o 
 
 ^^■.,: 
 
 -(:%. 
 
 SPEECH OF MR. CHARLTON, M.P., 
 
 ON 
 
 THE CENSUS. 
 
SHous^ of Commons Bcbatii$* 
 
 FIRST SESSION-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT. 
 
 SPEECH OF MR. CHARLTON, M.P., 
 
 ON 
 
 THE CENSUS. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, SEPTExMBER 2ni), 1S91. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. Mr. Speaker, before recess the 
 Minister of Finance, in closing his remarks, appealed 
 to nienibera on this side of the tlcise, as well as the 
 Liberal party in the country, to stand togetlier with 
 the (Government and to give the best picture pos- 
 sible of public affairs, and to say nothing against 
 the country. Well, 8ir, it is far fiom our intention 
 to say anytiiing against the country. ^Ve <lesire 
 to give Canada that meed of praise which is its 
 due, and in doing so we will ever assert that it is 
 a glorious country, a country with great capacities, 
 a country with great resources, a country which is 
 calculated to fiirnisli homes for millions of freemen 
 in the future, antl we will very carefully avoid on 
 the present occasion, as we have done on all pre- 
 vious occasi(ms, saying anything against the coun- 
 try. But we shall probably have something to say 
 against the men who have failed to secure for the 
 country its best interests. We shall have some- 
 thing to say aj^ainst the men who have retarded 
 the progress of the country, who have burdened 
 the country with debt, who ha\e jdaced the coun- 
 try in such a position that in the race of pi ogress 
 with its great neighbour to the south it is hamli- 
 capped with numerous disadvantages which do not 
 rest on that people. We shall have .something 
 to say with respect to the policy of this country, 
 and the lujaring of that |)olicy on the prosperity of 
 this country, as shown by the census returns which. 
 have lately beenidaced on the Table of this House. 
 
 The Minister of Finance accused the hon. member 
 for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwrij^ht) of in- 
 temperate language, of vituperation, of liitter par- 
 tizanship. That hon. gentlemen said that my hon. 
 friend's speech, froin the beginning to the end, was 
 a prolonged wail, .vith one note t)f jubilation only, 
 that in which my hon. friend referred to the fact 
 that the census returns were proofs of the correct- 
 ness of the predictions he had made. There is abun- 
 dant reason for wailing over the fortunes of the 
 country. I doubt not, if we lived in the time of the 
 Israelites, we would nf)t only wail, but rend our 
 garments and put on sackcloth and ashes. And it 
 was perfectly j)roper that my hon. friend should 
 indulge in sorrowful reflections over the present 
 
 position of the country, as evinced by these census 
 returns. 
 
 The hon. gentleman charged my hon. friend 
 from South Oxford with having made an un- 
 truthful statement in having asserted that the 
 estimates of population furnished from year to 
 year by the (Government were misrepresenta- 
 tions. My hon friend stated that these pub- 
 lications of the estimates of population were 
 either misrepresentations, or they showed the 
 greatest ignorance on the part of the (iovernment, 
 and the hon. gentleman is left free to take his 
 choice as to which horn of the <lilemma he will 
 accept, that of gross misrepresentation or of gross 
 ignorance. One or other of them he nuist accept. 
 
 The hon. gentleman disliked the charges made 
 with respect to the policy of the (lovernment in 
 making large appropriations ider various pretexts 
 for the ])urpose of subsid'; _; the press. He in- 
 forms us tha t this money is appropriated or i)aid on 
 a business basis, and the papers gave value for the 
 money thoy received. If the business is done on a 
 business basis, how is it that not a Reform journal 
 in the Dominion received any of the ( Jovernment 
 
 patronage 
 for tendv 
 before th 
 works, w) 
 their advei 
 the business 
 
 th-^ (Jovei'nment desire to advertise 
 ublic work", if they desire to place 
 advertisements respecting public 
 Id they conline the [)Hblication of 
 cuts to the papers of one party ? If 
 ')ne on a business basis, ought not 
 the (iovernmo-.t to employ the press indiscrimina- 
 tely and impartially for this purpose ? Rut large 
 sums of money ire paid to the Tory press of this 
 countr;', and thai press is, in point of fact, a sub- 
 sidized press, and the policy and purpose of the 
 (lOvernment, in appropriating and expending this 
 money, is to be attach that press to its fcjrtunes as 
 its slavisli supporters ami slavish vindicator-s. 
 
 Then the hon. gentleman told us that no 
 doubt the member for South Oxford was very 
 sorry indeed that the census returns had not 
 been available for him to criticise l>efore the 
 elections, that he would fain have had them as a 
 club in his hand for the purpose of influencing the 
 elections, not that he wished to propose a remedy, 
 

 2 
 
 but he would have used them to the detriment of 
 the Govemnient. It is natural that the member 
 for South Oxford, and the members of the Lil)eral 
 party should have desired to have been able before 
 the elections were hel<l to gi\'e the people as con- 
 vincing a proof as is shown by these census returns 
 as to the policy of the (Jovernment. The Lil>eral 
 party ha<l been eugageil in criticising the policy of 
 the (Jovernment, and it had made assertions with 
 respect to the outcome of that policy, the 
 results of that policy. We were unfortunately 
 in a position in which it was somewhat difficult 
 to prove that our assertions were true, and the 
 census returns would have furnished exactly the 
 proof required as to the truth of our allegations. 
 We <lid propose to furnish a i-cmedy, and it would 
 have been more apparent than ever that a remedy 
 was needed, if we had been able to place these re- 
 turns Ijefore the people. We have been looking for 
 years to funiis.h a remedy, and we went to the 
 electors of this country at the last election 
 with a remedy for the evils tuat exist. We 
 have tha remedy to propose still, and the census 
 returns have emphasized tiie assertion we have 
 made, that some remedj* for the ills and evils 
 this country lalwurs under is necessary. The hon. 
 gentleman tells us that the result of the census re- 
 turns was indeed a disappointment, and I am not 
 able to see how he could have said otlierwise. 
 But he says that the United States also felt the 
 same disappointment at tlieir natural increase. He 
 says that they supposed they would have a natural 
 increase as great as my hon. friend from South 
 Oxforil (Sir Richard Cartwright) says is the normal 
 natural increase of a country situated as tiiis is. 
 What was the natural increase in the United 
 States ? Their natural increase was nearly 14.j per 
 cent. , or about .*] per cent, greater than our total 
 uicrease, and our natural increa.*e was about 
 8 i>er cent, less tbiin nothing, if our immi- 
 grants had staj'ed with us ; becailse, according 
 to the returns of the Agriculture l)epartnn;nt, 
 we received immigrants to the amount of 
 20"49 per cent, of the pop.ilation of this country 
 in 1881. Therefore, with a total increase of 11%V2 
 per cent, we fall very far short of having any 
 natural increase at all. Then the hon. gentleman 
 tells us that the United States are not in a very 
 satisfactory position. I suppose that the increase 
 of population of 24 85 per cent, in the United 
 States was hardly satisfactory to that country, but 
 Vie must bear in mind that it was considerably 
 more than as much again as the increase in this 
 country, and in a young country like Canada, with 
 a young and vigorous population, it is needless to 
 say that an increase of Wh per cent, is very far 
 from what we might reas<mably expect as the result 
 of the census. We have also to bear in mind witli 
 regard to the Unit*d States, that it is claimed that 
 in the census of 188(>, there was a very serious 
 mistake witii regard to the black population, and 
 that the actual population of the United States Wivs 
 one or two millions less than that given by the 
 census of !8f"* 
 
 The hon. gentlen.. next referred to the de- 
 crease of the rural jjopulation and the tendency 
 of the people to leave the farms pui^ drift into 
 towns, and he said that this is a tendency 
 manifested in all civilized countries of the world. 
 He tells us that farming has liecome unrenuinera- 
 tive, that owing to the invention of labour- 
 
 saving machines, and the increased ability to 
 produce food with a given amount of labour, 
 there is an over-production, and that farming 
 has become an unremunerative industry. Yet, 
 Sir, in face of that fact, the policy of the hon. 
 gentleman has been for years to pile upon the 
 shoulders of the farmer, with his unremunerative 
 industry and the prices declining, a vastly increased 
 burden of taxation. If he wishes to relieve the 
 farmer, if he wishes to increase his prosperity, surely 
 it isnot agood way to reach that result by increasing 
 the burdens placed upon him, as has been done by the 
 Government for the last twelve years. 
 
 Then, Sir, wlien my hon. friend (Sir Richard Cart- 
 wiight) aUuded to the .^100,{KJ<),()0<) spent during the 
 last twelve years, and stated that the results flowing 
 from that expenditure in the North- West were of a 
 very meagre and +isfactory character, the 
 
 Minister of Finance ^eilo .^.s that this expenditure 
 was made for the ages. Well, Sir, I judge that it 
 vvill be some time in the future ages before we get 
 a satisfactory return for it. It was unquestionably 
 made for the ages, and the ages must roll around 
 before we get the return that the Government has 
 promised as a result of that expenditure. 
 
 The hon. gentleman goes on to tell us that it is 
 somewhat singular that immigrants should leave 
 this country, with a tariff of 30 per cent. , and go 
 to the United States where there is a tariff 
 of 60 per cent. , and that if they wish to escape 
 heavy burdens and taxes it would be natural to 
 suppose they would remain here. Now, Sir, the 
 average rate of duties last year was 21 J per cent, in 
 Canada on the total importation, and in the United 
 States 29 OO per cent. This difference has been 
 largely decreased under the McKinley Bill by the 
 readjustment of the tariff, but the burden of taxation 
 from Customs duties in the United States is much 
 lighter than it is in the Dominion of Canada. The per 
 capita charge of Customs for the year ending 30th 
 December, 1890, in the United States was $3.59, 
 while the per capita ciiarge in Canada last year, on 
 tlie basis of our population then, was $5.03. The 
 Customs taxation of Canada is $1.44 per head, or 
 40 per cent, higher tiian the Customs taxation of the 
 Unite<l States. Although tlieir rates of duties are 
 somewhat higher, yet our importations are propor- 
 tionately largei than theirs, and their taxation from 
 Customs is only about two-thir<ls as nmch as in this 
 counir/. Therefore, the statement made by the 
 hon. gentleman that we have lighter burdens in 
 this country than in the United States is not a 
 correct statement. We should remember also that 
 the expenditure in the United Sfcites is of a different 
 character from that of Canada. Last year in the 
 United States $1(H>,0(K),000 were paid as pensions, 
 and that money was spent in the country, It was 
 equivalent to a gift of money to the people of 
 that country. A large amount of their taxation 
 was paid last year in reduction of the public 
 debt and in reduction of taxation, an(l the 
 consequence is, that the public burdens of the 
 United States are very greatly less than ours ; and 
 a large portion of ti\e money disbursed in the 
 United States, from the Customs duties, is dis- 
 bursed in the country— paid in pensions and spent 
 in the country. The enormous sum spent in pen- 
 sions, and serving to relieve the wants of a portion 
 of the population, is quite a, different thing from 
 sending the money out of the country to jKiy interest 
 on the public debt, or the expenditure of money iu 
 
w 
 
 an ordinary way by the Government. 
 
 The hon. gentleman also told us in the course 
 of his speech, in justification of hia National 
 Policy, that it was necessary to inaugjirate a 
 policy that would retaliate upon other countries, 
 in consequence of their impositions on oiu' com- 
 merce. If that were true, wliat imposition <lid 
 Great Britain impose upon our commerce ? We 
 send our productii>ns free, and without any restric- 
 tion, into that country, and why was it necessary 
 to retaliate against her ? V\"hy was it necessary to 
 adopt a policy which discriminates, in fact, against 
 that country and which is a most onerous burden 
 upon her and her commercial transactions with 
 us? While she does not impose a duty of a 
 cent upon a single dollar's worth of the millions we 
 send to her, we impose burdens upon the English 
 commerce which lessens the volume of that com- 
 merce and ie felt to be a grievous burden by 
 the people of that country. Yet my hon. 
 friend has said that the sole justification for his 
 policy was to retaliate upon countries that had 
 imposed br.i'dens upon Canada by their fiscal policy. 
 
 Then, Sir, the hon. gentleman came around to the 
 question of corruption, and he seeks to minimize 
 the extent of the corruption existing at Ottawa, 
 and he offsets it by what ? Was it by Liberal cor- 
 ruption in the ] dominion Government ? Oh, no. He 
 oti'sets it by the assumption, not by the proof, but 
 by the assumption that corruption exists in some 
 one of the provinces in this Dominion. Forsooth, 
 because it is charged that corruption exists in the 
 Government of the Province of Quebec, he thinks 
 that exonon'.tes the Dominion Government for the 
 course of corruption which it has purfaued since it 
 came into office in 1878. The people of the country 
 will not accept that justification of the conduct of 
 the Government here. Two wrongs do not make 
 one wrong right ; the loss of chastity on the part 
 of one woman would not justify another in losing 
 it, and if the Government of Quebec had been 
 guilty of corruption, which is not proved, it would 
 not justify my hon. friend or his colleagues for 
 having been guilty of the same thing. 
 
 He says the only remedy we propose for all these 
 evils we have lieen complaining of is that the 
 gentlemen on the right of the Speaker are tfj step 
 out, and the gentlemen on the left of the 
 Speaker are to come in. Well, I suppose that 
 would l>e one of the necessary stops towards a 
 reform of the abuses that exist. Of course, if my 
 hon. friend will accept the policy we promulgate, 
 if he will attempt to relieve this country of the 
 embarrassment that weighs upon it, by adopting 
 a sound and common-sense pi licy, we will be glad 
 to aid him, as he has invited us ; but if he refuses 
 the remedy for our evils that we offer, it will 
 Ik) necessary for parties to cross the House, because 
 it is necessary to inaugurate a new policy, and if 
 the (iovernment will r '■', d'>it, the Opposition must 
 necessarily be called upon to do it. 
 
 Then the hon. gentleman reverts adroitly to the 
 old stock argument which -we have heard here a 
 hundred times or more. With regard to the small 
 increase of population which has taken place iathe 
 last ten years, and the unsatisfactory condition of 
 the country, he t-ells us that matters are not worse 
 than they were or as bad as they were. He says : 
 In 1878 when they came into office they found an un- 
 satisfactory state of trade, they found the country 
 depressed, an excessive taxation, and a policy 
 
 that had starved out the industries of the eounti-y, 
 and they »nade a change lliat l)rought prospe- 
 rity and created diversified industries. Now, 
 let us examine the bn)a<l assertions made by the 
 hon. gentleman in that jwrtion of his speech. 
 When ♦^he Conservative psirty came into power in 
 1878, what did they find the condition of Canada 
 to be, as compared wWn other nations "" It is true, 
 traile was not in as good a state as we should have 
 desired ; it is true, Canada had lalxtured under a 
 depression since 1873 ; but was Canada relatively 
 in a worse condition than other countries? Were 
 the reasons which causeil that depression confined 
 to Canada, or <lid they originate in Canada, or 
 were the (iovemmont responsible for those con- 
 ditions ? They were not. The depre.ssion which ex- 
 isted in Canada existed to a greater degree in the 
 United States ; it existed to a greater degree also 
 in England, in France and in TJermanj' : it was a 
 world-wide depression ; all civilized nations shared 
 in it ; it had overtaken the whole commercial world, 
 and Canada was in as good a position as any other 
 country. Canada was struggling successfully with 
 those difficulties ; and the truth is, that the lJnit<;d 
 States, during all that period of depression, having 
 the policy which hon. gentlemen opposite adopted 
 as a panacea for those ills, was in a worse position 
 than Canada. There were half a million tramps 
 roaming up and down the United States without 
 eriiployment ; trade was paralyzed there and in 
 England ; and in Canada we had a careful, prudent 
 Government, keeping down the burdens of taxation, 
 carefully husbanding our resources, and waiting 
 for the turn of the tide which was sure to come, 
 and which did come in 1879. Had we a policy that 
 starved the industries of this country ? On the 
 contrary, the mannfacturing industries of Canada 
 were more prosperous than those of the United 
 States under a high protection ; they were actually 
 more prosperous than those of England. Under a 
 revenue tariff of 15 per cent., increased in 187G to 
 174 per cent., we had developed a prosperous, di- 
 versified manufacturing industry in Canada. There 
 is scarcely a branch of business in operation to-day 
 that was not in operation in 1878 ; and a careful 
 comparison of the statistics of manufacturing es- 
 tablishmentsshows that the manufacturingestablish- 
 mentsof Ontario and other paHs of the Dominion 
 were paying from 6 to 25 per cent, dividend?, and 
 that they paid nmch higher dividends than the 
 manufacturing establishments of New England 
 during tiiat crisis. Most of our manufacturing 
 establishments Mere paying fair and in many 
 cases high dividends all through that period 
 from 1873 to 1878, and the manufacturing indus- 
 tries of the country were actually developing 
 and growing, notwithstanding the depression 
 that existed throughout the world. And yet my 
 hon. friend had the hardihood and effrontery to say 
 that ' tiie policy of that Government had starved 
 out the industries of the country. Well, Sir, in 
 what condition were our manufacturing industries 
 in 1878 ? W^hy, Sir, in 1871 the census returns re- 
 vealed the fact that we pro<luced in Canada §211,- 
 ()0(),000 worth of goods and employed 189,000 oper- 
 \tives ; in 1881, according to the census returns, 
 we produced $;iO9,O0O,O(X> worth of goods and 
 employed 246,000 operatives ; and it was scarcely 
 tim'i yet for the National Policy to produce any 
 material effect towards that great increase in the 
 manufacturing industries of this country. So that 
 
we had a stable, prosperous, aiul firmly-established 
 matiufivcturing industry of ' ' ' Dominion imder the 
 policy which ])receded the policy adopted by the 
 non. gentlemennowontheTreasurybenci.es. Then 
 let us compare the burden of taxation. Ti. Customs 
 duties from lb/4 to 1878 were : 
 
 In 1874 $14,.325,ono 
 
 1875 15,3.11/ 
 
 1876 VZfiZim 
 
 isr: Vi ;6,uoo 
 
 1878 12,782,000 
 
 That was the measure of the burden of Customs 
 ui> .tion imposed ))y the Mackenzie Government 
 upon the people of *his country. Now, how did 
 my hon. friend and his colleagues jnanage this 
 master? Did they reduc the burden of taxation? 
 Did they keep it where it wa.s ? Let us see. In 
 18!^) they were fairly in the siiddle ; and in that 
 and the following y^'r-n the Customs duties show 
 these increases : 
 
 In 1880 $14,000,000 
 
 1881 18,400,000 
 
 1881 22,5R2,000 
 
 1883 23mK'^ 
 
 1890 23,968,000 
 
 They have nearly doubled the taxation imposed 
 upon the people of this coui " in the shape of 
 d'ltie" upon imports during the:, i.c-riod of ofHce 
 commencing with I87'J and ending with 1890, ch 
 last year for which we '-t,v • -eturns. Yet, in t' t 
 f ^ce of this record, the hon. gentleman tells this 
 House and the country that the policy of the Mac- 
 kenzie Govemmcnit havi "f reased the taxation of 
 the country. Wliy, Sir, tin assertion of this kind 
 is entirely destitute of a ^iingle iota of truth. Still 
 more, an assertion so ut -' • ^iLse, so utterly mis- 
 leading, is (^uite in charactei nith the pos-: . Ion taken 
 with regard to the tinanciav policy of the Govern- 
 mei>t in aim t every respect by the speakers of the 
 opposite side. 
 
 Then, we are told th. • tlie change of policy 
 o .'iC part of i,he Government led to the swell- 
 ing revenues which we have had Well, it 
 did, l)ecause it inceased the taxation r* the peo- 
 ple. We are told that the Govennneut of Mr. 
 Mackenzie had deficits. So they had, because with 
 wise foresight the Minister o^ Finance ot that day 
 re.-ilized that the prevailing depression \\.is a tem- 
 por-^-y one, and th--.t when prosperity returned 
 and the volume of trade increased., the revenue of 
 the country would increase, and that then he 
 existing rate of toxation v aid be high enough; 
 and so he forebore increasing tlie tarill, altliough 
 perhaps he would have been wiser to have done so. 
 
 Mr. FOSTER. He did increase the tariff. 
 
 M . CHARLTON. He did increase the tariff in 
 187o, but from 1876 it remained at 17.^ "'^r cent., 
 and the Government waited for that turn in the tide 
 tnat would bring a return of nrosperity in the com- 
 mercial world ai.d incre; „he revenue of the 
 country. The cliange in tne tariff in 1879 by the 
 present Government was made too soon to ascer- 
 tain definitely whether this would have be n neces- 
 sary . not in our case, but we have the experience 
 of the United States, and the movement " '~''stoms 
 duties in that country will illustrate pre .j fairly 
 what would have been the movement here if no 
 change had ))cen made, because no change was made 
 in the tariff of the United States. Now, the revenue 
 of the Unitetl States from Customs duties in 1878 
 WR > $130,000,000, and in 1879 it was §137,000,000. 
 
 Then the tide turned, prosperity began to come 
 hack, and ".i 1880 the Customs duties amounted to 
 .<!186,(K)0,000. In 1881 they amounted to §196,000,- 
 W); in 1882 they amounted to ?522(),0()0,000, or 
 !?9(),000,m)0 more than in 1879. Well, Sir, the 
 siime rate . " increase in Cana<la, with our old tariff, 
 A., mid have yiven us a purplus of §4,000,(K>) or 
 §r),000,0(K), instead of the deficit we had in 1878. 
 The 'ecast of my hon. friend was, therefore, 
 "bsolutely correct ; and had the Mackenzie (iovern- 
 meiitremaini I iupowerwe would have had,froniour 
 tariff of 17i ,»er cent., not only sutficient revenue, 
 but an overflowing treasury. There can be no 
 (juestion of viie truth of that assertion. 
 
 W'-. FOSTER. 1 hat would have frightened you. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON". W-j would have reduced the 
 taxation instead of in" ating a reign of corrup- 
 
 tion in order to spe" noney. The late Henry 
 
 Ward l^echcr sai ' every Iwy, when he got a 
 
 new knifr. waf to whitt's ; and when my 
 
 hon. friends /Site got more money they were 
 
 ' ound to whiiae ; and they did whittle down 
 I.. . urphis I't a remarkable extent. 
 
 Mr. r -i^'U'USON (Leeds). When you got a new 
 knife you whittled away the stick altogether. 
 
 Mr. CHARLTON. The Finance Minister has 
 told us that our debt and taxation have enabled us 
 to make the coimtry what it is. That is as true as 
 the Gospel of St. Luke. It has made the country 
 what it is, simply that and nothing i.iore, and the 
 hon. gentleman has stated the truth. He said it has 
 placed us in the vanguard — I do not know whether 
 he means in the vanguard of colonies or nations, or 
 in the vanguard of those governments that delude 
 and pliiuder the people. I rather think the truth 
 dd be in the latter. It has placed us, he said, in 
 the vanguard, and in a better position to get settlers. 
 That is a most astounding assertion. The idea 
 that the increase of the debt, the doubling of the 
 debt, the doubling of the interest charges yearly, 
 the increase < expenditure and taxation — the idea 
 that these pu. us in a better position for securing 
 settlement is a." bsurd and stupid assertion, quite in 
 keeping with ^ny other assertions of the hon. 
 gentleman. It ill not for a moment l>ear investi- 
 gation. It cannc , be shown to be even a plausible 
 assertion. 
 
 Then, he told us that the Opposition raise their 
 voices to deprecate the country. Well, suppose my 
 hon. friend were ill and called in a physician, and 
 thi>t the physician made a diagnosis and gave a pre- 
 scription, would he accuse him of being the author 
 of his disease ? That would be just as reasonable as 
 the charge he brings against us. We raise our 
 voices against the country ? No, Sir. We raise our 
 voices against the men that are ruining the 
 country. We raise our voices against the policy 
 that is destroying the country. We do not raise 
 our voices against tlie country, but in defence 
 of the country. We raise our voices against the 
 cormorants that prey upon the country. That is 
 what we do. And we hear that howl all over the 
 country : Oh, you are doing all this mischief ; you 
 are driving the people from the country ; you are 
 destroying the country ; you are defaming the 
 character of the country. Nothing of the kind. 
 We are atta kiiig the policy of the party who 
 have kept this country in the background and 
 retarded iLs progress. W^e are attacking that 
 policy which must be removed before this country 
 
« 
 
 fulfils the destiny Providence has designed it shall 
 fulfil. 
 
 Then he told us that Canada has passed its 
 hardest period ; that it has built railways and 
 canals, and can now go ahead. Well, Sir, we 
 have heard assertions from that side before. We 
 have heard something aljout the tall chinmeys that 
 were to rise in every little village in 1879, but we 
 liave not ?«ien them yet. We were told that 640,- 
 (tOO,(K)0 bushels of wheat would come from our west 
 iilone this time, but it has not come yet. We were 
 told that we would have a revenue of $70,(K)(),000 
 from the landu of the North- West up to 1891 , but we 
 have not had a cent of it yet. And now we are told 
 that we have passed the turning point, that the 
 hardest struggle is over, and that we are about to 
 enter upon an era of prosperity. No, Sir, we are 
 now about to reap the fruits of our folly unless we 
 change our policy. We have now reached the point 
 when a heavy burden is upon us, when the interest 
 on our debt must be annually met, when we have 
 incurred enormous expenditure, which we find it 
 almost impossible to reduce. We have readied 
 that point when the fruits of all the sins and follies 
 we have been committing are coming home to us. 
 We are now in that position that the Government 
 tell us that they cannot enter into a trade arrange- 
 ment which would secure the prosperity of the 
 country, because forsooth it would reduce our rev- 
 enue somewhat. We are in that position that 
 we can not forego one dollar of the revenue we 
 now derive from this tariff which exacts from 
 the people sums much greater than they are 
 able to pay. No, Sir, we have not passed the 
 turning point. The hardest is not over ; wo are 
 not about to go ahead, but we have to pay the 
 price of our folly. W^e are now about to be called 
 on to pay from year to year for this great burden 
 tiiat rests upon us, and every year we must strain 
 every nerve to meet the burden which the folly of 
 my hon. friend and those associated with him in 
 office have placed upon the people. 
 
 io much for the remarks of the Finance Minister, 
 to which I intended to refer l)riefly only ; and now I 
 propose to give my attention for a short time to a 
 cjuestion more particularly pertinent to the matter 
 under discussion, the census returns. I maj' say, 
 by the way, that my hon. friend, the Minister of 
 Finance, seems to have forgotten what the question 
 before the House is. I think he did make one inci- 
 dental allusion to it, but that was all. In approach- 
 ing the discussion of this question the first thing we 
 have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to account for the fact 
 that our increase of population has been very snuiU. 
 How shall we account for it? Shall we assert that the 
 country has not the scope, has not the undeveloped 
 resources, has not the facilities necessary to enable 
 us to add to our population ? Will we say that our 
 resources are fully developed, that the limit of our 
 ability to maintain population has been reached, 
 and that now we have no choice but to serve as a 
 hive, as the fully populated countries of the old 
 world do, from which to send out our surplus jjopu- 
 lation to the United States year after year. Will 
 that assertion l)e made ? I do not think it will, 
 for when we come to look at our country what do 
 we find ? If we start at the Atlantic coast we find 
 first the Province of Nova Scotia, with its fisheries, 
 and its lumber, and its agricultural resources, not 
 fully developed, with its great stores of coal unde- 
 veloped, and with its coal mine owners, under the in- 
 
 fluence of the cowardice begotten of protection that 
 leads them to fear o{)en competition in the markets 
 of the world and prevents there seeking the natural 
 mark jts where they might sell millions of tons annu- 
 ally We find in that province vast deposits of iron 
 orr where iron can be made cheaper than at any other 
 point, if we except Ririiiingham, Alaliama ; we find 
 that p' oviice with room for millions of people, 
 with re oni for indefinite expansion and develo])iuent, 
 and W'; cannot sjvy there is no lack of room in Nova 
 Scotia. We come to New Brunswick, and find there 
 undeveloped resources and room for a great number 
 of people in addition to those now inhabiting it. We 
 come to Quebec, and we find a province controlling 
 the Imperial highway to the great inland seas of 
 this continent and the teemicg west ; we find cities 
 placed where their birthright was that they should 
 oe great commercial entrepots and centres of the 
 trade of this continent ; we find great areas unde- 
 veloped around Lake St. John and in the St. Mau- 
 rice district, and we cannot conclude that in that 
 province the limits of population is reached. We 
 go to Ontario, the most beautiful and fruitful of 
 all the provinces, resting its southern Iwrder 
 upon four great inland seas, with a stretch of 
 country along Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron and 
 Georgian Bay, the finest, the most salubrious, the 
 most productive section on this continent, not one- 
 half of which is under cultivation, and with great 
 stretches of uncultivated land in the Rainy River 
 Valley and Algoma, with its stores of nickel, of 
 copper, of iron, of silver, of gold, of structural ma- 
 terial, a province infinitely rich in resources, one 
 of the grandest commonwealths of this continent, 
 and we cannot say there that the limitation of 
 population has been reached, for there is room for 
 a score of millions more. \\'e go to the North- 
 West, with its enormous tract of arable land, from a 
 small fraction of which a score of million bushels of 
 wheat will be sent to market this year, a country 
 suited for mixed farming, and with great stores of 
 petroleum, iron and coal, and certainly it is not there 
 the limit of population has been reached. We go to 
 British Columbia, with its grand mountains and its 
 scenic wonders, with its agricultural lands in the 
 valleys, witli its mineral wealth, its timber, and its 
 fisheries, and it is not there that the limit of popu- 
 lation has been reached. In these various provinces 
 there is room for at least four score million of peo- 
 ple, and we have less than a quarter of a score of 
 millions. We have the room for the people who are 
 here ; we have room for the increase of that people ; 
 we have room for the immigrants who will come from 
 the old world ; we have room forall these and formany 
 millions more. Will we assert that our population 
 is eflete — that, like the population of the Sandwich 
 Islands, the deci-ee of fate is on them, and that 
 they are doomed to gradual extinction ? Not so. 
 We have one of the most active, one of the most 
 energetic, and, physically, one of the best races in 
 the world here in British America. We are bound 
 to conclude that this population should show the 
 highest rate of natural increase, and that every im- 
 migrant who comes to our shores should find a 
 home congenial to him. Then what is the matter ? 
 Have we increased as we should ? The only grati- 
 fication we can get out of these returns is some- 
 thing like that which the old Methodist minister 
 got. He was i)reaching in the backwoods, and 
 he sent his hat round for contributions, and 
 the hat came back without a copper in it. He 
 
6 
 
 turne<l it up and looked into it, and thea 
 he said: "I thank thee, O Lord, that I have 
 been permitted to receive my hat brck from this 
 congregation." We may feel this degree of thank- 
 fulness, that we have as many people here as we 
 had ten years ago and very few more. 
 
 Now let us look the field over, and first we 
 have the Maritime Province group. They have 
 increased by 10,209, or 1 • 17 per cent. , alx»ut one half 
 the increase in the towns. Quebec and Ontario 
 have increased by 315,026, or 9"60 percent., about 
 the increase in the cities and the towns and the 
 district of Algoma. Then, we have tlie vast North- 
 West, which has increased in ten years by 173,000 
 souls, including British Columbia, while just south 
 of it is Dakota, with an increase of 376, .350, or about 
 double the amount, and Minnesota with an increase 
 of 521 ,053, or three times the increase of our North- 
 West, or in those two sections an increase of 
 897,403, or five times the increase of the entire 
 North- West and British Columbia. 
 
 Now I propose to make a further analysis 
 of our census returns, and as I embarked in 
 this investigation it led me to residts which 
 surprised me. I revised them, I went over 
 them, and yet the results were the same, and 
 our increase is of a character more unsatis- 
 fa-ctory than I supposed it to be. Between 1871 
 and 1881 the increase in our population was 
 638,314, or 17'31 per cent. During the same period 
 the increase in the population of the United States 
 wsw 11,597,402, or 30*08 per cent. In that period 
 the nuinl)er of inimigrants to Canada amounted 
 to 362,675, or an increase of 9 53 per cent, out of 
 the total mcrease of 17 31 per cent. The immi- 
 gration to the United States in the same period 
 was 2,812,191, or a percentage of 7"29 out of 
 the total increase of 30 "08 per cent., that is, 
 provided that in each case the immiginuts were 
 retained in the two countries. The natural in- 
 crease in the United States was 8,785,221, or 2279 
 per cent. , or the natural increase in the United 
 States was 15 per cent, greater than the natural 
 increase in Canada in the decade between 1871 au( 
 1881. The excess of the addition to the popula- 
 tion of Canada over that of the United States from 
 immigration amounted to 2 24 per cent., while the 
 total excess of the increase in the population of the 
 Uaited States over that of Canada was 12"77 per 
 cent. 
 
 Taking the present census of 1890 in the 
 United States and 1891 in Canada, we find, as the 
 first bulletin states, though that will be slightly 
 varied by the subsequent statement of Ihe Post- 
 master General, that our population has increased 
 by 498,534, or a percentage of 11-52. The popula- 
 tion of the United States has increased by 12,466,- 
 467, or 24 85 per cent. The imnugration to 
 Canada from 1881 to 1891 is represented to 
 have been 886,173, or a percentage of 20 49 
 on the population of 1881, or 8 97 per cent, 
 more than our total increase. We have an increase 
 of 498,534 in the population, and we hai an immi- 
 gration of 886,173, showing a loss of 387,639, be- 
 sides our natural increase. The inmiigration re- 
 ceived by Canada in the last decade was much 
 larger hi proportion to its population than that 
 received by the United States. The immigration to 
 the United States from 1880 to 1890 wag 5,246,695, 
 or 10"46 per cent, of the amount of increase. The 
 immigratiou to Canada was 886,173, or 20-49 per 
 
 cent, of the population in 1881. If the immigration 
 to the United States had been equal in proportion 
 to population to the immigration to Canada, it 
 would have amounted to 10,985,779 instead of 
 5,246,695, or the United States required an addi- 
 tional amount of immigration to place them in the 
 same position as Canada of 5,739,084. Take another 
 view of the case, and you find that to place Canada 
 in the same position as the United States we should 
 reduce the amount of our immigration frori 886,173 
 to 416,464, or we recei^'ed 469,709 immi^.ants too 
 many in order to place ourselves in the same pro- 
 portion as the United States. Our excess of immi- 
 giation over that of the United States amounted to 
 1003 on the population of 1881. Had our natural 
 increase equalled that of the United States in the 
 last decade ;t would have amounted to 14-39 per 
 cent., and if we had retained our immigration that 
 would have amounted to 20 '49 per cent., so that 
 our total increase in the ten years, instead of being 
 11-52 per cent., would have been 34-88 per cent. 
 
 Now, I p-opose briefly to compare the results of 
 the census of Canada for 1881 with the census for 
 1891. In 1881, as I have stated, our increase was 
 638,214. Now, deduct from this the immigrants 
 received during that decade, 363,000, it leaves a 
 natural increase of 275,000, or 7 -78 per cent That 
 is the natural increase in Canada in the decade 
 between 1871 and 1881 if we had retained the 
 immigrants received during that period. Now, 
 let us apply that rule to the last decade and see 
 what the result will be. We will estimate that in 
 the last decade we had t)ie same natural increase 
 that we had in the preceding one, and that we 
 retained the immigrants received during that 
 decade ; that would have given us a natural 
 increase of 336,476 during the last ten years ; add 
 to that the immigration, assuming that we retained 
 it, of 886,000, and that gives the total increase for 
 the last ten years of 1,222,643 souls. Now, we did 
 increase in population according to the memo, that 
 has been laid upon the Table of thiu House and upon 
 which my calculations are based 498,534, so that 
 we fall short of the populatio-" we should have, if 
 our natural increase had been che same as it was 
 during the previous decade assuming that we 
 retained our immigration — we fall short by 724, 109 
 souls of the increase we should have secured in the 
 last decade. Now, this is a bad showing. England 
 and Wales, hives of industry, teeming with 
 population, sending oiF swarms annually to 
 Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Can- 
 ada and the United States — England and Wales 
 show a larger increase than we have done. 
 Their average uicrease since 1801 was 14-07 
 per cent. ; the lowest increase lietween i851 and 
 1861, was 11-93; the next lowest, between 1871 and 
 1881, was 12-11, therefore making u far better 
 showing than we have done. 
 
 Now, my hon. friend from South Oxford this 
 afternoon estimated that the natural increase of 
 Canada was 2J per cent, per annum. Good authori- 
 ties estimate the natural increase of Quebec at 4 
 per cent, per amium. I thuik I will be able to 
 convince the House that it is reasonable to assume 
 that a population such as that of Canada, a vigorous 
 
 Kopulation, with ample room for expansion, in- 
 abiting a healthful country, should have a natural 
 increase of 30 per cent, each ten years. I assume 
 that is the case, and I will give reasons for making 
 that assumption. I will take the United States as 
 
a parallel case. The United States from 1790 to 
 1840 maintained a natural increase every ten years 
 of from 29 "33 per cent, to 35 per cent. In 1790 
 that comitry had a population of 3,929,000, just 
 about a quarter of a million more thpn we had in 
 1871. Now, the United States received during the 
 first 30 years of its existence a very small amount 
 of for<;ign immigration. That country received 
 only 250,000 from 1790 to 1820. That country, 
 with a population of 3,929,000 in 1790, had a popu- 
 lation of 7,219,000 in 1810. Upon the same basis, 
 starting as we do in 1871, upon a quarter of a mil- 
 lion less population than that country had in 1790, 
 we ought to have very nearly seven millions of 
 inhabitants 20 years afterwards without the aid of 
 immigration ; so it is evident from this parallel 
 case that our increase has been ridiculously small. 
 The rates of increase in the United States from 
 1790 to 1890 were as follows :— 
 
 1790 to 1800, 35-10 per cent. 1840 to 1850, 35"83 per cent. 
 1800 to 1810, 36-38 " ". 1850 to 1860, aS'lO " " 
 
 1810 to 18%, 33-06 
 1820 to 1830, 32-50 
 1830 to 1840. 33-52 
 
 1860 to 1870, 22-65 
 - •• 1870 to 1880, 30-08 
 ' " 1880 to 1890, 24-85 
 
 Average 31-90. 
 
 Now, while there is no record of immigration to 
 the United States from 1790 to 1820, it is certain 
 that the natural increase of each of those decades 
 was not less than 32 per cent. , and in seme cases 
 35 per cent. The first year in which we are able 
 t(} make any comparison is that of 1830, when the 
 immigration for the previoi 3 ten years had l)een 
 128,000. The total increase of population for the 
 decade was 32-50, and the natural increase was 
 31 -03, and that is the lowest figure of the natural 
 increase in the United States up to that period. In 
 1840 the natural increase had only fallen to 2S S3 , 
 in 1850 it was within a fraction of 28 - 12. Now, this 
 comparison convinces me that the population of 
 Canada, a population as vigorous as that of i he 
 United States at any time between 1790 and 1830, 
 with conditions of expansion just as favourable as 
 those enjoyed by the people af the United States, has 
 lost a large portion of its natural increase. I assume 
 if the population of the United States maintained a 
 natural increase of from 30 to 35 per cent, for the three 
 decades ending in 1820, and of from 31 per cent, in 
 1830 to almost 30 per cent, in 1840 and 1850, it is 
 fair to assume that the native population of Canada 
 would have a natural increase every ten years of 
 30 per cent. I assert that to be the case ; there is 
 not the slightest doubt that it is the case. I do not 
 believe the papulation of this country is less vigor- 
 ous, less strong physically, less likely to increase 
 rapidly, than that of the United -States at any 
 period in the history of that country. 
 
 Now, let us see what we have been doing in this 
 race of national progress. Upon that basis, instead 
 of the natural increase being 30 per cent., we 
 find this last decade is has been only 11 -.52, 
 including immigrants. We received immigrants 
 enough to make the increase 20-49 per cent, more, 
 so that we should have had an increase of 50 per 
 cent, in place of 1 1 -52 this last ten years, if all the 
 population of the country had stayed here, and we 
 nad retained our immigrants. Now, let us see what 
 would have been the result in ten years, if my assump- 
 tion with regard to this matter is true. \\ e started 
 with 4,324,000 in 1881 ; 30 per cent, inciease in ten 
 years would give 1,297,000. We had 886,000 immi- 
 grants coming into this country, and if they had 
 
 remained here we should have had an increase of 
 population, during that decade, of 2,183,616. 
 Allowing nothing for the difference lietween 
 the birth rate and the death rate of immgrants 
 received during^ the ten years, what would 
 be the result ? Why, Sir, we should have a 
 population in 1891 of 6,508,426. Assuming the 
 natural increase was 30 per cent., which I 
 believe it was, assuming that the immigrant.* 
 coming to Canada stayed here, we would have an 
 increase of population of 50tVi7 per cent., or an 
 increase of 2,183,616, instead of 498,(K)0, or a total 
 population of 6,508,426. The population is 1 ,685,082 
 less than it should be according to these figures. 
 
 I propose to pursue this investigation a little 
 further. I start with the assumption that the 
 natural increase of the population is 30 per cent., 
 that our people are just as virile and vigor- 
 ous as the population of the United States were at 
 anytime in their history from 1790 to 1850, and I 
 assume our increase was 30 per cent., because their 
 increase was that percentage, and in some cases 
 5 per cent. more. Let us work that out for 1871, 
 the first census we had after Confederation. 
 We start with a po^julation of 3,686,590, a 
 quarter of a million less than the United 
 States in 1790, and their population was over 
 7,229,000 in 1810. Add 30 per cent, to our 
 population in 1871, and it would give us an 
 increase of 1,105,978. We received during the 
 ten years, from 1871 to 1881, 362,675 immi- 
 grants from the old world. So the population 
 in 1881, with a 30 per cent, increase in the native 
 population and with the retention in the country of 
 the immigrants, without any allowance for the 
 difference between the birth and death rate of toe 
 immigrant population, in 1881 should have been 
 5, 155,249, instead of 4,324,000. Now we will start 
 out in 1881 and compute the natural increase of 30 
 per cent, for the decade, which would give 1 ,546,574. 
 The immigration amounted to 886,173. So the 
 population by the returns which the Minister of 
 Finance says are not entirely satisfactory should 
 have been 7,587,996 in 1891, if there had been no 
 emigration of native population or of immigrants. 
 I reiterate what I stated, that this calculation makes 
 no allowance for the increase of population from 
 the difference between the birth rate and death rate 
 of the immigrants arriving during that decade. 
 
 This is a bad showing. But there is something 
 more. I am endeavouring to point out the 
 effect of the exodus on the population for 
 years past. At the commencement of this periotl, 
 1871, the point where I commence the calculation, 
 we had Canadians living in the United Stat«s to the 
 number of 490,041 , they having been bom in Canada. 
 Theeensusretumsfor 1871 give no return of children 
 born in the United States of Canadian parents, the 
 father or mother being a Canadian. The census 
 of 1881 does, however, show this, and by that cen- 
 sus it appears that there were 712,(XX) Canadians 
 in the United States, that there had been 939,000 
 children born in the United States whose fathers 
 were British Canadians and 931,000 whose mothers 
 were British Canadians. On the data thus fur- 
 nished, I estimate the number of children bom of 
 these 490,000 Canadians in the United States prior 
 to 1871 at 627,000, besides the 490,000 people 
 bom in Canada. These figures give in the United 
 States, in F'^O, 1,117,040 of )opulation properly 
 belongiiug to Canada, if there ^ i been no exodos. 
 
3^5^.: 
 
 8 
 
 Add that number to the rest, and the result of the 
 computation of the increeose of population in 20 
 years, on the basis of a 30 per cent, natural increase, 
 would give a total population now of 8,705,037. I 
 make no allowance for the increase in the popula- 
 tion on 1,1 17,041 Canadians and their children who 
 were in the United Stiites in 1871, during the two 
 following decades, which at the rate of 30 per cent, 
 in each ten years would be 770, 7 '>4. If you add 
 the natural increase of IH) per cent, each decade, 
 amou'-iting to 770,7r)4, these figures would give as a 
 population we should actually have in Canada 
 9,475,791 in 189!, if there had l>een no exodus from 
 this country, and if we had maintained a natural 
 increase of 30 per cent, each decade, which is less 
 than the United States maintained for 50 years of 
 its natural existence. 
 
 It is evident that something is wrong, and it is 
 to be lamented that the interests and the future 
 of a maguiticent country like this, stretching from 
 ocean to ocean, with all its resources in timber, soil, 
 minerals and fisheries, a country capable of sup- 
 porting 80,000,(KK) of people, a country starting on 
 tiie race of progress with prospects so fair, should 
 have had its interests so mismanaged by incom- 
 petency that in place of having what it might 
 have had if it maintained the ratio of increase 
 which the United Stiites has maintained, and kept 
 its people and immigrants at home, a popu- 
 lation of 9,475,791, has less than 5,000,000. 
 Truly my hon. friend was correct when he said 
 that taxation and increase of debt are just the factors 
 to produce the results we have in this country. 
 
 To recapitulate for a moment. This calculation 
 may seem extravagant. I was led to this result step 
 by step. First , I ttK)k the Unitetl Statescensus returns 
 and found that the natural increase there was over 
 30 per cent, every 10 years, and had been so for the 
 first 50 years of their national existence. I enquired. 
 Is there any reastm why Canada should not present 
 as gowl a showing ? I could not findany reason, for I 
 l)eheve the Canadian i)eople are as vigorous and as 
 likely to increase in population as are the American 
 people, and if any one can show a reason to the 
 contrary I will revise my figures. But as I believe 
 we are as vigor' .is a race as the Americans, I hold 
 that we should show at tiiis stage of our national 
 existence what they showed for fifty years after their 
 national existence l)egan, over IV.) per cent, increase 
 every ten years, and 1 assume tliat our natural in- 
 crease is as great. Assuming that point to be 
 established,' I go on tlien ami show beyond perad- 
 veuture that if our iiiniiigrants had stayed with 
 us wc should have had a population of 7,500,000, 
 entirely independent of the numl^r of people who 
 liave left Canada prior to 1871 ; and the wliole cal- 
 culation was thus worked out, and the result cannot 
 be questioned. If the l)a8is its right, tiie result -s 
 right. If we have a natural increase of 30 per 
 cent., as the Americans have had, if we had 
 retained our immigrants, as we ought to have done, 
 and had had no exoilus of the native jKjpulation, we 
 would have had the jwpulation I have in(licat«d, 
 which the census returns show we have not got. 
 
 So much for the general (juestion. I desire to 
 refer for a moment to tlie section of country in 
 which I am imme<liately interested. I find on 
 examination of the mrtial returns bro ^lit (h>wn 
 that the group of ridings along Ijike Erie, 
 commencing at the Niagara frontier and run- 
 aiug as far west as Elgin, embracing Norfolk, 
 
 Haldimand, Monck, Welland, Lincoln and Niagara, 
 this group of ridings had in 1881 a population of 
 127,004. It has by the last returns a population of 
 115,810, a loss of 7,194, or 6 per cent, in 10 years. 
 When I call attention to that portion of the country 
 I think it will strike hon. members as stra"g'» ^'hp-t 
 this should be the result. These ridings lie a. 
 I^ke Erie. They are traversed by two through lii.es 
 of railway passing from east to west, giving cou- 
 nt -tion with Detroit on the west and Buffalo and 
 New York on the east. They are excellent agri- 
 cultural counties; they are excellent fruit counties; 
 Lincoln aud Niagara are the finest peach regions 
 in Canada, and if any section should show an 
 increase of population these ridings should show 
 it, as they possess the finest soil and superior 
 facilities for reaching markets. My own riding of 
 North Norfolk has declined from 20,933 in 1881 to 
 19, 400 in 1891, or a loss of 1,533, equal to 7.32 per cent. 
 South Norfolk has decreased from 19,019 to 17,780, 
 being a loss of 1,237, or 6^ per cent. Now, Sir, 
 there is not a more beautiful country on this conti- 
 nent than these two ridings. 'I'hey are abundantyl 
 watered with pure spring streams and copious liv- 
 ing springs ; a magnificent fruit country, a country 
 raising the finest wheat, a country admirably 
 adapted to the production of fruit, and clover, and 
 root crops, and barley, and oats, and all crops that 
 grow in the temperate zone ; the finest corn coun- 
 try in the Dominion, a country that is capable of 
 being made a garden, a country not one-half of 
 which is under cultivation at the present moment ; 
 and yet that country, situated as it is, with two 
 great lines of railways traversing it from east to 
 west, presents a loss of population of 6i per cent, 
 in one riding and 7i per cent, in the other. That 
 is surely a commentary on this National Policy 
 that does not require further dwelling upon. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, there was a time when 
 the Province of Ontario increased in population 
 at a satisfactory rate. That period was from 
 1851 to 1861, when we had for seven years of 
 that period the Ijenefit of reciprocity with the 
 United States. Ontario increased during that 
 decade from 952, iXX) to 1,396,000, an mcrease 
 of 46 '60 per cent. That was a ssitisfactory in- 
 crease, and we never have had a satisfactory 
 increase since. Quebec, during that same de- 
 cade, increased from 890,000 to 1,111,000, an in- 
 crease of 221,(XX), or 24-96 per cent. I repeat, Sir, 
 that this was during the operation of a reciprocity 
 treaty, because for seven years of that period, from 
 1854 to 1861, we luul reciprocity. During the next 
 decade the increase is not so satisfactory, but dur- 
 ing that period we had the retarding influences of 
 the American war, and for five years of that period 
 we liad no reciprocity. It was natural to suppose 
 that the decade from 1861 to 1871 would not Ikj as 
 favourable or as satisfactory as the other. So, Sir, I 
 affirm, from the data furnished here, from the fact 
 that Ontario increased by 46 per cent, of jjopula- 
 tion in the ten years, during a portion of which we 
 hatl reciprocity, from tlie fact tliat it has not in- 
 creased satisfactorily since reciprocity was lost to 
 this country, 1 infer that reciprocity with the 
 United States and access to our natural markets 
 ha«l very much indeed to tlo with the expansion of 
 the iKJpulatiim in that province during the period 
 I mention. I assert that the showing of the pre- 
 sent census returns is unsixtisfactory, and I assert 
 that it proves conclusively, when we come to ex- 
 
amine it, that there is something wrong in the 
 policy which is now prevailing in this country and 
 which has prevailed for the last thirteen years. A 
 country situated as Canada is, a country possessing 
 the resources that Canada does, a country 
 inhabited by the kind of popuhition that 
 inhabits Canada, is a country that shoulil 
 increase faster than at this snail's pace we 
 have been going. Something is required to give an 
 impetus to the progress of this country, something 
 is required to secure for this country that measure 
 of prosperity which it certainly has not enjoyed for 
 the last twenty or thirty years. 
 
 While this last decade has been passing away 
 we have been making progress in some respects. 
 We have made satisfactory progress in the mat- 
 ter of accumulating our public debt. We starte<l 
 out witli a debt of $155,000,000, and we landed 
 at the end with a debt of $2.37,000,(K((). We 
 have increased our debt $82,000,000, or 52 per 
 cent., even if we have only increased our popu- 
 lation by 11 per cent. We started out at the 
 commencement of the decade with Customs 
 and Excise taxes amounting to .S2.S,942,000, 
 and we ended with Customs and Excise taxation 
 amounting to $31,587,000, or an increase of $7,644,- 
 000 in taxation. If we take the previous year of 
 1880, we find that wt have increased our taxation 
 by $13,107,000, or 70 per cent, since then, and we 
 have increased our exp«inditure fnun $25,502,(XK) to 
 $,35,994,000, an increase of $10,491,0(10, or 41 |)er 
 cent, increase. Here, Sir, are the results of this 
 miserable fiasco called the National Policy. Here 
 are the results of this political falsehood, of this 
 fascal confidence game, that enables the few to plun- 
 der the many, that makes the fishermen, the farmers, 
 the lumbermen and tlie miners the prey of a very 
 small portion of the ijopulation. That is tlie outcome 
 of what the Government designates by the high- 
 sounding title of the National Policy ; and yet 
 we are told by the Minister of Finance that under 
 its operation for twelve years, with the evidence 
 we have now before our eyes, that that policy 
 has Ixjen a satisfactory one. What do we want in 
 this country, Mr. Speaker? We want access to 
 our natural market ; we want to have done with 
 this condition of things which has brought this 
 country to the verge of ruin ; we want to put a 
 party in power that will manage the finances of 
 this country with that prudence with which they 
 were managed from 1873 to 1S78, we want to put 
 a pjtrty in power that will secure for this country 
 such commercial treivties and such commercial ar- 
 rangements as will give us access to the popula- 
 tion of ti3,000,(KM) at our doors, which is a matter 
 of vital importance to us. >Ve want, Sir, to inau- 
 gurate a policy that will put an end to that system 
 of things that leaves us witli a population of less 
 tlian 5,»HI0,0<K), when we should have a population of 
 S..")(K),0<K). This year we are likely to exp(»rt to 
 the Unif«d States, of the produts of Canada, a 
 quantity very much less than in 18R6, at the end 
 of the reciprocity treaty. After the expiration of 
 twenty-five years we will have a pmaller trade 
 with that great country than we hat! in 18t;6, 
 0—2 
 
 when it had only half the population it has 
 now. We want to inaugurate a policy which 
 will cease to require this country to act as a 
 hive to send off its annual swarms to the United 
 States, and which keeps our population down to 
 low- water mark, with a beggarly increase of 11 per 
 cent, in ten years, when there ouglit to be an in- 
 crease of 30 per cent., in addition to the increase 
 from immigration. We want. Sir, a policy that 
 will drive from power the men w^ho have doubled 
 the public debt of this country, who have piled 
 upon this country an extravagant, and unjustifiable, 
 and unnecessary expenditure ; the men who have 
 made the name of this country r by-word among 
 the nations of the earth, giving us a character for 
 corruption, and peculation, and fraud, and contract 
 sweating, the most unenviable reputation enjoyed 
 by any civilized country in the world. I say, 
 Sir, we want to drive from power the men who are 
 responsible for this condition of things and whose 
 garments smell very strongly, to say the least, of 
 the odours that emanate from this foul sink of 
 corruption. Sir, we want in short, and the sum of 
 it all amounts to this, we want to participate on 
 equal terms, and without impediment and without 
 exaction, in the energies and in the activity that 
 characterizes all the Anglo-Saxon people of this con- 
 tinent. We want, in place of having free trade with 
 seven Anglo-Saxon nations under the British flag, to 
 enlarge the number, so that we will have free trade 
 with forty-nine. We want the market of 03,000,000 
 of people across the border ; we want to sell them 
 the productions of our mines, and our forests, and 
 our seas, and our soil. If the Liberal policy is 
 carried into effect, if that airangement which the 
 Liberal party is able to give to this country, and 
 which the Liberal party if in power would secure 
 for this country, if that arrangement is carried into 
 effect, then, as my hon. friend, the Minister of 
 Finance says, the turning point would indeed come ; 
 then we would have prosperity, and tlien Canada 
 would shuw to the world all the things she is 
 capable of ; ihe wouhl show to the world that with 
 her grand resources, her extensive sweeps of fertile 
 soil, her forests, her mines and her fisheries, that her 
 energetic population are capable of accomplisliing 
 as much as any given numl)er of peojde on the face 
 of the earth is capable of doing. Sir, it is melan- 
 choly to see a noble y(mng country like this, with 
 all its magnificent resources chained down ; it is 
 'uelancholy to see it overburdened by debt ; it is 
 melancholy to see it in the hands of such men as we 
 see sitting opi>osite us, incompetent, if not worse, 
 who have" brought the country to the verge of ruin ; 
 and unless they are driven from their place of 
 power.unless their grip upon the country is released, 
 we shall see even worse times than we have 
 seen yet. 
 
 OTTAWA : 
 
 Printed by Brown Chambkrun, Printer to the Queeu's 
 Most Excellent Majesty. 
 
 189L