I am going to give the House the benefit of Mr. Carlyle's figures, and it bears very remarkably on the assertion that the census taken, as far as our enumerators were concerned, was incorrect. The police commissioners took a census which showed a population of about 13,000 more than the census did, but when we came to examine the details of the police commissioners' census, we found that 4,000 students in the schools and colleges had been included, naturally enough, in the police census, who had not been included by our enumerators, because they had been reckoned elsewhere. We found that several thousand visitors from the country were at various hotels and had been included by the police commissioners' enumerators, who had not been included by our enumerators, that a considerable number of domestic servants had been counted by the police commissioners who had not been counted by our enumerators, and when you add to that the natural growth of Toronto during the seven months between the time of the taking of our census in April and the taking of the police Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
commissioners' census, which would account for about 3,000, or 4,000, you get a remarkable confirmation of the accuracy of the enumeration made under the control of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. It is well known, Sir, that whereas Toronto remained as to population stationary during a period of five or six years from 1891 to 1897, after 1897, Toronto, I am happy to say, regained its former growth and on the average has been increasing at the rate of
6,000 or 7,000 a year. I place this on the Table for the information of hon. gentlemen.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Well, I have read all the figures that are pertinent, and I hand the report over and place it on the Table for the information of hon. gentlemen. I am afraid that if the hon. gentleman insisted on my reading all the figures I have here, I would be obliged to keep this House in session for a most unusual length of time.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
No, not in ' Hansard,' but simply that the hon. gentleman might have access to it. Now, I desire to say that personally I would very greatly prefer to be able to believe that the miscount which I think has clearly taken place in Ontario was due to an under enumeration. It would be very much to the interest of myself and to the interest of the government, as it would relieve us of a very great deal of trouble and perplexity if we were able to say that the number credited to Ontario was greatly less than rightly belonged to it. I would desire that the enumeration might prove to be faulty, but the evidence we have been able to obtain and the examination we have been able to make go to show that our enumerators did their duty properly and that if any error has occurred, and error there undoubtedly has been, it to a very large extent arose from the miscount which took place in 1891. Now, Sir, I would like to call the attention of the House to the position in which the census enumerators found themselves in 1891. A general election had just taken place. The question of the exodus had been a burning issue and the public mind was
much excited on the question of the exodus. These persons who were employed as enumerators knew right well that the government of that day, their friends, were tottering to their fall, that Sir John Macdonald's days were numbered, that the result of the investigation then being prosecuted at the instance of my bon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) would not fail to disclose facts extremely damaging to the Conservative administration and they knew perfectly well that if they were to give it out that the population of Ontario had been reduced between 1881 and 1891 to such an extent that the province was likely to lose several seats, the result could not fail to be most disastrous to the Conservative party. They were under the strongest motives to falsify the census, and they had shown what manner of men they were by the figures that they returned in respect to the enumeration of industries recently laid before you. But, I have to say to hon. gentlemen, if they do not think this is a sufficient reason it does not affect my main argument at all. Sir, if there has been a large increase in the population of Ontario, it equally proves my position that the increase between 1891 and 1901 has been very much greater than the increase from 1881 to 1891. Take it whichever way you please, it will not affect my main argument. If we diminished the population, we diminished it, Sir, to our own great injury. We certainly could not have desired to diminish the number of people in Ontario, or anywhere else, whereas the enumerators, as I have shown, who were employed by the Conservative government, had the strongest possible motives in the spring of 1891 to falsify the record and prevent the iniquities of their friends being brought to the knowledge of the people. It is, I see, just five minutes to six o'clock, and as I have a good deal more to say on this subject and cannot possibly conclude by that time, I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Mr. Speaker, when the House rose I had been pointing out the extraordinary discrepancies which had oceured between the census returns for 1901 and the census returns of 1891, for the province of Ontario. I think that both sides of the House will probably agree with me in this: That when you find that the municipal census of Ontario in the organized districts shows some 70,000, or nearly 70,000 more population than the government census does, and when you find that an addition of 40,000 families has resulted in the addition of barely 68,000 to the population of Ontario
in ten years; I think that both sides of the House will agree thus far in believing that a prima facie case has been made out that there has been a gross error in either the census of 1891 or the census of 1901. So far I shall probably get the assent even of hon. gentlemen on the other side. As to whether that error occurred through the default of the enumerators of 1891 or the default of the enumerators of 1901 may be a question. For myself, while I entertain no doubt of the main fact, that is to say, of the discrepancy which exists between the two censuses of 1891 and 1901 in Ontario, and while I think that the presumption is very strong indeed that the error arose on the part of the enumerators in 1891; I am quite willing to admit that that is a fair subject for argument.
I have a few points to bring before the House in that connection before I proceed to the other divisions of Canada. It came to my knowledge between 1881 and 1891 that the exodus from Ontario had been enormous. I will give the House three cases all within my own personal knowledge which goes to show how very wide-spread that exodus was. In 1887 or 1888, I made inquiries from the editor of a newspaper which had a considerable circulation in western Ontario, and that gentleman informed me that in the three or four years preceding, 9,000 subscribers on its weekly list had sent him other addresses in the United States. That is to say that they had left Canada and had gone to the United States. Heretofore they had been residents in Canada and their addresses had been in Canada, but after that date he was directed to send his paper to the United States. I made inquiries with respect to the movement of the population in several small towns, and I remember that in all these a very considerable number of persons were reported within the three or four preceding years to have gone to the United States.
I recollect in one small town alone; in the constituency I then represented, a town not having a population of more than 1,200 or 1,300; as many as 170 persons were reported to me, names given, to have removed to the United States within the three preceding years. I had another curious illustration of the extent of emigration from Ontario. For certain reasons of state, I was obliged to exercise a rather strict supervision over a certain election contest which took place in the earlier part of 1891 between one Alexander Gunn and one John Alexander Macdonald. The total vote polled on that occasion was a little over 3,000-and I need not tell you that every vote was polled that could be polled. Of that 3,000 we found that 400 voters in the city of Kingston had been brought from the United States at no inconsiderable expense to record their votes for Sir John Macdonald. Now, Sir, these three circumstances alone would go very far to show-and they were merely ' three of many others I could have obtained
evidence of-they will go far to show how extensive and widespread was the emigration from Ontario to the United States between the years 1881 and 1891. I have also shown the extraordinary fraud which had been committed by the census enumerators of 1891 in the way of stuffing the census returns in the matter of industries to be credited to the national policy, and I want the House to understand distinctly that the instances I gave were only a few instances out of many score. For days and for weeks in this House, as those who were then members will recollect, it was a constant practice to compel the Finance Minister of that day, much against his will, to answer certain questions with respect to the various industries which the enumerators had discovered throughout the province of Ontario and elsewhere. I doubt if there was a single hamlet in Ontario; I doubt if there was a single village in that province containing 500 or 600 people in which these ingenious persons did not discover at least 40 or 50 industrial establishments of various kinds. They are on record; there is no mistake about it; the ' Hansard ' is there to testify to this day to the remarkable ingenuity which these enumerators displayed. There was not a blacksmith, there was not an artisan, there was not a carpenter throughout the province of Ontario I verily believe, who was not put down as an industrial establishment whether the thing was run by himself or run by himself and his boy combined. I say that all these things together, coupled with the conduct of the government (on which I lay very considerable stress) in absolutely refusing their aid to an investigation when charges of gross fraud were preferred by members in their place in parliament-I say that all these things go to constitute a very strong prima facie case against the good faith of the enumerators of 1891. However, I admit there is room for argument, only I further call attention to the fact that at that particular moment the Conservative party was in a very deplorable plight, a kind of plight which would tempt and almost excuse strong party men-and we know very well that the census enumerators were strong party men-to do a good deal that they might otherwise have hesitated to do for the benefit of their party; and that it would have been in the highest degree for the benefit of their party to make the Ontario lists appear larger than they actually were, no man who remembers the condition of things in the spring of 1901 can presume to doubt.
The emigration from Ontario is peculiar in some respects. It was not, as I understand the emigration from Quebec is or was, largely composed of families. It was almost exclusively composed of individuals, generally young men or young women from their several families, and under the de jure Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
system which prevailed then and which has prevailed since, there was a great opportunity given to any enumerators who chose to include people who had left Canada for many years, as I believe the enumerators did to a very great extent. Beyond all that-although the difficulties in our way are very great and although the expense at this distant time of ascertaining the facts is almost prohibitory-the Minister of Agriculture at my instance did cause in some cases investigation to be made. It will be for the House later on to say whether it is or it is not desirable that a commission should issue to inquire further into this matter. It is of quite sufficient importance I think to make it worthy of consideration, speaking for myself alone .of course. The hon. Minister of Agriculture found that in the case of several towns, notably in the case of Goderich, notably in the case of Clinton, notably in the case of Simcoe, notably in the case of Port Dover, notably in the case of Cornwall, there was a considerable number of instances in which evident frauds had been committed. ' As I say, the difficulties in his way are very great. The
total number of these frauds which are discovered is probably insignificant compared with the number that were actually committed, but enough have been discovered-I think that the reports are in the hands of my hon. friend, and I have no doubt he will be only too ready to lay them on the Table of the House-to show conclusively that there is good prima facie ground for saying that the census returns of 1891 for the province of Ontario were grossly stuffed.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
On its weekly list ? My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) is very ignorant, I am sorry to say, of the extent to which the London ' Advertiser ' at that time circulated. Now, Sir, I come to another and a still more important phase of this question. As I have said, in Ontario, where I think the evidence is conclusive that there has been a grave miscount, the evidence as to the date at which that miscount took place is necessarily somewhat Imperfect. I can only go on circumstantial evidence and on presumption.
But it so happens that in the sister province of Quebec we stand on much firmer ground. Every hon. gentleman who knows anything of the customs of the people of
Quebec is aware that in that province the parochial clergy every year make a very accurate census of all their parishioners, and I am informed of all the people within their particular cure. From the nature of the case that census is more strictly accurate where the population is chiefly Catholic and French than where it is mixed ; but in. any case it is a census the fairness of which no one on either side of the House will, I think, dispute. I invite the special attention of the House to certain facts which I am about to lay before them with regard to the province of Quebec. I have here a report carefully made by a chief officer of the census, Mr. CStG, in which that gentleman gives us the difference between the parochial census taken in 1891 and the government census of that year, and the results are very extraordinary. In the county of Bagot the government census discovered 2,743 more people than the parochial investigators had been able to find three months before. In the county of Belle-chasse is discovered 1,050 more people; in Berthier, 3,433 more; in Champlain, 2,230 more ; in Dorchester, 608 more ; in Iberville, 2.090 more ; in Joliette, 3,817 more ; in Kamouraska, 2,003 more ; in l'Assomp-tion, 1,223 more ; in l'lslet, 1,008 more ; in Lotbiniere, 1,191 more ; in Maskinongg, 2,770 more ; in Montmagny, 1,157 more ; in Montmorency, 421 more ; in Nicolet, 2,635 more ; in Portneuf, 998 more ; in Richelieu, 3,155 more ; in Rimouski, 3,783 more ; in Rouville, 3,123 more ; in Temiscouata, 1,134 more. The above statement shows that the enumerators in 1891 raised in 21 counties 40,615 more names than were recorded three months previous to the census by the parish priests. I am willing to admit that there will always be a slight discrepancy between such a census and the census taken by the government enumerators. I believe the parish priests do not enumerate those who are absent at the time, and there are some Other slight differences ; but our census of 1901 corresponds with these parochial censuses within 8,000 souls. Therefore I say that these statements prima facie afford the clearest proof that can well be laid before the House at this distance of time that in these 21 counties of the province of Quebec the lists were stuffed in 1891 to the extent of at least 32,000 souls. Sir, that is by no means all. It is not to be supposed that this occurred in 21 districts only. There is evidence, and good evidence, as I think hon. gentlemen will have to admit, that not merely in these 21 counties, but in many others-I cannot say whether in all-of the 65 counties into which Quebec is divided, similar frauds were perpetrated. I have here a report of two subdivisions in the city of Montreal. That report shows that in these two subdivisions only the census over-estimated 1,006 persons. There were in the city of Montreal in 1891, 125 enumerators for 125 subdistricts. I do not at all pretend to say that
the fictitious entries in the others were in as large as they were in these ; but if there were in two subdivisions of Montreal fictitious entries to the extent of 1,006, the House can judge for itself how likely it would be that other districts would escape scot-free.
As this is a matter of more than ordinary importance, I have obtained, by the kind permission of my friend the Minister of Agriculture, more ample returns regarding the province of Quebec, which I shall proceed, for the information of the House, not to read-that would take too long a time- but to lay on the Table. Some of them, I observe, are in French ; and it will be no doubt a pleasing task for some of the hon. gentlemen opposite of that persuasion- there are not many of them-to translate for the benefit of their English confreres. These are the returns for Bagot ; these are the returns for Beauce ; these for Berthier ; these for Bonaventure ; these for Belle-chasse ; these for Chateauguay ; these for Champlain ; these for Charlevoix ; these for Chicoutimi; these for Dorchester ; this for Gaspe. The hon. gentlemen will observe there is nothing to conceal. This for Jacques Cartier ; this interesting one for Joliette ; this for Kamouraska ; this for l'Assomption; this for Labelle ; Laprairie ; Laval ; Lfivis ; Lothbiniere ; Maskinonge ; Montcalm ; Montmorency; the city of Montreal ; Nicolet; Portneuf ; Richelieu ; St. Jean D'Iberville ; Temiscouata.
I have here Mr. CotC's documents, which I lay on the Table, being desirous to furnish every information to hon. gentlemen.
It is utterly impossible to compute the total extent of the frauds that were committed in Quebec, but I do not think anybody will say that I am exaggerating when, after examining the evidence that I have laid on the Table, I say there is every reasonable ground for believing that at least
50,000 or 60,000 souls were improperly counted in Quebec in the census of 1891. In Ontario, as I have pointed out, I believe there was a grave miscount. I have given my reasons for thinking that that miscount occurred in 1891, and it will be for the House to judge for themselves how far those reasons are entitled to credit. But I think this much is clear. There was a very large over count in 1891, and strong probabilities- bearing in mind the evidence which the Minister of Militia produced with respect to the maritime provinces, and which was in no way contradicted-that at least from 125,000 to 150,000 persons were wrongly counted in the census of 1891, who consequently ought to be added to the census for 1901. Because it is plain to the meanest understanding that for every one improperly counted in 1891, we in 1901 are losing one. It does not very much matter to my main argument whether there was in Ontario an under count in 1901 or an over count in 1891. The main result would be the same, namely, that there has been a very much
larger increase in the total population from 1891 to 1901 than the census returns of 1S91 and 1901 taken together would appear to indicate.
Now, X turn to another not unimportant but comparatively insignificant matter. That is the question as to how far the increase which did take place in the last decade took place between 1891 and 1896, or 1896 and 1901. Here I must appeal to the common sense of the House. From 1891 to 1896 everybody knows-and no men were louder in declaring it than the predecessors of those hon. gentlemen-that Canada was labouring under a period of great depression, a period of deficits, of reduction of trade-just the sort of period during which many men would he sure to leave the country and very few who came in would be likely to stay. That is a patent fact known to everybody. It is equally well known that from 1896 to 1901 Canada as a Whole enjoyed a most unusual amount of prosperity. It is also well known that there has been a very great reduction in the exodus which has taken place from Canada in the last four or five years. The evidence from the province of Quebec and the evidence as to the settlement of the North-west prove that beyond a doubt. And a piece of evidence, which no doubt will commend itself strongly to hon. gentlemen opposite, goes very far to prove it also. I happen to have here the assessors return for Toronto. That is an interesting document. The assessors, as you know, take a yearly census in the good city of Toronto. Let me read to the House, without inflicting on it the details, the result of the assessors' census in the city of Toronto, because it bears pretty strongly on the point which the Minister of Finance made, that there was a strong probability, to say the least, that the increase in the last five years of this decade was very much greater than in the first five years. The assessors census for 1891 gave 170,951 as the population of Toronto. In 1896 it gave that population as numbering 178,185, showing an increase in five years of just 7,000 souls. That same assessors' census in 1901 gave the population as 205,887, being an increase of 28,000 souls, in round numbers, as against
7,000 in 1896. That may not be conclusive evidence for the province of Ontario, but it is pretty clear evidence as to the movement of population in the good city of Toronto. I have been at pains to procure a list of the vacant buildings in Toronto during that period. In 1894 there were 4,633 buildings I
vacant. Let me read the list:
In 1894 4,633
I submit, with all respect that this is tolerably clear evidence, quo ad Toronto at any Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
rate, of the truth of the Finance Minister's assertion that population increased a great deal more rapidly in our regime from 1896 to 1901 than it did from 1881 to 1896. Now, if hon. gentlemen opposite admit-I do not ask them to admit, but if they are disposed, as my friends on this side are disposed, to admit-that I have made out a prima facie case for believing that there was an over count of 125,000 or 150,000 in the census of 1891, what follows ? Why, this follows, that in the ten years ending with 1891, the increased population was just about
350,000. And this further follows that, in the ten years from 1891 to 1901, the increase of population was just 700,000. And if I am correct in my opinion that, after 1896 tlie exodus was materially checked-I do not say abolished altogether-and if I am correct in the further statement which I make and for which I will give some further evidence presently, that from 1S96 or 1897, the great bulk of the immigrants who came to this country remained in this country-then, Sir, I say it is not very unlikely, on the contrary there is the strongest ground for believing, that, after 1896, Canada gained at the rate of 100,000 a year. After all, that would be a very small matter. It would merely mean that we reduced the exodus from 50,000 to 25,000 and added
25.000 by immigration to our population. And, if that be so, if we added for five years -and all the evidence points that way-100,000 a year to our population, and if you admit my previous calculation as to the over count in 1891, then, everything I stated is proven to the letter and the growth.of the last five years is shown to be fully equal to the growth of the preceding fifteen years. This matter of the immigration to Canada is one that has attracted a good deal of attention. It was my painful duty, some years ago, standing in the place at present occupied by the leader of the opposition, to call the attention of the House and the country to the very remarkable fact that, whereas our immigration returns as published by the late government showed an immigration to Canada in the ten years from 1881 to 1891 of 886,000 persons, the census returns, making every allowance for the loss by death of the foreign-born population, only showed
150.000 to have settled in Canada. As I have said, it is interesting to trace the movement of population in the North-west upon which so much depends. I have here an enumeration furnished me by the Department of Agriculture, of the number of immigrants that came to Canada from 1897 to 1900. I find that the total number of immigrants who came in 1897 was 20,016; in 1898 the number had risen to 30,742; in 1899 these immigrants numbered 44,506; in 1900 they mustered 44,697; and, for the fiscal year 1900-1, they mustered 49,149-although I apprehend that in these two years there was some overlapping. At any rate, and
1TAECH 18, 1902
making allowance for this, the total in these five years would amount to
164,000. I find further, that, in 1897, 712 immigrants from the United States reported themselves in Canada ; in 1898 the number of Americans was 9.119 ; in 1899 11,945 ; in 1900 there were 15,500; and, in the fiscal year 1900-1 there were 17,987. If these remained here, there is not much need to add further evidence to show the very strong probability, to say the least of it, that our population has increased 500,000 in the last five years. What is the ground for holding that probably at least the greater number of these people remained here? I have here a very interesting statement showing the number of acres sold by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Hudson's Bay Company, and other railways and other landowners in Manitoba and the North-west I invite the attention of the House to these records. I drop the odd figures. In 1893, these companies sold
120.000 acres; in 1894, they sold 68,000 acres; in 1895, 114,000 acres; and in 1896, 108,000 acres. This was a total of 411,000. In
1898, these same companies, in one year sold 448,000 acres-a good deal more in that one year than had been sold in the four years that I have just enumerated. In
1899, they sold 162,000 acres; in i900, they sold 648,000 acres; and in 1901, they sold
621.000 acres. Thus, in the four years from 1893 to 1S96 both inclusive, these companies sold to settlers 411,000 acres, and in the four years from 1898, to 1901 both inclusive, they sold 2,180,000 acres. I think that is tolerably good presumptive evidence that the great bulk of immigrants that came to Canada under our regime remained here. This is further confirmed by the information we have been able to obtain from our various agents scattered throughout the North-west Territories. But there is another little evidence in the same direction. I have here a statement showing the homesteads in these periods. , Leaving out the cancelled homesteads, the number was as follows :
Total for four years 7,222
Total for four years 24,588
Now, that may not be direct evidence, but I submit that it is very strong circumstantial evidence in proof of the very important statement that we have been increasing our population in vastly greater ratio during the last five years than we did during the first five years of this decade.
Sir, it appears to me that in all this there is good promise for the future. And it appears to me there is good promise on this ,
one condition, that we steer clear of former errors, and that Canada in the future does not, as she did in the past, go philandering- the Vulgate has a stronger word-go philandering after new inventions. Sir, our losses have been tremendous, our progress also may be tremendous if we only will condescend to learn where our real strength is, and where the future of Canada properly lies.
I would like to say something as to two or three other points of interest connected with this census ; 1 would like to say something about the distribution of our rural and urban population. I might have a word or two to say on the delicate question of the education that we are giving to our people. But I pause. I must pass over those subjects, because I have to deal with another and also very interesting portion of this subject, and that is the question of the causes of this exodus. I have pointed out how grave the exodus was; I have shown you that in all human probability, of our own flesh and blood alone we have lost about a million and a half within twenty years. And mind you, that statement, formidable as it is. is amply corroborated by the facts as to the growth of other countries in similar conditions to our own. Now, Sir, a question of the gravest moment, one which is the very reverse of an academic question in which that enormous exodus was due to causes which were beyond our control, or whether it was due to preventable causes. If due to causes beyond our control, there is nothing more to be said; if due to causes which can or should have been prevented, it demands our utmost strength and energy to prevent this fatal drain on our resources from continuing.
I say again that our exhibit in the matter of population from 1881 to 1891 is a most miserable exhibition. Take Manitoba, rural and urban, and we find the rural population ot Manitoba in those twenty years increased by 24,000 families. We look across the border and we see that the state of Dakota alone, North and South together, increased its rural population by 120,000 families, while Manitoba was adding 24.000 to hers. We look at Minnesota, and we find that Minnesota gained .200,000 families in the same period. We find that 320,000 families were added to Dakota and to Minnesota in the twenty years from 1881 to 1901, while Manitoba and the North-west together hardly gained 35,000 or 40,000 families, Manitoba certainly not more than 24,000. Those 320,000 families were productive in the highest degree. They have added most enormously to the wealth and prosperity of the United States. Dakota and Minnesota have alone added hundreds of millions a year to the annual products of the United States. With good government and good management the huge territories that we possess. Manitoba, Alberta, Assiniboia and Saskatchewan, should have added in that interval equally to our resources and our trade.
Now, Sir, that statement alone is enough to condemn us, but there is much more behind. I charge over and above downright neglect and misuse of those superb opportunities, criminal maladministration on the part of the government of the day. On this subject I speak with knowledge. For many years, from 1880 to 1886, I was in the habit of making yearly visits to the province of Manitoba. I have traversed the greater part of it again and again, not by railroad, but in company with men like my friend, the Hon. Thomas Greenway, and others of the same standing, who were very intimately acquainted with the possibilities of the province of Manitoba. I witnessed that most extraordinary rush of settlers which went into Manitoba in the years 1879, 1880, 1881 and 1882. I never in all my life saw men more admirably qualified to develop a young country than were the settlers who were pouring in by tens of thousands from the best counties of Ontario, and other portions of this Dominion, to which I have already alluded. There were men and there was money in abundance, and nothing on earth but the most frightful blunders on the part of the government of the day prevented tnose men from developing Manitoba just as Dakota and Minnesota have been developed. Sir, I say that it was owing to the intolerable railway policy of the government, that it was owing to the intolerable blunders of their land policy, that it was owing in large measure to their fiscal policy, that we see the miserable spectacle which we see to-day in Manitoba and the North-west, miserable, that is, compared with what it might have been, compared with what took place on the other side of the border. Sir, I stood myself iu the Railway Committee room upstairs, and X heard the government of Canada deliberately refuse the settlers of Manitoba and the North-west the right to build a railroad at their own expense without costing the government of Canada one penny. What shall I say of the introduction of that mischievous and ill-considered measure, the checker-board system ? Who that has been in Manitoba who of all of us who knows that country, does not know that its great want is to have the population brought together, that the great difficulty is that the settlers are isolated ? Schools and churches are almost impossible when men are separated by great distances. What did the. government do ? They deliberately introduced a system by which every man was kept at a distance of a mile or a mile and a half from his neighbour. The result was that settlement was slack, that people did not choose to go into the country and take up land when they were refused the right to build railroads at their own expense, and compelled to set themselves down at a distance of half a league or more from their nearest neighbour. I recollect at the time there were a number of Yankee capitalists, Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
perfectly well acquainted with what had been going on in Dakota and Minnesota, who would have been only too happy to furnish the money for the purpose of constructing these railroads. But they were refused admittance, they were driven out, literally, they were pitch-forked out and what were the results V Why, we lost the whole of these magnificent seed years, as X may call them, from 1878 to 1885. I am within the mark when I say that 20,000 settlers in southern Manitoba alone were expelled from Manitoba and obliged to take refuge in Dakota and Minnesota by reason of the policy of the government of the day. Nor, was there any relief found for that state of things until there had been one rebellion on the Saskatchewan and until the people of Manitoba had virtually risen in rebellion also. No wonder that I spoke strongly in my place in the House as to the way in which the future of the North-west was being sacrificed by these men. Had they simply let the matter alone, had they simply allowed the people of Ontario and the other provinces to go in, had they simply allowed them to build railways, simply allowed them to make the best of the opportunities before them-I say, and I speak with knowledge- that by 1885 there would have been 50,000 families of magnificent settlers settled in Manitoba, and that to-day in Manitoba and in the valleys of the Saskatchewan, in the districts of' Alberta and Assiniboia, yoa would have had a population, not perhaps as large as that of Dakota and Minnesota, but a population in ail human probability of 250,000 families, or a million and a quarter strong. ,,
Now, think for a moment what that would have meant to Canada. Winnipeg to-day would have been a worthy rival to St. Paul and Minneapolis. Our provinces, and they are equally fertile, quite as good as the states that I have mentioned, need never have feared to enter into competition with Dakota and Minnesota. Sir Charles Tup-per's vision of 600,000,000 of bushels a year might very well have been realized-it never could have been under his management-but it might have been if Manitoba had been left to the management of the late Mr. Mackenzie. But, there was a more excellent way and that was pointed out to my certain knowledge. The inrush of settlers might have been guided and utilized. The huge amount of money that was wasted in Manitoba in land booms might have been used to the advantage of that province. It was pointed out in this House that had the policy of Mr. Mackenzie's been adopted we would have seen to-day in all human probability not a million and a quarter but two millions of people settled in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. In making that statement I claim no more for us than was done on the other side of the border under greater difficulties. If the policy of Alexander
Mackenzie bad prevailed in 1878 that would have been the result. Now, the time has come, and I gladly embrace the opportunity to do this scant justice to the memory of my old colleague. He has passed away, not unhonoured. At the time of his death I think Mr. Mackenzie's worth was recognized by all classes of the community, but he passed away hardly appreciated. It was the fashion among some of his own supporters to say that Alexander Mackenzie was all honesty and no policy, while Sir John Macdonald was all policy-I shall not finish the sentence. Alexander Mackenzie had his faults like the rest of us. He had his faults but he was honest and sagacious. What was his policy ? His policy was, like himself, simple, sensible and straightfor-word. He intended-the thing had been shaping in his mind for some time, he developed it partly on the floor of this House, he developed it to a greater extent in speeches which he made in my presence in the maritime provinces and in parts of Ontario towards the end of the campaign of 1878, and his policy had three grand features-he intended, in the first place, to reserve the land for settlers, to sell it to settlers only at low rates, and to give money only to promote the building of colonization railways ; he intended, in the second place, to construct a number of short line colonization railways radiating from Winnipeg, and he intended in the third place to use all the power of the government to keep the people together and form a solid state in and about the present province of Manitoba from which, afterwards, as a base, railways might radiate on every side. I have several times since discussed that policy with men of great ability and of experience in the North-west Territories, men of all political persuasions, and they have agreed with me that it was one of the greatest misfortunes that ever befell the North-west Territories that it had not been carried out.
Mr. SPIiOULE. Especially the water stretches.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
And Alexander Mackenzie had intended to keep control of the railways and railway rates. In respect to the water stretches Mr. Mackenzie wisely used them to the utmost of his power and perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has forgotten that at the time he went out he was most busily engaged in pressing forward the construction of the railway from Winnipeg to Fort William. I say that if Mr. Mackenzie's policy had been adopted, and I say it with the knowledge which comes after forty years experience in public affairs, and with the knowledge of a man that has travelled Manitoba from end to end, not once but a dozen times over, if Mr. Mackenzie's policy had been adopted in all human probability you would to-day have had 500.000 families, or 2,000,000 of people settled in Manitoba, Alberta, Assiniboia and Saskatchewan, and 44
a volume of trade and commerce not far from $1,000,000,000 a year. Let hon. gentlemen sit down and calculate what would be the result of a development such as I have spoken of. I will not say a development of two millions, but suppose we had a million, or a million and a quarter of people settled in that country, what a huge boon that would have been to the whole of Canada ! All that was within our grasp and all that we could have had by letting the people alone. We could have that by adopting the policy of Mr. Mackenzie. Hon. gentlemen have a good deal to learn from this census, we have a good deal to learn from it, the people of Canada have a good deal to learn from it, and one lesson I would like the people of Canada to lay to heart is the lesson of what Canada lost in 1878 by discarding Mr. Mackenzie. Had Canada allowed Mr. Mackenzie to remain in power and to carry out the scheme he was then devising for the development of the Northwest Territories, I am quite sure that the people of Canada would to-day have been something like one thousand million dollars richer and they would have numbered
2,000,000 more than they do to-day. In place of 5,000,000 we would have had 7,000,000, and after all that would have meant simply that we would have kept our own people in their own country. And one thing more, had Mackenzie remained in power the people of Canada would have been spared that carnival of corruption which ran riot throughout Canada from 1878 to 1896, or at any rate to 1891. Sir, must I recall to these hon. gentlemen the events which marked the expulsion of Sir Hector Langevin from power under the charges brought forward by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works ? Must I recall to their recollection the comments which were made by the English press at that particular time as to the result of thirteen years of Conservative administration ? It is well that I should do so, because I know that a great many hon. gentlemen were not in this House at the time and these things very soon pass from peoples memory. I am not quite sure, but I think I am perfectly within bounds when I say that there is not one man in five out of the 213 who now hold seats here who held seats in 1891, certainly not one in four ; and what had the English press to say of our doings in 1891 ? Here is an extract front the ' Times ' :
Here in the mother country there can be only one feeling, that of deep regret for the wrong done to the fair fame of the eldest of her daughter cations by the lax morality of her politicians.
The London ' Daily Chronicle ' said :
It seems to be possible in the Dominion to secure the political support not only of individuals but of whole provinces by gifts of money. The locality is bribed as well as the member, and the consequent demoralization spreads through all ranks.
The * Telegraph ' observed :
Enough, unfortunately, is already known to make it clear that only the most resolute and drastic purification can redeem public life in Canada from the taint of corruption, the like of which we have nor seen in our own country for hundreds of years.
The Birmingham ' Gazette ' said :
Rascals out of office defraud the public in order to bribe rascals In office, and rascals in office prostltue themselves, sacrifice their honour and forsake their trust m ord-r to keep on good terms with the rascals out of office.
And the London ' Echo ' remarked :
No country can prosper where public departments are in league with fraudulent contractors and where ministers are open to offers.
The London ' Graphic ' declared :
It is no longer possible to doubt '.hat corruption in its worst form is rampant in a large portion of the Canadian civil service.
The St. James ' Gazette ' observes :
The existence of an organized system of corruption among public officials in Canada has been conclusively proved, and like everything else on the American continent the bribery has been colossal.
The ' Graphic Despatch ' went on to say :
The secret of Sir John Macdonald's electoral victories is out. On this side of the water surprise has often been expressed at the patience [DOT]with which our Canadian cousins submitted to the Tcry protectionist rule of that prince of political intriguers. There is now, alas, no difficulty in explaining that curious situation. Sir John's government rested on a stupendous and all prevailing system of bribery and corruption. Even Tammany Hall smells sweet and clean in comparison with the huge stiulc pot of Sir John's government.
And so forth ad infinitum.
I am not bringing these disagreeable matters up for nothing. Let the House also remember that these expressions were used long before a great deal more which I subsequently brought to light in respect to the dealings of Sir Adolphe Caron in certain counties had been made manifest. Only a corner of the veil was lifted, yet that was the impression produced on the public opinion of England by the result of that small exposure ; and remember also that not the half no, not the tenth part of what might have been disclosed has ever yet been made public. It would have given me very little trouble if I had so chosen to have duplicated and quadruplicated the exposures which I caused to be made in Sir Adolphe Caron's case a matter of eight or nine years ago.
And if the House wants to know why I spared further exposures my reasons were these. I thought that quite enough had been done to show future historians in what sort of fashion Conservative rule was maintained from 1878 to 1891. It used to be said that there are certain anatomists to whom, if you show a hone of any given reptile, they are able to construct the en-Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT
tire animal. It does not require a political Owen or a political Cuvier to construct the eollossal scheme of corruption which prevailed in these years from the evidence which myself and the Minister of Public Works have caused to be put on record. Sir, I might, no doubt, have sent a dozen or two Conservative heelers to the penitentiary or at least to share Mr. MoGreevy's cell, but I did not think it was worth my while. However, if hon. gentlemen dispute the truth of my statement; if lion, gentlemen desire further information ; if they are filled witli a burning desire to know why the Langevin block cost something over a million dollars ; if they want to know why Quebec harbour stands in our books for $3,700,000 ; if they want to know why the St. Charles branch, a matter of thirteen miles of railway has cost close on $2,000,-000-some $200,000 or $300,000 more than the acquisition of the Drummond Railway cost altogether I believe-if they want to know that; if they want to know what became of the subsidies for the St. John Railway ; if they want to know what happened in the case of the subsidies for the Temiscouata Railroad, it won't he very difficult to obtain the information for them.
Why, Sir, these were days in which the mere camp followers of the Conservative party were allowed to plunder the people to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Has the House forgotten the exposure I made of that eminent gentleman Mr. John Charles Rykert, then a member of this House, when I showed and proved that for $2,000 he had been allowed to purchase from the government a part of the public domain which he sold afterwards for $200,000 ; when I showed and proved-and so did other gentlemen here -that Mr. Robillard, another camp follower and also a member of this House, had been allowed to obtain property belonging to the Indians for $316, which was sold within a few months for $55,000 hard cash. Well indeed might Mr. Rykert say when appealing to his electors : It was very hard I
should have singled him out when I knew- and he spoke the truth there-while I knew that there were scores as guilty ns himself who had sat in judgment on him.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.