[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply. Census, $250,000.
['The order stands.', 'CANADIAN NATIONAL BANK. On the order :']
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: On what date does the minister expect that the census will Mr. BERNIER.
be completed ? There seems to be a great deal of delay about it, in some places at least. I am aware of houses that were not visited up to the 23rd, and I understand that the census was supposed to have begun on the 1st.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: It is a little difficult to say just when the census will be completed. The report which I have generally is, that it is practically completed in the central portions of Canada now. It is true, in some of the cities all the returns from all the enumerators are not yet in the hands of the commissioner ; but, we have to-day 'something like eight times as many returns in as there were received during the whole month of April in the census of 1891. We had yesterday nearly 400 returns sent into the central office, whereas in 1891, during the whole month of April, there were 52 returns sent into the central office. My hon. friend can, therefore, see that the progress of the work has been very much greater than it was at that time. But, in justice to the officers who took the census in 1891, I must say that we have employed a larger number of enumerators-I think about two and a half times as many as were engaged then. We take as the unit for enumeration the polling subdivision, whereas, in 1891, as a general rule, two or three subdivisions were put together. While the work is pretty well completed in the thickly-populated parts of the country, there is a large area of unorganized country and back settlements, even in the older provinces, where the work is progressing very slowly, and it will probably be at least another month before the returns come in from those parts. Therefore, it will be some time before any definite statement can be compiled of the total results of the census generally ; and in speaking even of those results, I only refer to the actual numbers of the people. The tabulation of the numbers of the people is first undertaken, after which we go on with the working out of the return's on other lines. I venture to hope that the work will progress as rapidly as is possible, consistent with due economy and efficiency.


Robert Laird Borden: I saw a statement in the press-I do not know whether it is correct or not-that the census of India, covering a population of about three hundred millions, was taken in fourteen days.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not give an opinion on that. I am not aware whether the census of India is a de facto or a de jure census. If a de facto census, which I think it was, it had to be taken in a very much shorter time than a de jure census. In a de facto census all the information is taken on a certain day and the work is distributed among a sufficient number of men to do it all in one day.


Mr. MONK.: Are all the returns in for Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: La Presse a few days ago stated that a great many houses in Montreal had not been visited at all.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can assure my hon. friend that no residences have been omitted, but of course we have not all the returns in yet. We have no means of information here as to the exact state of the work until we get the returns. If we find, after reasonable delay, that the returns are not coming in, we will communicate with the commissioner for that district and ask him to hurry them up. We have general reports from the commissioners as to the progress of the work from time to time. The following returns have come in up to the present :
Prom Ontario	 229
Quebec	142
New Brunswick	 3
Manitoba	  8
Nova Scotia	 1
Total	 383
In 1891 there were only fifty-nine returns brought in during the whole month of April, so that we have 383 returns from forty-eight different counties as compared with fifty-nine in 1891.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Has the hon. member brought down the instructions'issued by Mr. Cot6, particularly in Quebec.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were laid on the Table the other day.


John Graham Haggart: Do they include Mr. C6t6's letter to the different clergymen of Lower Canada with regard to counting in particular parties belonging to Quebec and residing elsewhere ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is on the Table.
ports received this month than were received when the last census was taken. Perhaps the former census was taken in a different way.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, practically the same way.


Mr. SPROULE.: Is that system likely to give correct information with regard to the actual residences of the parties. Take hotels, is it possible for any one to know at this date who were in the house as far back as the 1st of April ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is one of the defects of the de jure system, but the census of Canada have always been taken on that system. In the census of 1891, there were many cases in which the enumerator did not visit the house until almost a month after the date to which the questions referred.


Mr. WALLACE.: The enumerators years ago had the returns in long before the month was up, except in the North-west Territories.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is entirely in error. I have my information from the records of the department. The following returns were received in 1891 during the months named :
April, 1891	 59
May	 1,816
June	 1,877
July	 625
August	 98
September	 74
The hon. gentleman is incorrect.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: My hon. friend is putting words in my mouth I did not use. I did not refer to the words being in, but to the fact that the enumerators had done their work. I was referring to the fact that the enumerators had done their work, and they had done their work-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: On what authority ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who instructed the enumerators in their duties ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The commissioners of the electoral division in which the enumerators were doing their work. The commissioners of the electoral divisions got their instructions from the provincial commissioners, of which Ontario has four, Quebec four, and each of the other provinces one. These commissioners came to Ottawa and were thoroughly instructed by the commissioner here. They spent four days receiving instructions in this city, and then went down to their provinces and instructed the electoral district commissioners. These in their turn instructed the enumerators.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that there were more re-


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: On my knowledge of my own county, and I presume that other counties in Ontario were the same. They finished their enumeration on the average in about two weeks in the west riding of York, and they had districts there that were, presumably, of the same character and extent as those of the ordinary rural constituency in Ontario. As to the circular letters to which the hon. minister has referred, I would like to ask whether the letter which was sent by Mr. Cote to the clergymen of the province of Quebec had received his sanction and approval before it went out at all ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It received the same approval as did the other circulars he sent out. I did not see the words, but I approved his sending it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fisher) stated that he knew nothing about either until it was sent out-[DOT]


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman's statement is incorrect.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No, I am exactly correct. The minister made that statement.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is entirely wrong.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. minister will please permit me to go on with my statement. It will not do the hon. gentleman any harm to observe the rules of the House. He stated to the House that he had not seen that circular until after it had been sent out


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Hear, hear.
Mr. WALLACE-but that he saw it after it had been sent out and approved of it. And he says that the same thing occurred with regard to the circular letter sent out to the clergymen of the province of Quebec. If the contents had been improper, it might have been necessary to send a telegram, as he did to enumerators in Ontario warning them against paying attention to the circular that they were supposed to fill out in the interests of a political party. Now, it was stated publicly the other day by an ex-premier of this Dominion, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, that in the previous census of 1891 and in the census of 1881, there was not a single circular sent out that had not the approval of the Governor in Council. So careful were the government of that day to see that everything was done properly, that every circular was submitted not merely to the minister, but to the council. That is the proper way. But the hon. minister tells us to-day, as he told us the other day, that he did not see these circulars at all, and had no knowledge of the contents of them. He says to-day he knew in a general way what they were to be. He stated the other dav that lie did not see the first circular till after it was sent out, but he had approved of it. Why did he not see it before it went out ? He has told us about the commissioners for the provinces seeing the commissioners for the districts and they in turn seeing the enumerators and giving them instructions. He may tell that to the House, but I know the contrary with regard to the west riding of York. I was at home last week, and I was informed there that the enumerator had not got his papers till either Saturday or Alonday morning, that he had received no instructions and that he had entered upon his work without having a clear idea of what he had to do. He came to our mill and asked for information as to what he had to do. He said :


Mr. FISHER.: I cannot put your mill down on the census, I cannot make any record of it, because the regulations that are given us require that live men must be employed in an establishment before we can count it as a manufacturing establishment. The one who was giving the information could not say that there were five men employed there, because there were only about four men employed. Here is a manufacturing industry that turns out ?30,000 or .$40,000 worth of flour or other products in a vear, yet is not recorded in the census because of the absurd regulation that there must be five men employed in a manufacturing establishment before any record can be made of it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: And the Prime Minister approved of that sort of thing. There is no record of that mill in the census to-day, and, to that extent, the record of the census is defective and the business is not done in a way that the Minister of Agriculture lias told us, though he says it is moving along like clock-work that each one gets his instructions from somebody else and that these instructions are duly carried out. We should have had all these documents laid on the Table so that we could have gone over them before the 1st of April. Then, if the hon. minister could not give his personal supervision to the matter, the members of the House might have given some assistance. I say the government have neglected their duties in these matters, and, to the extent that I have shown at least, the census will be misleading or worthless.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will not refer to the hon. gentleman's misquotation of myself and his correction and subsequent reiteration of his first statement. Unfortunately, that kind of thing is customary with the hon. gentleman and I will take no further notice of it. He states facts with regard to enumerators in his own county which have a direct bearing upon the report of the commissioner in that county. The commissioner has reported that he gave personal instructions to every enumerator a week before the census commenced. I suppose, therefore, that the work was done in the way I have outlined.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: And the census enumerator stated that he had not got the papers till Saturday or Monday-the Monday when he should have started on his work.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have stated what the commissioner has reported.
Mi-. WALLACE. I have stated the facts.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman has stated what somebody else told him. I have stated what an official has reported to the department.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Will the hon. minister quote the information he has in that regard ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman knows that we do not carry the report of all the officials of the department into the House.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Nor in the head either.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. I have the information however-


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Where does the information come from ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman took me to task a minute ago for interrupting him. He does not seem to be willing to apply his rules to himself.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Go ahead.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will go ahead. The hon. gentleman went on to quote information given him with regard to taking the census of industrial establishments. I suppose the hon. gentleman would like to go back to the census methods followed when his friends were in power, when every old woman who knit stockings was counted as a knitting factory and every blacksmith as a factory of hardware. I confess that I have taken steps to provide that only manufactories shall be enumerated as such and not establishments where one person only is engaged or where at most two people work together in doing ordinary handicraft work and which are not worthy of the name of manufacturing establishments.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That does not touch this statement I made.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman stated that if five individuals were employed in a place, and therefore it would be called a manufactory, there might be four employed, and it ought also to be called a manufactory.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: And in addition, that there were $30,000 or $40,000 worth of articles manufactured.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These facts will appear in the enumeration.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: They will not appear in the enumeration. The enumerator said he could not put them down, because his instructions were to do so only in case there were five employed in the establishment. The enumerator told my brother that he could not put them down, and had no record of them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Unless they are counted as manufacturing establishments, the amount they produce will not be put down in the schedule ; but 122
where they are counted as manufacturing establishments the amounts will be put down. As to the enumeration proceeding well and satisfactorily, I can only speak of the reports I have received from my commissioner, and if the hon. gentleman is not prepared to accept those reports I cannot help it. I simply put the facts before the committee.


John Graham Haggart: I drew the minister's attention a few moments ago to the fact that there was a letter from Mr. Cot6 to the different priests in Lower Canada, and the hon. gentleman says that it is laid on the Table. There is only a book of instructions and forms, but not the letter.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Another return has been laid upon the Table since the first return, which contains the letter.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman has evidently adopted a different form for taking manufacturing establishments to that which was employed by his predecessors. He says that what constitutes a manufactory is the employment in it of five persons or over, and he leaves out of his list any manufactory employing less than five. Let me tell him that in the United States and Great Britain they follow precisely the same form as we adopted in 1891. What the hon. gentleman condemns in onr method of taking the census in 1891, he likewise condemns in the methods of other countries. What was the reason of his changing the description of a manufactory from the description generally adopted in nearly every other country in the world ? The complaint made by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) was that the hon. minister had altered the designation of a manufactory from the generally accepted idea followed by census commissioners in every other part of the world.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman asks why this has been done. In the first place, I will say to him that in Great Britain they do not take a census of manufactories at all. they take merely an enumeration of the people. But in the United States they do collect data with regard to manufacturing industries, and they have had to adopt a rule as to what should constitute a manufacturing establishment. I cannot at the moment tell .lust what number of employees is considered to constitute a manufactory in the United States, I believe the number is a little larger than the one we have adopted here. The reason we made the change was that in the census of 1891, what I have just alluded to notoriously prevailed and misled the people as to the time state of facts. It is well known that there were many cases where a single individual constituted a manufac-



tory. For instance, a man who mended wagons was counted as a carriage manufacturer ; and a blacksmith who, perhaps, turned out a few horseshoes in the course of a year, by hand, with, possibly, one assistant, was counted as an iron working manufacturer. I confess I did not consider that to be at all consistent with the facts which only we want to ascertain, and I decided that the thing should not occur again, and therefore, gave instructions that there should be a minimum limit as to the number of employees who would constitute a manufacturing establishment.


Mr. BENNETT.: Is it correct, as stated by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace), that instructions have been given to the enumerators that in the event of a place of business, be it what it may, having less than five men employed, it is not to be counted as a manufacturing concern ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: On that point my attention has just been drawn to the fact that in the local Act, dealing with factories, the number five is held to be the number of employees necessary to constitute a factory under the operation of those Acts. That is one reason why I adopted that number.


William Humphrey Bennett: In that case it is to my own knowledge that a number of large grist mills will not be enumerated by reason of the fact that very few grist mills employ five men. You can rarely go into a grist mill that is producing 100 to 150 barrels of flour per day, that has five men employed in it. I know what I am speaking about, because I was interested in a mill of about 100 barrels capacity, and we rarely had four men employed about that mill. In flour mills, run by water power, the number employed for a mill of that capacity is even less. If the enumerators carry out that instruction to the letter he will have very few grist mills enumerated.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I noticed the same thing in our locality, because the enumerator who went round said that he could not count an establishment as a factory unless it employed five men. I spoke to an enumerator and he told me that no flour mill employing less than five men could be counted, neither could their products be entered in the schedule. His information given to me was exactly the same as that which the hon. member for West York has reported to the committee. It did seem to me that it was a very improper way to take the census. As to whether the enumerators could correctly take the number of people in a single day, I understood the hon. minister to say that in order to avoid the danger that occurred in previous censuses where enumerators were very few, a larger number of enumerators had been employed on the present occasion so that they might do


Sydney Arthur Fisher: the work in a very few days. But even with his present number it is a question whether we are going to get a correct enumeration of the people. For instance, in my own case, no census has been taken so far as I know, where I am stopping, but I know that on the 1st of April there was a census taken where I did not stop. Now, I do not know whether I was taken in the place where I did stop, or whether 1 shall be counted in the place where I do stop. In view of this fact, I have a doubt whether the census will be by any means correct. I do not know that it can be overcome in any way that I can suggest except by appointing a much larger number of enumerators; In regard to the enumerators and their instructions, I think there was very great delay, some how or other, in giving these instructions and supplying them with their books and papers, because my information is that a great many of them did not get their instructions until very late and that some of them did not get theirs until after the first of April. It may be that they got them later on, but, they were expected to do their work in a very short time, and I would expect that until an enumerator got his instructions he would not be enabled to commence work. Another feature of it which is particularly striking to me is that if you have a very large number of mills and other establishments turning out an annual product of a considerable, volume and if no record of them can be found in the census, then, the census are falling very far short of what we expect of them when they are taken, which is that they shall give us some data of the great industrial institutions of the country and of the output of the people engaged in these industries.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Before the hon. Minister of Agriculture replies to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), I just want to say a word. The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) referred to flour mills, many of which employ less than five hands. I presume, in his neighbourhood, the saw-mill is a large institution, but, in the rural municipalities there are a great many saw-mills, and in my own county we have at least seven or eight of such mills. There is one at Lyndhurst run by John Roddick & Son where they employ one man. Jas. Roddick & Son have another mill in which they employ two hands. There is also one at Merton run by Mr. Coon and his son doing custom work and manufacturing lumber as well as flour. Then, we have several other saw-mills in my county making elm lumber which they saw into material for making cheese boxes and employing two or three men each. Are all these institutions not to be enumerated as manufacturing industries by the rule adopted by the hon. Minister of Agriculture. If so the manufacturing industries of the

country will be lost sight of entirely. 1 presume that in every county in the province of Ontario there are from half a dozen to a dozen saw-mills simply doing custom work for their neighbours. They are operated by water power and steam, and a great many of them employ less than five hands. As I have said there are seven or eight of them in my own county all employing under five hands. Are these not to be enumerated ? I have no doubt that the hon. minister is anxious to draw a comparison which will be creditable to his department. He professedly takes a great deal of interest in the Department of Agriculture, and one of the industries that he intends to bring out with great force is the construction and operation of silos which have grown up in this country since he became Minister of Agriculture. He has set apart a column for the number of silos and the capacity per cubic feet. This is not shown in the last census, and 1 presume that when the hon. minister comes to make his report he hopes to be able to say that in 1S91 we had no silos in this country and that now, under his administration, we have a large number. In connection with the instructions that the hon. gentleman has given to the census enumerators, I wish to refer to a letter which a gentleman has writetn to me. The information contained in his letter has reference to what has occurred right here in the city of Ottawa, and so, I presume, the hon. minister himself, is responsible. He must certainly have given instructions to the enumerators in Otawa. The writer of this letter says, that in Wellington Ward, Ottawa, an enumerator has put down thirty-six household conveniences, known as W. C.'s, as silos. From the information that comes here from Wellington Ward it appears that one of his enumerators has discovered thirty-six silos in the city of Ottawa. When the census returns come to be worked out the hon. minister will say : See, under my administration the number of silos that have been established in this country for the purpose of advancing the interests of agriculture.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is certainly very amusing and I am glad the House has laughed at it, but, unfortunately, he is just a little astray in his facts.


George Taylor: The facts are contained in thei statement to which I have referred, and I will give the hon. gentleman the statement.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the first place, the hon. gentleman spoke about silos and he drew a vivid picture of the great interest I take in agriculture for which I thank the hon. gentleman. He has not overdrawn the picture in the slightest degree, but he apparently was not aware of the fact that in the census of 1891, five 1224
or six years before I became Minister of Agriculture, there was the same question in regard to silos that there is in the census being taken in 1901, and it was put in by the hon. gentleman's friend, the Minister of Agriculture, whom he supported. The hon. gentleman is only a little inaccurate in stating what is absolutely contrary to the facts.	*


George Taylor: Then, the hon. Minister of Agriculture wants to show a large increase in the number of them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I believe I shall be able to do so. If the hon. gentleman knew as much about agriculture as many other hon. members of the House do, he would know perfectly well that the use of silos has very largely increased since 1891, that before 1891 the use of slios was well known and well established and that in the returns from the census of 1891, procured by the hon. gentleman's friends and the government which he supported, that question, put in by the hon. gentleman's Minister of Agriculture, showed that there was a large number of silos in 1891, utilized, enumerated, counted and published in the returns of the census. The hon. gentleman's facts, unfortunately, will not quite square with his argument or his facetiousness. As regards silos in the city of Ottawa the hon. gentleman may find an enumerator who has done what he has stated ; I do not know but it is very extraordinary because the schedule of agricultural questions is not given to enumerators in cities. They do not make use of that, they do not ask these questions, and if an enumerator did choose to do so all 1 can say is that he has exceeded his duties, that he had no reason to do so and the question will be inquired into to see if the facts are as the hon. gentleman has stated them. In regard to the case mentioned by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), the hon. gentleman is aware that under the de jure census there is always difficulty where a person is absent from his home as to where he shall be counted. He should be counted at the place of his usual residence and these are the instructions given to the enumerators. The hon. gentleman should have been counted at his home in Grey. He should not have been counted here unless as a temporary visitor at the place where he is staying in Ottawa. There is provision for temporary visitors being put down. If they are put down, the place from which they come from is asked for, then, that is compared with the schedule for the place from which they come and the return is corrected. That will be worked out in the tabulation of the results of the census here and it is done for the purpose of, as much as possible, checking the double entry of people or the failure to enter them at all. I think, in practice, this will work out so as

to give a fair and accurate count, but, in any de jure census, there must necessarily be this difficulty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can understand that it may be correct in a measure if done in that way, but, unless there was something done to correct the return it would be very inaccurate. I saw in the press that the instructions were to count every one in the house in which he slept on the night of the first of April.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is the de facto system, not the de jure system.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know that where youths were attending school, they were taken in the census where they were boarding, and taken at their homes again.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They should have been taken where they were boarding as being temporarily there, and the place where their home was ought to be given. That was not done in the former census, and, therefore, we intend to eliminate that possibility of error.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may be that was done. Is there no arrangement in the census by which we get information regarding establishments that employ less than five hands ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The work done by each individual is put in the information about him. If the man runs a saw-mill he will be put down as a sawyer or mill-owner, and the description of his property will be put down. As an industrial establishment it will not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A large percentage of the grist-mills and saw-mills and carriage shops employ three or four men, and they will not be recorded. The census will not show by any means the industrial pursuits of the country or the output of the people.


Mr. CLANCY.: The arbitrary rule, that no industrial establishment employing less than five persons shall be recorded, is open to very grave objection. The hon. gentleman stated his reason was because the provincial legislatures, when they were legislating to protect the lives of the employees, fixed an industrial establishment as employing over five hands, but, the definition in that case is founded on entirely different reasons from those which should prevail in taking a census. Many establishments employing less than five hands contribute very largely to the general bulk of the manufactured products of Canada, and by reason of improved machinery the tendency is to employ a less number of hands each year. The rule proposed by the hon. gentleman in this respect is a very bad one. I am afraid that the minister is not quite unprejudiced in this matter. He will remember that there was an earnest endeavour on the part of the Liberals to discredit the census of 1891. It Mr. FISHER.
is quite possible that there were many grave errors in that census, but, I have no doubt the minister will find that there will be grave errors in this census also, and that establishments will be put down on paper that are not fairly representative, as intended by the census. What the minister and his friends did in 1891 was to select particular cas s and attempt to found on them an argument against the whole system. I am afraid the minister had that in his mind when he laid down this arbitrary rule, which will exclude many industries of the country which are of great importance. Let me ask if any discretionary powers have been given to the enumerators in this respect ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The instructions given to the enumerators are, that where there are not five employees, the establishment shall not be entered as an industrial or manufacturing concern, except in the case of cheese or butter factories, very few of which have that number of employees. Take the case of a small wagon factory, where two or three men are employed, and it is well known that whereas the men put the wheels and running gear together, they are not, in the proper sense of the term, factories for the actual production of these vehicles. It is the same with blacksmith shops, shoemakers, seamstresses, dressmakers, &c. In the census of 1891, these were counted as industrial establishments, and I venture to say that every one who understood the discussion at that time, appreciated that it was far too wide an interpretation of the term ' industrial establishment,' and that it made the whole census returns in that respect simply ridiculous. I tried to adopt a rule which would prevent the recurrence of that in this census, and in searching for a standard, I adopted the standard in the provincial factory Act, which, taken into consideration with other matters, I thought was a fair one to adopt.


James Clancy: In view of the statement made by the minister, the country will seriously question his sincerity. He has declared that cheese and butter factories, which have less than five employees are to be counted as industrial establishments, while other factories are excluded, and in doing that it is quite clear that the minister wants to give himself a cheap advertisement. The hon. gentleman laughs, but his course is too patent for any one to be deceived by it. Why should he include a butter factory, and not include a grist-mill which probably may turn out five times as much in money's worth during the year ? I see no reason why there should be a distinction drawn. I never knew a more unblushing thing than that a minister should single out a branch of his own department for favoured treatment in the census, simply to boom himself and for political effect. It is unworthy of the minister to take such a course.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let me give a few instances which came under my own personal knowledge in my locality of the industrial establishments that will be excluded under this system. In one village there are two wagon and carriage factories. The minister says these do not turn out much new work, but. it is to my knowledge that while they do not turn out as much new work as they did ten or fifteen years ago, yet they do continue to turn out new work, to a considerable extent. There are also five flour mills in the neighbourhood, not one of which will be taken in the census. There are some woollen mills, none of w'hich will be taken. There are eight sash and door factories, not one of which will be taken. There are veneering factories and saw-mills. These are only a few, which I speak of from memory and absolute knowledge, and I am quite sure that I could add others with a little thought. * This being the case in one locality, does it not suggest how imperfect the census will be in regard to the industrial pursuits of the people, and their output in various lines ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Whether there will be any material error in the matter will depend entirely on the amount of the output of such establishments ; but I do not think it could be very great. While the number of such small establishments in the country might be large, I do not think their output could be very large. The hon. gentleman spoke of carriage factories. I venture to say, without knowledge of the particular case, that three-fourths of all the labour of those factories is not put on the production of any new work ; and therefore, though each might employ three or four hands, there probably would not be more than one or two hands employed on new productions. I do not think it would be right to include such establishments in the list of industrial establishments of the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do you justify putting down a cheese factory, the output of which amounts to $25,000 or $30,000 in the year, and omitting a sash and door factory in the same place which has an output of $50,000 or $75,000 ? The output in the lines which are omitted is very much larger than the output in many lines which are included. If there is any justification in taking the census of the one, you would be equally justified, if you want a correct census, in taking the others.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Sash and door factories with that amount of output would certainly employ more than five people, so that that is not a fair comparison. The reason for including butter and cheese factories is a very simple, and I think, very conclusive one. While the making of butter and cheese is a manufacturing industry in the sense of turning
a raw product into a manufactured article of high value, the work is altogether done in these small factories. The hon. gentleman refers to wagon factories,1 flour mills, and sash and door factories. In these cases there are small factories, and there are others of sufficient size to employ five men whose output will contribute to the industrial development of the country. But, with very few exceptions, there are no butter and cheese factories which employ five men, and if we did not take them, we would wipe out that whole industry.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the object ought to be to get accurate information with regard to the pursuits of the people and the productions of the people in these various lines. In my locality, for instance, you will take one sash and door factory which employs five or six hands, while four others which I know of do not employ so many, but their aggregate output is very much greater than the output of the one which you take. Yet the output of that one is given as representing the whole output of that line of industry in that part of the country.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think it will be rather an astonishment to people to look over the figures of this census when they are completed and to compare them with the figures of the previous census. I find that in the riding of East Simcoe, according to the last census, there were seventeen grist mills and flouring mills, having an invested capital of $160,000, employing thirty-seven men and one woman, the woman, I presume, being a bookkeeper, and having an output of $233,310. There were two cheese factories, employing five men and having an output of $2,833. If this principle is to be carried out with regard to many other manufacturing concerns, it will produce this startling results, that you will Mot out a production which some years ago amounted to $233,000, while you will give prominence to an industry whose production was only $2,833. If the minister is conversant with grist mills, he knows that many large grist mills do not employ five men, especially those which are run with water power; and yet we shall find that the census returns from East Simcoe next year will not enumerate a single grist mill, although ten years ago there were seventeen, with an output of $233,000. Surely the minister must regret that he gave these instructions, in view of the fact that the returns will be very misleading, and, to persons making comparisons with previous censuses, most disappointing.


James Clancy: The hon. minister does not feel disposed to discuss this matter, which is of very great importance. The hon. mem-1 her for East Simcoe has just pointed out that an industrial establishment, while it | may not employ a great many hands, is not

inconsequential by reason of that, because a great deal of the work may be done by machinery. There are no four cheese factories which have so much capital invested in them as a flouring mill. There is no pretense at establishing a flour mill nowadays which costs less than $10,000 or $15,000. and there should be some recognition of that fact. I do not think the hon. gentleman will contend it is usual to leave out one and put in the other. I fully agree that the butter and cheese factories, which do not employ more than two persons, should be enumerated as industrial establishments. But if so, how unfair is it not to rule out other industries in which five persons are not employed. The hon. gentleman should make some effort to remedy what is a serious defect in getting anything like the proper census.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When we come to make a comparison between the different lines of life, and compare agriculture with other industries, we will have no means of doing so.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Everything is taken down except the production. Every individual is entered as [DOT]being employed in such and such labour.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Supposing you want to compare agriculture with other industries. You can take the farmers and find out what their labour produces, but take the same number of men engaged in other lines, and there is no possibility of making a comparison.


Mr. LANCASTER.: The hon. minister is entirely overlooking an important industry, the cooper industry. I know of no cooper shop which employs five men, and yet there are twenty or thirty shops in my county. Each of these employs two or three men nearly all the year round. The hon. gentleman's enumeration will ignore this industry of barrel-making, although a very large quantity of barrels are made for the shipment of fruits. There is a large number of small shops, situated in close proximity to the large orchards, so as to furnish every convenience to the fruit-growers in the packing and shipping of their fruit, but these shops, being very numerous, do not employ more than two or three hands each. These will not be down in the census, so that if we are to judge by the census enumeration, all our fruit barrels must have been made in a foreign country or have been acquired, in some way contrary to law, by the fruitgrowers. Our export returns will show how many barrels of fruit were shipped, but there will be nothing in the census to show that these barrels were made in the country, or the capital invested.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman has overlooked the fact that the men employed in making barrels will be put down as coopers.


James Clancy: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Each of these men has, on an average, a capital of $1,500 to $2,500 invested in his business, and where there are thirty or forty cooper shops in a county, each employing two or three men, that amounts to the same thing as if there were only one establishment employing eighty to a hundred men, and yet there will be no account of that capital in the returns.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister does not seem to appreciate the gravity of the position in which he is placed. No one will deny that the business of flour milling is an important industry. According to the last census, in the province of Ontario there were 1,078 grist mills, employing 3,355 men, which shows that there was not an average of three men to each mill. The instructions given the enumerators will have this result, that there will not be one mill in every fifty or seventy-five in Ontario enumerated at all. Yet in that industry there is invested about $14,000,000 and the output of the industry is $36,558,320. The raw material consumed amounts to $29,687,851. There are very few mills which employ over five men, so that this immense industry will scarcely figure in the census returns at all, while small factories, producing cheese and butter, and employing only one or two men each, will be given due prominence. If the returns were properly made, they would show that the flour industries of the country produces considerably beyond $50,000,000 worth of flour this year, but when anybody interested in that line of commerce looks up the next census returns, he will find that there are only a few flour mills in Ontario.


James Clancy: The hon. minister has no right, if he wants to be fair, to ignore any class of production in this country. If the hon. gentleman had drawn an arbitrary line, namely, that no industry, no matter what kind, in which five persons were not employed would be enumerated, there would be some consistency in his proceeding. But he steps aside, without the shadow of reason and omits from the enumeration very important industries. I have in mind a district in which within eight or ten miles, there are three flour mills, understood to be of a capacity of seventy-five barrels a day. If they run only fifty barrels a day, that means that they manufacture 15,000 barrels of flour a year each. Surely the hon. gentleman will not ignore an industry so important and leave these establishments out of consideration in taking the census. Surely the hon. minister must give the committee some reason for the course he has taken. He enumerates cheese and butter factories where only one or two persons are employed, yet he ignores these other establishments that are very much more important.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister has not replied. Surely he is not going to let

this most important matter drop in this way. Surely he is not going to allow census figures to go to Great Britain showing that while in 1890, in Ontario we had an output from the mills running up into hundreds of thousands of dollars, we had many mills at work and giving employment to a large number of men, at this time we have practically no output of flour in the province. If it is not too late to rectify the error, why not communicate with the enumerators and instruct them to include these mills ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think hon. gentlemen opposite are more alarmed than there is any need for. In the first place, the statement as to the average number of employees is hardly a fair one. I do not mean that it is not fair to the department or anything like that, but that it is misleading. Though there may be a large number of flour mills with an average of less than five employees, it is probable that a large proportion of them employ five or more. All such mills, of course, will be counted. The others are small establishments, not worthy of the name of industrial establishments, which is what we seek to enumerate. The hon. gentleman is aware, as everybody is, that the tendency in manufactures is to concentrate, and, to leave out the small establishments will have but inconsiderable effect upon the figures of aggregate production. I feel confident that the pictures drawn by hon. gentlemen opposite are much more alarming than will be justified when the returns come in. Hon. gentlemen, so far, have not indicated the standard which they would set up in these matters. They have criticised the standard made, as they would have criticised any other, because it was different from their own. According to their standard, a squaw making mocassins in a wig-wam was an industrial establishment ; every blacksmith was an industrial establishment ; every old woman, who, in the intervals of house work, sat at her door making stockings, was an industrial establishment. I confess that I wished to remove that stain from the credit of our census-taking. I believe the standard I have adopted is a reasonable and fair one, and that it will not have the result hon. gentlemen opposite have suggested.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the remarks of the hon. minister are set side by side with the comments that will doubtless be made by the journal representing the flour-milling industries in this country-for I suppose there is such a journal-the hon. gentleman and his friends, I fancy, will not find the reading pleasant. I can tell the hon. gentleman that there are upwards of a dozen gristmills in East Simcoe, and I do not believe that in the whole riding there is one that employs five men or over. I say it in no ill spirit, the hon. minister must be ignorant
of the method of conducting a grist mill, if he thinks that only the small mills employ less than five men. I know of grist mills with a capacity of 100 or 150 barrels a day employing less than five. In such a mill there will be the first miller, the second miller, and, where there is a water power, an additional man, and probably a lad to deliver throughout the town. Surely, there must be gentlemen on the other side who are familiar with the organization of a grist mill and who would wish to see these establishments represented in the census returns. The fact is, the minister has got into a box, and he sees it and his supporters must see it. He asks us why we do not recommend a remedy. It is unnecessary to recommend a remedy to a gentleman so resourceful as he is. He saw the necessity of not applying the rule with regard to five employees in the case of butter and cheese factories. When he brought here a gentleman with the reputation enjoyed by his chief commissioner, it is a wonder that the point did not strike that gentleman, even if it did not strike the minister or some of his supporters inside or outside of the House. It may be immaterial to the minister that men who compare the figures of this census with those of the last census will find that, apparently, the flour-milling industry has decreased, but it is important to the country that such a misrepresentation should be made. If it is not too late- and I believe it is not even yet too late- surely the minister could ask his commissioners to see to it that the grist mills of the country are enumerated, as cheese and butter factories are enumerated. It will not do for the hon. minister to treat this subject in the flippant way in which he has treated it. Those in the business, at least, will not appreciate the kind of humour which he has brought to bear upon this question.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fisher) gives us to understand that the alternative to his method would be the instructions given to the enumerators in 1891. That is the remedy. And in doing that he would be following the instructions given by the United States census commissioners to their enumerators last year. The minister makes great sport about the Indian woman making mocassins being counted as a manufacturing establishment. But the system under which that was done was precisely the system which was followed in the United States. And if the hon. gentleman had followed that rule he would not have got into the hole he now is in. The hon. gentleman is in a most ridiculous position. For comparison with the United States with regard to manufacturing industries, our census will be entirely useless. The hon. gentleman says that we have a different system of taking the census from that of England-that in England they have the de facto system, and that

manufactures are not taken at all. But, in the United Kingdom, and also in India, the system followed is tlie de facto system, the information in reference to manufactures and everything else is given in what is called a correlated sheet, and the information is gathered afterwards. That might be done under the de facto system, and the instructions with reference to manufacturing industries may be the same as under the de jure system. You can get the same information, the same facts, under the de facto system as under the de jure system. After all, the main difference between the two systems is as to the time. Under the de facto system the individual must be a resident, at a particular hour, in a particular locality ; under the de jure system; as you will see by the information sent by Mr. C6te to the different priests in Lower Canada, it is not necessary that the individual should be a resident in a locality at that particular time, but he may have been absent for years from the province, and still have a right to be enumerated.


William Humphrey Bennett: I desire to call the minister's attention to the case of tanneries. In the last census there were 233 tanneries enumerated, employing 1,580 men ; that would give an average of about six and a half men to each tannery. Now, everybody who is conversant with tanneries in the province of Ontario knows that some of them are very large, and they employ not only six men, but ten times six men. The result is that you will have a lot of tanneries in the province of Ontario not enumerated at all. The same remark applies to printing offices, because there are numerous printing offices which do not employ ten men. The same remark will apply to planing mills. So, if you take the whole return it will prove that if you eliminate every place of business or factory that does not employ five men, the census returns, when they are brought down, by way of comparison with the last census, or as giving an accurate showing of the business of the country, will only be worth so much waste paper.


Mr. BARKER.: As we are upon the subject of the census, I desire to call attention to some papers that were laid upon the Table within the last few days by the Minister of Agriculture. A few days ago we had a discussion upon a circular issued in the province of Ontario, in connection with the work of the hon. gentleman's enumerators. In that circular an effort was made to obtain, through the enumerators, political information entirely foreign to the oDject of the census. The hon. gentleman at once repudiated that circular, and I understand he afterwards issued a telegram to every commissioner, forbidding him to take any notice of the circular or to act upon it. We have not yet learned whether the hon. gentleman has yet taken any further action.


John Graham Haggart: The issuing of that circular, and placing it in the hands of the hon. gentleman's officials, was a deliberate attempt to use the machinery of his department to obtain information for one of the political parties in this country. It was an attempt to induce the enumerators to commit perjury, to give information acquired as enumerators which they were sworn to keep absolutely secret. That information was not to be returned to the Minister of Agriculture, but it was to be returned to some people whom we do not know, to some politicians who would use it where it might do the mo>st good. Now, it occurred, I think, to most member's of this House that the hon. gentleman might have thought it necessary to do more than to send out a telegram forbidding his officials to act upon the circular. One would have thought that finding such an outrageous attempt had been made to tamper with his officials, he would have put in force every means in his power to ferret out the guilty parties and bring them to punishment. We have not heard one word on that subject from the hon. gentleman, although the census taking is proceeding, and a few weeks will bring it to a close.
When this subject was discussed in the House on a previous occasion, I drew the hon. gentleman's attention to another circular that had been issued, this time in the province of Quebec. The hon. gentleman then answered that he had never heard of it. He seemed to be surprised, although it had appeared in many newspapers in the province of Quebec, and although it had been officially sent out from his own department. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are getting somewhat accustomed in this House to hear from ministers that they do not know what is going on in their own departments. The most formal contracts are entered into, the most formal contracts are executed, important documents are sent forth, and ministers do not know anything about it. A minister may have for days in his hands a most important document affecting the interests of this country to the extent of millions of dollars, and he thinks it is sufficient to stand up and tell us that he did not know anything about it. The Minister of Agriculture told us not long since that a circular issued on the 1st of March by his assistant commissioner, for the purpose of the census, was utterly unknown to him, that he had never heard of it. The hon. gentleman has now brought it down and laid it upon the Table, but, although it has been on the Table for a couple of days, he has not yet said a word about it. It is to be presumed that the hon. gentleman is going to repudiate that document, as he is bound to accept the responsibility for a circular that is issued from the census bureau. This circular is issued from the Department of Agriculture, and is addressed to the cures of Quebec, by Mr. Thomas Cot6, assistant commissioner of the census. It is addressed

to every cure personally, and I beg to call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact tlit this official document, issued from the department of the Minister of Agriculture, and so addressed to the cures of Quebec, is marked ' confidential.' I am not aware that it is usual, in the public departments, in so grave a matter as* the taking of the census of this country, to issue confidential circulars to particular persons in one special province. This is addressed to M. le Cure, i shall take the liberty, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to read it in English. I am afraid that if I read it in French very few gentlemen in this House would understand me. I may say that with the greater part of the circular no one could take any very serious objection, except in this respect, that Mr. C0t6 seems to think that it is essential in the interest of this Dominion that special care should be taken that every man shall be counted in the province of Quebec. He seems to think that the whole fate of this census depends upon not one man being omitted from the province of Quebec. He goes further, and points out the difficulties they have had in taking the census in the past, and how important it is that not a man shall be omitted, But, the assistant commissioner goes on to say this :
After having consulted many eminent personages I have come to the conclusion that the period of a census Is necessarily to be a unique occasion to discover as exactly as possible the causes of the emigration of our compatriots to the United States.
This is what Mr. Cote tells the parish priest, in eveiy parish in the province of Quebec. I would like to ask what business has Mr. Cote, or, I might even say, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, to enter into the question of the causes of the exodus of people from the province of Quebec to the United States in connection with this census ? The census is undertaken for a special purpose. The question of the exodus of people from this country is an entirely different subject. The important fact for the purpose of the census is to ascertain the number of people, the industries, the wealth, the produce of this country as a whole, and in all its various provinces. It is not a question of ascertaining, or of affecting by these returns, the representation of this country, or why there are not some people now in the country who have, in the past, gone away from us. The object Is to ascertain who are here now, how many are here now, and not to Arid out how or why a great many people have left us. Then, Mr. Chairman, the circular goes on :
This leads me *to ask you to give yourself the trouble to send me

Me, Mr. COtC, not the minister of the department, not the commissioner of the census, but me. Mr. Cote. the gentleman who represents Quebec, apparently, on the census commission.
-to send me the name, the age, the occupation of every person of your parish who, to your knowledge, has emigrated to the United States during *the last twelve months. You are probably better than any other person in a position to know the reason why such an individual has left your parish. In certain cases it is drink, in others extravagant living, want of confidence, the spirit of adventure, but I am sure that in most cases you will know the particular reason and determining cause of the departure of every individual who has quitted your parish during the last twelve months. Will you be good enough to communicate to me the particular reason which is the determining cause?
I have the honour *to be, M. Cure,
Your obedient servant,



[Stage Direction]
Assistant Commissioner of the Census. Will any lion, gentleman in this committee tell me wliat object there was in getting that information in connection with the census ? I can understand that Mr. C0t6 might want to know if he wants to count these gentlemen in the census. Mr. C6t6 in a preceding paragraph, which I will not take the trouble to read, carefully points out to everybody that the information given to the commissioners is an absolute secret. Why does he say that in connection with this paragraph ? Why, the man who gives that information to his cure, gives it in absolute safety, and so Mr. COte says that no man will ever know what information is given to him, and no man will ever know whether these people who are residents in the United States are returned to this House as actual residents in the province of Quebec. That seems to be the only conclusion that can be derived from that circular. You will observe that Mr. Cote asks for information for the last twelve months, but, the whole tenor of the circular shows the importance of getting every man in. I now wish to read the letter sent by His Grace the Archbishop of Montreal pursuant to this circular. I may say that I find no fault, because, no one can find fault with the'cures or with the Archbishop for the reason that a circular of this kind from the Minister of Agriculture's department, asking information to be sent by them, naturally and properly calls for a response; they deserve credit for doing what they are asked to do ; they obtained this information, and they send it to the department.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Thinking it was proper to do so.


Samuel Barker: Certainly, it was proper that they should do so ; there could be no question about it. They were asked by the minister to send information, and where could they have got that' information better than from these gentlemen ? The Archbishop of Montreal, taking as his text, Mr. C0t6's circular, sends a circular to every cure in his diocese and he impresses upon him the necessity of acting upon the circu-

lar. Here is what the Archbishop says. He has read Mr. Cote's circular in its spirit, and he asks simply that the spirit of that circular shall be carried out:
You are prayed also to send to Mr. Thomas COtd, the assistant commissioner ot the census, the names, the ages, the occupations, ot all the persons of your parish who, to your knowledge, have emigrated to the United States, and to give the reason why such individuals have quitted your parish. You will do your duty to answer faithfully and without delay to this demand, of which you will see the full importance. In one word, I count upon your enlightened and devoted assistance.
And so on. It will be observed that the Archbishop has not seen, and I doubt whether any curS in the province of Quebec would have seen, any significance in the twelve months. The Archbishop knew that if there was any earthly reason for knowing whether people had left the province of Quebec during the last twelve months to go to the United States, that reason was equally forcible and equally important to know for the last ten years. Why the last twelve months ? For the reason given by Mr. C6t6. He wanted this information in connection with the general subject of the exodus. Why twelve months then ? The Archbishop has not limited the return to twelve months, because, when he writes to the curds, he asks them to send Mr. Cote the names of the people who have left the province of Quebec, with their occupations, and ages, not for the last twelve months, but, to the knowledge of the curd. The names of the people of the province of Quebec who may have left in the last ten years, who may have families growing up in the United States, in Massachusetts, in Connecticut, in Michigan, wherever there are large French colonies, families, as much citizens of the United States as those born and bred in the United States, will be included under these instructions of Mr. CdtS. I ask if there is a gentleman in this House who doubts-I do not wish to impute anything improperly-but can anybody doubt that they are going to be counted in that census. What is the object of sending that circular ? What business has this Mr. COtd to enter into the question of the exodus from the provinces of this country to the United States, when he is employed simply to take the census ? I shall be glad to hear from the minister what the reason for this is, but I think that I am not unduly suspicious, I think I am not unfairly imputing anything that that circular does not bear out, when I say that the sole object of that circular was to get information into the hands of the assistant commissioner -not the commissioner, mark you, for it does not go to the Minister of Agriculture nor to the commissioner, but to the assistant commissioner for the province of Quebec. Can anybody doubt what he wanted it for? Supposing that question were left to a jury,


Samuel Barker: would the jury have any hesitation in finding their verdict upon it ? I think not. I do not think there is a man of common sense throughout the land who would hesitate to come to the conclusion that this gentleman who was so anxious that every man should be returned in the province of Quebec, was anxious to get that information in order that there should not be a man too few.
Now, Sir, there is another matter that I call attention to. There is a newspaper, Le Soleil entitled, the organ of the Liberal party ; I do not know whether the Minister of Agriculture reads it or not. On so recent a date as the 30th of March, a very few days before I called the attention of the minister to this circular, Le Soleil comments upon this question and it places before the people of Quebec the importance of not a single person being omitted from the census, and it shows why it is important for the province of Quebec that they should not be omitted. Le Soleil says :
The population of the province of Quebec is the basis upon which is calculated the representation of the other provinces in the Federal parliament. The constitution fixes at sixty-five the numbqr of our representatives in the House of Commons. If the census determines that our population is 1,750,000 souls, that number divided by sixty-five, the number of our representatives, will give an average of 26,922 souls per representative. This will be the basis of the representation of the other provinces, which will have each the right of one representative for every
26.922	souls. If Ontario, for example, has a population of 2,250,000, that number divided by
26.922	will give eighty-three, which will be the number of the representatives from Ontario in the House of Commons. At present it is ninety-two, so that it would lose nine representatives.
This organ, of the Liberal party points out to the people of the province of Quebec that the greater number that can be shown in the census from that province the less will be the representation of the other provinces.


An hon. MEMBER.: That is the law.


Samuel Barker: That is the law. I admit it is the law, but why in connection with the census is it so important that the Liberal organ of Quebec should point that out ? Is that the main object of the census ? That is a result of the census ; not the object. The object of the census is to ascertain the number of the people, the wealth of the people and all the other statistics relating to the Dominion, and we use that census to ascertain what representation each province shall have in the Commons. But why is it brought to the attention of every farmer in Quebec, of every curd in Quebec, that the more they get of a population in Quebec the less representation the other provinces will have ? And why is it that Mr. CStd, the representative of Quebec in the census taking, should seek to be so anxious to find out how many people are in the United States who have gone from Quebec, and to get

their names and their ages and all the particulars about them ? As I have said, I do not like to impute improper conduct to anybody, but I say it is impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that these two things are connected and that while the political organs of the Liberal party were pointing out the importance of having a large representation in Quebec, the French commissioner of the census was using every effort in his power to get the largest census returns from Quebec, even if it were necessary to get returns from the United States.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) quoted the circular the other night I could not recognize from his quotation what circular he had reference to. I had not seen the printing of this circular in the newspapers. I was aware that Mr. Cot6 had sent out two circular letters, the one addressed to the curgs and the other, the one that was referred to. The one addressed to the cures is that now under discussion, and the hon. gentleman has pointed out that information is asked for as to the. people who have left Canada during the last twelve months to go out of the country. That is perfectly correct, and I will give to the hon. gentleman a very simple reason why the period was limited to twelve months, and why it was that this information was asked for. As the circular itself says, in the parishes of the province of Quebec the curgs are the best acquainted with the people of the parish. They have greater means of information and are as a general rule the best educated and the best informed of the community. Therefore it was that they were appealed to for the information. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) is not aware that in the census taking of Canada by the de jure system, the rule is laid down clearly by the instructions, that persons will be counted under the de jure system as present although temporarily absent and the period of their absence is limited to twelve months. That is the reason why the limit of twelve months was put in this circular.


William Humphrey Bennett: What page is that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Page 18, section 75. I may tell the hon. gentleman that the same instructions were issued ten years ago for the taking of the census of 1S91.


Mr. CLARKE.: Were similar circulars sent out in the province of Quebec ten years ago ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No circulars were sent out, but similar instructions were given. It is a well known fact that in the province of Quebec a large portion of the population is constantly moving backwards and forwards. It is a purely Canadian population, the people being citizens of this country, although temporarily absent working in industrial establishments in the United States. It was to try to secure accurate information as to the number of those people, who were perfectly legitimately to be counted in a de jure census as Canadian citizens, that this circular was sent out, and for that purpose alone. The hon. gentleman has drawn a lurid picture of people who have been in the United States for many years, who have raised families there, and who are essentially citizens of the United States. Under the very terms of this circular, those people were not to be included. By a strict interpretation of our instructions, the enumerators in the province of Quebec will not include people who have been absent more than twelve months.


Samuel Barker: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to call his attention to one fact, which he can answrer at the same time. On the same day that this particular circular was issued calling attention to the absent people in the United States, a general circular was issued on the subject of the census which did not call attention to that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman says that he does not wdsh to impute motives, but he goes on immediately and imputes them. He leaves tiie inference to be drawn that this must have been done for the purpose of exaggerating the population of the province of Quebec. The hon. gentleman may not be aware, and I now give him the information to show that his imputation is a most unfair and baseless one, that these circulars were sent not only to the parish priests of the province of Quebec, but to the parish priests of the other provinces wherever there was a French population, and where there were any people who, like their compatriots in the province of Quebec, had gone to the United States to work in factories. Therefore, by sending out this circular, Mr. Cote, whom the hon. gentleman tries to slight by saying that he is a special representative of the province of Quebec, was working equally to increase the population of the province of Ontario, the province of New Brunswick, the province of Nova Scotia, the province of Manitoba, and wherever there was a centre of French population, in the same way that he was trying to get a true and honest enumeration of people who were rightly and properly to be included in a de jure census of Canada.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that that circular was sent throughout the province of Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I say it was sent to the parish priests in the French centres of population in the province of Ontario; and the hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that the population of the province of Ontario will include

those who are French-speaking as well as those who speak English or German or anything else.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman say that the circular was sent to the province of Nova Scotia ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that it was sent wherever there is a French centre of population, and this would include the Acadians.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were the circulars issued to all the provinces at the same time ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I understand that all that were sent out were sent at the same time.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And there were none except to French Canadians ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: None of these excel)t to French priests.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were any circulars sent out to Protestant ministers impressing upon them the necessity of asking their parishioners to give this information, and pointing out the advantages, say in the province of Ontario, of having every person entitled to be included in this de jure list enumerated ? If not, why was that not done ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will tell the hon. gentleman very simply. It is a well known fact that the French population of Canada has the faculty of leaving the country for a temporary period to work in the United States. There are comparatively few English-speaking people who do so; and it was for the purpose of securing information with regard to that portion of the French population that this circular was sent out. The hon. gentleman is perhaps also not aware of another fact, which shows a very material difference between the French priests in the province of Quebec and in other parts of the country and Protestant clergymen. The priests keep practically an accurate yearly census or register of their parishes. They go around from house to house, and have an intimate personal and family knowledge of all their parishioners. The consequence is that if any information in regard to the French Canadian population is desired for any purpose whatever, the person to whom to apply for the most full and accurate information in the parish priest.


Mr. INGRAM.: How long is it since the hon. gentleman discovered all this ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It has been a well known fact for years.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then why did you not include it in your schedules in the first place, and do it in a business way ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because this is not a part of the schedule. It is a supplementary instruction for the Mr. FISHER.
purpose of getting the schedule properly filled up. That 1 do not think was necessary when appealing to the English-speaking people of the country; but among the French it was certainly intended and expected to be, and I believe is, a matei'ial help to securing a full and accurate enumeration.


Samuel Barker: When such important circulars as the one referred to are issued, may I ask why it was not issued by the chief commissioner, but by Mr. Cote, who asks for a return to himself, and not to the chief commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As I said the other night, I did not see the actual wording of these circulars before they were sent out. I authorized the sending of them out, and so far as the particular wording is concerned, I do not think it matters very much. The chief commissioner knew about them, and, I believe, saw them. The assistant commissioner was dealing with particular work. He was in charge of the outside work in the country, and it was his business to attend to this. As to putting the word ' confidential ' on the heading of the circular, that was a mistake, but it certainly did( not make the circular any more confidential than it would have been without it. One can easily understand that a circular, which is sent out to some 1,800 or 1,900 people, and also to newspapers, could not be expected to be confidential in any way, no matter how often you might put the word ' confidential ' on it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: To what newspapers was it sent ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To a large number.


Edward Frederick Clarke: To any English papers ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, it was a French circular and consequently it was sent to the French papers and French people.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was it sent to any English papers ?


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


Samuel Barker: I wish to call the attention of the hon. minister to a fact which he has not answered. What I said was that there were two circulars issued the 1st of March-one containing the general terms about obtaining Information for the census, and the other containing the particular clause I have called attention to. Why were the two issued-one with the special clause about the people in the United States and the other without it ? Surely if it was important to the department to know the facts, they ought to get all the information possible and not information concerning a particular section of the community.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps I may he allowed to say a word on this point, as my name has been connected with those circulars. I must say immediately that my initials were used without my knowledge. I did not know a word about it. Mr. C0t6, wh'o acted for me a couple of years ago as one of my officers, had his office for the time-being in one of the rooms in the Department of Public Works, and he as.ked my secretary to allow him to use my initials on some letters. There is nothing in it, but that circumstance has been used to show that once more that man Tarte has been playing a French game.
My hon. friends opposite seem to forget that the French Canadians are scattered all over in small groups right and left. After the census of 1891, criticism was indulged in by Conservatives, especially by the late Senator Tasse, who proved most conclusively that at least 75,000 French Canadians had not been counted. My hon. friends have only to look at the debates which took place in the Senate in 1893. if I remember right, and they will find out that one of their then leaders proved that at least 75,000 French Canadians had not been counted. I presume that there will be no great objection to French Canadians being counted for what they are. The sending out of those circulars will not have the effect of causing one more French Canadian to be counted than there is in Canada. Where then is the harm ? I am sorry that those circulars were not signed by Mr. Blue, because then they would not have given a pretext to some of our friends to raise the French question.
If our hon. friends will reflect a little, I think they will make up their minds to cease raising prejudices. They may gain temporary political advantages, but history will teach them that no party ever gained permanent advantages which tried to stand on those grounds.


Samuel Barker: Hear, hear. That is one for yourself.


William Humphrey Bennett: What about the temporary advantages you have now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These temporary advantages seem to have lasted some time, and by appearances we are not in bad shape at all. I do not see any writing on the wall, but we have not pandered to passions and prejudices as hon. gentlemen opposite have.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Where 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: During the last election in North Bruce. I have in my room the very ballot circulated by our friends opposite, and on it is inscribed the foot note : Be careful to vote for Mr. Halliday, so that the French will not dominate any longer. That was printed on every ballot circulated in the riding. If the appeals that our hon. friends opposite
sent broadcast during the last campaign were published in a volume-and if I had more time I would do it-they would tend to prove that most dangerous appeals to prejudices were made. We all belong to the same Canadian nation, and unless we make up our minds that French, Irish and English Canadians are on the same footing, the work of confederation may not prove as solid as we hope.


Samuel Barker: Our complaint is that on this occasion these circulars have not placed us on the same footing.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Where is the wrong in these circulars ? I have just stated the circumstances which prompted the census authorities to issue them. It has been proved, and not denied seriously, that in the census of 1891 great injustice was done the French Canadians. Was it not right and fair, in view of the fact, that special care should be taken this time to avoid the same difficulty.


John Graham Haggart: To get square, in other words.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The French Canadians do not want anything but a square count. They are prepared to have a square fight with any other nation, but they want to be counted just as they are. I grant that it would have been better if Mr. Blue had signed these circulars himself; but, after all, the fact that Mr. Cote, who is assistant census commissioner, signed them does not prove that any wrong has been committed or that it was intended to commit any wrong.


Mr. BLAIN.: If I understand it correctly, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) says that the French Canadian people were not justly treated in the census of 1891. Did the hon. gentleman use his influence in the cabinet to get the facts as set out in the circular put in the original instructions to the enumerators ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not read these circulars until they appeared in the newspapers. I have enough to do without going into census affairs.


Richard Blain: Then, I understand that though the hon. gentleman knew that the French Canadians did not get justice in 1891, yet he gave no attention until after the instructions had been prepared and sent to the enumerators for this census ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say anything of the kind. The hon. gentleman should not try-he is a young member and he is able, but he should not begin his career by trying to put into the mouth of the minister or any other member words that he has not uttered. I gave attention to the census, but I did not prepare any circular or see any before it was published.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I asked the lion. Minister of Agriculture a question as to the names of the newspapers to which a copy of these circulars marked ' confidential ' was sent. May I ask if or an answer to that question?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have inquired, and I find that it was sent to all tile French newspapers, and to the Montreal Herald; and it was published in the Montreal Gazette.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Speaking for myself, I have no objection to every reasonable effort being put forward by the gentleman charged with the duty of taking the census to make it as efficient as possible. And I have nothing particular to say with regard to the issue of these circulars by Mr. C5t6 except this-that it is open to the gravest suspicion, to say the least of it, that circulars of that kind should be sent out to the French Canadian ministers of this country while no similar -circulars were sent to the ministers of any other race or denomination. I am quite willing that every reasonable effort should be put forth to ascertain accurately the number of persons of French origin or descent. I am quite willing that every such person who is fairly and justly entitled to be counted should be counted. But I do most emphatically protest against the course that has been followed in this particular regard. If a special effort were made by the deputy census commissioner to secure the largest possible return of those of his own faith and race for the census of 1901, it was pre-eminently the duty of the census commissioner and every other official in any position of importance connected with the taking of this census, to see to it that as strenuous an effort was put forth on their part to have as large a return as possible of people who are English-speaking, and who are not of French Canadian origin, who are at present residing in the Dominion or are temporarily absent. That is all I have to say-the transaction from beginning to end is open to the gravest suspicion. And I am sorry to say that, while I have tried to listen attentively to what the Minister of Agriculture said, he lias not thrown as much light on the subject as we had a right to expect; and I cannot say that his explanation is as satisfactory as it ought to have been.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Chairman, there is no desire on the part of any person who is at all worthy of the name of Canadian that we should have in the census anything but the truth and the whole truth. We want an accurate, exact statement of the population. French, English, Scotch-whatever may be their origin. I belong to a race which is in the minority in this country, the French race, which, from the fact that they were ceded to England in the eighteenth century have lived isolated for a long Mr. TARTE.
time, and which only within from forty to sixty years-since the union of the two Canadas-has come to share the national life of Canada. WThen the census was first introduced amongst the French Canadians, it was looked upon toy -them with some suspicion. I believe that they have improved in that way and have become to understand that the census meant no harm to anybody, but was designed merely for the collection of accurate information. However, I must say that, perhaps, the prejudices that at one time existed have not been altogether removed. If there is one class of the population who have done their best to remove those prejudices and to have the census fairly and accurately taken, it is the parish priests of the province of Quebec-the cur6s. And, when it was determined to have these circulars issued to the curfis, I think a wise step was taken. There is no class that has such accurate information as they have. I may say that, perhaps, there is no class of the community who live so closely in touch with their fellow-countrymen as the parish priests of the province of Quebec, and, for that matter all the parish priests of the Roman Catholic persuasion belonging to the French race. It is one of the national habits that once a year, in the month of January, the parish priests and the three wardens who compose the board charged with the temporal affairs of the parish, visit the parishioners- visit every house, not omitting any, and take a census. They have accurate information as to the condition of the population, as to who are away, who have come back, who have left for good-left forever, I should say, not for good, that would be a strange misnomer-and who have left with the intention of returning. When Mr. C0t6 issued the circular to the parish priests, he issued it to the men who were in the best position to give information. I share the view of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), that it probably would have been better-not probably, but certainly-if the circular had been signed by Mr. Blue instead of by Mr. C6t6, because it would have removed altogether the appearance of making it sectional. But it was not done in that way ; Mr. C0t6 signed it. He is an officer of the census department, and probably, as he was writing a French circular, the census commissioner left it to him to prepare it and sign it. That is what has taken place. My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) will agree with me that, perhaps, there was not the same necessity for such a circular amongst the English-speaking population, the census enumerator being more likely to get from them all the information it was desired to collect. But I would deprecate any intention of making this serve any purpose except that we should have an accurate count of the population as it is.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the object of having the circular marked ' confidential?'


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not see the object.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was a foolish thing to do.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree, for the most part, with what the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has said. But I do think we ought to know whether or not the chief commissioner was aware that this circular, as well as another which provoked some discussion some time ago, wei-e marked ' confidential.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may say in explanation of that matter, that this circular was marked confidential when Mr. Cote originally wrote it. It was sent to the Printing Bureau, and after the proofreading, the word ' confidential ' was stricken out, but, when the proof was sent back to the Bureau, it was printed without striking that word out. That is the absolute fact of the matter.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I presume that proof can be obtained ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No doubt it can.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not desire to throw any doubt upon that statement, but the proofs are kept in the Printing Bureau, and I would ask the minister if he will not have that proof brought up and laid on the Table of the House.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The circular was printed in Le Temps office, and not in the Printing Bureau.


Robert Laird Borden: One of the most unfortunate things about the transaction is, that information which it was quite proper to procure, and which, indeed, it is desirable to procure, has been procured or attempted to be procured in 'such a way as to create certain suspicions in the minds of the people. That is the criticism which I will have to prononce upon it. I agree entirely with the right hon. gentleman, that it is not only proper but most desirable that information, not only with regard to all French Canadians, but all English Canadians in Canada, should be obtained ; and if there is any one temporarily in the United States within the conditions of the census, we should know about him. But, suppose, for example, that these circulars had been sent out marked * confidential ' only to the English-speaking portion of the population, my right hon. friend will see that it probably would have provoked criticism from certain quarters in his own province, and it would have been improper.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not suggesting for a moment that any improper
motive has influenced his conduct, but it is unfortunate that the Minister of Agriculture and his officers should have attempted to obtain information in this way. In regard to some other matters upon which stress seems to be laid by the department, I think they are matters of not much importance, for instance, with reference to the circular sent out asking for the origin of the people of this country. I do not attach much importance to that myself, and certainly it becomes a very nonsensical matter to talk about the origin of people such as those in my own province who are called Martin, or Blanchard, or Payzant, because 100 or 150 years ago one of their ancestors was a Frenchman, and that they are to be entered, according to my understanding of the census instructions, as all of French origin : whereas, the Frasers and the Macdonalds in the province of Quebec, people whose ancestors have been French-speaking for a hundred years, are apparently to be considered as of Scotch origin, because 100 or 150 years ago, their ancestors married Into French families. Ever since then, it is quite possible that the inter-marriages have altogether been among French families, so what is the use of describing a person of that kind as of Scotch or English origin ? And what is the use of describing the Martins, the Blanchards, and the Payzants in my own province as of French origin ? It is of no great importance in this country. I think we are all content to be Canadians, and it is not of any importance that we should look back and say that our ancestors were English or French or Irish or Scotch. It only tends to keep alive ideas which really have no useful place in the life of this country.
Now, with respect to the cur6s in the province of Quebec, no one can make the slightest criticism upon them for taking action upon this circular, and no one, I am sure, thinks for a moment of making the slightest criticism on the archbishop or any bishop who has acted upon it. I would like, however, to point out to the Minister of Agriculture, that he seems to have overlooked one thing. He has stated that the French Canadian population is more or less of a migratory character. I do not know much about that, except what the hon. gentleman said with regard to it. But, something of the same kind is prevailing in the province of Nova Scotia. We have people in the province of Nova Scotia who go to the United States every year, engage in the fishing industry, remain therq some months and come back. There are people in that province who go to the United States and work in factories, and afterwards come back ; there are people who go to the United States and engage in domestic service for a portion of the year. Now, it would have been proper, I think, for the Minister of Agriculture, in seeking the information which is very properly sought in regard to

the French-speaking population of this country, to have also sought the same information with regard to the English-speaking population, even if the facts would not justify it to so great an extent. If he had taken that course there would not have been the slightest ground for any criticism at all, and that, perhaps, is of more importance than anything else connected with this subject, which has been discussed in the House and in the press. It is not desirable to have suggestions made such as have been made in the press, and to have such impressions produced upon the minds of the people ; it is not desirable that anything should be done, even with the utmost good faith, which would lead to any impression of that kind.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture if the chief commissioner helped in the preparation of the two circulars that are referred to ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think I can say positively, No.


Richard Blain: Did the chief commissioner see every circular before it was sent out ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He said he saw one.


Richard Blain: Which one was that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The general circular, not the one to the priests.


Richard Blain: Was that one marked * confidential ' ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was. They were both marked ' confidential.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were both these circulars, marked ' confidential,' printed in Le Temps office ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Now, we have a large and thoroughly-equipped Bureau for doing the printing of the public departments, where large numbers of men are employed, thoroughly competent to do the typesetting and the presswork, just such jobs as these confidential circulars. Now, why could not that circular have been printed in the Bureau ? Was it because ' confidential ' was marked on both of them that they had to be sent to Le Temps office 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the explanation ? Were all these forms printed outside of the Bureau or printed in tht Bureau ? What part of the printing in connection with the census was done in the Bureau-where it all ought to have been done-and what part was done outside of the Bureau ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman may not be aware of the fact that at the present time the Printing Bureau is congested with work, and as a result of that congestion nearly all the printing of the census work has been done outside the Bureau.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In what office ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It has been done in various offices, as it was sent out by the Printing Bureau. As a matter of fact, the schedules of the census are all marked ' confidential,' and a number of other documents in connection with the census are marked ' confidential.' But, I have explained already the reason why the word ' confidential ' appeared upon them, and I need not go over that again. The work was not sent to Le Temps office because it was marked ' confidential,' or for any other reason except that the Printing Bureau was not able to do it with sufficient expedition.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But, I understand there were other documents used in connection with the census which were marked ' confidential,' in addition to these two circulars.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were all marked ' confidential ' when they were sent to the printers, as is usual when documents are sent to the printers, so that the information contained in them should not be made public until they were finally proof-read. This circular was marked ' confidential ' in the same way.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then, do I understand there were no documents that were printed and executed by the census department marked ' confidential ' except those two circulars ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.
Mi-. CLARKE. The hon. minister gave us to understand a few minutes ago that there were other documents in connection with the taking of this census that were marked ' confidential.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were sent to the printer marked ' confidential,' but not so marked when they were finally issued.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Probably on the back of the envelope containing the copy they were marked ' confidential.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think it was at the head of the document.


Andrew B. Ingram: According to the remarks which the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has made, 75,000 French Canadians were overlooked in taking the census of 1801. It is a well-known fact that this hon. gentleman's name was prominently mentioned three or four months ago in respect to the census of the province of Quebec, and I wish to draw the attention of the

government to schedule No. 1 as prepared by the department. It asks for the following information : Country or place of birth, racial or tribal origin, nationality or religion. Well, now, you will notice that if a man is a French Canadian this schedule would call for that information, and if correctly given, it would be noted under this head. There can be no objection to this, but what we are taking objection to is that the deputy commissioner should send out a circular without the knowledge of the department. We believe that if, as the hon. Minister of Public Works says, a certain number of French Canadians were overlooked in 1891 and are liable to be overlooked in 1901, it would have been a proper course for the commissioner of the census to send a circular to each commissioner who would in turn supply each enumerator with a circular something on this line : You will be careful to see that schedule No. 1, asking for the origin or nationality of the various people that you are to take note of, is properly filled out. That would have covered the point far better than this circular issued by Mr. C0t6 and marked ' confidential.' We object to that, not because we have any feeling against our French Canadian friends, but we hold that this is establishing a bad precedent and that it is not a step in the right direction. What we are trying to do Is to have both races live agreeably together in this country. When the hon. Minister of Public Works charges that we are raising something of a racial cry, I deny that statement. The hon. gentleman was in my constituency previous to the election and I may say that he was; received well and treated well. We have heard a great deal about the hon. gentleman himself in respect to racial cries. Some of us believe that the hon. gentleman is inclined to do a little of that kind of tiling himself. I have never raised the racial cry. My father was born in the city of Quebec, and I have a warm feeling towards Quebec, though I am not a French Canadian. I have no desire to raise such a cry and no sympathy with any person who does so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The two circulars sent by Mr. CotS have been read. I have not heard any person say that there was anything wrong in them. They do not contain unsound advice and there is nothing wrong in these circulars, hut they happen to be signed by the deputy commissioner. The deputy commissioner happens to be a French Canadian. The wrong begins there. Is there anything wrong in these circulars ? If there is anything wrong I have not seen it. There are two circumstances which are taken advan-age of, and I say it boldly, face to face, to my hon. friends, that they should not take advantage of, as belonging to the other side of this House. The first is that Mr. CSte is a French Canadian. He has sent out these two circulars. In the second place 123
one of these circulars has been sent to the French Canadian priests. My hon. friends have insisted upon these two facts. It will not be to their political advantage, or to the advantage of men of their persuasion. Appeals to passion and prejudice do not last. They may help for a little time but they cannot last and as one who belonged for over twenty years to a great party, that was the Conservative party, I can say that it was not the policy of that party in former days. I say it proudly and I would ask, not only the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), in whom I have great confidence on that ground, but, those on the other side of the House who have political wisdom and experience, and I am calling upon them to-day not as a party man but as a Canadian, that they stop these appeals. Such appeals will not help them. They know that these appeals have been made. The hon. leader of the opposition will admit in his conscience and in his soul that the debate to-day has taken place upon this very ground.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. I appeal not only to those who are within the hearing of my voice but to those who will read these debates. It is because Mr. C0t6 is a French Canadian.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I would be glad to believe that I am wrong.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly, with pleasure.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it only to-day that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) knows of this feeling or is it not a fact that he has known of this feeling for the past year ? If this feeling has existed for the past year why did he not seek to allay it instead of appointing Mr. Cote, a French Canadian, to a new position ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not understand what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) means by what he has said and nobody will understand. Mr. C0t6 has been engaged in political life ; he has never been accused by anybody of making appeals to passions and prejudices.


Andrew B. Ingram: He is all right.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This debate has been brought up because


REVISED EDITION '3907 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Cote happens to be a r rench Canadian and because
[Stage Direction]
Some bon. MEMBERS. Oh, no.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I say yes. I give full credit to those who believe that I am wrong.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) permit me to ask him a question ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly.


James Clancy: Is it possible in this House to make an inquiry in regard to what may be a very legitimate and proper question without being charged with raising the racial cry ? If we cannot ask a proper question in this House without being accused of raising the racial question, surely all peace will depart from our deliberations and we cannot hope to give proper consideration to great questions.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, t give full credit to the statement which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has just made, and I am very glad of it. If I have spoken to-day on this point it is because, I must admit, that I was accused, myself, today, aud yesterday, in having dismissed about seventy-five workingmen from my de. partment of having acted as a Fi'ench Canadian and not as a minister obliged to keep only the men that he needs, but of having dismissed English Canadians and kept French Canadians. What are the facts'? They are just as simple as those in regard to these circulars. I have dismissed about sixty French Canadians and fifteen Englishspeaking Canadians. Read some of the Ontario Conservative newspapers.
An lion. MEMBER. Oh.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I read them this morning. I do not read them every day but I read them this morning. I am simply accused of having dismissed English-speaking Canadians. Well, in that very mechanical branch from which I dismissed fifteen men, the-English-speaking employees are still in a majority. I have conducted the Department of Public Works on broad lines.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I say on broad lines.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I want to prove it. Although it is well known, I want to prove it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief accountant died and he was a French Canadian by the name of Dionne. I replaced him by an English Canadian. The chief architec' ;s an English Canadian.


Mr TARTK.: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: Ob, dear, what a misfortune that is.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friends know that I am now just putting my finger on the nail that they have tried to put in my political coffin, but which they have not succeeded in driving in yet.


Robert Laird Borden: As the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has made an appeal to me, I venture to say a word in reply. If he should ask me as to whether I think there has been an attempt to raise a race cry here in the House, I would be inclined to refer him to his own remarks today. I thought that the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who sits in front of him dealt very fairly and very properly indeed with these questions to-day, and I earnestly hoped that the Minister of Public Works would have followed his leader's example, because if any person in the position of the Minister of Public Works will persist in flaunting words such as he has used to-day in the face of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House-a course that he has pursued more than once this session-he cannot be very desirous that these matters should be avoided as they ought to be avoided in this House. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has on at least two occasions during this session taunted me in a way that might have led me to retort, but I avoided doing so. I do not desire to make any retort now. I simply say in conclusion that I wish the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) had followed the example which was given him by his leader.
At six o'clock. House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


CROW'S NEST SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On the order :
For third reading-Bill (No. 57) to incorporate the Crow's Nest Southern Railway Company.- Mr. Galliher.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it is desirable that this Bill should still stand. I believe that the arrangement on which the Bill was founded has not yet been completed.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The order stands.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On the order :
House again in committee on Bill (No. 26) An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Fortin.
Mr. McCREARY.: I think this Bill had better stand over. There are some arrangements to be made in connection with it, and I hope the Bill will not be pressed now.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The order stands.

CANADIAN NATIONAL BANK. On the order :


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 99) respecting Le Credit Poncier du Bas-Canada and to change the name to Le Credit Hypothficaire du Canada.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 110) to Incorporate the Debenture and Securities Corporation of Canada.-Mr. Osier.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Department of Public Printing and Stationery, $29,490.
['If the negotiations were not confidential, I would be happy to give every information to my hon. friend. If I do not do so, it is not because I have not my mind made up, but because I am precluded from so doing.']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are ten statutory increases at $50 each, three promotions at $100 each, and one at $200. Also two statutory increases of messengers at $30 each. Mr. A. T. Snow, at present junior second-class clerk, receiving $1,000 is promoted to the regular second class standard, at $1,100. F. J. Farrell is dealt with in the same way. A. H. Beaulieu, who is junior second class, with a maximum salary of $1,000, is advanced to the rank of second class, with $1,100. J. A. Frigon is advanced from $900 to $1,100. The other cases were at the maximum pay of their class and were therefore advanced but $100, but in the case of Frigon he had not reached the maximum.


John Graham Haggart: Are they the senior officers of their class ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I could not say definitely, as the memo, does not answer that question.


John Graham Haggart: Were there any vacancies in the class above ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The staff is not necessarily increased in number, but several gentlemen get a step up.
Department of Printing and Stationery, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is proposed to provide for one clerk, and the increase of $490 is due mainly to this.
Printing, binding and distributing the laws, $7,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Paper has increased 15 per cent to 25 per cent, according to quality, and wages 121 per cent to 15 per cent.	,


John Graham Haggart: There is no increase to the number to whom you give the laws ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not yet heard of any change in the system.
Contingent expense in connection with voters' lists, $6,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is proposed only to take a sufficient sum to provide lists for the by-elections instead of printing lists for the whole Dominion.
Mr. LaRIYIERE. I would call the attention of the hon. minister to the way these lists are printed. They are printed so close that except for reference they are no use at all. There is no margin in which to make any remarks or the signs necessary in checking them with the old lists, and the system of numbering the post offices is also very imperfect, because it changes from one polling booth to another polling booth, and the same number is never all through the lists. The polling booth lists of post offices are numbered at the head of the lists, and the lists are set in too small type. They should be set in columns with sufficient space between the names so that they could be used for other purposes than reference. It would be wise to make the lists in such a shape that they could be used not only for reference but at the polling booth when ever an election occurs. They have to be cut and pasted on other paper, and they are so closely set together that it is impossible to make a remark at either end of the names, unless written in such small letters that an ordinary man cannot read them. I would urge the government to change the system and have these lists printed in larger type and with sufficient space between the lines to enable us to use them for other purposes than reference.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I shall see that my hon. friend's suggestions are brought to the notice of the Secretary of State. We all desire that the lists should be made as useful as possible, and I hope his suggestions will be carried out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have often seen lists very carelessly printed, with the post offices
House in committee on Bill (No. 109) to incorporate the Canadian National Bank.-Mr. German.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is desirable that this Bill should stand for this reason :	The committee decided with
practical unanimity that the name ' Canadian National Bank' was undesirable, and that there should be a change. At the last moment the name * Empire Bank ' was chosen and it was not objected to in the committee, but a number of members have received telegrams to-day from the directors of the Imperial Bank taking exception to the change, because of the similarity of the name ' Empire Bank.' As they had no previous notice of the intention to change the name, I think it is desirable that we should retain the Bill for some time to permit the directors of the Imperial Bank to intervene if they think it necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have received a telegram to that effect, but if the Bill stands I need say nothing more.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The order stands.

all jumbled up, a lot being put down in my riding which are not in the riding at all. Some of the lists are practically useless. When addressing the envelopes for distributing literature at the last election, postmasters afterwards drew my attention to the fact that some of the post offices were not in the districts named, or even in the county. In connection with this, I was going to ask, are the lists that are furnished to the Clerk of the Crown In Chancery by the different municipalities, paid for by the government here, and is this money for that purpose ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A subsequent item covers that. They have to be paid for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is for printing merely.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would advise greater care with regard to the printing. Otherwise they will be of little use.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of course, there is no excuse for inaccurate printing. Perhaps my hon. friend may be charging to the printing department the errors of copyists. However, errors should not occur, or, it may be that it is the error of the original lists. The printed copies should be correct copies of the lists.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The error is not in the original lists. I have the original in my possession, and the post offices are right. There is another thing with regard to the lists. I do not know how it was mixed up, but I got two or three sets. Moreover, one of mine was sent away to the west, to the London list. It came back to me when the election was about half over. I did not coinplain of the supply, as they were very useful.
Legislation-General-Provincial voters' list,


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is the item covering the expense of preparing the list.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On what principle do you pay for these ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: According to my recollection, the Act fixes a basis. There is a regular system.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is paid to the municipality ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: To the clerk. I know that, because in my own constituency the clerk thought he was so badly paid that it became a question whether he would supply any more.


William Humphrey Bennett: In Ontario they are printed, so the clerk would not be at any expense.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will
now make way for my hon. friend the
Minister of Agriculture.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Arts, Agriculture and Statistics-Census, $250,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The more one looks into it the less he is likely to understand the object of this circular that has been under discussion. At first it occurred to me that the object might be to make as favourable a showing as possible of the population of the province of Quebec, because the representation of other provinces is ascertained by dividing the population of Quebec by 65, the number of seats allowed to that province. But it will be seen that that could hardly have been the object, otherwise the circular would have been sent not merely to the French cures, but to the ministers of other denominations, for there must be a number of French people who do not belong to the Catholic Church. There are also residents of Quebec who are not of French extraction. Then, was it for the purpose of ascertaining the strength of the French race in the province ? That could hardly be. because we are told that the circular was sent to those districts in other provinces where there is large French settlements. Besides, there are French people in districts where there are no French priests, where there are Irish or German priests. I know some German priests, and it was not sent to them. It occurred to me that the object of the circular might be to ascertain the strength of the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that it was not sent to the German or Irish priests would hardly fit that theory. The thing is altogether inexplicable, unless the object was to ascertain the strength of the French element belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. That is the only explanation that suggests itself to my mind as at all probable. Whatever the explanation, it seems to be known only to the assistant commissioner and some of his friends who suggested this means of seeking to learn the strength of some element of the population.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These circulars were sent to other Catholic priests than the French.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That question was asked, and I understood, it was stated that the circular was sent only to the French Catholic priests.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not have heard the word ' French ' in the question if my answer conveyed that impression.


Mr. MORIN.: I know that it was sent to other Catholic priests besides the French. In my county there are Irish Catholic priests who received it.


Mr. GANONG.: Just before we rose at six o'clock, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was speaking. He used a very nice expression indeed-' we belong to the same Canadian nation.' I call the

members of this House to witness that while the hon. gentleman uses such expressions in the House, he fails to carry out the idea as he should. It has come to such a pass in this House that one can hardly speak of one who has the honour to belong to the French race and criticise him, but the Minister of Public Works is on his feet in a moment crying ' Race cry ! ' We have had more race cry from him this session than has been known for ten years before. And probably every day from now on we shall hear this taunt of ' race cry ' hurled across the floor whenever any hon. member criticises this government. I believe that ' We belong to the same Canadian nation;' and I believe that all Canadians should be treated the same, and not used as we have been by the sending out of these circulars, sent out by the Minister of Agriculture and marked ' confidential.' I have no objection to census enumerators getting all possible data concerning the French race. I believe that the French citizens, as a rule, are good citizens. But I believe that there should be no exception made. I care noc whether this gentleman's name is C8t6 or Blue or Brown, or anything else. It is not a question of name or race, but a question of equal usage of citizens in a country in which all citizens have equal rights.
It has been stated that this is because the French are a migratory race-if you will permit that term to be used. But they are not the only citizens of Canada that have that disposition. Take the maritime provinces, notwithstanding the statement that there has been no exodus from this Canada of ours, if you will stand at Vanceboro and Eastport, for any time during the past five or six years, you will see hundreds of citizens going to the New England states. They do not propose to make tlieir home there, but they go there during certain seasons of the year to find employment, and gravitate towards their home after the season is over. But there is no provision made for taking this class at all, they are not to be considered because they do not happen to he French. I know that in my own county, and no doubt in the county of Lunenburg and other counties in Nova Scotia, there is a class of persons who seek employment in the United States fishing fleet. But these people are not to be taken into consideration, it is only people to whom this confidential circular has been sent; and then, forsooth, because we call attention to it, we are accused of raising the race cry in this country. It is nearly time the Minister of Public Works, whom I regret to say I must hold accountable for a great deal of this trouble-I say it is pretty nearly time that he should bottle up that race cry of his and keei>
it at home, if he has any use for it. I am glad to see the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is present, *because I want to call his attention to an
instance that occurred in my county, of a gentleman of migratory instincts. He moved to the city of Eastport, and lived there for several years, enjoying all the advantages of citizenship under the United States flag. But things were not quite as happy as he would like to have them and he went away. His friends were good Reformers, and he applied for a position held by a good officer in the Fisheries Department. He was called home and was given the position. I made some inquiries about it. Perhaps the hon. gentleman may not be aware that he was not actually a voter in this country when they made him an officer; he was a voter in the United States. But that is the way this government prevents the exodus. They hunt up some poor fellow who has made the mistake of leaving this country, and they cajl him home and give him an office, dismissing some good officer to make him a position, although he may not even be a citizen of this country. Now, I think if the Minister of Agriculture had been frank and fair to this House, and had had these circulars printed in the Printing Bureau and fairly distributed in all the provinces among all the citizens, his action would have been commendable. But I can assure him that so far as the section of country from which I come is concerned, he wrill have the most severe censure.


Mr. KAULBACH.: A reference was made by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Gagnon) to the proposed method to be employed by the Minister of Agriculture in taking the census. I want to say that in the county of Lunenburg which I have the honour to represent, as well as throughout the whole province of Nova Scotia, from Cape Sable to Cape North, there is a large migratory portion of the population who spend much of their time in fishing in the United States. I am anxious to know how such are to be placed, and in what industry they are to be classified. Are they to be lumped together as one industry and classified as such ? In my county I am happy to say that industry is more largely developed than in any other, and I think the number of fishermen will be found to be larger than in any other county.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Fishing is not called an industrial establishment. that terms does not apply to fishing at all.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: But don't you think It should ? We have a number of industries connected with fishing on the shore in my county, such as curing fish, These people make their entire living in the fishing industry, and I think that ought to be counted as an industry, otherwise the resources of that province would not be fairly registered in the census to show that industry properly.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is a special fishery schedule which deals with the fishing industry. But what we call industrial establishments would be such establishments as fish canneries or something like that. But men who go out to sea to fish do not come under that title at all.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I do not think it is fair to the fishermen who employ three, or four, or five, or ten men, and employ their capital, that they should not be looked upon as engaged in a certain industry. It is commonly called the fishing industry. I think the minister ought to make arrangements whereby instructions should be given to the enumerators to make a special list for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have a special schedule for that.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: But the minister does not understand me. They would only be classed as one industry, and when a man employs several men, over five in number, to help him in the catch of fish or in the curing of fish, I think his business should be counted separately as an industry when the returns are made up by the enumerators. We have a number of other industries, such as boat-building, in which a great number of persons are employed in the winter time, and as soon as spring opens they seek employment in fishing. In the winter time there would be more than five men working together, and I think they should be counted as an industrial establishment.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are special questions asking whether a person is occupied in one particular industry all the year round or only during a jjortion of the year, or if during a portion of the year they are occupied in another industry, and the time they devote to each.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The minister will see, then, that they are shut out from being classified as forming one of the industries. I think that is unfair. The same with barrel-making. A large number of barrels are being made to serve as packages for fish, and those engaged in this employment should be counted in the same way an industry.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: But, they are not known as industries, and I contend that they should be counted as such. I think they should have recognition in that way.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the hon. gentleman is misrepresenting the word ' industries ' as we have been using it. WTe have been talking about industrial establishments which I take to be manufacturing establishments. Every occupation is an industrial one, and, in the Mr. KAULBACH.
schedules provision is made for asking a person's occupation. We do not ask him whether he is engaged in an industry or something else. His occupation is asked and he gives the occupation in which he spends most of his time. Then, he is asked if he spends a part of his time in some other occupation. I think the point raised by the hon. gentleman is completely covered.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I do not think this would cover the industry of boat-building, fish-making or the Industry of barrel-making. These should be classed as manufactories, and should be counted in that way, irrespective of the number employed. Where there are barrel manufactories, such as I have referred to, and where more than five men are employed, would such an establishment be counted ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. An industrial establishment for the manufacture of barrels in which there were more than five men employed, would be counted as an industrial establishment.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: If not more than five, what then ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I do not think this is fair in the interest of the county I represent, which is a county numbering largely in industries, such as ship-building, boat-building, curing of fish, barrel-making and stavemaking, also saw-mills, grist-mills, blockmaking, fish-making and carriage-making. There are thousands of men employed in the manufacture of barrels. If any one of these should have less than five employees, should they be shut off from being counted an industry. When the minimum limit of five operatives only is permitted to entitle its being called an industry, you shut out numbers of industries that in my opinion should appear. I know of manufacturers of ship's blocks who have only two or three hands employed, but nevertheless manufacture largely, should they be shut off and their business not counted as an industry ? It appears to me to be unfair, and I hope the hon. minister will see it in this light.


Mr. HACKETT.: I was glad to hear the hon. minister say they would class fish canneries as a separate industry. Are lobster canneries included in the schedule as a separate industry ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Mr. Chairman, before the motion is carriedj I think we should have a fuller explanation from the hon. minister who is in charge of the taking of the census. From the beginning, it appears to me that the explanation he has given is quite unsatisfactory. We asked in the early stages of the estimates that the hon. minister should tell us about this confidential letter written
3917	APRIL 26, 1901	3913
by Mr. Cote to people here anti there all over the Dominion, and which I think was first brought to the attention of the House, at any rate to nay attention, by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Hon. Mr. Prior), who brought it in a formal way to the attention of the House. If 1 recollect exactly the expression of the hon. minister, it was that he did not know that a circular letter was sent out but that he had since seen it and that he approved of it. I shall not say that he highly approved of it, because I believe it was as far as he could go to say he approved of it. Of course, he had either to approve of it or recall it, and he therefore told us he approved of it. Has every ofiicial in the census department the right to send circulars marked ' private and confidential,' to give pointers to certain portion's of the population when the census is being taken ? I think not. I may be wrong and those hon. gentlemen who hold an opposite view may be right, but my opinion is that no instructions should be given to the people without the closest and most careful scrutiny of the minister and of the Governor in Council as well. I would like to see the right hon. leader of the government have a say in these matters. That was the case in the olden days and should be the- case to-day, but it is not. We have the extraordinary spectacle of a circular, marked ' confidential,' being issued by an under official, not by the census commissioner, not by the Minister of Agriculture, not by the Governor General in Council, but by an official under all these. This official has undertaken to send out, not one circular marked ' private and confidential,' but two that we have got track of, and there may be more coming. But, at any rate, there are two circulars marked ' confidential ' which have been sent to a portion of the people, one sent to people here and there largely of the French Canadian race, and some 1,600 or 1.800 people have been selected for that purpose. I would like the hon. minister to explain. He gave one explanation and was that false stories were going among French Canadians that the census was for the purpose of drafting them out for war and for the purpose of taxation, and that it was necessary to disabuse their minds of these ideas. If that were true and it was necessary to disabuse their minds, why was it necessary to pick out 1,600 or 1,800 people to whom that information was to be sent? They sent a copy of the circular to a gentleman in British Columbia who wrote to the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., and who evidently had as much intelligence as the hon. Minister of Agriculture, or as any member of the House. The reason given by the hon. Minister of Agriculture for sending out that circular we cannot accept. Whatever was the reason. it was evidently an afterthought on his part, or some kind of an excuse that he was trying to get in order to account for the


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: sending out of the first circular. Then we have another circular, marked ' confidential,' too, sent out. and when the hon. minister was asked about that to-day, he gave two or three versions, two or three statements, which are quite contradictory, one of the other. He will have to straighten this out and be able to inform the committee more particularly and more exactly as to the reason than he has yet done. This last one was sent out without the knowledge of the hon. minister. Is that correct ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have stated the case already.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. minister says that he has stated the case already. I do not want to misstate the case. I want, as I go along, to be sure that I am stating exactly the facts. The minister says that he has stated the case already. It would take him a good deal less time to say yes, or no.
I will make the statement that the circular was sent out without his knowledge, because, when the hon. senior member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) called his attention to it many days ago, he declared, to the hon. member for Hamilton that he knew nothing of any circular except the first one marked [DOT] confidential,' that he knew of no other confidential circular that had been sent out by Mr. Cote. Then, he knew nothing of this circular which was sent to the cures. He says that he approves of it. As I before pointed out, he has either to approve of it or recall it, which he could not do, because, if he recalled it, they have the letter, they have read it, they are seized of its contents, and if they were asked to send it back it would simply enable them to read it with more care and particularity, in order to see what this letter contained which was sent out under some misapprehension, or as the result of a mistake, which the government found they had made when they sent a letter marked ' confidential ' that they did not want the rest of the people of the Dominion to see or know about. The only reason why they marked it ' confidential ' was that tliey thought that perhaps the contents of this circular would not be disclosed to the rest of the people of Canada. It is a most deplorable thing. We have the Minister of Public Works in every possible occasion flaunting himself before the people, jeering in his own inimitable style and raising the racial cry so far as he can. He evidently knows more about this circular than the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture told us he knew nothing about it, and I believe it to be true that he did not know anything about the circular until after it was printed. Under the Conservative government it was considered a matter of such great importance that everything sent out with regard to the census, was submitted to the Governor in Council, so that the combined wisdom of the ministers might bring about the best results. How different it is under this Liberal gov-

eminent. Mr. Cote was an employee of tlie Minister of Public Works. Is that correct ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He was not then.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Has he been at any time ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What was he immediately before he was census commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He was not in my employment then.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Was he in the employ of the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: At all events, we know that Mr. Cote was pretty generally employed by the Minister of Public Works during the last four years. Now. it is a fact apparent to anybody that all confidential communications should be printed in the government Printing Bureau, and no place else. I am told by printers that documents marked confidential are charged for at double rates according to the rules of the trade, although there is no more work connected with them than with other documents. Therefore, this confidential circular would have to be paid for at double rates, but outside the question of cost, the proper place to print such documents is in the government Bureau. We know that every day communications of the most confidential nature are printed. Take, for example, the draft copies of the estimates which are printed and then submitted to council. These are private and confidential, and the government has its intricate machinery in the Bureau to ensure that not a word of these confidential documents shall be divulged except to the officer who shall be responsible. Yet, we are told to-day by the Minister of Agriculture that this confidential document was printed in some outside office. H; says there was congestion in the Printing Bureau. That is the old excuse we hear every day when we ask for the Auditor General's Report, and other blue-books necessary for the proper transaction of the business of the country. Why not get more printers ? Every department of tlie government is loaded up with an army of officials, as we showed last: night in reference to the Department of Customs, and if the government requires more compositors or more type-setting machines, why do they not get them ? The ministers will have to get some other excuse than that old played-out chestnut of a story.
Some hon. MINISTERS. Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I see the First Minister smiling, and he knows the difficuties he has had in getting his ministers to send their Mr. WALLACE.
reports to the Bureau in time to have them printed for the use of parliament. Anyway, these confidential circulars should be printed and printed in one place only, and that place is the government Printing Bureau.
My good friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) confessed himself nonplussed and puzzled as to why these confidential circulars should have been sent out. He evidently did not read Le Soleil newspaper, published in Quebec, for if he did he would have a little light thrown on the matter. Le Soleil says :
The population of the province of Quebec is the basis upon which is calculated the representation of the other provices in the Dominion parliament. The constitution Axes at sixty-five the number of our representatives in the House of Commons. If the census determines that our population is 1,750,000, that number divided by sixty-five, the number of our representatives, will give an average of 26,922 per representative. If Ontario, for example, has a population of 2,250,000, that number divided by 26,922 will give eighty-three, which will be the number of its representatives in the Commons. Actually it is ninety-two, so that it would lose nine representatives.
That is the programme laid out by Le Soleil, the organ of the Liberal party in the city of Quebec, and I call it to the attention of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), who was in such a dilemma a short time ago.


The PRIME MINISTER.: He heard it this afternoon.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Le Soleil goes on to say :
As one sees, thus the other provinces whose population does not progress in the same proportion as ours, lose some representatives in the Commons, while our number is fixed and remains always the same. Thus, after the census of 1891, New Brunswick, whose population had not. increased in the same proportion as that of Quebec, lost one representative in the House of Commons. This shows the importance, from the point of view of representation, of making known all our population to the census officials. There is little importance front a pecuniary point of view.
This paper then goes on to say that by tlie Act of Confederation the province gets 80 cents per head, and the population has to be revised at each centennial census, and so on. These are the statements that are made by one of the leading journals supporting the government in the province of Quebec. I think we should have a fair and Impartial census taken, so that every one in this broad Dominion, from one ocean to the other, would have confidence that the 'same rules were applicable everywhere, and that the government were exerting themselves to obtain an exact and correct statement of the population of tlie Dominion, the Industries of the Dominion, and all other matters which are necessary in the compiling of a census. Evidently that has not been done. The disclosures made to-day and some days ago in regard to those two con-

fidential circulars that were sent out to a few people upset that theory entirely, and make one wonder why those things were done. The government did not do them ; the minister knew nothing of them ; but, why should they permit their officials to do those things without their knowledge or consent, and have one of their leading newspapers tell what they expect will be the result after the next election ? These things all combined do a great deal to discredit the census. I do not want to discredit it. I want a correct census to be taken, and everybody will abide by it ; but, I do not want to see things done in an underhand way, confidential to this one and confidential to that one. This is all I have to say now ; but I repeat that it is a pity that the Minister of Agriculture has been so culpable as he must admit himself to have been, and that such discredit attaches to the census from the very 'start ; and he himself has apparently no knowledge of what is going on in his department until his attention is called to it by members on this side of the House of 'Commons.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Now we have it very clear indeed-the hon. gentleman has made it clear for our benefit-that there is a plot, a manifest plot organized, so that the census will be to the detriment of the English-speaking population. That is what the hon. gentleman has hinted at. How does he prove it ? What kind of evidence does he or can he adduce in support of the insinuations that we have listened to ? He has quoted circulars which he has called confidential, which have been sent to thousands of people. I never heard before that a circular which i's circulated by thousands can possibly be called by any reasonable man confidential. The word 1 confidential ' was put there apparently by mistake, for the paper has been circulated by thousands, and cannot possibly be a confidential one. Is there anytnmg wrong in that paper ? The hon. gentleman is unable to point to a single word in those circulars that he can find fault with. All the same, he has insinuated that there is a plot, and he has proved it to his own satisfaction. In the first place, the circular was not printed at the Printing Bureau. Well, we all know-the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), who is a member of the Printing Committee, knows-that the Printing Bureau is congested. It cannot print more than it is doing now ; I am very sorry for it. I think nearly the whole of the printing for the Paris exposition had to be done outside of the Printing Bureau, and several departmental reports also had to be done outside. We had not the space, and I may add, we have not the machinery, in the Printing Bureau to do all the printing for this government, especially during the session. Those circulars, then, which were not confidential, but which were sent out by
thousands, were printed in a newspaper office here, which itself proves that they were not intended to be confidential. Of course, for this printing there will be paid just what Dr. Dawson decides ; he will fix the price for it. The hon. gentleman knows that. What is the use of his saying that a double price will be paid, when Dr. Dawson will control that part of the printing just as much as if it had been done in the Printing Bureau itself ? I ask again, can the hon. gentleman point to one single sentence in those circulars with which he can find fault ? He cannot. Even he will not care to do so. All the same, his speech, and the speeches of others, will be circulated in Ontario, as other papers have been, to prove that Mr. C6t6 and the French Canadians are trying to make the census in such a way as to deprive the English-speaking population of its fair share of representation. The hon. gentleman who wa's very near being a minister of the Crown, has hinted that from his seat to-day. Well, l leave his words to the judgment of all good Canadians, whatever political party they belong to. I leave his words to his own party. I leave them to his leader, whom I am very sorry not to see in his seat. The hon. leader of the opposition has reprimanded me in pretty strong terms because I have taken the liberty to call upon him to repudiate the campaign which has been carried on to-day by gentlemen like the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. If he were in his place to-night, I would cal! upon him with more earnestness to do so, after the speech we have just listened to. It is not the first time that hon. gentlemen opposite have made speeches of that kind. It is not the first time that they have accused the French Canadians of being a race that lias no rights here. The hon. gentleman made a speech not very long ago, which I hold in my hand, and which his leader would repudiate if he were here. During the campaign that took place in Vancouver the hon. gentleman made a speech in which he said that the French Canadians were disloyal, that they were a conquered race, and that they must be careful or he would take charge of us. He made that speech, and he cannot repudiate it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Will the hon. gentleman read it 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They are two loyal citizens, just as loyal as those who say ' hear, hear.'

Other hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
The MINISTER OF1 PUBLIC WORKS. I hope that no hon. gentleman on the other side of the House will get up in his place and accuse my hon. friends of being disloyal.
-and that the Conservatives have proved that a member of the government was also a traitor.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: Who is that ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, I know who he is ; but, that minister is in hi's seat to-day, and nobody from the other side can prove that he is not a loyal citizen of the King.
Laurier himself had positively refused to send the contingent until forced to do so. Tarte had said that not a man should be sent to light British battles.
Tarte never said anything of the kind and will not say it.
He said that one of the paramount duties of the French members was to show that they were Frenchmen. He said, at Laval University, that the French Canadians were longing for the day when they would throw off the thraldom of Great Britain.
Of course, this is not true; of course, it is a calumny.
Their loyalty was only lip loyalty. They should bear in mind that they are a conquered race, and that never has a conquered race been treated with so much liberality, generosity and fairness as they have been treated by the British.
We are not a conquered race-not by any means. We have fought battles with our English friends, we have been defeated at times, and have defeated them at other times, but all those questions are settled, and we have conquered the right to be British citizens just as much as the hon. gentleman is. We are not a conquered race. We belong to the British Empire, and we have conquered the right to be on equal footing with any British citizen whatever his origin.
But, Sir, there was an election not very long ago in the county of North Bruce. I was up there, and I brought back with me a little souvenir of that campaign. Here it is. It is the ballot that was circulated to show our Conservative friends how to vote. Here is the ballot:
Electoral District of the North Riding of the County of Bruce.
James Ernest Campbell, of the village of Hepworth, merchant.
James Halliday, of the village of Chesley, farmer.
Opposite Mr. Halliday's name is a big cross, just to show the voter where to mark his ballot. And then there is this note added :
The above is the form of ballot that will be used at the election on Wednesday. It is the same as that used in the general elections last November, on which a number of voters made Mr. TARTE.
their mark on the top space above the names of the candidates, thereby spoiling their ballots. To record a sure vote, mark your ballot opposite the name of the candidate you intend to vote for, and between the black lines. Make a distinct cross opposite 'the name of Halliday, and your vote will be counted, and you will help to elect a farmer to represent you, a man who will look after your interests in the same way as he does his own. Make no mistake. You have the opportunity to silence the French domination over Ontario; you should use your privilege, voting as your conscience directs you, and not as the infamous Grit machine tells you.
' Vote to silence tbe French domination over Ontario.' And at the same time the Tory organ in that riding was telling the electors that the majority of tbe government were French, that tbe Hon. John Oostigan was a member of this government, that the French were dominating, bossing, directing everything. And yet the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has the temerity-I use a parliamentary word-to say that we are making- appeals to passion and to prejudice.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I am sorry that this circular was ever sent, not because there is anything wrong In it, but because it will give another pretext to some hon. gentlemen on the other side to make appeals to passions and prejudices against a race which deserves better treatment at their hands. The French Canadians of the province of Quebec supported for nearly twenty years the Conservative party, and kept them in office. We were never accused then of being disloyal, of being a conquered race, hut to-day because, after having followed Sir John Macdonald twenty-five years, we have changed our political allegiance, we are disloyal, we are a conquered race, and it is time that these hon. gentlemen who raise these cries should take charge of us. Well, we do not undertake to take charge of him. We will leave him to the care of his friends, but I repeat the prophecy I made this afternoon-and I do not charge anything for it-there is no party which has ever gained any permanent advantages by a policy of this kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Conservative party-and I do not accuse the whole Conservative party, let my words be well understood, because I know that there are In the Conservative ranks a great many men who do not approve of the dangerous policy to which some gentlemen from the other side have resorted-but I say that the Conservative party will never come back to office unless they make up their minds to give up that policy. The French Canadians will not be alone to keep them out of office. There will be a reaction, a powerful, generous reaction in the English population, among the very men that may have been misled by those appeals. We

are not going to stand idle. I do not speak as a party man. I do not know how long my health will permit me to remain in the position I occupy.' This is not a party question, but I cannot express too deeply my sorrow and regret when I hear, and when I see

Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There may be some gentlemen who do not understand the meaning of what I say, but I say that I cannot express too deeply my regret when I see this young Canadian nation, which is called to such a high destiny, exposed to grave perils by appeals of that kind. We have had difficulties in the past, we have been obliged to change our form of government nearly every thirty years. Why ? Because the two races did not seem able to agree. Those hon. gentlemen who are conducting this racial campaign are simply leading us to some deadlock. I ask those who have laughed to reflect a little. I say that the Conservative party is going back on the policy they followed for a long time, and which was successful, and until they make up their minds to change their present ways and methods they do not deserve to come back to office.


An hon. MEMBER.: And they will not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And they will not.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. Minister of Public Works is smarting under the discovery of his own acts and his own schemes, inimical to the well-being of confederation; and true to his old instincts and practices, he attempts to raise a cloud in order to escape from it, and I will not permit him to do so just now. He tells us about North Bruce and how he found matters there. It is no wonder that the gentleman who was going to show the Ontario leaders of the party how to run an election and who came back to this House like a whipped spaniel, should feel pretty sore at finding that the machinations and means that carried elections in other places were of no use in the north riding of Bruce. Now, as to the speech I made in British Columbia I do not retract a line or a word of it. The hon. gentleman says I made attacks upon the French Canadian. If you attack the hon. Minister of Public Works and say that his record is a record of dishonesty, you are, according to that hon. gentleman, attacking the whole French Canadian race. If you say that Bourassa and Monet are traitors to the country, you are attacking the whole French Canadian race. I said in this House last year that these two men were traitors to Canada. And the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), if not in so many words, said the same thing


The PRIME MINISTER.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Not in so many words, perhaps, but the whole of his argument


The PRIME MINISTER.: Order.
ilr. WALLACE. The whole of his argument was in that direction, and yet he would take them to-morrow to his bosom.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) is mistaken. I said nothing of the kind. Mr. Bourassa is entitled to his opinions, which are not mine. But the views that he expressed have been expressed on the floor of the House of Commons of England.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No, Sir. He expressed some views that have been expressed on the floor of the House of Commons in England, but he expressed some views that would not be expressed by any loyal man in this country. He abused our troops, and did everything that a disloyal man would do, and I characterized him and Monet-I beg his pardon for mentioning his -name, the member for Laprairie-I characterized them as traitors. And I would like to know from the Minister of Public Works if, because you find some men on that side of the House who are disloyalists and traitors to their country, or, if you attack the Minister of Public Works you are therefore attacking two millions of French Canadians ? I think it is about time that humbug of that sort should cease. I do not withdraw a. word of what I said, nor shall I do so. The hon. gentleman said further that I characterized them as Frenchmen first and that he had made a speech in the province of Quebec saying that they were Frenchmen first. I would like him to say if that were not true.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let him go on. I am going to answer him in good form.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I have a report here taken from the Montreal Star of the 22nd of September of 1899. It is a report of the annual dinner of the law students of Laval. Mr. Justice Wurtele and Mr. Monk spoke. The hon. Minister of Public Works also spoke, and among other things he said-and this is given in quotation marks indicating a verbatim report of that por-tlon of his speech ;
One of the paramount duties of the French members of the House of Commons was to show that they were Frenchmen. _ We were happy to he British subjects, as this fact also-permitted us to remain French Canadians.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I say so again.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I said in British Columbia, and I say here again to-night, that,
in my opinion the paramount duty of the-

392S
French member of the House of Commons and of tlie English-speaking member as well was to be a Canadian, and a British Canadian. I say that language of the kind I have just read is utterly uncalled for, that it is calculated to create dissention and division which a loyal citizen of this country would seek to avoid, but the hon. Minister of Public Works Is repeating it with variations on every possible occasion. What about the interview in France at the Paris exposition last year ? It is true that last year the right hon. First Minister said :	I am not responsible for reports appearing in newspapers, I shall wait until I hear more authentic reports of the hon. minister's utterances. Has he received more authentic reports ? Who sent out the report which appeared in La Patrie, a paper belonging to the hon. minister or his family? Was it not the hon. Minister of Public Works himself ? Did lie not say in the interview :	We have to disguise our feelings ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I never said such a thing in my life.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am giving the substance of what the hon. minister said. I have the article in my possession, but have not it under my hand at this moment. But 1 know that this whole country was shocked and surprised that a minister of the Crown from Canada should make such statements in a foreign country, giving aid and comfort to those who were at any rate not friendly to Great Britain at that'parti-cular time when the mother country needed all her sous to stand to her aid. That was the position of the hon. minister, and that position I protested against and shall continue to protest against as long as I am in this House or out of it, and able to enter a protest. Everything I said in British Columbia I repeat. These men, in my opinion, are traitors to their country. I hold the opinion to-day that I did then about the Minister of Public Works, making a speech to the students of Laval University and preaching that the par-mount duty of a French member of the House of Commons was to show that they were Frenchmen. What about our Canadian citizenship ? Are we to have no Canadians in this country, are we to have no British subjects in this country, that it must be their paramount duty to be French Canadians ? Why not British Canadians ? Why not Canadians without any prefix, if that will suit him better ? We are all Canadians; we ought all to be loyal Canadians. But I say that this attitude of the minister and this attitude of the gentleman to whom I have alluded is an attitude, in my opinion detrimental and injurious to the best interests of this country. As to these circulars, the hon. gentleman says that the whole murder is out. and that I have made a speech. Well, I made a few remarks, and he was Mr. WALLACE.
not able to point out anything that I said that was not correct. He says that he will herald what I have said in the province of Quebec. I am told that every issue of his paper for months had my name in it as an Orangiste, as he calls it, as if it was a crime to be an Orangeman, to belong to an association incorporated by this parliament under an Act signed by the Governor General as representative of Her Majesty, an association whose principles no man can impugn, those principles being loyalty to the country and the institutions under which we live, unswerving and unwavering loyalty. That is the crime that I am charged with in the province of Quebec, and the hon. gentleman thinks he is justified in saying : Oh, Wallace, is an Orangeman, and therefore he is unfit to be a representative of the people, he is unfit for any position. Mr. Chairman, the man who was First Minister of Canada for a longer period than any other man, was an Orangeman ; the Hon. J. J. C. Abbott, another premier of Canada, was an Orangeman ; the Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell, another premier of Canada, was an Orangeman. There are three premiers of Canada since confederation who were members of the Orange Association. Was it ever charged that it was a crime for them to belong to that association ? That is the charge made by the Minister of Public Works in his newspaper, attempting thereby to gain political advantage by using the cry that I am an Orangeman, and that not only I should be condemned myself, but the political party to which I belong should be condemned also. Now, I say, judging by the course that has been taken by the Minister of Public Works, it looks as if he were the party who sent out this circular. Some one writes to me and says :
I am told C6te, when employed at Ottawa, was correspondent of La Patrie, Tarte's paper.
That may be true, or untrue, the Minister of Public Works can tell. We all know it is correct, anyway. That was printed and sent out without the knowledge of the Minister of Agriculture. But does anybody tell me it was sent out without the knowledge of the Minister of Public Works, who we know, from experience and observation, takes charge whenever he chooses of everybody's department in the whole government ? We find him day by day, without the slightest hesitation, chiming in and dominating and dictating to every minister, and therefore we can easily believe that the Minisfer of Public Works had something to do with the publication of these two confidential circulars. But he says they were not confidential because they were sent out to thousands of people. Does he tell me that the one sent to the curds in the province of Quebec marked ' confidential,' was not a confidential circular ? He says it was a mistake. How does he know it was a mistake ? Where did he learn it was a mistake ?

By what authority does he tell us it was a mistake ?
The MINISTER O'F PUBLIC WORKS. The minister said that himself.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister did not know anything about it until after the circulars were out. Does the Minister of Public Works say that he did not know anything about it until the circulars were out ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not know that they were published till I read them in the papers.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: He did not know they were published till he read them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the papers.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: When did that occur ? Well, then, I say that if Mr. Cdt6, without the authority of the Minister of Public Works, and without the authority of the Minister of Agriculture, has violated the regulations which he was bound to uphold, by sending out a private and confidential circular to a portion of the population, he grossly violated his duty. The Minister of Public Works says that this young Canadian nation is exposed to perils by appeals- such as he made to this House himself tonight. He is making these appeals continually, it is his whole stock-in-trade, and if he could not make these appeals his occupation and his usefulness to his political party would be gone. I say that we are exposed to. great perils and dangers, and we are exposed to these perils and dangers because of the Minister of Public Works and his utterances on all occasions of this kind. He says in another place :
I am a minister in a British government. I have liberty to call myself French, but if it is desired that I should declare myself a British citizen, and if it is desired to prevent me calling myself French, then I refuse to call myself a British subject. We are happy and free under British institutions, but France is also my dear mother country.
Canada is mine, that is the difference between us two.


An hon. MEMBER.: I am sorry for Canada.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Well, Canada has a good deal to be sorry for, and If it had no more loyal sons than the one who made the interruption, I would say, God help Canada. He says also, when the war was going on last year :
What have we to do with things in Africa? Why should we take the money and blood of our people to spend them in such far-away regions?
He did not do very much in that direction himself. He does not need to make any boast of his efforts in that behalf, because if there was any one who discouraged and discredited any effort in that direction, it
was the Minister of Public Works and those two young men behind him whom he inspired with the same ideas that he had himself in this regard, with the same Ideas that I have just read as a reflex of the mind of the Minister of Public Works, so far as he dares to give voice to his opinions. Now, Sir, for myself I shall not be a party to any disloyalty In this country so long as I live. I shall not be one who will coquette with a foreign country and disparage his own. My loyalty is due to the old flag that we live under, to the King who reigns over us, and to the Dominion of Canada, the proudest part of the great British Empire.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman has stated that I have not done much in the war in South Africa. I want to know when he has been killed for the King. I want to know how much blood he has shed, and where it is. Now, I am always amused when I see a gentleman exalting his own loyalty.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I can tell the hon. gentleman that a son of mine was out there, and did his duty by his flag. I do not think there were any Tartes there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I compliment the hon. gentleman on the fact that his son has come back in good health, and I compliment him on the fact that his son went there. The fact that one of his sons went to the front does not prove that my sons are' not just as loyal as his son. ,We were not all at liberty to go out there. Besides, there are members in this government who have sent their sons, some of whom have been killed.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I made no comparison till I was challenged to do so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman better possess his mind in peace. The fact that he is always speaking of his loyalty does not prove that other men are not as loyal as he is. He has stated, not only in British Columbia, but all over Ontario, that the French Canadians are not loyal. I pass over what he may have said about myself.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I deny that I have ever made such a statement as that. I stated that individuals such as the hon. Minister of Public Works were not loyal, but he says the French Canadian race. I repudiate that statement again.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman makes a statement on the floor of parliament, and I am bound to accept it, and I do accept it, but, I have read his speech. I have just read one in which he says that the loyalty of the French is lip loyalty. I have read his speech. If he says he has not made that speech I will accept his statement without any hesitation. I accept statements from any hon.

gentleman when they are made on the floor of parliament. But, he has made that speech and he has made it publicly, not on the floor of parliament, but he has made It, it has been read all oyer the country, and it is not the first speech of the kind that he has made. The fact that he has made these speeches explains why he has not been able to satisfy his ambition to occupy the chair that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) is occupying to-day. Now, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) has proved the contrary of what he is trying to establish. He has alluded to the fact that Sir John Abbott and Sir Mackenzie Bowell belonged to the Orange Order. These gentlemen have been supported by the province of Quebec, which knew very well that they belonged to the Orange Order, but, in the Orange Order, there are men and men as there are in every other class of the community. There are men that we are bound to respect in the Orange Order, and there are those that we are bound to judge as we see fit. The hon. gentleman has never known a word of the French language. I do not make it a crime to him, but, all the same he does not know a word of French, and he is quoting my interviews and speeches made in French. I say, without any hesitation, that he is quoting speeches and words that X have never uttered. I ask to be judged, not upon the misquotations that have been read both inside and outside of parliament, but, I am prepared to stand by every word that I qttered both in France and here. I never said in France that we were disguising our views, but that we had to act with discretion. I have seen published in the Conservative press things that I never said in my life.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: And in La Patrie too.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) read La Patrie ? He has not that good fortune, I am sorry to say. He has read quotations that have been cooked for political purposes.


William Humphrey Bennett: By Cartwright.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is nothing easier in the world than to distort the words of a gentleman who speaks in French when you report them in English. There is this to be said, and to this I call the attention not only of this parliament, but of all those fair-minded men in the province of Ontario, that in Ontario the French Canadian newspapers are not read. Our English friends do not read the French newspapers. Then, it is the easiest possible thing for a dishonest newspaper man, and there are very few, I hope, to distort the words and meaning of the speeches of a public man. I say, without hesitation, that I have never uttered the speeches and words that were reported Mr. TARTE.
in the Tory press during the last campaign. There could not have been more misrepresentation under the sun than during the last campaign. Whether I stay here, as a minister, or whether I go into private life, I will make it my duty and pleasure to go to the province of Ontario to be judged by what I shall say and by what I have said, I have said somewhere that I would be glad to have a discussion with the leaders of the Orange Order, with the hon. gentleman himself. I have so much confidence in the fairness of our English friends when they are face to face with these men that I would be glad to have a discussion with the leaders of the Orange Order. A French Canadian who is right in his views, who is a loyal British citizen, need not fear to go to Ontario. I have said in France what I have repeated over and over again here, that the French Canadians were happy and contented under British rule. What I have said there is true. Will you permit me to add that the French Canadians are more interested in being loyal than their friends of British origin. We cannot go anywhere else. If this country were annexed to the United States we would be altogether drowned. We would rather remain under the British flag than under any other state of affairs. Why should we not be loyal then, Sir ? Our hearts are loyal just as much as if our interests alone dictated to us to be loyal. We enjoy the same liberties as our English friends enjoy, and I say that it is a crime against the happiness and future of this nation to brand as disloyal nearly one-third of the population. It is a crime, and I denounce that crime. The hon. gentleman knows that he is guilty of having branded us as disloyal men. He knows it, his friends know it, and his party know it. He has branded us as a disloyal race, but he would not dare to say that on the floor of parliament when the whole nation is listening. He would say that in some corner of the land. He would not state that here, but, he has never repudiated his statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I understood the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) to emphatically deny that he had made such a statement, and the minister was good enough to say that he accepted the hon. gentleman's denial.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I accepted it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman repeats the same thing.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Before I sit down, I just want to call the attention of the committee and of hon. gentlemen on both sides to the methods tnat are adopted by some of our Tory friends. I dismissed 75 men a few days ago when

the department did not require them anymore. We have no more work. Firemen and engineers for the heating system are not required at the present moment. We dismissed a lot of them. Out of those dismissed, there were, if 1 remember rightly, about fifteen or sixteen English-speaking men. The balance, about sixty, or in the neighbourhood of that, were French Canadians. Now, the Citizen, the very morning after these dismissals, called attention to the fact that fifteen Englishmen had been dismissed from the mechanical branch, not mentioning, of course, the fact that sixty French Canadians had been dismissed elsewhere. Now, let me read to you from the Hamilton Spectator :
Mr. Tarte has again been bridging over the yawning gulf between the British and French people of Canada by slandering the former. Last week he dismissed seventy employees of the Public Works Department. In the mechanical department thirteen out of the fifteen discharged were English-speaking mechanics. Questioned about it in the House, Mr. Tarte affirmed that this discrepancy was merely incidental to the policy of dismissing inferior and retaining superior workmen. In other words, Mr. Tarte says that French Canadian mechanics are superior to British Canadian mechanics ! Thus the master of the Grit administration adds insult to injury.
Now, I leave this country to judge of the methods that are adopted to raise prejudices against me. It is. not against me that these appeals are made. I am a very humble citizen of this country, and it is not against me, personally, but it is against me, because I am a French Canadian.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.
Other hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If an English Minister of Public Works had dismissed these men that article would not have been written, but I have been branded all over Ontario as a French Canadian who hates the English population. My fellow-countrymen of French origin have been accused of being disloyal ; of being an inferior race, of being a conquered race. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) will not deny that he has. over and over again, called us a conquered race. All over Ontario everything I do is qualified in a way to try and show that, of course, I boss the whole administration ; that I hold the right lion, the Prime Minister in my right hand, the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce in my left hand, the Minister of Railways and Canals In my right pocket, and all my other colleagues in my hat. They try to make out that the whole business is in my hands, and being a bad Frenchman, that I am a terrible man for the English population. That is just what it means. When I go to Ontario some good Conservatives who met me in past days look at me and exclaim : How is it that Tarte changed so much.
They look at me to see if I have horns or some other infernal implements about me. I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman, that so much time has been taken up in this debate, hut, it is not my fault. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) appears to have made up his mind that I wrote those circulars myself, and printed and circulated them myself, but I give the House my word that I only read them for the first time when I read them in the newspapers.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Mr. Chairman, I thought the question 'before the House was the granting of money to take the census ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Jabel Robinson: We have been treated all the afternoon by both parties to personal abuse, and if this is the way you manage business in the parliament of Canada, I think I will have to resign.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Jabel Robinson: Well, I can never stand that kind of thing. I have heard more personal abuse since I have been in this parliament than I ever heard in all the associations I ever attended in my life. The language that has been thrown across the floor this afternoon and evening is an insult to the people of Canada. I feel as though I would like to introduce a Bill in which I would provide that every individual who brings up this racial cry should be fined $100, and put in tbe tower for a period of


Some hon. MEMBERS: Twelve months.


Jabel Robinson: Any man who introduces anything that would hurt the feelings of his neighbour on this side of the House, or on that side, should be imprisoned in the tower for a month at any rate.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Jabel Robinson: If the Prime Minister allows me, I will introduce that Bill. It is about titae that we people no matter from whom we sprung, should learn how to behave ourselves on this continent, where we have all the privileges and all the advantages of a happy people. But, 'still some people come here and bicker at each other and fight like dogs. It is a shame that we should bring these things up in the parliament of Canada. Let us go on with the business, and pass the accounts, and get home by bed time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I just want to ask the minister if he has received any replies to the telegram sent out by him in reference to the political circular that was distributed throughout Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister give the names of the nine who admit they did have it, as well as the other three ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think I have the names of the com-missoners, but I have the names of the electoral districts : Algoma (Fort William) ; Algoma (Port Arthur) ; North Bruce (one) ; West Bruce, Cardwell, North Essex, South Grey, West Middlesex, and Toronto West. These were the constituencies in which it had been seen, but not used, as far as the commissioners had any information or could find out. There were three in which it had been received, and had been in the hands of the enumerators more or less : North York, North Hastings and East Northumberland, and in these it was immediately followed up and destroyed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the minister lay these papers on the Table of the House ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is a mere statement, but I will lay copies of the replies on the Table.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what I mean.


William Humphrey Bennett: It will he refreshing to the people of Ontario to know that in North York, represented by the Hon. Mr. Davis in the local legislature, there are such appearances of fright as to call upon that gentleman to use the enumerators for this purpose. It is quite gratifying to us on this side of the House to have the statement made ; but, it would be much more satisfactory, not only to us, but I have no doubt to the people of Ontario and the rest of the Dominion, to know now what steps the minister has taken to have the matter thoroughly sifted, and to find out from whom these circulars passed to the census commissioners and the enumerators. Have any steps been taken in that regard ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No steps have been taken except to prevent the use by the enumerators of any schedules not issued by the department. I may say, from information that has come to me from the same source as that which has come to bon. gentlemen opposite, namely, the public press, that I notice various statements to the effect that the circular in question is one which has been issued by the political organization in the province of Ontario for the purpose of organizing for the revision of the voters' lists. Apparently that circular has been sent out to the chiefs of that organization in the different parts of the province. Apparently three of these chiefs, or somebody acting for them, in some way which I do not know or care about, got the circulars into the hands of the census enumerators in those three districts, and they apparently began to use them. That improper action on the part of the enumerators has been stopped, and anything they did in connection with them has been destroyed.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. minister say whether he dismissed those officials or not ? because he promised that he would.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said that I would dismiss any who refused to do what they were instructed to do.


Richard Blain: I want to know if you dismissed those three enumerators, as you promised to dismiss any who used these circulars.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not, because the moment they were ordered to do so they destroyed them, and fulfilled their instructions.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. gentleman he kind enough to read the first section of his report-the precise language he used- because I did not catch it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said that in 102 cases out of the 114 the census commissioners reported that they knew nothing of the circular and had found no trace of it in their ridings.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Samuel Barker: Is that the language the hon. gentleman used before ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: The language varies according to the replies of the commissioners. I cannot quote the language in every instance. Nine replied that they had heard of those schedules, but that they had not been used, and there were three who reported that apparently some of the enumerators had used them, and in these cases the commissioners immediately destroyed them, or ordered them to be destroyed where they did not do it personally.


William Humphrey Bennett: The most startling statement made by the minister was that he did not care anyway, as to the action of these gentlemen in having these circulars in their keeping ; in other words, that nothing was going to be done.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I did not say I did not care about their having them in their keeping. I said I did not know how they had reached them and did not care.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, that is 'a most startling proposition. The hon. gentleman appoints a large ' number of gentlemen throughout the Dominion to take the census returns. These in turn have a number of persons appointed under them, no doubt on the recommendation of the member or the defeated candidate for the riding ; these men who are acting as enumerators are sworn not to divulge any information they may receive in that capacity. Immediately after they are appointed some person unknown to us at the present time goes to them and deliberately asks them to do, what? To violate their oath and give him information so that when the courts of revision are coming on for the approaching elections in Ontario, they will be fortified with all the facts ; and the minister stands up now and says lie does not care what they do.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I did not say that.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman said a moment ago that it concerned him to no extent further.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is misquoting me entirely. I stated that I did not know who put them into their hands and I did not care who did so.


William Humphrey Bennett: I want nothing stronger than that. The hon. gentleman says that although these census enumerators have been supplied with these forms, and although they have been asked to commit what is nothing more nor less than subornation of forgery, he does not care-it is no concern of his whether or not this attempt has been made to tamper with the census enumerators. The minister the other night, when 124
this was brought home to him and he saw the force of it, was so panic-stricken that before he left the House he caused to be sent to all the enumerators a telegram telling them that if these circulars were being used they were at once to be destroyed ; and I think ' Hansard ' will bear out that he promised to have any dismissed who were found using them. Some of them have been found using them. I have under my hand a case in North Simcoe, where the enumerator says : 'I have seen the schedule referred to, but it is not in circulation here.' But Mr. Curry, who is the enumerator, must know who supplied him with those forms, and the House and the country will expect to be informed, because whoever supplied them was asking him to do an illegal act. The minister tells us in effect that this is a matter of no concern to him at all, although the other night he assured the House that the matter would be probed to the hilt, and he would find out who was guilty of wrongdoing. Will the minister tell the House before the item passes whether he intends to have an inquiry in order to ascertain who supplied the enumerators with these forms, how many committed a breach of confidence by using them, and after that, if an investigation shall prove that any of these men have any of these forms in their possession, and have been using them, what he proposes to do ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: As I said a few minutes ago, my information leads me to believe that this schedule or circular or form for political organization purposes was prepared by the political organization in the province of Ontario, and was distributed to the leading men of that organization in the different ridings. Just to what extent I do not know; I do not think it boots that I should know. In a few instances they were seen and known of by the census commissioners. The reply from North Simcoe, which the hon. gentleman has just quoted, says that the census commissioner had seen the circular. He does not say that he had seen it in connection with his census work, but he says it was not used in census work. I do not know how many commissioners or enumerators may have seen this circular. It matters not to me in my administration whether they have seen it or not, so long as they do not make any use of it, or in any way prostitute their office in my department in the use of it ; and from the information and replies which I have received, it Is evident that there have been only three constituencies in the whole province where any such thing has occurred. And in those places, the wrong has been completely stopped under the orders I have issued. I do not therefore see any necessity for departmental inquiry as to where this paper came from.


Andrew B. Ingram: What three counties were these ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: North York, North Hastings, and East Northumberland. The commissioners there represented that they had found a fetv of those circulars and had immediately caused them to be destroyed.


Richard Blain: What is the circular which the minister found in the hands of some of his enumerators ? Did the hon. gentleman take any steps to procure that circular and will he lay it on the Table of the House?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Tlie hon. the loader of the opposition read it in the House the other night, and that was the first I ever saw. That and the one which is in my office are all I have ever seen.	.


Richard Blain: Where did the hon. gentleman get the one which is in his office ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I found it on the table in my desk. 1 think it was sent by one of those gentlemen in the constituencies I have named.


Richard Blain: How many used it ?
The MINISTER OF AGRIOo-* uRE. Three. There were nine others who said they had seen it or known of its existence, but had not used it, and I think it is one of them who sent a copy to me.


George Taylor: Are the words ' the Dominion of Canada ' endorsed on the back of the one in the hon. gentleman's office ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not got it here and cannot tell the hon. gentleman. The one I have is the same as the one which the leader of the opposition read.


George Taylor: That circular purports to come from the Dominion of Canada and not from Ontario, and does not appear to have been got up by a political party for use in the province of Ontario alone.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I was not aware that those words were endorsed on the back.


George Taylor: The papers that were put into the hands of the enumerators were endorsed ' Dominion of Canada ' and purported to be official documents coming from here. Since this document was found in the hands of the minister's officers, he should find out who perpetrated that forgery. The minister cannot expect this item to pass until he furnishes all the information. The Reform papers came out a few days ago saying this was a trick played by the Conservative party. The Globe tried to throw the blame on the Conservative party, but now wre are going to get at the bottom of this thing. It was found by three commissioners who say that it was all over the constituency in the hands of the enumerators. The right hon. the Mr. INGRAM.
Prime Minister has said that Ontario is his right arm, and we find that the hon. Mr. Ross sent down his confidential man to be the census commissioner at Ottawa and do what he could to prevent this government losing, its right arm. And what then do we find ? We find a document placed in tlie hands of the enumerators, printed somewhere-the Minister of Agriculture says he does not know where and does not care to know anything about it-and that is the document concerning which we are determined to find out everything before this item is allowed to pass. We have succeeded in acquitting the Conservative party of the charge made that this was a trick played by them to get the department into a scrape, because the minister admits that the whole thing was got up by the Reform Association in Toronto. What right has that association to publish documents endorsed ' Dominion of Canada ' and purporting to be one of the census documents ? The minister tells us innocently that he does not know where they came from, but he is not doing his duty unless he finds out where >and by whom the fraud was perpetrated, and if it was committed through the connivance of one of his commissioners, that official should be dismissed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All the information I have is what appears in the public press. I read a letter in the Toronto Globe about a week ago, which was signed Alex. Smith, and which stated what this circular was and why and how it was issued. That Is all the information I have about it. The hon. gentleman insinuates that my officers are responsible.


George Taylor: Certainly, they were found in the hands of your officers.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have stated positively that my department had no knowledge of it and is in no way responsible. It has nothing -whatever to do with the census work. And where, in a few7 instances, it has been found in the hands of enumerators, it has been placed there without the connivance or authority or knowledge of the department at Ottawa or of the census commissioner. And the moment it was found in the hands of a few enumerators-only three in the province of Ontario-it was immediately suppressed by my orders and destroyed. As to the way in which it got into the hands of the commissioners I have no means of knowing.


George Taylor: That is what we want to know.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) may want to know. I cannot control his wants in the matter. I do not think it matters to the administration of my department how it came to be in their hands, provided the use

[DOT]of it has been stopped and their utilization of any knowledge therein has been stopped or prevented. The statement that I referred to in the Globe is practically the same as that I made a few moments ago, that this circular was issued, as a good many others have Been, by the Liberal organizations of the province of Ontario, that it was issued in the different ridings all over the province so that they might get the information for the purpose of properly revising the voters' lists. In some instances, apparently, the officers of the organization in the various ridings have communicated with the census commissioners. In some instances, the census commissioners have said they could not and would not use it or have anything to do with it. If there were ridings in which it got into the hands of enumerators, the use of it by them has been suppressed, and any information got by enumerators has been destroyed. Under these circumstances, I do not think it is necessary, as a departmental matter of administration, that there should be any further investigation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the minister is not doing his whole duty in stopping there. Either the census enumerators have been imposed upon, or they have been doing what was in violation of their oath of secrecy. The hon. gentleman admits that it was used in some localities. Surely, it would be his duty to ascertain from his commissioners or enumerators if he can, from what source they received it, or whether they have used it. And, if they have used it, it must be as he admits, in violation of their oath. And, in that case surely he will try to inflict some punishment upon them for violation of their oath of duty.


Richard Blain: What was the date of the telegram sent by the hon. minister ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The 15th of April, about 11 o'clock at night.


Richard Blain: And a number of these replies are dated on the morning of the 16th
at 10 o'clock. Will the hon. gentleman inform us how a census commissioner living at one end of his riding, receiving a telegram sent at that time, could get the information that none of the enumerators were using that circular, and send back a statement to that effect by 10 o'clock on the morning of the 16th.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He probably knew what his enumerators were doing.


Richard Blain: Let me give a couple of illustrations. Here is the answer from South Norfolk. That very large county. It would be impossible for the census commissioner to be able to procure from the different enumerators a response to any re-1244
quest that might be made informing him that they were not using that circular. Then here is the reply from the county of Peel, the county I have the honour to represent. This telegram says, ' I have written you.' And it says also, ' I know nothing about the circular.' That means that on the morning of the 16th, the earliest time when this gentleman could receive this telegram, he sits down immediately and writes an answer to the telegram of the hon. minister. And I suppose in the letter that he writes he says that the circular is not being used in the county of Peel. Let me tell the hon. minister that the census commissioner for Peel lives at the extreme northern boundary of the county, and that it is 26 miles to the southern boundary. If the commissioner was attending properly to his duties, it would be impossible for him to receive answers from these enumerators in the county at once. Therefore, I say that the telegrams are not sufficient information that this cirucualr had not been used, particularly as the minister has made the statement that he had found them in use in three different counties in Ontario. But what I would like the hon. minister to do is to give his opinion as to how these gentlemen could get the information upon which to base these telegrams sent on the morning of the 16 th.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the first place, I would say that I find that after the question came up here before, this matter was in the newspapers of Toronto. This was several days before the telegram was sent from here. The matter appears to have been in the minds of some of the commissioners, and some of the replies show that they had already made investigation. I suppose they investigated on this newspaper report, and before my telegram of the 15th reached them. I cannot say exactly as to the answer from Peel, as I do not remember the details of each reply. I went over each reply. The statement of the commissioners that no such circular had been received in their districts, I accepted, because I am confident they would not say it if it was not correct.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. minister lay the letter from the Peel commissioner upon the Table ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. Evidently from that telegram there is a letter. I received other letters supplementary to the telegrams, and I thought they were on the file handed to the hon. gentleman; but the letter does not appear to be there. The letters I received in elucidation of the telegram must have been confirmatory, otherwise I would have so stated. The telegram stated the facts in regard to the matter, and there is no letter contradictory to the telegram or giving a different meaning.


Richard Blain: Could the hon. gentleman state about liow many enumerators there would be in an average county of the province of Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is an enumerator for each polling division, I could not tell what the number is.


Richard Blain: In the county of Peel there would be twenty-five enumerators that this gentleman would have to see. He receives a telegram on the morning of the 16th ; he sits down and answers by letter and sends a telegram confirming the letter, and I suppose the inference is that he has consulted the whole twenty-five in the county, in the twenty-five different sections of the county, at work in twenty-five different farm-houses, I suppose. Does the hon. gentleman think that this information is a sufficient answer to his telegram ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I take it that when the census commissioner makes me a plain statement he has ground to justify that statement, and would not make it unless he knew what he was stating. I said a moment ago that this matter was in the public press of Toronto for several days before it was taken up in this House, and it had even been referred to in the legislature of Toronto. I have no doubt that among the census commissioners there were some who, as they stated in these replies, before they received my telegram, had investigated the matter and had found no trace of the circular. I dare say the census commissioner in Peel had discussed the matter and found out about it before he sent that telegram. But that is only a supposition. But I take it that when he sent the telegram stating there were none in use, that he knew what he was talking about.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister be good enough to lay on the Table the form of oath that was required to be taken by the enumerators ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was laid on the Table several days ago.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have been unable to find it. Perhaps the minister will tell me where I may find it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The form of oath was laid on the Table since the discussion arose some days ago, and the clerk knows where it is.


William Humphrey Bennett: I assume the form of oath is in accordance with the law. Now, the law clearly states that none of the special enumerators shall secure information other than that required by the census schedules. I am clear that there is no instruction in the schedules to obtain the ages of every person between the years of 16 and 21. Is it an instruction to the enumerators to secure the names of all parties between 16 and 21 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is an Instruction to the enumerators to secure the age of everybody they put down.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman has not answered the question. If there is any such instruction, I challenge the minister to produce it. Now, what was the position of this whole matter ? Knowing that the Ontario elections were coming on, knowing that next fall the courts of revision would be held, which wTere of vital import to the Ontario government, they go to work and some person belonging to the Liberal organization issues a circular which is passed around among the enumerators, and this circular invites these men to commit a breach of the law, after they have taken a solemn oath that they will not divulge to any person the information they have obtained. These men, by this circular, are asked to commit perjury in giving him the ages of all persons between 16 and 21. What was the object ? The object was this : When the courts -were going on this fall the Liberals would be in a position to know who to apply to have struck off on the Conservative side who were not 21, and in that way they will not be put to the expense of subpoenaing witnesses and bringing them to court. Now, the minister says to-night that he feels his duty has been carried out, that having found out who were the wrongdoers and the assurance from them that they are not going to carry it out any further, that is an end of the matter. I ask the minister this question : Assuming that one of his enumerators had by chance laid down his book, and some person had walked off with it and got certain information from it and then returned the book, and it came to the knowledge of the minister that this party' had had access to his book, would not the minister have felt called upon to punish that party ? Certainly he would, and if party pressure had been brought to bear to cause an illegal action of that kind, I am bound to say that the minister would have been very vigorous in bringing the guilty party to punishment. Yet. when the minister finds that certain parties have been doing this illegal act, after having taken the oath that they will not furnish the information, the minister washes his hands of the whole matter and thinks that it is not a question to be dealt with seriously. The minister did not propose to treat the matter in such a cavalier way the other night. He found the effect of the Ross attempt to laugh the matter out of court, so to speak. He found that the Montreal Witness and other newspapers had reprimanded and reprobated the conduct of Mr. Ross, and the hon. gentleman was not prepared to be as flippant as Mr. Ross was. I won't say that he connived at the commission of this offence, but when the offence had been proved he attempted to


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 



[Stage Direction]
make light of it. But before the minister left the building that night, what did we find him doing ? Industriously telegraphing from one end of the province of Ontario to the other to find where this document was. The minister felt the seriousness of the position, and before he left the House that night he said this :
I have stated before and I state again that if anything has been done beyond the law and the requirements of the duties of the enumerators, they will be brought to task, and it will be seen by me as head of the department under which they are working that they do their work legally, lawfully and properly, according to the strict letter of the law which lays down their duties.
Now, are they going to be brought to task ? Were these mere empty words to kill time that the minister used when he [DOT]said he was going to bring these men to task ? Was he sincere when he made that pledge, or did he expect then that the most of those enumerators would telegraph the reply that most of them did ? Why, Sir, these replies are on the face of them, absurd, as the member for Peel (Mr. Blain) pointed out. Fancy a commissioner having the hardihood to telegraph an hour or two after the receipt of the telegram by him that there were none of these circulars in the hands of his enumerators. I know there were some in the riding of East Simcoe, and when the officers wired that they did not know whether there were any there. I can prove that they were not in a position to know it. There must have been at least twenty-five enumerators iu that district, if not more, and it is not possible, much less reasonable, that these men could have been in a position to wire back as they did.
Now, the lion, minister made a pledge the other night, and that was that if he discovered any one of these men guilty of wrongdoing he would be punished and punished to the bitter end. On the strength of that statement the hon. minister felt that he was bound not to ask the House to vote money to pay men who have been breaking the j law and who have been perjuring themselves. Surely the hon. minister is not going to ask the people to give their hard-earned money, the money of this country, to men who are, to-day, in the most brazen way, admitting the fact that they have been perjuring themselves. It will not do for the hon. minister to say, that this circular was sent out without his authority, or to say that having discovered this illegal circular he has washed his hands clear of the whole tiling and that he is absolved. I trust the lion, minister will give another assurance to the committee that he proposes to set the criminal law in motion and endeavour to see what can be done, particularly in view of the statement he made, not a week ago, that this matter should be probed to the bottom and tihat if any persons were found guilty of j wrong-doing they would be punished. Does
the hon. minister propose to pay the enumerators who have been shown to be guilty of wrong-doing ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I propose to pay the enumerators for the work [DOT]they have done.
'Mr. BLAIN. I would like to read this telegram from Algoma :
Fort William, 16th April. Sydney Fisher, Ottawa.
Have received schedules, hut did not give them to enumerators. No authority to do so.
This is a proof from the hon. minister's own official that he received these circulars but he had no authority to distribute them. Here is another telegram. I would like to ask the hon. minister if he has ascertained from E. A. Mortor, the commissioner for Algoma, who supplied him with these schedules.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Richard Blain: I would like to read this other telegram from the district of Fron-tenac :
Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa.
Enumerators have no schedule nor have I been asked to furnish one or allow them any such schedule. They are using schedule received from census office only. The schedule which you refer to is exclusively the business of the Frontenae Liberal executive.
Here is another from South Grey :
Durham, Ont., April 17th, 1901.
A. Blue.
No enumerator in my district has or had the political schedule. I got a bundle, hut never thought of using them; I am sure they were not supplied from any other source.
I would like to ask the hon. minister if he has taken any steps to find out who supplied that circular to these enumerators who were under the direct control of the minister.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think it is in any way my duty to find out where this circular came from as a matter of the administration of my department. If my officers receive papers and make no use of them iu their official capacity I do not think it matters in the administration of my department. I do not propose to make an investiagtion as to where these circulars came from. The only information which I have, and which the hon. gentleman may have if he chooses to look it up, was given ill an article that I read in the Globe. It is sufficient because it seems to me to be an accurate statement and from other evidence (that has come to me in different forms I believe it to be a true statement of the facts.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman says that he does not propose to make any further investigation as to the commissioners who | have received the circular and have made I no use of it. Would lie tell the committee what he proposes to do with those gentlemen

394S-
who have received it and who have made use of it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have ordered them to immediately destroy it and not to give out any information they have obtained. I am informed that they have done so.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the hon. minister if the Prime Minister of the province of Ontario has corresponded with the hon. gentleman, or with the chief commissioner, in respect to this circular.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman is not aware whether the commissioner has received any communication or not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 am perfectly satisfied with it.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the hon. minister that gentleman's authority for stating that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. minister be good enough to lay on the Table copies of the telegrams sent to these different enumerators who admitted that they had been using that circular, and the replies senr by them stating that they had destroyed the schedules that they had filled up ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have given the telegram which was sent. There was no other sent. I have also given the replies. These are all I have, except a letter or two which lias been received explanatory of the replies and which I shall be very glad to lay on the Table of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What does the hon. minister think of those enumerators who may have used this circular that they got from some other source, not from his department ? They may have used it during the time they were taking the census, collated this information and given it out afterwards. Does he really think they have violated their duty, and their oath ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: [DOT]Certainly, if any census commissioner gets information while taking the census which he gives out afterwards he has violated his oath and his duty. I have no information that leads me to believe that any census enumerators have done that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought, in the list that was given, the minister said there were some who had used it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Some of them had this circular in their [DOT]possession and probably obtained some information, but they destroyed all these circulars immediately they were warned that they must not give out any information.


Richard Blain: 


Mr. LENNOX.: I understood the hon. minister to say a little while ago that in three counties, not that possibly they had used them but distinctly and emphatically, that they had used them. I now understand the hon. minister to suggest a qualification by saying that only possibly they had used them. It is important to know what position the hon. gentleman takes in regard to that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If I did not use the words exactly I would like to say that now. My information was that these schedules were in the hands of some of the enumerators in these three counties. There was no statement that they actually used them, that they filled them up or used them in any way, although it would be implied that they had obtained some of that information.


Haughton Lennox: I want to call the attention of the hon. minister to what I think would have been regarded as his duty in that particular. I quite apprehend that the hon. minister, having been driven from point to point, is disposed to take a desperate position. Whether he shall in the end maintain his position or not is not of so much importance to me as to state definitely what I conceive to be the duty of that hon. gentleman in that regard. We have, in the first place, the fact admitted by the hon. minister 'that he has one of these circulars in his possession. I do not assume that circulars come into the possession of a department by any means other than the ordinary channels of communication. This is not the time of the year when Santa Claus is distributing his favours, and I do not know whether the hon. minister proposes to have it go to the country that he does not know from what source that circular came. I know we have had more than one instance in which the ministry have been woefully ignorant of what has transpired in their departments. I do not know whether the minister wishes to have this added to the several instances in which responsible ministers have sought to escape responsibility on the plea that that they do not know what their department is doing.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: So that the hon. gentleman will not go on the wrong track, I may say that I told an hon. gentleman a little while ago that I received the circular from one of the commissioners attached to the letter which he wrote me confirmatory of the telegram, in which he said that he had seen the circular. I cannot tell who it was.


William Humphrey Bennett: We did not hear it across here. You must speak louder.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am sorry the hon. gentleman was either out of the House or was inattentive.


William Humphrey Bennett: None of us lieard it.


Haughton Lennox: I am willing to take the minister's explanation, tout, although I listened with the greatest attention, not a single word of that statement came to my ears. I now ask the minister from whom the circular came ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot tell exactly which of the commissioners it was, tout I will look up the letter and lay it on the Table.


Haughton Lennox: I presume the department is carried on in a business way, and that communications to it are promptly catalogued, so that the minister may be able to give us that information. I call the attention of the minister now to a matter of vital importance to the people of Canada. It is not disputed that in three counties these circulars have been in the hands of tlie census officers. We all know that officials entrusted with the administration of justice and the enforcement of the laws are watched with the greatest jealousy, and in order that the rights of the people should be secured, that is absolutely necessary. In the courts of justice, the slightest tampering with the most subordinate officer is punished in the most summary and exemplary way. Should any one attempt to suborn a witness or to approach a juryman, that person would be punished at once by the judge of the court. Does the Minister of Agriculture stand in a less responsible position in regard to these matters ? Does he wish it to be understood that having discovered that his officers had these papers in their possession, which to use in the slightest degree would cause them to violate their oaths, does he wish us to believe that he can discharge his full duty to the public when he comes to this House and says : It does not affect the administration of my department ; I wash my hands of the whole affair : it is of no concern to me. He tells us that on the night of the 15th of April it was his opinion that the guilty parties should be followed up and punished in the most exemplary manner, but. to-night he reconsiders the situation and tries to throw the blame on the shoulders of a political organization. He will now make no inquiries as to by whom these papers were sent to the enumerators. The minister says they did not come from his department. That may be, but they came from some source, and they were used in violation of the law. and I emphatically say that it is the duty of the minister to find out at least from what parties the enumerators obtained these documents. Nay. more. I submit for the consideration of all fair-thinking men. that when the law has been violated, when it has been sought to tamper with the oaths of public officers, it is the duty of that minister to institute an immediate and searching investigation, to discover who were the guilty parties. Can the minister even now
assure this House that these papers which have been found in the hands of the enumerators of at least three ridings, have not been actually filled up in violation of the instructions of the department and in violation of the law ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All such documents have been destroyed according to the statements of the commissioners, and, therefore, the information never can be given out.


George Taylor: I understood the minister to say that having seen this statement in the Globe of the 19th, page 9, he was satisfied that that statement was published by Mr. Smith, the chief organizer of the Liberal party.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I thought it was signed by him.


George Taylor: You most certainly led the House to believe that that was a statement made by the Liberal organizer. I find now that it is not on the editorial page, it is not in the correspondence column, it is not signed by Mr. Smith or anybody else, but. because it appears in the Globe the minister thinks it is all right. It is headed :
' For organization.-Alleged census circulars were distorted-Forms used to assist in assessment and at courts of revision-Nothing fraudulent or improper in their issue- A customary practice.' It goes on to give the side of the Liberal editor or some correspondent, who refused to sign his name, and it publishes what appears on the back of this document : ' Dominion of Canada, province of Ontario.' It goes on further and says :
Two copies to be prepared by the gentleman so chosen for each polling subdivision and sent to the Liberal candidate in the last provincial election or candidate now nominated for the next provincial election.
I defy any Liberal in this House to say that in each polling subdivision there ever has been a man named every year to go around and ascertain those who were over sixteen years and under twenty-one. It never has been done, and it is as clear as day that it was an attempt to get the census enumerators to do this political work. It says :
By the gentleman so chosen for each polling subdivision.
Who did that refer to ? It refers to the enumerator and no one else. But. because this statement is published on the back page of the Globe, without any signature, the minister tries to lead the House to believe that statement is made by a responsible officer of the Liberal party, when it is nothing of the kind. Yet, the minister has the hardihood to stand up and say : Although my officers have been caught redhanded. with these documents in their possession, and have used them, I am not going

to find out where they came from, whether they were printed by the commissioner in Ottawa or up in Toronto.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I take the whole responsibility of saying that they were not printed by the commissioner or any other officer of my department.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman himself says that this document was authorized by Mr. Smith, the organizer.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said I thought it was signed by him.


George Taylor: You said it was signed by him and came from him. I said it was editorial matter. You contradicted me. I said it was editorial by the reading of it, but was not In the editorial column, and was not signed by any one. It is simply an excuse, probably written by the census commissioner.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman knows that such a statement is unworthy of him.


George Taylor: No, I know the commissioner. The hon. gentleman wanted a political friend of his from Ontario who would do this dirty work for him, and have his officers gather up political information.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


George Taylor: His officers have been doing it, and he refuses to give us a committee to trace this matter. We can call witnesses who can say where they got these papers, who sent them, and whether they were sent by Mr. Smith, the organizer, or by Air. Blue, the commissioner. We can find that out if the hon. gentleman will do liis duty and press the matter home. These circulars are in the hands of his officers, and we want to know liow they came there -who printed them and sent them there, and for whose benefit they were to be filled up. Wras it to help Air. Ross and his candidates in the next election ? That is what we want to find out. Why should we vote $250,000 to gather information to help Air. Ross and the Liberal party ?
The 31INISTER OF AGRICULTURE. AVe are not doing it.


George Taylor: The documents are in the hands of your officers for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are not.


George Taylor: How can the hon. gentleman say they are not when we have the statement from the commissioners that they are ? They probably did not go to the commissioners at all; they may have gone to the enumerators. not to the commissioners. These circulars may have been supplied to Mr. TAYLOR.
the local candidates or to some one else to be placed in the hands of the enumerators and the commissioners may have known nothing about them. Some of the commissioners admit that some of the enumerators used them; yet the minister refuses to give a committee. We on this side of the House will do our duty. AA'e will stay here until Christmas, if necessary, to have this matter investigated.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: You have a good chance to stay till Christmas.


George Taylor: AA'e can stay. The hon. gentleman says :	I know that a fraud has
been committed on my officers for the benefit of the Liberal party in Ontario, and yet I refuse to prosecute ; you may stay till Christmas if you like, but I will not give the information, nor prosecute these officers of mine who have been caught red-handed in violation of their obligation. This is the sort of gentleman we have running the affairs of this country. Then he states as a responsible minister that he is satisfied with the statement made in the Globe of the 19tli, page 9, by Air. Smith, the organizer of the Liberal party, when neither Air. Smith nor any one else dare sign that statement, because it is not in accordance with the facts.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I wish to point out to the minister and to the hon. member for Annapolis (Air. Wade), who seems to be so proud of this thing, that the very commissioners appointed by the minister speak, of these schedules in a way which of itself ought to cause the minister to do something. The telegrams which I am going to read are telegrams sent by these commissioners to the Alinister of Agriculture. Here is one from Air. AlcDougall in Aliddle-sex, which says :
Have only seen one bogus schedule.
Does the hon. member for Annapolis approve of bogus schedules being circulated in this country ?


Air. AVADE.: AA'hy does the hon. gentleman refer to me ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Because he interrupted the hon. member who was last speaking, and laughed at the matter.


Air.   AALYDE@: I did not. I merely tried to attract the attention of the good-looking member in front of him, and failed to do so. I hope he does not object to our smiling. AA'e are not so ruffled as he thinks.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman is not as accustomed to looking at good looking men as we are.
Some lion. AIEAIBERS. Hear, hear.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I want the minister and the hon. member for Annapolis to un-
3953	APEIL 26, 1901	3951
derstand that this sort of bluff will not make us sit down any quicker. The commissioners appointed by the Minister of Agriculture call these bogus schedules, and I want to ask the minister and those sitting behind him, particularly the hon. member for Annapolis, whether they want bogus schedules to be circulated through the province of Ontario to accomplish something that ought not to be accomplished according to the view of the commissioners.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Do you want me to reply 1


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes. I do not understand what the hon. gentleman means. This is the telegram :
I have only seen one bogus schedule Saturday last, and ordered it destroyed as soon as seen. My enumerators have been warned by me to use only schedules supplied by me.
The commissioner is a better guardian of the public interest than the Minister of Agriculture, because he does go to the trouble of warning those below him to use only the schedules supplied by him. I think the Minister of Agriculture ought, in the interests of the country, to find out who sent that bogus schedule there, and how many more are in circulation.. Now, 1 will refer to another telegram signed D. J. Lynch, Campbellford :
Your telegram received. Have sent instructions to each enumerator to destroy circular if he has it in his possession.
Has the Minister of Agriculture any intention ol' following that up, and ascertaining how many of those circulars went to Campbellford, and whether Mr. Lynch's instructions have been carried out ?
Then, we find a telegram from Lynch saying he could find no such circulars in Woodstock, but was sending inquiries out of town to see if any were to be found there. The last part of the telegram is rather contradictory of the first, tie wires that he has not seen any of these documents in Woodstock, but at the same time he sent out of town to know if any could be found there, and to that he got no answer, xind that satisfies the hon. minister. I do not know whether the hon. minister called these documents bogus circulars or schedules in the telegrams he sent, and to which he has this answer, but I do know that the answers sent to the minister show that his own servants called it a bogus schedule, and although we have 'the evidence on the Table of the House that these bogus schedules are in circulation, apparently nothing is to be done about them. I do not see how the hon. minister is going to get out of it. What is he going to do ? He should at once use what means may be at his disposal to trace up the issue of this fraudulent or bogus schedule. Some one is guilty. It has been asserted here that this document had the words ' Dominion of Canada ' written on the back. Is a circular to go out, marked Dominion of Canada, and called bogus by the servants of the administration, a circular unauthorized, which is practically a forgery upon the officers of the department, and are no steps to be taken to find out who is the guilty party ? The Minister of Agriculture is satisfied that everything necessary has been done and that we ought also to be satisfied, but he cannot expect us to take that view of it. Although I am a young member, I am confident that 1 am not going out of my way when I say that if acts of this kind are allowed to go without investigation and unpunished, we will be creating a very mischievous precedent, and consequently the Minister of Agriculture will have to give us more satisfaction if he expects the item to pass.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the minister if D. F. Macdonald is a commissioner or one of the enumerators.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He is not a commissioner and I do not think he is an enumerator, but I cannot tell offhand.


Andrew B. Ingram: This gentleman is a man of great literary ability, and the hon. gentleman's commissioner is quite well aware he is. He is a man quite competent to frame a circular of this description and formerly was part of the machine in Ontario. In order to prove his literary abilty and his competency to get up a circular of the description of the one under discussion, I will read a short article from his pen. He was formerly an Ontario official and belonged to the machine. He visited my county once, and this is what he said about the honest electors in my district in a letter he addressed to Mr. Aubrey White, deputy commissioner of Crown Lands for the province of Ontario :
Rodney, Jan 6th, 1899.
Dear Aubrey,-Here we are again, away from the rocks and charred pines of Nipissing and the nervous and excitable Frenchmen. Here's where there is hot work in store for us. Both candidates are popular, and lots of good workers on both sides. Here's where you can meet the sons and grandsons of the men that Argyle drove from their homes, the islands of Mull, Islay, Tiree and Ganna. As a class they are small in stature, dark and swarthy, with that greasy, fish-fed look that is found among the west coast fishermen. They are as tricky as pet foxes, and as sly as a tailor's pet monkey, and can lie as deftly as a Russian diplomat. They have pretensions of honour and pride from the teeth outwards. They are a slick, polished gang, in the majority. They are no more to be compared to the brawny and brainy men of old Glengarry than a mouth organ is to be compared to a Heintzman piano. We have one ward here with twenty-five Pattersons on the voters' list, twenty-three out of that are Tories. In the same ward or polling subdivision there are twenty-nine Campbells, fourteen of them are Tories. The McColls and MacDiarmids without number are Tories; the McCallums and McPhersons are solid Tories ; the Macdonalds, as usual, are divided. The McLartys, McVicars, McGregors and MePhails are Tory through to the spinal nerve. The McKays are Gritty, the Purcells are

395G
Liberals to a man, and the doubtful fish are the Swishers, Scheitzers, Schneckeubergers, Sehills, Schmidts, Krauses, Kruppes, Keillers, Leibners and the Ousterhaughs. When you get that German brood intermarried with the McPhees, McFaddens, McPhails and MeAulays, they make a queer brood of Scottish Canadians from a doubtful ancestry. They had a hot time at the nominations yesterday in Dutton. I was not there. They are going to have a big time here in Rodney to-night. They have 500 torches ready for the flames to meet G. W. Ross at the station this evening. The brass band will be there. The McRays, the McGugans, the Mc-Ivors, MeRorys and McRitchies will be there. The Garchies, Dugalds, Duncans and Donalds, with Alberts, Conrads, Carlos, Gottliebs and Jacobs will be jumbled up in a British mixture. Sauerkraut and porridge. Limburger cheese and salt herring. Bologna sausage and haggi3, lager and hot Scotch, lamb-scouse and brose, and the riding is any man's to-day. I am going to St. Thomas in the morning to meet Preston. We will win if we can. Keep our fellows fighting mad until Thursday night.
Hoping you are all well,
I am, as ever, yours,


D. F. MACDONALD.
[Stage Direction]
Surely that is the production of a gentleman quite competent to get up this circular ; and if the Minister of Agriculture would jmake a close inquiry, he might find that Mr. Macdonald has something to do with this circular.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It's a pity the hon. gentleman read that description of his own county in the absence of the hon. member for West Elgin, who no doubt would have enjoyed it.


Andrew B. Ingram: He has seen this and heard it read often enough.


Mr. COCHRANE.: No doubt the commissioner for Northumberland thought he was doing his duty when he sent that telegram. It is ail very well to laugh and make light of this thing, but it. is a serious matter. The hon. minister does not appreciate the position he is occupying when he says he does not care. For a minister of the Crown to say he does not care, when he knows from one of his officials that a fraud has been perpetrated, lie is taking a stand which does not at all reflect credit upon himself. I am sorry that lion, gentlemen around me feel like making sport of this. I do not think that this is a subject that we should make sport of. Here we have officials paid out of the Dominion exchequer to take the census, and the hon. gentleman knows deep in his heart, that there is a job there being-perpetrated by these men, because he has telegrams that inform him of it. Now he gets up to-night and waves it off by saying that he had telegrams from his officials and that they state that they know nothing of the matter. I would ask the hon. minister what chance these officials have to know the facts ? How can they know whether these documents are in the hands of the enumerators or not ? He sends out a telegram late at night and the next morning Mr. INGRAM.
at ten o'clock telegrams are sent to him by the commissioners stating that they have made inquiries.
Now, take the case of the riding that I have the honour to represent ; the commissioner lives at Campbellford. It is 30 miles, I suppose, to the village of Colborne in the front part of the riding in which I live. How could the commissioner know whether the documents were in the hands of the enumerators or not ? I know, and the people of the country know, that the enumerators had these bogus documents in their hands. He tells ns that he has instructed the commissioners to have them destroyed. How does he know that that has been done ? He bas a telegram from partisans through whose hands perhaps, bogus documents may have gone, though they may not-I would not say they had. But, knowing East Northumberland as I do, I know that if the enumerators had these documents in their hands the commissioner could not get them away so speedily. The hon. minister pays no more attention than if he were not responsible in this matter. He is looking around as though it were no concern of his. And he has the hardihood to tell us that he does not care. That is a most astounding statement. He does not care whether his enumerators in East Northumberland are perpetrating a job on the people I have the honour to represent or whether they are not. I would like to know if he did not feel responsibility enough to inquire into the facts, when he knows that these circulars were put into the hands of the enumerators of East Northumberland '! Does lie not feel it to be his duty to make inquiries what was done with the circulars ? Does he think that the mere assertion will lead me to believe that the commissioner can possibly know that the circulars have been destroyed, or that they had not been filled up and put into the hands of the Grit heelers in that riding ? I think that when he thinks this matter over seriously he will not treat it so lightly. Even if he does. I know that the people of this country will not treat it as lightly as he does. How can he say that he does not care when he knows that circulars have been put into the hands of his officials, and that they may have given information in violation oif their oath-and I am doubtful, if this was not done in the very riding that I have the honour to represent. I state earnestly and sincerely that the hon. minister is shirking his duty. That may not seem strong enough language, but it is the strongest that I can use without being offensive. I think the hon. minister is shirking his duty when he says that he will not trace this matter further than he has done by simply bringing out the telegram from the commissioner of East Northumberland to the effect that he is doing his duty. I think

this is too serious a matter to he let go in that way, and I hope the hon. gentleman will reconsider his action and take some steps to bring to justice those who have the circulars in their hands. He knows from the telegram or ietter he got from Bast Northumberland that these officials have these documents in their hands, and, perhaps if he made further inquiries he would learn that these bogus schedules have been filled up and are now in the bands of the Reform party of East Northumberland.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: 
Richard Blain: Are there letters in connection with the telegrams from the other two counties ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Here is one signed by Charles Young, assistant census commissioner of Algoma, dated from Richard's Landing :
Since the receipt of your telegram, April 16, I made diligent personal inquiry among my enumerators regarding schedule entitled ' male residents sixteen years and over.' None of them know anything about it.
I am satisfied no such schedule has ever been put in the hands of my enumerators, at least in this part of division No. 44.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman did not understand my question. He has produced a letter in confirmation of a telegram from one of the counties in which the circular has been used. I would like to know if he has letters from the other two counties in whicli they were used ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not aware of any such letter. There is none on this file. I do not think there is one from North York.


Richard Blain: Is that one of the counties in which it was used ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. Allow me to quote the telegram from North York :
Have received such document and am making every effort to have it stamped out.


CHARLES ELLIOTT.
[Stage Direction]
There is a letter from North Hastings, as follows :
I was away when your telegram of the 17th inst. came to Marmora asking if I had seen or heard of alleged fraudulent schedule. I at once followed up the enumerators and found some of them had blank papers to fill in the names of males sixteen years and upwards. The enumerators never put a name on any of those papers. I took all those papers from them. I took the enumerators with me to the store and burned the papers in their presence. I am now going to Maynooth, fifteen miles from here, and will burn all the papers you speak of.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) WILLIAM KELLY.
Richard Blain: I understand there is a telegram from North York, and that that is one of the counties in which this circular was found in the hands of the enumerators ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman has made the statement that in each of these counties the circular has been destroyed. I would like him to state to the House how he knows that it has been destroyed in North York.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed there is a letter from Mr. Elliott stating that they were destroyed.


James Clancy: It seems to me it is a matter of sincere regret that the Minister of Agriculture should have taken the position he has in this matter. The hon. gentleman's attitude to-night is entirely different to what it was on a former occasion. He was going to punish the offenders then. I ask the hon. gentleman if he expects, in face of his stubborn refusal to make any inquiry into this matter, that any reasonable man in Canada will believe that he does not know who issued these circulars, and know all about it. The parties who put that circular into the hands of his enumerators endeavoured to commit a high crime in that they endeavoured to induce these enumerators to commit perjury; yet the hon. gentleman, with a wave of the hand, declares that it is none of his business. I have no hesitation in saying that it is the duty of the minister and of the chief commissioner to see that his officers are not tampered with. I assume, of course, that there was no disposition on the part of the officers under his control to commit an act of that kind or to connive at it. But that does not absolve the hon. gentleman from [ his duty to make an inquiry and to see that

tlie guilty parties are brought to justice. On a former occasion the hon. gentleman made this promise :
I have stated, and I state again, that it anything has been done beyond the law and the requirements of the duty of the enumerators, *they will be brought to task, and it will be seen by me as head of the department under which they are working that they do their work legally, lawfully, properly, and according to the strict letter of the law which lays down their duty. If any of them do anything which is wrong, they will be brought to book and prevented from doing it in the future. As regards an investigation, I will find out the facts of the matter, and I will be guided by the facts that I discover in my departmental search and inquiry.
Now, it is a fair question to ask if tlie bon. gentleman lias made that investigation ? If be has, I think it is a reasonable conclusion that be is in possession of full information to know where that circular originated, and by what machinery it was placed in the hands of the enumerators. Why. one of the enumerators, listening to the telegram, declares that he had bundles of them. Now, if the hon. gentleman has failed to carry out his pledge to parliament that he would investigate, then he must take the responsibility. I ask him now if he will inquire from his commissioners, and if he will investigate as he promised, and endeavour to wipe off the blot on his administration ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I agree with the hon. gentleman that there does not seem to be any mystery as to where these circulars came from. The statement in the Toronto Globe that I alluded to, I have uo doubt is perfectly correct. I daresay the commissioners who have received it, if they know where it came from, would not hesitate to say so. But it does not seem to me that it matters much, so far as taking the census is concerned, where that circular came from, so long as it is not made use of. I have taken the steps which were necessary to prevent them being made use of. I found by returns and statements of my commissioners that they have not been made use of by the officers'of the department, with the exception of two enumerators in their ridings, and in that case, I am informed they have been now destroyed. Therefore, so far as taking the census is concerned, these schedules have no further interest and have nothing further to do with the census. Under these circumstances, I cannot see that there is the slightest duty resting upon me to make any further investigation into the matter, and I decline to do so.
Mi'. BENNETT. Now we understand where the minister stands. The minister is prepared to brazen it out. Mr. Ross did not attempt to brazen it out in the local legislature, but he did attempt to treat the Mr. CCANCY.
matter lightly, and for so doing he received a sharp rebuke from the Montreal Witness. The "Witness pointed out that, on a thorough review of the circumstances, the facts were these. Here, were men appointed by this government taking a solemn oath that they Would perform the duties that were allotted to them, and among the duties allotted to them is not to ask any information outside of the schedules, not to convey any information that is given by the parties whom they interview to outside parties. The law goes far on this question. Hon. gentlemen know that there is on the statute-books of this country a law that meets this very case. It says :
Every officer, census commissioner, enumerator and other person employed in the execution of this Act, before entering on his duties, shall take and subscribe an oath binding him to the faithful and exact discharge of such duties.
Then it goes on :
Every officer, census commissioner, enumerator or other person employed in the execution of this Act, who makes wilful default in any matter required of him by this Act, or wilfully makes any false declaration touching any such matter, is guilty of a misdemeanour.
1 ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture if he does not hold that any man who, having taken that solemn oath that he will not divulge information, that he will not secure any information beyond that which is allotted to him or enjoined upon him by the instructions, goes outside of that oath altogether, as these enumerators admit they have done, should he punished. Is he not going to apply the law to them ? He cannot let the law stand still, because here is what the Act says in respect to that :
Every officer, census commissioner, enumerator or other person employed in the execution of this Act, who makes wilful default in any matter required of him by this Act, or wilfully makes any false declaration touching any such matter, is guilty of a misdemeanour.
The hon. minister asks ns to take this position : admitting that these men have been guilty, let any man prosecute them. It is not up to us to do that, but it is on the part of the hon. minister to do that, and more especially in view of the fact that the hon. minister made a solemn pledge here the other night that he would do that. Are we to take the hon. minister seriously ? Was he not acting honestly when he assured the House in these words :
I have stated, and I state again, that if anything has been done beyond the law and the requirements of the duties of the enumerators they will be brought to task, and it will be seen by me as head of the department under which they are working, that they do their work legally. lawfully and properly, according to the strict letter of the law which lays down their duties.
That was the pledge of the hon. minister the .other night. The minister felt his position keenly, the other members of tlie cabinet who were present felt that they could

not afford to treat tills matter as Mr. Ross had done. They felt that purnic opinion was against them. They had a lecture read to them from the Montreal Witness, and I am going to read it again to them :
If a government treats such affairs as this one as matters of no consequence, it is certainly losing its moral perception, and will soon forfeit the confidence of right-thinking people.
I would have supposed that there would have been some hon. gentleman behind them who would have risen with a reprimand, but they have all treated this matter in a most flippant manner. The hon. gentlemen behind the government seem to think this is an excellent joke, and they are prepared to vote this money to pay men who have been guilty of violating their oath. I want to point out that the census enumerators are paid by the day. if I understand rightly, and these men have been going round the country spending their time in procuring information which was not enjoined upon them by the instructions for the benefit of a political organization, as it is now conceded, and they are to be paid out of this vote before the committee. I am surprised that some hon. gentleman behind the government have not risen to demand that these men should be punished. I sympathize with the hon. Minister of Agriculture. He is in rather a bad box. He has been in a bad box in this census-taking business throughout. He had the work taken out of hi's hands in the province of Quebec. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) rode roughshod over him. The hon. Minister of Public Works appointed his tides Achates, Mr. Cote, to be assistant commissioner. In appointing Mr. C6t6 to be assistant commissioner, I think an excellent choice was made, because I think he is well qualified for the work. I admire his ability and cleverness, but the Minister of Agriculture was subjected to this indignity, and now the hon. Minister of Public Works is being subjected to another indignity at the hands of the ministers from Ontario. The other night, when he said he would carry out the criminal law, and promised that he was going to stand high in the estimation of the public, that he was going to deserve the respect of the Montreal Witness, that he was not going to be told that his moral perception was not good, he had to condescend to be lectured by the ministers from Ontario. They told him that he must not probe into this matter, because it was going to affect the Liberal organization in Ontario. So, the hon. minister has to eat the leek, which, I suppose, he has done first at the instance of the hon. Minister of Public Works, and next at the instance of these two ministers from the province of Ontario, who have forced him to take this position. I want to draw attention to another clause which has been pointed out to me :
Any document or paper, written or printed, purporting to be a form authorized for use in
the taking of the census, or to set forth gny instructions relative thereto, which is produced by any person employed in the execution of this Aot, as being such form, or as setting forth such instructions, shall be presumed to have been supplied by the proper authority to the person so producing the same, and shall be prima facie evidence of all instructions therein set forth.
Surely it is a subject of inquiry to find out who supplied these forms, but the hon. minister says he does not propose to interfere. He says that he is going to eat his words of the other night, when he promised to have the investigation. Section 20 of the Act says :
Whenever the Minister of Agriculture deems it convenient, he may, by special letter of instruction, direct any officer, census commissioner or other person employed in the execution of this Act to make inquiry under oath as to any matter connected with the taking of the census, or the ascertaining or correction of any supposed defect or inaccuracy therein.
The minister felt that he was not going to place himself in the position in which Mr. Ross had' placed himself in the province of Ontario, and in the position of being lectured as he had been lectured by the Montreal Witness. Now, we have another statement from the hon. minister, and his statement is, that there is to be no inquiry made, that the matter is to be treated in the most flippant manner possible. All I can say is, that if the minister proceeds in that way, I trust the great moral daily, the Montreal Witness, will say that he is an hon. gentleman who is losing his moral perception, and will soon forfeit the confidence of all right-thinking people. That is the position of the minister, and I repeat again that I think it is to be regretted that no member of the government deems it proper that this matter should be investigated and probed to the bottom.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. member for East Simcoe and the hon. member for Both-well have both read quotations from the promise made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture the other evening. I have another quotation which I think a still stronger one than that read by either of these hon. gentlemen. It is in these words :
The hon. gentleman must have misinterpreted whait I said if he thought that I was desirous in any way of shielding anybody or of preventing the fullest investigation.
We are astounded to hear the minister say to-night:	I know not who put them in
their hands nor do I care. Surely that is not in accordance with his statement the other evening. These gentlemen opposite may find fault with us from Ontario for making such a fuss over this circular


Mr. JOHNSTON.: Hear, hear.
Mr, INGRAM. The hon. gentleman from Cape Breton is quite a young member of this House and perhaps a little advice from one who has been here longer than he, will

lie of some profit to him. The colleague of this young gentleman is manly enough to stand up and say .what he has to say, but this young man has never attempted to my knowledge to occupy the attention of this House in the ordinary way. He seems to think lie will advance himself by continually interrupting, but I want to tell him it would be more in keeping with the dignity of the House if he would address the Chairman in a manly way, and I will be pleased to answer him if I can. If that young man pursues the course he started out with, lie will have his hands full before he gets through with this parliament.


Alexander Johnston: Do not worry.


Andrew B. Ingram: We in Ontario have been accustomed to this kind of conduct on the part of the Ontario government, and the oflieials of that government, but we will not allow the same thing to occur in this parliament Without protesting. Under the Ontario system the government ofticials think it their duty to do everything they can to influence the electors against the Conservative party, but we will not allow them if we can to interfere in Dominion matters. It is not sufficient for the minister to say that these circulars have been issued by the Liberal party of the province of Ontario. In justice to the Liberal party of Ontario X say that a large portion of the Liberal party in that province are honourable men and are as loud in their condemnation of this conduct as are the Conservatives. In justice to the honest Liberals of Ontario and to the honest Liberals of this Dominion, the Minister of Justice should hold an investigation to discover and punish the guilty parties in this dishonourable transaction. When these gentlemen opposite were in opposition 1 have listened to them night after night taking up much more of the time of parliament than we have, in condemning things less deserving of censure than this. For my part I believe that this committee should rise until the minister is prepared to announce that he is bound to investigate this matter and to prosecute the guilty parties.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Agriculture gained the confidence of the country when he made his statement some time ago in regard to this matter. He elevated himself in the estimation of right thinking people, because they believed he was sincere in the promises he made. Some of his own friends said in my presence in Toronto that at least one member of his government was entitled to the respect of good citizens,-and 1 was pleased to believe he would carry his intentions out. I regret to find to-night that my confidence was misplaced. What has changed his mind ? He told us the other day that those who violated the law would be brought to task. They have not been brought to task, and why ? He admits that the replies to his telegram show Mr. INGRAM.
that these fraudulent circulars were in the hands of some enumerators. Inasmuch as these replies were sent on the same day as the telegram of the minister was received, it is clear that the commissioners could not have had an opportunity' of ascertaining from all tiie enumerators whether or not this bogus circular was in their possessions. The information they gave was probably correct so far as it goes, but it is quite clear that tiie circular could be in the hands of some of the enumerators without the commissioners knowing it. While the minister has discharged a portion of his duty, I regret to have to say he has not discharged his whole duty. It is incumbent on him to hold an investigation to ascertain' how many of these enumerators had the bogus circulars in their possession, where they got them from, whether they' have used them, and to what extent they had violated their obligations ns census enumerators. The minister has failed to carry out the promise he gave on a former occasion to do this. It is quite clear from all the evidence at hand that some one has imposed upon the enumerators and endeavoured to cause them to violate their oaths of office. Then it is the duty of the minister to discover who supplied the enumerators with these fraudulent circulars. Some person or persons must be guilty of that, and those persons should be punished. It is the duty of the minister to discover who those persons are and to punish them. So far as the minister had gone he has done his duty, but he should go further and he will neglect his duty if he does not go further. X want the attention of the minister to what I am saying, as I am endeavouring to speak respectfully in regard to this matter, which is one of vital importance to the people of this Dominion.
I think the minister should find out who gave these instructions, and X am sure the provisions of the law will enable him to reach them and punish them, which he should do If for no other reason than to prevent others from committing fraudulent acts in the future. We in Ontario have perhaps had greater reason to look with suspicion on this act than hon. members from the other provinces, because the people of Ontario have been repeatedly imposed upon and deceived. They have been counselled to violate the law, have practically been made to violate the law, and have not been punished, and when an effort has been made to punish them in the courts of the country, there has usually been a miscarriage of justice on the part of the justices of the peace appointed by the present Reform government of Ontario, or the parties whose duty it was above all others to enforce the provisions of the law. This is only another evidence that the fine Italian hand of the operators of the machine belonging to the Reform party has been made use of in this affair, and I regret that one of the officials
3965	APRIL 26, 1901	3966
from Ontario has been brought down here and put at the head of this department. I would be very sorry to fasten upon him the responsibility of it ; but knowing what the Ontario officials have done in the past, it is very difficult for us to believe that they may not in some way be connected with this transaction. D. F. McDonald's name has been mentioned to-night. I remember when a circular was sent to Algoma giving instructions two days before the election came on ; it was sent to a place where a great many men were employed, and D. F. McDonald forged it by changing the date, liis (fine Italian hand has been seen in many elections in the province of Ontario. Who took the Indians and squaws into a house and took the clothes off the Indians and put them on the squaws, so that they could vote, but D. F. McDonald ? The same man took the position of a deputy returning officer out of the hands of the man appointed to do the duty, and sat there all day in open violation of the law. Now we find the same kind of thing being done and in the same province. Who was it burned the ballots in the West Elgin election but one of the Ontario officials ? And when we find that one of these officials is brought down here and put at the head of this branch of the department, and this transaction shortly afterwards takes place, is it any wonder that we are a little suspicious, and that we ask that an effort should be made to find the guilty parties and punish them, whoever they are ? If that is not done, it will be evident that there is no desire to punish the guilty and have honest and truthful work done. That will be the opinion the people will hold of the hon. minister if he does no more than he has done up to the present time. I can only say I regret it exceedingly, because I have a very much better opinion of the Minister of Agriculture than his answers to-night would seem to justify, and I believe the country has a better opinion of him. After his statement the other night in this House, he established confidence between himself and the thinking people of the country, and they believed -that he would do his duty, and make an effort to find out who were the parties guilty of this rascality, and would give them the full benefit of the law. He cited those clauses of the Act providing the punishment for those who would do anything other than their duty, so that they would have in their minds what was in store for them. Does he attempt to carry out that promise ? I do not think he does, and until he does that, the people of this country will hold him responsible for being cognizant of wrong-doing and not attempting to find out who have failed to do their duty and who have attempted to make men perjure themselves.


George Taylor: The minister informed us a short time ago that he was satisfied, from an article that appeared in the Globe of the
19th, written by the chief organizer of the party, Mr. Smith, that this document was altogether prepared by the Liberal party. The article says it was sent to the parties for the purpose of getting information for making up the voters' lists. Now, let me read the replies from some of the hon. gentleman's officers-the commissioners, not the enumerators. The first is from Bradford :
April 17.-Have received such document. Am making every effort to have it stamped out.- Charles Elliott, Commissioner.
He had received the document, distributed it, and is now making every effort to have it stamped out. The next one is from my own county, from Brockville.
Took the steps indicated in your telegram re schedules yesterday before receipt of your wire.
The commissioner there, Mr. Macnamara, before he got the telegram, saw the announcement in the papers, and took the necessary steps himself, knowing what was going to happen. Here is one from Chesley :
I received the schedules you inquire about; have made no use of them.
Were these sent out simply for the purpose of making up the voters' list in the riding. Let me give another one :
Port Elgin, April 18.-Blank forms referred to reached me, but not one put into enumerators' hands or used in any way.
If these were for political purposes, why were they sent to all these commissioners ? Has the hon. minister inquired where they got them or whether there was a letter accompanying them ? I think the House is entitled to that information. Let me read some more. Here is one from Bolton :
April 16.-Some schedules the same as referred to in your message came to me by post some time ago. Did not come from your department. Did not distribute them among enumerators. Had instructions to do so. Schedules are still in my office, and have not been used.
Who gave those instructions ? Surely the House Is entitled to find out who was attempting to perpetrate this fraud. Has the minister inquired from this commissioner. Mr. Hutton, from whom he got this parcel and the instructions to distribute them ? Here is one from Belle River :
Re schedule, residents sixteen years of age and over, I have heard some were introduced, but have given instructions as by your telegram.
Here the commissioner again knew that they were to be used, and when he received that telegram, lie gave instructions to stop them. Here is a gentleman telegraphs to Mr. Blue from Durham that no enumerator in that district has or had this political schedule, but that he got a bundle but never used them, and was sure they were not supplied from any other source. What does that mean ? What other source were they not supplied from. It must mean that they were not supplied from any other source but the department.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The meaning is this, that they were not supplied in liis district to the enumerators, because he did not supply, them. The enumerators had not any of these circulars, because he did not supply them, and they did not get them from any other source.


George Taylor: He says he got them, and it is the duty of the minister to find out from whom he got them. Here is another commisssioner, Mr. Kelly, from Marmora. He wires :
I will follow the enumerators immediately and destroy any of the papers alluded to in your telegram.
Evidently he got the papers and sent them out, and then set to work to destroy them. Mr. Blue telegraphed Mr. Kelly the following day :
Have you seen or heard of alleged fraudulent schedule in your district. Answer.
But we find no answer among the papers.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman ignores the fact that I read a letter from Mr. Kelly in reply.


George Taylor: The letter is not on the file here. But, Mr. Blue asked for an answer by telegram, and to charge the cost of the telegram to the census commissioner. There is no telegram here.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is a letter which I read.
Mr. TAYLOR, It ought to be on the file.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is another file here.


George Taylor: The commissioner instructed Mr. Kelly to answer by wire, and to charge the cost to him. The presumption is that Mr. Kelly acted on his instructions, and did wire Mr. Blue, or else he ought to be dismissed. If he did not wire, but wrote a letter, he was not following his instructions. Then, we have a telegram from Mr. A. T. Macdonald, of Middlesex, saying :
Have seen only one bogus schedule, last Saturday and ordered it to be destroyed. My enumerators warned to use only schedules supplied by me.
He does not say where he got the bogus schedule. Then, there is a telegram from Peterborough, on April 16 :
I find on thorough investigation that the schedule mentioned has not been placed with any enumerator in my district. Neither myself nor any of the enumerators has seen such schedule.
The minister telegraphed on the night of the 15th, and on the 16th the commissioner, Mr. Robert Kerr, who has thirty or forty enumerators under his charge, wired back that neither himself nor any of his enumerators had seen the schedule. How could he


George Taylor: tell ? He had not time to find out. I have only gone through a portion of the file, but more than a dozen commissioners have told the minister that they received a bundle through the mails, and yet the minister says he will not find out where they came from. A crime has been perpetrated in sending these schedules to the commissioners for distribution to their enumerators, who are to get the information for the local legislature of Ontario, and thus violate l their oath of office, and yet the minister says he does not know where these schedules came from, nor does he care, and refuses to investigate. Evidently he knows, or has an idea who is responsible, and does not want the guilty party to be implicated. IVere these circulars sent postage paid, or were they franked from Ottawa ? We should get that information and the letter of instruction. One man says that he got the bundle and a letter of instructions, but he did not use them, and that they are lying in his office, but the minister refuses to do anything. The country, however, will expect the minister to act differently, and not attempt to shield the men who have perpetrated this fraud.


Andrew B. Ingram: I rise again to protest against the conduct of the Minister of Agriculture. I do so on behalf of the Conservative party, and also of the honest Liberal party. Unless some satisfaction is given to the people, they will hold the minister responsible, and he will not hear the last of this for some time to come. It is easy for him to ascertain the names of those who gave these commissioners these circulars, and he is in duty bound to do so. I have no objection to honest warfare in political matters. I believe that the government is perfectly justifiable in appointing enumerators who act as chairmen, or take a prominent part in political matters, and, speaking of my own city, I have to say that in its fourteen division's the enumerators are largely chairmen of the Liberal committee meetings, and I believe they are too honourable to violate the oath they have taken, so long as they are performing their duties, by taking advantage of their position to furnish political information. It would be honest warfare if, for the purpose of supplying voters' lists or getting up registration lists, the Liberal party should get any information they can from these men who act as chairmen. The Conservative party would do the same thing were they in power, and what we do ourselves, I am generous enough to allow my opponents to do, but when the hon. gentleman will allow scoundrels-for it is only 'such who would attempt a warfare of this kind-to take an unfair advantage such as this, he is not doing his duty to his opponents in honest warfare or to his own friends, who are above conduct of this kind, or to the country. One of the commissioners in Elgin county is Mr. Moore. He had entire charge
39G9

of the last campaign in that electoral district. Mr. Moore is a perfectly honourable naan, so far as I know, and a good fair fighter in politics. But, so far as this is concerned, it is not within the usual line of fighting political battles, and it is taking an unfair advantage. Unless some action is taken by the minister, the statements that he has made will be made to ring on every platform in the province of Ontario, greatly to the advantage of the Conservative party, and to the disadvantage of his own friends. If that is what he wants, he is welcome to it ; but many quotations will be given of the statements made by him in this House, to show how the promise he made has been violated.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I do not admit that I have violated any promise ; on the contrary the promise I made has been carried out to the letter. The promise I made in substance was that I would investigate the state of affairs and would act in the matter if I thought it necessary. I have investigated the state of affairs through my officers ; and I find that, of 114 commissioners in the province of Ontario, 102 have replied that they know nothing about the circular, and have no trace of it in their division, nine say they have known of its existence, but no use has been made of it, and three who acknowledge that if has been in the hands of some enumerators, but state that they have taken steps to have the use of it stopped, and to have the schedules that were used destroyed. It seems to me very clear that whatever may have been the intention or the effort of somebody, there has been no material use of this schedule by the enumerators who were taking the census. A few, apparently, began to use it, but before any harm arose from their using it, the use of it was stopped and the instructions issued by me as head of the department have been carried out. I shall not give a legal opinion, but I wish to point out that the mere fact of this circular being in the hands of any individual is not illegal. If this was issued, as I believe it was, by a political organiaztlon in Ontario, the organizers had a right to send it out to members of their association. If it happened that commissioners or enumerators of the census were members of that organization, they had a right to have the circular. The wrong would begin only when the enumerators or commissioners began to use it in connection with the taking of the census. Apparently, some few commenced to do so. Their work was stopped. No harm to the taking of the census has in any way occurred, because there was no foundation for the belief that any of the information so acquired has been transmitted or made use of. Even if it was gathered, the results had been destroyed. Therefore, I cannot see or acknowledge that there is any 125
necessity for further investigation. The question as to who sent this circular does not seem to me to be material in the administration of the work and taking of the census.


James Clancy: Would the hon. minister say why not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because I do not consider that it matters how it was sent out or who sent it. I take it that the people who sent it had a right to send it.' I am not quarrelling with their right to do so.


James Clancy: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, ' Hear, hear.' If a political organization chooses to send out circulars, as the organization of hon. gentlemen opposite have done over and over again, they have a right to do so. But, when the officers of the government begin to gather information for political purposes, I confess that they are doing wrong. And I have warned my officers to see to it that they do not continue it, and have warned them also that any information they may have gathered must be destroyed, and that has been done. That stop having been put to any wrongdoing in the matter, if there was any, it has prevented any evil arising from this matter in connection with the taking of the census. I do not see the need of any further investigation. As to who sent out this circular, I decline to be responsible, and I do not think it is my duty or the duty of my officers to inquire into the matter.


Andrew B. Ingram: Surely, the hon. gentleman will see the distinction. The Liberal organization represents the Liberal party in the province of Ontario. Does he mean to say that the Liberal party in Ontario approves of this kind of thing 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know; I have not asked them.


Andrew B. Ingram: In justice to members of the Liberal party who do not believe in this kind of thing, it is the duty of the hon. gentleman to find out who is responsible for it. It is his duty to his party.


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


James Clancy: I think the hon. minister has laid down the most shocking doctrine I ever heard, when he says that no harm is done until such time as the enumerators have used these circulars. We have instance after instance in the Election Act, and in other Acts, where it is made a misdemeanour to tamper with or approach an officer or a voter. The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not a new feature, yet he declares that it will be .no harm for a man to perjure himself


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said nothing of the kind.


James Clancy: That was the effect of it- to perjure himself to send a man to the gallows, unless the man was actually hanged. The hon. minister has in so many words, justified that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


James Clancy: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. gentleman, but I think we had an unequivocal statement from him that he saw no wrong in men approaching his officials all over this Dominion, that the wrong would commence only when these men had begun to use these circulars. The hon. gentleman, by degrees, is becoming bolder


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Hardened.


James Clancy: Well, I still have hopes of him. I shall not even now despair. The hon. gentleman has a pledge in this House, he has a pledge in heaven, that he will take steps to prevent officials from violating their duty. The hon. gentleman says he has carried out that pledge, that he has made an investigation. He sent out a warning to his officials, hastily, having been driven to do so, I am bound to say,"by the well-directed criticism that such a case deserves. But I challenge him to say that he has endeavoured to make any investigation. What he did was merely what must precede an investigation. I ask him if he has made further investigation than sending out these circulars to his own officials ?


Mr. HOLMES.: Mr. Chairman


James Clancy: I wish to get an answer if the hon. member for West Huron will permit me. Has the hon. minister made any other investigation than to send out these instructions to his officials ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have told the hon. gentleman what I have done.


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman will come down enough to tell this committee again-because I confess my dullness, and it seems to me that I have not had a straight answer from the hon. gentleman. Now, I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he has made any further investigation other than to send out those telegrams to his officials warning them not to use those circulars ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is what I have done.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman done anything more ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Mr. CLARE.: Supposing the enumerators were still to go on and get this information, what position would the minister take ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
George Adam Clare: Did the enumerators get instructions to procure information for the department only ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly.


George Adam Clare: Now, the minister states that he is prepared to dismiss those officers who will not carry out the instructions, he also says they had received instructions, yet we have the acknowledgment from him this evening that there were at least nine or ten commissioners who did send out to get this information. Under the circumstances, I think those commissioners, at any rate, should be punished according to the hon. gentleman's promise.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If they do not comply with this order.


Robert Holmes: I fancy that our friends on the other side realize that to some extent they are beating the wind on this question. Hon. gentlemen from Ontario know perfectly well that it is the custom to send out circulars, of a somewhat similar nature to these, every year in order to instruct local parties to look after the revision of the voters' list, both in the spring and in the fall. Both the Liberal and Conservative parties are accustomed to send out circulars asking for information of this or a similar nature. Now, the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) was frank enough to admit the whole crux of the situatiou. He knows perfectly well, as other hon. gentlemen do, that a great many of the enumerators happen to be chairmen of the lulling subdivisions. In my own riding I know that some of the enumerators are chairmen of the polling subdivisions. In the past it has been the custom to send out circulars of that kind, either to the Liberal representative or to the chairmen of the various polling subdivisions. It happens this year that those circulars were sent out, as in previous years, to the chairmen of the polling subdivisions, and these happen to be in most cases the enumerators. I venture to say that if the truth were known it


James Clancy: would be found out that these circulars had gone only into the hands of those who are chairmen of polling subdivisions, and that those census enumerators who do not happen to occupy that position have not seen these circulars unless they have been shown to them by somebody into whose hands they have fallen. I think that is the explanation of the whole situation. I am satisfied that the hon. gentlemen opposite would admit that that Is the case. The article in the Globe from which the hon. member for Leeds and Grenville (Mr. Taylor) quoted, practically admits the origin of these circulars, that they were sent out by the Liberal organization.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman agree with the minister that they are fraudulent-because the minister calls them fraudulent in his telegram ?


Robert Holmes: Never mind whether they are fraudulent or not. The member for Leeds and Grenville quoted from the Globe an article practically acknowledging that the circular sent out for this information came from the local Liberal organization. Judging from the uneasiness of hon. gentlemen opposite, it looks as if they anticipated defeat in the forthcoming elections in the province of Ontario. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say that it has remained for a member of this House to impugn the honour and integrity of the gentleman who has been brought down here from Ontario as chief census commissioner, whose thorough uprightness has never yet been called in question. It is exceedingly regrettable that an hon. gentleman opposite should have coupled this gentleman's name with what he pleased to call the workers in connection with the machine.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman refer to me ?


Robert Holmes: I refer to the hon. member for East Grey.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then allow me to say that my words were, that I would be sorry to believe that he was connected with it, but the strange coincidence of these things happening so often amongst the officials coming down here from the local government, that it was enough at least to create suspicion.


Robert Holmes: The hon. gentleman's explanation only confirms what I am saying. He admits that he impugned the honour and integrity of the census commissioner, and that he did so without the slightest particle of foundation. I think this discussion should have been carried on without the display of feeling and warmth that have been manifested. While our hon. friends opposite are so anxious to know where the Minister of Agriculture got a copy of this circular, perhaps it would not be improper to inquire where the leader of the opposition got his copy, or where the member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) got his copy. As I remarked already, I think that hon. gentlemen opposite have been beating the wind without accomplishing very much.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman has done me the honour of saying that I made an honest statement. I am sorry to say that I cannot return the compliment.


Robert Holmes: I consider where it comes from.


Andrew B. Ingram: And where it goes to. I do not wish to be offensive to the hon. gentleman.


Robert Holmes: You were, nevertheless.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not wish to be offensive to him now. I agree with the hon. gentleman that both parties have sent out circulars. That has been done, but the inconsistency of the hon. gentleman's statement is this : he has forgotten the contents of this circular or he never would have compared it with the circular sent out by both of the political parties in the past. Does the hon. gentleman ever remember of a circular of this character being sent to enumerators ?


Robert Holmes: Take it as read; I know what it is.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will read it again. The endorsement is as follows :
Dominion of Canada, Province of Ontario.
I never knew of a circular being issued by the Liberals of the province of Ontario under the heading of ' Dominion of Canada.' Then it goes on :
Month of	1901.
Male Residents,
Sixteen years of age or over.
Our circulars always read something like this : If they knew of any young men of the age of 21, entitled to vote, or about to be entitled to vote, to poreure their names in order to have them placed on the voters' lists. It goes on :
Polling Subdivision No	
Municipality of	
Electoral District of	
Per	
P. O	
To	
P. 0	
Two copies to be prepared by the gentleman so chosen for each subdivision and sent to the Liberal candidate in the last provincial election, or candidate now nominated for the next provincial election.
I never knew of a circular of that kind being sent out before.

Politics.
Date of Birth.
Month, Day, Year.
No. of Lot or House. Concession or street.
Post Office Address.
Nationality.
Religious Denominations and Church.
Remarks.
I never heard of a circular of that kind being issued before, and I am sure the hon. gentleman has never heard of any such circular. It was never intended that such a circular should be sent to the census enumerators. The circulars to which I refer were sent to a representative person in a constituency and he circulated them amongst those who were appointed as chairman. I believe this has been the practice of both political parties. What we complain of is that these circulars have been placed in the hands of the enumerators. That is striking below the belt ; it is not fair warfare. The Liberal party would be perfectly justified in using these enumerators if they isaw fit later on for the purpose of completing the voters' lists. That is fair warfare but it is not fair to make use of the enumerators while they are acting as such.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: What evidence has the hon. gentleman that these circulars were placed in the hands of the enumerators ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The telegrams state that.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Would the
hon. gentleman say what the telegrams state ? I was not in when they were read. I understand to the contrary.


Andrew B. Ingram: Some other hon. gentlemen have read them ; I have not.


Mr. GALLIHER.: These telegrams have been read. They were read by the hon. member for East Simcoe, and there was nothing in a single telegram that was read that said they ever reached the enumerators.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does not the letter of the minister show that they reached the enumerators ?


Andrew B. Ingram: What I wish to say in respect to the anticipated defeat of the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite in Ontario, is that they are using this as a means to avoid that defeat. Fortunately, I think, the handwriting is on the wall.


William Humphrey Bennett: Before the item passes, I think we ought to extend our sympathy to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure that the hon. minister really wanted to do what was right in this case, and I have no doubt it is humiliating to the minister, now, looking back on his pledge and on his statement that it was his wish to have this matter probed to the bottom, to find that he has been overborne and that his wishes have been thrust down. I am reminded of the obituary of an ancient maiden lady which Mr. INGRAM
read that she meant well, tried a lot and failed much.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The press of the country have been instructing people, some of whom have been brought before the courts, that they are obliged to give this information, and have been assuring the people that they may give it witli the utmost confidence, because it will never be divulged. By the use of this circular it must be divulged.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have prevented it being divulged.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has given us the information that some of the enumerators had this information and that their schedules were burned.


Fletcher Bath Wade: They did not use it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) is giving information about a matter of which be knows nothing himself.


Fletcher Bath Wade: All I say is that there is no information before the committee that a single enumerator had used one of these circulars.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are told that these circulars were in their possession and that they got instructions to burn them afterwards, but, does that show that they did not use the information ? I do not think it does. We are, on the one hand, instructing the people that when the enumerator acquires information he does not fulfil all his duties unless he keeps it secret, that he is not to ask for improper information and that when he gets that information he is not to give it out. Then, I ask : Will the confidence of the people not be shaken after knowing what has been brought out in connection with these circulars ? In view of what has been brought out in the House of Commons, would the people not be justified in not giving information because they have no guarantee of secrecy ? It will not be a very good course to take to bring them before the court and punish them for a refusal to give information when it goes out that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has refused to punish those parties who have abused their positions and who have successfully endeavoured to deceive and impose upon the people, by getting information from them that they should not get.


Richard Blain: I notice, in a telegram from Cardwell, that Mr. Hutton says that he has the documents in his office now.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would like to ask what foundation there is for this charge against the hon. Minister of Agriculture ? Hon. gentlemen opposite know as well as I do that the gentleman who happens to be the commissioner there is secretary of the Liberal Association. There has been nothing hidden, so far as I understand this matter. It seems that the provincial organization sent out blanks


James Clancy: What Liberal organization does the hon. gentleman refer to ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: For the province of Ontario. I do not see that there is any person trying to do anything secret or hidden in anything that has been done. I will refer to this particular case to show how foundationless the whole charge is. This gentleman, Mr. Hutton, happens to be the secretary of the Liberal Association. Some time before he was appointed commissioner he received the forms for the revision of the lists the same as the Conservative secretaries do. There is, nothing to hide about it.


Andrew B. Ingram: It was the form of the circular I referred to.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Well. I have seen the Conservative circulars and I do not see any particular difference between them.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman does not pretend to condone this.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Condone what ?


James Clancy: The offence against public morals.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: What offence ?
Mr. CLANCY'. Do I take it that the hon. gentleman says it is no offence to approach the officers who are sworn to take the census ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: You have no right to take anything of the kind, because I was not going to condone anything of the sort, and no person who understands the matter would do so. I was about to point out how honestly this gentleman had acted in the matter. As an official of the Liberal Association he received the usual packages of blanks, and .what did he do? Did he issue one of these blanks to the enumerators ? Not at all. If he had done so there would be reason to find fault with him.


James Clancy: I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman say that he does not think this an offence, and he does not condone it. I conmmend that to the Minister of Agriculture, who thinks that no offence has been committed.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I ask the hon. gentleman to show me any one particular instance where any one committed an offence. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) happened to know about Cardwell. I think he, as an hon. member of this House, ought to say that so far as that case is concerned, that this gentleman in his official position received these blanks, and instead of violating his office by giving them to enumerators, he is able to say that he did not do so.


James Clancy: But they have been used in other cases.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am speaking of this particular case. The minister stated that 102 commissioners reported that they had not even seen these blanks. I think I will be borne out in the statement that blanks of a similar kind have been sent to officers of the Conservative Association.


An hon. MEMBER.: What nonsense !


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There is no nonsense about it. You have seen them, and I have seen them.


Andrew B. Ingram: Not this kind.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There might be some little difference, but their forms are practically the same. It is only carping to draw the distinction. For many years the Liberal Association of Ontario has been sending out the usual blanks for the revision lists.


James Clancy: To Dominion officials ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There is no evidence that any person connected with the Census Department from the minister down, had any knowledge, directly or indirectly, of anything of the kind. There is no evidence that any officer of the Liberal Association attempted to put these blanks in the hands of a census official.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman from North Oxford (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), who is always fair in this House, wants to have light on the matter. It is admitted on all hands that at least a few of the enumerators did receive these circulars, although it is alleged that they did not use them. The hon. gentleman, (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) tells us it is wrong that any person whatsoever should endeavour to approach the census officers in this way. So far as the evidence goes, there is nothing to show that the census officials have evinced a disposition to do wrong, but the question is that some one did approach these enumerators, and those persons should be punished. It is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to see to that.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The Minister of Agriculture took the most active and energetic measures within his power to take. The moment this was brought to his notice he took steps to see that the enumerators should have nothing to do with it. I merely wish to point out to the House that instead of the secretary of the Liberal Association receiving blame, he is, on the contrary, entitled to praise because he realized his duty to the full extent and he did not attempt to use these circulars in any way whatever. There was no authority on the part of the organizers, or upon the association in any way to ask any one of the census officials to use his office improperly, or contrary to the oath he had taken.


James Clancy: How innocent.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If the hon. gentleman wants to be fair, he knows that the evidence all shows what I have pointed out. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) tried, by twisting two or three telegrams, to show that the commissioners had been acting improperly, and had placed some of these circulars in the hands of some of the enumerators ; but, what did they do? They had them all withdrawn before they were used, and we find that in 102 cases they were never seen or heard of. This shows that the census enumerators were not used for this purpose.


John Graham Haggart: This question has been pretty thoroughly threshed out, and the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has evidently not heard the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture, or he would not make the statement he does. He says that in 102 cases the commissioners heard nothing about the circular. Seven heard about it, got copies of it, and did not use them.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: They got them as officials of the organization, not as census enumerators.


John Graham Haggart: In three cases they acted upon them, but, in these three cases, on receiving the telegram of the Minister of Agriculture, they determined to destroy them, and all the information taken under them was burned. The fact remains -it is admitted by the Minister of Agriculture-that these circulars were sent out, and in three cases were distributed among the enumerators and acted upon ; that in seven cases they were received and not acted upon, and in 102 cases the commissioners had not heard of them.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think my hon. friend will admit that if there were only three cases in the province of Ontario, it was not such a great conspiracy to do anything wrong.


John Graham Haggart: The commissioners may have found it impossible to ascertain whether the enumerators had these circulars or not. These parties may have made use of the enumerators, and dealt directly with them. We are not blaming the government or the Minister of Agriculture for anything of that kind. The minister says that the first time he heard anything about the circular was when he saw it mentioned in the paper, and on the same evening that it was brought to his attention, he took every means possible to put an end to it. But, what we are insisting on is, that those persons who have violated the law and their oath shall not escape, but shall receive the punishment they ought to receive. If the Minister of Agriculture had promised in the first instance that some punishment would be imposed upon the parties who acted illegally and contrary to their oath, there would have been an end to the discussion long ago.


James Clancy: 


Richard Blain: Did I understand the hon. member to say that he would lay the letters on the Table of the House ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes-carried.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I do not think it is carried just yet, because we have not had the information which we are entitled to. The minister made the statement that 102 knew nothing about such documents, that nine heard of them, and that three had used them. But the telegrams read by various members of the House do not bear out that statement, but directly contradict it; they 'show that there was a very much larger number. The hon. member for North Oxford (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) says these schedules are not! fraudulent, that they are the regular official document of the party of which he is one of the leaders, if not the leader iu the province of Ontario. If that be the case, these men might say that they know nothing of any fraudulent document, as these are not fraudulent in that sense. Now, I say that these documents are not such as would be required for the purpose of revising the lists before the court of revision this year. I challenge the hon. member for North Oxford to produce last year's circular, and show that it was similar in substance to the document to which we have reference.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Send me over one of yours, and I will show you that there is very little difference.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I certainly have not one of ours under my hand.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Well, we will have one of them to-morrow, and will compare them.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I cannot remember having seen such a document in the Conservative party for years. We revise our lists in West York, and do not need any reminder of our duty in that regard. I do not know of any such letter having been sent out by the Conservative party for several years, or for any year, and the minister asks me to send him a circular which, so far as I know, has no existence whatever. The statement made in the Toronto Globe as to this document purported to give the backing on it, but did not give the document itself. It merely says that ' the following is the title on the back of the form which the opposition object to.' We object to more than that; we object to what is inside. We object to the census enumerators being furnished with this document. It. is perfectly clear that it was not intended for the purpose stated-for the revision of the lists, which occurs in May. Why did they ask for the religion or the names of those of sixteen years of age and over ? That could not be for the revision of the lists in 1901, because those of sixteen years of age and over have no right to be put on the list for

four or five years longer. It is only a false pretense to say that it was required for the revision of the lists in 1901. It was for the purpose of having a complete record for party purposes, for use in the future ; and it would fit in admirably with the next Dominion election. The boy of sixteen or thereabouts will be entitled to be a voter about the time when the next Dominion election comes around, if this House lasts its full term, and they wanted the enumerators to furnish a full statement for the information of their own political party at the expense of the people of Canada, which they had no right to do.
The Minister of Agriculture told us that prosecution would follow any violation of the oath of those enumerators. And then he tells us to-night that he is not going to make any further inquiry into this matter. Why has he violated the promise he made the other night ? Is it because the hon. member for North Oxford has told us that these bogus documents were regular business documents and that the government accept the responsibility themselves, in which case of coui'se they could not prosecute the hon. member for North Oxford and those other members who are responsible. The hon. member did not say that he fathered this thing individually, but that the Liberal party took the responsibility. Well, the Liberal party are the same identical individuals who fight the battles for the local legislature and the Dominion, and those two parties-the gentlemen in the House here and those who control the government of Ontario-are both responsible for this document, for its circulation, and for this attempt to get the enumerators to violate their oath to observe secrecy. In this case we find that the government are in the position of being the parties themselves whom they would have to arrest and prosecute. I can therefore realize the difficult position in which the Minister of Agriculture has put himself by promising to punish the perpetrators and then saying he does not care who they are and is not going to prosecute.


Richard Blain: There seems to be a conflict between the Minister of Agriculture and the acting Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Sutherland). The latter made the challenge that no one could show that any of these circulars had been used by the enumerators, and the Minister of Agriculture made the statement that in three cases they had been used by the enumerators. Which statement is correct.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman read a telegram, and I gave an explanation which I am sure he accepts as satisfactory.


Richard Blain: Just one word about the telegram to the commissioner in Cardwell. He says :
Some schedules, same as referred to in your message, came to me by post some time ago. Did not come from your department. Did not distribute them among enumerators; had instructions to do so. Schedules are still in my office; shall not be used.
The acting Postmaster General says these were the customary circulars to send out ;tnd they were just sent in the ordinary way. Does that telegram look as if they were the ordinary circulars ? Yet this gentleman says he received them and had instructions to* send them to the enumerators. Furthermore, this gentleman still lias these documents, although the hon. Minister has promised that all such documents will be destroyed. Why have these not been destroyed ? This one telegram is sufficient proof that these circulars are now in existence, in the possession of a paid official of the government. What does the Minister of Agriculture propose to do with them ? The House must understand that the work is not all done and they may yet be used in that county.
Resolution reported.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before we adjourn, I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister to the following telegram ;
London, April 26.-Premier Bond, of Newfoundland, has requested the British government to secure the ratification of the Bond-Blaine convention, and Mr. Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary, has notified Mr. Bond that he has taken the matter up and has communicated with Canada. It is learned that the negotiations between Canada, Great Britain and Newfoundland are likely to come to a definite conclusion shortly after Mr. Bond's arrival here on the Tunisian, on which vessel he sails May 2.
Would the right hon. gentleman give the House any information on this subject ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: All I can say is that Mr. Bond is to sail shortly and is expected to come straight to Ottawa.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is he not prepared to say that lie will protest against any convention between Newfoundland and the United States by which our fisheries will be handed over to the United States 1


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the negotiations were not confidential, I would be happy to give every information to my hon. friend. If I do not do so, it is not because I have not my mind made up, but because I am precluded from so doing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjournel at 1.30 a.m., Saturday.
[Stage Direction]


Monday, April 29, 1901.