Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

Does the hon. minister know that any were asked ?

Yes. I will take also the county of Rouville in which a most extraordinary condition of affairs was shown.

In the county of Rouville there were 3,123 people enumerated on the Dominion census

more than the parochial census of the same year showed. This is the way in which the work was done in the village of Canrobert:

Pierre Reiadeau, aged 44, and his wife, One-sime, aged 37, are reg stered with eight children: Philias, aged 17, Emma, aged 15, Arthur, aged 13, Rosanna, aged 11, Maria, aged 9, Azarie, aged 7, Thais, aged 5, Fiorina, aged 3 ; that family have left Canrobert village 14 or 15 years ago.

Julien Coiteux, aged 58, and his wife Octavie aged 50, are registered with seven children : Napoleon, aged 22, Zephirine, aged 21, Emma, aged 19, Octavie, aged 17, Louis, aged 16, Joseph, aged 13, Delia, aged 11 ; that family were not residing in Canrobert.

Here follows a list of persons entered in Richelieu village who should not have appeared at all, because they all lived in the United States or had gone to other parts of the province more than twelve months previous to the census of 1891. The list is given here, with the names and details.

Mr. CLANCY.

Who makes that report 7

This was made by the parish priest.

Mr. CLANCY.

What is his name ?

His name is not here. Then I have the county of Lotbiniere, another one of the same character.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I do not wish to be constantly interrupting the hon. gentleman, but in any of these places where he lias made inquiries of the enumerator and has received an answer, will he be good enough to state it, in connection with his other remarks.

I told the hon. gentleman a little while ago that I could not lay my hands on the information to show which enumerators inquiries were made from and which were not.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Would the hon. gentleman be able at some subsequent stage to give us that information ?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.

I will try to.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

We would like to have that.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.I have thus far pretty completely showedthe result of the investigations in the province of Quebec. As I said at the beginning, these investigations have been conducted

comparatively easily because of the peculiar conditions in that province which enabled us to get, not only the general figures, but the absolute details and statements of the individual.

Mr. INGRAM.

Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ?

Certainly.

Mr. INGRAM.

I understand from the statements he has read now, he wants to show that a large number of French families in the province of Quebec were enumerated in 1891 that should not have been ?

I was not particular to say that they were French, but as a matter of fact I think they all were French.

Mr. INGRAM.

I would like to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to a statement he made when the Cote circular was before this House two years ago. The hon. gentleman stated then that the French families of the province of Quebec were not properly enumerated, that a large number of families were not taken in that census of 1891 ; and that for the purpose of getting at the correct number of French families in the province of Quebec this circular was issued by Mr. Cote. How do these two statements coincide ?

There was a statement made that in the province of Quebec a large number of people that ought to have been enumerated were not enumerated. Our investigation shows that whether that was the case or not, a very large number of people were enumerated that ought not to have been enumerated. The two statements do not conflict at all. It may well have been that people who ought to have been enumerated were not enumerated, but at the present time I have given proof that hundreds and thousands of people were enumerated who had no right to be enumerated.

Mr. INGRAM.

Will the hon. gentleman explain to us how these parties were enumerated that should not have been enumerated other than those he now mentioned ?

I will go on with my argument, if the hon. gentleman will allow me, at a later stage perhaps he may speak and say what he wants to. Now we did not wish to confine the investigation by any means to the province of Quebec. Although the difficulties were much greater in the province of Ontario, still a slight investigation was made to find out whether anything like the same conditions obtained. I may say at once that we did not find anything like as much of this sort of thing in the province of Ontario as we did in the province of Quebec. Whether the difficulties in Ontario were so great that we could not get at the facts, or whether there were no such errors committed, I am not prepared to say ; but I state frankly that the difficulties of obtaining this information in Ontario are much greater than they are in Quebec. Now we chose five places in Ontario for that in-

vestigation, they were chosen at hap-hazard, we chose them without knowing in the slightest degree what the results were going to be, we chose them chiefly for the reason that they showed certain inconsistencies in the figures, they showed that while the number of families had increased and the number of dwellings had increased, the population had decreased.

Mr. INGRAM.

That is reasonable.

It is very unfortunate, if it is so, and it is rather an extraordinary condition of affairs. One of these five places was the township of Thurlow and the city of Belleville. A slight investigation showed that the census seemed to have been correctly taken there, there was nothing to show that there had been any stuffing of the lists. But in the other four places there did appear to have been stuffing, in Huron West, in Goderich and Clinton we found errors of that kind. In Goderich we found sixty-three persons out of 3,839 who ought not to have been there, and in Clinton, thirty-eight persons out of 2.633 who ought not to have been there, with an undue swelling of the list hy 1-7 per cent and 1-5 per cent. In North Middlesex-