I am not going to read them all, I will lay the names on the Table. I will read a few :
George Nimmens, page 13, lived in London in 1891 ; Martha Tebbutt, page 25, taken twice in Goderich township and in Clinton ; James Robb, page 3, never lived here. A farmer in Tucker-smith ; Fred Crabb, page 19, in Michigan in 1891; Charles Crabb, in Toronto in 1891 ; Charles Gib-ton, page 23, in North-west Territories in 1891 ; Colin Sinclair, page 27, in Detroit in 1891 ; J. M. Proudfoot, page 4. in Winnipeg in 1891 ; William MeCallum, page 3, in Vancouver in 1891 ; William Campbell, page 12, in Chicago in 1891 ; Christine Mclver, page 3, taken twice in Goderich town ; Minnie Gordon, page 24, in Nebraska in 1891 ; Angus McKay, page 28, in Buffalo in 1891 ; Frank Simmons, page 35, in American army in 1891; Robert Reid, page 38, in Brantford in 1891 ; Donald McIntosh, page 46, in Detroit in 1891 ; Wilson Cox, page 50, in North-west Territories in 1891 ; Maggie Burns, page 51, taken twice, in Goderich town ; John McIntosh, page 55, at Sault Ste Marie in 1891 ; William Vivian, page 5, in Michigan in 1891.
They were not there at all. In South Norfolk I find there were 3 per cent away in Simcoe, and 3 6 per cent were added to the list in Port Dover. Then I find a similiar condition of affairs in Cornwall. The inquiry was difficult to make, and I have a report detailing the means taken to arrive at the facts: In order to make the report as authentic as possible I examined the assessment rolls of the municipalities, together with the registers of the high and public schools of the district for 1891, and a comparison of those records with the census schedules has shown that in many cases persons were counted at their homes in the country by one enumerator, and in their boarding houses in the town by another. Many of the pupils attending the Cornwall high school were recorded in this way, and so also were domestic servants and others. In some instances it has been difficult to identify persons of the same family name, such as McDonalds, Frasers, McPhails, &c., who are numerous in the district, and where I had any doubt I have marked such names with a star. All other names given on the appended list as duplicated in the census are susceptible of the clearest verification and I am sure that many others might be furnished if one's memory and exact local knowledge could recall every person who lived in the district ten years ago and disci-iminate between the floating and tfie fixed elements of the population. Here is a list of 150 persons whose names were duplicated and appeared twice on the schedule of that census division.
In Cornwall. I have here a list of the individuals named, of the two enumerators wno enumerated them, the places in which they were enumerated, Cornwall town and Cornwall township, many enumerated twice In the town, some enumerated twice in the township, but all of them enumerated twice, once in the town and once in the township, as the case may be. This goes to show that the stuffing of the lists was not alone carried on in the province of Quebec. We have another proof of that which was given to this parliament in 1894 by my hon. friend the present Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Borden), who at that time proved conclusively that in his county of King's N.S., there was a very great stuffing of the lists. That proof was given so conclusively at the time that my hon. friend the member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) the other day, acknowledged it ; he granted that it was true and he simply defended it by saying that the enumerator was prosecuted and bad to leave the eoun-
try. As a matter of fact tlie enumerator did not leave the country ; he only went into a neighbouring county, where, apparently, the Minister of Justice of that day was not able to reach him or to punish him. We have another fact which goes to prove the same thing. I have here some returns of the school population in the province of Nova Scotia, and I find some confirmatory facts in that connection. Here we have the different counties with their populations in 1S91 and 1901 with the increases [DOT]or decreases as the case may be, and we have also the statement of the school children for these two years. I find that in some counties the population actually decreased very materially while the school population largely increased. It seems hardly possible that the difference can be actually so great. It points to the fact that the change between 1891 and 1901 cannot have been correct in both instances. There is no possible reason for supposing that the population of the school children was in any way changed or tampered with. But it is quite possible that the census of 1891, with the proof that we have which the hon. Minister of Militia gave in regard to King's county, was tampered with extensively at that time. In Annapolis county the population decreased 3T per cent, but I find that the number of school children increased 12-3 per cent. I find in Antigonish that while the population decreased 15 per cent the number of school children increased 1 per cent. In Colchester the population decreased 8-3 per cent while the number of school children increased 9-9 per cent. In Higby the population only increased 2 per cent while the number of school children increased 21 per cent. I find that in Hants the population decreased 9-9 per cent while the number of school children increased 8T per cent. I find that in King's county the population decreased 2 per cent while the number of school children increased 21 per cent. Here, we have a confirmation in this comparison of the statements which were made by the hon. Minister of Militia. We have here the key' to the solution of the difficulty and I would venture to say that the same key will open the lock in regard to other counties in that province. We have in Queen's county a decrease in both cases. In Victoria county there was a decrease of 14 9 per cent in population, and an increase of 1-5 per cent in the number of school children. I think that what I have submitted to the House thus in detail, and I have only taken these figures at haphazard from the mass of detail that I have here, is sufficient to show that whatever may be the census of 1901, the census of 1891 was, generally, throughout the country, very unduly swelled by the manipulation of the enumerators. I venture to say that it accounts to a large extent, if not entirely, for the fact that in the comparisons of the growth of the population the growth from 1891 to
1901 is actually and in fact much greater in population than it was from 1881 to 1891. Therefore, we as Canadians need not blush ns we would otherwise have to do at the comparative stagnation and lack of growth of the population in our country. I venture to think that there are other points which tend to prove the same thing. There was one notable fact in regard to the census of 1891 which shows how easy it was to misrepresent the actual growth of population. In the census of 1891 while the names of the people are given, there is no address given of the people. there being no place in the schedules of 1891 for this purpose, and consequently, there is no sure and accurate way of laying your finger on an individual except by the iocal knowledge of other people. In the census of 1901 we have obtained not only the names of the people, but in tire cities, we have given the street and house number of every individual on the list of the census, while in the country parts we have given the lot and range and the position of the house of each individual whose name appears on the list, the schedules of 1901 being so drawn as to provide for this. The result is that with the census of 1901 anybody can prove to a demonstration whether an individual was present or not, while, with
just as many people as they desire to do because there are no immediate means except by the local knowledge of some other individual of laying your finger on a man who was reported as being present or who might not be present. This is a most extraordinary difference in the manner of taking the census and one to which I wish to draw the attention of the House and the country. There are some other matters in connection with the census to which I wish briefly to allude.
Certainly. There has been one effort made in the province of Ontario, and it is the only one I know of in the Dominion of Canada which has been undertaken, for the purpose of showing the incorrectness of the census of 1901, and that is the effort that was made
In the city of Toronto. I was rather surprised that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), in alluding to census matters, did not allude to this. I can only take it for granted that he felt that the census of 1901 was completely justified and verified by the police census which was taken in Toronto soon afterwards. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) gave a good many of these figures to the House and I will not therefore go over them but I will point out that the assessment department1 of the city of Toronto took their census between April 1st and October 1st, the mean of which was the 1st of July. The assessment department showed a population of 205,887, a smaller number than the Dominion census which showed a population of 208,045. If therefore we were trying to minimize the population of Ontario we evidently did not do so in the city of Toronto. The police census of the city of Toronto was taken some time afterwards and it showed a population of 221,000. The difference between the Dominion census and the police census was completely accounted for by tne fact, that in the police census 4,439 pupils who are non-residents of the city were included, and these ought not, and were not enumerated by the Dominion census enumerators. The number of patients in the hospitals who were non-residents was 527, and in other institutions there were 175 nonresidents. The hotels reported that on November 10th, the day on which the police census was taken, 1,413 transient visitors were enumerated who would not be enumerated in the Dominion census, and it is reasonable to suppose that there were at any rate 1,000 transient visitors in the city who were not in the hotels. This, with the natural increase within the two dates would give a complete confirmation of the Dominion census of 208,000, because the difference which can thus be made up between the two is practically 13,000.
There is another fact in regard to this about which I would like to say a word. In the directory census of the city of Toronto an effort was made to show a much larger figure. The directory census has on frequent occasions been referred to, but we have found on investigation that the estimates in these censuses are very uncertain and very irregular. The estimate made by the directory of the city of Toronto has varied very materially; a different multiplier has been taken to make up the estimate in different years, and some of these estimates have ranged very much higher than the municipal statistics, -and some of them very much lower; showing a very wide difference and consequently showing the utterly unreliable character of such a census. I was rather surprised that my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) did n-ot deal with this matter. He certainly had the opportunity to do so, but he left Hon. Mr. FISHER. ,
it without any cavil, and I therefore take that as a practical confirmation of the census of 1901.
I have dwelt at some length on these things, because I have felt, and I still feel that it is important to show to the country and to sh-o-w to the world, that the population of Canada has not been so- stationary during the last ten years as it would appear to lie from a comparison of the census of 1891, with that of 1901. I want to speak a little further upon another phase of this subject of population, and the census will have to necessarily come into that part of my address also. I stated a few moments ago that one object of discussing this was to show that the progress of Canada had not been so slow as it appeared by the census returns to have been. I believe I can show from tihe census figures, and other figures which I can place before the House: that not only has the growth of Canada during the last ten years been considerably greater -than it was during the ten years preceding, but that in those ten years, the growth of Canada during the last five years of the period has been greater than it was in the fifteen years preceding the advent of this present government to power. The Minister of Finance alluded to that briefly in his speech, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce showed pretty conclusively that the development and progress of Canada had -been very much greater during the last five years than it had been during any previous five-year period in the history of this country. And furthermore, the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) went on to show that in some respects the progress of Canada had been greater during the last five years than in the fifteen years preceding. Hon. gentlemen opposite themselves acknowledge the prosperity of the country. I want to give a little proof of wiliat that prosperity is, and in this connection I will refer to the speech of my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke). When he was dealing with the increase in the population between 1881 and 1891, and between 1891 and 1901. the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) stated that the increase of population during the last decade had been less -than it was during the first decade. I do not know where he got his figures, but they are certainly not the figures of these three censuses. As a matter of fact, in 1881 the population of Canada was 4,324,810 ; in 1891, the population of Canada was 4,833,239 ; and in 1901, the population of Canada was 5,371,051. The increase from 1881 to 1891 was 508,429, but the increase from 3891 to 1901 was 537,812, or, about 30,000 increase more in the last decade than in the first. This is no very great difference I confess, but still it is to the advantage of the last decade.
Now, Sir, in the province of Ontario we have municipal statistics and these statistics enable us to deal with, not only the decen-
lilal census periods, but also with) the conditions trom year to year. Before I go into that I should say that these 'municipal statistics have to be taken with a certain reserve, because in the early days in 1881 and 1882 and 1883, these municipal statistics were not as carefully or as accurately compiled as they were afterwards. Up to 1S81 they were avowedly imperfect, and therefore the figures for 1881 are acknowledged to be, not by any means correct; so that when we come to compare 1881 with 1891 we do so simply for what it is worth. In these ten years there was an increase of
226,000 according to the municipal statistics. But there is this curious fact to be noted: that in 1882 and 1883 there was a sudden increase from 2,000 increase to 19,000 increase. In 1883 and 1884 the increase in the population was 40,000, according to these municipal statistics; in 1884 and 1885 the increase was 33,000, and in 1885 and 1886 the increase was 38,000. Knowing as I do something about the way in which these municipal statistics were handled in the province of Ontario at that time, I am aware of the fact-and I have no doubt lion, gentlemen from Ontario here are also aware of the fact-that these enormous increases were due to the improved methods in the compilation of these statistics.
Possibly so, and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is right, then the comparison made by the hon. gentleman from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) would not be of very much value. As a matter of fact it was only about 1882, that these statistics began to be in any way carefully and completely compiled. In 1885 and 1886, when they had got to the point at which the statistics were compiled about the same as they are now, the increases did not go on to the same extent. In 1890 and 1891, the increases went down almost as low as in 1881 and 1882. I find that in the ten years from 1891 to 1901, these municipal statistics show an increased population in the province of Ontario of 102,626, but they show in the five years from 1891 to 1896, an increase of 50,165, and in the five years from 1896 to 1901, they show an increase of 52,426; or in other words, these same municipal statistics in the province of Ontario show that the population was increasing more rapidly during the last five years than it did in the five years preceding.
There are one or two other points in this same connection. We have in this Dominion census -a statement of the numbers of the foreign-born population of Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia. which shows the immigration that has come into that western country. The increase of the foreign population in the different periods was as follows : From 1881
to 1885, 19,000; from 1886 to 1890, 31,526; from 1891 to 1895, 38,728; a total immigration of foreign-born people into that part of Canada in those fifteen years of 89,932. But from 1896 to 1900, there was an increase of 94,527, and from the 1st of January, 1900, to the 31st of March, an increase of 6,451, a total of 100,978. So that we find that 11,000 more foreign-born people came into that country since the present government came into power than came in during the whole fifteen years preceding.
We have also the five-year period census of the province of Manitoba, and what does it show ? In 1891, there were in the province of Manitoba 152,506 souls; in 1896, there were 193,425, and in 1901, there were 254,947. That increase in the five years of the last decade was 40,919, while the increase in the last five years of the decade, since this government came into power, was 61,522, or over 22,000 more than there was during the same number of years under hon. gentlemen opposite.
There are very few Doukhobors in the province of Manitoba; but I have no reason to regret the fact that Doukhobors are coming into the country. On the contrary, D think it is a good omen for the future that we see industrious people coming in to add to the productive capacity of the country, whether they are Doukhobors or Mennonites or anything else.
Now, Sir, in connection with the census there has been a good deal of talk about the exodus. Though lion, gentlemen opposite proclaim that the exodus is still going on, one of their principal organs some three years ago said that the exodus was a thing of the past-a matter of history. I am not prepared to say for a single moment that there is no exodus in one sense, although in another sense, I am prepared to deny that there is still an exodus. There is and there always will be a certain migration of people across this continent, with the people of the south speaking the same language and having largely the same institutions as ours; that migration being sometimes from the south to the north and sometimes from the north to the south. But there is this difference, that under the policy of lion, gentlemen opposite the migration was invariably and to an enormous extent from the north to the south, people leaving Canada to go to the United States, whereas I am proud to know that, since a change of government has taken place and a new policy has come into operation in the Dominion of Canada, the great stream of that migration lias changed and is now from the south to the north and no longer from the north to the south. This I consider one of the best auguries for the future of our country, and
it is one which our people cannot too long dwell upon or boast of; because if the wideawake and up-to-date American people are finding the conditions in Canada-the conditions of government, of civil liberty, of material prosperity-better than in their own great union,, it surely will happen that the people of the European continent will follow their lead and come to us in greater numbers than ever before.
Will the bon. minister explain how it is that of settlers' effects imported into the United States from Canada there were in 1899, $1,037,000 worth, iu 1900, $1,144,000 worth, and in 1901, $1,143,000 ?
I did not say it had stopped. The hon. gentleman has not listened to me. What 1 said was that it had changed to a great extent its direction-that while there will always be, as there always has been in the past, a' migration across the continent, at the present time the greater stream is from the south to the north, and the smaller from the north to the south, while under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite there was hardly any stream at all from the south to the north, hut a great broad river flowing from the north to the south.
The hon. member for Pictou, in his speech, referred to what appeared to be a quotation, I know not from what document, in regard to the migration of Canadian population to the United States, and he read a passage which had a very strong likeness, although it is not verbatim the same, to a statement which appeared in the press thfee or foul-weeks ago, supposed to be on the authority of Mr. George Johnson, who is described as tine Dominion statistician. I may say that (that statement had no authority from the department, and that the department takes no- responsibility for it. I note this statement, quoted by the hon. member for Pictou, in regard to the number of Canadians who went to the state of Massachusetts in the five-year periods from 1885 to 1890, from 1890 to 1895, and from 1895 to 1900 :
In the first period Canadians went to the state *cf Massachusetts, according to the statistics of that state, at the rate of 12.050 a year ; in the second period, at the rate of 7,236 a year, and in the third period at the rate of 9,888 a year.
Then my hon. friend from Pieitou went on to say :
If these figures are right, there was a larger exodus from Canada to the state of Massachusetts in the last five years ending with 1900 than there was in the preceding five years.