mr. Neil-son, and a Mr. Sutherland, and they started on the northern trip. After journeying for some time they came to a desolate and lonely spot, and they concluded that they had travelled far enough, so they also concluded that it was a most ideal place to do the work they had gone out to do, and to set the Grit machine working. Therefore, they made a camp fire and sat down. They had some liquid refreshments and although the narrative does not say what foodstuffs they used, it is supposed it was the standard Grit machine grulb namely pickled pigs' feet and beer, and no doubt'they smoked the Laurier brand of cigars from the good ship * Arctic.'
After having a hearty supper, they decided that they would go to work. The first thing to be done was to make a list. So they got their pencils and paper out, and sat down and began putting down all the names thev could think of. Finally their mental ability, and capacity of thinking of names became exhausted; yet they had not in their opinion quite sufficient names on the list to defeat the provincial rights candidate. At that moment, fortunately for Mr. Tyreman, but unfortunately for Mr. Donaldson, a rabbit went jumping by. The incident suggested the name of a new family that they might register, so they began registering the Rabbit family. They entered on the list Tommy Rabbit, Jack Rabbit, and I was told Jennie Rabbit, and all the Test of the Rabbit family. After they had got the Rabbit family all Entered up, they counted up the list, and they found 151 names on the list, and they concluded, after a little consultation, that that was sufficient to do the trick. The next move was to open the polls. So they unlocked the ballot boxes* took out the poll book, took out the pad of ballots, and they got up, I suppose, behind the back log for a table, and began work. Now, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the scene? Just imagine that you see those men at work, away up there in the north, at a poll constituted as I have said, and- imagine you see Tommy Rabbit, and Jack Rabbit, and Jennie Rabbit, stepping into the poll announcing their names and demanding ballots; and there Mr. Sutherland, and Mr. Macleod, and Mr. Neilson hand out the ballots, and the Rabbits go back and mark them, fold them, and come back and drop them into the ballot box. Then I suppose they got their usual glass of beer and pigs' feet, and cigar, and went home to await the Teturns of the poll. After
they had got the 151 ballots in the box, the time arrived' to close the poll. The poll was closed. The ballot boxes were unlocked, the marked ballots taken out and counted. It was found that there were 151 ballots, and every one of them had voted right, they were all marked for Mr. Tyreman,' the Liberal 'candidate.. VThetn, they gathered up their traps, and whatever little provision they had left, and started back to Prince Albert. When they arrived at Prince Albert they handed in their ballot box and made the solemn declaration to the returning officer, Mr. Sinclair, and he declared Mr. Tyreman, the Liberal candidate, elected by about 60 majority. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the way that incident occurred^ But Mr. Donaldson decided that he was not going to stand for all that. He felt that Jre was entitled to some degree of justice. So he immediately took action against the three returning officers. They were taken to court, and were fined as follows:	Mr. Sutherland, deputy, Mr. Macleod, another deputy, and Mr. Neilson, $200 each, and Mr. Moberly, $100. That quieted things for a time. But Mr. Donaldson was not satisfied with that. He then instituted proceedings against Mr. Sinclair, the returning officer. The charge he made against Mr. Sinclair was conspiring to defraud in the matter of the list. This somewhat alarmed the Liberal machine, and the Liberals throughout the country, and immediateb'' they advised the deputy returning officers to skip out. After they were supplied with the necessary cash, and the assurance that they would be looked after, the deputies went across into the United States. And now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the point where I want to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the beautiful letters that were written by his friend Mr. Perry, in whom he has every confidence, and see what the House and even the minister himself think of them. These poor fellows were in the United States for a time. They were running short of cash, and they were anxious to get back. They had to be administered to, and Mr. Perry administered comfort to their souls, and cash in their pockets. I will read to the House extracts from some of his letters to Mr. Neilson. I hold in my hand facsimiles of all the letters that passed between Mr. Neilson, Mr. Perry, Mr. Sutherland, and the rest of the gang, so that they cannot be disputed. Some of them are rather spicy. This is from one dated June 10:
Nothing new in. the Sinclair case. Appeal to be heard by full court at Calgary, July
^Moberly should have requested protection of court; as it is, it seems there is nothing for him to do but plead guilty.
Tories threatening further prosecution.
[Stage Direction]
I have heard it said that the missing deputies would he as well to keep out of sight. I think this is undoubtedly correct.
On June 11th, he writes further:
Ere this reaches you, no doubt you will have heard that Moberly was fined $100.
Tories are talking of other prosecutions,, and are, of course, pleased with the results so far.
Prudence would, I should judge, suggest to the absent deputies that their safety lies in their remaining away.
These were written by Mr. Perry to Mr. Neilson. Here is another one:
Box 723,
Regina, Oct. 24, 1906.
Dear Mr. Neilson,-I write to inform you that the Tories are still threatening. You see if they lose the case against Sinclair it will make them hostile, while if they win they will be in good shape to prosecute further. That is the way they look at it, so I would advise extreme caution. I shall try to keep you advised. Am going up to Prince Albert shortly to see how things look. The 'Standard' here last night published a story that if the case went against Sinclair, he was going to squeal, but I don't believe that, as he would never do anything to help the Tories, he is a sore on them. Kindly consider this as absolutely confidential and done in your interests.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) H. E. PERRY.
This is the man in whom the Minister of Agriculture has every confidence. Here is a note at the bottom of this letter:
I heard that Pete Paul was trying to play private detective and had gone to the States for that purpose. He was a juror.
charge, that of not holding the poll at the proper time and place.
Moberley, a poll clerk, was fined for writing the word 'voted' after the names of parties ia the poll book, his fine being $100, while that of each deputy was $200.
The Tories are naturally disappointed and sore over the decision of the full court, and I am informed that Moore, editor of their paper, 'The West,' and Macdonald, the organizer, are going to Prince Albert the beginning of the next week.
I am also informed on the best authority that the Tories say that any or all of the fellows who are away will be arrested immediately on their return, which quite bears out what I have understood all along, they were threatening to do.
I, therefore,-cannot hold out any hope for your early return. Things will settle down after a while, when the by-election is over and after the end of next session of the House. I shall be pleased to give you any further information, if possible to obtain it, and you so desire.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) H. E. 'PERRY.
This was the Liberal organizer for the province of Manitoba in whom the Minister of Agriculture has the utmost confidence. Here is another one of Perry's racy epistles, written by him to John Neilson during the latter's exile-in the United States. Neilson was evidently getting very lonely and restless :
Drawer 804,
Prince Albert, Jan. 17, 1907.
Dear Mr. Neilson,-I came here a little over a n?0Iltl1 a&° n<>t intending to remain for any such length of time, however, it became necessary to do so.	[DOT]
Neilson was the deputy returning officer who was up operating in the wilds of the north. Here is another letter written by H. E. Perry, the chief Liberal organizer of Manitoba, in whom the Minister of Agriculture has every confidence, to Mr. Neilson:
Box 723,
Regina, Sask., Oct. 29, 1906. Dear Sir,-I enclose for your information and guidance copy of header of this day containing complete text of judgment of the full court in the Sinclair case, and which disposes of the conspiracy phase of the Prince Albert district election cases. It does not, however, dispose of the two counts against the deputy returning officers and poll clerks, namely: Making false returns and stuffing ballot boxes, for which they are liable under sections 1JS and 131 of the Territories Election urdinanee. Section 128 reads: Any person appointed a returning officer, election clerk deputy returning officer or poll clerk, who fails to carry out any of the duties imposed by this Ordinance, or who contravenes any of its provisions, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $300 and costs or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or both.
Section 133 reads: Penalties under this Ordinance may be recovered on summarv conviction before two justices of the peace. The three deputies were fined on only one Mr. STAPLES.
r arrived December 13, got hold of Jim Sinclair, president of association 1905-6, and 14th prepared to call to executive. I went to Sturgeon Lake lumber mills and got Jim Wilson, secretary of the association, to also sign the call. Returned 16th, and 17th got Wilson to go out to iShillingworth with notice while I went through Down Hill and Hales! 18th and 19th. Executive meeting on 20tli. Decided to hold annual meeting some time about January 9th. Got notices for same out on 22nd. Started out for Shillingworth district, which I covered by the evening of December 31st. Did some short drives following week. Convention held on 9th. A. Turgeou *16 nomination. The Tories, when y found out we were calling a convention, scambled out and called theirs for the 8th the day previous to ours. S. J. D. received their nomination. The fight promises, according to some, to be pretty hot. I do not entirely agree with that opinion, but do not propose to take any chances, as I shall have good organization all over the district. After December convention the 9th, the city Liberals banqueted the delegates and friends from the country. We had a fine turnout and a fine time. The weather has been very severe so much so that there are very few moving around. The train service is badly demoraliz" ed. Premier Scott has been very low with pneumonia, and indeed may not be past danger
MAY lr\ 1911
yet. I understand lie will shortly, when able to be moved, take a trip to the south. His illness has thrown arrangements to the calling of the legislature, &c., all out. Trust your health and that of Archie is good.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) H. E. PERRY.
A note at the bottom reads:
The Senator returned to Ottawa on the 11th. _TIe never came near me. I only saw him merely to shake hands and once when he was going into the banquet. I had no conversation at all. If you have any private matter with him, you might write him direct to the Senate, Ottawa. He keeps clear of me, as we cannot agree. You will get further particulars regarding convention and banquet from the 'Advertiser/ which I trust you receive regularly.
There is another letter written by Grit Organizer Perry to John Neilson, one of Mr. Perry's friends and possibly a friend of the Minister of Agriculture also:
July 18, 1906.
Dear John,-Received your letter this a.m., and I am sending the other along at once.
I wonder what that other was?
Having forwarded everything that came here just as fast as it arrived. The court has not given a decision yet, but will let you know as soon as we hear what they do. This may come along any day. The other boys have settled down out west, but have not heard from them for some days. You had better stay there for a while, as we may get some news for you and it would not pay me to move just now. There is absolutely nothing to tell you about this thing as they are just keeping still and waiting a chance to get hold of some of you fellows. Sutherland's wife and family have gone to him and intend to stay there. I may be in Chicago in a week or ten days and will let you know. Write me the same as usual here, and mail the same and it will be looked after even if I am away for a few days.
Yours,
(Sgd.) M.
Here is another letter, apparently from a kind of go-between 'Chicago lawyers, possibly counsel for the criminals in their exile:
January 28, 1907.
Alex. Scott.	Sands & Scott,
Mark Sands.	Lawyers,
218 La Salle Street, Chicago.
Mr.   J@: Neilson,
600 W. 62nd St., City.
Dear Mr. Neilson,-Please find herewith a letter sent you in my care by Mr. Perry. This came "one day iast week, but I kept thinking that you would be in and so did not forward it to you. I did not call you on the telephone because I have been knocked out with grippe about ten days. Drop in when convenient as I also had a letter from Mr. Perry, although I presume it practically covers the same subjects as yours.
Very truly vours.

Here is another letter written by Murray to John Neilson concerning things at home:
Dear Jno,-Have been very busy, but have intended to write you for the past few days.
Have been in province of Quebec and have seen all of the parties interested and can assure you that everything is going along all right and all that can be done is now being done. All the matters that you spoke to me about will be attended to in proper time, so you need have no worry about them. Expect court to give decisions to-day and will let you know how they turn out. Have had several interviews and when this case is over it may change the whole thing, but all feel sure that if you return before the warrants are withdrawn it will mean trouble at once. Everybody is prepared to stand by their guns and do what is right by you, and what I ask is that you hold steady for a while longer until all can be arranged.
See Mark and he will fix things up with you. Thought best to send it that way.
I may have to make another trip south in a week or ten days and will let you know and see you then. You can depend upon it that I am doing all I can to hurry things along. You will hear from me again in a few days.
Yours,

Now, Mr. Speaker, these are some of the letters that have come to light that have passed between Mr. Perry, the Liberal organizer, the man who is taking an active part in conducting the census of the province of Manitoba, the man whom the Minister of Agriculture claims is a very warm friend-


Mr. KNOWLES.: Would the bon. gentle'-man (Mr. Staples) mind passing these letters over? Would he mind letting me see them?


William D. Staples: I will be pleased to do so. I would advise the hon. member (Mr. Knowles) that the paper I have here and the facsimiles of the letters are from the library. So he will be sure he has the real thing in the letters.


William Erskine Knowles: Will the hon. member please send me what he read?-[DOT]
Mr. (STAPLES. They are there; the facsimiles, too.


William Erskine Knowles: Those the hon. gentleman read to the House? I think he read what is lying on his desk. Will he show me that5


William D. Staples: Yes, if the hon. gentleman wants them,-in a moment; I want to use them.


William Erskine Knowles: I will pass them back in five minutes. Let me have what the hon. gentleman read or nothing at all.


William D. Staples: Certainly, let him have it. I have no objection to letting the hon.

gentleman from Moosejaw having these letters. He will find they are indentieal with the facsimiles.


William Erskine Knowles: I have no doubt they are.


William D. Staples: I was telling the Minister of Agriculture that these are some of the letters that have passed between these men and his friend, Mr. Perry, in whom he has great confidence, the man who is taking an active part at the present time in taking the census in the province of Manitoba. And, in conclusion I ask the acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to discipline the would-be supreme Minister of Agriculture, just a little, and see if he cannot get him to withdraw his confidence in Mr. Perry, the Liberal organizer of the province of Manitoba who is very actively engaged in taking the census of that province.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I had placed in my hands a motion this afternoon which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples) .said he was going to move-


William D. Staples: I beg pardon. I want to move the motion. But my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) has my copy of the motion.


William Erskine Knowles: I will send it over to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples).


William D. Staples: Mr. Speaker, I will appeal to the hon. member from Moosejaw to play a little fair and not try to appear so cute and clever, but to send me back my papers to which is attached the motion I purpose moving.


William Erskine Knowles: Is it-


William D. Staples: I asked the hon. gentleman to send back the paper I was kind enough to let him have.


William Erskine Knowles: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Since sending it over-if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples) does not wish to take my word for it, it does not matter-I found this attached to the paper. I had no idea that these letters were attached to the motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Send it over.


William Erskine Knowles: I will send it over I had no idea it was there.


William D. Staples: I beg leave to move in amendment:
That in the selection, of public officers the government is exercising a public trust and should be guided by considerations of the character and capacity of the persons whom it proposes to appoint. That the delegation of such public trust to a local party committee or organizer is a public scandal and deserves the censure of this House.


William D. Staples: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) be-igan Mis remarks by alluding to some answers I gave to questions he put, and I gathered, I think correctly, that if the answers had been to his liking, nothing further would have been heard of the blatter.


William D. Staples: No, you are wrong.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am very glad, indeed, that the answers were not to the hon. gentleman's liking, because it has given him an opportunity, of which he has been pleased to take advantage, to show a vein of facetiousness, and to tell some pretty stories about a camp fire, a journey in the northwest, and so on, which I have no doubt, interested a large number of members, and evidently created great amusement amongst his friends around him. I confess I was not particularly interested in them, and I do not think that they are of particular value in regard to the motion before the Chair. As to the first part of the motion, that in the selection, and appointment of public officers the government is exercising a public trust, and should be guided by considerations of the character and capacity of the person whom it is proposed to appoint, this is very true, one might perhaps think it a platitude because it has been, as far as I know, the guiding principle of governments in Canada for some time past, how long past I would not like to say'.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Long past.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Well, for 15 years past. Then the hon. member goes on and says that the delegation of such a public trust to a local parliamentary committee or organ-zation is a public scandal, and deserves the censure of this House. If my hon, friend had changed this a little and said that the delegation of such a public trust to a local parliamentary committee or organization would be, if done, a public scandal, and deserve the censure of this House, I might not greatly object to it, but the implication here is that that has been done.


An hon. MEMBER.: So it has.


William D. Staples: What does the letter which Perry has issued to the returning officer show? If the minister will look up his official and private correspondence in connection with this Mr. Perry he will find a good many other letters.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not hesitate to say that Perry has made recommendations to me just as others in Manitoba have done, and these recommendations have been considered by me, and sometimes they have been acted upon, and sometimes not.


Mr. ROCHE.: Why did the minister refuse the other day to say who had made recommendations ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because I never do say, I never divulge the recommendations on *which I act, and I do not propose to. The recommendations to a minister in regard to public appointments, as to other things, are confidential in their nature. I look upon them as recommendations, I act upon them, or do not act upon them in the exercise of my judgment in the administration of my department. Whether they are turned down or not turned down I do not propose to tell hon. gentlemen opposite. It is a matter between the people who make the recommendations and mvself, and I decline to answer such questions.


William D. Staples: Does the minister still think, in view of the exposures that have been made in regard to Perry, that he is a fit and proper person to recommend any officer to the government?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know exactly what these exposures are. My hon. friend has read certain letters. I do not know whether these letters have appeared in any court or trial.


William D. Staples: They have all. They are


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is the first time I have heard anything about it.


William D. Staples: What I said was that the parties with whom this correspondence was carried on by Perry were in court and were fined.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And wrere these letters filed in court?


William D. Staples: I do not know whether or not the letters had come to light then.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know either, and I do not propose to accept anything except records of trials.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because an hon. member of this House reads letters I am not going to accept them necessarily as correct.


An hon. MEMBER.: Good.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend's party accepted the counting of the ballots which put his candidate in.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it must have been the returning officer who accepted the counting of the ballots, and that was an official action which that gentleman was called on to perform. I do not know anything about the trial referred to.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Don't want to know, either.	.1 i , LI


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not care particularly. I have not studied the matter, I never looked into the trial, and I know nothing about it.


Glenlyon Campbell: You had better look into it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the opinion of the hon. gentleman. I do not intend at present to enter into the study of it.


Mr. LAKE.: Is it not the case that in 1906 the minister issued orders for the recall of this man Moberly mentioned this afternoon, from being employed in the Census Department because he had been involved in these Prince Albert scandals?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I remember recalling a Mr. Moberly, because he had been proved in a trial to have been guilty of improper practices. I would do the same thing under similar circumstances to-day, but I have not any proof that Mr. Perry has been proved guilty of anything. There is a difference between a man being proved guilty of an improper practice and an assertion on the part of people that another man is unworthy of confidence. Mr. Perry is not an officer of this department. He has no connection, official or otherwise, as far as I know, with the taking of the census, and I have nothing to do with Mr. Perry except, when I receive a letter from him, to answer it in accordance with my judgment. My hon. friend, says and I believe that Mr. Perry has been appointed the manager or organizer of the Liberal party in Manitoba. That, to me, is a recommendation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That, to me, is a recommendation of the man. I do not believe that the Liberals of Manitoba would deliberately choose a man to do work for them who was disreputable or unworthy of their confidence. I venture to say for myself and I think for the government that we have confidence enough in the Liberals of Manitoba to believe that they will do what i3 right.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister say what Liberals in Manitoba recommended Mr. Perry, as he says?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend has not been listening. I did not say that Mr. Perry had been recommended. He has never been recommended to me in any Te-spect, but an hon. member has said that he has been appointed by the Liberals of Manitoba to be their organizer in political affairs. He is not an officer of my department, and he has nothing whatever to do with taking the census in Manitoba or anywhere else. Mr. Perry has written to me on various occasions respecting appointments

in connection with the census. I have taken these recommendations and these letters' into consideration, just as I have done with' the letters of other gentlemen in Manitoba and elsewhere. I have judged the recommendations and acted in accordance with my judgment.


William D. Staples: What authority had Mr. Perry to issue that letter to the enumerat-tors?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He had no authority as far as I know. I gave him no authority.


William D. Staples: I suppose then the minister will look after Mr. Perry?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly not: I had nothing to do with Mr. Perry. He can write as many letters as he likes. The hon. member himself can write a letter if he chooses and I shall not refuse him the privilege, nor shall I refuse Mr. Perry the privileges if he chooses to write letters. But Mr. Perry does not use any authority in that or anything else in regard to the census, and, knowing a little about Mr. Perry and judging from the correspondence, I venture to think that he will not say he has any authority from me or from the government or from the department to deal with the census in any way whatever.
Now, let me say a few words further. The hon. member for Macdonald calls Mr. Perry my confidential adviser, or something of that kind. He assumes that all the recommendations that I have received from Manitoba in regard to the census have come from Mr. Perry. Although I told him the other day that I had acted upon the recommendations of people in whose judgment I had confidence, he assumes that these recommendations were all from Mr. Perry and nobody else. In that respect he is entirely in error. I have received a number of recommendations, some from ex-members, some from present members and some from other people in the different constituencies m regard to the census enumerators. I am sorry to say, as a matter of convenience to myself, that I get, I suppose, several hundred letters every day in regard to the census and the appointments to it.


An hon. MEMBER.: Read a few of them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I am not going to read any because I look upon them as confidential ; I look upon them as matters between the writers and myself and I am not going to divulge them any more than I will other recommendations in regard to official appointments in this country. The hon. members mentioned Mr. Neilson, or Mr. McNeill,-I do not remember which it was.


William D. Staples: Mr. Neilson.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know the gentleman and I never heard of him till now, Mr. FISHER.
I want to say here clearly and distinctly that when I receive a recommendation relating to any appointment and questions are asked about it in this House or elsewhere I hold that recommendation confidential and I do not reply to those questions. That is a principle which we have laid down as members of the government and I have acted upon it in this case as in many others. My replies to the hon. member the other day were no shorter and were no more based on an inclination to refuse to answer his questions than they have been on other occasions of a similar character. That was threshed out many years ago, here, it was thoroughly considered, and I believe the House thoroughly agreed to the principle that recommendations from various people in the country with reference to appointments to offices are not to be divulged and certainly I do not propose to divulge them.
I noticed one letter which was quoted there and I caught the statement that certain returning officers-were fined. I noticed that two or three men were fined because they did not open their polls at the right time in the morning.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: It was because they did not open them at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Well, that had nothing whatever to do with the census or the taking of the census or anything else I know of. I understood that another man was fined for some other trivial offence of that kind in connection with


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend derides the statement that it was a trivial offence That is the impression that I got at the moment when hearing the letter read. It struck me that it was more an error of judgment.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but I never heard of it before. I listened to the letter when it was read and that is the impression I got from it. Three or four men, I judged from the reading of the letter, have been fined in the courts.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: They were fined for voting rabbits.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, that is not what they were fined for. I do not think that the hon. member will find in any of the records of the courts any fine imposed for that reason. In order to convince me he would have to show the record of the court, but I do not believe it for a moment.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: You say you do not know.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know, but I do not believe it all the same. There are certain things which, when stated, appeal to my reason as being possibly correct; there are other things which, when they are stated, do not appeal to my reason, and I do not believe them. I do not think the hon. member will state on his authority as a member of this parliament that these men were fined for voting jack rabbits or anything of that kind.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Well it was jack rabbit.


Richard Stuart Lake: It was rabbit skins.
Mr. SCHAFFNER, I did not say anything about jack rabbits.
Mr. FISHER, I do not know whether it matters very much whether they were jack rabbits or rabbit skins. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) has referred to a matter which justifies my action. During the taking of the census of 1906 a gentleman called Mr. Moberley was recommended as a guide to take some enumerator away to the north part of the country. I did not know Mr. Moberley from Adam. I took the recommendation. I cannot remember at the moment who made it. It was certainly not


William Ross Smyth: It did not matter; you would fill it any way.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I would not. But, as a matter of fact I found out after that Mr. Moberley had been concerned in some fraudulent transaction in connection with an election.


Glenlyon Campbell: But you say you did not believe it.


Richard Stuart Lake: The trivial offence you mentioned just now.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not remember what the offence was. If the hon. member for Qu'Appelle can tell me I will accept the statement from him, (because I do not think he would make a statement which is not correct, but I do not remember what the offence was. It was. sufficient that when my attention was drawn to it I immediately recalled him, I did not allow him to have anything to do with the taking of the census, and if to-day I find that anybody is connected with the takirfg of this census who has been guilty of any improper practice, and has been convicted, therefor, or who is shown to me to be guilty of having acted in an improper way, I shall immediately cancel his appointment and recall him as I did Mr. Moberley from the far north. Moberley and those who were with him had started, had gone beyond the range of civilization, and I sent a special officer from the Mounted Police to
cancel his appointment, to make him give up his papers and to take another man, and put in his place.


Richard Blain: On whose recommendation was Moberley appointed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot remember.


William James Roche: Would the minister take all that pains to recall a man guilty of only a trivial offence?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not remember Mober-ley's offence. The offence I took as being a trivial one was that quoted in the letter read by the hon. member for Macdonald.
I did not know that the men he referred to included Moberley.


William James Roche: Yes, Moberley.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Moberley was one of these four?


William James Roche: Yes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not catch the name, but I did not understand Moberley's name was amongst them.


William D. Staples: I might advise the minister that this man Moberly had made^ an application to the returning officer, Sinclair to have three polls opened in the north. The three men who went to the north were McLeod, Sutherland and Neil-son, but it was Moberley who arranged the whole affair. He was the ringleader.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may have been mistaken, and, therefore, my statement of its being a trivial offence may not have been correct, but my impression was that these men were fined because they had not opened their polls at the right hour.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That may have been incorrect.


William D. Staples: It was for holding a poll at the wrong time, and in the wrong place. Nobody voted but themselves.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I gathered that it was a matter connected with the opening of a poll. It depends altogether upon what the facts are, which I do not pretend to know.


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of fact, they were not punished for all of these things. The facts are beyond dispute They were guilty of eight or ten offences under the Election Act. In addition to that they were guilty of the trifling offences of forgery and perjury, that is all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I know nothing of what they were guilty of. The only thing I know about the case was the letter read by the hon. member for Macdonald, and in which these statements were not included.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister can understand himself: this was the case of two deputy returning officers going out and holding a poll, and returning 151 electors as having voted when there was not a single man appeared before them to vote_ at all; putting down fictitious names, putting in bogus ballots and making a solemn return under the Election _Act that these men had actually voted and that a poll was held and then bringing that return back and having the votes counted for one of the candidates; surely the minister can understand what the offence was.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: None of these statements were contained in the letter to which I have referred, and this is the first time I knew in any shape or form of what these men were supposed to be guilty. But I want to point out that these men had nothing to do with the census. Mr. Moberley seemed to be connected with the transaction, and in the case in court was found guilty of something, when I found he was proven guilty I sent after him" and recalled him, and refused to allow him to continue as census officer.


William Ross Smyth: What is he doing now?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know what he is doing, but he is not acting in connection with the census in any manner, and if I found out to-morrow he was acting, I would cancel his appointment.


Mr. BRADBURY.: What about Perry?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Perry has never been proven guilty of anything.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Does the hon. member say he has?


George Henry Bradbury: I do not say he lias, but I do say that as Liberal organizer in the province of Manitoba, he is sending out circulars inviting your agents to come into his office for instructions, and he was shielding these people who were guilty.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Was that proven in court?


George Henry Bradbury: I would think so.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The statement is made that Perry was shielding these men who were guilty. Was that proven in court?


William D. Staples: His own letter shows it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Perry has nothing to do with the taking of the census for the Department of Agriculture. If Mr. Perry
wishes to write to a census enumerator or commissioner, I have nothing to do with it. He is not doing so with my authority; he has no authority from the department or from me to do it, and he has nothing to do with the taking of the census.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


William D. Staples: Has Mr. Perry the patronage of the constituency of Macdonald at the present time? Will the Minister of Agriculture answer that?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Perry has no patronage of any place at all. But


William D. Staples: And so far as I know he has.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Pardon me; the hon. gentleman asked a question, and he must let me answer it.


Glenlyon Campbell: Call it six o'clock.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will not call it six o'clock until it is six o'clock. The hon. member (Mr. Staples) asked me a question, and I stated in answer that Mr. Perry has not the patronage and nobody else has the patronage of any particular place so far as I am concerned. If Mr. Perry or any one else makes a recommendation in regard to patronage or to an appointment I listen to these recommendations and I judge of them, and in accordance with my own judgment I make the appointment. I will now call it [DOT]six o'clock, and leave hon. gentlemen opposite to think over that.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr.  R. S.@: LAKE (Qu'Appelle) Mr. Speaker this is not the first time that the history of the notorious Prince Albert elections has been given in this House. It was given by myself a good many years ago, in less eloquent and picturesque language, perhaps, but with the facts substantially the same throughout. The minister must have heard it on that occasion, as I am pretty certain he was in the House, and it was notorious throughout the whole of Canada, being printed in the public press from one end of the country to the other. The main facts are that there was a conspiracy to obtain illicit votes in favour of the Liberal candidate in the Prince Albert election. Three men started out into the wilds with the avowed purpose of opening three polls. They did not open any polls at all. They went to a secluded place, opened their poll booths and filled the poll books with fictitious names.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Was that a provincial or a Dominion election?


Richard Stuart Lake: A provincial election. Amongst the fictitious names occurred very frequently the name of Rabbitskin. It was shown at the time that after the three deputy returning officers had exhausted the names they could recall to mind, the

ordinary -every-day names, Mr. Moberley, who was with them, -suggested that he had heard of a family of half-breeds in that neighbourhood called Rabbitskin. So they filled out a large number of the entries with the surname of Eabbitskin, with many different Christian names attached to them. Then, having filled the poll books with names, they filled the ballot boxes with bogus ballots, brought them back from the wilds into the- town -and produced 151 ballots, -sufficient to elect the Liberal candidate. The minister will remember-in fact, he remembered to-day- that Mr. Moberley, the man who was very active in connection with that affair, who acted as poll clerk, and was fined for his connection with the business, was appointed to a job in connection with the census. The minister must have understood that the case was a very bad one, because he took -summary proceeding, after the matter had been repeatedly brought to his notice in this House, to have Mt. Moberley recalled at [DOT] some expense to the country. Two of the three deputy returning officers who were concerned in this notorious business were government officials. Both of them lost their jobs. I presume that even the present administration did not consider it safe to retain them in government positions. The third was a homesteader, and the government in his case was kind enough to protect his homestead, and gran-t him an extension of leave during his enforced absence in the United States, as a fugitive from justice. The case indeed was so bad that Dr. Tyreman, who had- been declared elected by the returning officer, refused to take his seat in the legislature, and did not take hi-s seat. Subsequently the Committee on Elections and Privileges in the Local House, having exhaustively inquired into the case, awarded the seat to Mr. Donaldson, the Provincial Eights candidate. The minister speaks- of these men as having -been guilty of a trivial offence. The leader of the opposition put the matter clearly and tersely this afternoon when he declared that these deputy returning officers, who were, subsequently fugitives from justice, had been guil-ty of perjury and forgery. The minister says that he can see no connection between the Prince Albert election case and the appointment of census officials for the province of Manitoba. The connection is that M-r. Perry is iprovedi by title -corres/pondemca which has been read in the House to-day to have been guilty of conspiring to defeat the ends of justice by assisting these men to become fugitives from justice and advising them to keep out of the way. Let me -read M-r. P-erry'-s own letter, a facsimile of which was subsequently published 285
in the press of the country. This is.what Mr. Perry himself said:
Box 723,
Regina, Sask., Oct. 20, 1906.
Dear Sir,-I inclose for your information and guidance copy of ' Leader ' of this date containing complete text of judgment of the full court in the Sinclair case and which disposes of the conspiracy phase of the Prince Albert district election cases. It does not, however, dispose of the two counts against the deputy returning officers and poll clerks, viz.: Making false returns; stuffing ballot boxes; for which they are liable under sections 128 and 133 of the Territories Elections Ordinance.
Section 128 reads:-Any persons appointed as returning officer, election clerk, deputy returning officers or poll clerk, who fails to carry out any of the duties imposed by this ordinance or who contravenes any of its provisions shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $500 and costs, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both.
Section 133 reads:-Penalties under this ordinance may be recovered on summary conviction before two justices of the peace.
The three deputies were fined on only one charge, that of not holding the polls at the proper time and place.
Moberley, a poll clerk, was fined for writing the word ' voted' after the names of parties in the poll book, his fine being $100, while that of each deputy w-as $200.
The Tories are naturally disappointed and sore over the decision of the full court, and I am informed that Moore, editor of their paper, the ' West,' and McDonald, their organizer, are going to Prince Albert the beginning of the next week.
I am -also informed on the best authority that the Tories say that any or all of the fellows who are away, will be arrested immediately on their return, which quite bears out what I have understood all along they were threatening to do.
I, therefore, cannot hold out any hope for your early return; things will settle down after a while, when the by-election is over and after the end of next session of the House. I shall be pleased to give you any further information, if possible to obtain it, and you so desire.
Yours very truly,



[Stage Direction]
So that by the letter of Mr. Perry himself he stands convicted of aiding and abetting the escape of criminals from justice. And yet the minister appears to treat him as quite a fit and proper representative of the Liberal party in the province of Manitoba, and apparently he sees no harm in consulting him as a representative Liberal. Well, i-f ministers of the Crown consider such men fit representatives of the great Liberal party, we are content that they should do so. The Minister of Agriculture went on to say that he had numerous recommendations, many of which were from Mr. Perry for appointments to the censu-s, but he refused to say upon whose recommendations he acted with
[Stage Direction]


regard to the different cases. All the evidence, however, points to the fact that in a number of cases he acted on Perry's recommendation. At any rate the confidential circular issued by Mr. Perry, and which was read by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples), shows that whether the appointments were made on the recommendation of Mr. Perry or not, it was he who was entrusted with the duty of notifying the successful candidates of their selection by the government.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: The enumerators were all notified toy the Department. No one else had any authority to notify them.


Richard Stuart Lake: Apparently this Liberal organizer considered that he had the authority.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He had none.


Richard Stuart Lake: Allow me to read the letter which he -wrote, which will show that he acted as if the appointments came from him and from him only. This circular letter, which I am about to read, is headed:
Liberal Executive Organization Committee, Winnipeg, April 17, 1911.
Dear Sir,-Re census in federal constituency of McDonald. I beg to advise, yon that you have been recommended as enumerator for the following official census enumeration division of the above constituency:-
Then follows a typewritten slip with these words:-
61. That part of the parish of St. Charles, north of the Assinihoine river.
Mr. Perry goes on to say:
I inclose copy of rates as officially announced in the ' Canada Gazette ' of April 15, 1911, and would he pleased if within ten days you would please acknowledge reception of this letter.
Yours in the good cause,



[Stage Direction]
P.S.-Whenever yon are in the city, we shall be pleased to have yon call.
Does the minister repudiate that letter?
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I say that Mr. Perry had no authority to give any intimation to the enumerators of their appointments. I had nothing to do with that letter and knew nothing about it.


Richard Stuart Lake: It is very strange this Liberal organizer should have known the persons who were recommended.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman must accept my statement that Mr. Perry had no authority.


Richard Stuart Lake: I am not disputing the statement and I take it that the minister repudiates this letter. This is a circular letter with the blanks filled in in another Mr. LAKE.
handwriting and with a slip attached in another kind of typewriting, which indicates that a number of different letters were written to a number of different individuals, and a rubber stamp is used for the signature. One cannot doubt therefore that Mr. Perry was cognizant of all those who were recommended for these appointments. Whether he was so informed by the minister or not is another question; but that he was absolutely personally cognizant of all these recommendations this letter fully establishes. It was the first notice that each person appointed had of his appointment.


Mr. BARKER.: The minister should explain.


Richard Stuart Lake: Then the person recommended is asked to acknowledge within ten days the receipt of the letter notifying him of his appointment. Why was he asked to do so if Mr. Perry was not in some way connected with the official recommendation? The minister repudiated the idea that the enumerators were to go to the Liberal organizer for instructions. He may say that they were not _ to go to the Liberal organizer for instructions with regard to their work as enumerators, but the postcript attached to the letter shows clearly that they were to go to the Liberal organizer foT instructions as to the side work and the canvassing they were to do in the interests of the Liberal party. I have no wish to detain the House any longer. Mr. Moberly was appointed on the recommendation of some one. On whose recommendation the minister cannot remember. Probably it was on the recommendation of Perry himself. The minister made the appointment and then subsequently had to put the public to considerable expense in order to send for this man .and get him toack from the wilds of the far north. Mr. Moberly had been convicted and fined and the time had come foT the Department or the Liberal executive to Teward him. and they apparently recommended him for this appointment in the census. This man, Perry, is convicted, according to his own letters, of endeavouring to keep fugitives from justice out of the reach of the strong arm of the law. Does the minister consider that such a person is a proper man from whom to accept any recommendations? Is he prepared to say that he did accept the recommendations of Mr. Perry for appointments as census eumerators? I pause for a reply-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not ready to say that I have not accepted any of his recommendations.


Richard Stuart Lake: Then I hope the minister will now take steps to see that the persons

who were recommended by this man are promptly cancelled. It seems to me that these recommendations were improperly made, and I sincerely hope that this House will not endorse the action of the Minister of Agriculture.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not intend to take up much time, but as this is a question which affects the whole province of Manitoba, I consider it my duty to give my views with regard to it. It is a question that deserves most serious consideration. Charges have been made against a gentleman ocupying the prominent position of Liberal organizer for the province of Manitoba. This gentleman is practically repudiated by the Minister of Agriculture, yet he assumes power and authority to -write the letter that has been read by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. (Mr. Lake) addressed to the enumerators throughout the province advising them of their appointment and asking them to call at his office for instructions, and I hold that this calls for some action by the minister who is responsible for the census. The minister says this man has no authority; he repudiates him, as I understand it. I ask him what action he is going to take. Is he going to remain silent in the face of this circular letter sent out by the Liberal OTganizer in Manitoba to the enumerators, asking them to call at this man's office. In view of the record of the Liberal organizers in Manitoba, and the experience of the Conservative party with these men, it becomes imperative for the Conservative members <of this House to discuss this matter with the minister who is responsible, for the conduct of these men. I cannot conceive that any crime could be committed by any man occupying the position this man occupies greater than the crime which has been brought home to him in relation to this Prince Albert election. It is one of the most scandalous affairs that ever took place in Canada. These men manufactured three polls where there was not one soul living. According to the history of this case over 160 ballots were made up in a little bluff. These men sat down and deliberately manufactured a list. Yet this Mr. Perry, the Liberal organizer, is the man who shielded these men from justice, and when they were fugitives from the country, this man remained at home advising them that it was dangerous for them to return, that the Tories were threatening to prosecute. This is the man who organiezs the province of Manitoba for the Liberal party. History repeats itself in regard to these organizers. We have had other cases about as bad in that province. But we thought the Liberal party had been taught a lesson and that they would hesitate before they would again employ a [DOT]man with a record as spicy as that of this 2851
man Mr. Perry. There is no question that this gentleman, in that Prince Albert elec-tion_ case, stood between these men and justice, that he shielded them, and that he was a party to the crimes they committed in relation to these ballot boxes. I do not suppose for a minute that the minister knew who this man was when he accepted his recommendation to appoint enumerators, but now that he does know, I ask him, is he going to confirm his appointment?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I certainly will not change *appointments until I find that the appointees are not worthy of their offices.


George Henry Bradbury: I would ask the minister this question: What is he going to do in regard to this circular letter which this gentleman sent out?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Nothing whatever. The gentleman has a right to write a letter, just as the hon. gentleman himself (Mr. [DOT]Bradbury) has.


George Henry Bradbury: I take a very different view of this question. The minister (Mr. Fisher) is Responsible to this country for the proper taking of the census.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hear, hear.


George Henry Bradbury: He is bound to safeguard the men who take that census. Put aside the fact that this man is a Liberal organizer. It might be any other man who would write a letter of that kind addressed to the enumerators, asking them to come in for instructions-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: May I see that letter?


George Henry Bradbury: Certainly. I will read it to the House, and .send it oveT to the 'Hansard.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has just been read by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake).


George Henry Bradbury: It is so good I want to impress it upon the minister.
MANITOBA LIBERAL EXECUTIVE. Confidential circular.
Organizer's Office, P.O. Drawer 2076, Winnipeg, Canada, April 17, 1911. Jno. Colnin,
Dickens' P.O.
Dear Sir,-Re census in federal constituency of Macdonald. I beg to advise you that you have been recommended as enumerator for the following official census enumeration division of the above constituency:-
No. 54. That part of the parish of St. Charles, north of the Assiniboine river.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I understood the hon. member for Qu'Appelle to say that this gentleman was telling these people that they were ' nominated.' The letter as read by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. COMMONS
Bradbury) is that they had been recommended.'


George Henry Bradbury: I think the letter was read very clearly:
-of the above constituency No. 51, that part of the parish of St. Charles, north of the Assiniboine river.
The minister has repudiated this man, but I would ask him: How is this man in *a position to give these minute facts in regard to what each enumerator was recommended for? It was not from the minister-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.
Mr. BRADBURY- it must have been from some of his officials. This was not manufactured.
I inclose copy of rates as officially announced in the ' Canada Gazette ' of April 15, 1911, and would be pleased if within ten (10) days of date hereof, you would acknowledge receipt of this letter.
Yours in the good cause,



[Stage Direction]
(Whenever you are in the city, we shall be pleased to have you call.) ,
Sydney Arthur Fisher: May I interrupt my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury)? I understood him to say a few minutes ago that Mr. Perry had asked these men t-o come in for instructions. There is absolutely nothing in the letter to indicate that.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not know why Mr. Perry should invite these enumerators into his office if it was not for consideration, consultation or instructions.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is gratuitous assumption on the hon. member's part. There is no foundation for it.


George Henry Bradbury: We need not split hairs as to why he was asking them to call. But it is the duty of the minister to see to it that the public are safeguarded from a man like this taking upon himself the authority to write such letters to enumerators appointed to take the census of this country. If this man was not authorized, where did he get his knowledge of the number of the district which each man was to take charge of? Why, Mr. Speaker, it is as plain to me as anything can be that this organizer was given this information and was given an opportunity of picking these men-perhaps not by the minister; I have to accept his statement across the floor of the House-but certainly by some one in authority. I do not object to this man being chosen to take charge of the census of Manitoba because he is a Liberal organizer. In my own country, the man who is chosen to look after the taking of the census is the Liberal organizer of the county, Ira Stratton. Hs is Mr. FISHER.
mjore than that; he has a position that keeps him on the road all the time; he is secretary of the post office association. He boasts openly that he has the patronage of the county. Man after man has been appointed, to my knowledge, on his recommendation, and, more than that, he is the probable Liberal candidate in the next election.


An hon. MEMBER.: He must be a good man.


George Henry Bradbury: No doubt as good a man or a better man than our friend Perry, although I do not think he is so well qualified for the position he occupies as Liberal organizer as Mr. Perry is. I believe it is the duty of the minister to repudiate this Liberal organizer Perry and to warn the public that this man has no authority to write these letters broadcast asking these men to call at his office and get instructions. The letter bears on its face evidence that he is acting on authority from some source, and the minister, who alone ;s responsible to this House for the action of his department, must take the responsibility and repudiate this man unless he is acting with authority.


Glenlyon Campbell: I have never seen a minister so hard put for words, especially a verbose gentleman like the Minister of Agriculture who always has words to defend a question such as has been brought up by my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples). This is one of the most indefensible things brought to the attention of the House this session. It has been shown that a certain man in the employ of the Liberal party in the west has been officially taking part in the appointment of census enumerators. I have in my hand a letter from the executive office of the Liberal organizer of Manitoba signed by the organizer and marked 'confidential circular' showing that this is not the only one that was sent out, that perhaps hundreds of others have been sent out to various enumerators, as I believe. It is evident that Perry has taken on himself a, great part in the appointment of enumerators. It has been shown here that this man has been doing his utmost, perhaps for party reasons, to shield criminals; birds of a feather are noted for flocking together, and if he has been in the habit of shielding criminals, I have not the slightest doubt that in his choice of enumerators for this census he will not pick the cleanest men he can employ. The letters which he wrote to these fugitives from justice, if you can read between the lines, show that he kept these men while they were in the United States, fugitives from Canadian justice. The minister said that one of these men, Moberl-ey, had been brought before the courts and found guilty of a trivial offence.

The Liberal party must be clipped in tar to call such offences as these men committed, trivial. This man was convicted of making false returns on oath, perjury of the worst kind, and the little old gentleman sits there and calls that a trivial offence against the laws of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Mr. TALBOT.: Has the hon. gentleman from Dauphin a right to call the Minister of Agriculture 'the little old gentlemen'?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The words are not unparliamentary.


Glenlyon Campbell: If the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) can find a more appropriate term, after the speech we had from the minister, I would be glad to use it. Another offence which the minister calls trivial was the stuffing of ballot boxes. I would call that pretty near a hanging offence, but he might call it trivial because the stuffing of ballot boxes on behalf of the Liberal party has become so common that they regard it as trivial. Mr. Perry winds up his letter: Yours in the good cause. I would ask the minister what he considers the good cause in a letter from an organizer of the Liberal party to a criminal who is a fugitive from justice. May I ask an answer?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Vote.


Glenlyon Campbell: Evidently the minister is ashamed of the cause, whether it is good or not. I am sure he is ashamed of the cause he is espousing to-night as is every Liberal on that side, because no one has risen to defend it except the minister and my friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot), who made a very able defence. It was brought to your attention by the hon. member for Macdonald, Mr. Speaker, that Prince Albert, in the northwestern part of Canada, is known to have been perhaps the most crooked part of the whole Of Canada in the matter of elections in the Liberal cause. It has been represented by a gentleman who is now a senator. I shall not further advert to him except to say that he has the honour of having been the sponsor for most of the gentlemen who did the kind of work which has been charged against Liberal workers out in that country. This is the part of Canada, Sir, that on one occasion was represented by the Hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier). Some years after the rebellion, in 1885, when the election was held, the great and only cry was: Vote for Laurier; he is the great white French leader down in eastern Canada and he is the man who said that if he had been up here when Riel was fighting he would have shouldered his musket; therefore you must vote for him,1
he being a good loyal French Canadian. He was elected and Mr. McKay was defeated.


An hon. MEMBER.: Very fine.


An hon. MEMBER.: Very good.


Glenlyon Campbell: I do not know whether I heard my hon, friend who now represents Prince Albert say 'very fine,' but I presume that when he used those words he was referring to the methods which were employed in his deferred election. This is above all the place in Canada where corruption of all sorts has been perpetrated in the past, and I hope that in future we will not be justified in saying anything of the kind about it. If nothing of the kind can be said about it there will not be a Liberal member representing it. I hope that the good sense of this House will compel hon. members, regardless of their politics, to vote in strong support of the resolution brought forth by the hon. member for Macdonald.


William Erskine Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the motion which has been placed in your hands by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) in amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply is not very harmful. It is divided into ltwo parte. The first part is such that no person would very seriously take exception to it. The second part is one, which, because of its innuendo, can scarcely be *accepted by this side of the House without acknowledging that there has been that [DOT]corruption which he says is not to be allowed to continue. However, the motion itself is not nearly as unfair, is not nearly as undesirable a thing to bring into this House, as some of the remarks which have been made by gentlemen who have spoken in favour of the amendment. The remarks of the hon. member for Macdonald, while generally in good nature, were such as scarcely to call for any serious reply on this side of the House. I think that if you take out his facetious references to 'beer and pickled pigs' feet,' take out his weighty arguments with regard to 'jack rabbits,' and eliminate some of the deep and ponderous remarks which, as the product of a curious mental process, poured forth from his lips, there is very little left which calls for any reply. The circular upon which he based his remarks is to my mind the most harmless communication that he could have brought here. There is nothing on the face of it, or on the back of it, which requires any defence from this side of the House. In the first place it is a confidential communication. I am not surprised at its use here. It is a circular and, in endeavouring to bring up a motion such as this I suppose these hon. gentlemen can go very far and 1 verv wide of the mark to bring forward

9035
a document of this character, although they make use of a confidential communication signed by Mr. H. E. Perry. My first impression was to consider it a departure from good taste to read a confidential communication, but we will let that go as unimportant. They brought in one or two points that are absolutely foreign to the communication itself. The one which is most offensive which they endeavour to read between the lines is that the organizer called upon the prospective appointees to come into his office and receive instructions. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, when they present that view of it, know full well that there is no such thought suggested by the letter. You can read that letter from beginning to end and there is no such idea in the mind of the writer as that which is suggested by these hon. gentlemen. There is a little postscript at the close of the letter which says: 'When in the city come in and see me." Could there be a more ordinary thing to say than that? The organizer anxious to make good feeling says at the foot of his letter:	'Come in and see me.'
There is not a suggestion of wrong-doing or of corruption in that little postscript. Notwithstanding the insinuation that 'hon. gentlemen endeavour to make with respect to the writer of that letter, I say there is nothing in it to be in the slightest ashamed of. It gives notice to certain men that they have been recommended. That letter might have been written just as well and in just as good faith by any hon. member on the other side of the House or by the Conservative organizer conveying the information to a certain man that he had been appointed to such and such a position.


William D. Staples: That letter says: I beg to advise you that you have been appointed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William D. Staples: He is the man who advises these gentlemen that they have been appointed.


William Erskine Knowles: That is exactly what I am saying. It might be written by any one. This gentleman sits down and says: 'I beg to advise you that you have been appointed.' I have written many such letters in which I have made no recommendation whatever. I learn that a person has been appointed to an office and I write him, as I would write him with regard to anything else that might concern him, and say: 'I beg to advise you that you have been appointed.' If an hon. gentleman opposite learned in one of the departments in the city of Ottawa of the appointment of a rural postmaster would it not be the most natural thing in the world for him Mr. KNOWLES.
to sit down and write:	'I beg to advise
you that you have been appointed to such and such a post office?' That would not mean that the writer had the ear of the government. My hon. friends from the west have written to more than one homesteader saying that there has been granted such and such a concession at the hands of the department. This is merely doing what we are doing every day.


Samuel Barker: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he were writing such a letter to a man who had received an appointment to a post office, would he ask him to call at his office and be instructed in his duties ?


William Erskine Knowles: No.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That letter does not say that; it does not contain those words.


William Erskine Knowles: No, I would not ask him to come in and be instructed. If hon. gentlemen would stick to the letter, or bring a letter which says something about instructions, or else stop talking about instructions it would be more to the point. I would think nothing of it if the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) wrote a gentleman in Dundas advising him that a certain thing had been done in his interest, in the departments at Ottawa and saying in closing the letter:	If you happen to be in the city, drop in and see me. Would we have read into that letter something greatly to the discredit of the hon. member for Hamilton; would we have said that he was a man of the most unworthy kind? No, would we not say rather that it was an innocent remark such as any man might put into a letter he was writing to a political friend, or indeed to any one else. That letter is, to my mind, the silliest kind of thing to base an argument upon. I think the argument based on that letter by the opposition, and on which they found a non-confidence motion is one of the most nonsensical I have ever heard during the six or seven sessions I have been in this House. I may have forgotten some of these non-confidence motions, there were very many so nonsensical, but I think that possibly this is the weakest case that has ever been made out by the opposition in this House from their point of view.
I wish now to deal with the Prince Albert election case, and I may say to begin with that it has as much to do with the taking of the census as the Indian mutiny has. What connection it has with the census, I cannot see, and I do not believe that any sensible man can. One Sinclair and one Moberley, and some one else, away back in 1905, a few weeks after we first became a province, went out, as my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples), with his ponderous reasoning says, to watch jack-

rabits and eat pickled pigs' feet. And these men did what was wrong. The result was that two or three Liberals were coralled for having broken an election ordinance of the Northwest Territories such as it was then. They came back, they were punished. There lived in the province of Saskatchewan some of the very cleverest lawyers who are supporters of that provincial rights party; men who could have prosecuted these offenders, and if they thought they did wrong could have ensured that they were prosecuted to the hilt; men like the Hon. Frederick William Gordon Haultain, who was eight or nine years attorney general of the Northwest Territories, and who with his own pen had written the election ordinance they broke. Why didn't he, seeing that the courts of the land were open to_ every one, swing wide their doors and himself lay, or have some one else lay a complaint for forgery or perjury. Then there was Mr. J. T. Brown, now one of the judges of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan who, had the provincial rights party been elected, would have been their attorney general no doubt, and there was every opportunity for Liberal and Conservative alike to prosecute these men to the hilt for just as serious a charge as it was possible to bring against them. There is no reflection on the Liberal party in connection with that matter. It is not the business of the Liberal party any more than of the Conservative party to prosecute men, even though they be party friends. But these men were prosecuted. They were fined by the magistrates who had been appointed by Mr. Haultain himself on the testimony produced before them such as it was. I merely mention that fact to show that there could be no suspicion surrounding their trial, and what the magistrate thought was a just punishment was meted out to them, and they bore it. Now, why is the Minister of Agriculture to be called upon to answer for all this? What connection is there between that and the appointing of some census commissioners in the province of Manitoba?
It is said by these gentlemen opposite that this man, Mr. Perry, some months afterwards, down in the city of Begina, wrote a few letters to these men telling them how the litigation was proceeding, and telling them that if they were to return they no doubt would be prosecuted, and stating that if they wished to avoid meeting a charge of that kind at that time, they had better not return within the jurisdiction of that court. There is nothing *criminal about that. I would dare to say that any lawyer would write such a letter to his client; I would dare to say that any friend would send such a letter to another friend under similar circumstances. Even
if I were not a lawyer, and not acting as solicitor, if I had a friend who wanted to know liow litigation was proceeding, would not feel that I would demean myself by giving him any information that any man in the land had to give that was present on the ground. Everybody knew these things which Mr. Perry was writing to that man, and there is absolutely no guilt resting on Mr. Perry, and there is absolutely nothing to connect him with a crime, and there is not even the slightest suspicion cast this afternoon in the remarks of gentlemen opposite that Mr. Perry knew anything about that offence before it was committed, or that he had ever dreamed of such a thing. The only cjmrge they can make is that he knew of the threatened charge afterwards, and that he did a friendly act for those who were then awav from the jurisdiction of the courts ot Saskatchewan.	.
Let me say, however, since it has been brought into the discussion, that it was to the credit of the Saskatchewan government -and reflection has been cast upon that government this afternoon-that at the very first opportunity they gave that seat to the Conservative who had been the candidate. As soon as Dr. Tyreman knew of the gruve irregularity that had been charged he endeavouredto place his resignation before the proper authorities that the seat might be vacated and go to Mr. Donaldson; but according to our election ordinance, while the seat was under protest it was not possible until the litigation was over that he could offer his resignation, and the question was also before the Privileges and Elections Committee of the Saskatchewan house, i will admit that it was unfortunately a long time before Mr. Donaldson was able to take the seat, but I have never heard complaint [DOT] criticism on that score. At all events, ie fact is that on the very first day it was issible for the government of the Horn falter Scott to make such a motion they ltroduced a motion at the hands of the ttorney General of Saskatchewan vacating lat seat, and then by special Act of the gislature of Saskatchewan Mr. Donaldson, ie Conservative member, represented that mstituency as the occupant of that seat >r the rest of the parliament.


Mr CAMPBELL.: How many years did , take to find out that Mr. Donaldson was 'ected?
I think two years.
Yes, a little over two


William Erskine Knowles: Mr. CAMPBELL ears.
Mr. KNOWLES
iVir. iviNu vv xjxlio. I said there was an un-rtunately long delay, but I have never yet ;ard the criticism offered that that delay is avoidable. I know it was done just as at as the procedure of the legislative as-mbly and the litigation in the courts

would allow of its being done. At anyrate, as soon as it was possible to do so they did it.
Let me say, in conclusion, that probably the last man in this government that should have reflections cast upon him for his conduct in the discharge of his duty and in the administration of his department, is the Minister of Agriculture. I was pretty well pleased with the Minister of Agriculture when he stood up and said in effect, though not in words: that it was practically his own business where he got his recommendations from, that he declined to tell whence they came, and that he took responsibility for ail his acts. I am pleased with that declaration of the Minister of Agriculture, and I trust that our friends opposite will read between the lines and, seeing that they are so keen on reading ' instructions/ see that there is a little instruction meant for them in that. And, I think that what the Minister of Agriculture meant is: that the Liberals are governing this country, that they make the appointments to office, that they get their recommendations where in their wisdom they think right. The ministers no doubt use their own judgment, and they seek the counsel of their friends, and if they wish it sometimes of their foes, but when it comes to the last resort I think what the Minister of Agriculture meant was that the sixty, seventy or eighty hon. gentlemen opposite should understand that for the present at least the Laurier government is governing this country and making the appointments to office. And this idea of gentlemen opposite, that because for a few days they may hold us up and waste our time and defer the business of the House, that, therefore, they are governing the country, is absolutely an illusion on their part. They are governing the country only as a man somehow can interfere with the lines of communication a little here and a little there, but when it comes to the long run they will find that just as for the last fifteen years so for many years to come the hand of Sir Wilfrid Laurier will hold the reins, and that the chariot of good government will be driven by him, and this country continue to prosper under his guidance.
Now, suppose that Mr. Perry did make some unfortunate recommendations; suppose he did recommend some unfit men, and suppose his recommendations were accepted -although we have not learned that he had any patronage; in fact, we learn that he had not and that he has no connection with the government directly or indirectly; suppose that he did make recommendations, why even a Conservative organizer can make recommendations if he wishes, but that is another matter-well, suppose he did make recommendations, and suppose the minister appointed his nominees, these men would go among the people, the people would know Mr. KNOWLES
them and it is the people in the long run who will judge of what this government does. It is the people of Canada who, in every election since 1896, have judged what this government has done. We have heard a lot about the polling booths this afternoon, but in 1896, in 1900, in 1904, in 1908, despite the slanders that were uttered, the Liberal party went into these same polling booths in every constituency from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the people, time after time by overwhelming majorities, declared to Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Come back and govern the country again; we want to be governed by the Liberals and not by the Conservatives. And, Sir, we on this side of the House are not afraid that the Minister of Agriculture by this or any other act of his in the administration of his department will lose the confidence of the people of Canada or will do anything other than what he has always done, and that is to conduct his department with great credit to himself and to those who support him, and with enormous benefit to the welfare and prosperity of this country. We are not afraid of the impression our census enumerators will make in the country, nor have we any doubt that the Minister of Agriculture, in this or in any other act of administration will, as he has always done, conduct it so that those who support him will be prouder of hirp than ever. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk of the recommending system. Let me tell them that it will be a long day before they will serve any practical trouble with the recommending system, for it will, I believe, be many a long year before it comes their turn to do any recommending to offices. I am not surprised at our hon. friends from Manitoba being desirous of prolonging this debate as long as they can, for, without referring to the occupant of any particular seat, I think they have come to realize that their voters are not altogether pleased with the manner in which they have represented them during the larger part of this session; and so hon. gentlemen desire to bring up some other issue, something that they are not afraid to talk about among their constituents. It is more than pleasing to find supporters of the good old Conservative party in Manitoba shedding tears over the guilt of this government -men who support and follow a government, starting from the man who builds railways into sand pits that he owns


Glenlyon Campbell: Order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to a point of order. No bon. member of this House has any right to throw out any insinuations against the premier of my province.


William Erskine Knowles: Mr Speaker, since it is so offensive to the hon. gentleman, I have no desire to hurt his feelings. He is always so careful of the feelings of others

that I shall not go further in speaking of the Conservative party of Manitoba, but will just say to hon. members of this House who are not familiar with the west that they are pretty much of a kind from the top to the bottom.


William James Roche: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat can regard the remarks which he has just addressed to the House as a defence against the accusations made against the Minister of Agriculture and against Mr. Perry in this House this afternoon and to-night, then he is very easily satisfied, and we on this side of the House have no complaint to make. The hon. gentleman, at the outset of his remarks, complained of an hon. gentleman on this side having read a confidential circular or letter that was issued by Mr. Perry to a private individual in the constituency of Regina ; and yet the hon. gentleman sits behind a government that has been guilty of publishing correspondence of a private character sent by private individuals all over the country to the Postmaster General prior to the coming into power of this Lauder government, of which we have heard so much from the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) to-night-publishing that private correspondence in a blue-book, and sending it broadcast throughout the Dominion. I have not heard the hon. gentleman condemn any action of that kind on the part of a minister of the Crown. I think the taking of the census is a matter that should be absolutely free from any taint or suspicion of party politics. By that I do not claim that the poiitical proclivities of the census enumerators .should be completely ignored, because I recognize that in this country we have party government, and in such appointments the party in power will always give the preference to their own political friends. With that I havp no fault to find. But when the government ignore the character of the appointees, and when they select Liberal organizers who bear unsavoury reputations *and appoint them, not only for their qualifications, but as a reward for party services of a most questionable character as has occurred in this instance, and in many instances in the past in the province of Manitoba, it is a different matter. As the hon. member for Selkirk has truly said, it is most unfortunate that the Liberal organizers in the province of Manitoba for years back have been men who have been guilty of questionable transactions which have' resulted in bringing into disrepute not only themselves but the party they represent. It is only necessary to refer to the gentleman who preceded Mr. Perry as the Liberal organizer, Mr. R. E. Leach, the author of 'the thin red line,' by which he
disfranchised a larger number of electors, and who was rewarded afterwards with an office in the Department of the Interior carrying $2,000 a year and expenses, and whose expenses have been so outrageous that the Auditor General has taken him strictly to task for them in his report of this year. It is also worthy of notice that nearly every person who worked with Mr. Leach at that time, and assisted him in disfranchising the electors, has also received a position under this government. It is only necessary to refer to Messrs. Maeleod, Neigh, Ayotte and Duggan. It seems strange that men who are guilty of acts of the most questionable character on behalf of the party are able to hold up the government and secure almost any position they ask. Now, the hon. Minister of Agriculture was not quite so frank with the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples), as he should have been on Friday wThen answering his questions. In that somewhat important air which he sometimes arrogates to himself, he replied to some of the questions in the most emphatic manner. For instance, when he was asked if certain enumerators were appointed, he honestly and frankly stated that they were. When he was asked, however, who recommended them, he declined to answer, though to-day he is not nearly so reluctant to answer the question, for he did admit that Mr. Perry, the Liberal organizer, nominated some of the enumerators. To the third question, did Mr. Perry ask the enumerators to come into his office to be schooled, he most emphatically replied, no. We can all read between the lines and can realize that when Mr. Perry wrote that letter inviting the enumerators to come into his office and be schooled, he did not mean in order to count the heads for census purposes, but to school them to count political heads in order that this information might be utilized by the Liberal party in the province. This information would come in very well at this particular time, because in the province of Manitoba they are just now in the act of revising the voters' lists, in connection with which the information that could be secured by these census enumerators by turning them into party hacks would be of a most useful character. The information would also be most useful to this government when the redistribution takes place a few months hence, and in the_election that is expected to take place in the near future. I have no doubt this was the schooling that Mr. Perry referred to when he extended his invitation to these enumerators to come into his office. It has been said, oh, he merely stated in this letter: 'I have the honour to advise you that you have been recommended.' I would ask the Minister of Agriculture whether this gentleman to whom

this letter was addressed was not appointed census enumerator.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I really do not know. I do not know to whom the letter was addressed.


William James Roche: It was addressed to John Colnin, Dickens post office. The minister cannot tell us whether he was appointed enumerator or not, but evidently Mr. Perry was quite sure, or he would not have delimitated the area in which he was to work or sent him the rates, or asked for an answer within 10 days, or invited him to his office in Winnipeg on the first occasion he visited that city. There can be no doubt that this gentleman was not only recommended but appointed to the position of census enumerator.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What is the date of this letter?


William James Roche: April the 17th of this year. The hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) has asked what connection had' the Prince Albert election to do with the selection of enumerators ifor Manitoba. Well, if the Prince Albert election has no direct connection with the selection of enumerators for Manitoba, it has a very direct connection with the gentleman through whose hands aparently these enumerators are being appointed, I refer to Mr. Perry. According to the correspondence read tonight, this man Perry stood in a very unenviable light indeed in connection with the shielding these fugitives from justice, who had to flee from the country because of their doings in the Prince Albert election when working the Liberal machine. That was one of the most disgraceful episodes in the political history of this country. Fancy these deputy returning officers and poll clerks being sent away out north to hold polls hundreds of miles from Prince Albert. They did not go within a hundred miles of the places where they were to hold the polls, but they sat down on the prairie, took out their poll books and poll boxes, and wrote in the poll books the names of 150 fictitious individuals-lamong them, as my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) has said the Rabbit family predominated-and they stuffed the ballot boxes with 150 ballots, every one of which was marked in favour of the Liberal candidate. And they came back to Prince Albert with their boxes and their poll books and hailed the result as a great victory in the far north for the Liberal candidate, morally and otherwise. They made out their false returns. Forgery and perjury are none too strong names to characterize their actions. When arrested and brought before the court, who was it appeared to prosecute them and who appeared in their behalf? Instead of the Mr. ROCHE.
Dominion government prosecutor appearing before the court to see that justice was done, he appeared in their defence. They pleaded guilty and were fined. The deputy returning officers were fined $.200 each and the poll clerks $100 each for having stuffed the ballot boxes land made false returns. The fines 'were paid by a clerk in the Crown prosecutors office. Where did the money come from? I think we -.need not stretch our imagination very much to say that it could have come from no other source than the Liberal campaign fund. But when recount of the ballots took place, after these men had been fined and after it was proven that 150 ballots were fictitious, the judge holding the recount, counted evejy one of these as legitimate. That may have been technically within the law, but there is not a man within the sound of my voice, be he Liberal or Conservative who will not siay it was travesty of justice.
After the 'trial some of these deputy returning officers made themselves scarce. They fled south of the boundary line, and then this correspondence took place between Perry and these fugitives from justice, which the hon. member for Moose jaw (Mr. Knowles) looks upon as so innocent that he, as a lawyer, would do it fox any of his clients. Well, I do not think the hon. gentleman will find his ethics endorsed by other practitioners at the bar; but in any event Mr. Perry was not acting as a lawyer for these men, but as the head of the Liberal machine in that province, as the Liberal organizer, and be was accessory to those offences, after if not, before, because he was doing his best to keep these men out of the country lest there should be still greater rascalities unearthed if they remained or reappeared on the scene.
I do not propose to go through all this correspondence, but wish to refer to a few paragraphs in this correspondence which the hon. member for Moosejaw tells us was of such an innocent character. In the letter of June 10, I find these paragraphs :
Tories threatening further prosecution.
I have heard it said that the missing deputies would he as well to keep out of sight, I think this is undoubtedly correct.
This is the gentleman against whom the hon. member for Moosejaw says there has not been found anything wrong by reason of anything that transpired in that election or subsequently. The following day Perry wrote again:
Tories are talking of other prosecutions and are, of course, pleased at the results so far.
Prudence would, I should judge, suggest to the absent deputies that their safety lies in remaining away.
This is taken from correspondence between Perry and Neilson, and Perry was

not then writing as a lawyer to a client, but as the Liberal organizer advising these people to stay away until the trouble had blown over, as they would be subject to more prosecutions, should they Teappear on the scene.
Let me quote one more paragraph out of a letter written by Perry on October, the 4th, to Neilson, who acted as deputy returning officer:
The 'Standard' here last night published a story that if the case went against Sinclair, he was going to squeal.
Squeal about what? Squeal on whom? Evidently there was something which had not yet been brought to light and which Perry was afraid might come out if further prosecutions took place. But he expresses his confidence in the returning officer Sinclair by saying:
But I do not believe that, as he would never do anything to help the Tories, he is too sore on them. Kindly consider this as absolutely confidential and. done in your interests.
This came from Perry who evidently had the ear of the Department of Agriculture, if not the minister, and who assumed the responsibility of sending out a circular under the seal of confidence to his appointee notifying him of his appointment and inviting him to his office on the first opportunity. In a letter written on October 20th, 1906, Perry goes on to say to Neilson:
I am also informed on the best authority that the Tories say that any or all of the fellows who are away will be arrested immediately on their return, which quite bears out what I have understood all along they were intending to do.
I, therefore, cannot hold out any hope for your early return. Things will settle down after awhile when the by-election is over, and after the end of next session of the House. I shall be pleased to give you any further information if possible to obtain it and you so desire.
All through this correspondence, Perry as Liberal organizer, is trying to keep these men, who perpetrated these frauds on the electors, out of the country lest further exposures might result, should they return to the disadvantage of the Liberal party.
In connection with that election, I remember a memorable saying of the Prime Minister of that province (Mr. Scott). When the returns were coming in that evening from the thickly settled portions of the province and they were going against the government, Mr. Scott, in addressing his audience, said: ' Wait; until you hear from the back townships.' Evidently he knew what these returns from the back townships would be and was not ignorant of what was transpiring in that portion of the country.
It is only necessary to look at the signature to the circular to show what connection there was between this government and the Liberal organizer. The Minister of Agriculture asks us to believe that any person might send out such a circular as that. Well, I wonder if a Conservative organizer sent out a letter like that, what the minister would have done. I fancy he would very soon have called him down. He would soon take him to task for arrogating to himself the authority to notify the enumerators as to their pay, as to the positions to which they were appointed, as to the territory they were supposed to cover, and practically to extend to them an invitation to come in and be schooled in his office. And when he winds up his letter ' Yours in the good cause ' he emphasizes the fact that it was not for the census alone that he was writing, but rather that he might use them as political partisans-to count heads for the party as 'well as for the census. I think the minister (Mr. Fisher) should accept the motion of the hon. member for Macdonald. The minister says that for fifteen years past they have recognized that public office is a public trust. They have taken a very peculiar way to exhibit that to the country, if we may judge them by the appointments they have made. Leach, Mr. Perry, Ayotte, Neigh, McLeod, Duggan-all these men who figured in these scandalous transactions of the past have been provided for by one member of the government or another. Ingram, the organizer who tampered with the lists on election day, and who was also Liberal organizer for a time-I do not think he is now; I believe that Mr. Perry is the organizer-has also been provided for. I say the minister takes a peculiar way of showing his belief that public office is a public trust when he refuses to receive the motion put forward by the member for Macdonald. I think that one of his first duties in view of what has been brought to his attention to-day is to call Mr. Perry down in short order and show that he is really in earnest in saying that Mr. Perry has done this without authority. Mr. Perry should be notified to that effect, and that duty devolves upon the Minister of Agriculture, because he is the one whom this parliament will hold responsible.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Does the hon. member know anything against this enumerator or against any of the others appointed?


William James Roche: I am not talking about the enumerators, but


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The enumerator is the only official I have in this discussion.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I desire to call attention to the fact that the people of the

west are not the only ones who have resting upon them the burden of such men as Mr. Perry. In western Ontario we have a gentleman by the name of George M. Reid, and the minister may possibly tell us what connection he has with the western district in reference to the census taking. I see it stated that:
J. C. Macpherson, special census commissioner, is in London, and will be here for the next five days, instructing the census commissioners who have been appointed to supervise the census taking in this western peninsula. To-day, Mr. Macpherson met the commissioners from Lambton, Essex and Kent county.
I find in another column of the same paper the following:
Liberal club to approve the list.
Commissioner Scateherd presents his census appointments for revision.
Says he gave the list to George M. Reid.
Majority of forty appointments find they have not the qualifications.
Mr. Scateherd selected the brightest and best men according to his judgment, but he had to present their names to a committee in the city of London, the head of which was Mr. George M. Reid, whom surely the minister remembers in connection with the election frauds of years gone by, and how he was brought before the courts in Toronto. Yet he is still seen strongly in evidence in the western districts of Ontario in handling the affairs of the Census Department, a department, I am sure the minister must agree with me in saying, that can best be dealt with by taking it out of politics altogether. But let me read something that this paper has to say in reference to this matter:
Many young men of this city who made application for a position as census enumerators will be disappointed. Most of them will not secure the appointment.
E. W. Scateherd, who is to have charge of the taking of the census, received something like 105 applications, and practically appointed the forty men required to do the work.
A committee of three of the Liberal politicians of the city was appointed to go over the appointments and ratify them.
I would like to ask the minister who are the three men in London, who are appointed to carefully pick out of the group nominated by Mr. Scateherd men to be enumerators for that district.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister is not aware. But it appears that three men with George M. Reid as their leader are appointed to take charge of choosing the men who are to take the census in the city of London. This committee went to work, and of their work the newspaper says:


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The result is that but few of the names originally chosen are on the revised list. The majority of them got the axe and others were appointed in their places.
And on the same page of this newspaper appears a picture of George M. Reid and over it are the words 'Did he wield the axe?' And underneath is this explanation :


Geo.   M.@: Reid, to whom Commissioner Scat-cherd states he gave the list of enumerators, most of whom were cast aside, it is alleged because of failure to qualify politically. Commissioner Reid would say nothing about 'the committee of three/
We find also that this newspaper asks some questions in reference to Mr. Reid.
The names of the committee who made the final appointments are not known, but it is said that Geo. M. Reid was the chairman of the committee.
E. W. Scateherd stated to the 'Free Press' Saturday that he did not know the names of the committee who made the appointment. He turned his applications over to Mr. G. M. Reid.
Mr. Scateherd closes by making this statement:
Mr. Scateherd says he will allot the districts again with the new men, although he had the majority of them already allotted, with the expectation that the committee would put the 'OK' on his choice. He says he saw most of the applicants and chose the ones whom he thought would be most reliable and do the best, and at the same time quick work.
I merely rise to ask the minister if be thinks that a man with the reputation of Mr. Reid in that western part of the province is the proper man to gather the enumerators from the different counties around London, and those to be appointed in the city of London, and if he has charge of the enumerators in that city, and can conduct affairs as far as the census is concerned.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Reid has no control over the enumerators at all. The news-pjafper stories ithat the honi. igenltleman has read may be true or may not be true; I know nothing about them.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Why don't you find out?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I don't care about it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not understand the minister saying: ' It may be true or it may not be true.' It is plainly evident that Mr. Scateherd was appointed to select the men according to his judgment, and he was compelled to turn over to George M. Reid the names of those 'whom he had chosen; and the minister must know that Mr. Reid is not a fit man to take charge of taking the census in that district. I was sorrv to hear the minister

trying to make the House believe that he did not know what was going on about the Prince Albert election at all. No man knows better about these things than he does. He has had it drummed into him across the floor of this House as to how these frauds are carried on. I was surprised that he should try to lead the House to believe that he had heard nothing of it, and also try to belittle the member from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) for bringing forward a matter of national importance to the people of Canada. I sincerely hope the minister will see his way clear to support this resolution and thus help us to make sure that the men connected with the Census Department are free from political bias.


Mr. MONK.: I have not followed this debate closely, nor am I familiar with the facts brought forward during this discussion, but I would avail myself of this opportunity to get from the government a clear declaration in regard to the opinion enunciated by my hon. friend from Moose-jaw (Mr. Knowles) who stated here that the government would not tell us the basis or the recommendation on which these enumerators were appointed in different constituencies. I think we are entitled to know whether that is the policy of the government, and whether they intend to act upon that principle. My hon. friend stated here:	We are governing the country, we are in possession of power, we will satisfy ourselves as to the nomination of these enumerators, and you shall not know upon what basis they are appointed. Is that the principle upon which the government will act in the eastern as well as in the western portions of Canada? The Minister of Agriculture said the other day, in answer to an inquiry, that he was satisfied as to the qualification of an enumerator, and that he would not state who had recommended that man. Is that going to be the policy? If so, I think in the face of the. declaration made here to-night by the member for Moosejaw, that we are entitled to a statement from the minister on behalf of the government.
What are the facts? Is it my hon. friend who pays for the cost of the census, or is it the people of Canada? Everybody knows that the minister in charge of the department does not himself know of the persons qualified to act in each electoral district. My hon. friend knows that, and will admit it. He is, therefore, obliged to seek outside information and, as a matter of fact, fwe all know that under the detestable and damnable system of patronage which prevails in this country the appointment is made upon the recommendation of whom? Of a political partisan, of a friend who makes the recommendation, somebody
generally in the electoral division who has some personal purpose to serve. That, I suppose, is inevitable. But are we going to be told that the House of Commons, in its general inquisitorial power, will be refused information as to the reasons which guided the minister in making the appointment, that we will not be told upon whose recommendation he assumes responsibility for that appointment? Such a proposition is preposterous, and in the face of the declaration made to-night by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) and applauded by the minister in his quiet little way, by slapping his desk, we are entitled to know whether that is the principle which is to guide the government. Was that the principle that governed in Quebec where some appointments have been approved of, and some are found very unwise? What was the motive, what was the recommendation that guided executive action? We are told that when governments get old they get faulty; I have read that in many places, and it has been said that among other things they profess that they are the masters, that they are the possessors of power, not the trustees of the people. We could have no better evidence of that than this refusal. I still believe that the government will not lay down the principle that we are not entitled to that information, but I would like to know the principle that is going to guide the government.


Samuel Barker: One or two names have been mentioned here to-night in connection with the forthcoming census that I think call for a word or two from me, because I know some of the gentlemen who have been named. I know the career of Mr. Reid in the past as a politican. As the Minister of Agriculture knows, Mr. Reid was directly connected with the notorious Elgin frauds. His name was a household word, with that of O'Gorman, in connection with these frauds. He was later connected with O'Gorman, in the no less notorious London election frauds, which led to the resignation of a colleague of the minister. If the hon. gentleman thinks he can put his head into the sand and escape observation, escape opprobrium and contempt, by professing toot to know who these men are, I tell him he is mistaken. The people of Canada know the history of those notorious cases, and they know that the minister is aware of every fact and detail, and yet the men who have been mentioned here are allowed to take part in making appointments upon the taking of the census.


Mr. CROTHERS.: The taking of our census is not a mere formal or frivolous matter; it is a very important matter. The statistics gathered by these enumerators

will determine the representation in this House, and guide us in many other very important matters during the next decade, and it must appear to every member of this House that it is of the utmost importance that these statistics should be gathered in such a manner, and by such persons, as to command the utmost confidence of every man in Canada. I quite agree with the observations of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) when he finds fault with the position taken by the Minister of Agriculture. That hon. minister tells us:	I do not pretend to know the
enumerators whom I have appointed. If he were in a position to give his word that he knew every one of them, and knew every one to be sufficiently intelligent, and to be men of character, perhaps we would be satisfied with his wTord; but he does not tell us that. He tells us he does not know one of these enumerators whom he has appointed, and in the face of that he refuses to tell us upon whose recommendation he appoints these men. These men are to do important work for the whole people of Canada. They are to be paid out of funds which are the moneys of the people of Canada, and the people's -representatives in this House, I submit, have a right to know upon whose recommendation he appoints them. He has admitted to us this afternoon, if I understood him aright, that he has appointed several men to the important position of enumerators, on recommendations made by this man Perry, and every moderate man will admit at once upon the evidence adduced on this motion that Perry is not a proper man, not a man of sufficient character to warrant the Minister of Agriculture in accepting his recommendation for the appointment of any enumerator. I could understand very well the Minister of Agriculture saying: Heretofore I supposed that Mr. Perry was a man of unblemished character.
I am satisfied upon the evidence I have heard here to-night that he is not; I will make further inquiry to ascertain the standing and character of the men I have appointed upon his recommendation before I permit them to go to work. Would not that be a reasonable position for the Minister of Agriculture to take, if, as he tells us, up to this moment, he never knew anything against the character of Mr. Perry? 'T.his is not the only case in which the taking of the census is being used for party purposes. This seems to be not the only case in which men are appointed enumerators upon the recommendation of worthless characters like Perry. It must appeal to all as it appeals to me, that the enumerators shall be men of character, men of intelligence, men whose work will be accepted freely by the people of this country as having been honestly and in-Mr. CROTHERS
telligently done. If such men are not employed the census will be utterly useless. The census will be a valuable thing if taken on a scientific basis by competent men, but if it is taken, as appears from this case and the London case, by party heelers as a reward for party services, then the government need not be disappointed if they find that the people have no confidence whatever ih the results of the work of the enumerators. One or two of my friends have referred to this man Reid, and I should like also to refer to him for a moment also. It seems that Mr. E. W. Scatcherd has been appointed commissioner by this government for the city of London, and as I understand it was the *duty of the commissioner to select the enumerators. I could understand the Minister of Agriculture selecting as a commissioner a man of reputation and character, whom he could trust to select competent and intelligent enumerators to work under him. What do we find this man Scatcherd doing? If the articles in the newspapers are correct, we find Scatcherd actually stating to the London 'Evening Free Press' that he handed over the names of all these one hundred and five applicants to G. M. Reid for him to determine who, if any, of those 105 men should be appointed to act as enumerators for the city of London. Gould a greater outrage be perpetrated upon the people of London and the people of this country? Who is George M. Reid? The Minister of Agriculture said a few minutes ago that he would not recognize any charges made in newspapers or letters, even when, facsimiles of the originals are produced. He wanted something proved in court. Well, this man, George M. Reid, has been in court. We all remember that very shortly after the passing of Bills establishing the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, we had a bye-election in the city of London, and the result of that election was a majority in favour of the government. We had it proclaimed from one end of this country to the other that this was a test of public opinion as to the Bills which had been carried by this House establishing these two provinces. What followed that? It was established in the police court of Toronto, not in the newspapers, that in one corner, one subdivision, of the city of London, because there was only one man who squealed who handled the money, 100 men had been bought at the price of $10 apiece, less a rake-off of fifty cents that was taken by the man who made the payments. That is how that bye-election was carried, that is how that 'large majority was obtained in favour of the Bills establishing the new provinces of Saskatchewan ana Alberta. What followed that? Four men were arrested and indicted for conspiracy. One of the four was George M. Reid. These four

men were tried before His Honour Judge Winchester, the senior judge for the county of York, and convicted of conspiracy; yet George M. Reid is the man to whom the commissioner appointed by the Minister of Agriculture hands over the names to make the selection of those who are to make the enumeration. Of course, I do not state it as a fact that the commissioner handed these names over; I am saying that that is what is stated by this newspaper. I do not want to be misunderstood as to that. What confidence can the people of Canada have in a census taken in that way? We have a gentleman at the head of the department having control of the census saying: I will not tell you upon whose recommendation I have made these appointments; I have made them upon the recommendation of men whose character and standing were satisfactory to me. He does not get up and say:	I will rectify the
wrong, if there is any, I will inquire further as to the character of these men whom I have appointed on the recommendation of Mr. Perry, I will instruct Mr. Scatcherd that that is not the way in which I want the census taken; I do not approve of my commissioner handing over the names of the applicants to a man who has been convicted of fraud, of a serious offence against the election laws of this country. But, he does not take a position of that kind. I refuse to tell you who recommended these enumerators. It is a party matter; the hon. member for Moose-jaw'(Mr. Knowles) says; it is none of your business; we are doing this work on our side of the House; we are allowing such men as Perry chooses to be appointed as enumerators, a man who, upon his own confession, is of the character we have heard described here this evening. We are accepting the recommendation of this man who has been convicted in a court of justice of defrauding the electors of London. We are doing this work, it is none of your business., and we propose to continue it in this way. I ask what confidence the people of Canada can have in a census being taken in that vTay and costing over a million dollars?


Richard Blain: I believe the people of Canada mil condemn the Minister of Agriculture and this government for not accepting the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Staples) which simply declares for clean politics in the taking of the census and the appointment of census officers. The Minister of Agriculture occupied his present position in 1901 when the census was taken, and more than once was he condemned for allowing politics to interfere in a matter which should be free from politics. I have here a letter written to the Minister of Agriculture after the taking of the last_ census by Mr. Kelly, who was census commissioner
for the county of Peterborough, and that letter, together with the circumstances attending it, show the Minister of Agriculture in an unenviable light. Mr. Kelly had an account for $653.14 which was large in comparison with the accounts of the other commissioners, and the department refused to pay it, but Mr. Kelly knew how to reach the Minister of Agriculture, and this is the letter he wrote to him:
The Ontario elections are coming off the end of May or the beginning of June. Mr. B. 0. Lott is the unanimous choice of the Liberal convention. I have made up my mind to do some hard work in this north riding of Hastings. Mr. Lott is the best canvasser and the hardest worker ever went into a political contest.
I have the honour to remain,
Your old servant, WM. KELLY.
Well, Mr. Kelly came down to Ottawa, and he brought with him Mr. Lott, who was the Liberal candidate for the legislature in the county of Hastings, and these two gentlemen interviewed the minister, and after Mr. Kelly went home he wrote this letter, and the account was paid at once.


An hon. MEMBER.: Did anybody here see Kelly?


Richard Blain: Oh, yes, the Minister of Agriculture saw Kelly, but Lott went to the United States and has not returned. You will remember that this was the same Mr. Lott who was interested in the ballot box stuffing case in the province of Ontario, and that is the company Mr. Kelly was in. The Minister of Agriculture talks about there being no politics in the taking of the census, but let me rgad to the minister the following advertisement in the Elora * Express ' of Wednesday, February 8, 1911:


PILKINGTON LIBERAL ASSOCIATION.
[Stage Direction]
Notice of Meeting.
A meeting of the Liberal Association of the township of Pilkington will he held on Friday, the 10th of February, 1911,
At Three o'clock P.M.
At the residence of the undersigned in Elora, for the purpose of naming census enumerators for the township of Pilkington.
THOS. MARSHALL, President.
Elora, Jan. 31, 1911.
Elora is the constituency of South Wellington, and the Minister of Agriculture knows that this meeting was held, and he has in his office the very men who were named at this political meeting. He won't deny that he appointed the men whose names were sent in from that meeting. Do we want any further proof that there is politics in the taking of the census? I do not condemn the Minister of Agriculture for taking recommendations from his own political support-
[Stage Direction]
ers. It is a well known principle pretty generally observed that the government in power take recommendations from their supporters in this House and from the defeated Libera] candidates. That is fairly well defined policy in this country, but the Minister of Agriculture is not living up to that. In order to broaden the influence of the political machine he takes his recommendations from the Reform organizer of the province of Manitoba. Will the Minister of Agriculture say that Mr. Perry was the defeated candidate in the last election, or will he deny that Mr. Perry has the patronage for not only one but several counties in Manitoba? If Mr. Perry were a defeated candidate, I do not know that the House would complain if the Minister of Agriculture adopted his recommendations, because the principle would be fair and I do not think there would be any criticism from this side of the House. But Mr. Perry was not the defeated candidate in the constituency of Macdonald, and the charge is that fhe minister goes outside his supporters in this House and outside the defeated Liberal candidates and receives recommendations. The policy laid down by the hon. gentleman from Moosejaw is fair enough, but the Minister of Agriculture went outside of that policy in order that the political machine in Manitoba should be brought into operation. Not satisfied to take in .the machine in one county, the Minister of Agriculture wants the whole machinery of the Grit party in Manitoba introduced so as to bring political influences to bear in order that the lists in Manitoba and the census in Manitoba shall be prepared in a way that will best help the Reform party in that province. We are suspicious of the Minister of Agriculture for another reason, and that is that before he came into office he preached economy, yet, the census taken under his direction in 1901 cost extravagantly more than the census taken in 1891, when his Conservative predecessor was head of the department. May I illustrate this by showing that in the county of Halton, in 1901, although the population had decreased by 2,437 as compared with the previous census, the cost of taking the census in that county was increased by $1,043.96, and sixteen more enumerators than in the previous census. In the county of South Perth there was a decrease in the population of 1,539, but it cost $1,136.90 more than the previous census, and there were nine more officers appointed. In the county of Peel the popnlation had decreased 1,779, hut the cost increased $865.28, and six more officials than previously were appointed. In the county of Cardwell, although the population had decreased by 2,322, the cost increased by $853.94, and the number of officials by eleven. In the county of Prince Edward the population decreased 1,025, but Mr. BLAIN
under the administration of the present Minister of Agriculture the cost had increased by $1,011.91, and he appointed thirteen more enumerators than were found necessary in 1891. This shows that my hon. friend has adopted, the policy that when the population decreases the cost of taking the census increases. That is a policy that the people of this country knew nothing about until my hon. friend came into office. This is the reason why my hon. friend's department, especially in connection with the taking of the census, is surrounded with so much suspicion. It would have been to the credit of my hon. friend if, when -this Prince Albert matter, with all its corruption, was referred to, he had stood up and said, as a minister of the Crown I have no defence for this, and I will condemn it. That is what we should have expected of my hon. friend, if we had not known him quite so well as we do. As my hon. friend has failed to measure up to what the people of this country would expect in an hon. gentleman occupying so important a position, hfi must take the consequences when he refuses to adopt so reasonable a resolution as that moved by my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples).
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize one matter that has not been very clearly brought out in the course of the debate. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture spoke of this notice as one which had been sent out apparently in quite an incidental way by Mr. H. E. Perry, who happens to be the Liberal organizer for the province of Manitoba. I would like to point out to him that this document certainly bears on its face the evidence of wholesale work of this character throughout that province. It bears the printed heading:	'Manitoba
Liberal Executive, Organizer's Office, P.O. Drawer 2076, Winnipeg, Canada.' Then the circular is filled in by some kind of a machine, leaving blank spaces for three particulars-the name of the man and his post office address, the name of the constituency, and the description of the census enumeration division for which he is to foe appointed. The circular bears a stamped signature. Any one who looks at it for a moment can see that it is stamped. So that this is simply one of perhaps thousands of these notices that have gone out in the province of Manitoba from Mr. P< r-ry. That is perfectly obvious from the slightest perusal of this document. So that there can be no question or doubt that this notice is a part of a system under which hundreds and perhaps thousands have been sent throughout the province of Manitoba. Does my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture deny that? I will submit this to the judgment of any one of his supporters

in this House and ask him to say that the perusal of the document will not bear out what I am saying. A little slip is attached to indicate the census enumeration division; there is a blank for the man's name and a blank for the federal constituency, all indicating a system by which these appointments have in effect been made by the Liberal organizer for the province of Manitoba.


William Ross Smyth: And in every other province too.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know about any other province, but we have the evidence here of what has been done ii the province of Manitoba. Now, it has been very well said to-night that the census is an exceedingly important event in our national life, and that the people of this country have the right to demand that it shall be taken fairly. They have also the right to demand that the public money of this country shall not be paid out for party purposes under the pretense of a census enumeration. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has been rather lordly about this matter. We have heard the doctrine proclaimed in this House this evening that this government is in power, and that they can act on the recommendation of criminals in the penitentiary if they see fit ; that it does not lie in the mouths of gentlemen on this side of the House, or in the mouth of any citizen in Canada, to raise the slightest objection thereto, because Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his government are in power, and they can act as they see fit, and do what they like with the public money of this country. That seems to he the theory of these gentlemen. Let us for a moment examine the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture with regard to this particular gentleman selected to make appointments in the province of Manitoba. We heard something this afternoon about trivial offences. Apparently, in the eyes of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, it is only a trivial matter, worthy of only passing notice, that two deputy returning officers and their poll clerk should go into that northern country, should pretend to hold a poll, should violate their oath of office, should violate every provision of the Election Act, should sit in the wilderness and write in 150 names of fictitious persons, should place 150 false ballots in the ballot box, should sign and swear to false returns as to the poll having been held, and should bring all these statements back as if that poll had been actually held in good faith under the election law. I do not know one provision of the election law that they did not violate, in addition to which as I have already said, they have been guilty of forgery and perjury. There does not seem to be any 286
dispute about the facts. They were brought out not only in court, but as' I understand, before the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan. Now, what is the position of Mr. Perry with regard to this? I will not go over the letters; they have been read over and over again. I just want to refer to one or two passages. A letter of October 4, 1906, from Mr. Perry to one of these men who were absent in the United States:	*
I would suggest extreme caution; I shall try to keep you advised.
The ' Standard ' here last night published a story that, if the ease went against Sinclair, lie was going to squeal, but I don't believe that, as he would never do anything to help the Tories; he is too sore on them.
Indicating a distinct knowledge on the part of the man who wrote that letter, not only that these crimes had been committed with which they had been charged, but that there were other crimes as to which there was a danger that Mr. Sinclair might speak. A letter of June 10:
I have heard it said that the missing deputies would be as well to keep out of sight. I think this is undoubtedly correct.
Further on, in a letter of the next day:
Prudence would, I should judge, suggest to the absent deputies that their safety lies in remaining away.	r
Another letter, which does not appear to have been actually from Perry, but from a gentleman who was associated with him in bringing aid and comfort to them:
Everybody is prepared to stand by their guns and do what is right by you, and what I ask is that you hold steady for a while longer until all can be arranged.
What does that mean? That means that these men have been sent away to the United States by the connivance and with the money of some person or persons. It means that these men have been kept in the United States at the suggestion and by means of the money of certain persons. Further on this letter says:
See Mark, and he will fix things up with you.
Who is Mark? If you turn to the first letter here, you will find who he is. He is Mr. Mark Sands of the firm of Sands and Scott, to whom letters intended for these gentlemen were sent in order that their address might not be known to any one in Prince Albert. What further does this gentleman say? He says:-
See Mark, and he will fix things up with you. Thought best to send it that way.
What is the meaning of ' it ' ? ' It,' as I understand, is the ' wherewithal which enabled these men to remain in the United States when the hand of criminal justice



should have fastened on them in Canada long before. These were the lawyers in [DOT]Chicago to whom letters were sent intended for these absconding and criminal deputies in order that the whereabouts of the absconders might be kept secret. But these were trivial offences and trivial matters which impressed themselves so little upon the Minister of Agriculture that although he heard them referred to at length at least twice in this House, he has entirely forgotten them this afternoon and apparently never heard of them before. Were these transactions so much in the ordinary course of affairs that imy hon. friend was not impressed by them? Let nre tell him the position which Perry occupied in this connection. Has my hon. friend never heard of such a thing as an accessory after the fact. Here is a definition in the Criminal Code,-section 71:-
An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who receives, comforts or assists anybody who has been a party to such an offence in order to enable him to escape, knowing him to be a party thereto.
I say that if these letters are genuine- and if they are not genuine this man has had his remedy for a year or more in the public courts of this country-in my opinion Mr. Perry was an accessory after the fact to the crimes that those men had committed and as to their participation in which there can be no reasonable doubt. When we find the virtual appointment of the census renumerators in Manitoba committed to that gentleman under those circumstances, I think it is more than right that my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) should have risen to vindicate common honesty and decency in this country by moving the motion which he has made and which I shall be most happy to support.


William Stevens Fielding: Much has been said of matters important in themselves but not really relating to the census, so that there is danger of our losing sight of the real circumstances and methods under which the census has to be taken. There are two classes of census officials. There are the commissioners, who have charge of the different counties or electoral districts, one to each district. Numbers of the commissioners have been appointed, but throughout this debate no attempt has been made to show that any one has been chosen who is not worthy and qualified to perform the service. Then we have the enumerators, a much more numerous class, because each enumerator has charge of a comparatively small subdivision. These run into the thousands and have been in many cases already appointed or are in course of being appointed from day to day. Throughout all this discussion it has not been charged that any man has been chosen as enumerator Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
who is not qualified for the work, who is not respectable and reputable in every sense of the word.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: We do not know them yet.


William Stevens Fielding: Then my hon. friend should not be so ungenerous as to cast any reflection upon them. He should wait until he finds some reason to criticise the appointments of the commissioners or enumerators.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Might I put a question? If it be true, as charged in the newspapers, that the commissioner appointed for the city of London, handed the names of the applicants into the hands of Mr. Reid to decide who should be appointed, does the hon. minister think the commissioner who would do this was a worthy man to hold the position.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not aware of the circumstances, but generally speaking if any commissioner should put his list of the names into the hands of anybody and give him any control in the appointment, I would not consider he was acting wisely or properly. I do not, however, know anything more about this than my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Crothers) knows himself, but I want to call attention to these essential facts. Mr. Perry is a commissioner or enumerator and has no official connection whatever with the government or with the taking of the census, and, therefore, the outcry raised concerning him has no bearing on the question as to whether we are appointing reputable men to be commissioners or census enumerators.


William D. Staples: Does the hon. minister know that Mr. Perry according to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, has been recommending enumerators to those positions? .


William Stevens Fielding: I can assure the hon. gentleman in all sincerity that I know no more about it than what I have heard in this debate to day. As to the question of recommendations, I shall come to that in a moment. But I want again to emphasize the fact that the commissioners and the enumerators are the only people who have to do with the census. The Minister of Agriculture must take the responsibility of those appointments. When he has to appoint thousands of men all over Canada, no doubt among them he may appoint some whom our hon. friends opposite will find reason to criticise, but there is so far no allegation that any commissioner or any enumerator has been improperly appointed. That being the case, how can hon. gentleman opposite hope to influence public opinion by reviving the old story

of the Prince Albert election; I am not referring to that as a trivial matter. It was a grave and serious matter, and I do not complain if hon. gentlemen offer any condemnation of what occurred at that time. When we come to the question of recommendation, hon. gentlemen opposite lay down the proposition that it is the duty of the government to declare on whose representation any one has been appointed to a public office. But on reflection they must see that such a theory is preposterous. Take the appointment of a lieutenant governor of a province, will any hon. gentleman opposite contend that he has the right to demand in this House and to know on whose recommendation such an appointment was made? Every member of this House has of course the right to put a question, but must be guided by reason and propriety, and would it be reasonable and proper to ask on whose recommendation the appointment of a lieutenant governor of any province was made? Take the appointment of a judge. Could anything be more ridiculous than to insist on knowing who recommended his appointment? Will the hon. member for Jacques Cartier stand up and say that he has the right to know who made the recommendation?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I never put forth such an absurd proposition. What I said was that the nomination of such officers as enumerators could only he made upon recommendation as a basis, and it was the right of every member to know what that basis was.


William Stevens Fielding: And the nomination of a lieutenant governor could only be made upon a basis. There is no difference in principle between the appointment of a high officer and the nomination of an officer of a lower grade. If it was a governor, he would not ask who recommended him. If it was a judge, he would not do anything so preposterous as to insist upon knowing who recommended him. Well, if he is a census commissioner who is appointed, would it be less preposterous for him to ask who recommended him?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why you appointed him?


William Stevens Fielding: Because we needed a man for the office and our information was that he was a suitable man. And that is the reason why we appointed the Governor -because we needed a man for the office and our information was that he was a suitable man. And that is just the reason why we appoint a judge-because the place had to be filled and our information was that the gentleman in question was well qualified by his legal attainments to fill the office. Hon. gentlemen opposite cannot be serious in advancing the argument that 286 i
it is the right of the House to be informed what are our grounds for-


William Ross Smyth: What harm will it do?


William Stevens Fielding: But the hon. gentleman must permit us to be the judges. The House has rights, and these rights we do not question. But hon. members opposite have an unhappy faculty of speaking of what the House demands when what they mean is what they themselves ask. Nobody in this House would question for a moment the right of the House to demand information in the proper way. But when an hon. member stands up in the House and insists upon the right to obtain certain information, I think it does not necessarily follow that he has that right in the sense in which he uses the word.
Now, much has been said throughout this discussion of nominations by political committees. I am bound to say that, while I do not think the political committee is the best way of doing the thing, and while I do not like it myself and would discourage it, I am not prepared to admit that there is anything wrong in having a political committee make a recommendation to any minister in regard to an appointment in which the members of that committee may be interested. They cannot be denied the right to make a recommendation in a public matter. The field of party patronage is, I am glad to sav, being somewhat narrowed, there is less of it under this government than there ever was under any of its predecessors.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Stevens Fielding: There is less room for the exercise of party patronage to-day than there was in any previous time in the history of Canada. But, so long as we have party government-and, with all its evils it seems to be about the best system that can be devised,-it is inevitable that there will be more or less of what is called party patronage; there will be a human desire on the part of every government to give the preference to their friends. Just at present, the census being about to be taken, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has a right to make a selection of the officers to take that census, getting the best information that he can. And, twenty years hence, we will concede to hon. gentlemen opposite a similar privilege. And those of us who are here then may question and may find fault in other respects, but will not deny their right tq appoint their own friends to office, always with the qualification that the men appointed must be reputable men and able to fulfil the duties for which they are appointed. Even if the committee was used, it would not be a reasonable ground for criticism, although J confess I do not like the system

Hon. gentlemen opposite complain that, in making appointments in counties represented by hon. members on this side, we turn to the member for advice in the matter. As to counties represented by hon. gentlemen opposite with whatever gravity they try to discuss this question, they cannot expect us to go and ask their advice. Well, if we have to get information in reference to an appointment in a county represented by an hon. member sitting on that side of the House, surely the minister in charge of the department concerned must be left to exercise his own judgment and discretion as to the manner in which he will get that information; and, for the judgment he shall exercise he is accountable to the House and the country


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In the case of the enumerator in the county referred to or in the appointment of an excise officer, is not the sitting member entitled to know on whose recommendation he is appointed, since he is not consulted?


William Stevens Fielding: According to the conception of government that I have-which, I think, is that held by every government that has ever held office in this country^ my hon. friend would not have the right to ask that. It would make no difference who recommends it, the minister must be responsible, and if the persons appointed by the minister prove to be improper persons and unfit for their duty, the minister would have to bear the responsibility, and his colleagues would have to share it with him. And I do not think, that on reflection, hon. gentlemen opposite will gravely adhere to the view tnat it is the duty of the minister to tell at a given moment on what recommendation any officer of the census, or judge or governor is appointed to office.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is just the difference. In the case just referred to, the member on the government side gets that knowledge, whereas a member on this side of the House he does not know, and the public is not entitled to know, and therefore there is nobody known to be responsible for the recommendation.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the minister who makes the appointment is responsible and the government that endorse it is responsible.


Mr. A. S. GOODEVE (Kootenay).: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) himself has given the strongest argument and the best reason why the principle laid down by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) ought to govern appointments of this nature. He himself has stated that it is utterly impossible for the Minister of Agriculture, making such a large number of appointments all over the Dominion, to Mr. FIELDING.
personally know the individual character of his appointee. And that was the basis of the argument of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier that the House has a right to know the basis on which appointments are made, in order that we may thereby judge the character of the appointments. And the whole argument on this side this afternoon is based exactly on that principle. I think the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) had the right to bring the question into the House, and his right is based on that very principle. I think it was argued rightly by the Minister of Finance that if there was no connection between the letters read here and the appointments made, our case falls to the ground. But the hon. member for Macdonald laid the foundations for his argument carefully and well. He started out by reading a document which, I think, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has made very clear, was an official document; he has sliov.n that it was a circular, not an individual letter, issued by an irresponsible person, on an official letterhead and bearing the title of an official organization. There were blank spaces left for filling in essential particulars, and these had been filled in the letter submitted. I will call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that, if further evidence were wanting that this was an official document recognized not only by the government but directly by the Minister of Agriculture it was given in the admission made by the Minister of Agriculture himself during this debate. He stated in answer to the question put from this side that he had acted on the recommendation of this Mr. Perry and in some cases had appointed enumerators on the recommendation of that gentleman.
He did not tell us how many he had appointed on his recommendation, but the whole inference of the letters, and the written evidence produced in the House makes it a prima facie case that he has been acting generally in an official manner in making these various recommendation!?. I was glad t-o know that the Minister of Firiance himself said that he did not look upon that as a very trifling matter, that it was a very serious charge that had been made against these gentlemen. He admitted they had been guilty of certain criminal offences, and I think the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has clearly demonstrated that the man who is making these appointments or on whose recommendations the appointments were made, and who has undertaken officiallv to notify these men of their appointments, of their duties, the amount they are to receive, and the particular territory over which they would have jurisdiction, has been acting semi-offieially. The leader of

the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has clearly shown that the man was accessory after the fact to the crimes committed at that time. That being the case, we have a right to bring up this question in order that the country at large may know the basis on which these various appointments are made, and how much confidence we should place in enumerators or officials acting on behalf of this government who are gathering statistics which are of vital importance to this country. The census will cost about $1,000,000, but apart from the mere financial cost, the importance of the data we are supposed to secure by the taking of this census, which is of vital importance to the Dominion of Canada, amply justifies the hon. member 'for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) when the information came to him, in bringing it before the House; in fact, it was his bounden duty to do so. I lam amazed that the principle should be laid down by the minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) that he is not prepared to consider evidence of that nature, that he feels he is not bound by his office to give the information to the House to which I think we are entitled. That is the argument, and the position taken by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and by every member on this side. We are not asking for the individual recommendations that come to hon. members of the government from time to time, but we are asking on what basis or principle appointments of this kind are made, or on what principle the minister judges the recommendations that come to him. These recommendations could not possibly come to the minister in a private way. For instance, if the minister were to resign to-morrow, no man would continue to send in recommendations to him to make appointments for offices of this kind. Therefore, it is wholly and solely in his official position as a minister of the government that these recommendations come to him, and so they are the public property of the people of Canada, they should be placed upon the public files, and should be-at all times at the disposal of this House. He is laying down a wrong principle when he undertakes to say that that is purely a private matter between him and the persons making these recommendations. He has a very wrong conception of his position, and his duty in regard to that question. But it is like many other principles that we constantly find laid down from that side of the House in regard to what they consider the constitutional method of government. I am preparea on the evidence that has been adduced this afternoon, to earnestly support the motion of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples). I
had heard nothing of this case previously, but I consider the hon. member has made out a most complete case, and that it is the duty of this government to accept the recommendation, and produce letters of this kind. We must accept the minister's word that he has not officially authorized Mr. Perry to send out these circulars, but there is not the slightest doubt that he has received these instructions and authority from some governmental source. The minister shakes his head. Supposing I or any other private citizen to-morrow issued circulars throughout Canada signed personally, to all the enumerators, stating that they had been recommended to the position of enumerators, and that they had certain jurisdiction, giving them the amount of remuneration for their work and asking them to Teport to me within ten days, would he take cognizance of that, or would he immediately take steps to see, in some way that I was prevented sending out circulars of that kind.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would take no notice of it whatever.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: That is an amazing statement of the minister that any private citizen could send out in a case of this kind involving the appointment of thousands of officials to be paid for by public money, circulars stating what the duties and remuneration of these officials are to be, and asking them to report in ten days; the minister says he would take no notice of it. It is an amazing statement and one which I scarcely think any business man or any man realizing the responsibility he has in connection with the office he holds, would make.
It is in the context that we find the sting of that circular. Mr. Perry says in a postscript: If you are in the city within a short time, drop in. Why? To talk over with him the good cause, because he signs himself:	Yours in the good .cause.
Every sentence of that carefully worded circular goes to show that it is issued in order to bring political influence to bear. The wording of the circular is such as to impress on the minds of those receiving it that they have received their appointments through the influence of the Liberal association, whose printed official statement is on the head of the paper on which the letter is written. So before we commence to take the census at all, we find held out to the people of Canada that it is to be purely a political institution used for political purposes, and I ask in the face of 'that how are the people of this country to have confidence in a census taken in that manner?


Mr. CROSBY.: I did not intend saying anything in regard to this question, but

when the Minister of Finance lectured this side of the House on the question and said that hon. members had not proven that a single criminal had been appointed a commissioner, I was surprised. That is very true, but we have proved that the [DOT]enumerators had been and are nominated by criminals. That is what we proved and that_ is what we are trying to impress the '[DOT]minister with. But, it seems there is no impression to be made on him to-night. On Friday he was very easily impressed by the hon. member for Macdonald. He jumped up from his seat on that occasion like a trout jumping at a fly in the springtime. But to-night he is perfectly satisfied to sit in his seat and have nothing to say to him. He is prepared to take it all. He has not even the Minister of Finance to help him. The Minister of Finance says that not one of the enumerators is a criminal. We say that Mr. Perry, who has recommended the enumerators in Manitoba, has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a criminal. His recommendation has been accepted because we have the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that he has appointed some enumerators on the recommendation of Mr. Perry. We also have the statement that the names of the 105 applicants for appointment as enumerators in the city of London have been submitted to Mr. Reid, a noted criminal, for selection. It is not the enumerators that we are worried about but our suspicion is aroused by the manner in which they are appointed. We do not know these men, we do not know what they are going to do, but we do know that if we accent the recommendations of men of this character we are going to get into a bad condition with regard to the census. It was a very nice thing for the Minister of Finance to get up and tell us that when they appoint a Lieutenant Governor they do not tell us who recommended him We can easily find that out whenever Lieutenant Governors are appointed. Anybody who can see any distance at all can tell why a Lieutenant Governor or a member of the Supreme Court bench has been appointed, and who has recommended him. But, in the case of enumerators, with Perry and Reid and men of that character how can we tell? The Minister of Agriculture cannot tell himself;. he admits that he does not know anything about them. All the knowledge he has of the enumerators is what he has obtained from men of this character. It is little wonder that we are suspicious. We are suspicious first of the Minister of Agriculture anyway. But he creates furthej- suspicion by the selection of the men whose advice he takes in the important matter of the census. It has been proved to-night that two of the men who have been the advisers of the Minister Mr. CROSBY
of Agriculture in the selection of these enumerators have been criminals. He said at one time that it did not make any difference what was said about any man as long as it was1 not proved in court. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition brought Perry before the court and settled him right here, and then my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Crothers) settled the other man Reid by pointing out that he had been in court, and that the court had settled him. Yet we have not been able to settle the Minister of Agriculture. He sits in the same position-


An hon. MEMBER.: He has turned halfway round.


Adam Brown Crosby: Yes, he has turned half way round, and I hope he will come all the way round. It is an indication that he is about to turn. Somebody says that he is on the wrong side. There has been very little argument on the other side of the House. The only argument was that of the hon. gentleman from Moosejaw-or is it Long Jaw?


An hon. MEMBER.: Moosejaw.


Adam Brown Crosby: Thanks, very much: I thought it was Long Jaw from the nature of the argument to which he treated us this evening. He is the only gentleman who pretended to present anything in the nature of an argumtent. He threw his hands around his head, held his waist as if he was wearing corsets, and kept us about an hour and a half, but I do not think that any hon. member of the House will be able to understand any one point that he made until he reads ' Hansard ' to-morrow, because I do not think anybody in this House could follow what he was endeavouring to demonstrate. He was of very little use in helping out the Minister of Agriculture. I intend to vote for the motion of my hon. friend for Macdonald for the reason that it has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the men from whom the minister has been taking advice are criminals. If they have been proven to be criminals I am naturally suspicious of the kind of men they will recommend. They will not recommend men better than themselves and therefore I intend to vote for the amendment of my hon. friend.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Staples).
YEAS:
Messieurs.
Macdonell,
Magrath,
Middlebro,
Monk,
Northrup,
Owen,
Paquet,
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barker,
Best,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Bradbury,

Broder,	Perlev. Reid (Grenville),
Burrell,	
Campbell,	Rhodes,
Cowan,	Roche,
Crosby,	Sexsmith,
Crothers,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Daniel,	Smyth,
Doherty,	Stanfield,
Donnelly,	Staples,
Elson,	Taylor (Leeds),
Eraser,	Taylor (New
Gilbert,	Westminster),
Goodeve,	Thornton,
Haggart (Winnipeg),	Wallace,
Henderson,	White (Renfrew),
Herron,	W ilcox,
Jameson,	Wilson (Lennox and
Kidd,	Addington )i*and
Lake, Lennox,	Wright.-51.
NAYS:	
Messieurs.	
Allard,	McLean (Huron),
Allen,	McMillan,
Aylesworth (Sir Allen) Martin (Montreal, S	
Boyer,	Mary's),
Carvell,	Martin (Wellington)
Champagne, Clarke (Essex),	Meigs,
	Michaud,
Congdon,	Miller,
Currie (Prince	Murphy,
Edward),	Nesbitt,
Demers,	Oliver,
Devlin,	Pardee,
Douglas,	Parent,
Dubeau,	Paterson,
Eorfiment, )	Pickup,
Emmerson,	Prowse,
Fielding,	Pugsley,
Fisher,	Rankin,
Fortier,	Reid (Restigouche).
Fowke,	Richards,
Gauvreau,	Rivet,
Geoffrion,	Robb,
Girard,	Ross (Middlesex),
Gladu,	Ross (Rimouski),
Hodgins,	Rutan,
King)	Savoie,
Knowles,	Sealey,
Kyte,	Seguin,
Lafortune,	Sinclair,
Lonctot (Laprairie-	Smith (Middlesex),
N ilie), .	Smith (Nanaimo),
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Smith (Stormont),
Lapointe,	Sperry,
Law,	Talbot,
LeBlanc,	Templeman,
Loggie,	Tobin,
Lovell,	Tolmie,
Macdonald,	Turcotte (Nicolet),
MacNutt,	Turgeon,
McAllister,	Turriff,
McCraney,	Verville,
McGiverin,	Warburton and
McIntyre, McKenzie,	Wilson (Laval).-84.
PAIRS:
Graham,
Lemieux,
Bureau,
Stratton,
Harris,
Hunt,
Clark (Red Deer), McLean (Sunbury), Martin (Regina), Guthrie,
Marcile,
Gervais,
Conmee,
German,
Brown,
Delisle,
Ethier,
Bickerdike,
Harty,
Gordon (Kent), McColl,
Black,
Beauparlant, Mayrand,
Major,
Proulx,
Chisholm Cash,
Schell,
McCoig,
Molloy,
Carrier,
Papineau.
Crocket, Worthington, Chisholm (Huron), Gordon (Nipissing), Beattie,
Boyce,
Bristol,
McCarthy,
Ames,
Poster,
Nantel,
Osier,
Porter,
Lancaster,
Lortie,
Schaffner,
Marshall,
Forget,
Lalop,
Lewis,
Stewart,
Barnard,
Price,
Thoburn,
Maddin,
McCall,
(Antigonish) Currie (Simcoe), Meighen,
Clare,
Blondin,
.Sharpe (Lisgar), Edwards,
Russell.
Amendment (Mr. Staples) negatived.


WESTERN COAL STRIKE.
Mr. JOHN HERRON (Macleod).: I beg to call the attention of the Minister of Labour to the following which appeared in this day's Montreal ' Gazette ':
WESTERN COAL STRIKE. Conciliation Board can't Agree and Adjourns.
Fernie, B.C., May 13.-The Dominion Conciliation Board, which is trying to settle the strike of ten thousand western miners, has declared that nothing can be done at present, as the members are so divided in their views, and the Board has adjourned sine die.
The people of the Dominion generally, and of the western provinces in particular will be interested to hear what information the Minister of Labour has to give in connection with this news item. I will be glad if the minister can assure us that the announcement in the Montreal ' Gazette ' is not true, but as that journal is usually well informed on public questions I fear that the dispatch may be correct. I trust the Minister of Labour will not desist from his efforts at this stage, but that he will try to have the board continue, and if possible bring about a settlement honourable and just to both parties.
Messieurs.
Ministerial,	Opposition.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),Hughes,
Borden (Sir F.), Sproule,
Brodeur,	Haggart (Lanark),


William Lyon Mackenzie King: received a telegram from Mr. Gordon, the chairman of the board in which he states:
Board temporarily adjourned to-day. Feel that delay will materially help the situation. Letter follows.
(Sgd.) CHARLES W. GORDON.
I have not as yet received the letter referred to, but I believe it is felt that in the light of the evidence already brought out, both parties should be given an opportunity of conferring together before further evidence is taken. There may have been other reasons for the adjournment. I believe that possibly the chairman returned to Winnipeg, because when he accepted the appointment he intimated that if the investigation lasted longer than two weeks it might be necessary for him to ask for a slight adjournment. There is no intention on the part of the board to discontinue its efforts to effect a settlement. The reports I have received up to the present indicate that good progress has been made. I have every hope that before long the board will be able to terminate its work, having accomplished a satisfactory result.


TRAVELLING EXPENSES-PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
George Taylor: Has the Minister of Public Works completed the return as to the expenses of himself and his officials?


William Pugsley: I gave directions to have the return hurried.


George Taylor: They are about two months making up that small return.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is not correct in that statement. The return had to be prepared in their order, and a good many have been brought down since this return was asked for.


DISTRIBUTION OF SPEECHES THROUGH MAILS.
George Taylor: I regret the Postmaster General is not present, but I ask the acting Prime Minister to ascertain whether there is truth in the report that comes to me on reliable authority that copies of the speeches delivered by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, are being sent out in bundles to postmasters all over the country, and that the 'postmasters are' asked to deliver them, without being addressed, to persons who come to the post office on business. This is making use of the mails of this country for distributing literature that ought not to be read by the people of Canada, because I think such literature does not educate our people in the best interests of the Mr. KING.
country. Anyway, the government has no business to use the portmasters for political purposes.


William Stevens Fielding: I can well understand the unwillingness of my hon. friend to have the literature read. I will mention the matter to the Postmaster General.


MILITARY ADVISER TO THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
Samuel Barker: I call the attention of the leader of the House to a letter from the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) which appeared in the Ottawa papers of last Friday, May 12. The letter is long, it concerns a police court matter, and I shall only read a part of one sentence which deals with a question of public interest. The words I call the attention of the leader of the House to .are these:
I am leaving to-morrow for England as military adviser to the Imperial Conference.
The House is entitled to know whether such an appointment has been made to the knowledge of the government, and by whom. I would infer from the words of the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) that such an appointment if made at all would have been made by the imperial government. It could hardly liave been made by the conference as the conference has not convened.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was probably made by the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) himself.


Samuel Barker: I wish to ask the acting Prime Minister whether such an appointment has been made, and if so what the object of the appointment, what the functions of a military adviser to the imperial *conference, the duration of the appointment-


An hon. MEMBER.: And the emolument.


Samuel Barker: Everything connected with it. The matter is very specifically put forward in the . letter which has appeared in the newspapers, and I think the leader of the House should make a statement with regard to it.


William Stevens Fielding: No such appointment has been made by this government, nor have we any knowledge that anv such appointment has been made by anybody.


THE CHRISTIAN GUARDIAN AND RECIPROCITY.
Mr. C. J. THORNTON (Durham).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that the report is being industriously circulated by certain news-

papers that the opposition is pursuing a course of obstructive tactics in this House in connection with the debate on reciprocity, and that the effect will be to prevent the Prime Minister from attending the imperial conference. That the report is without a shadow of foundation is well known to every member of this House, and to every newspaper reporter in the press gallery. Notwithstanding this, respectable and even religious newspapers industriously circulated the falsity. One of the offenders in this respect is the ' Christian Guardian,' the organ of the great Methodist church. If this were its first offence it might be overlooked, but unfortunately for the paper, and the church it represents, it is continuously misrepresenting the facts. Editorially it makes the following statement in its issue of May 3:


CANADA AND THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
[Stage Direction]
Just now one of the livest questions at Ottawa is whether Canada shall be represented at the Imperial Conference by Sir Wilfrid Laurier or not. The Conservative tactics in opposing the reciprocity pact are such as to greatly delay the passing of the measure, and there seems not to be any too good reason to hope that there will be a change in the situation. The Conservatives are determined that the reciprocity pact shall not be ratified without a general election; and the Liberals are determined it shall, if at all possible. Our rules of procedure, fortunately or unfortunately, allow what we may call obstructionist tactics to be carried to a very great length, and the Conservatives are determined to light every step of the way. Unfortunately, however, this is Coronation year, and also the year of the Imperial Conference, and if the fight over the reciprocity pact is continued it will be impossible for Canada to be properly represented at either. From every standpoint this would seem to be most unfortunate. For Canada, the greatest British colony, to be unrepresented or inadequately represented, at either the conference or the Coronation, would appear little less than unseemly. Both parties realize this, and yet neither is willing to yield a jot to its opponent. We cannot but hope, however, that the cooler and wiser heads in the two parties will succeed in reaching some wav out of the difficulty. It will not be complimentary to our Canadian parliament if they do not.
When the reciprocity proposition was introduced in this House, the statement was made by the Prime Minister and bv the Finance Minister that the _ fullest time and opportunity would be given to discuss the question in this House. The Finance Minister was most emphatic in this. On February 9, 1911, page 3358, he said:
There will be abundant opportunity for the members of this House and the people of this country to carefully consider the arrangement to which the government asks them to give their approval.
On page 3360 the Finance Minister said:
But we propose to proceed with this measure not rashly but in due order.
On March 8, 1911, on page 4947, he said:
We desire that this matter shall be discussed, as I stated in the earlier stages of the debate, not hastily, not in a rush, not unduly; we desire that every member of the House shall have abundant opportunity to form and express his views.
Thus it will be seen that there was to be ample time for a very full discussion of the subject. Members on both sides of the House have presented their views. Those on the government side have taken their full share of the time that has up to the present been occupied in the debate. No obstructive tactics of any kind have been introduced by the opposition. On the con trary, Mr. Borden, the opposition leader, has made it plain that there will be no obstacle thrown in the way of the Prime Minister's attendance at the Coronation and the imperial conference.	_	.
In order that there may be no mistake m this matter, I will read what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) said on the floor of the House on the 28th day of Apri., which was five days before the article was published which I have read from the 'Christian Guardian',:
I am very happy indeed to concur in the hope which he has expressed that he may be enabled to attend the approaching Imperial Conference.	'	, .
Now, there are three courses which would permit the Prime Minister to attend the approaching Imperial Conference. If the present session of parliament should not have come to a conclusion at the time when it will be necessary for him to leave, he could proceed to the conference, leaving his colleagues m charge of the business of the House; that is one alternative as to the desirability or expediency of which I am not so good a judge as the Prime Minister himself. I frankly concede that that is a matter upon which it is his right, his duty, to exercise his own judgment. In the second place, he can bring the session to an end, leaving some of these very important matters unfinished and letting them stand over to another session. It has alreadv been intimated to us that the Bank Act will not be pressed at the present session. If that is to stand over to another sessiop, there can be no particular reason why the proposals for closer trade relations with the United States should not also stand over until another session. I do not want to enter into any controversial observations with regard to that, I only mention it as another alternative which is open to the Prime Minister in that regard. Then in the third place, he can adjourn this session of parliament for two or three months, or whatever length of time may be sufficient to enable "lm to attend the Imperial Conference and the Coronation. After the Coronation and after the conference, the session can be resumed; and I desire to say now that for the purpose of facilitating
[Stage Direction]
public business we would be prepared to give interim supply to such an extent as the public interest would demand, in case the Prime Minister should see fit to follow that course.
Every member on this side of the House is willing and anxious that the Prime Minister should attend the Coronation and the Imperial Conference, and are willing to make any sacrifice to this end. As yet not one-half the members on the Conservative side of the House have had an opportunity to express their views on the reciprocity pact. Nearly all of those who have not yet spoken have made preparation so to do, but are willing that the House should adjourn in order that Canada may be properly represented by the Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference. In view of these facts, which the editor of the 'Christian Guardian' must have known, it seems very much out of place that he should have penned the article he did, which appeared in the issue of that journal, of May 3. I have waited for several days, hoping that the editor in last week's issue.might make a correction, but he has not done so. I regret very much that the ' Guardian ' should be made the organ of misrepresentation, and I hope that the editor may be honest enough to correct the wrong he has done in his next issue.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the government how soon we may expect the printed French edition of the representations of the Fruit Growers and Vegetable Growers. The House ordered these to be printed. They were printed and circulated on the 27th of March last. They have been translated, and I am told that the translation has been for some time in the hands of the printer. There is a considerable demand for the document in the province of Quebec.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is aware that these printing matters are not in the hands of the government. They are in the hands of the officers of the House, and I can only make inquiry of them, just as my hon. friend himself can.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I ask that the government should make that inquiry, and press the printing.


William Stevens Fielding: Why should not my hon. friend do that himself?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Because I fancy, as the discussion to-night shows, that it would have more effect if it came from my hon. friend.


William Stevens Fielding: This is a case in which we would accept my hon. friends' recommendation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am afraid not.


Charles Jonas Thornton: 


Glenlyon Campbell: I wish to ask the Minister of the Interior when I may expect that the papers in regard to the Aylwin irrigation grant will be brought down. On the last day I asked for them he said that he would perhaps be in a position to tell me on the following day, but on that day he was somewhat mixed up himself, and perhaps for that reason did not tell me. I would like some definite answer as to when I may expect these papers.


Mr. OLIVER.: I laid the papers in question on the table some time last week.


Glenlyon Campbell: I sent to the official quarters to-day, and could not get them.


JAPANESE TREATY.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether it is contemplated to take any action regarding the Japanese treaty before the reassembling of parliament after the adjournment?


William Stevens Fielding: A notice of motion is already in the hands of the clerk, and will appear in the Votes and Proceedings to-morrow morning. It is to give the Governor in Council power to continue to Japan the tariff privileges which she now enjoys, Canada to receive similar privileges, for a period not exceeding two years. In all other respects the treaty is permitted to lapse. The two years is fixed to allow time to negotiate a special treaty, should one be deemed advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.

William Stevens Fielding: When the Committee of Supply last sat a little difficulty arose owing to the fact that there were certain items which the committee had passed or were quite willing to pass, but which unfortunately were merged with others as to which further discussion was required. The desire was to report the items passed, but we did not think they could be reported separately from the others. The clerk has looked into the practice, and I understand there is a custom which will warrant our reporting these particular items which have been passed and leaving the others. My proposal, therefore, is that the items in any group which the committee has dealt with should be reported separately.
Exhibitions, $150,000.


William D. Staples: I would like to ask if the minister has given any further consideration to the Selkirk Centennial. I understand that a delegation interviewed the government a short time ago, and would like to know what satisfaction they received. I I would like to ask who the delegates were

and what satisfaction they got from the minister when they were here a few days ago. Also I would like to know whether the government is still considering the matter, or whether they intend to give an appropriation such as it was proposed to give to the undertakers of this great exhibition?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am afraid I have to say that the government has come to no conclusion yet in the matter. Since it was brought up in the House before we have had some slight discussion of it, but without reaching a conclusion.


William D. Staples: That does not answer my question in full. I asked if there was a further delegation here to interview the government in regard to the matter. I understand that there was such a delegation a very short time ago-within the last week or so-to find out whether the government were prepared to carry out the proposition they at one time made to the undertakers of the celebration that if they would secure $2,500,000 the government would supplement it with a like amount.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not aware of any delegation having been here since the matter was up in the House before. If there was, they must have seen only the Prime Minister, not the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) nor myself nor any other minister present. I do not think that any delegation came.


Glenlyon Campbell: An answer was given in this House more than a' year ago by the Prime Minister that he could not give a definite answer to the question until he had consulted the Minister of Finance. Now, he has had an opportunity to consult the Minister of Finance with regard to the matter. The success of an affair of this kind is a matter of great consideration to the people of the west, and the people of all Canada. The day of the ex-iry of the time when the subscribers can e called upon to implement their promises is getting very close-I think it "is [DOT]within a few days. It seems to me a fair proposition to ask the government, as my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) has done, what they intend to do. Two 'years they have had to make uip their mind whether they are going to do it or whether they are not. I do not think we In the west now care very much whether 'they do or not, but we would like to have !a definite straightforward answer. If they hre not going to do it, let them say so; if they are going to do it, let them say so. T think that that is a fair proposition.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am afraid I cannot feive any more definite answer than I have 'already given. I will try to have it taken up and decided as soon as possible.


Glenlyon Campbell: I did not particularly want an answer from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). I intended my remarks more particularly for the Minister of Finance on whose shoulders the Prime Minister has laid the burden by saying that when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) came back renewed in health and strength-as we know he is to-day- 'he would be in a position to discuss it with him, and the people of the country could depend on getting a final answer. I am not advancing it for party purposes by any means, because, as the Finance Minister knows and the government understands, the people who are most interested, the private citizens who have offered to 'spend more money than any others, are gentlemen of the same stripe of politics as themselves.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what has been said by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) I 'quite realize the importance of the matter. Tf it has been two years since the matter was mooted, perhaps the honi member can 'find in the public records other matters that have been pending for much more than two years. The very magnitude of an enterprise sometimes causes delay. I think it possible that gentlemen in the province primarily affected have some "reason to complain that there has not been a definite answer. But to be frank with the hon. member I cannot give a definite answer at this stage.


Glenlyon Campbell: Can the hon. minister give me some idea of the probability of an answer in the next two years?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, I think I can go as far as that.


Glenlyon Campbell: Can we get an answer within the next year?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not want to be too exact.


Glenlyon Campbell: In the next year, can I expect a definite answer?


William Stevens Fielding: I want to encourage the hon. gentleman, I hope to give an answer in much less time, but one does not like to tie himself up.


Glenlyon Campbell: You are tied up badly now.


William Stevens Fielding: We tnink not.


Richard Blain: We should have some explanation from the Minister of Agriculture concerning this vote


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I gave a pretty full explanation when a supplementary vote for the last fiscal year was taken. I ex-

plained that we were participating in the exhibition called ' The Festival of Empire,1 in the Crystal Palace' Which was opened, I think on Friday last, by His Majesty the King. The Canadian Pavilion has been built and we are now in the position of owing for the building.


Richard Blain: What will be the total cost?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About $225,000; between that and $250,000. That covers the total organization of the exhibition, the work of taking down and removing the exhibits -the usual thing from one year to the other. I asked for $250,000 in this vote, and I have asked for $75,000 in the supple-mentaries for this year which, I trust, will enable me to close up everything absolutely, making the expenditure $225,000. There was a little expenditure from the Vote last year.


Richard Blain: Will there be any special appointments by the minister or his department? .


Sydney Arthur Fisher: None except the permanent staff-there have been none and will be none.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I know that to a very large extent, the grain exhibit comes from the west. Are the provinces generally well represented in their own _ products in such exhibitions as the minister has described?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Each province is represented in the products which it yields best. We do not discriminate, provided the products come from Canada we try to get the best of every kind. We have, in London this year, I believe, the most magnificent display of fruit, that has ever been collected at any exhibition. Most of it came from the province of Ontario, but a considerable quantity from British Columbia, and also some from Quebec and some from Nova Scotia. We have also a very fine collection of minerals coming from all over the Dominion. Asbestos which is produced in Quebec, I believe, is exhibited from that province. The silver ore comes largely from Ontario, the nickel from On-ario and the coal from various provinces. The grain exhibit also comes from nearly all the provinces, although wheat naturally comes largely from the Northwest and Ontario. The forestry exhibit comes from the different provinces; we make no discrimination between the provinces, the exhibits are shown as Canadian, without reference to the places from which they come, although the names of the exhibitors and the places from which they come are on the exhibits.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have heard the suggestion that Ontario grain was not repre-Mr. FISHER.
sented as fully or displayed as attractively as it might be.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think there was any ground for that complaint. All the winter wheat comes from Ontario, nearly all the barley and corn, and the oats are from nearly all over the Dominion.


George Taylor: Having met at 11 o'clock, does the Minister of Finance not think that 12 would be a good hour to adjourn?


William Stevens Fielding: When v/e get into Committee of Supply at 11 o'clock, would not 12 o'clock, be too early to adjourn?


George Taylor: I think there was an understanding that certain items named should be put through, but I did not understand that this was one.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This was one.


Mr BORDEN (Halifax).: I do not remember it being mentioned, but I am subject to correction. The Prime Minister said:
There are, however, some items of supply which must be voted in full, independent of such agreements. There is the vote for the military and Northwest Mounted Police contingents, which are to attend the coronation, and with respect to them a partial vote would not be sufficient. There is also in this category the vote for the Festival of Empire, which, although a private enterprise


Mr. FISHER  .@: This is the exhibition at the Festival of Empire.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood it was a separate item. What is. the amount of the item?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: $150,000 in the main estimates and $75,000 in the supplementaries.


Richard Blain: Was the contract let for the building?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, part of the expenditure on this exhibition was taken from the vote of last year.	.


Richard Blain: Did the minister let the contract for the building, costing a great deal of money, before the money was voted by parliament?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The money is not voted yet.


Richard Blain: Then my hon. friend and his government take it upon themselves to enter into a large contract for the expenditure of money without consulting parliament or having a vote for that purpose.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I explained all that at the time I took the supplementary vote in the earlier part of the session. We could not delay. If we had done so we could not have taken any part, and the government decided

on its responsibility, having charge of the affairs of the country, to take part, on the invitation of the committee in London under the presidency of Lord Plymouth and under the patronage of His Majesty.


Richard Blain: Without consulting parliament.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Richard Blain: What was the cost of the building?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About $100,000; it is a copy of this building.


Richard Blain: What amount has been expended up to date?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have contracted obligations of about $135,000.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend has undertaken, without consulting parliament, to enter into contracts for the construction of a building costing upwards of $J30,000. That is one of the complaints we have against my hon. friend's government that they are doing too much by order in council, that they do not take parliament into their confidence, and when a discussion comes up in the House in connection with expenditure, the government say: Oh the opposition are as much responsible as the government because they were in the House when the item was passed. I have heard my hon. friend's colleagues make that statement.


William Stevens Fielding: Not if you never voted for it.


Richard Blain: But the Minister of Finance must remember that his colleagues said that there has been no vote.


William Stevens Fielding: And therefore we do not blame you if there has not been.


Richard Blain: No, because I do not see how you can blame the opposition.


William Stevens Fielding: That is fair.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend think 'that it is a fair policy that any minister should have the power to enter into expenditures and make contracts for $125,000 or $130,000 without consulting parliament and then come along and ask parliament to vote after the money has been practically expended or the contracts made for the expenditure? Is that to be the policy of my hon. friend?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, except where it is impossible to wait and where you cannot do it in any other way I think it is justifiable for the government to take that responsibility in the interests of the country. The government has to take that responsibility on certain occasions and when it does take that responsibility it is accountable to the House. The House need not vote the money if it does not see fit.


Richard Blain: The minister has already stated that this was not an unexpected proposition.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman must not put words in my mouth. The Festival of Empire last year was ail affair for which we had a vote of parliament. The festival was postponed until this year, it was very much magnified, it was made a very great affair in conjunction with the coronation and the imperial conference and increased enormously in magnitude and importance. The question was whether we would still take a part in it commensurate with the importance of Canada and the empire or whether we should delay and not be able to take part. We believed that it was in the interest of Canada and the empire that we should take part, we assumed the responsibility of taking part and we now ask parliament to vote the necessary funds to enable us to do so.


George Taylor: Do I understand the minister to say that this sum of $150,000 and the sum of $75,000 in the supplementary estimates are both required for the Festival of Empire?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Taylor: Is the money to he all spent for that or is part of it to be spent on other exhibitions?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, there is no other exhibition.


Mr. PERLEY.: When was this contract given out?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About the end of November or in December.


George Halsey Perley: I would like to ask the minister whether he does not think that there is something in' the comments of my hon. friend from Peel. I have seen special votes brought before this House and the government asked for them to be passed immediately by parliament. I remember that the vote in connection with the San Francisco disaster was passed in that way. Even in a case of this kind, if it comes in the recess and the House is not in session, I can understand the argument of the minister that the government must decide in this peremptory way that it will go on with the work and ask parliament to vote the money afterwards. But I do not see how that argument can apply when parliament is in session. This is an imperial matter in which we all take an interest, I do not think there is a member of this House but would be glad to give his assistance in passing a vote in order that Canada should take part in this festival. What right has the minister or the government to undertake an expenditure of $150,000 for a building without coming here and asking for a vote while parliament is in session? The

vote could be asked for specially. It does not need to be left to come up in the ordinary course in the estimates. I would like the minister explain why he did not come here and get a vote last fall.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In a measure my hon. friend is quite correct. The government, however, were committed to this festival long before the House met. We had to announce whether we would take part in it or not and make the necessary arrangements. My hon. friend is in a measure certainly correct in what he says. Las1 November the House was sitting, or about to sit, these estimates were laid on the table soon afterwards and I might then have urged that the House should take up the estimate and pass it before proceeding further. I confess that has not been our practice. When these estimates were laid on the table the country, or the government, was committed to this enterprise and we judged that the House would support the enterprise. I think my hon. friend is correct that the whole country was satisfied that we should take part in this celebration and the only question is whether we should have immediately stopped all other proceedings and taken up this item at that early stage of the session.


George Halsey Perley: The reason I mention the thing is because this has not been the practice. I may be very old fashioned, but it seems to me that there is far more government by order in council in this country than there is any need of. The reason I Jiiave gone into this question somewhat fully is because I feel very strongly on the subject. It is not fair to the House, or the country to have so manv things done by the government by which the country is committed. Then, they come to parliament to have their action confirmed, and the money voted. Of course, all the Liberal members will vote for the government. It is perfectly natural that they should do so even if they do not think it is a right and proper thing. They cannot object to it; they must vote for the government in order to sustain their leader. There have been many similar cases. I remember very well, with regard to the Grand Trunk hotel, that, although parliament was in session at the time, this government actually made a contract with the Grand Trunk Railway Company to sell them a piece of land, and after it was put through they submitted it to this House, and asked to have the contract confirmed. I know as a matter of fact that there were many Liberal members in this House who felt that it was a mistake to put the hotel where it is. It is in the middle of the gov-(*rmiiont grounds, and we should have kept all the Dominion government property intact by itself. The Minister of Public


George Halsey Perley: Works proposes to build a large new departmental block on Sussex street, and the ordinary person walking on the street will be unable to see the new departmental building until he gets right up to it by reason of the fact that this Grand Trunk hotel has been located where it is. There were a lot of Liberal members who did not approve of that location, and the government deliberately, during the session of parliament, made a contract, and1 then came here to have it confirmed. I really think that there is more of that sort of thing done than there is -any need of. They are doing altogether too many things without consulting parliament, i am not prepared to say that of everything the government does off its own bat, but I do think they are doing other things that there is no need of. I will ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the government might not have saved themselves and the country a great deal of trouble if they had not passed a -contract with President Taft at Washington this year without bringing it to parliament for consideration, and whether he thinks that two ministers of the Crown ought to go down to Washington and then come back to this parliament and say that we must pass it because the honour of Canada has been pledged. The honour of Canada is said to be pledged because two ministers of the Crown bind the government of the day, who in turn bind the Liberal members, and who in their turn profess to bind the whole country. Well, while there aTe many things -a government reasonably may do without coming to the House, I do not believe they should, under the strict spirit of the constitution, do so many important acts of government without consulting parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: In connection with the reciprocity arrangement my hon. friend seems to be unaware of certain important facts. There is no difference between the method of negotiating this agreement and the method of negotiating any other agreement that was ever made with any1 foreign government with respect to a similar transaction. The agreement was made' confidentially-hon. gentlemen opposite say secretly-but every treaty lis negotiated' confidentially and secretly. It was brought down here and submitted to the House with the -suggestion that it could not be changed. It was exactly the same in that respect as the Washington treaty of 1871, as the treaty made by Sir Charles Tupper in 1888 and exactly the same as every other treaty in which an agreement has been made on -behalf of Canada with any foreign country. According to the custom, -such an agreement had to be negotiated confidentially and when completed

it was submitted to this parliament precisely the same as in every other case.


Richard Blain: Notwithstanding that the House was in session after the government had decided to take part in the Brussels exhibition, the Minister of Agriculture did not ask for a vote but got a Governor General's warrant to remove the exhibit from Seattle to Brussels, so that this is an old habit with him. He should be more careful to consult the representatives of the people.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any further explanation as to the withdrawal of the proposal to celebrate the battle of Chateauguay in connection with the Festival of Empire?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not cabled to England for information, but I expect to get a report with regard to the matter by letter.


Robert Laird Borden: Our friends on the other side of the line are not nearly so much concerned about such matters as we seem to be. The Minister of Agriculture will have observed that Admiral Perry's victory on Lake Erie in 1813 is to be celebrated in very impressive and flamboyant style. Large sums of money have been contributed by a number of states; one of the ships sunk in that fight is to be raised; there is to be a great naval demonstration, and a magnificent permanent memorial is to be erected at Put-in Bay. No one on this side of the line has the slightest feeling about that. It is entirely within the right of the American people to celebrate that victory and no one here thinks twice about it. What I wonder is that any one could have been so exceedingly foolish as to imagine that the American people would have had any ill-feeling if the Battle of Chateauguay were celebrated at this Festival of the Empire? Why is it that we seem [DOT]to be so exceedingly supersensitive about offending our neighbours in such matters [DOT]when we do not see any spirit of the same kind on their part, because they realize that we are big enough not to be oppressed with a feeling of resentment on any such [DOT]account. It is a very great pity that in connection with this Festival of the Empire to which Canada has contributed a large sum of money, the celebration of that battle should have been omitted for the [DOT]reason given. It was a very gallant exploit; it has been called the Thermopylae of Canada; a few French Canadian volunteers in command of De Salaberry, assisted by some Glengarry men Under Col. Mac-[DOT]donell, put to route eight or ten times their number of American troops who were invading Canada. I really believe we are paying no compliment to our friends on *the other side of the line when it is imagined that their feelings would be hurt by a celebration of that noble event.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I sympathize with every word uttered by the leader of the opposition, and had we been consulted I would most emphatically have expressed that opinion to the English authorities. I most sincerely believe that no feeling would have arisen in the United States had the battle of Chateauguay been celebrated at the Festival of Empire. Our neighbours are too big to be offended by such a thing. No doubt, the arrangement was made with the best intentions and without any idea of wounding us, but I regret that we were not consulted. I cannot sav more on that point. What the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has said with regard to the Battle of Chateauguay is perfectly true and the Canadian people are justly proud of that exploit. I have been waiting for a report as to the reasons which actuated those who had control of the matter, and I trust it will be a better reason than has yet been given.


Richard Blain: When was the government first invited to take part in the Festival of Empire?	.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About eighteen months ago, I was in England immediately after the death of King Edward, when the question of the postponement of the first proposed festival came up on account of the King's death. It was decided to proceed with the festival this year. I was spoken to by various people who were interested in it, and they then expressed the intention and expectation of proceeding with it this year. I came back here about the 1st of July, and it was not until after that that I received the official positive declaration that they were going to proceed. I then at once laid the matter before my colleagues, and we were asked at once to accept the invitation or let them know what we were going to do. A few weeks after that we decided to accept the invitation, and I then instructed the commissioner of exhibitions, who was at Brussels, to go to London and meet the committee there and find out what recommendations they would make as _ to our participation. Later on the suggestion was made that the Canadian building should take the form of a replica or copy of this one. I understand that Australia is putting up a replica of a part at any rate of the buildings at Melbourne. I am not quite sure whether New Zealand is doing the same, but I think so. Then the commissioner went on with the work and made the arrangements. I think the contract for the building was made some time in November last.


Richard Blain: I may say that at the last session of parliament my hon. friend made this statement, at page 5728:

Lately we have been invited and strongly urged by a very influential committee in London to take part in what is known as the Festival of Empire at the Crystal Palace, and the government has decided that it would be very unfortunate if at such a celebration as that Canada was not represented.
That was on March 18. My hon. friend had abundant opportunity to consult the House and submit an estimate.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was the celebration of last year.


Richard Blain: The same one.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The same one, but postponed to this year on a different scale.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: If any portion of this vote is being devoted to the historical representation, I wish to ask if the minister could not make representations that the battle of Chateauguay be not omitted.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have contributed some $10,000 to the general expenses of the festival. I do not know whether any portion of the money goes to the pageant or not.


William Sora Middlebro: Could not the minister on that ground have made some representations to the authorities that it would be greatly regretted if the battle of Chateauguay were omitted from the representation.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have asked for information on the matter. I thought I would not do anything until I got that information.


William Sora Middlebro: Of what material is the proposed building to be constructed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it is a steel structure, with staff covering, as all these exhibition buildings are.


William Sora Middlebro: Who has the contract for building it?	[DOT]


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Messrs. Humphreys of London, who have been constructing our exhibition buildings for many years. They have made that a specialty. We have invited tenders from others, but they have always been the lowest, and lately we have been giving them the contract without competition, based on their figures.


William Sora Middlebro: What becomes of the building after the exhibition is over?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They have to take it down as part of the contract.


Richard Blain: Were tenders invited in Canada for the construction of this building?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Richard Blain: Why not?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think it possible that Canadian contracting firms go to Mr. BLAIN.
London and erect a building at anything like the figure of the London firm, which has all the necessary labour and materials there.


Richard Blain: Would it not have been a very good advertisement for Canada if the steel structure could have been made here and transported to England, so that not only the exhibits, but the building itself, would have been made in Canada? Besides, a goodly portion of the money would have been expended in Canada and to our own workmen.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think it would have been a feasible proposition at all.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend may say that off-hand, but he has not given any consideration to it. Would he say that the firms engaged in putting up large buildings in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada would not be able to construct such a building as has been referred to? Surely not.


Mr. JAMESON.: I understand that almost a quarter of a million dollars is to be expended as a contribution to the Imperial authorities for this purpose. It seems to me a most unfortunate thing that the representation in regard to the Battle of Chateauguay has been omitted. I do not think it can yet be too late for the government to make representations on the subject to the Imperial authorities. It seems to me that it is a duty that we owe to our own national dignity to have that battle represented there, and in my judgment it is incumbent upon the government to make at least a fair attempt to have arrangements made for a proper representation in that regard. I believe that the people of Canada will feel that they are not being fairly dealt with if there is not a representation of that most historic battle, and I trust that the government will take measures to see that a fair opportunity is given for a representation.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may say that I was waiting for information to make representations that the omission of that battle was not received with favour in Canada, and that if the committee could see their way to retain the representations, it would certainly be in accordance with my own views.


Glenlyon Campbell: Did I understand the minister to say that the Humphreys Company had been erecting exhibition buildings for this government in the past? If so, where?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, they have put up buildings at Brussels, Dublin, and I think Milan, and one in London in 1908.


Glenlyon Campbell: If it is a fact that this London company have been putting up exhibition buildings for Canada in foreign

countries, I think the opportunity should have been offered to Canadian firms to erect the requisite building for this Festival of Empire, to employ Canadian workmen and Canadian materials. If a London firm can go to Milan or to Brussels and make a business success of a building, why should not a Canadian firm be in a position to enter into an enterprise of that kind and make it a success? It was up to this government to give the opportunity at least to Canadians to show their enterprise. It seems to me that our people could perhaps do this work to greater advantage.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When we had an exhibition in St. Louis, we advertised for tenders, and no Canadian offered. When we exhibited in Seattle not long ago, no Canadian contractors put in a tender. This business is a speciality, and the firm of Humphrey's do most of the building in all the exhibitions of Europe. The firm that put up our buildings in St. Louis, erected them in Seattle. These contractors put up the buildings and take them down again, and use the material in other exhibition buildings.
Dominion exhibition, five-sixiths of $50,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is a grant we give to each province in turn. This year it goes to Saskatchewan, and the exhibition will take place in Regina in the month of August, and they will be wanting the grant before the House meets again.


Robert Laird Borden: Under the circumstances, I see no objection in passing this.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.33 a.m. Tuesday.

Tuesday, May 16, 1911.