Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

I object, Mr. Speaker.

Amendment (Mr. Charlton) negatived.

Mr. TAYLOR.

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

In explanation of that, I need not go into any long details, I may say, in the first place, in general terms, that the cost of everything has materially increased as compared with 1891. It does not matter what one undertakes to-day, the cost is materially increased. This is due, no doubt, to an increase in the cost of living, and an advance in the scale of living. The result is that one cannot get people to do work for what one could get the same class of people to do work for ten years ago.

In 1891 there was a general lack of employment throughout the country, whereas in 1901 the contrary was the case, and employment was seeking the people rather than the people seeking employment. For that reason it was necessary to establish a higher scale of pay than the scale of 1891. The pay in 1891 was sufficient to attract a large number of people to census employment, but in 1901, on the contrary, it was found rather difficult to get people to do this work, even with the higher scale of pay. Another reason for the increased cost, was that in the census of 1901 a great many more questions were asked by the enumerators, and

the filling up of the schedules required more time and labour. For this reason a good deal more labour was thrown upon the commissioners. Then there was the additional fact that in 1901 there were several territories and outlying districts which had to be covered by enumerators, and which had not to be covered, or not to the same extent, in 1891. This involved a considerable additional expense, and an expense greater in proportion than the additional number of people to be taken in file same section of country. In those outlying sections population is sparse, and the difficulties of the enumerators were greater. Even in those territories and sparsely settled parts of Canada where the enumeration was taken in 1891. there was a larger number of people to he enumerated in 1901, because the population had increased during the decade. There was also the fact that we undertook to take the census of 1901 in a shorter time, to do it more rapidly, so as to get the returns sooner before the people. For this purpose we employed a larger number of enumerators, and although the actual population to be taken by them was not so very much larger, the increased number of enumerators did cost a larger amount than a smaller number would have cost to do the same work, the object being to take the census more rapidly and to get the results quicker. These different reasons, shortly stated will, I think, account for the increased expense which the hon.. gentleman has alluded to. No doubt lion, gentlemen will ask questions with regard to this matter, and I shall be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.

Mr. TAYLOR.

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

336&

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

Mr. TAYLOR.

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

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

Mr. TAYLOR.

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

Mr. LENNOX.

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

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

Mr. FOWLER.

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

No, I did not advertise.

Mr. FOWLER.

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

A number who were asked to do the work declined it at the rates we proposed to pay.

(Mr. FOWLER. I suppose it would be impossible for the hon. minister to give the names of these parties ?

Yes.

Mr. FOWLER.

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

Mr. GANONG.

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

I think so.