ORTHODOX RUSSO-GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta) moved :: That that portion of the 49th rule which limits the time to present petitions for private Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
Bills, be suspended in reference to the Bill to incorporate the Bishop of the Orthodox Ru3so-Greek Catholic Church ; in accordance with the recommendation contained in the fourteenth report of the Select Standing Committee . on Standing Orders, and that leave be granted to introduce the said Bill.


Mr.  A. A. C.@: LaRIVIERE (Provencher). Has the report of the committee been adopted yet ? Is not two days' notice required before the report of the committee can be adopted ?


Mr. SPEAKER.: Under rule 31 when a report has been made by a committee, a Bill may be presented on that report without any motion for the adoption of the report itself. Consequently the motion is in order.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. But the rules of the House cannot be suspended except by unanimous consent. I do not wish to offer any opposition to this Bill now, but I would ask my hon. friend to postpone his motion for a day or so.
Mr. OLIVER, I have no objection to postpone the motion for a sitting or two. If the hon. member (Mr. La Riviere) has the privilege of refusing to allow the introduction of this Bill now, and if he chooses to exercise that privilege, of course I cannot help it.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. It was understood that I should be invited to this meeting of the Standing Orders Committee, but I was not notified and I knew nothing whatever about it. If it was considered not worth while notifying me, I think it is only fair that I should exercise my prerogative now. I will not oppose the Bill going to the committee later on, but I hope the hon. gentleman will not press his motion to-day.


Frank Oliver: At what date may I have the privilege of making this motion ? I would like to have an understanding on that.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. The day after to-morrow.
Motion (Mr. Oliver) withdrawn.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 129) respecting the Great Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Taylor.
Bill (No. 12S) respecting the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway.-Mr. Taylor.
Bill. (No. 109) to incorporate the Molsons Bank Pension Fund.-Mr. Osier.
Bill (No. 130) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Cowan, by Mr. Farmelee.
Bill (No. 131) respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 132) to amend the Act respecting the incorporation of Boards of Trade.-Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 133) to amend the Rocky Mountains Park Act, 1887. He said : The Bill is for the purpose of enlarging the boundaries of the park. The present park is 260 square miles, or 166,400 acres. That is, as the House will see, considerably less than 20 miles square. The suggested park including the present one, will be 4,900 square miles, or 3,136,000 acres. But alongside of that on the British Columbia line we have by Order in Council set apart a portion of the railway belt of British Columbia, extending down to Field, under the name of the Yolio park, which is 832 square miles, or 532,480 acres. The suggested park and the Yoho park combined will amount to 3,668,480 acres. I may say that the number of visitors to the park is increasing very rapidly, and it is found that it is likely to become a place of very considerable resort, *especially for American tourists. We have a thriving herd of buffalo there and a number of other animals, such as moose, elk, a couple of varieties of goats, and we are trying to get together a collection of animals that will be attractive. We find that these animals are exceedingly attractive to visitors. It is the opinion of everybody who has visited the park that it would be a great mistake to let it go any longer without increasing the boundaries to a sufficient extent to have room to carry out the original intention. I lay a map on the Table, so that members can look at it for themselves.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. What will be the shape of the park when it is enlarged ? Will it be square ?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It will be almost a triangle. The longer side of the triangle will be the boundary between the North-west Territories and British Columbia, and there will be two straight lines culminating in a right angle out into the territories.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. It was my good fortune to visit the park last summer, and I am very glad the Bill has been introduced.


Mr. MONK.: Will this enlargement entail any expropriation 7


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, there is no expropriation provided for or contemplated. The only land which I believe is in any way alienated consists of some timber berths which will come back to the government in the course of a little time.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 134) respecting the representation of the Yukon Territory in the House of Commons. He said : The explanation of this Bill will not necessarily be long. It provides that the Yukon Territory shall be represented in the House of Commons by one member. The entire contents of the Bill are taken up in making detailed provision for the holding of the election. I observe, on making an examination of the Bill as it is drawn, that one clause has been left out by the law clerk, that is the clause declaring the time within which the election shall be held ; and I shall ask to have that put in in committee.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: What are'the qualifications of voters ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The same as in the territories. We have followed the terms of the North-west Territories Representation Act, so as to avoid differences on the question of qualification.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 135) to amend the Petition of Right Act. He said : The object of this amendment is to give to the Governor General the right to require from the petitioner in certain cases security for costs. At the present time a fiat is granted on the recommendation of the Department of Justice, and we refuse to grant fiats in cases in which we think there is no merit. The petitioners may consider, notwithstanding the opinion of the department, that they are suffering a hardship by 'not being granted a fiat, and the intention is, in cases of that description, to require security for costs, so that the Crown may not be mulcted in costs when successful.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there any special amount fixed ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, the amount will be discretionary. The circumstances of each case will be carefully considered. I believe that in the province of Quebec, where there is a similar provision, the security is fixed at two hundred dollars. But it is optional with the court at any time to increase the amount of security if thought desirable.


John Graham Haggart: Do you provide that the writ will issue as a matter of course 7


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Practically as a matter of course.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 136) to amend the Fruit Marks Act of 1901. He said : The first amendment is with regard to section 4, aud indicates clearly whose name should appear, as there has been some slight confusion in one or two instances owing to the fact that the name of the person on whose behalf the fruit was really packed was not put on the package.
With regard to the grading of fruit, certain grades are suggested and are required to be on, even though some other grading may be put on. The suggestion is that No. 1 or XXX be for first quality, No. 2 or XX for second quality, and No. 3 or X for third quality.
Where a package is falsely marked, the inspectors have no power to put on the package ' falsely marked.' We want that power given them.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. FARQUHARSON asked :: Does the government intend to so modify the fishery regulation of the 28th December, 1893, which is in force in Quebec and the maritime provinces, which forbids the digging of'mussel mud within two hundred yards from any live oyster bed, and then only at such place or places as may be prescribed in writing by a fishery officer, so as to enable the farmers to procure the mussel mud necessary for the cultivation of their farms ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: It is not the intention to amend the Order in Council, unless the encroachment is made on the live lobster beds, and instructions have been given to the inspector to use discretion in the enforcement of this regulation, and those digging mud will not be interfered with under the present regulations.


KING BROTHERS' CLAIM.
Mr. LAVERGNE asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that, in June last, an investigation was held in regard to a claim that Messrs. King Brothers have against the government, for damages caused to their property, in the Seigneurie of St. Jean Deschail-lons, by the Intercolonial Railway ?
2.	Does the government purpose soon settling that claim ?


John Graham Haggart: The MINISTER' OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair):
1.	The government is aware that such au investigation was held.
2.	The claims branch of the department at Moncton is of the opinion that the claim is not meritorious, and until the same is considered by the department here, no final decision can be reached. I cannot say, until I have an opportunity of looking into it, what action will be finally taken.


POSTMASTER OF CREDITON.
Mr. SHERRITT asked :: 1.	Has the Postmaster General been informed that the postmaster at Crediton, Ontario, is dead ?
2.	If so, when was the notice received ; who has been iji charge of the office since the death of the late postmaster ; has any person been temporarily or permanently appointed ?
3.	If no appointment has been made, does the government intend making an appointment before the Ontario provincial elections take place ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: In the absence of the Postmaster General, I beg to reply that information was received on the 29th of October last, of the death of Mr. Jacob Eilber, postmaster of Crediton, Ontario. The office has since been in charge of Mr. W. W. Kerr, who was assistant postmaster! under the late postmaster. No appointment, permanent or temporary, has yet been made to the office, and it has not been decided when the appointment in question will be made.


ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE.
[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to-morrow on the following resolution :
That it is expedient to provide for the appointment of an assistant commissioner of the North-west Mounted Police for the Yukon Territory, at $1,600 per annum.
Motion agreed to.

Mr.   T.@: EARLE (Victoria, B.C.) I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries when we may look for a report of the commission appointed to look into the conditions of the fisheries in British Columbia ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: I think that the short time the commission had to investigate into this matter does not put them in a position to report, and they have to ask for a further delay in order to

mate investigations, especially with regard to traps, &c. I think the delay will have to be granted for futher investigation before they will be able to report.


THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 7G) further to amend the Pilotage Act.-Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on the following resolution :
That it is expedient to amend chapter 41 of the statutes of 1901, and to provide that the salaries of the police magistrate at Dawson and the police magistrate at White Horse shall be $4,000 per annum.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Both these police magistrates receive $2,400 salary and $3,000 living allowance each. The intention is to raise their salary to $4,000 each, and their living allowance to $1,800 each.


Mr. SPROULE.: Are those all the police magistrates in the district ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes. Resolutions reported.


SALARY AND RETIRING ALLOWANCES OF CERTAIN JUDGES.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on the following resolution
That it is expedient to amend the Act respecting the judges of provincial courts and to provide as follows :-
1.	That the salary of the third judge of the Territorial Court of the Yukon Territory shall be $5,000 per annum.
2.	That a judge of a county court resigning at any time after becoming disabled by permanent infirmity or resigning after twenty-five years' service, may be granted a pension equal to two-thirds of his annual salary ; provided that if he has served less than five years, his pension shall not exceed one-third of his annual salary.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: You will have three
judges in the Yukon ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: This resolution provides for the appointment of an additional judge in the Yukon Territory. We have now two judges of tlie High Court residing there, and it is proposed that hereafter three shall be there, with salaries ot $5,00(1 each. The expectation is that the three judges shall form a Territorial Court of Appeal, to which there will be appeals from the High Court sitting as a court of original jurisdiction, and also an appeal from the findings of the Gold Commisioner. At present the appeal from a single trial judge is to the court in British Columbia. It is extremely inconvenient to the people of the Yukon
to be obliged to come down to British Columbia for the trial of their appeals. If this resolution is passed, a Bill will be introduced which will provide for three judges of the Territorial Court who will form a court of appeal, the appeal from them being to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is expected that this will not add very much to the expense of the administration of justice in that territory. It is true that there will' be an additional judge, but we are amending the Act so that members of the High Court will be able to do some of the work that is now done by the police magistrates, and, in that way, we hope to dispense with the services of one police magistrate.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In this Court of Appeal, or Court of Review, will the judge who tried the case in the first instance sit as one of the judges ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes. The present intention is to have it as our Court of Review in Quebec was originally formed, that is, the trial judge will be one of the three judges sitting in review. Personally, with the knowledge I have gained of our judges, I think it is not a bad principle, because the judge of the first court, it seems to me, would help to further enlighten the judges in appeal when he is a,member of the court. I think that the departure from that principle in our province was not a step in the direction of progress. As to the second portion of the resolution, my hon. friends are aware that, under the existing law, a High Court judge becoming incapacitated at any time after he has entered upon his duties is entitled to receive his retiring allowance. He is also entitled to retire after fifteen years on the bench. But, in the case of county court judges in Ontario, we find that one of these judges cannot be given retiring allowance until after he has served ten years. A judge may become incapacitated through illness and be obliged to retire, yet not receive any allowance. It will be seen that that is a hardship. There are cases of special hardship which will be met by this amendment. One case, I think, is a case of extreme hardship. I think my hon. friend will admit that it is proper that if a judge becomes incapacitated, whether he be in the High Court or in the County Court, he should be entitled to a retiring alowance.


John Graham Haggart: This applies to judges in Ontario, not in the Yukon ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In Ontario and all other places where there are county court judges.


Mr BENNETT.: Is there any legislation proposed, looking to the compulsory retirement of judges after reaching an age limit .


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No. I may say that there never was any intention to introduce legislation of that kind with

respect to the judges of the Superior Court -there will be none this session.


Mr. BENNETT.: The hon. minister will excuse me, but there was a Bill introduced by himself for the retirement of county court judges who had reached the age of seventy years.


Mr. INGRAM.: This feature is not included in this measure ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, there is no intention to do so.
Resolutions reported.


EXCHEQUER COURT-SALARY OF THE REGISTRAR.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on the following resolution :
That it is expedient to provide that the salary of the registrar, of the Exchequer Court shall be 32,-100 per annum.-(Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.)
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: The salary of the registrar of the Exchequer Court is $2,000. But ever since his appointment he has been receiving annual increments of $25 and $50. The result is, hon. gentlemen will find in the estimates this year a vote which brings the salary up to $2,375. I thought it was better to fix the salary once and for all at what it is represented was intended to be the salary, rather than come back here every year or two for an increased vote.


John Graham Haggart: Is he a barrister ? The MINISTER OF JUSTICE. Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Who is he ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Mr. Audette. He came into the court when it was originally formed and has been there ever since. I think I can safely say that he has performed his duties with great satisfaction to the court.
Resolutions reported.


PENSIONS TO NORTH-WEST MOUNTED POLICE.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 40) respecting pensions to officers of the Northwest Mounted Police-(Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: When this Bill was in committee before, sections 7 and 5 were reserved. Section 7 provides that if an officer is constrained ^ to leave the service before a period at which a pension may be granted to him. by reason of severe bodily infirmity through no fault of his own, and* in the discharge of a public duty, the Governor in Council may allow him a pension not exceeding three months pay for every two years service. Section 8 provides that the Governor in Council may grant a pension Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
to the widow and children or any officer who, having completed twenty years service, was at the time of his death in the receipt of a pension. It was suggested at the time that with regard to widows of officers who had been disabled before the period of twenty years, it should be made compulsory upon the government to allow a pens'011- This is practically what is done by * . ilU;, ,The wording of it Is ' may ' instead ot shall. The reason why we have used tlie word, may ' is tlint there may be reasons why a pension shall not be given. But in every case where no such reasons exist it is expected that the widow will be entitled to the pension. With regard to section 5, it provides :
If any officer is constrained, from any jnfir-mity of body or mind, to quit the force before a period at which a pension might be granted to him, the Governor in Council may allow him a gratuity not exceeding one month's pay for each year of his service ; and if any such officer is so constrained to quit the service before such period by reason of severe bodily injury, received without his own fault, in the discharge of his public jluty, the Governor in Council may allow him a gratuity not exceeding three months' pay for every two years' service.
The point was made, I think by the hon. member for Toronto, that there was here an invidious distinction The Bill provided that if a man had been twenty years in the service then he may retire with his pension. He may be in comparatively good health, but having served the country twenty years, he is entitled to his pension.' It was suggested that if an officer, after twenty years of service, is in good health and is still entitled to his pension, why should we not do the same thing for an officer who lias been disabled in the service of the country before he has been twenty years* in the service. Well, this Bill provides for pensions to those who have served the country for long periods. The intention is that officers shall contribute to a fund, and it is expected that a fund will be created which will be self-supporting. But there may be cases where a man has not served twenty years, he may have served only nineteen years or ten years, and may be disabled in the performance of his duty, and then it may be said : Are you going to turn that man adrift and do nothing for him ? Why not provide for him ? The reason we do not provide for him in this way is because the Act is intended to give pensions for long service only. But I may say to the committee that those who have served the country and been disabled, are not turned adrift. Since 1885 we have always provided for cases of that kind. We have adopted in that respect the law which regulates the militia, a provision has been introduced in this Bill exactly like that which is found in the Militia Act. In 1885, an Order in Council was passed under the Militia Act to provide pensions for officers who have been disabled in the rebellion

of that year. In 1886, a similar Order in Council was passed adopting the same rule and the same rates of pension for officers of the mounted police who had been disabled during that rebellion. The Order in Council reads thus :
 On the 19th of May, 1886, an Order in Council was passed providing that the members of the mounted police and Prince Albert volunteers who were wounded, and the families of those who were killed during the troubles in the North-west, be granted compensation in the same manner, and upon the same scale of gratuities and pensions as was provided for the active militia by the Order in Council of the 8th July, 1885.
Under this order is another order. We have every year in the estimates, including this year, taken an appropriation to cover all cases of disabilities occurring in the mounted police while in service. If members of the committee will look at the estimates of this year, page 37, item 108, they will find an appropriation of $2,510.03 to cover pensions payable in connection with the North-west rebellion of 1S85. They will find also, in the same item, appropriations of $109.50 and $182.50 for widows and children of members of the mounted police killed in the performance of their duty. Again on page 70, item 242, there is an appropriation of $2,000 as compensation to members of the North-west Mounted Police for Injuries received in the discharge of duty. At present, under these three heads, we have given pensions to members of the mounted police who have been killed and injured in the rebellion of 1885. We have sixteen pensions for which we ask appropriations this year as follow's :
Major Moore, loss of leg, pension, $800 ; Private Newitt, shot in leg, $91.25 ; Mrs. A. Anderson, son killed, $91,25 ; R. Middleton, son killed, $91.25 ; Mrs. M. A. Smith, son killed, $91.25 ; Private Pembrun, loss of arm, $109.50 ; P. W. H. Smart, father killed, $109.50: Sergeant Ward, shot through lungs, $328.50 ; Sergeant Fury, shot in chest, $219 ; Sergeant McRae, shot in leg, $164.25 ; Constable Pocock, lost part of foot, $83.95 ; Constable Loasby, shot in body, $S3.95 ; Special Constable Harpur, rheumatism, $219 ; Mrs. Burke, husband killed, $136.88.
Then w'e have in the estimates pensions to Mrs. Grundy* and Mrs. Colebrooke, names w'hich have not been forgotten, of men who lost their lives in the rebellion, and their widows receive pensions of $109 and $182. Then we have also a certain number of pensions to men w*ho have not been killed or injured but who have been disabled. Under such circumstances I think we had better leave the law as it is, because no wrong has been done so far, and it is found that in every case parliament, at the suggestion of the government, has provided for relief in the manner contemplated in that section. This is a reproduction of the law respecting pensions for the militia.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In regard to sections 8 and 9 I would like to call the attention of the government to the fact that with these two sections, as they are to be read, even if the' applicant does not fall under the exceptions provided in section 9, it still remains absolutely optional with the government to grant him any pension at all. After he has completed twenty years of service as provided in section 8. and if he is on a retiring allowance and dies, the widow has no right to any pension nor the children to any compassionate allowance if the government do not choose to give any. In reference to the exceptions provided in section 9 there is a great deal of certainty, and under section 8 the widow and children are still dependent on the good-will of the government.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend is in error as there is no intention to interpret the Act in such a harsh manner. This Rill is an exact reproduction of a similar Rill which was introduced last session and discussed at great length providing for pensions for the militia. We have taken it verbatim and it would not be advisable I think when these two Bills are intended to serve the same purpose that there should be a variation of the language even if the criticism of the hon. gentleman were well founded. My hon. friend knows that the word ' may ' is very often construed by the courts to mean ' shall.' That is what is intended here. I do not say that if I had had the drafting of this Bill it might not have been well to have amended it in the light suggested by my hon. friend, but finding a Bill exactly similar, to apply to another branch of the service, the militia, we thought it advisable not to vary the language, but to take it as it is, it being well understood that the widow of an officer under section 8 is entitled to a pension provided she does not come within any of the exceptions mentioned in section 9.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The statute does not say so.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Well, I think we had better leave it alone.


Mr. OSLER.: Would a pension granted in the cases the right hon. gentleman has cited be about the same as a pension obtained in the usual manner under the Pension Act, or would it be larger or smaller 1


The PRIME MINISTER.: The pension of the w-idow which would come out of this fund would be much larger than any pension that has been granted in the usual manner.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice in subsection (c) that if an officer marries after retirement he is not entitled to a pension, while subsection (e) reads :
In the case of an officer who is married after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and two,

if he was more than twenty-five years older than his wife.
That is a very odd provision.


Mr. BRODER.: While we are on this question I wish to refer to a matter which is not covered by this Bill, but I think there should be some provision made for it. There are instances of South Africa volunteers who have been disabled in action. I have a case in my own county, that of the blind Trooper Mulloy. It seems to me that a case of that kind should be considered by the government and I understood, last year, in reply to a question I asked, that the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said that the matter would be considered.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Andrew Broder: I now mention it here because I think a case of that kind should not be overlooked.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would remind my hon. friend (Mr. Broder) that in the despatch of October 10, 1899, under which the contingents were authorized, the British government undertook to deal with pensions and I have no doubt as soon as the war is over, which I hope will be over in a very few days now, that matter will be attended to by the British government and then it will be opportune for the Dominion government to consider what action it should take. I am not prepared myself, to-day, to say, but, the matter will receive consideration.


Andrew Broder: Trooper Mulloy is receiving a very moderate stipend now, I think 65 cents a day.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Trooper Mulloy is geting a contribution from the patriotic fund.


Mr. McOARTHY.: I would ask the com-.mittee to reconsider the 17th section of the Bill for the reason that I think there is some ambiguity in the language used and that it does not carry out the evident intention of the preceding sections. You will observe in reading subsection (b) that it is made to apply to :
To every officer now in the force who, within six months from the coming into force of this Act, elects to accept the provisions of this Act in lieu of those of the Civil Service Super-annuntion Act or of the Civil Service_Retire-ment Act.
There are officers in the force who are neither under the Civil Service Superannuation Act or the Civil Service Retirement Act. They, therefore, have nothing which they could give up for the purpose of coming under this Act. I think that section must be amended to make it clear that it is intended to cover these officers. I, therefore, beg to move :


Mr.   STRCWLE@: That the words ' instead of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, or the Civil Service Retirement Act,' in section 17, be struck out and that there shall be inserted as subsection (b>
of section 17, the following :
lb) To every officer now on the force who is not subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act or the Civil Service-Retirement Act.
And that the subsection now lettered (b) be lettered (c) and that there be inserted after the word ' who ' in the first line of said subsection the following ' is within the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act or of the Civil Service Retirement Act and who.'
The effect, as you will see, is that it applies to every officer who is now on the force, or who hereafter may come into the force and likewise it is made to apply so that any officer who is now receiving a pension under the Civil Service Superannuation Act or the Civil Service Retirement Act must, within six months, elect whether he will continue under the provisions of either of these Acts or come under this Act. It must apply therefore to all of the officers and it is the obvious intention of the Act that such should be so. As it now stands it is doubtful and this removes any possible doubt about it on that score.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The section would then read :
17. This Act shall apply,-
(a)	To every officer hereafter appointed to the force.
(b)	To every officer now In the force who is not subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act or the Civil Service Retirement Act.
(c)	To every officer now on the force who is within the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act or of the Civil Service Retirement Act, and who within six months from the coming into force of this Act, elects to accept the provisions of this Act in lieu of those of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, or of the Civil Service Retirement Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W., S. Fielding) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["That does not prevent any one speaking.\nAt six o'clock, the House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I desire to bring to your notice certain matters connected with the motion of which I gave notice yesterday. I have thought proper to vary the language slightly, but the purport of the motion remains unchanged. Before proceeding to discuss this motion I had better perhaps read it, so that the House may be in possession of the features that it contains. It is as follows :
This House is of the opinion that British supremacy should be maintained and firmly established in South Africa, to which end Can-

ada has cheerfully contributed men and money. Having in view the effect of a policy of magnanimity and mercy at the cession of Canada, and at the close of the civil war in the United States, and for other reasons ; this House is also of the opinion that in the interest of peace and of future tranquillity, harmony and homo-geniety in South Africa, the broadest policy of magnanimity and mercy may be extended to a brave foe now opposing British arms, upon condition of submission to British control. And upon this opinion, humbly presented with the prayerful hope that it may aid in securing a favourable and honourable settlement of South African difficulties ; this House invokes the considerate judgment of His Gracious Majesty the King.
The question, Mr. Speaker, is brought before the House in this manner and at this time, for the reason that another opportunity will not be afforded during the present session. It is not offered as a motion of want of confidence ; it is not offered in any sense as a motion having political significance or having anything to do with the policy of the party in power in this country, or with the policy of the opposition. The resolution, it will be noticed, provides expressly for submission and for the establishment and maintenance of British authority in South Africa. It is not a pro-Boer motion ; it is not a motion that in the remotest degree would counsel the' establishing of Boer independence or the establishing of any condition of things in South Africa except British supremacy. At my request the motion will be seconded by a gentleman who, in my opinion, as fully as any other member of this House perhaps, represents French Canadian sentiment. I move the motion as an English representative ; the gentleman who will second the motion,
I have asked to second it because he is a representative French Canadian. I am happy to say, Mr. Speaker, that that gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) is prepared to-day to endorse the assertion, that it is proper and desirable to maintain British supremacy in South Africa, and that the people in arms in that country against British authority should be called upon to submit to British control. This is all that can be required. This lays the foundation for the settlement of this question upon a basis which would be to the interest of all portions of this empire, and this motion deals simply with the character of the settlement that it is hoped may be obtained with the belligerents in South Africa, and obtained for the purpose of establishing in that country unquestioned and unimpaired British authority.
The motion, Sir, is au bumble expression of opinion on the part of this House. It may be asserted that it will be considered an act of impertinence to offer such a motion here.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: Some hon. gentlemen say ' hear, hear.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: The motion says : It is humbly presented with the prayerful hope that it may be conducive to the securing of a settlement. Now, Sir, has this House of Commons of Canada no right to express an opinion upon a great imperial question-a question with reference to which we have been called upon to pour out millions of dollars ; and send thousands of our sons to maintain British supremacy. Have we no right, Sir, to express humbly an opinion as to the proper course to be pursued in securing the settlement of this war in South Africa-


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


John Charlton: I say yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


John Charlton: Suppose that my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House were to secure the adoption of their policy for imperial defence ; suppose Canada were called upon to pay annually into a common fund ten per cent of all its duties for imperial defence ; would it be said that Canada would not be allowed to have a voice as to the expenditure of that money ; that Canada would not be permitted even to express an humble opinion as to what course might be taken in regard to the expenditure of the money she had so contributed.


An hon. MEMBER.: That is different.


John Charlton: Sir, the condition of things to-day is exactly the same as it would be under such circumstances. While we have not a law which compels us to contribute a certain sum of money for imperial defence, yet we have done so voluntarily. Our soldiers have gone to South Africa ; our money has been expended ; we, as an integral portion of this great empire, hat e surely an interest in this question. I maintain that we in this parliament as the representatives of six millions of British subjects have a right to express humbly and respectfully an opinion, and that is all that the resolution asks shall be done.
Now, Sir, the motion may be useless, but the spirit manifested in offering it cannot 'be questioned and cannot be condemned. The motion may have no weight, but on the other hand it may perhaps be extremely useful. It may aid the imperial government in the settlement of this question by showing that in one of the great colonies of the empire the same spirit of bitterness does not exist that probably does exist in Cape Colony and Natal. This motion may have a counteracting influence possibly. to the pressure from the British colonists in these colonies asking for the exacting of vengeance upon the Cape rebels. If the motion does' produce that effect, it will have a beneficient Influence ; it may counteract that influence upon the British gov-

eminent which would be a most prejudicial and harmful one. In any event, while the motion is meant to do good ; while the motion is respectfully expressed ; while it is -merely an expression of opinion ; in any event if it does do no good, in mv opinion, it can do no harm. I shall no doubt be subjected to criticism for offering this motion, but that is a matter of utter indifference to me, provided I can feel that I have done right.
What troubles me is whether it is a judicious act, whether it is a proper act, whether it is something I ought to have done or ought not to have done. As to how it will be received by my fellow citizens is a matter of minor importance. It is my firm conviction that in the course I have taken I have been actuated by a sincere desire to benelit my country, to offer an influence that will aid in the settlement of a melancholy struggle. The motive, at all events, in offering this resolution is a good one. My own record with regard to this matter would render it absurd to say that I am actuated by pro-Boer . sentiments. The House will remember the position I took on this question, the defence I made of the action of the authorities here and of the policy of the imperial government in this war. The House remembers that I would never for one moment have entertained the idea of parting with one foot of South African territory, or of lowering the British standard in the slightest degree. I have always maintained that British supremacy must be maintained in South Africa. I take that position to-day, and the question with me now is, what is the best course to pursue in seeking such a settlement as will place matters in South Africa on a just, humane and enduring basis.
Now, Sir, nobody would venture to make the assertion that Canada is not loyal to the empire. The expression of this humble opinion, if the House chooses to sanction that expression, will not be accepted in England as an evidence of disloyalty. It will, on the contrary, be accepted in* England as an evidence of the sincere desire of Canada to aid, if it possibly may aid, in securing a settlement of a question which it is desirable to have settled. Canada is loyal to the empire, and its loyalty has been proved. Nobody in this country or in the world at large doubts that Canadian loyalty is something that will bear the strain, something that can be relied on, something that is thoroughly imbedded in the hearts of the people of this country.
Now, what were Canada's interests in this struggle ? Here we are on a continent, pos- I sessing more than two-fifths of it. with vast resources, with our own destiny to work out, with our own nationality to erect, with our interests requiring our utmost efforts for their advancement, with enough to command our utmost labours and resources. What had we to do as a matter of selfinterest with the struggle in South Africa ?


John Charlton: Witli 3,000 miles between us and the motherland, with 7,000 miles of ocean between us and the scene of conflict, with our commerce with South Africa of the most insignificant character, if we had been governed by merely material or selfish considerations, we never would have put a dollar into that struggle or have sent one man to the scene of conflict. But we sent the men and voted the money because we wished to maintain and uphold the integrity of the British em-' pire; because we wished to maintain the prestige of England; because we wished to have that country which afforded us a market, that country with which we were allied by the bonds of race affinity and by political institutions, furnished with aid, not from any selfish consideration, but purely as an offering to the welfare of the empire, given freely and fully by one of her great colonies without hope of securing reward for the sacrifices made. Canada stands in the position to-day where, having made these sacrifices, having put forth these efforts, having proved by its conduct that it is thoroughly loyal, it naturally desires to see an end put to this struggle that lias been in progress for three years, and an honourable peace obtained; and Canada actuated by that desire may venture to express to the imperial authorities a humble and respectful opinion as to what course, in the estimation of the people of this country, might be pursued.
It is preposterous, Mr. Speaker, to assert that that expression of opinion can be or will be considered in England or anywhere else an impertinence. Of course, British authority must prevail; that is an absolute condition. No proposition of peace will admit of consideration involving Boer independence or anything but the absolute sovereignity of Great Britain over all South Africa-the Orange Free State, the Transvaal, Cape Colony, Natal, Rhodesia, and the whole of that magnificent country. British authority and sovereignty must prevail. This House perhaps lias not been fully aware of tiie importance of that country, that great region of 1,500.000 square miles now in the possession of Great Britain, with vast possibilities for the increase of territory, with resources almost beyond the dream of the enthusiast, awaiting to be developed. A few days ago Cecil Rhodes was buried on the Matoppa Hills with imposing ceremonies, and his grave overlooks that vast region which liis genius and his. energy secured for his native land-a region which embraces the ancient Ophir, a region of untold possibilities, a region which England never could have afforded to have lost and must have put forth great efforts to retain. Happy perhaps it would have been if the genius and the experience of Cecil Rhodes had exercised more influence upon the counsels of British commanders and British authorities in South Africa. But this conflict has nearly run its course. It has been a great struggle, a greater struggle than was

anticipated at the outset, a struggle which will form one of the epochs of history, a struggle which has demonstrated the resources, the credit, the perseverance, the indomitable grit of the British citizens. We perhaps fail to understand the obstacles which they have overcome. With a single line of communication from Cape Colony penetrating into the far north, 1,500 miles in length, liable to be cut at almost any point : with the transport over that overloaded line of the supplies for a large army; with an aggressive and acute foe, familiar with the country; the subjection of the Boer has been a great achievement. It has been, I repeat, a great struggle ; and Great Britain has learned in this war lessons with regard to the conditions of modern warfare that will be worth to her all the money she has expended.
And now we come to the point when this war is practically ended, when the opposition! that remains is merely guerilla warfare. We come to the point of considering what were the causes of this war, and what distinction shall we draw between the belligerents in one section of South Africa and those in another ? Shall we make a different rule of settlement for the Orange Free Stater, the Transvaal man and the Africander of Cape Colony ? Is the one a rebel whom we shall put into chains and hang, and the other an honourable belligerent whom we shall treat with and pardon, and deal with on the terms of civilized warfare.
Sir, the deep-seated case of the hostilities in South Africa was the determination on the part of the Dutch element in that entire country from Cape Town to the Transvaal, to make South Africa a! Dutch country. The Afrikander Bund, for years before the hostilities began, was laying its plans, accumulating its resources, buying arms and munitions of war, erecting fortifications and preparing for this struggle, which it entered upon deliberately. It had one clear purpose in view and that was to expel the British from South Africa, and when it found that Great Britain was transporting troops to that country, and threatening the success of that policy, it precipitated hostilities by invading British territory. I hold that every belligerent in South Africa should be dealt with on the same principle, that we should draw no distinction between the Dutehmeu of Cape Colony and the Boers of the Transvaal or the Dutchmen of the Orange Free State. They all belong to the one nationality. They were all actuated by the one purpose and fought in the one [DOT] common cause. We were contending, not with the Transvaal Dutch or the Free State Dutch alone, but with the Afrikander element in South Africa from Cape Town to the Zambesi.


Andrew Broder: The Free Staters had no cause of complaint ?


John Charlton: No, tout they joined in the general purpose of the Dutch in South
Africa to erect a Dutch empire in that country. The Boer was a brave foe. He fought for his race, for his ideals. He staked his life upon the issue, and he has lost. It was known toy close observers from the outset that there could be but one of two results. Either the Afrikander must prevail or the British; either South Africa would be Dutch or British. One thing or the other had to come to pass. And the thing that has come to pass is that the Afrikander has been driven to the wall, that the British forces are supreme and the contest practically ended. The question now confronts the imperial authorities :	How shall this
war, which has degenerated into murder, rapine and foray, how shall these useless hostilities be terminated ? It is a question of delay in putting an end to useless suffering. It is a question of delay in the advent of prosperity' and peace in South Africa. How is peace to be secured ? How is this delay in securing peace to be obviated ? How are these useless struggles in South Africa to be terminated ? They can be terminated toy protracting this struggle until the Boer cause is ground into fine dust. But it will take long to do it, many lives will be lost, and when that result is reached there will be left the seeds of bitterness and hatred in every Boer heart south of the; Zambesi. It can be done in another way. It can be done by the exercise of mercy and magnanimity'. The exercise of these two qualities will hasten peace, and not only hasten peace, but place that peace, when it comes, upon a sure and certain foundation, and leave these people satisfied that the struggle is indeed ended, and that it is useless to perpetuate it longer. On the other hand, severity will retard peace and leave endless hate to fester in the heart of every Boer in that country.
The imperial authorities are facing today the question of African reconstruction. The conditions of things that existed before cannot be continued. There can toe no Transvaal with its dim shadow of suzerainty to the British Crown. There can be no independent Free Orange State. There can be no divided authority in South Africa. The whole country must be under one flag and one king. It must be a part of the one great empire. That is a foregone conclusion. How is this South African reconstruction to be accomplished ? Not by the exercise of vengeance, not by the exacting of the pound of flesh, not by pursuing a fallen and noble foe to the utmost extremity of vengeance. But African reconstruction will toe accomplished, if it is ever accomplished on an enduring basis, by Afrikander assimilation. Afrikander assimilation will be the hope of South Africa, and without "it peace upon any enduring basis and success in the formation of a South African confederation cannot be secured. We have the exercise of a great principle now in operation which is peculiar to the Anglo-Saxon-the principle of federal

union, first adopted by tbe American states after the revolution, in 17S7, next adopted by Canada in 1807, since then adopted by Australia, and waiting now to be adopted by South Africa. In that country there will be the colony of Natal, the colony of Cape Colony, the colony of the Orange Free State, the colony of the Transvaal, the colony of Rhodesia and other colonies to the north in that magnificent valley of the Zambesi, beyond which British possessions reach to the great inland sea of Tanganyika. This African reconstruction will be accomplished. It will build up in South Africa an empire under British influence and British laws. It will be another of the great commonwealths formed under British influence, and in accord with the genius of British laws and institutions. Does any man doubt that magnanimity will promote this result, that the exercise of mercy and generosity will have a favourable influence on the population of these colonies and tend to cement in ties of common interest their institutions and their laws ? I think it cannot be doubted, and one reason why I introduce this resolution is the belief I entertain that the imperial government is probably embarrassed at this moment by the demands of the English colonists of Cape Colony and Natal, who refuse to consider the Dutch in arms against British authority in Cape Colony in any other light than rebels, and who demand the condign punishment of these men after the war is through. I do not believe that it would be good policy to adopt such a course. I do not believe that we should make any distinction between the Cape Town rebels and the Orange State belligerents and the Transvaal soldier. I believe, if any distinction is to be made, that it will simply retard the settlement and make it less satisfactory and less likely to be enduring after it is accomplished. This feeling, no doubt, impedes reconstruction. In my humble judgment, this feeling is an embarrassment to the imperial authorities, and for that reason I believe that the expression of a respectful and humble opinion on the part of the representatives of this great colony of the Dominion would have great weight with the British authorities and be most welcome. In this view I have ventured to offer this motion, and in so doing I believe that I am acting in the interest of my country and of humanity and on lines which would promote settlement in South Africa and hasten the realization of that condition of things for which we all hope. A great many thousand Boers are in captivity. Some are in Bermuda, some in St. Helena, some in Ceylon-thousands and thousands of these men who must be restored to their country some day-and it is a matter of the utmost consequence whether these men come back with sore hearts and cherishing vengeful feelings because of undue severity which they believe their conquerors have practiced, or whether they come back with gladness of heart, with
thankfulness for mercies granted to them, for magnanimity, for generosity, for the restoration of privileges, for the expression of a desire that they should go back to their native land and become good citizens and obedient to the country that had treated them with magnanimity which I believe it would be wise to display.
The Boer, Mr. Speaker, will make a magnificent component ethnic quantity in South Africa. His is a noble race, the race that held at bay Alva in the Netherlands, the race that furnished to England the Prince of Orange, the race that has the lofty faith of the puritan and the endurance of the puritan-that is a constituent portion of the population of South Africa that it is worth the while of the British authorities to cultivate. It is worth their while to make this Boer element a loyal element, to make of this Boer element an element attached to the English institutions, an element that realizes that it has been treated with generosity, with magnanimity, and that it can put its faith in the power with Which it is dealing. Now Britain wants in this matter, I apprehend, not revenge, that is not a British characteristic. Britain faces its foe, conquers its enemies and then deals with them generously. Britain wants no revenge ; but she wants a united people in South Africa, the restoration of prosperity to that country and the creation of a commonwealth there that, in its history and progress will redound to the glory of English institutions and of English government. England wants no revenge, no devastated farms, no ravaged lands, reduced to the condition of a desert; no hords of beggars and fugitives harrying the country ; she wants a prosperous land, a return to fixed conditions, and the gathering together of these people in their homes, and the use by them of their energies and industry to the advancement of the state. And, Sir, in gaining this aspiration, the three angels, mercy, amnesty and peace stand ready to give their services to securing the consummation of that which every true citizen of Canada must desire.
Now, it may be asked, Mr. Speaker, when the exercise of the qualities of mercy and magnanimity is urged, when the granting of amnesty is proposed, have we any parallel for this policy ? I answer :	Yes. And
every parallel we have is a shining, a glorious example of the success of this line of policy. In 1759, Canada passed from one authority to another. Prior to that, the scapling knife, the tomahawk and the torch worked their savage will along the frontier [DOT] from Penobscot to Fort Du Quesne. For generations the English colonists and the French colonists were engaged in bitter war, and the hatred of each side for the other was intense and consuming. We had the slaughter of Braddock's army at Monogahela : we had the battle of Ticonderoga and the British reverse there ; we had the war-whoop and the Indian foray ; we had bitter


John Charlton: 

and deadly hostilities along this whole border year after year. And when, at last, Wolfe took Quebec, and under the treaty of Paris, Canada was ceded to Great Britain. the policy that was pursued toward the' French people of this country was to allow them to retain their laws, their religion, their language, their social and ecclesiastical institutions. And this broad, comprehensive, liberal policy adopted with these sixty thousand Canadians in British North America has had results for which we cannot feel too thankful.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is not England's action in that case the best guarantee in the world that she will deal generously with a conquered foe, even without any resolution from any outside country !


John Charlton: Possibly that is so. But does it follow that it is wrong to counsel that policy which the hon. gentleman assumes that England will pursue ? Is it wrong to express the humble opinion here that the policy he says England is likely to follow will receive our approbation ? I think not. As I said at the outset, the expression of this wish can do no harm if it is unnecessary, and it may do good. This historical example -to which I have referred resulted in firmly attaching all this race to British institutions. Thirteen years after the treaty of Paris the American revolution broke out, and an attempt was made by American agitators to carry the French colonists with them. But they failed. Those French colonists were faithful to British institutions then, they have been faithful to British institutions since, and they are faithful to British institutions now-and their history affords a shining and crowning example of the results following the policy of mercy and	magnanimity in ' treating with a conquered foe. We had another case in the thirteen colonies. There was a Dutch colony there, which was called the New Netherlands. That colony was conquered and re-cliristen-ed New York, and the Dutch colonists were incorporated with the Anglo-Saxon population. They were treated with generosity ; their rights and privileges were assured to them, including their language if they chose to use it. To-day it is one of the most loyal elements in the country. It lias given one president .to the union-Van Buren-it has its representative in the United States Senate Depew-and it has given rise io a great family of railway kings, the, ^ anderbilts. Its history affords an illustration of the desirability and propriety of treating nations thus incorporated into another with genei-osity. And we have a still more striking example in the United States itself, in, the great struggle of the civil war. That war. was carried through with relentless and remorseless energy. It was a titanic struggle. The north and the south were arrayed against each other on a question of principle, and the hostilities between the sections was of the bitterest kind. The battles fought in that war were remarkable for their sanguinary character. In all the great battles of Europe, the number of men killed was smaller in proportion to the number engaged than in the great battles of this terrible war. There was Chancellorsville with its seventeen thousand dead ; there was Vicksburgh; there was Chieamauga ; there was Missionary Ridge. They fought the fierce seven-days' battle in the wilderness. Great struggles. Great loss of life. The south planted thick with graves. The soil soaked with blood. The war was fought out to the bitter end with relentless hate and, animosity. And at last, at Appomatox, Lee surrendered to Grant. The southerners were' exhausted. They were treated with the greatest generosity. A union soldier would deprive himself of his breakfast to give food to the starving confederate. And when the southern army was disbanded, Grant said :	' Take the horses,
you will need them to put in your spring crops ; take anything that you can make use of-anything that will be of service to you as private property-I will take as public property only what you cannot use.' And these men disbanded with the kindest feelings toward their conquerors. And but for the unfortunate death of Lincoln, the reconstruction of the south would have been speedy and complete. There was a great cry for vengeance on the leader of the southerners, Jeff. Davis, but he was -never punished except by temporary imprisonment. There was no confiscation of the property of a rebel, there was no disfranchisement of a rebel, there was no vengeance inflicted upon the heads of rebels; but there was magnanimity, there was generosity exercised by the conquerors to the conquered ; and the result has been a reconstructed nation, and those two belligerent sections fighting under the same flag in the wars that have since occurred where their country has been engaged. So, Sir, this struggle in the United States, which passed beyond the limits of a rebellion and became one of the great wars of history, is but a type of the struggle that has occurred in South Africa. In South Africa where the principle at issue has been whether one race or another should possess the country, where the prize has been the possession of South Africa either for Boer or for Briton, as in the case of the United States, so in the case of South Africa, let the same generosity and magnanimity be exercised towards the foe now as was exercised towards the foe then.
Heretofore, Sir, the Dutch in South Africa have fgught against our progress. We have had no sympathy with the Burghers. If we can possibly attach to our interest that element of the African population : if we can make them loyal to British institutions ; if we can make use of their energy, and their courage, and their powers of endurance to forward the British cause in South Africa, why, the whole southern half of the conti-

neut lies at our feet It Is a question of great importance what our possessions in South Africa shall be. We have in the north, from Alexandria and Khartoum to Uganda and Victoria Nyanza, possessions reaching across 36 degrees of latitude and to the very heart of the continent. We have in South Africa possessions reaching from Cape Town away north to the Zambesi, and beyond the valley of that great river and the great inland sea of Tanganyika ; and we can make great additions to that empire-it is not necessary to state in what direction. It is of enormous importance to British institutions and British interests that the Boer element, the Dutch element in South Africa, should be consolidated and made a loyal element of the population of that country. And, Sir, we can afford to dispense with all desire to gratify feelings of revenge, we can afford to be generous and magnanimous, we can afford to say to these men : Lay down your arms, resume your allegiance, and you shall have, as fast as you can be safely entrusted with it, the franchise and every right of a British subject, and representation in the colonial bodies that will be erected here ; and we will establish a confederation in South Africa with provincial autonomy and a great central government as in Canada, attached to the government of Great Britain.
Now, Sir, the measure of blood is full, the measure of misery is full ; and I imagine that no man in Canada wants any more. We are warranted in looking for a day when South Africa, like Canada will be a great commonwealth with two races moving together hand in hand, as is the case here, in promoting the interests and extending the boundaries and increasing the power of that South African commonwealth. Sir, mercy, and magnanimity, and amnesty are the powers that need to be exercised to secure this result. In moving this motion, Hr. Speaker, I have been governed by a sincere desire to place a statement before the House, to urge reasons to this House, that would warrant us, as I believe, in expressing an humble opinion as to the propriety of inaugurating that policy which I have set forth, which I believe to be the touchstone for the settlement of our difficulties in South Africa upon a permanent, a desirable and an enduring basis.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: I desire to add a few Words to what the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has said in support of this motion. I need not say that with all the views expressed by that hon. gentleman, as well as with some parts of the motion itself that he has placed in your hands, I do not fully agree. Professors of logic in this House will probably find a great deal of comfort and pleasure in such a declaration as this. But, Mr. Speaker. having no other aim in this matter but Mr. CHARLTON.
to fulfil what I believe to be my duty as a representative of the Canadian people, and my duty as a British citizen, whenever I find an opponent of mine coming towards my position I am willing to meet him half way. So far as British supremacy in South Africa is concerned, from the very beginning of this unfortunate war I stated clearly that I thought British supremacy was a necessity in South Africa. I admit that the warlike spirit which reigned in this House as well as in this country has perhaps made some hon gentlemen forget the position I took at that time. But the position I took then, the position I have taken all along, and the position I take now, is that the only way by which British supremacy can be established in South Africa is by adhering to the best British traditions of respect for minorities and of generosity to foes in war.
. to the right of this parliament to offer its opinion to the British government. I think there can be no doubt. I was astonished to hear hon. gentlemen opposite interrupt, with what I might call sneers, the assertion made by the hon. member for North Norfolk, that we have a right to express our opinion on this matter. It is strange that, along with the development of what is called the new imperialism, and along with so much profession of fraternity on the part of the upholders of the new policy, they are always ready to take the subservient position that they are willing to be taxed, they are willing to give the blood and the money of this country, but they dare not express a single opinion on the issue of a war towards the prolongation of which they have contributed.
From the start of this question, I held, of course, that it was not our business to interfere at all in Africa. But from the moment we did interfere, either wilfully or not-from the moment this parliament called upon the Canadian people to vote a cent towards the carrying on of this war- we acquired the right of saying what should be its result. Now, if the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) would come in with a motion interfering with the position taken by the British government-that, of course would not hurt my feelings very much-but it might lead a majority of the members of this House to say that it would be a mistake for this parliament, at this moment, to propose anything that might embarrass the British government. But, Sir, we should not be more loyalist than the King of England, we should not be more attached to British institutions than the parliament and government of Great Britain. It is now a well known fact to the entire world that the British government and the British people are endeavouring to secure peace in South Africa and are just as anxious for it as are their opponents. We have not yet the text of the speech that was delivered a week ago last Monday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; but what

do we see in the reports sent through by the associated press ?
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach is seldom dramatic; but when he referred to-day to the government's intention to restock the Boer as well as the colonial farms, his voice rose to an eloquent pitch. His gesture, as he spoke in praise of the valor of the Boers and expressed his hopes for subsequent friendship between Britons and Boer, took the House with him, and the cheers, especially from the opposition, prevented the speaker from continuing his speech for several moments.
When the hon. member for North Norfolk, a moment ago, gave expression to almost similar feelings, there were also some interruptions, but interruptions indicating that the broad feeling of generosity which is passing now through the British parliament, which is animating the mass of the British people, has not yet, unfortunately, penetrated this House. Whatever may be our differences upon this question, whatever may still be our private opinions as to the merits of this war, as to the causes which have led to this war and to the way in which this question should have been treated in years past, I think we can afford to bury these differences. We should be ready to help the British government and the British people in putting an end to this cruel and unfortunate war.
It has been stated in the press, and may be it will be stated in this House, that by adopting this motion we are embarrassing the British government and helping the enemies of Great Britain, and thereby preventing the war to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. But, Sir, what did Sir Michael Hicks-Beach say in the British parliament, in the name of the British government ?
After the war was over there would be (he great expenses of the relief and settlement of the two colonies and the re-stocking of the. farms. He hoped that when durable peace was' made, parliament would be generous and loan money for restocking the farms, not only of those who fought on the British side, but of those who had been honest enemies and whom they now hoped to make friends, and for railroad and other enterprises to serve to develop the two states.
So it is proper for the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain to say that the British people are ready to tax themselves and to borrow money in order to give the Boers back the farms, and restock them, after the British government had declared two months ago that they would seize these farms and sell them to pay for the support of the concentration camps. If the British government have come to the conclusion that they must change so radically their policy, is it not proper for the parliament of Canada to say simply and solely that a policy of mercy and generosity should be the basis upon which this war should be settled ? Not only are we not embarrassing 105
the government of Great Britain, but by passing this resolution we are helping the British government.
The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) interrupted the hon. member for North Norfolk and asked : ' Is not the example given by Great Britain in 1763 a guarantee that the same policy of generosity will be adopted in this case ? ' Circumstances alter cases. In 1763 there were two great powers fighting upon this continent, turies, and hon. gentlemen in this House They had been fighting in Europe for cen-seem sometimes to forget that if England had conquered on the soil of America she had been conquered on the soil of Europe during the Seven Years' War; that the treaty of 1763 was a treaty of give and take between England and France ; and that some advantages which France secured on the continent of Europe were compensated for to England by the cession of Canada, securities being given that the rights of the French settlers should be respected. The hon. gentleman seemed to assume a condition which does not exist in this case ; but I put that altogether aside. Contrasting the tone of the present English with the tone of the Canadian press, I am quite ready to say that, if I were a Boer myself, I would rather submit my whole case to British public men than to some colonial public men. But, Sir, this fight is not merely a fight between Great Britain and the Boers. This fight is a fight between the Boers, the Cape Colonists, or rather those who are called Cape Loyalists, and the paramount power of Great Britain. That the British government and the British parliament are disposed to show generosity in their treatment of a conquered foe, I have not the slightest doubt; but, at the same time, that there are in Natal and Cape Colony a certain number of people who are ready to exact the pound of flesh, who are only looking to their own personal interests, and who would be ready to see the peace of the empire sacrificed if their personal interests were thereby secured and their personal feeling of revenge were assuaged, there is not the slightest doubt. You have only to read the statements which have been published in the British press to get evidence of this fact ; and the purpose of this resolution is neither to embarrass the British government nor to dictate terms to the British government, but it is to give strength to the British authorities in order that the very proposition that they are ready to uphold shall be upheld, and that they will be strengthened against the exactions of the very narrow loyalist element of Cape Colony. When I speak of the loyalist element of Cape Colony, I am not referring to the whole English speaking population of Cape Colony. There are, in South Africa, thousands of English-speaking people who have looked upon this war as a most unfortunate



period of British history, and of African history, and who would like to be helped so that this policy of generosity and mercy might be granted to the enemy.
It is true that the example of 1763 is to a certain extent a guarantee to us that the policy of generosity will be adopted. But there were other rebellions in other periods of the history of England which showed that some of the officials of Great Britain are not always animated by this sentiment of generosity. We have the history of the Jamaica rebellion where the British governor-after having notified the home authorities that the rebellion was over and that there was no more danger of uprising-caused hundreds of people to be hanged and flogged. I know that such is not the policy of the British government to-day; but we have unfortunate instances which show us that among the loyalist population of South Africa there is an element that would be glad to carry out, not the policy of the British government, not the policy of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, not the policy of Mr. John Morley, not the policy of the leading spirits of British opinion to-day; but the policy of Governor Eyre of Jamaica. X am sure that the British government will not give away to such pressure, but at the same time I believe that should their hands be fortified by expressions of 'opinion from the colonies generally, and especially from the Canadian parliament, it would be all the better to confirm them against temptation.
X agreed to second this motion in a spirit of conciliation. My opinions upon the merits of the war have not changed. My opinions as to the conduct of the British government previous to the war and during the war have not changed. These opinions were held by me sincerely and honestly, and I still hold them. But when I saw that a representative of the Englishspeaking majority in this House was ready to join hands with me in a motion like this, I was willing to put aside for the moment many of my opinions upon this question, and I did so in the hope that this House would receive the motion in the same spirit of conciliation, of peace, and of harmony.
One more word. I have my opinion and my strong opinion as to the policy of the British government upon this whole question-as to the policy especially of Mr. Chamberlain. But, I suppose lion, gentlemen opposite have a great deal of admiration and consideration for Mr. Chamberlain and his policy. For the past two years, previous to, during and after the last general election, what was the position taken by Mr. Chamberlain ? It was : That the policy of the British government was framed not only in accordance with the wishes of the British people, but it was framed in accordance with the wishes of the people of the whole empire. His strongest argument against his Liberal opponents was : That the entire opinion of the colon-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: ies being in favour of his policy, he would not accept the views of a small handful of Englishmen and Scotchmen as against the views of the whole empire. That was repeated a hundred times by Mr. Chamberlain in parliament and out of parliament. We have therefore the very words of the Colonial Secretary, that he considers the opinion of the colonies as a great weight.
What is the opinion of the British government at the present time with reference to this matter ? XJp to within the past few weeks it was announced time and again by nearly every member of the government that unconditional surrender was the only basis upon which the war could be settled. But now we have the straight declaration of the government organs and supporters, and of members of the government themselves, that a policy of generosity and mercy is going to be the basis of the settlement. It may be said that when the Boers lay down their arms, then would be the time for this parliament to say that they should be treated leniently. But, if the British government, who know their position in Cape Colony-if the British authorities, both civil and military, who know exactly where they stand and where the enemy stands-if they should still persist in saying that unconditional surrender is the only basis upon which the war can be settled-I then would agree with the argument that this parliament should offer no suggestion until surrender is made by the enemy. But although hostilities are yet going on, we have the announcement that the British government will probably agree upon a policy of mercy and generosity; and that being the case, the passage of this resolution by the Canadian parliament would be a great help to the British government. It would not mean that we came between the British government and their enemy; it would not mean that we came between the British government and British public opinion; it would mean that having heard that the British government were ready to settle this question upon the basis of mercy and generosity, we, the representatives of a people who have given their money and their men to uphold British power, are now ready to help the British government in according mercy and generosity to the enemy. Let me say here-and I believe the Prime Minister will not contradict me upon this point-let me say that the French Canadians as a whole are' opposed to this war. They detested, and they still do detest this war; but at the same time they are ready to join with their English-speaking countrymen in saying that the policy which has secured amity and friendship in Canada is the only policy that can secure amity and friendship and peace and harmony in South Africa.
I claim that the French Canadians have a special right to have their voice heard upon this question. We stand here as living testimony that this policy of conciliation is

the only one which can secure the acceptation of British institutions by a foreign element. Sir, that acceptation by us was not made in one year; it was not made in fifty years. We had to fight against British governments and against British governors, and against British civil and military authorities to get the rights that we now enjoy. It was not always peace in our history. Our freedom was not always a free and generous gift from the British authorities. It was very often a matter of fight, and had it not been for several outside circumstances, at times perhaps we would have lost what we had gained. But on the whole, why are we satisfied with the conditions under which we live ? Why have we become year after year more loyal and devoted supporters of British institutions ? It is because we have found that British rule, in its general and higher spirit and manifestation, is a good rule ; British rule is a rule of peace; British rule is a rule of conciliation, of progress and of prosperity. I therefore say that this parliament, more than any other representative body in the British world, is specially entitled to express an opinion at this period of the war. I insist on the point that this will not be an interference with the policy of the British government, but that on the contrary it will strengthen their hands in showing mercy to their foe; it will strengthen them in carrying out that policy of generosity which all well-thinking British people wish them to carry out.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: For my part, I have no doubt whatever that both the mover and the seconder of this resolution are animated by the very best of motives. I have no doubt that both hon. gentlemen are thoroughly sincere in their hope that peace should be restored speedily in South Africa, upon the broadest possible basis of generosity to the Boers. On the whole, I do not regret this debate. At the same time, I must express the fervent wish that my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) will not press his motion further, and that the debate shall stop here and now. My hon. friend from La-belle (Mr. Bourassa), who seconded the motion, told us that he took some exception to the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) who proposed the motion. We who know the views long entertained by my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) are not at all surprised at that.
He has stated at the same time that he takes exception to the motion which he has seconded. For this, I may say, I was not so easily prepared. But I will not quarrel with my hon. friend on this score. My hon. friend -has thought it advisable, and for this I do not blame him, to make a compromise with himself, to not carry out to the fullest extent the views he entertains on this matter. My hon. friend realizes that conciliation and compromise is an instrument 1051
of government, and that while it is quite proper and right for any one to hold his own convictions, it is also proper to remember that other people have convictions which they also hold dear. My hon. friend will realize that in a country like this, inhabited as it is by two different races, a policy of compromise and conciliation is indispensable if we want to make Canada a nation. This is the principle he wants to apply from Canada to South Africa, and in this I abundantly agree with him.
With the terms of the resolution, I may say without any hesitation whatever, I al-. together agree. The resolution advises that the war in South Africa should be settled on two principles. The first is the principle of British supremacy. I am glad to hear from my hon. friend from Labelle that he also agrees that the interests of South Africa and the interests of civilization at large require that South Africa should be under British supremacy. There are two races in South Africa, the British race and the Dutch race, equally proud, in many respects equally strong, so intermixed that it is impossible for either to have an absolutely homogeneous government. The Dutch and the British are there together-in the Cape, in Natal, in the Orange Free State, in the Transvaal, in Rhodesia. They are neighbours who meet together every day in the ordinary avocations of life. It is impossible to separate them. They must be governed by the same authority-which shall it be, Dutch or British ? This resolution affirms that this authority shall be British. With this we are all agreed. British civilization is the very civilization which will give what the Transvaal hitherto has not had-equality of rights for all, whether they be Dutch or British. That was the cause of the war-to secure this equality, which did not exist in the Transvaal. The Outlanders had long sought to obtain it, but failed to do so. The resolution affirms that the authority in South Africa shall be British ; and we know from past experience of British civilization everywhere, that if British supremacy reigns over South Africa, there shall be freedom, not only for the British, but for the Dutch as well.
The second principle affirmed in the resolution is, that there should be most generous treatment accorded by the victors to the vanquished, by the British to the Dutch. Sir, for my part I do not think any resolution is necessary to obtain this generous treatment for the Boers in South Africa. A brave foe always commands the respect of a brave opponent, and that is enough to show that the Dutch shall receive generous treatment at the hands of the British. Why, it was only a few days ago that on the banks of the Hart's river a position had been entrusted to a few men, most of them I am proud to say, Canadians. They were assaulted for the best part of a day by an enemy at

least eight times their superior in numbers. Each assault was repulsed, but after each assault the thin band of defenders were reduced in numbers. So reduced were they at last that there was not one man in that small force who had not been either killed or wounded. At last, when the position was carried, there was still a man defiant and proud-Bruce Carruthers was his name, a Canadian officer, I am proud to say- a name that is honoured in the heart of every one of his countrymen. By all the rules of war he might have been killed ; but *from the ranks of the enemy, in their sympathy, came the cry : ' Do not kill him ; in; is too brave a man ; he must live.' This, Sir, is the lesson of the war, and I have no doubt the victorious British now in South Africa will display the same spirit. I have no doubt they will say : ' The Dutch must live ; they have earned it by their gallantry in the field.' Sir, this is the position left to the men who are now engaged in South Africa, not only with war, but also with the negotiations for peace.
As to the right of this parliament to interfere in this question, to affirm this resolution, I, for my part, unhesitatingly say there can be no discussion whatever. The parliament of Canada to-day is a sovereign parliament. It is a sovereign parliament within the British empire. Many years ago the parliament of Canada asserted this authority, and claimed not only the privilege but the right to interfere in any question which might affect any part of the British empire of which we form a portion. It is now almost twenty years since the parliament of Canada passed a resolution in favour of granting home rule to Ireland. We were not directly concerned with the question ; but why did parliament twice in succession affirm the position that home rule should be granted to Ireland ? Because we felt that it was in the interest of Canada as well as of the empire that the wrongs of Ireland should be righted. It was only two years ago that parliament passed a resolution in favour of praying the British parliament to amend the Coronation oath. Why did we do so ? Because we considered that it was a question which affected the rights and priviledges and consciences of a large section of His Majesty's subjects. It was only three years ago that this parliament passed a resolution expressing its sympathy with the Outlanders in the Transvaal. We then affirmed that we sympathized with the efforts of the British government to right the wrongs which the Outlanders were suffering. Surely to-day we have the right to pass such a resolution as the one presented by my hon. friend from Norfolk and seconded by my hon. friend from Labelle, to ask that the rights of the Dutch population be generously considered.
But while I do not hesitate to say that we have the inherent right to pass such a reSir WILFRID LAURIER.
solution and to present our views as to the conditions of peace, I ask myself, and I ask my hon. friend from Norfolk and my hon. friend from Labelle, is it opportune, is it judicious, is it advisable to present such a motion to-day ? That is the question and I do not hesitate to say that in my opinion at this moment such a motion is very injudicious. I will go further, and I will say to my hon. friend from Labelle that if I felt as he does, that the passing of this resolution to-day would strengthen the hands of the British government to be merciful and to grant an amnesty, I would not hesitate to agree to it. But the question to-day is not in this position. On the contrary, in my humble judgment-and I think I can make it clear to any man in this House- if we were to interfere at this moment, we might hinder that peace which we all desire to see established. Sir, my hon. friend from Norfolk knows, and my hon. friend from Labelle, who has been a close student of all these events, knows that at this very moment negotiations are going on for a settlement of the terms of peace. My hon. friends know that only" a few days ago Lord Kite he* ner and Lord Milner met the heroes of the war on the Boer side-General De Wet, a brave soldier, General Delarey, another brave soldier, General Botha, another brave soldier. They have been in close conference, and we have every reason to believe, though we are not yet informed officially, that terms of peace have been agreed upon.
We know that the Boer delegates have gone back to the commandos in the field to submit to them the terms upon which peace may toe secured. What these terms are we yet do not know, but is it advisable at this moment, when the conditions are submitted to the Boer commandos, that we should interfere and excite perhaps in them hopes which might clash with what has been done, and prevent the negotiations being brought to a peaceful and satisfactory conclusion ? My hon. friend from Norfolk may say perhaps that this is a remote contingency. My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) may say that what we want is not to reach South Africa but England, but in these days of rapid communication, when news travels on wings, we were to pass such a resolution, its very terms would be wired at once to South Africa and possibly induce the Boers to break off the negotiations in order, if possible, to gain better terms. We are still in the dark as to the precise nature of the conclusions which have been reached but let me suppose a case, which is not a violent supposition. My hon. friend from Norfolk a moment ago referred to the civil war in the United States. Well, it is due to the American people to say that there never was more generous treatment accorded by a victorious foe to its enemy than was accorded by the men of the north to the vanquished south. There never was a page

333S
more glorious in the history of any natiori than (that which was written. But my hon. friend knows as well as I, perhaps better- because he also has been a close student of those times and events-that after the war, the amnesty granted was not given to all those who participated in the strife. It is to the eternal pride of the American nation that not a drop of blood was shed on the scaffold, that not a man was punished for his participation in the war, that even Jefferson Davis, after a few years of seclusion, was set at liberty again. But my hon. friend knows well that immediately after Appomattox, which he described to us so eloquently, the amnesty granted to Geueral Grant and later by Sherman did not cover all those who took part in (the war, but only those who had laid down their arms after the surrender. A number of civilians were then debarred from the enjoyment of civil rights, but gradually, as the peace of the country increased and dangers were removed, all the shackles and disabilities were struck off, and at last a universal amnesty was proclaimed. Suppose at this moment terms were agreed on between Lord Kitchener on the one side and the Boer generals on the other, and suppose those terms) did not include a general amnesty, but only an amnesty which covered the great mass of the belligerents, but excepted certain individuals. And suppose the resolution of my hon. friend were adopted and wired over to Africa, might not the Boers then say:	' Oh, we have the
Canadian parliament standing behind us, and we must insist on better terms.' I do not know that my hon. friend would then find that by his resolution he was promoting the cause of peace. I think we had better at this moment leave this question in the hands of the brave soldiers who are dealing with it-Lord Kitchener on the one side, and Generals Delarey and De Wet on the other. I think we had better leave them to determine the settlement, and I firmly believe in my heart that the terms which will be granted and accepted by these brave soldiers will be such as can be accepted by every British subject all over the world. When the terms of settlement have been agreed upon, when the country enjoys again the blessings of peace, should it be found that the terms were not as generous as, in the judgment of my hon. friend from North Norfolk and my hon. friend from Labelie, or perhaps my own, they ought to be, we shall not abdicate the right of the Canadian parliament to affirm and send its views to the imperial authorities. It will not be too late then, because that will be the time when we can speak effectively. But at this moment, when negotiations are pending, it seems to me the argument is overwhelming that perhaps we would lose all in attempting to save all. These are the views I have to submit to the House and to my hon. friend from North Norfolk, and if I have any wish which I can express to him, speaking, I believe, the sense of both sides of
the House, it would be that he ought not to press this motion, but agree to withdraw it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I regret extremely, Mr. Speaker, that the unavoidable absence of the leader on this side of the House imposes upon me the task of offering a few remarks in respect to this resolution, but I must confess that what has fallen from the lips of my right hon. friend the First Minister has rendered much easier the task imposed upon me. It struck me from the very first that this resolution was extremely untimely-I might almost say out of place, to use no harsher expression. The circumstances are these. After a protracted and very bitter struggle, the two great enemies have entered upon negotiations in order to arrive at some basis of arrangement. I 'believe also that they have agreed upon terms, but what these terms are it is impossible to say. In fact the home government itself is probably at present not informed as to the details. It seems to me, therefore, that, under these circumstances-and I believe that in this respect I am fortunate in representing the opinions of my friends who sit around me to-day-regrettable, whatever may be our prerogatives-and I would be the first to revindicate the rights and privileges of parliament-that we should take any action which might interfere with the negotiations. Such interference might defeat the very object of this resolution, to which in reality very few, I am sure in this House, have any objection. It might imperil not only the beneficent work upon which the home government is at present engaged, but also the advantages which the Boers are anxious to secure.	t
The hon. gentleman who moved this resolution took up considerable time in explaining its opportuneness and purport, in which he was perfectly right, tout it seems to me that at this critical moment in this deplorable war, the voice of the politician-and in using that term, I am not implying anything which is not meritorious-should be silent, and we should leave the settlement completely in the hands of those armed foes who are now deliberating in order to secure if possible what we all desire-a satisfactory conclusion of this terrible conflict.
f believe that this parliament, with the sovereign rights which we undoubtedly have, can deliberate and express its opinion on every question. Yet I haVe been forced to the conclusion that, in a matter of this importance, in view of the constitutional principles which govern us, it would be better for our parliament, as it would be better for the British parliament, to observe the rule which I think they have steadily adhered to, and to which they have shown their adherence within the past few days-the rule that the conclusion of a treaty belongs to the executive authority. I Parliament, of course, as my right hon.

friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) observed a moment ago, has reserved the right to criticise the conditions of the treaty when that treaty is concluded. And that is a rule which we should adhere to under the present circumstance, particularly in view of the fact that we have not the information necessary to enable us to form an opinion. In listening to my hon. friend from Norfolk, in listening to the remarks so vehemently urged by my hon. friend from Labelle, I was struck with the thought that, at this very hour, when great and courageous men are deliberating in the field in South Africa upon the conditions of the cessation of hostilities, how pitiful, if these hon. gentlemen will allow me the expression, how commonplace must appear the remarks which we make here, and how deficient in any truth and correct comprehension of the necessary important details which must attend any settlement. We can well take example form the attitude of the mother of our parliaments, that great assembly upon which this is modeled. It is a significant fact that, at this moment, the parliament of Great Britain has not taken up the study of this question, but has abstained, as it seems to me it should abstain, from deliberating on the question which, in its present critical stage can only be settled upon the field of battle itself. And I have remarked with no small degree of admiration that the great public men of England, the foremost men of that great country, where the almost constant necessity exists for public utterance on public questions, have refrained studiously from offering any deliberate opinion upon this serious question, as they are obliged to offer opinions every day upon other questions which present themselves for deliberation and decision in that free country. At a moment like this, and holding this view of the situation, I would not for an instant take up the task of pointing out certain serious discrepancies which have struck me not only in the speech of my hon. friend from North Norfolk, but also and more particularly in the remarks offered by my young friend the talented member for Labelle. I will not do that. God forbid that, holding the opinion that this-discussion should, as soon as possible, drop, I should commit the indiscretion of entering upon the discussion of these discrepancies, which, under other circumstances, I should certainly deal with. I must say that, amongst many painful [DOT]circumstances which attend public life, it is very satisfactory to see that upon a matter of this gravity, I believe I may say that there is a quasi unanimity in' this House. I believe-and I may add this to the remarks made by the right hon. Prime Minister who preceded me-that not only could we do serious injury to the British cause, which lias been so courageously upheld by our own fellow-countrymen in South Africa, not only could we do serious injury to the cause of the Boers themselves, a cause which must arouse our sympathy, Mr. MONK.
if not to the extent indicated by my hon. friend from Labelle, certainly to that extent which is always won by courage and valour-but I do believe that, upon the occasion of the visit to England of the Prime Minister of this country to take part in the coronation, any resolution which we might adopt, any view which this parliament might authoritatively express would place serious obstacles in the way of the performance of the task, which is a noble one and in which we all take an interest, of representing this great Dominion at that imposing ceremony. I believe that any resolution that we might pass might embarass the right hon. gentleman himself. Whatever views we may hold upon the great public questions in our own country, I, for one, would be extremely sorry on a matter of this gravity to embarass the right hon. gentleman in a mission which I submit, in more than one sense, he performs on behalf of both sides of this House. Mr. Speaker, I do regret that my hon. friend from North Norfolk has seen fit to bring this motion to the notice of the House ; I do regret that my hon. friend from Labelle has taken part in supporting it. My young friend from Labelle, who has many qualities that I very much admire, has not the deep interest in this matter that some others have. Let me remind him of that day when the friends and adherents of Macduff brought to him the harrowing news of the death of his wife and children. His henchmen surrounded him, sought to inspire him with the legitimate desire of revenge for this awful outrage. "When Malcolm urges revenge upon him, we all remember the answer of Macduff-' He has no children.' Sir, my thoughts and my feelings go out generously to those who have a greater interest, a nearer interest, perhaps, in this matter than I have myself. And I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that many a man far and near- aye, Sir, and many a woman, too-will silently experience a feeling of deep gratitude to those of us in this House who, remembering that others have so many dear relatives upon the field of battle in South Africa, adopt the suggestion which some of us have ventured to make, that at this moment the discussion of this subject should be dropped.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would not say anything on this subject


Some hon. MEMBERS: Drop it, drop it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would not attempt to say anything on this subject but for the fact that I think we have been introducing a principle in this House of late years that is not conducive to the best results, and that is, upon every little occasion, of giving advice to the mother country. If I thought the mother country required advice, I would be one of the first to offer it. But it is because I do not share that opinion that I desire to protest against this principle and against this resolution. I
.APRIL 23. 1902
may say, in passing, that in my judgment the whole tenor of this resolution and of the speeches supporting it are an implied denial that the instincts of the British nation are humane and generous, and that they are disposed to do what is right. If we believe conscientiously and implicitly that the instincts of the British nation are to do what is right, what is generous and humane, where is there any necessity for such a resolution '! 1 oppose it also because I think it is ill-timed. It is ill-timed to start a discussion in this House at the very moment, as lion, gentlemen have admitted, when negotiations are going on, negotiations that we sincerely hope and believe will bring about a peace to the satisfaction of all. I believe the resolution is unnecessary because England has ever been generous, as all her history shows, to conquered foes. It is an instinct of the Anglo-Saxon race, and that instinct has been in evidence in all the history of the British power the world over. England has been most liberal, most humane, most generous, in her treatment of those who have been conquered by her. But we cannot but remember how necessary it is that peace should be established on a firm basis in South Africa; because thrice already England has had trouble with her South African colonies, and it is absolutely necessary that peace should be established upon a firm basis in order that the rights of every British subject may be secured beyond peradven-ture in that country. For this reason, if for no other, I say it is unnecessary that we should interfere by resolution at the present time. It is because I think this resolution is improper, uncalled for, and is an unwarranted interference with the prerogatives of the British government, that I oppose it. 1 do not think that we are warranted by our past services in passing a resolution in the Canadian parliament giving advice to the imperial government, notwithstanding our liberality and our endeavour to sustain British authority in that far distant country. It is also because I believe this resolution is in very bad taste that I offer objection to it. To justify it upon the ground of what we have done, I think is in bad taste. What we have done we have done believing it to be right, believing it to be our duty; therefore, I do not think we are justified in invoking our past services as a plea for passing this resolution. I think the resolution is indiscreet. Once before when we offered advice with regard to the internal affairs of the British empire, we are reminded that the Queen would have regard to the advice of her constitutional advisers, or in other words, that she did not think it proper that the Canadian parliament should offer advice to the mother country regarding affairs which concerned her and not ourselves. Now I am far from saying that we have no right to tender advice; I believe, with those who have already spoken, that we
have such a right; but I do not regard it as the part of wisdom at this time that we should offer any advice. We are here to legislate for Canada and not for the purpose of settling South African affairs. Believing that we should attend to our own business, and believing as I do that we are drifting into an unsound custom of tendering advice to the imperial parliament on the most trivial occasions, I hold the views I have expressed, and I believe that this motion should be withdrawn.


John Charlton: Of course, I do not need to recount any of the arguments I. made in justification of my motion.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: I hope the hon. member is not closing this debate, because I intend to speak on this motion.


John Charlton: I may say that at the request of the premier, I was about to withdraw the motion. But I will take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, as I am upon my feet, of stating that my attitude on this occasion is not based upon any change of opinion as to the propriety of the motion. I do not by any means withdraw any of_ the opinions I have expressed ; the country may judge of the correctness of those opinions by the facts and the arguments I have advanced. But I realize that the leader of this government has a right to demand of me in this case a certain line of conduct; he is responsible not only for his own opinions, but for the opinions of the government. While I do not concede that the position that 1 occupy is an improper one, and while I take due notice of the premier's own admission, that he was glad the discussion had taken place, and that he approved of the principle of the resolution, still as he asks that the motion be withdrawn upon the ground of its being inexpedient and inopportune, I think I am bound to be governed by the desire expressed by the Prime Minister; and with the consent of the seconder of this motion, and with the consent of the House, at the suggestion and request of the government, I beg to withdraw the motion.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Mr. Charlton moves, seconded by Mr. Bourassa, for leave to withdraw his motion.


Mr. MONET.: Does that prevent me from speaking on the motion ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: That does not prevent any one speaking.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 107) respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.- Mr. Belcourt.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 84) respecting the Bay of Quint® Railway Company.-Mr. Harty.
Bill (No. 9) respecting the United Gold Fields of British Columbia (Limited).-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 54) to incorporate the Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 65) to incorporate the Yukon Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 123) to incorporate the Canada Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Fraser.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed debate ou the motion of the Minister of Finance, that the House go again into Committee of Supply, and the motion of Mr. Charlton in amendment thereto.
[u'1.\tWas the sum of $373.86, as shown in the Auditor General\'s report for the year ending June 30th, 1001, page D-59, paid to Geo. E. Baxter, Andover, N.B., for the following articles and services, viz. :-\nMS\xb0ooiCeS c\xb0lleetinS chickens, &c\u201e 16 days at S3 , 392 pounds chickens, $110.31 ; feeding ehiek-??S\\\xa3C\'"berr13 t0 November 19, and December ,\t00 t0 January 13, 1901, 67 days at $1.50 [DOT]\nkilling and packing, $9 ; labour, $1.50 ; paid to pckers 24 days at $1, 12 days at 75 cents; board, $12.20 ; ground feed, 3,232 pounds at $1-80 per cwt.; milk, 2,152 pounds at 30 cents per cwt. * collecting milk, $5 ; tallow, 25 pounds at 5 cents;\' sulphur, 8 pounds at 10 cents ; grit, $1 ; 100# bricks, $1.25 ; freight charges, $1.40,-$373.86.\n2.\tIs the amount shown on page D-68, of the said Auditor General\'s report, viz., Andover, $225.66, all that was received for the sale "of said chickens ?\n3.\tIf not, where is the balance shown as having been received, in said Auditor General\'s report ?', 'Thursday, April 24, 1902.']
Dominique Monet: Mr. Speaker, I wish for a few moments to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). That hon. gentleman admitted the unquestionable right of this parliament to express its opinion on every important issue with which the motion now before us deals, but he claimed that the resolution was untimely. And in that contention he followed the right hon. the leader of the House, and his own lieutenant-leader, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). This contention being the very contention- of the hon. leader of this House and his own lieutenant-leader, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk),
I hope the hon. member for East Grey will not charge me with any lack of courtesy if, Instead of replying to every item of his speech, 1 merely refer him to the criticism which I intend to make on the speech of the leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier opened his remarks by saying that he regretted very much the absence of his leader from the House to-day, because owing to that absence it became his duty to voice the feeling of the opposition on the subject that was being discussed in this House. I believe the hon. member for Jacques Cartier was right when he regretted the absence of his leader. I believe it would have been far better for the hon. member for Jacques Cartier if his leader had been here, and had himself taken the responsibility of the attitude that has been taken by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. What is the conclusion to be drawn from the speech of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier ? It is this : that the lieutenant leader of the Conservative party, the leader of the Conserva-


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: tive party of the province of Quebec, refuses to send to the British parliament a humble prayer in favour of the poor victims of this imprudent war in South Africa, asking for mercy in their favour, when this very prayer was called for by an English-speaking member, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). I do not believe that this attitude of the lieutenant-leader of the Conservative party will ever be highly appreciated by the Conservative party in that province.
Then the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, while not explicitly finding fault with the hon. member for Labelle for joining hands with the hon. member for North Norfolk, referred to the fact with a certain ironical smile covering his lips ; and it was very easy to see that he was amused at such a spectacle being given in this House. But if the hon. member for North Norfolk has been converted to the ideas that have been expressed by the hon. member for Labelle on the question of the South African war, he is'not the only member of tnis House who has been.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier himself, in his capacity of lieutenant-leader of the Conservative party, is a convert to the views of the hon. member for Labelle. In the by-election that took place since the last session of this parliament in the county of Laval-and I see the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) sitting close to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and I challenge him to deny the assertion I am going to make- is it not a fact that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier in his capacity of leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, said that he blamed this government for allowing England to recruit soldiers in this country to go to the front in South Africa ? This is the very attitude that was taken by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier in the by-election in Laval, and I ask him and I ask the hon. member for Laval to tell me if the hon. member for Labelle has ever gone further in that direction ? The hon. member for Jacques Cartier took the very same attitude in the byelection that took place in St. James Division. Montreal, where Mr. Bergeron, an exleader of the Conservative party, was candidate. He said there that he would have supported the motion brought before this House by the hon. member for Labelle if that motion had not been an academic motion, because, so far as the ideas were concerned, he sympathized entirely with the views expressed by the hon. member for Labelle. So, if the hon. member for Jacques Cartier saw fit to sneer a little about the hon. member for Labelle joining hands with the hon. member for North Norfolk, I think every member of this House can accord the same sneering to himself, because he has done the same thing as the hon. member for North Norfolk ; and why did he do so ? I am very far from blaming the hon. mem-

ber for Jacques Cartier for having done what he has done. I believe he has done so knowing that he voiced the feeling of the province of Quebec when he turned in the opposite direction from that which he had always followed on the South African question since he first occupied a seat in this House. Now, it is true that the hon. member for North Norfolk has changed a little his opinions about the South African war. or rather about the quality of the Boers peopling the Transvaal and the Orange Republic. I remember very well, when this question of the South African war was first brought up before the House, the hon. member for North Norfolk gave us one of the best reasons that could be adduced in favour of England waging that war, that England had the undoubted right to force British Institutions on these very same ignorant and half-barbarian people of the Transvaal. To-day I am glad to see that the hon. member for North Norfolk-and I congratulate him on the fact-considers that this ''brave race of the Transvaal deserves better treatment than he himself formerly thought should be accorded to them.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier, in discussing the resolution which we are now debating, admitted that this parliament had the right to express its opinion on the question at issue ; but he said that the resolution was extremely untimely. Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, or did even the hon. leader of the government, give a single reason why this resolution is untimely ? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution is very timely. In what circumstances is it brought before this House ? We know perfectly well that just now the question in England is, what treatment are we going to give to the Boers ? We know perfectly well that the decision is not arrived at yet. We do not know very well on what basis the peace will be made. Then, I say, if this parliament has a right ever to give its opinion on the terms of the peace which is going to be made, now is the time for giving that opinion. Those who claim that this resolution is untimely would do well to state when it will be timely for us to offer it. When will it be timely for us to ask the British parliament to give such treatment to the Boers of the Transvaal and the Republic of Orange ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Never.


Dominique Monet: An hon. member says, never. Then he does not share the opinion of his leader, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who said very plainly that he agreed with the very terms of the resolution. When will it be timely for us to express our opinion in the matter ? Will it be after the peace is concluded ? I say it will then be untimely for us to say anything about it, because the decision then will have been arrived at and there will be no use In our saying anything about it. The attitude of
the right hon. leader of the government and the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Monk) reminds me of that taken by a lawyer who, though he appeared to plead a case before the judge, would not speak. And when the judge said to him : Well, give me your opinion before I decide the case, the iawyer would reply :	No, it is not time
now for me to plead the case, but when the judgment is rendered I will give my opinion. It seems to me that if we accept the view of those who claim that this is not the proper time for us to express our opinion, that time will never come. If we are to express an opinion at all, there can be no doubt that to-day is the proper time to do so. No valid reasons have been given why this resolution should be declared untimely, but on the contrary very good reasons can be given why it is now very opportune indeed.
Let us look back to what took place before the war broke out. A few months before war was declared, at a time when there were only rumours of war, the right hon. the leader of the government rose in his place in this House on the 31st July, and taking advantage of the silent consent of the whole House, proposed a resolution without having previously given notice. The first part of his resolution read as follows :
Resolved, that this House has viewed with regret the complications which have arisen in the Transvaal Republic, of which Her Majesty is suzerain, from the refusal to accord to Her Majesty's subjects now settled in that region any adequate participation in its government.
Then the resolution concluded :
That this House, representing a people which
has largely succeeded

	.
Mind you, Sir, the very circumstance mentioned in support of the resolution I am quoting presents itself again to our consideration.
-which has largely succeeded, by the adoption of the principle of conceding equal political rights to every portion of the population, in harmonizing estrangements and in producing general content with the existing system of government, desires to express its sympathy with the efforts of Her Majesty's Imperial authority to obtain for the subjects of Her Majesty who have taken up their abode in Ihe Transvaal such measures of justice and political recognition as may be found necessary to secure them in the full possession of equal rights and liberties.
On the 31st July, 1S99, we considered it advisable for this House to pass a resolution assuring the British parliament that we sympathized with them in their efforts to secure to the Uitlauders of the Transvaal, who were still termed British subjects


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.
Mr. MONET-the rights to which they were entitled. My hon. friend behind me says ' hear, hear,' and no doubt we may be told that in this resolution we were simply

expressing our sympathy with the British parliament in their endeavour to give equal rights to British subjects, whereas to-day we are asking that same parliament to grant a certain measure of magnanimity to the Boers. But I would remind hon. gentlemen that since the proclamation of Lord Roberts, the Boers have become British subjects at an English point of view, and when we are asking the British parliament to give the Boers the best terms possible, we only asking in their favour the equal rights which in our former resolution we asked for the Uitlanders. If, therefore, a few months before war was declared, it was right to take the step we did, why have we not the right to-day, before peace is concluded, to say on what basis we would like to see peace effected between England and the Transvaal ?
I do not suppose that much more can be said on this question. It seems to me that it has always been recognized in this House that the Canadian parliament has the right to make any representations to the British parliament concerning any matter in which we are but indirectly interested. We have done this several times in favour of home rule, and to those who object to this resolution because it is untimely and because we may rely on the magnanimity of the English people, I would say : Could not the same objection have been urged against those who asked this House to pass resolutions in favour of home rule ? Could we not then have been told that we might rely on the magnanimity of the British people and the British parliament in their dealings with the Irish people ?
The right we have to express our opinion is one that no hon. member in this House can dispute, especially in such a case as this, owing to the contribution which Canada has been called on to make in favour of England-a contribution which has been pretty heavy for Canada. That certainly gives us an undoubted right, apart from every other consideration, to send across to the home government the prayer embodied in the resolution before the House. Of course, owing to the fact that the mover of the resolution has withdrawn it, no practical result can ensue from this debate, but I believe it my duty to record my opinions on the matter, and if the hon. gentleman would press his resolution to a division, I would vote in its favour.


Samuel Hughes: It has been my misfortune, Mr. Speaker, not to have been present to hear the excellent addresses made by the mover of the motion (Mr. Charlton) and by my good friend the right hon. leader of the government as well as the other speeches made on this occasion. However, the motion is here and it speaks for itself. The introductory paragraph speaks of ' maintaining and firmly establishing '-I should imagine that our worthy friend (Mr. Charlton) would have trans-Mr. MONET
posed these terms and have first spoken of establishing and then of maintaining British supremacy in South Africa. The resolution reads :
This House is of opinion that British supremacy should be maintained and firmly established. in South Africa.
At present British supremacy is not firmly established there, and it has to be firmly established first, and then maintained irrespective of what the consequences may be.
The second part of the resolution I entirely dissent from :
And that in the interest of peace and of future tranquillity, harmony and homogeneity, it is expedient to offer universal amnesty as a condition of peace and submission to British, control, to all persons in arms against British authority in Cape Colony, Natal, the Orange River Colony, the Transvaal, and all other portions of the British dominions in South Africa.
From that view I entirely dissent. There is a statement-I have forgotten exactly where it is to be found-to the effect that the road to the nether regions is paved with good intentions. I am not impugning the motives of my good friend, the mover of this resolution, the hon. member for Norfolk, but there can be no doubt that it has been maudlin sentiment such as this that has prevented this war being closed long before now. We have had the pro-Boer in Britain sympathizing with the Boers. On any and every occasion, when disaster befell the British arms, no word of sympathy was heard from these gentlemen. But let the slightest victory be obtained by the Boers and they were jubilant ; let any treatment be meted out to these people in the way of forcing them to move from their farms and go into concentration camps and this maudlin sentiment-I use the word advisedly-has been shown by the pro-Boers, and not only the pro-Boers hut by a large class of sentimental people. This it is that has given encouragement to the Boers that some European complication might arise, that some nation might intervene before the close of the war to engage Britain's attention elsewhere, and then they would be guaranteed their independence. To my mind there has been but one course open to Great Britain from the outset. As was said by the right hon. leader of the House, In language that,
I believe, no tongue in this Dominion could match for beauty, the Boers themselves chose the arbitrament of war and they must be content to abide the consequences. There can be no conclusion to this war except that Britain shall force it to a finish, and that would mean the entire subjugation of that people. When they are subjugated, that is the time to extend the right hand of fellowship, that is the time for Great Britain to treat them as she has done the people in all her other colonies and give them

every opportunity to become true British citizens. Our good friend tile member for North Norfolk must have had some object in bringing forward this motion. I cannot say what it has been however. If his object was to bring about peace, I can assure him that if his tone could have beeu heard in the Boer camps it would have given those people great encouragement and would have tended to the prolongation of the war. His object certainly could not have been to promote the well-being of the Boers, because that would imply that Great Britain in the past has not accorded good treatment to the people she has conquered. But I think the pages of history will be searched in vain for evidence in support of any such contention. Britain has never treated any people whom she has conquered otherwise than in the most merciful and magnanimous spirit. But there is danger in being magnanimous and great with a people you have not conquered. Even after you have conquered them there is danger of their misunderstanding your magnanimity and greatness and mistaking it for weakness. Again and again have the kindness and generosity of heart of Lord Roberts and other British commanders in the field been laughed at by the Boers, their magnanimity sneered at as weakness and they themselves held in scorn. There is only one way to manage a man if he is your opponent-conquer him and then treat him kindly. So, with the Boers, there is only one way-conquer them first, and then let magnanimity and greatness and mercy follow. Some are inclined to say that there is a desire on the part of our good friend to advertise himself. I would not endorse that for an instant, because our good friend has been well known in the history of this House and the country as undertaking to lead in all this class of sentimental subjects, which really amount to nothing so far as benefiting the people is concerned. And the trouble is, when it is all over, from his own professions we are never really sure where to find him. There are people who are unkind enough to say that this is a put up job between the hon. member for North Norfolk and the right lion, leader of the government. I do not believe that for an instant. I am satisfied that that is not so. It may have been that the right hon. leader of the government may have been consulted before this motion was brought to the attention of the House. He should have been consulted. But, if he gave our worthy friend the answer then that lie gave him to-day, that he could not endorse his motion, that it was inopportune, or had told him that he wished him to withdraw it, would not a loyal follower, sucli as the member for North Norfolk has been of the lenders of his party through ail their devious turnings and twistings for twenty years or so- would not he have been only too willing to withdraw it instead of taking up the time of the House and placing it before the country ? I am satisfied he would. I do not object to the motion because it is ill-timed or inopportune, or anything of that kind. I oppose it on principle and I will give my reason.-
I deal first with the Free Staters, and Transvaalers. I do not find that the hon. gentleman mentions these but speaks of ' persons in arms.' But, so far as concerned those who were Free Staters and Transvaalers before the war, I will join hands with him. More than that, I stand here to say [DOT] that if these people had been properly used they would have laid down their arms nearly two years ago. It is a well known fact that General DeWet offered to lay down his arms and those of 18,000 followers. When the Free State was annexed by that beautifully-worded proclamation, got out by some of these artistic young ink-slingers-I was not in the party, I want the House to understand-annexing the Free State the condition was promulgated that those who would lay down their arms would be allowed to return to their farms and enjoy their civil rights. That was all right, but it was^ in another, a negative clause that the difficulty lay-that those who did not lay down their arms would be treated, when captured, not as prisoners of war, but as rebels. That clause could not have reached half the Free Staters in the field, but I maintain that every self-respecting Britisher must have found it objectionable. DeWet withdrew his army to the mountains away on the eastern side of the Free State and gave General Roberts an almost uninterrupted march to Pretoria. It is well known that a bitter feeling existed between the Free Staters and the Transvaalers. The Transvaalers deserted their capital, refusing to defend it. As soon as that news reached DeWet, he sent word to the British General-General Bundle. I think it was-that he was ready to lay down his arms, and gave as his reason that, inasmuch as the Transvaalers had failed to_ defend their capital he felt, as a Free Stater, that, in the interest of the two races and in the interests of the great future of South Africa the war should come to a close. He asked as a condition, a condition which I believe they will grant to-day, a condition which should have been granted then by any magnanimous general, that in place of being treated as a rebel, he and his kin of Free State birth and nationality should be treated as prisoners of war. It was denied him by the highest military authorities, I believe, in South Africa; and as if to drive him to surrender, his property was destroyed and his vineyards and his home were wasted. General DeWet is reported to have registered an oath that he would make the British pay in blood and treasure for that piece of work, and I kind of reckon he has carried out his threat. To-day I believe the same terms that General DeWet 1 demanded then are being accorded to these

men, the Free Staters and Transvaalers, and I say, rightly so, for they are Free Staters and Transvaalers. I never questioned their right to fight against us and bowl us over on any and every occasion, but 1 questioned their right to deprive us of the rights of British subjects in their republics.
But there is another question that my hon. friend from North Norfolk laid stress upon, that is the colonial rebels. Now, my worthy friend has read history, as every intelligent member of; this House has. Many revolutions have been justifiable. No man to-day, and no man at that time, ever questioned the right to rebel of Hampden and Cromwell. No lover of responsible government has ever questioned the righteousness of the rebellion of 1688 ; no man I ever met in modern times questions the righteousness of the American war of independence from the colonial view point. It has established throughout the world the principle that taxation carries with it the right of representation. When tyrants and oligarchs undertake to govern and tax people without giving them the, right of representation, then they expose' themselves to rebellion. In the American civil war the people of the south had, as they thought, a justification for rebellion in the defence of their old established principle of slavery. But it was a principle not consonant with the great principles of British and American liberty, and therefore it was deemed in the eyes of the world as an unrighteous cause, though others undoubtedly deemed it a righteous one. But I ask the hon. member for North Simcoe can he


An hon. MEMBER.: North Norfolk.


Samuel Hughes: The two hon. members, Mr. Speaker, for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) and North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) are so intimately associated with each other in little affairs in this House, that I find myself referring to the member for North Simcoe instead of to the member for North Norfolk-I ask the member for North Norfolk to lay his finger upon one .solitary cause for rebellion that any Boer in the British colonies of South Africa ever had. He has not done it, and the man does not stand in this House who can do it. Who can give any more reason why any Boer in South Africa, any British Boer in South Africa, should rebel than why any man in the city of Ottawa should step out and rob a bank or murder his neighbour 7 He can't do it. The mere fact that they are cf the same race and lineage is no reason. Thousands of loyal Boers have fought for Britain against their own kinsfolk. The records of history show that great movements have never necessarily brought men of the same race together. Let us go back to the days when the ancestors of these men were fighting for the liberties of Europe, when the old Batavians, or as we know them in later times, the Dutchmen of Eur-Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
ope, who were fighting for liberty against the tyranny of Spain and Austria. Were they lighting as men of one race ? Not at all. It was people of one race fighting against the tyrants of the same race, only they were allied with the free men of all nationalities. In France, the country of those gallant fellows, the Huguenots, whose descendants we find distinguishing themselves in South Africa to-day, when these men were struggling for liberty in the days of Coligny and Colbert, and that grand hero whose statue stands prominently in the old citadel at Quebec, Samuel De Champlain- when those men were struggling for liberty in Europe, who was it that fought side by side with them 7 Why, Sir, the free men of Britain, and in every struggle that Huguenots and Dutchmen engaged in all through history they have fought shoulder to shoulder with the free men of Britain. And, Sir, had they been fighting in a just cause in Africa to-day, mark my words, they would have had the free men of Britain standing shoulder to shoulder with them again. There were also in that cause thousands of loyal Boers fighting for Britain.
Now what are the conditions ? The Boer people had been repeatedly saved by Britain from the attacks of the natives, they had been placed on their farms by Britain, they had been given their liberty by Britain, they had been protected. There was not a solitary farm that was not regularly visited by the Cape mounted policemen, and law and order were everywhere dominant. They were free from taxation, they were free from excise duties in South Africa. Neither directly nor indirectly have I ever heard any man pretend to say that the British Boers in South Africa had any cause of complaint, and I never met one of them that pretended to have any. Their only excuse was the race cry. Now, Sir, there has been a little too much of this race cry, not only in South Africa, but in Canada. We don't want these appeals to race and religion in this country. We want men to stand out in South Africa, and in Canada, on the basis of principle, and to leave race and religious cries out of the question entirely. Their only excuse in South Afx-ica was the race cry. When you come to analyse their plea, they say they were promised by the Kruger and Steyn oligarchy exemption from debt, they were promised the farms of the British loyalists, and the Boer loyalists too ; they were promised shares in the Rand and in the other great mining corporations in South Africa. These were the excuses they offered, and the excuses that are offered to-day by the Boer rebels, by the British colonials who rebelled in South Africa. These are the only excuses they make; and yet my hon. friend from North Simcoe-North Norfolk-coolly stands up in the House and asks for aii amnesty for this type of men. Now, I want to point out to him that these Boer rebels

in South Africa have lost little or nothing.
I could name scores of them who took the poor whites, labouring men and their families on their large estates, and forced them to go on much against their will and fight against Britain. But whenever things got dangerous they-the leaders-withdrew to their own farms, and as soon as the British came along they would then hob-nob with the British and become advisers, or interpreters, or counsellors, in order to escape the penalty due them for their disloyalty.
I will give you one instance, a very wealthy man named Puplessis. who comes from the bank of the Vaal river, at Middle Drift, near Kimberley. He brought a number of those poor Boers to work for him on a Sat-urdav. and his excuse was that he wanted them to build kraals for the cattle and sheep and goats. These poor whites came over with their utensils and implements in order to build these kraals. On Monday morning Duplessis, who was a field cornet of the Boers, commandeered every man of them and made them go to the front to fight. A number of these fellows were killed, and others were taken prisoners. There was one of them, whose name was Van Vuren, and the incident in connection with whom I know very well. He was taken prisoner, tried for being a rebel and sentenced to two years' imprisonment in South Africa for the offence of taking up arms against the British government, while the man who brought him over under false pretenses, commandeered him and compelled him to fight, because he is rich and stands in with the British officers, was let off with five year's disfranchisement. The prime mover of the whole district is disfranchised for five years, while the poor beggars who were commandeered are either buried under the sod, or breaking stones for a period of years in South Africa. This is one of the gentlemen that our hon. friend wishes to let off. The leading rebels have lost nothing. Their stock was unmolested by the Boer forces. It was always the loyalists' stock that was raided, and I say it would have paid the British loyalist in South Africa hands down ten times over, from a dollars and cents point of view, to have joined the Boer forces in South Africa at the beginning of this war. The Boer rebels in South Africa are treated better than the colonial loyalists in South Africa. The loyalists-both British and Boer-were driven from their homes. They ,had to escape as best they could, they had to leave their property at the mercy of these people, their women and children were left on the farms at the mercy of these Boers. X am very glad to say ' that in the great majority of cases the treatment accorded them was fair, but it was imprisonment all the same. They dared not communicate with their friends, they dared not touch one of their own animals, and they were practically prisoners on their farms. Their property was taken, yet the claims of the loyalists have been actually denied while their Boer neighbours who were disloyal have been paid pound for pound for all that was taken from them by the Boers in the course of the war. There is one case which I think is the most scandalous on record. Before one of these compensation courts a gentleman and his wife were proving their claim, but the British officer refused to allow their claim on the ground that the wife should have stayed on the farm-the wife, a young English lady, about 23 or 24 years of age, with an infant baby- and should have protected the farm against the Boers, and cared for the animals upon it. She inquired where was the strong right arm of Britain upon which British rights had depended. She depended upon the British soldier to protect her, and when he failed her, she was expected to have guarded the stock against the Boers. Her husband and all her relatives were fighting for Britain, and she was forced to leave the farm as a refugee. That is the treatment which was accorded British loyalists in South Africa. When I speak of British loyalists, I mean loyalists of British stock as well as of Boer stock, because I am proud to say that there are tens of thousands of Boers out there who from the start to the finish have been thoroughly loyal to Britain in this affair.
There is another class besides the colonial rebel, that, I maintain, should be excluded from any such resolution as this, and it is the hired mercenary, the soldier of fortune, the adventurer who joined the Boer ranks to fight against Britain. He certainly should be excluded from any such resolution as the one proposed by the hon. member for North Norfolk. If this resolution were to carry, or if this principle were to be adopted, it would put a premium on revolution, and that sort of thing will not do. If men have a just cause for rebelling, why, then, by all means, let us be civil to them when the war is over, but until the hon. gentleman can point out one solitary case of complaint on the part of the colonial rebel against the British government, then, I maintain, he has no excuse whatever for bringing any' such resolution before the House. It must be made a risky job for these gentlemen to turn out and murder a neighbour, destroy his property and rob him of his stock. The hon. gentleman who has preceded me spoke of the settlement when this war is over. There can only be one settlement for the British government, and I trust it will be a settlement along British lines. We will give them the rights and liberties of Britain, the rights and liberties that have made Britain great, we will give them her language, her literature and her history. If those institutions which have made Britain great, which have made her the envy of the nations, are not sufficient for the people of South Africa, then let the war continue to a finish, or until we bring these people to their senses. I would treat them fairly. The Free Staters and Trans-vaalers who lay down their arms should be

treated in a fair spirit, and I never would ask them to surrender as rebels, but with the colonial rebels I have no sympathy whatever, nor has any man who is at all cognizant of the facts of the case. I maintain that this is a mere piece of maudlin sentiment, and at all times in the world's history it has done more harm than good to bring any such opinions as these before any country on an occasion of this kind. It is time enough to be magnanimous and great when the people you are dealing with prove themselves Magnanimous and great, prove that they regret the course they have pursued, and that they are ready to give an absolute guarantee that on the first occasion which presents itself in the near future they will not rise and seek to destroy that flag that I saw floating from the top of this tower to-day. As I came in on the train to-day I saw that grand old flag torn almost to tatters, and I wondered what was going on in the House. When I reached here and found that the hon. member for North Norfolk had been holding forth upon the notion of granting amnesty to the rebels of South Africa, who had arisen ana murdered their neighbours, destroyed their property and robbed them of their goods, and who had turned the women and children into camps up and down the country-not the concentration camps that hon. gentlemen talk so much about-I could not but feel that the breeze blowing at the top of the tower had found possibly a fitting semblauce iu the wind that was blowing in the House of Commons.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate the magnitude of the task of dealing with an imperial question in this Canadian parliament, but I do not object to the motion moved by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) on that account. If plain every day Canadians are good enough to give their lives to the empire, I suppose plain every day members of parliament are good enough to give their views in support of the prestige of the empire, or to pull down that prestige if it so pleases them. I consider it is perfectly legitimate for this parliament to discuss the question of the war in South Africa, but not altogether because of Canada's contribution in men and money. Canada has reason to be proud of her contributions in men, but I am not so sure about her reason to be proud of her contribution in money.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: Neither am I sure that Canada, so far as this war has yet gone, has reason to be proud of the way in which she has treated her soldiers who have suffered disability, or the relatives of those who have suffered loss of life in that war. Let that be as it may, I would not feel that I was doing my duty if I allowed a motion against whch I feel so strongly to be lad before this House, and to Mr. HUGHES ^Victoria).
I
let it go by giving only a silent vote against it. I look upon the prestige of the British empire as a question of the most intimate local character, concerning every dependency and every citizen in every dependency throughout the empire. The maintenance of the prestige of Great Britain is just as necessary to the peace and welfare of Canada as it is to the peace and welfare to the county of York in England. So long as Canada is a part of the empire, the safety of Canada depends upon the strength of the empire. Anything that weakens the empire weakens Canada, endangers Canada, and hurts every citizen of Canada. Just as this is the sentiment which prompted our young men to volunteer in thousands to risk their lives on the battlefields of Africa, so it should be the sentiment with which this parliament should approach this question. I am not above giving advice nor am I afraid to give advice to the government of Britain upon- occasion, but I object to the character of the advice on this occasion. I object to the advice, I object still more strongly to what appears to be the motive behind that advice. The motion, as I understand it, is a motion demanding-I say demanding-in the name of the men we have sent and the money we have spent; demanding amnesty for the rebels of Cape Colony; for the men who have added treachery to treason; the men who have added murder and pillage to treachery; the men who are outside the law of civilization in any civilized country in the world ; the men whose lives, liberties or civil right are forfeit under the law of every civilized country.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Was that because they released Methuen ?


Frank Oliver: I do not understand that the Cape rebels released Methuen. I do not understand that General Delarey was a Cape rebel. I understand that certain Cape rebels who were captured were hanged according to the law of nations, and I say that others deserve to be hanged.
I say that when this parliament of Canada or the, members of this parliament of Canada ask the government of Great Britain to violate the law of nations, they weaken the prestige of the empire to that extent, and they violate the sense of right of this Dominion of Canada, and of loyalty throughout this empire. They throw disrespect on the empire in the minds of every civilized nation and every honourable man in every civilized nation in the world. 1 say that such advice is beneath contempt.
I say it is of itself and in its nature treasonable.


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


Frank Oliver: It is of itself and in its nature treasonable, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Frank Oliver: It is absolutely unworthy of any loyal citizen, to say nothing of any loyal representative in a loyal colony of the empire. Let there be no mistake on this question. We cannot be both for and against the empire. If we are not for the empire then we are against it, and if we are not for carrying out the laws of civilized nations in the protection of the prestige and the dignity of the empire, and the safety and welfare of its loyal subjects, then we are against the empire, and neither more nor less. I say, Sir, that this motion comes with ill grace. A motion asking for leniency, for clemency for rebels-or for belligerents if you like-addressed to a nation whose whole course of clemency during the war towards her enemies has made her the laughing stock of these enemies and of the friends of these enemies in every country in the world.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: Yes, Britain has been made a laughing stock because she was as lenient as she has been; because she has taken the sworn word of men who do not honour their oath ; men who have given up their arms, have been sent through the British lines as free and peaceful citizens, and then returned that clemency by shooting British soldiers in the back. I say, Sir, that it is ill-judged to address requests for clemency' to a nation which has gone beyond the limits of reason in extending clemency to their enemies in this war. I have no hesitation in saying on my responsibility- which is equal to that of other hon. members-I say on my responsibility as a member of this House, that what is needed in the present case is not more but less clemency, so that it shall be understood by the world that it does not pay to be treasonable and disloyal; that it does not pay to burn and destroy the property of the loyal subjects of this empire. I am glad to know that merciful feelings prevail in the minds of so many hon. members. So am I merciful, but my merciful feelings are towards those who are loyal to the empire, and not to the disloyal enemies of our empire. Let me ask : Who has suffered more in this war-the British or the Boers ? It may not be to our credit; unfortunately it is not to our credit; but it is a fact that the British feople have suffered more in blood and money than have the Boers up to this time, and I say, Sir, that in mercy to ourselves we demand that such means be taken as shall bring this war to an end. But it will never be brought to an end so long as our opponents-believing them to be sensible and self-respecting men-are allowed to remain under the impression that they can stav in the field and carry a gun with impunity. If the Boers are what they are; then there is only one way to secure peace and that is by fighting this war to a finish. There is onlv one way to secure safety to the British empire in South Africa ; there
is only one way to secure safety for the loyal people of South Africa, be they Britain, or Boer, or black, and that is by fighting this war to a finish and letting it be known from sea to sea in South Africa, that it does not pay to be treasonable and disloyal; that it does not pay to organize treason and sedition year after year; that it does not pay to pillage your loyal neighbours and then give up your gun and go home pretending to be a peaceable citizen. Let it be understood that that game is not a good one; let it be understood that it does not pay to do that kind of business, and when that is understood, then a long step will be taken towards peace in South Africa.
From the beginning of this war to the end, whenever Britain showed the slightest inclination to slacken the iron hand, what was the result ? Was it praise for the clemency of Britain 1 Was not the declaration heralded from every capital in Europe, and from city to city in the United States-I do not know but what it was whispered from house to house in some localities even in Canada-that Britain was getting weak; that it was fear or inability to cope with the conditions that led to that clemency ? In every case Britain's clemency was a mistake. It encouraged the continuance of the war ; and within the past week or two, because the Cape rebel Kritzinger was not put to the death penalty, as he richly deserved to be. it was heralded throughout the world that Britain was afraid to execute the death penalty upon him. Under these circumstances, I say that if these hon. members who moved and seconded this resolution are loyal to the empire-if they are


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. member has no right to impute any motive.


Frank Oliver: I did not impute. I asked the question.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. member has not even the right to doubt the loyalty of any member of this House.


Frank Oliver: If I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw whatever part of my remarks you rule to be out of order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I say it is forbidden by the rules of this House to impute motives to any hon. member, and It is out of order to declare that any members of this House are disloyal, or even to express a doubt of their loyalty.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, if I am not allowed to express a doubt as to the loyalty of these hon. members, the only thing I can do is to leave it to the members of the House to draw their own conclusions. I will merely say, Mr. Speaker, that the facts have shown that wherever and whenever undue clemency was exercised by the British towards their enemies in South Africa, that occasion was used as an argument to prove, not that Britain was using clemency, but that Britain was cowardly and weak. That

was tile argument that was used by those who were the enemies of Britain and of Canada, who were the enemies of civilization and liberty, of which throughout this world the prestige of the British empire is the greatest, if I should not go so far as to say the only safeguard. We are interested iu maintaining that prestige, man by man, in this country. Our citizens have done their share, some part of their share, at any rate, towards sustaining that prestige ; and I can only again express regret that it should have been the part of any members of this House, at a time when there was danger of Britain erring, as she has erred before in her negotiations with her enemies and ours-at a time when Canada is sending two thousand more of her song to fight the battles of the empire in South Africa- at a time when our men are dying day by day in South Africa for the glory and prestige of the empire and for "the honour of Canada and the honour of every one of us in Canada-that this time and occasion should have been used by members of this House to move a resolution throwing discredit on the motives of Great Britain, and strengthening the enemies of Britain and Canada and of civilization and liberty and enlightenment throughout the world.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add, in the fewest possible words, my protest against the resolution which has been introduced into this House to-day by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). I never can find language to express myself to this House to my entire satisfaction ; but never have I been so much at a loss, as I am on this occasion, to find language to adequately express my feelings, I may say my indignation, at the terms of this resolution. I can only say that I consider that, not only is the present time inopportune for introducing such a resolution into this House, but if it were carried as the sense of this House, it would no doubt embarrass the British government in their present negotiations to bring about a peaceful settlement of the war that has been going on in South Africa. It would also, it seems to me, embarrass the Prime Minister in his negotiations with British statesmen when he goes to London in the coming June. But. Sir, the resolution is also inopportune because it offends the British people. It offends Englishmen all over the worid. It is inopportune because it is introduced on this day, which all Englishmen honour as the day of their patron saint, St. George. I also protest against introducing such questions into this House as wasting the time of the House. As soon as two or three members had expressed themselves on the resolution, the hon. member for North Norfolk was going around and trying to withdraw it. It was too serious and far-reaching a matter to be introduced with any such intention. I felt, when the hon. member for North Norfolk was talking, that


Frank Oliver: it was a great pity that he had not offered his services to Great Britain, and that the British government had not employed him to go to South Africa to supercede such eminent statesmen as Lord Milner and Lord Kitchener in disposing of this whole question. I have watched with interest the political wanderings of my hon. friend from North Norfolk. We saw him pass from a protectionist to a free trader, and from a free trader back to a protectionist, and from advocating a policy which would result in the annexation of this country to the United States to advocating that a regiment of British soldiers be stationed at the city of Quebec, though there was no more necessity for stationing a regiment of soldiers at the city of Quebec than there was at the city of Toronto. I have watched the hon. gentleman's inconsistencies in all these courses, and we see his inconsistency to-day in introducing this resolution.
He must have made his peace with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), otherwise surely that hon. gentleman could not possibly give his support to one who made the ridiculous suggestions, on the eve of the last general elections, that we should station soldiers at Quebec. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) must have recanted that sentiment before he could have got the hon. member for Labelle to second this resolution. The hon. gentleman referred to the millions of dollars that we have spent in sending men to South Africa, our noble sons whom we despatched over there to risk their lives in this campaign. Well, we have spent but little over the $2,000,000, and certainly very little considering the great advantages we have always enjoyed under the protection of the British flag. What credit or honour is due to this government for the bravery of these men to whom the right hon. the Prime Minister referred ? What credit can this government take to itself for the conduct of that noble son of Canada, Lieut. Carruthers, and that other hero, Private Evans, who died so nobly on the veldt, and who, when he found his life blood ebbing fast away and his strength nearly gone, broke his rifle rather than allow it to fall into the hands of the. enemy, and Private Milligan, who left his wife and family in this country, where he was surrounded by all the luxuries of peace, and volunteered to go to South Africa and fight for the British flag ? Those men were not sent by this government at the expense of the tax payers of Canada, and this government is entitled to no credit for their sacrifices other than that which falls to them as citizens of the country which has produced such men. The hon. member (Mr. Charlton) referred to the fact that the object of the Boers was to drive Great Britain out of South Africa and make it a Boer republic, and yet he brings up this resolution. Can one understand his proposing such a resolution, admitting, as he

does, that the Boers were on the offensive from the start ? Who doubts Great Britain's generosity ? Nearly every hon. member who has spoken has referred to the generosity with which Great Britain has dealt with her defeated foes in the past. Who then doubts her generosity to deal with the Boers at the present ? Is Great Britain to-day less civilized than she was in years gone by ? Is she retrograding towards barbarism now ? I cannot, for my part, see what ground there is in the slightest degree for suspecting that Great Britain will not treat the Boers with the greatest possible consideration. Do we want another settlement such a& we had at Majuba Hill or when the British troops were withdrawn from Khartoum ? We had subsequently to go over the whole ground again and spend millions upon millions, and the loss of so much human life to reconquer in both cases, and we do not want any such weak-kneed administration or policy in Great Britain to-day as when Mr. Gladstone administered the affairs of the empire. I think that a greal deal of unnecessary sympathy in this discussion has been given the Boers. We have not heard very much said by those hon. members who have supported the resolution about the relatives of the 25,000 odd who have died on the veldt of South Africa, either from wounds or diseases, or about the billion of dollars which Great Britain is spending in defending her South African possessions. I think, with the hon. gentleman who has preceded me, that we ought to hear a little more in regard to this feature of the question. It ill becomes us, who are enjoying all the blessings of peace to interfere. Surely we can leave this difficulty to be settled by the statesmen and soldiers of Great Britain, who represent those who have borne the greater part of the brunt of the war. It is not only the lowly sons of Great Britain who have risked their lives in this war but the scions of her nobility as well. From every class, her children have gone and offered up their lives for the country, and it is the representatives of these on whom we can rely to deal out every justice to the enemy.
I think that this motion is a very ill advised one. I look upon it as embodying a mischievous policy, and regret very much that the question should have been introduced into this House at all. But I would suggest a resolution which, I think, would meet with almost the unanimous consent of the House, and which I drafted in the few moments at my leisure during recess. It is as follows :
That this parliament regrets that Mr. Kruger, the acting presidents and the generals of the Orange River and Transvaal Colonies who are stiil leading a small but brave remnant of the Boers, have not seen fit to cease the hostilities in which they took the initiative | against the British empire, by invading and, 106
annexing British territory. That we point them with pride to the great liberty and many privileges enjoyed by the people of this country, as well as the other parts of the empire, under British institutions by all races, creeds and-nationalities, and realizing the magnanimity shown in the past to ,a defeated foe we have tbs utmost confidence that the most generous terms of peace will be extended to the Boers by the statesmen and soldiers of Greaat Brb tain.
That is a resolution which nearly every member of this House I venture to think would support.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: I understood that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) bad consented to withdraw his motion before recess, but I also, like the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Kemp), have drafted an amendment to the resolution. The amendment I would suggest Is as follows :
In the opinion of this House, it is not advisable to offer any advice or give any instructions to the British people relating to their duties regarding the Boers in South Africa, believing that the well known magnanimity and generosity always practised on all occasions by the British government will be exercised on the present occasion.
I think that that will fill the Bill. From what I have learned to-day, I am sure that it is not the desire of any hon. member of this House to say a word that would interfere with the making of peace between Britain and the Boers, and I think that the resolution introduced by the hon. member for North Norfolk will have that tendency. If carried in this House it would lead the Boers to believe that a large number of the people of Canada were in sympathy with them. I am satisfied that there are few people in sympathy with the Boers, except to the extent that the underdog is sympathized with. Britain has always shown magnanimity to her foes, and where is there any nation in the world which has shown it in the way she has done to her foes in South Africa ? Is she not educating the children of her foes ? Is she not supporting the lone and fatherless on the veldt ? Is she not doing everything she possibly can to conciliate these people ?
I contend that she is and doing it very graciously, and if we were to show sympathy to the Boers now, we would be not only encouraging them, but giving comfort-to many nations of Europe, which are only too pleased to see the British in difficulties.
They have shown their sympathy with the BoBrs throughout the whole of this war, and would have been only too glad, had they thought they could have done it, to assist the Boers. There is no doubt about that. But they know that Britons are united, that the old lion's teeth have not dropped out, that her whelps are around her and assisting her, that Canada has given her aid, and so have Australia, New Zealand and all other

336a

parts of the empire, and that they stand ready to back up Great Britain for the reason that they know she is right in this cause and for the reason that they are determined that the British empire shall not be dismembered by a few Boers or a few disaffected men in our own country. I make no insinuations against anybody. 1 do not think the brainy men of Great Britain will be coerced or cajoled or influenced by anything that members of this House say, and, therefore, I think it is time that we should refrain from discussing this matter any further. Mr. Speaker, I hope that if you put my amendment, it will carry.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I must tell the hon. member (Mr. Robinson, Elgin) that it is not permitted by the rules of the House to move an amendment to the amendment to motion for Committee of Supply.


Jabel Robinson: Then, Mr. Speaker, it is simply because you did not notice me first, for I was on the floor.


Sir. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, after what has fallen from the lips of the right lion, the leader of this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), the lieutenant of the leader of the opposition, who have, in such eloquent language, spoken the sense of this House in favour of the peace negotiations being brought to a satisfactory conclusion, I should certainly have refrained from participating in this debate. But as the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) have deemed it fit to give a new trend to the debate, and as they have insinuated that some hon. gentlemen were not in favour of peace and harmony being restored in South Africa, and were not anxious to see an end put to this struggle that has been in progress for three years, I think it opportune, under such circumstances, to protest against such statements.
The hon. member for Victoria, in his speech, referred to rebels, and stated that many revolutions have been justifiable. But, Sir, do you know under which circumstances nowadays rebellion is not justifiable, and when the right to rebel of a people can be questioned ? It is when the rebels are vanquished. But when they triumph, and when victory perches on their banners, oh, then it is quite another question, and we find it recorded in history that they had a right to rebel, and that the righteousness of their cause cannot be questioned. In 1837, we had a rebellion in Canada. In Upper Canada and in Lower Canada the patriots rebelled, not against Great Britain, but against a bad and tyrannical government. But is it not agreed on all hands to-day that those patriots had a right to rebel against that oligarchy, and that they had serious grievances ? From the events that transpired in this country, in the province of Que-Mr. ROBINSON.
bee, we ought to learn a lesson, and it is that it is always bad policy for a victorious foe to wreak resentment upon a vanquished people, and that sooner or later, when the recoil ensues, the vanquished foe will resent that treatment. The memory of those heroes DeLorimier and his unfortunate companions is still living in the hearts of their fellow-countrymen. Had Colborne shown magnanimity, and extended to the foes the right hand of fellowship, would he not have better secured peace and harmony between the two races in our country ? Nobody, I think, will question that it would have been good policy to have pursued such a course.
I agree that the social fabric must be upheld and order secured in the community, but the victors can always afford to accord a generous treatment to the vanquished, without any danger or peril.
By the resolution which is now before the House, we tell the imperial parliament-provided this resolution should ever reach parliament-that, in our opinon, the Boer cause is lost, that British supremacy should be maintained in South Africa, but we further affirm that the broadest policy of magnanimity and mercy should be extended to a brave foe now opposing British arms. We further tell the vanquished that they may look forward with confidence to the future, and that, when they have laid down their arms, they shall have the franchise and every right of the British subject, and enjoy the boon of a wise and just administration.
When the American colonies which now form the United States of America rebelled against Great Britain, eloquent voices were heard in the British parliament in favour of a policy of magnanimity, but, unfortunately, those voices appealed in vain to the sense of justice of parliament, and what was the result, Sir ? The result was that the finest British colonies were lost to the mother country.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, if all the hon. gentlemen who have participated in this debate had taken their cue from the right hon. the leader of this House, who has displayed, throughout the whole of his speech, a judicial spirit and a serenity which are the true characteristics of statesmanship,
I would have refrained from interfering in the debate ; but I thought it my duty, the more so as I pride myself on my descent from one of those rebels who, in the course of this century, fought for securing freedom to their fellow-countrymen-to protest against the intemperate language used this evening by some hon. gentlemen in this House. And if there is some ill-feeling* against England still rankling in the hearts of my fellow-countrymen, the reason is to be found in the fate of those unfortunate fellow-countrymen of ours who died on the scaffold. That is our main grievance against England. And when I heard, this evening, a Christian gentleman appeal to us in the name of civilization, and tell us that it is

the duty of a nation to take revenge of her fallen foe, I could not help regretting that, principles so utterly at variance with the tenets of our modern civilization should still be taught and upheld in this country of ours. These are growing times, Sir, and in this twentieth century we ought to keep abreast of the spirit of the times. In former times there iwas no mercy, no magnanimity exercised by the conquerors to the conquered ; and a fallen foe was reduced to slavery. But, nowadays, the very moment a man lays down liis arms, his life is held sacred. Nowadays when a vanquished foe lays, down his arms, not only is his life spared, but he is also entitled to whatever makes for the happiness of life ; the enjoyment of freedom and of his property.
Mr. 'SPEAKER. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) have leave to withdraw his motion.


Samuel Hughes: I object, Mr. Speaker.
Amendment (Mr. Charlton) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Arts, agriculture and statistics - census,

Mr. TAYLOR.: Will the non. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) explain why he requires so large an amount for taking the census as compared with ten years ago? The census of 1891 was taken for about $500,000. The hon. gentleman has already announced that he has spent on the present census over $980,000, and estimates that it will cost $172,000 to complete it. Why is so large an expenditure required ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In explanation of that, I need not go into any long details, I may say, in the first place, in general terms, that the cost of everything has materially increased as compared with 1891. It does not matter what one undertakes to-day, the cost is materially increased. This is due, no doubt, to an increase in the cost of living, and an advance in the scale of living. The result is that one cannot get people to do work for what one could get the same class of people to do work for ten years ago.
In 1891 there was a general lack of employment throughout the country, whereas in 1901 the contrary was the case, and employment was seeking the people rather than the people seeking employment. For that reason it was necessary to establish a higher scale of pay than the scale of 1891. The pay in 1891 was sufficient to attract a large number of people to census employment, but in 1901, on the contrary, it was found rather difficult to get people to do this work, even with the higher scale of pay. Another reason for the increased cost, was that in the census of 1901 a great many more questions were asked by the enumerators, and
the filling up of the schedules required more time and labour. For this reason a good deal more labour was thrown upon the commissioners. Then there was the additional fact that in 1901 there were several territories and outlying districts which had to be covered by enumerators, and which had not to be covered, or not to the same extent, in 1891. This involved a considerable additional expense, and an expense greater in proportion than the additional number of people to be taken in file same section of country. In those outlying sections population is sparse, and the difficulties of the enumerators were greater. Even in those territories and sparsely settled parts of Canada where the enumeration was taken in 1891. there was a larger number of people to he enumerated in 1901, because the population had increased during the decade. There was also the fact that we undertook to take the census of 1901 in a shorter time, to do it more rapidly, so as to get the returns sooner before the people. For this purpose we employed a larger number of enumerators, and although the actual population to be taken by them was not so very much larger, the increased number of enumerators did cost a larger amount than a smaller number would have cost to do the same work, the object being to take the census more rapidly and to get the results quicker. These different reasons, shortly stated will, I think, account for the increased expense which the hon.. gentleman has alluded to. No doubt lion, gentlemen will ask questions with regard to this matter, and I shall be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.


George Taylor: The first argument the minister advanced, that wages were higher in 1001 than in 1891, I think the general public will not agree with, I do not think there is a manufacturer in this country who will say that he is paying more to his hands now than in 1891. It will he admitted by every manufacturer in tnis country that wages have not increased materially during the last ten years. I know it is not so in our town, and I think our town will compare favourably with any other town in the country. Then he says that the territories are now better filled up than in 1891. Well, if the population in the territories was sparse it would cost more to take the enumeration. I think the argument he advanced in reference to the territories is an argument against himself. I find that under the late government the census was taken three times. In 1871 it cost $511,000 ; in 1881 it cost $552,000 ; in 1891 it cost $549,000. Now the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to a question on the 3rd of March, stated that he had already expended $948,000. I asked the question the other day how much was expended up to the 3rd of April, and he made the same reply, $948,000. Now will the hon. gentleman tell us what the expenditure has been up to date on the census ?

336&


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not got the figures of the expenditure made since the date on which I gave the answer, a week or two ago.


George Taylor: On the 3rd of April he said the expenditure had reached $948,000, and he estimated it would take $170,000 to complete, making $1,118,000 altogether.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: With the sum I am asking for the ensuing year, the expenditure altogether will be $1,050,000.	'


George Taylor: Then the hon. gentleman is not asking for enough, according to his own estimate on the 3rd of April, he is $68,000 short, and will have to bring down another sum in the supplementaries. I estimate that it will cost a quarter of a million dollars yet to complete the census, judging from the staff the hon. gentleman has got in this building, for which he is paying $6,000 a year rental.


Mr. LENNOX.: Will the hon. gentleman state when he expects to have tiie census completed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I hope to get the great bulk of it completed in the ensuing fiscal year for which this vote is being asked. I cannot say positively that all the tabulations will be done within that time.


Mr. FOWLER.: I understood the minister to say that there was great difficulty in getting people to do this census work. I would like to ask him if he advertised for clerks or enumerators, and if so, in what papers and at what cost to the country ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, I did not advertise.


George William Fowler: In what way did the hon. minister find difficulty in getting clerks to do the work ? I think the difficulty would be that there would be too many applications.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A number who were asked to do the work declined it at the rates we proposed to pay.
(Mr. FOWLER. I suppose it would be impossible for the hon. minister to give the names of these parties ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


George William Fowler: Well, they could not be Liberals, because it has never been known that Liberals have declined an office of emolument.


Mr. GANONG.: I would like to ask the hon. minister if it is not a fact that 90 per cent of those who were recommended were recommended by his Liberal friends to these positions ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Could you not make it the whole hundred ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: This ik a most extraordinary instance of government extravagance, when the cost of taking this census is compared with the expenditures upon previous ones. The cost of taking the census in 1S91 was a little under 11 cents per head of the population. This was under a Conservative regime that hon. gentlemen opposite condemned as being extravagant and corrupt. The cost of taking the first census under Liberal rule is a little over 20 cents per head of population, or nearly twice the cost of taking the census in 1891. This either indicates gross and absolute incompetence, or something worse, because there is no increase in the salaries paid. There, is nothing but the grossest extravagance that could possibly have taken place to account for doubling the cost of the census from 11 cents per head of the population to 20 cents per head. This is a condition of affairs that is not to be excused by any such explanation as that given by the hon. minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. minister if he has settled with the census enum- [DOT] erators yet ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: With very nearly all of'them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How did the hon. minister settle up the dispute between the enumerators and himself regarding the schedule by which they were to be paid ? Did the hon. minister pay $3 a day or were they paid by the name ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were paid by a schedule of rates which was published.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By the name or by the day ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: By the name and on other items. There was a schedule of rates published by which they were to be paid 5 cents per name, 5 cents for every death, 25 cents for every farm and 30 cents for every manufacturing establishment recorded. That was the same principle on which the other census was taken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have here a copy of a paper which seems to leave another impression on my mind :
There is considerable disoussion going on as to the usefulness of the Labour Bureau. It is claimed for it that it has already done good work in effecting settlements between employers and their men, and it is said that it is well worth its cost. I do not desire to dispute this claim. I merely want to call the attention of the Labour Bureau to the trouble which has arisen between the Department of Census and its employees, and ask if it is not a proper subject to be dealt with by the Labour Bureau ?
I understand that the Census Department set some 8,000 men to work throughout Canada on


George Taylor: the understanding that they were to get $3 per day of eight hours, and after the men had been at work several weeks the employers repudiated the $3 a day arrangement and fixed a kind of a piece work rate, which means a reduction, in wages of about ong-half. The men, I understand, have refused to accept the reduction, and are to all intents and purposes on strike. Lawyers have been employed and the matter is to be taken into the courts at great cost to the men who, in the meantime, are left unpaid. Now, if I understand the object of the Labour Bureau, it is to settle such disputes as this, and see that the workingman gets fair treatment. Without passing any judgment on the dispute one way or another, it is. reasonable to assume that there is good ground for the stand the men have taken, or their lawyers would not have advised them to take it into the courts. It would be a great triumph for the Bureau of Labour if it stepped in now and effected a settlement of the whole trouble.
The hon. minister says that it was by piecework they were to be paid, but I would draw his attention to the fact that the instructions given to the census enumerators in regard to their employment were something like the following :
The day's work of census officers, commissioners', enumerators and other employees for the taking of census will consist of eight hours of proved effective service, and all overtime will be allowed as part of a day at the same rate of enumeration as is provided for a day's work. Ten hours of proved effective service *rtill count as one day and one-quarter and twelve hours as one day and one-half.
If the payment was to be by the name, what was the necessity for stating what would constitute a day's work. It goes on to say :
Section 24 of the Act reads as follows :
The Minister of Agriculture shall cause to be prepared one or more tables setting forth the rates, allowances, or remuneration of the several census commissioners and enumerators, which rates shall not exceed in the aggregate a total amount of $3 for each jlay of good effective service for any enumerator; or $4 for each day of like service for any census commissioner.
That seems to indicate plainly that they were hired by the day. Referring to this matter, ' Events ' says :
Hon. Mr. Scott, who is acting Minister of Agriculture, and therefore, for the time being, head of the Census Department, has given an interview to the press in which he declares that the enumerators have only themselves to blame for falling into the error that they were to get $3 a day for eight hours work. He says the basis of payment was plainly stated to them at the start.	.
Well, they have not themselves to blame at all. The instructions issued by the government clearly led the enumerators to that conclusion. As * Events ' says, if the Bureau of Labour was of any value whatever, the Deputy* Minister of Labour should have been called in to settle the dispute between the employer and the employee. The
men being helpless had no recourse against the government, and they feel to-day that they have been deliberately cheated out of what they regard as their honest wages. They cannot sue the government, of course, unless the government allows them, and so they have to grin and bear it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman lias quoted a newspaper.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cited the regulations given in your own instructions, not a newspaper report.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The instructions given by the minister were under the wording of the Act itself, which says : That the enumerators shall be paid by a schedule of rates to be fixed by the minister and published-
Which rate shall not exceed in the aggregate the total amount of $3 per day for each day of proper effective service for any enumerator, or $4 for each day of like service for any commissioner.
They were not to be paid a fixed sum per day, but they were to be paid by a schedule of rates, which schedule should in no case allow an enumerator to earn more than $3 per day, or a commissioner more than $4. They were to be allowed $3 for eight hours work If they had done enough work by the schedule of rates to justify their earning $3 per day. The House can understand that if they were simply paid at a fixed rate per day, there would be no inducement to do an effective day's work, but if they were paid by the schedule of rates under which they had to do a certain amount of work to earn $3 a day, that was a stimulus to them to do that amount of work. As a matter of fact, a considerable number of enumerators would have earned by the schedule more than $3 a day, but they were only paid that amount because the Act does not allow us to pay any more. There were other enumerators who by the schedule of rates did not earn as much as $3 per day, and it would not be fair, as between man and man, to pay those who did comparatively little as much as those who did a great deal more work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the duty of a commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The duty of a commissioner in each electoral district is to supervise the enumerators, give them their instructions, see that their work is properly done, and send in their report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How are they paid ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were paid one cent a name for all the names taken In the county, and they were made an allowance for general expenses besides, which was published in the ' Canada Gazette.'


Andrew B. Ingram: When the commissioners in some districts handed in their reports, were they instructed to do some other work ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know of a case in which the commissioner was asked to do work which was not proper work for him to do.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is not an answer. Were any commissioners asked to do any other work after they handed in their reports ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think some of the returns were found not to he correct and they were sent back to the commissioner to be corrected.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is not the information I want. I can tell the minister that the commissioner for East Elgin, after handing in his report, was instructed to do a considerable lot of work afterwards.


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


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman bring down the information as to what that additional work was ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will be glad to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the minister point to the regulation under which they were paid by the ' name ' ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The original instructions quoted the Act and said they were to be paid by a schedule of rates which was afterwards fixed by Order in Council.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is not the slightest doubt in the world but that owing to the instructions sent out, the enumerators were left under the impression that they were to receive $3 per day. That was the natural conclusion to draw from the wording of the instruction. It was long after, that the schedule was fixed, and so the enumerators were deceived.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The instructions told them very distinctly and clearly that they were to be paid at schedule rates, and not $3 a day. That was published for the knowledge of anybody who undertook to do the work.


Mr. HACKETT.: I would like to call the attention of the minister to Si fact that came under my own observation. In Commissioner Tweedie's district, in the province of Prince Edward Island, the man who was appointed as enumerator was found to be incompetent to do the work.


William Humphrey Bennett: They did not dispense with him for that reason ?


Edward Hackett: No, he was not dispensed with, but he entered into a bargain


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: with another man to do the work for $20. lie farmed out the taking of the census in that division. The name of the man who was appointed is Martin P. Doyle, and he farmed out the work to a man named Broderick, and between the two they took the census.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Which county was that in V


Edward Hackett: Prince county, in Commissioner Tweedie's district, in township No. 1. This man Doyle was actually appointed and sworn in to do the work. I would like to ask the minister if that matter has been brought to his notice, because I state here on my reputation as a member of this House of Commons that it is correct.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I never heard of the case before. No such thing has been brought to my attention, and I do not think it has been brought to the attention of my officers, or I would have heard of it. If it was done, it was done distinctly contrary to the instructions and in violation of the officer's oath of office. I will certainly inquire into the matter. .


Edward Hackett: There is no opportunity of the enumerator being changed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If an enumerator resigned, we would have to appoint another man to take his place ; but the enumerator had no right whatever to pass his work on to another man without our authority or without our appointing the other man and obtaining from him the oath of office. It would not be at all proper, or allowed for a moment, for an enumerator to pass on his work to another man without the full authority of the department.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The minister did not give any explanation at all in answer to the question 1 asked as to how the census of last year came to cost twice as much as the census of ten years before. Apparently the little incident which we have just heard may account for it. If throughout the country government heelers, as I believe they are called, had these appointments and farmed out their jobs, that would quite account for a very large amount of the extra $500,000. If that is not the reason for the increase,
I think the minister ought to give us some general explanation of why the last census cost over 20 cents a head, whereas the census of 1891 cost about 11 cents.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the hon. member was not in the House when the vote was first called, when I did give a general explanation. I do not know that he would wish me to go over that again ; but if there are any details that he would like to have explained, I shall be only too glad to give them. I may say in a general w^y that the reasons are these : In the first place, the cost of employment in

1901 was very much greater throughout the country than in 1891, and consequently we had to* adopt a higher schedule of rates, which probably involved two-thirds of the increased cost. Next, we had to take the census of the Yukon, Athabasca and Keewa-tin territories, which were not included in the census of 1891, Thirdly, in the territories which were included in the census of 1891 there were large areas in which there was no population at all. no enumerators appointed, and no expenditure ; but in the census of 1901 every nook and corner of the territories was more or less occupied and enumerators were appointed, and very heavy expenditure was incurred because of the scattered nature of the population. Fourthly, our census enumerators in 1901 had very much more extensive schedules and had to ask a great many more questions, which took a longer time and required them to do fewer households in a day than was the case in 1891, In the census of 1891 the schedules contained 21(3 questions, while in the schedules of 1901 there were (523 questions, or 407 more, or practically three times as many.	'	,


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the minister how much per name was paid in 1891, and how much per name in 1901 ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, In 1891 3 cents per head, and in the last census 5 cents ; in 1891, 3 cents _per death, and last year 3 cents ; in 1891. 13 cents for each farm, and in 1901, 23 cents ; in 1891. 20 cents for each manufacturing establishment, and in 1901 30 cents.


Mr. CLARE.: When the hon. minister says that it was almost impossible to get enumerators in 1901, let me tell him that he required 37 enumerators to take the census of the south riding of Waterloo in that year, when 15 did the same work in 1891. The cost of taking the census in 1901, was $2,821.44 and in 1891, when there were 14 enumerators and one commissioner, the cost was $1,491.3(3 or nearly 100 per cent less, and the population. wliich in 1901 was 25,480, was 25,139 in 1891. Therefore, it took this economical government $1,400 more to take the census of South Waterloo, which has only increased 341 since the previous census.


Gilbert White Ganong: The youth, innocence, and inexperience of the minister never was better illustrated than it has been to-night. But youth, innocence and inexperience are not the most desirable things In a minister of a business government. He says that the cost of wages had increased and he has got down so low in parish politics that he has to resort to a miserable plea of this kind to account for his extravagance.' But if he had come to the county of Charlotte and had given me the opportunity, I would have found him more Grits there than were necessary to take all the census in New Brunswick, and at the same rates as were charged
ten years ago, and they would have been better men than those he appointed. And I have no doubt that the same thing can be said about the other counties in this country.


George Taylor: Will the minister kindly inform us the rates he is paying now per day to the enumerators or the staff of tabulators here ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We pay different rates according to the work. The ordinary rate is $1.50 per dny, with an increase when the work is more important, or where a man has charge of a staff under him.


George Taylor: What was paid in 1891 for the staff here ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The same rates. The commissioners were paid $4 per family in 1901. and this year they are paid 1 cent per individual or name taken.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the chief commissioner in on cl* riding paid ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were paid on the schedule rates, equal to $4 per day for so many days accrued service In 1891 they were paid $4 per family, and expenses. This 'year they were paid a cent per name and an allowance foi expenses. In some counties they were paid $100, and in some few places more than that.


Mr BENNETT.: What was paid in East Simcoe in 1891 and 1901 to the commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In East Simcoe the total cost Jn 1S91 was $2,304.48, and this year $4,465.79.


Mr BENNETT.: East Simcoe offers a fail-example of the extravagance of this government in the taking of the census. The cost in 1901 was only $2,304 and in 1901 it had swelled to $4,4(35, and there was but a small increase in the population, and that principally in one or two towns. The reason why the expenses were swelled was because of 'the political leverage which had to be exercised in that riding. In 1891 there^ was only one commissioner, but political exigencies compelled the minister to appoint two in 3901, which swelled the expenses very considerably. In the town of Midland in 1891, one man enumerated the whole town, but in 1901, owing to public exigencies, the work was distributed among three, and these three, who were business men, took odd hours' of the day to do the work. All over the riding the same sort of thing was done.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I took the plan of appointing an enumerator for each polling subdivision, and roughly speaking there were about twice as many in 1891 as in 1901. The object was to have the census taken more quickly and much more information was required. There were 65 enumerators in East Simcoe last year.


William Humphrey Bennett: And in 1891, how many?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Twenty-seven.


William Humphrey Bennett: There is a case in point. The population was practically the same and the territory exactly the same. Yet we have 27 enumerators in 1891, aud 65 in 1901. I do not know what time the enumerators took up, because they claimed very little of my attention. But, speaking of my own town of Midland, who were these enumerators ? One was the express agent, who, when he had nothing to do, went about the census enumeration. And there was a clerk in a grocery store who occupied himself in odd moments in the same way


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What were the names ?


William Humphrey Bennett: White, Moore and Grice. But the names are immaterial. I am pretty confident that in 1891 one man did the work, and I will be bound to say that he was much better fitted to do it than all these three Put together. Yet, for this census three had to be appointed. The hon. minister has given some sort of a solution-that he had an enumerator appointed for each polling subdivision. As a matter of fact, there are the three polling subdivisions, so that worked out fairly.


George Taylor: How many polling subdivisions are there in the riding ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Sixty-five, I should judge. But, first as to the commissioners, the minister must have had representations that party exigencies required the appointment of two. Two were appointed. One was the magistrate, a lawyer by profession, and the other was the township clerk. These gentlemen must have been running into each others territory all the time. In how many other ridings of the province were there two commissioners ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There were two chief commissioners in a number of ridings. I would have to go through the list to learn how many there were in Ontario. But where the circumstances were peculiar it was sometimes deemed advisable to appoint two commissioners, especially was that the case where there was a considerable proportion of people representing the two different languages that are current in this country. If there was a large area, that was another reason. Speaking from memory, I think that in the hon. gentleman's constituency the appointment of two was due to the fact that there Mr. BENNETT.
is a considerable French population in that riding.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, as to one of these reasons, neither of the commissioners appointed in East Simcoe could speak a word of French. And as to the plea of extended area, I may tell the minister that one of the commissioners unfortunately is a very bad cripple, a man who cannot walk about, but has to be lifted. One can readily understand how he could get over a large area of country. I may explain the circumstances to the minister to refresh his memory. One of these appointees was recommended by the Liberal candidate for the local legislature, and the other by the defeated candidate for the Commons. Both had to be appointed, and the country has to pay for them. If that is a fair sample of the way the census was conducted all over the country, it is clear that the great expense lias been due to the fact that so much has had to be done out of consideration for political exigencies.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have given the facts concerning the two chief commissioners, and they are quite in accordance with what I have said.


Mr. McGOWAN.: Will the hon. minister please say how many commissioners there were for Central Wellington ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: One.


John McGowan: What was his name ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Thomas Harcourt.	.


Haughton Lennox: What was the expense of taking the census in South Simcoe in 1891 and 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In 1891 the cost was $1,341.41, and in 1901 it was $2,794.56.


Haughton Lennox: Can the hon. minister give the reason for that increase ? Is it due to increase in the population or to any special circumstance ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not give reasons beyond the general reasons I have given. I have not the details for this particular county.


Haughton Lennox: If the hon. minister will look up the census of 1891 and compare it with that of 1901, he will find that there has been rather a decrease of population if anything. There is no change of circumstances that would account for this greater expense. While I am speaking, I would like to ask the figures for North Simcoe, as the hon. member for that riding is not here.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The figures for North Simcoe are: 1891 $1,728.62, and 1901. $2,890.05.


William Humphrey Bennett: What were the respective figures for West Bruce ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In 1891, $1,359.46, and in 1901, $2,135.36.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there any particular reason for that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have no details to show the particular reason in this county.


William Humphrey Bennett: I can, perhaps, give the minister an explanation with regard to that riding. No doubt, the enumerators had the figures of the preceding census, and when they went around the riding they found that the population had dropped from 22,377 to 17.925, a decrease in that riding in the province of Ontario, where there is so much so-called prosperity, of 4,452. I suppose the enumerators became very zealous and worked over time, probably with the expectation that they would be paid by the day, to find where these 4,452 people had gone.


The MINISTER QF AGRICULTURE.: Tne hon. gentleman will see the fallacy of that when he recollects that the enumerators were paid by the names they got, and if they did not get the names they did hot get the money.


Mr. COCHRANE.: How then did they get more money than in the previous census?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were there two commissioners or one in North Simcoe and East Grey ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In East Grey there was one commissioner.


Haughton Lennox: How many in North Simcoe ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: One.
M* LENNOX. What was his name ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Archibald Currie. In East Grey it was R. D. Carruthers.


William Humphrey Bennett: In East Simcoe what were the amounts paid to the commissioners, Storey and Tudhope ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Tudhope was paid $264.09, and Mr. Storey $301.80.


William Humphrey Bennett: What amounts were allowed them for livery hire, if any ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Nothing was given to the commissioners for horse hire.


George William Fowler: What is the population of East Simcoe ?


William Humphrey Bennett: 39,257.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the minister say what was the respective cost of taking the census in East Grey in 1891 and 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In 1891 it cost $1,834.77 ; in 1901, $3,593.47.


John McGowan: Would the minister kindly tell me the cost in Centre Wellington in the two years ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In 1891 the cost was $1,591.99 ; in 1901 it was $2,681.79.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What was the cost in East Northumberland ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In 1891, $1,626.76 ; in 1901, $3,323.30.


Mr. VROOMAN.: What was the cost in South Victoria ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In 1891, $1,253.38 ; in 1901, $2,663.10.


George Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman kindly tell us what the population of the whole province of Ontario was in 1891 and 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The total in 1891 was 2,114,321 ; the total in 1901 was 2,182,942.


George Taylor: Now, will the hon. gentleman give us the cost for 1891 and 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The total cost in 1891 was $147,142.29 ; in 1901 it was $281,401.18.


Haughton Lennox: Was there any riding in the Dominion in which it cost less in 1901 than in the previous census ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think there is a riding in which it cost less. The schedule of rates which was paid and the work which was done in every case, I think, were more.


Haughton Lennox: Will the minister explain what it was that induced him to change the schedule of rates ? Was it a matter of intuition on the part of the minister, or was it after making inquiry, and after having endeavoured to get the work done a t the old rates ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We knew that we were asking the enumerators to do a good deal more work ; and we knew also from inquiries that we could not find men to do the work as easily as they were apparently found in 1891. We consequently fixed the rates at what we thought was a fair salary to enable the enumerators to earn $3 a day if they did a fair days' work.


Haughton Lennox: Would you reckon their labour as skilled or unskilled ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I should call it skilled labour.


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister understand that skilled labour was paid at a higher rate in 1901 than in 1891, as a rule 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think such labour as this, clerical labour, was paid higher in 1901 than in 1891.


George Taylor: Where did the minister find any difficulty in getting men to do the work ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not tell the hon. gentleman off hand where a man refused, but there were a good many instances of that kind, and many representations made of the difficulty of finding men to do the work.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I know a gentleman in my riding who came down here for two years waiting for a job. He was perfectly competent and tried to get work on the hon. gentleman's staff and could'nt get it. I cannot see for my part why taking the census in East Northumberland cost in 1901 more than double what it did in 1891. The same class of men was employed, only they were Liberals, and of course their services were skilled. Perhaps some of the Grit heelers that were along with the machine the hon. gentleman wanted to pay as he is now paying Mr. Preston for hugging the machine.


Mr. BOYD.: When were the enumerators paid for the county of Lisgar ?
^ The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. The accounts were paid as they came in. I could not give the hon. gentleman the exact time, or even about the time. They were not all paid at once. The accounts of each enumerator come in and are checked over here, and as they are checked, and accepted, and passed by the auditor, they are paid.


Nathaniel Boyd: Have any been paid during the last month or six weeks ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not remember whether there were any paid in the last month or not. The accounts were in dispute in many counties but I could not say whether there are any in Lisgar. I will look up the facts in the department.


Nathaniel Boyd: The information I have is that in a number of cases, in fact in all of the cases of disputed accounts in the county of Lisgar, an amicable settlement was made about the time of the late election. I hope the hon. minister will give the information before the item passes, together with the names of the enumerators there whose accounts were paid.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can give the hon. gentleman the names of the enumerators at once, as I have the information under my hand. The dates of their payment I will have to get in the department, and I will be glad to do it if the hon. gentleman wishes it. I may say that the report which he has heard as to' there being an amicable settlement in regard to these accounts in Lisgar, and that the en-Mr. LENNOX.
umerators were all paid, is entirely unfounded, and, I think, if the hon. gentleman discusses the question with some of these enumerators, he will find that their accounts were not paid to their satisfaction. I regret to say that there are a great many of these cases all over the country, and I regret to say also that in a few instances we have not jet made a settlement of the accounts.


Nathaniel Boyd: The hon. minister does not know whether they have been settled in Lisgar to the satisfaction of the enumerators ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can get the dates if the hon. gentleman wants them.


Nathaniel Boyd: I would like to have them.


Haughton Lennox: I would like to call the hon. minister's attention to the fact that we have not received that defiuite information that we are entitled to in regard to the question of increased remuneration for labour. I do not think the hon. minister has given us any basis upon which to judge whether a fair increase in the remuneration of these officers was made or not. If the hon. minister will say that he found that the percentage of wages for skilled or clerical labour had, in his estimation, and according to his investigation, increased 5, 10 or 15 per cent, or whatever percentage the hon. minister found that the remuneration had increased, we will have some reasonable means of ascertaining whether a fair arrangement was made or not. I understand that in the years that are past hon. gentlemen opposite maintained that the great object for a legislator to aim at was to make Canada a cheap country to live in, and that cheap food and cheaply paid labour were the great objects of legislation and of government. According to what we find to-night from the hon. Minister of Agriculture, this lias been made a very very dear country to live in. I would like to ask the hon. minister if he found, before he made this regulation, that labour was worth from 10 to 15 per cent, or some definite percentage, more in 1901 than in 1891, so that we can ascertain whether, in the first place, the conclusion he arrived at was correct in regard to what we know to be current in the country, and in the second place, whether the increase which he made was in accordance with that test.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would like to ask the hon. minister who the enumerators were in the towns of Orillia, Gravenhurst and Fenetanguishene ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have the list of enumerators, but I have not attached to it the places in which they made their enumerations.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. minister will allow me to see the list perhaps I can select them.


Haughton Lennox: In tlie meantime, will the hon. minister answer, ns far as possible, the question I submitted to him ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) asks whether there was a definite ascertainment of particular facts in regard to the increase in the general wages of the country. 1 may say to the hon. gentleman at once, no. That is a very difficult thing to find out, as a matter of fact. I have examined all the statistical records I can find in the country. I find that until the Labour Bureau was established here there was nothing in Canada frpm which one could make a definite statement as to the price of labour, but now that the Labour Bureau has been established that will be remedied, and in future the cost of labour will be on record so as to be available for statistical purposes. In the past no such record has been available. However, I formed my judgment on what I believed to be the general consensus of opinion and of knowledge in the country that the remuneration of all classes of skilled and clerical labour was higher than it had been, and also upon the fact that while in 1891 there wore a large number of temporarily unemployed and idle people, in 1901 there were comparatively few people who were not busily engaged in one kind of work or another who were not prepared to leave their work for temporary employment, and who could not leave their employment with advantage unless they got a fair remuneration. A number of instances are on record where men who were offered these positions refused to accept them, because they could not take them at the pay which was offered.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it not a fact that the hon. gentleman had thousands of applications more than he had positions for ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, it is not a fact.


Andrew B. Ingram: W ill the hon. gentleman say that there have not been more applications than there were positions ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think the hon. gentleman would be correct in saying that there were any more applications than there were positions.


Andrew B. Ingram: In 1891 we had, in St. Thomas, four enumerators, and in 1901. we had fourteen, and there were forty ready to take the positions if they could get them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We did not have fifty applications from all parts of the country for positions as enumerators. Recommendations were made to us and the people who made the recommendations, in many instances, had to search out men to do the work.


Haughton Lennox: As I understand the hon. minister, he says that there are no means of ascertaining whether the increase in the
rate of pay was fair or justified, that he was anxious to ascertain it but that he could not do so. Then, I understand that there was no reason for increasing the rate, there being no means of definitely ascertaining that there should be an increase in the rate. Am I right in assuming then that the main reason for increasing the remuneration was by reason of the increased number of questions asked and answered ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was one of the chief reasons.


Haughton Lennox: Was that the chief reason ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think I may say it was the chief reason.


Mr. PUTTEE.: May I ask the hon. minister if any steps were taken to get information as to what wages are being paid now ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTt RE. In the ordinary schedules there are questions which indicate the pay that the people who are remunerated are receiving. Part of the questions which are asked are in that direction, and these results will be tabulated.


Arthur W. Puttee: Was there any like schedule in 1891, so that you can make a comparison ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Mr. BLAIN.: Did the minister say that the government first fixed the rates to be paid to the enumerators, and then increased them afterwards ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Richard Blain: On what authority does the minister state that some who were offered the positions refused them on account of the lowness of the rate of pay.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Other people took the positions afterwards.


Adam Edward Vrooman: The figures given me by the minister with regard to South Victoria have whetted my appetite for further information. In 1891 the cost of taking the census for South Victoria was ,$1,253, and in 1901 it was $2,663, more than double. That county lias a less population now than it had in 1891. I wish to know who was the chief census commissioner there, what was he paid, what is the population now as compared with 1891, and how many enumerators were employed in both periods ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In South Victoria the commissioner was F. C. Taylor. He was paid $299.55 all told. The population in 1891 was 20,455 and in 1901 it was 19,953. There were 17 enumerators in 1891 and 39 enumerators in 1901.


Adam Edward Vrooman: Was there anything paid the enumerators for horse hire.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Ill 1001 they were allowed $1.50 per ordinary day, and in 1801 they were allowed nothing for horse hire.


Andrew B. Ingram: I asked the minister if it was not a fact that hundreds of applications were made for the position of enumerators as well as commissioners, more than there were vacancies to fill.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The applications were not made to Ottawa. They were made to the representatives of the Liberal party in the county and not to me.


Andrew B. Ingram: Therefore the minister could not answer the question ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.
Mr. INGltAM. Then why did lie give an answer that was misleading to the House ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I had reports sent to me.


Andrew B. Ingram: Can you say now, that there were not more than fifty commissioners in ail Canada who applied for positions that had been filled ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There were not fifty applications for enumerators who came to me. I understood there were no doubt a large number of applications in the different counties, and it was reported to me that it was difficult io find men to do the work at the rate of pay.


Andrew B. Ingram: The minister stated that one of the chief reasons why they increased the pay of the enumerators and commissioners was on account of the scarcity of men to fill the position. I can tell him that in East Elgin hi; had more applications for positions than there were vacancies. That was the same, I venture to say, in every constituency in Canada except in perhaps a few sparsely settled districts and probably not In them. There was no reason to increase the pay on that account.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: One of the main reasons given by the minister for the enormous cost of the last census was the difficulty of obtaining competent men to act as enumerators. Will the minister tell us what means were taken to obtain applications from capable men to fill these positions ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Our friends in the different counties were asked to make recommendations and those whom they recommended were asked to forward specimens of their handwriting, and so on, in the form of a letter to the department so as to indicate whether the persons recommended were properly qualified by their education to do that work.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have had the advantage of seeing the list of enumerators in


Adam Edward Vrooman: East Simcoe. I shudder to think what must be the lists sent in by some of them in the line of orthography. I notice the name of one gentleman who, under the wonderful power conferred on the Ontario government of appointing every one who may be useful from a party view to be a justice of the peace, has been appointed to that office. He was one of the enumerators selected by the Minister of Agriculture. He is a gentleman who believes in signing his name to all papers as a justice of the peace and he always spells it ' Justis of Pace.'
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the minister had many more enumerators like that he did not put them through a very rigid educational examination. On looking over this list of enumerators for East Simcoe, I see in it the same old gang of political heelers of the Liberal party. It would not be a question of fitness, for that certainly was not the question in the selection of enumerators there, because we find that they were the old time division court clerks, license inspectors, bailiffs, and men of that ilk. These were tne enumerators for the riding of East Simcoe. As to their fitness by reason. of educatioii, I can only tell the minister that if the men got correct returns in East Simcoe, then I am very much mistaken. What are the facts of this census ? Let us take the province of Ontario. We find that there has been an increase in the province of 53,(557. In the cities of Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, London and Brantford there has been an increase of 55,900 odd, so that in the bulk of the province of Ontario the population, instead of increasing, has gone backwards. ' Can any one believe that in ridings where 1,he population was tumbling from 22,000 to 17,900-and this has gone on throughout the province generally, though I am glad to say not in all the ridings-there would be such a scarcity of men to do the work that the minister had to increase the pay ? As I have pointed out, party exigencies drove him to appoint two commissioners in the riding of East Simcoe, which of course increased the cost accordingly. Then he had to increase the number of enumerators from 27 in 1891 to 65 in 1901. I will refresh the minister's memory as to one of the requirements that were to be exacted from these enumerators. I suppose the minister has not forgotten the famous circular : first, on your oath, do not give anything away ; and next, send to the county secretary the names of all the lads in your division who are approaching 21. I think that is the reason why a good many of these men in East Simcoe were chosen-that they would have an utter disregard of their oath of office, and would do what I know they were doing-going about the riding getting all this information preparatory to "the revision of the voters' lists last fall. I can only speak of that one riding, but I have no doubt that if the non.

gentlemen study the lists in tlieir own rulings, they will find the same thing there- that' these men were selected as enumerators because they would be useful from a party point of view, and that is the reason thev were not g'oing to do the work at the rate that had been in force in 1891, but demanded a higher rate. That is the reason the minister was moved-and I suspect that the greatest pull came from the province of Ontario-to increase the rate from 3 cents per head to 5 cents. The minister cannot make any reasonable man believe that in those parts of the province of Ontario from which people were fleeing as if from a pestilence, it was difficult to obtain men to do the work. In East Simcoe these little doles which were given out to those men were perfect Godsends to them. A number of them were men who were pursuing their ordinary avocations, and this was money simply thrown to them on the side. It will not do for the minister to try to convince the country that these men were paid these excessive rates to take the census, because there was no complaint that the enumerators were under paid in 1891. It was simply and solely because they were so hungry that they had to be paid an excessive amount, and it was thrown to them as a sop and nothing else. The statement that the cost of labour had increased so much in the province of Ontario will not apply in East Simcoe, because most of these enumerators have no ordinary avocation save being hangers-on to a political party ; and I am bound to sav that if other members go through the lists of their own ridings, they will have the same experience there as I have had in East Simcoe. It was the hungry cry of the party followers, driven on by the members behind him, which drove the minister to increase the rates in 1901 over what was paid in 1891.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria).: I am sorry to think that there are so many hungry people in Ontario. We have no such class of people in Nova Scotia, and particularly in the island of Cape Breton, where the value of labour has increased 25 to 40 per cent, and in some instances 50 per cent.


William Humphrey Bennett: On account of the iron bounties.


William Ross: The best class of people have moved to the Sydneys. Speaking for my own county, I can say that the men who were appointed enumerators there were perfectly qualified in every respect, and their returns, if examined, will show that they were not appointed because they were hungry, but because they were qualified to do the work that was entrusted to them. I think that will be found to be the general experience in the whole island of Cape Breton. We have no hungry people, I am happy to say, in the island of Cape Breton at the present time, but the people are prosperous, and are getting from 25 to 50 per cent better wages than they did in 1891.


William Humphrey Bennett: I can only say, in answer to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, that if times are so good in the riding of Victoria, which he represents, it is a wonder that some 1,500 people less are there now than there were 10 years ago.
Hon. Mr. ROSiS (Victoria). They have moved to the county of Cape Breton.


William Humphrey Bennett: To get the benefit of the bounties.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) must remember that there are iron bounties paid in Ontario, and in the town of Midland ; and if these accrue to the benefit of workingmen in the province of Nova Scotia in increased wages, and do not in the province of Ontario, we ought to know the reason why.


William Humphrey Bennett: I grant the Finance Minister that they do accrue to the benefit of the country ; but there is this marked distinction between hon. gentlemen on this side of the House and hon. gentlemen on that side, that we on this side, not only when in power, but also when in opposition, have been favourable to iron bounties, while the hon. Minister of Finance and his friends placed themselves on record by a resolution when in opposition that iron bounties were a bane to the country, and voted against the giving of them, but they were very different when they came into power.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, as Mr. Rudyard Kipling says, that is another story. We do not happen to be discussing just now whether iron bounties are wise or unwise. There is the fact, that iron bounties are paid in both Cape Breton and Ontario, and the idea that they are peculiar to Cape Breton is a mistake, that is all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that iron bounties exactly account for the increased cost, nor does the reason given by the Minister of Agriculture. His principal reason is that wages have increased between 1891 and 1901. We have some means of making a comparison. I have before me the report of the Ontario Bureau of Industries for the two periods, and I find that the wages of farm labourers in 1891 were $25.81 a month, and in 1901, $20.14. or a difference of 33 cents a month. Surely that cannot account for it. I think the ministei will be obliged to look around and find some other reason. He will certainly not find people in Ontario, who have been in the habit of employing men, agree with him that the difference in wages can account for the increase. Take the riding of East Grey. I find that in 1891 it cost $1,324 to take the census, whereas in 1901 it cost $3 500. or more than twice as much, notwitstanding the fact-and I speak from experience because I have been hiring men all along-that the wages paid in 1891 were about the same as were paid in 1901. When

these gentlemen were appealing to the people. they said that if they got into office they would make the country a cheap one to live in, but according to the minister it is dearer, because he says that on account of the increased cost of living we have to pay more wages. They also said they were going to exercise stringent economy, and yet they paid double in 1901 for the same work that was done in 1891.


Mr. FRASER.: So far as my county is concerned, there has been an increase in that county of over 1,200 during the last ten years. The hon. member who has just spoken must remember that the question of the cost of living is one that must always be considered in connection with the wages paid. Suppose a man gets $2 per day this year where he got $1 per day ten years ago, will it be fair to say that because his living cost him 50 cents per day when he only got a dollar, and .$1 per day when he gets $2, that the cost of living has increased ? In the one case he is 50 cents a day better off than the other. Speaking for my own county, except in two districts,
I had not an application to appoint a man to take the census. I had to- enumerate good men myself and ask them to do the work, except in two districts. My county is divided into two municipalities. In the one, in order that the work might be well done, I asked the warden of one of the districts if he would not he the commissioner for that particular district and he consented, in the other I appointed one of the best men I could And, who never applied at all. It may be different elsewhere, but I do not believe there is a man who took the census m Nova Scotia-I know there was none in the county of Guysborough-who could not make more money at something else during the time he took to do that work. The remuneration after all was not so very great; and 1 did not think that even in Ontario taking the census would be found such a very lucrative job. It certainly was not considered so in the province of Nova Scotia, and nobody was scrambling for the positions. We had to look for the men to take them. The two commissioners appointed in m.V county could have made twice as much money at other work during the time they gave to the census.


Mr. MATHESON.: In my countv I was asked to recommend enumerators and several refused to accept. I had only very few applications. I have in my mind one from a certain gentleman who had taken the census twice before, and who claimed he was about the only man competent to do it. But when I found that he began to spell census with an ' s,' I began to doubt his qualifications. It was true that we did not take farm hands in our county to do the work, but men who were skilled in that particular line, and in several cases the men I asked to do it would not accept at all. I had very few apppli-Mr. SPROULE.
cations for the job, and when 1 called on some men to perform the work, they said they could earn more money at something else. It was no wind-fall .to our people to get such a job, and I am sorry to hear it was such a Godsend to the people in Ontario. In my simplicity, I had the idea that Ontario was rather ahead of us in that respect, and that tlie people there were not so badly off that they looked upon a week or ten days' work on the census as such a Godsend to them.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman must remember that they had an eighteen-years' hunger on. I would ask why it was deemed necessary in the county of Guysborough, which has only a population .of 18,000, to appoint two or three commissioners ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The county has two distinct municipalities, and there is a shore front of over 200 miles, and it was a saving to the department to have a commissioner in each municipality.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the minister's version V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. M.: v lion, friend from Guysborough recommended the men and I took his recommendation.


William Humphrey Bennett: While accepting the statement of the hon. member for Guysborough, it seems rather strange that, if there were no men looking for the position, two gentlemen should have been appointed as chief commissioners for the small number of 18,000 people. There must have been some anxiety for the best positions when two were appointed where one had previously done the work.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: There was no such thing. Neither of the men made any application. Had only one commissioner been appointed, he would have had to travel around a shore frontage of some 200 miles, and in appointing two men, travelling expenses were saved, and the government effected an economy of $200.


Andrew B. Ingram: How many commissioners were appointed for West Elgin ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There were two in West Elgin.


Andrew B. Ingram: So in West Elgin, 25 miles long, the same rule does not apply as in Guysborough. Will the minister tell us if the same explanation would apply to West Elgin ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the first place West Elgin, I believe, is about 40 miles long, and in the second place, it is composed of parts of two municipal counties. The riding is not all in one municipal county, and it was thought better to have one man attend to the part in one county, and another man attend to the other part.


Andrew B. Ingram: What does the hon. gentleman mean by a municipal county ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: In Ontario there are certain counties for municipal purposes. By the Gerrymander Act the ridings are not always bounded by the same boundaries as the municipalities. The county of Elgin comprises portions of two different county municipalities.


Jabel Robinson: What was the cost of taking the census in West Elgin in 1891 and 1901 ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: In 1891 it was $1,644.72 ; in 1901, $3,581.80.


Andrew B. Ingram: Please give the figures for East Elgin ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: In 1891, $1,715.58 ; in 1901, $3,221.57.


George Taylor: Kindly give us the figures for Guysborough.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: In 1891, $1,239.77 ; in 1901, $2,391.


George Taylor: The county was of the same size, I presume, under tlie corrupt Conservative government that did the work, and did it just as well, for $1,231, as it has been done last year for $3,301. My hon. friend from Simcoe informed the minister a few moments ago that the population of Ontario during the ten years had increased by 53,000 souls, while the population of four cities that lie named had made up that total increase. Now where has the increase taken place ? In all the smaller towns, villages and rural municipalities there is not a man in Ontario to-day who is satisfied with the census. I have before me tlie census in our town, and I find that in 1891 it was 3,069, and by this census it is 3,526. Here is a certificate from the county clerk taken from the assessment roll that simply gives the heads of families and their children. It takes the same count that the enumerators are supposed to take, and the assessor was doing the work at the same time that the enumerators were. The town clerk says :
Gananoque, October 17, 1901. The assessment roll for the town of Ganano-que for the present year, 1901, shows the popu-lation'to be 3,718.
(Sgd.) SAMUEL McCALLUM,
Town Clerk.
The enumerators of the hon. gentleman give the population as 3,526, or 192 less than the population in our town taken in the same month by the town authorities. I would like to know how the hon. gentleman will account for the great discrepancy there. Besides the four cities the member for Simcoe named show an increased population more than the total increase for Ontario that the hon. gentleman shows by his census. He must know, as everybody in Ontario knows, that the census for Ontario is not correct, because the Ontario Bureau of Statistics show a much larger increase, and my hon. friend here proved by the Ontario
Bureau of Statistics, made up by the same gentleman who has been at the head of this census staff, that the wages paid in 1891 were within 23 cents a month as high as those paid in 1901. The minister himself says that the men doing this kind of work must understand clerical work, and lie is paying to-day just the same prices that were paid for doing the same clerical work as was done in 1891. $1.50 and $2 a day-that is wliat they were paid in 1891. Where is the increase ? In the city of Ottawa, where living ought to be dearer, if in any place, lie is giving his staff the same pay as was given in 1891. namely. SI.t>0 and $2 a day. The hon. gentleman has at the head of his staff the same gentleman .who took the census during the two last decades, lie had the same machinery, but he had to find jobs [DOT] for his friends. What are the facts to-day? The present census will cost, by the time it is completed, more than double what the last census did. to say nothing about that $6,000 a year rent he is paying for a building that will not hold the staff doing the work. Let anybody go down to that building and say if $6,000 a year rent is not an outrageous price to pay for it, besides spending $10,000 or $12,000 for fitting it up. That is how this economical government are running the affairs of the country, and it is so in every department. This is a plain kind of work that any man ought to be able : to do, at least for the same amount of money that it cost ten years ago. The fact 1 is that labour lias not increased, ns proved by statistics here, and by gentlemen who are employing men. I have some 60 men employed in my factory at Gananoque. doing the same kind of work that they did ten years ago, and they are drawing the same pay now that they did then, and it is the same in every other factory.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Have you not a larger number now ?


George Taylor: No, I have no more, we have just about the same number that we had ten years ago, but we have another factory. The pay is the same. Every employer of labour knows that there is no such increase in wages. The hon. gentleman admits that he is paying his staff in the city of Ottawa just what the late government paid ten years ago, namely, $1.50 and $2 a day. But how did he obtain his staff ?
I am informed that each supporter behind him and each defeated candidate have a right to name one clerk to come down here on the census staff-213 clerks sent down from 213 constituencies in the Dominion of Canada, to fill this building renting at $6,000 a year, and they are crammed in there, tumbling over one another. But there had to be one taken on from each constituency, and I presume that if each supporter and each defeated candidate had the privilege of naming five clerks there would have been five from each constituency taken on, because I understood that more came than the

hon. gentleman could find room for. The minister will find that the estimate he made the other day that it would cost $170,000 more to complete the census, will be exceeded, and that it will take a quarter of a million dollars more to complete a work that was done in 1891 for $549,000. The city of Kingston had a census taken, and they eiaim a large shrinkage. Owen Sound, Toronto, and almost every other place has had a similar experience. In many cases they were so disappointed that they had the census taken over again, and the Minister of Agriculture has heard from them. Ontario does not show anything like the population which is given by the Bureau of Statistics.
Mr. OLIVER, The case I have to lay before the minister is the direct opposite of that of these hon. gentlemen. They complain of the minister having spent too much money, but my complaint is that he has been too careful in his expenditure.
Mr. TAYLOR, That is what we expect of hon. gentlemen on that side.


Frank Oliver: I am glad I do not disappoint the hon. gentleman. There is in my constituency, and, I think, in adjoining constituencies, very considerable complaint because of failure on the part of the census department to pay accounts for money earned last spring-that is to pay them in full.


Andrew Broder: And are they not paid yet ?


Frank Oliver: They have been partially paid, but the complaint is that the minister has been over particular in checking the accounts and refusing payment, I suppose in order to keep within the mark in expenditure. For the purpose of my present argument, I am not concerned whether the expenditure on this census is greater than on the one preceding it or whether the expense is large or small. I am concerned with getting the people paid who did the work. I would ask the minister what are the prospects of these census accounts in the Northwest being paid ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We are dealing with the accounts as rapidly as we get the proper vuuchers from the individuals who claim the money. We have had a good deal of difficulty in getting vouchers which were acceptable to the accountant and which could pass according to the rules of the department. I think I may say, in a general way, that that is the reason of many of the delays in regard to accounts from the North-west Territories.
I may say also that in the North-west, where distances are great and there is often difficulty in transportation, we have found it hard to get details of the accounts. I think that most of the accounts in the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Oliver's) riding are paid, but that


George Taylor: there are still some in other places in dispute between the officials and the department. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we are dealing with these ns rapidly as the staff at my disposal will allow. If the enumerators had been able to file the necessary vouchers for expenses, I have no doubt they would have been paid long ago.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to take up the time of the committee in discussing the matter at length, but I would like to bring to the minister's attention the fact that the order requiring vouchers was not issued until after a great part of the work had been done and it had become impossible to get vouchers, and that now the demand for vouchers makes it impossible for the parties to collect their accounts. There should be some other way of arriving at a conclusion than by this demand for vouchers, which it is impossible, at this stage of the game, to obtain.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is entirely in error in saying that instructions as to vouchers were not issued until the work was commenced. 1'his was distinctly made known to the chief commissioner for that district, and if he did not give it to the enumerators, that is not the fault of the department, Mr. Deftal, who is the commissioner for the territories, says he gave it to the commissioner for every riding.


Frank Oliver: At what time ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: On the 17th March, two weeks before the enumeration took place.


George Taylor: The hon. minister, of course, will not expect this item to go through to-night. I think that before it goes through he should bring the list showing the number of commissioners and enumerators. There is also the question of payments in the constituency of Lisgar. My hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) says that a large number of cheques for census work went out into that constituency at the time of the election. We would like to know to whom they went. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) might bring down his cheque book with stubs showing the payments made in February.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I should be glad to give the hon. member the information. While I do not expect this item to pass this evening, it is still early, and we can go on threshing it out, and perhaps some other points may arise on which information will be required that I will have to procure and bring down at a subsequent sitting. I would like hon. gentlemen to ask now for what information they want.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not been able to be present during the whole discussion. Has the hon. gentleman here a complete list of

the employees in Ottawa in the work of the census ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. I have here the paylist. It does not include the name of Mr. Blue, the chief commissioner, or Mr. St. Denis or Mr. Cot6, of the Census Department, but it gives the names and salaries of the others connected with the work. I will send the list over to the hon. gentleman.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I shall be glad to see that list. I would also ask the minister out of what fund the investigation which was made in the province of Quebec,, and of which we have heard a great deal, was paid for ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Out of the census vote.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In what way was it charged-as an investigation ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, as part of the work connected with the census.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I was speaking of the investigation which was made in regard to the census of 1891. What was the total amount'!


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think I could tell the hon. gentleman off hand what the amount is.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We would like to have the amount, and the way it is charged in the account.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will get It for the hon. gentleman.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: While I am on my feet I would like to know the cost of the census taken in 1891 in the county of Jacques Cartier and the cost of the last census.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will give the hon. gentleman that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And who were the commissioners ? Was there only one commissioner, and if so, who was he V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The census of 1891 in Jacques Cartier cost $S42.08 and the census of 1901 cost $2,770.58.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And the name of the commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The commissioners were U. H. Dandurand, who received $206.67, and Caron Vallee, who received $201.06.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: At whose suggestion were they named ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not say off hand, but I will look it up. I think it was at the suggestion of Mr. Decarie.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman what authority he had to charge 107
to the cost of the census of 1901 this investigation made as to the census of 1891. I think this is a very important question which I will refer to again when I get the amount. It has always been my impression that the way in which we vote money is extremely vague, and I maintain that a study of the estimates and the voting of the estimates would be much shorter and much less of verbal explanation would be called for, if every item gave distinctly the purpose for which the money was asked. Anybody who takes the trouble to go over the estimates, will, I am sure, come to the conclusion that a "great many questions which are asked on this side of the House would not be asked if the object for which the money is to be voted were clearly designated. But, outside of the general consideration, it seems to me a most preposterous act on the part of the government to take this specific vote given by this House, under the supreme authority which we possess, for the census of one decade, to take a sum which must have been very considerable out of that vote, to make an investigation as to the census of the decade previous. 1 believe there was no authority whatever, and when there has been such a flagrant violation of fact that what has happened in this case has sound principle, I am perfectly convinced that a careful examination of the ends to. Which the money is put, and under the loose system in which we vote it, will reveal the fact that what has happened in this case has happened in a variety of other cases. I will confine my attention to this particular case, and I say it is an absolute violation of the rules and principles which should govern us and which ought to be taken notice of by every fair and impartial member of this House, because we may be on the other side of the House to-thoTrow. It is gross violation of principle that a sum voted for such a specific object as this should be devoted to defraying the expenses of the investigation which was made into the census of 1891. I would ask the hon. minister to explain upon what authority he has violated one of the fundamental rules which should govern us in our financial conduct in this House ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is quite a fair question to raise. I felt that the investigation into the accuracy of the census of 1891 was called for, because of the results of the census of 1901 which showed very extraordinary decreases of population in a great many places where the people of the locality were quite satisfied that such decreases could not have occurred. In other cases where the increases were very small indeed the question arose as to how this could be accounted for. It was a question concerning the census of 1901 ana when the suggestion was made, and which came naturally to the minds of many people, that the census of 1891 was unduly swelled and that the apparent anomalies



8395
which existed between the results of the census of 1891 and the results of the census of 1901 were perfectly explainable if we could show that the census of 1891 was unduly swelled, which I think we could show, and which I think we did show, es-pecialy in the province of Quebec, it would be a sufficient explanation of these apparent anomalies and would be a confirmation of the results of the census of 1901. I therefore considered that the results of the census of 1891 were bound up with the question in such a way that the expenditure for this purpose seemed to be perfectly legitimate out of this vote for taking the census of 1901.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will not deny that the explanation given by the hon. gentleman is a plausible one, but still I maintain that there was no authority given by us to use that money for such a purpose. We will refer to this further when we get the amounts. I would like to ask the hon. minister if he took upon himself, upon his own authority, to make that expenditure and to thus divert money from the use for which it was originally intended. Did he do that of his own volition, or was it done by Order in Council, or how was it done ? How were the accounts passed by the Auditor General ? Having before him the vote which we had given, how could he possibly pass this amount which was intended for taking the census of 1901, and which was not intended to defray the cost of holding an investigation so as to criticise the census .taken ten years before ?	-


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: 'There eertainly was no Order in Council authorizing it to be done. The decision was arrived at after consultation with my colleagues. I did not assume the responsibility entirely on my own shoulders, although I carried out the intention and desire of my colleagues after consultation with them.
Mr. J3RODER. Will the hon. gentleman give the cost of taking the census in the three Bruces in 1891 and 1901 V


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I will give the cost in 1891 first and then the cost in 1901 :	East Bruce, $1,330.61 ;
North Bruce, $1,594.51; West Bruce, $1,-359.40. In 1901 the cost was as follows : East Bruce, $2,667.04; North Bruce, $2,911.34; West Bruce, $2,135.36. The population was as follows : In 1891, East Bruce, 21,355; North Bruce, 20,871; West Bruce, 23,377. In 1901 the population was as follows : East Bruce, 19,313; North Bruce, 21,297; West Bruce, 18,410.


Andrew Broder: It costs many thousands of dollars more in 1901 with a population 6,000 less.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The information obtained at the last cen-.Hon. Mr. .FISHER.
sus was three times as much as in the census of 1891.


George William Fowler: What was the cost of the census for King's, N.B., in 1891 and in 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In 1891 it was $1,615.92, and in 1901 it was $2,396.93.


George William Fowler: What was the amount paid to the commissioner in each year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In 1891 the commissioner received $280.20, and in 1901 the commissioner received $316.63.


George William Fowler: Have you got the list of the enumerators there ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, I will hand you the list for the whole province.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: I may state that in my county it did seem difficult for the government to get a commissioner. The first man to whom they offered the job said the government owed him more, and he wanted more. He would not take the job, but he recommended another who did take it.	[DOT]


William Humphrey Bennett: What did they owe him
more for ?


Robert Johnston: I really cannot tell that. I wish the minister to tell me what was the cost of taking the census in 1891 and in 1901 in the county of Cardwell.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman confirms my statement that this man would not take the position because he was not paid enough.


Robert Johnston: No; it was because he said the government owed him more.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know what the government owed him.


Robert Johnston: Have you found out since ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. The census taken in Cardwell in lo91 cost $1,102.94, and in 1901 it cost $1,965.93.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I would ask the minister the same question *with regard to South Grey.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The cost in South Grey in 1891 was $1,047.85, and in 1901 the cost was $2,597.36.


Robert Johnston: Did the gentleman who refused the commissionership in Cardwell get a better job since ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know who he was or anything else about him.


APKIL 23. 1902
Robert Johnston: Well, it was Mr. Stubbs.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Oh, yes, Mr. Stubbs has a position in my department, but I do not know if it is better or not.


Robert Johnston: Well, if he did not refuse it, it must be better.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He is in a position whieh is more continuous and possibly is better.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have now a copy of the circular sent to the enumerators. 1 notice that while first instructions contained the bald statement! that the day shall consist of eight hours, and that they shall not be paid higher than $3 a day. It appears that on the 30th of April an Order in Council was passed forming the schedule upon which they should be paid, but that was long after they were appointed and after the census was taken.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It says they shall be paid at schedule rates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It says that the day shall be of eight hours of proved effective service, and that the minister shall set forth a table of remuneration which shall not exceed in the aggregate a total of $3 per day for each day of proved effective service for an enumerator; or $4 for a commissioner. That circular was sent out to the census employees. They were furnished with no other schedule, and I claim that they had a right to assume that that was the only binding contract between them and the government, and that they were employed at $3 a day; but after a month, after the work was done, then comes out the other schedule stating that they were only to be paid 5 cents a name. It does seem to me that the government have broken faith with their employees, and have done a great injustice to them; and up to the present several of their enumerators have not been paid, and have refused to take what is offered to them, and I think very properly so.


William Humphrey Bennett: When the minister the other day was going into the figures of the census of 1891, I think he referred to the towns of Goderich and Clinton, in one of which it was alleged there were on the list the names of some 37 persons who were not really there in 1891. May I ask the minister what means were adopted for making this comparison ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A gentleman who was thoroughly acquainted with the places, who had lived there for many years before 1891, was employed to ascertain, of his own personal knowledge and from such information as he could get from the old inhabitants of the place, those who were present in 1891, and he was given 1074
a list of the names taken in those municipalities in the census of 1891.


William Humphrey Bennett: Did the same gentleman act in both towns ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, Mr. D. F. Macpherson made the investigation in both places.


William Humphrey Bennett: My recollection is that these two places were the only ones cited by the minister. Can he explain how it was that it was only in the riding of West Huron that he seized on any towns for the purpose of comparison ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was not only there. We also made inquiry in East Hastings, North Middlesex, Cornwall and South Norfolk. There were five places in Ontario in which investigations were carried on.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am speaking from memory, but I think ' Hansard ' will bear me out, that only in those two towns of Goderich and Clinton actual names were picked out. Percentages were given for the other places.


The MINISTER. OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot remember in what places names were picked out.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the medium that started the inquiry in these particular ridings ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were chosen simply at random. We wanted to get places scattered over the province, and we employed gentlemen who from their residence in the places and their knowledge of the localities were competent to do the work.
Mr. BENNETT This gentleman, Mr. Macpherson, did not explicitly say that the people were not there in that year. It may have" been that they were there part of the year. I think the census of 1891 was taken late in the fall.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, it was taken in April.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, it may have been that the people returned there in the fall. Does Mr. Macpherson allege that they were not there in any part of the year at all ? If he has made any statement in writing, will the minister produce that at the next meeting of the committee ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The statement was that they were not there on the date the census was taken, that is, on the 6th of April, and had not been there for years before.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the minister a written report of Mr. Macpherson ? If so, will it be laid on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have a full copy of the report here, and I will show it to the hon. gentleman.


Frank Oliver: I was not able to conclude the remarks 1 wished to make to the minister. What I wished to say was that even if the Chief Commissioner did issue the instructions, I am satisfied that these instructions did not in all cases reach the enumerators in time, and for that reason and others of a local character, it was not possible for the enumerators in all cases to follow the instructions as to securing vouchers, and I would urge upon the minister the necessity of relaxing in some degree the requirements in order to clear up the accounts. There will have to be some relaxation.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would say to the hon. gentleman that in view of just such cases as he mentions, I have given instructions to this effect, that if the enumerators who did not get vouchers would make an affidavit to that effect and supply the details of what they knew they had expended, we would take that and make the payment. But we require something to show us that they were real expenses incurred, and we cannot tsflke a general statement of figures.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the minister state in two words what was the nature of the investigation which was made in reference to the census of 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The investigation in the province of Quebec was carried on largely in this way. It is a well known fact that every year a parochial census is taken by the Catholic clergy of the province. The figures of that census were taken and compared with the figures of the Dominion census of the same year. The same thing was done for 1891 and 1901, and we found this extraordinary fact, that in 22 counties there was a difference of 44,000 between the parochial census of 1891 and the Dominion census of 1891 an average
difference	of 2,000	per	county	inwhich	the	parochial	census	was	lessthan	the	Dominion	census.	In	these
same 22 counties there was a difference in 1901 of only 8,000. or a difference of about 400 per county. We went further than that, and appealed to the registers of the parishes in which the names were entered. We compared these with the schedules in those counties and the lists of the names which were taken in the Dominion census, and we found name after name in the Dominion census which did not appear in the parochial registers. I made personal inquiries from priests, notaries, and old residents in those particular localities, and I got name after name and names of whole families which the people in those localities declared positively were not there in 1891, and had not been there for five or ten years, and in
some cases twenty years, and in many cases had never been there at all.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Of all this there is an ample report in writing, no doubt ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, the reports were laid on the Table some time ago.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: "Knowing how our clergy take their census, and how their system is necessarily different from that pursued by us, and knowing how their census is limited to those of their own communion, it would not surprise me at all if the results which they arrive at should be different from those we obtain.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Those were taken in purely Catholic counties.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If any argument has been drawn from that, which I believe has been, I should say that the findings of our clergy have been put to very base and irregular uses. I would not at all question the findings of my own clergy, but it would not surprise me that they should be widely different from those of our enumerators, who proceed under a totally different set of rules. There is no ground possible for comparison, but I do not want to speak without examining the record. Would my hon. friend bring to our next meeting, not only the vouchers connected with that investigation. but the books in which the entries were made ? That would greatly shorten the work of my hon. friend and mine. Is this list, which my hon. friend has handed me, really a list of the permanent staff of the census employed at Ottawa ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is a list of the people now engaged in the census work here at Ottawa, with the exception perhaps of one or two employees, permanent in the departments, but who are also engaged in this census work. It is a list of the nominees appointed to do the work of tabulation at Ottawa in connection with the census.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will my hon. friend bring down a complete list of those specially employed at Ottawa on the census of 1901, giving their names and salaries ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will provide a supplementary list, if there are any names not on.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are these officers paid by the day, week or month ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think that everybody on the list is paid by the day. They are paid every day right aiong, including Sunday.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Do they work on Sundays ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


Andrew B. Ingram: When we had a discussion on the census some time ago, the hon. gentleman argued that the Conservative party in 1891 had stuffed the lists in the province of Quebec, and he gave a number of constituencies, in which a large number of families were enumerated in 1891, who were not there at the time. How can he reconcile that with the statement made frequently throughout the country that the French population of the province of Quebec had been under-enumerated in the census of 1891 by the Conservatives, and that Mr. Cote's circular was sent out for the special purpose of guarding against a similar occurrence ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not aware that the charge has ever been made that people were left out in the province of Quebec from the census taken in 1891.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then why was the Cote circular sent out ? The reason given was that the French families in the province of Quebec had not been properly enumerated in 1891. Yet, according to the hon. gentleman's own statement, instead of people being left out of the census then, the census lists in the province of Quebec were stuffed in 1891.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The reason why the Cote circular, as the hon. gentleman describes it, was sent out, was to obtain a correct census in 1901, without any reference whatever to the census of 1891.


Andrew B. Ingram: But the hon. gentleman must have heard his colleague's statement that was circulated in the press.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not responsible for his statement.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Minister of Public Works was charged with circulating a statement that the French families of the province of Quebec had not been properly enumerated in 1891, that the Conservative party had not done justice to that population," and that was the reason why this circular was issued.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I sent out that circular for the purpose of getting a correct census in 1901, I never understood that there was any accusation that the French Canadians in the province of Quebec had not then been fully enumerated, but what I did understand-and I think that certain words in the first volume of the census of 1891 will bear me out-was that there were French speaking people all over the Dominion who had not been enumerated as such. There were Acadians in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and French Canadian people in Ontario and Manitoba. But there was only one description of them, that of French Canadians. A great many of these people, especially
the Acadians, did not return themselves as French Canadians, thinking that ' French Canadian' was a term applied only to the French Canadian habitant of the province of Quebec. There were a large number of people of French origin, and of the Catholic religion, and who are really French nationality, but who were not returned as French Canadians. I think that was the complaint made by certain French Canadian members on the floor of this House after the census of 1891. I was not in the House at the time when the debates took, place, but my recollection is that this is what has been explained to me as having occurred.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then the Conservative party are not open to the charge of having given credit to Quebec for too large a population in 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not accusing them of that.


Andrew B. Ingram: But, on the other hand, the accusation is that they did stuff the lists in the province of Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, investigation shows it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I see the point made by my hon. friend. But, the matter will be thoroughly sifted before this matter is passed. We will know if the statement of the Minister of Agriculture is true and if the charge, the violent charge, made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is well founded-that there are a very large number of perjurers among the French population of Quebec. That charge so repeatedly made will have to be sifted to the bottom. I can tell hon. members that the people of the province of Quebec, part of whom I represent here, have keenly felt that charge. AVe are Conservatives and Liberals in the province of Quebec and we have our political difficulties as other people have. But I should be very sorry to rise in this House and charge that the Liberal enumerators of 1901 were perjurers. And what is still stranger than the fact of such a charge being made concerning the enumerators of 1891 is the fact that it is proven out of the mouth of our Roman Catholic clergy. We will see the bottom of that before this item passes. For my part, I am prepared to suspend judgment until we have before us all the documents we have a right to see. In the meantime, I will examine the documents so far presented.


William Humphrey Bennett: Coming to the alleged charges of falsification of the census in Ontario, I am informed that the inquiries were not made at random but specifically in every riding, and that the only county in which "the investigator dared to put down anything definite was the county of Huron. In this case, the statement is made by a Mr. Macplierson. This gentleman does not live in Goderich, but, apparently in Clinton,

as lie writes from Clinton. Who is lie, and what is his occupation ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 am informed that Mr. Macpherson is a member of the firm of Macpherson, Glasgow & Co., makers of agricultural implements, and lives in the town of Clinton.


William Humphrey Bennett: This investigator or inquisitor lives in the village of Clinton, which, I think, is about ten or fifteen miles from Goderich. In 1891 Goderich was returned as having a population of about 4,000. After a lapse of ten years this gentleman goes up there. He does not make a single statement on his own authority, but what he says is ' after making careful inquiries of different old residents.' I suppose he took old people because their memory might he at fault and they might be easily persuaded to agree to what he said. This statement the Minister of Agriculture read out to show that the list for Goderich had been stuffed. The census was taken early in the year 1891. Now, take the first name mentioned as having been improperly included in the census list. This is Elizabeth Tebutt, who was enumerated twice, once in Goderich township and once in Clinton. I know nothing of the case, but I presume this woman was a domestic. She may have been at her home in Goderich township when the enumerator went around, and was proba bly included in the census again by the enumerator for Clinton where she was working. Now, the town of Goderich is a lake port of importance and a number of vesels run in and out of there. I find the name Worthington given here with the remarks that this party was in Chicago in 1891, and another party was in Buffalo, and so on. These men were probably vessel men, and were properly taken by the enumerator at Goderich. Everybody knows that a man connected with a vessel leaves home in the spring for the fitting-out work that is done on the boat. If the bulk of these cases were inquired into, I have no doubt it would be found that these men lived in Goderich and their occupation was such as to take them away during a part of the year. One is represented here as having been in Winnipeg, one in St. Paful, one in Vancouver, and others in other places. What does that indicate ? It indicates that this very inquisitive gentleman-who, I have no doubt we shall find out later on was well paid for his inquisitiveness-learned the names of people who. at some time of the year were away. He does not say that they were away the whole year. They may have been there in 1891 when the census was taken and been away in the fall. On this list are the names of the enumerators whose work is here impugned. Have they been asked for an explanation ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think so.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the hon. minister think it is British fair-play to lay on the Table a statement opposite which is a name of, no doubt, a respectable man of the county of Huron or the town of Goderich, which statement practically brands that man as a perjurer ? I think my former statement is true, that these inquiries were made all over the province from the members representing the ridings, and that the member of that particular riding seemed to be very busy about this town of Goderich and the town of Clinton where he lives. Go all through the list and you find the same thing. Here are two men who were said to have been employed elsewhere in 1891, and the statement does not say they were not there in the spring of the year when the enumeration was taken.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The statements all have reference to the 6th of April.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister says that, but Mr. Macpherson does not say it. On the face of it. Mr. Macpherson knew nothing about it. He lives ten miles away from this town. Is the minister going to ask the people of this country to be asses enough to believe that a man who lives twelve miles away from a town can go hack ten years afterwards and pledge his word that on this particular date, the 6th of April, every one of these men were not in that town I live in a town of 3,000 population, and I would hesitate to allege that on the 1st of April of a particular year men were not in that town who perhaps were there. Here is another statement. There is a Mr. Cook, a Mr. Corbett, a Mr. Woodcock, a Mr. Reid and a Mr. Stiver. I do not know any one of those men. Perhaps you do, Mr. Chairman, as you come from Huron ; and would you be prepared to say that these men were perjurers ? Now this man Macpherson would not venture to say this is true under the solemnity of an oath, and lie would not. hold himself responsible that there is one statement true on his own knowledge ; he says that the statements are made to him. I think it is preposterous that the minister should place such a document before the House and make wholesale charges based upon it. I am glad to know that having scoured Ontario front one end to the other in a vain attack on tile census returns of 3891. he was only able to find in this town of Goderich the particular instances of wrongdoing that he mentions, and which, on their very face, will not carry to any fair minded man an idea that there was anything wrong on the part of these enumerators. Now, here is a test for the minister. He has the criminal law of the province of Ontario behind him, and he lias been afraid to prosecute one of these men


William Humphrey Bennett: for perjury. I ask the minister if lie lias prosecuted one of those men for making false returns ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does he propose to prosecute any of those men for fraud ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not proposed to do so.


William Humphrey Bennett: I admire the hon. gentleman's discretion. Here on the 17th of February this statement is sent in by Mr. Macpherson, and the minister thinks that between man and man it is fair and honest to these gentlemen to make this slander on them without asking them for an explanation.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I want to correct the hon. gentleman in saying that the province of Ontario was carefully scoured to find out those frauds. There was no attempt of the kind in any shape or form.


Andrew B. Ingram: In no case 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In no case. There was no inquiry made, and in this very place where an investigation was made there was no preliminary inquiry of any kind. Before the work was commenced we had no idea what the result was going to be. As a matter of fact, there were five places in which this work was conducted, and in two of those places, two townships in one riding, there was evidence that the census was taken correctly in 1891, jind in the others there was evidence that it was not.


George Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman give those statements ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 gave them in full to the House not long ago. The places in which the investigation was made were in Huron west, in Goderich and Clinton, in the town of Simcoe, and the village of Port Dover, in the south riding of Norfolk, where also many errors were found. In Cornwall also irregularities were found.


George Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman leave these reports on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will be glad to do so. I may say that the best evidence that there was no preparation for this investigation is the fact that in one place, at all events, no irregularities were found. If our object had been to discover irregularities before we made our investigation, we would not have chosen that plan, but we would have chosen places where we had found irregularities. We just took the places at random, and made the investigation with the results that have been detailed. I have here four of these, and one where there was nothing wrong
found. I will bring the reports down before the next meeting of the House.


George Taylor: I presume these commissioners were paid out of this appropriation the same as in Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


George Taylor: I stated a few minutes ago that the hon. gentleman had a staff composed of one clerk from each constituency in the Dominion, and the hon. gentleman stated a few moments ago that there was a supplementary list to be added. I have added up the numbers, and I find there are 205. names on this pay-list. I find also that he has able bodied men and women working at $1.25 per day, judging from this pay-list. I want the hon. gentleman to tell me how much it cost in 1891 and in 1901 to take the census in the city of Ottawa, where you have to pay for clerical work $1.25 a day ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may say that as far as the $1.25 a day is concerned, there are a few clerks who are being paid $1.25 a day. This is because there were a few clerks who were not doing their duty properly and they were cut down from $1.50 to $1.25 a day as a warning and told if they did not do better they would be dismissed altogether.


George Taylor: There is quite a number of them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot tell the hon. gentleman how many there are. The expense in the city of Ottawa in 1891 was $1,564.37, and in 1901, $4,573.96.	[DOT]


George Taylor: Three times the amount that it cost in 1891. I have just run up this monthly pay-list, and to the end of March,
I find that it takes $10,500 to pay the persons whose names appear here. Then, there is a supplementary list, and there is the commissioner and a large number of the members of the staff who are not on this pay-list at all. There is Mr. Blue, the commissioner, whose name does not appear and that will increase the amount very materially. It is costing $10,500 a month, and from the best information we have it will take two years to complete the work of tabulating the statistics from the 1st of March. To pay this staff it will cost $250,000, to say nothing of the commissioner and the other members of the staff. My hon. friend does not expect to get through in less than two years from March last. The expenditure up to that time is $948,000 to say nothing of the commissioner, or rent, or tlie other members of the staff. This is the ordinary list of pay clerks who are receiving $1.25, $1.60, $1.75, and up to $2 a day. There is one man drawing $100 a month on the list, and he is the only one that I have noticed receiving that amount. I am prepared to say that before the work is

completed $1,250,000 will be nearer the amount expended than the sum stated by the minister.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the latest bulletin that has been issued ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Bulletin No. 7. giving the population by origins and nationalities.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that he has not been very extravagant in furnishing us with copies of the bulletins. I would like to know why the distribution office of the House is not supplied with a reasonable number so that copies can be obtained by members.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will be glad to send some copies to members of the House.


Mr.   MONIC@: I think we have advanced a little and that we might now adjourn.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think we have advanced the business very much, but this happens to be as convenient a time as any other to adjourn.


George Adam Clare: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether he would object to bringing down a detailed statement of a few of the enumerators' accounts ? I would like the hon. gentleman to bring down a statement showing the amounts paid to the enumerators in South Waterloo particularly. Some resolutions reported.


FIRST READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 120) to incorporate the Bishop of Moosonee.-Mr. Taylor.
On motion of the Minister of Finance House adjourned at 1.10 a.m. Thursday.
matter of the most earnest consideration on the part of the government. A good deal of correspondence has taken place on this subject between the Colonial Office and the Canadian government.
Canada wants men, plenty of men ; in the Ncrth-west Territories and towards British Columbia there are thousands of square miles that are lying waiting for settlers. The Boers are the sort of settlers that the Canadian government is looking for. The Dominion government proposes to give a full homestead, consisting of 160 acres of land, to each head of a family that will settle down, as well as to each male over twenty-one, to assist them with money-as settlers are at present assisted-and to admit them to the same terms of civil liberty as any settler.
If so, will ihe government lay the correspondence on the Table of the House ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: There is no such correspondence.


PURCHASE AND SALE OP CHICKENS.
George Taylor: Thursday, April 24, 1902.