That is a pity.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, As my right lion, friend says, that is a pity. Comparing the census taken by the late government in 1891 with the parochial statistics, we find that the numbers in the former were in every case much the larger, whereas in the census of 1901 there are four counties, namely, Bellechasse, Bagot, Port-neuf and Lotbiniere, where the parochial statistics are larger than those of the official census. In other words, if any error has been made by the census enumerators in 1901 it is due rather to their having failed to count all the people than to having unduly swelled the numbers.

Mr. CLANCY.

Were these censuses taken at precisely the same period ?

I find again Norbert Charbonneau, aged 30, and his wife, aged 31, both have left the parish over fifteen years. Their children were also registered in the census of 1891. Aged 5 years, 3 year's, and 9 months respectively.

None of these people ever resided in St. Jean de Matha, yet their names appear in the census schedule.

Mr. CLANCY.

Was this investigation made under oath ?

It was made by the parish priests.

Mr. CLANCY.

That makes no difference.

It was made by people who knew the locality and had personal knowledge of the individuals who were living in the parish for years.

Mr. HUGHES (.Victoria).

Mffien were these investigations made ?

Last year.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

And the fifteen years date from last year ?

They were taken within three months of each other, and the figures I will give afford such glaring and convincing proof that no one can imagine for a moment that any difference could be due to any radical change in the population within that period. In these twenty-one constituencies, to which I have referred, the difference in 1891 between the official census and the parochial censuses is 40,000 to the. advantage of the former, or, very nearly 2,000 per constituency of an excess in the official over the parochial census. But in 1901, on the contrary, the difference is only 8,000, or about 400 per constituency.

I would ask the House to bear with me while I read a few of the details just to show in what way this enumeration was taken in 1891 and what were the results. I have here the returns from the county of Joliette, the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Morin, attested by Dr. Turgeon and Mr. Dugas. 1 am not making any general, statement, but taking individual instances and giving individual proofs, and .here is one of the first instances that I find :

Leon Charbonneau, aged 39, and his wife, aged 36, absent from the parish for at least the last fifteen years. Yet they are registered in the schedule of 1891 as being present and having six children, namely, Joseph, aged 10; Leon, aged 8; Elizabeth, aged 6; Lea, aged 4; Elise, aged 3, and Olive, aged 2. These people have been absent fifteen years, but they and their six children were registered, and not one of these children was born in that county.

Hon. Mr. FISHER.

Y'es. But it was only ten years between the two censuses,

Phillippe St. Ama, 34 years, and his wife, Athelia, were enumerated in 1891 though they never resided in St. Jean de Matha. Still they were counted with their four children, aged respectively 9 years, 6 years, T years, and 2 months. That family was absolutely unknown in that parish, never having lived there either temporarily or permanently.

Here is another instance : Alexander

Houle, aged 42, and his wife, Mafie-Anne, aged 40. They left for the United States eighteen years ago, but still their names appear on the census schedules of 1891 together with those of eight children, aged from sixteen years down to two years. And two of these children appear in the schedule as having the same name, which strikes one as rather peculiar.

Onesime Cleremont, aged 36, and his wife, aged 34, were absent in the United States when the census of 1891 was taken, but their names and those of three children appear in the schedule.

A little further down we find the name of Onesime Cleremont, aged 38, and his wife, aged 39, and three children. The enumerator, not content with entering absentees once, counted them twice.

Then there is the name of Jean Baptiste Piette, aged 46, with those of his wife, aged 40, although they left St. Jean de Matha twenty years ago.

Their names appear on the census schedules, with two children-Marie Sara, aged 15 years;.

Melina, aged 13 years. Immediately alter the name of Jean Baptiste Piette and family, we find again Maxime Piette and Lea Piette, aged 33, with six children-Marie Louise, 'aged 14 years ; Rose Anna, aged 14 years ; Alexandrine, aged 12 years; Marie, aged 10 years; Joseph, aged 8 years; Napoleon, aged 6 years-which is a repetition of the same Maxime Piette and Lea Piette, already referred to as having left for the United' States 15 or 18 years ago.

Here again, the family, the father and mother and six children are reported twice over, and none of them ought to have appeared on the schedule list. I cannot read all these cases, but I am trying to read fair specimens.

Louis Roeheleau, aged 60, and his wife, Agathe, aged 56, are registered with five children : Joseph, aged 34; Louis, aged 36; Elie, aged 29, Alarie, aged 15, Nathalie, aged 17. But they have never resided in the parish, according to people who have never left the locality during the last 20 or 25 years. One old resident of St. Jean de1 Matha said that he remembered that about 40 years ago, one Louis Roeheleau was living in the parish, but he .'lever saw him since that time.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

I would like to ask the name of the clergyman in that case.

Rev. Jean Baptiste Morin.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

How long has he lived in that parish ?

I have no memorandum on that subject, but he has lived there for many years.

Paul Guilbault, aged 48, is regisfcred with his wife, Philomene, aged 30, and 18 children.

Hear, hear.

I wish hon. members to notice that the wife was 30 years of age, that her eldest sou, Joseph, was registered as 24 years of age. The other children were :

Elizabeth, aged 23; Marie, aged 22; Philomene, aged. 20; Pierre, aged 19; Olive, aged 18; Melina, aged 17, Armeline, agid 16, Paul, aged 15, Georges, aged 14; Miose, aged 13; Hormisdas, aged 12; EugSne, aged 11; Martin, aged 10; Ar-sgne, aged 9; Albert, aged 8; Norbert, aged 8; Marie-Anns, aged 3 months.

The father was 48 and the wife 30, with 18 children, and all were registered.

But Paul Guilbault and his wife and his alleged children have never resided in St. Jean de Matha. It is said in the locality that the same Onesime Plouffe above mentioned in this report had a son-in-lawr by the name of Guilbault. He was residing, at that time, at St. Damieu, in the county of Berthier, but he has left many years ago for the United States, and has never come back to the country. He has never resided in St. Jean de Matha.

This is another specimen of the way the census was stuffed in the province of Quebec in 1891. I have a number more here,

but I will not detain the House by reading them,

Go on.

All right. I will take another at haphazard :

Alem Parent, aged 23, is registered with his wife, Marie-Louise, aged 18, and their daughter, Rose-Alba, aged 4 months. Alem Parent is the son-in-law of Jean-Baptiste Layer, who was residing in St. Jean de Matha in 1891. Parent himself has always been living in St. Beatrix and never in St. Jean de Matha. This did not prevent the enumerator from registering him and his family twice. The second time he was recorded as follows : Olem Parent, aged 21; Marie Louise Parent, his wife, aged 19, and Rose-Anna, their daughter, aged 3 months.

Olivier Belanger, aged 42, is registered with his wife, Celina, aged 35, and four children : Joseph, aged 8; Henry, aged 7; Albina, aged 5, and Arthur, aged 3. These people are absolutely unknown to the old residents of the1 parish. They are probably some relatives of Mrs. Emelie Robillard, an old lady of 70 years old, who then resided in St. Jean de Matha. But if Olivier Belanger and his family ever lived in the parish, it is over twenty years ago.

And so on. [DOT]