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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 ?
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.