1909-02-10

RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT.

Mr.  W. B.@: NANTEL (Terrebonne) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 54) to amend the Railway Act. He said: The Supreme Court of Canada has given judgment reversing and infirming a decision of the Court of King's Bench (appeal side) of the province of Quebec. The decision of the Supreme Court is that the Superior Court of the province of Quebec has no jurisdiction to compel railway companies, under the Railway Act, to make farm crossings and other similar work for the benefit of farmers whose lands are intersected by a railway, but that such jurisdiction belongs to the Board of Railway Commissioners. I wish to amend three sections of the Railway Act, sections 252, 253, and 254, and have it declared that the Superior Court of the province of Quebec has jurisdiction in such cases.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARMSTRONG-by Mr. Blain-asked:
What is the total number of existing mail and stage routes in Canada and the total number of miles covered by such routes?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: Upon 31st March, 1908, the end of the last fiscal year, there were 8,091 mail and stage routes in operation, the travelled mileage on which amounted to 17,102,214 miles.


POST OFFICES AT GREENWOOD AND GRAND FORKS.
Mr. BURRELL asked:: Were any options secured from property owners in the towns of Greenwood and Grand Forks, for post office sites?
2.	If so, from whom, what were the dates, and what are the other particulars?
3.	Have the options been allowed to lapse?


Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (for the Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Greenwood:
Two sites have been reported upon: (a) the Pioneer Hotel property situate on lots 20, 21 and 22. Block 5;	(b) site on corner
Copper and Deadwood streets; lots 13 and
14,	Block 4 (50 by 110 feet), owned h- F. W. Hart, option price $2,000, until February
15,	1909; lot 15, Block 4 (25 by 110 feet), owned bv estate Thos. Miller, option price $750, making a total for the three lots (75 by 110 feet) of $2,750.
Grand Forks:
Site owned bv S. A. Hall, situate lots 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in Blo"k 16. hounded bv Br'dge, Main, Third and Fourth streets, ontion price $3,000, to expire November 20, 1903.
3.	Greenwood: No.
Grand Forks:	Order in Council passed
to purchase property for $3,000 November 6, 1908.


HALIFAX POST OFFICE.
Mr. CROSBY asked:: 1.	When were instructions given for the reconstruction of the post office at Halifax? and when was the work commenced?
2.	Is the work being done by contract? If so, when were tenders called for?
3.	What was the amount of each tender, and who were the tenderers, respectively?
4.	What length of time is allowed for the comDletion of the work?
5.	Does the contract contain any penalty clause for the completion of the work within a certain time? If so. what is the penalty?


Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (.'or the Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Date of contract, July 18, 1908.
2.	Yes; March 13. 1998.
3.	M. E. Keefe, Halifax	 $94,000 W. Doran and R. M. Devlin,
Ottawa	114,000
J. Maclnnes & Son, Ltd.,
Halifax	 145,000
4.	Twenty months from date of signing the contract.
5.	No.


HALIFAX CUSTOMS HOUSE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CROSBY-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked :
1.	What has been the total cost to date of the new customs house at Halifax?
2.	Was it built by contract or day's labour?
3.	If by contract, in what manner were tenders called?
4.	Who were the tenderers, what was the
amount of each tender, and whose tender was accepted ?	.
5.	Was any time specified within which the building should be finished? If so, what time?
6.	What length of time was required for the construction and completion of the said customs house?
7.	Has the contractor been paid any moneys on account? If so, how much?
8.	What amount, if any, remains to be paid the contractor ?
9.	Were there any extras? If so. what amount and to whom paid?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (for Minister of Public Works):: 1.	$330,005.75, including site, heating apparatus, wiring, fittings, &c.
2.	By contract.
3.	By public advertisement.
4.	M. E. Keefe (accepted tender). .$250,000
Sullivan & Langdon	 254,512
Rhodes, Curry & Co.,	Ltd	 254,795
S. M. Brookfield	 292,241
5.	Yes. To be completed September 15, 1904.
6.	The time named in the contract was twenty-nine months; but it was found, after construction had been commenced, that there was difficulty in procuring stone of suitable sizes, which perforce considerably delayed the work.
7.	$248,595.68.
8.	The sum of $3,072 retained for minor works not made equal to that called for by by contract.
9.	$1,667.68, paid to M. E. Keefe.


WELLAND CANAL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LALOR-by Mr. Geo. Taylor- asked:
1.	How many men are permanently employed on the feeder of Welland canal?
2.	What is the total 6um paid in salaries to permanent employees on Welland canal feeders per annum?
3.	What is the total amount paid in repairs on Welland canal feeder during the past five years, 1903 to 1908?
4.	How many boats have passed through the Welland canal feeder during the past five years, 1903 to 1908?
5.	What is the total revenue to the government from Welland canal feeder, including water-power rentals for five years, 1903 to 1908?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Three men are permanently employed on the feeder of the Welland canal.


Mr. GRAHAM.: 2.	Total amount paid in salaries to permanent employees on the Welland canal feeder per annum, $1,760.
3.	Total amount paid in repairs on Welland canal feeder during the past five years, 1903 to 1908, $50,500. (This includes wages and material.)
4.	Seven hundred boats passed through the Welland canal feeder during the past five years, 1903 to 1908.
5.	Total revenue to the government from Welland canal feeder for the past five years, 1903 to 1908, $830. (This is the actual revenue received, and does not include rentals which are in arrears).


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC BRANCH, MONTREAL.
Mr. GERVAIS asked:: 1.	Has the government entered, or is it about to enter into any agreement with any company, person or persons, with regard to the construction of a branch line between Montreal and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, under which the subsidy which was voted by Act 7 and 8 Edward, section 1, or 49, will be paid such company or persons?
2. If so, what are the names of such companies or persons, and what are the conditions of such arrangements?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: No.


DREDGING MOSSY RIVER.
Mr. CAMPBELL asked:: 1.	How much money has been voted for the purpose of dredging Mossy river?
2.	When was such appropriation first made?
3.	How much has been expended?
4.	In what way lias such money been spent?
5.	Who have been the recipients?
6.	What has delayed the carrying out of this work?
7.	Is there a separate estimate for lowering Lake Dauphin? If so, what is the amount?
8.	Is it the intention of the government to go on with this work this coming spring?


Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (for Minister of Public Works):: 1.	$33,500.
2.	First vote was for year 1902-3.
3.	4 and 5. During the years 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908, the sum of $21,640.91 has been expended by day's labour and covers payments made to crew of departmental dredge 'Priestman' and sundry persons who furnished fuel, &c., for dredge and casual repairs to same.
6.	The necessity of constructing a new plant, the dredge, tug and dump scow which the department has now on Lake Winnipegosis being entirely unsuited for the class of work required.
7.	Yes, $10,000.
8.	A vote of $5,000 has been included in the main estimates for 1909-10, at present before parliament, to enable the work to proceed.


LAKE NIPISSING FLOODED LANDS- CLAIMS OF SETTLERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE GORDON-by Mr. George Taylor-asked:
What is being done with reference to claims of settlers around Lake .Nipissing, and the flooded lands?
George Perry Graham: Claims have been examined and reported upon and are now in course of settlement.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-ENGINEERS DISMISSED.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE GORDON-by Mr. George Taylor-asked:
1.	How many engineers, divisional or otherwise, have been dismissed from the service ot the Transcontinental Railway in Ontario and Quebec since November 30, last?
2.	What are their names and the reasons for dismissal or suspension?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Eight.
2.	Frank Moberly, E. P. Goodwin, G. F. Hanning, M. J. Leatherdale, E. Irvin, K. R. McLennan, C. H. Morse, H. R. Wade. Dismissed because their services were not required; as the work in that part of District 'D' was suspended for a time.


STURGEON FALLS AND SUDBURY-PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE GORDON-by Mr. George Taylor-asked:
Is it the intention of the government to build public buildings this year at Sturgeon Falls and Sudbury, and has land for that purpose been secured?
George Perry Graham: Lands to serve as sites for public buildings at Sturgeon Falls and Sudbury have not yet been purchased; matter under consideration.


DRILL HALL AT BELLEVILLE, ONT.
Mr. PORTER asked:: 1.	Did the government erect the drill hall
at Belleville, or a portion of it, upon land not belonging to the government at the time? If so, to what extent and how did the same occur ?	.
2.	Has title to any such land been since acquired? If so, when, how, at what price, how was the price arrived at, and to whom paid?
3.	Has the drill hall been taken over from the contractor, and what has been the total cost of building and ground complete?
4.	Do the officers' quarters at Belleville, part of the former drill hall, belong to the government, the city of Belleville or the contractor for the new drill hall ?
5.	Is there any dispute as to the ownership of these officers' quarters? If so, what and between whom ?


George Perry Graham: 1 and 2. Settlement was made with the city by which $1,600 will be paid, this being the difference between the purchase price of the hospital lot and the city's contribution to the new site.
3.	(a) Yes.
(b)	$126,078.08 less $2,500, amount contributed by the city.
4.	To the government.
5.	To be answered by Department of Militia and Defence.
6.	No.	-


Hon.   S@: In answer to section 5 of this question, so far as I know there is no dispute. I will make further inquiry, however.


PORT BRUCE HARBOUR.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARSHALL-by Mr. George Taylor -asked:
1.	What was the amount of money expended on Port Bruce harbour, including dred-ing, for the last four years, viz: for 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to spend any money in Port Bruce harbour in the present year 1909, on the dock, to extend the piers or for any other purpose?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (for Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	The expenditure including dredging : In 1905-06	$ 4,947 761906-	07	
4,999	831907-	08	
665	111908-	09	
5,846	25Total	$16,458 952.	Matter under consideration.


POINTE-AUX-TREMBLES WHARF.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. George Taylor-asked:
1.	What was the amount payable under contract by the government for the construction of the wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles, in the county of Portneuf, province of Quebec?
2.	Who was the contractor and who was the lowest tenderer ?
3.	Were tenders for the said work or construction called for publicly through the newspapers ?
4.	What amount has been claimed by the said contractor for extras and what amount has been paid under the said head to said contractor ?
5.	What was the nature of the said extras?
6.	Who were the superintendent, the engineer and the inspector of said work?
7.	What has been the revenue derived from said wharf since the construction?
8.	Who is the guardian of said wharf and what is his salary?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (for Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	$22,490.

2.	Onesime Poliquin.
3.	Yes.
4 and 5. No claim to date.
6.	Engineers, Thomas Breen and A. E. Decary; inspector, E. Plamondon.
7.	No revenue has been received.
8.	No guardian has been appointed.


GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY PUBLIQ WORKS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BHODES-by Mr. George Taylor- asked:
1.	What portions, if any, of the following appropriations voted last session for public works in Guysborough county, Nova Scotia, have been expended, namely:
Guysborough public buildings, improvements	 $1,400
Melford wharf	 2,000
Port Felix, wharf and approach	 2*500
Spanish Ship Bay, Liscomb, wharf on
west side of bay	 1,800
Fox island, extension of beach, extension
work....	  2,000
.Liscomb harbour wharf	 3.000
Dover wharf	 3^000
2.	If any money was expended, for what, and upon what item or items was it expended?
3.	Does the government intend to proceed with these works this year?
George Perry Graham: 1 and 2. Out of the appropriation of $1,400 for Guysborough public buildings, the sum of $412.17 was expended for lighting. No expenditure upon any of the other appropriations mentioned.
3.	Matter under consideration.


ROYAL NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE -BARRACK GROUNDS AT CALGARY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCarthy asked:
1.	Have any applications been received by the government for the transfer to any railway corporation or corporations, or person, of the grounds now occupied by the Royal Northwest Mounted Police in connection with their barracks at the city of Calgary ?
2.	If so, from whom have such applications been received for the transfer of the same?
3.	On what date and for what portion of said property ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIEE (Prime Minister).: The answer is: No.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-CONTRACTS.
Mr. AMES asked:: 1.	To whom have the contracts for sections 8, 12, 13, 16 in D, 16, 17, 19 in E, 19 in F, and 20, of the Transcontinental Railway been let?
2.	What is the estimated cost per mile and the total cost in respect of each of these subdivisions ?
3.	Where is the point of intersection where the North Bay branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific is expected to connect with the main line?


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: l & 2.
District	Section.	Contractor.	Esti mated Cost per Mile.	Total Cost.
			$	S cts.
8	M. P. & J. T. Davis	33,606	5,011,346 50C' . . .	12	Macdonell & O'Brien	42,6 0	4,559,284 50'C* .	13	it H	33,185	3,815,279 10' B & E'	16	M. P. & J. T. Davis	31,784	3,308,048 25'K' ....	17	it H	20,199	2,019,908 25'E & F'	19	O'Brien, Fowler &	McDougall Bros..	47,288	5,967,208 75'F' ....	20	ii ii . .	37,977	902,324 00
3. The Department has no information.
FISH HATCHERY-LAKE WINNIPEG-OSIS.	.


Mr. CAMPBELL asked:: 1.	What amount has been expended on the fish hatchery in Winnipegosis?
2.	How long has it been in operation?
3.	What quantity of spawn has been hatched and put in the lake each year respectively ?
4.	How much in bulk of spawn was secured during the past season?
5.	How many men are employed at the hatchery, and at what salary each?
6.	Who is in charge and at what salary?
7.	What qualification had he for the position, and what official position had he under the government previously?
8.	If he was dismissed, why?
9.	Was he a returning officer under the Greenway government of Manitoba previous to his appointment on the Dominion Civil Service list ?
10.	Had that anything to do with his appointment, and who recommended him to be fish inspector?
11.	By whom was he recommended to be overseer or manager to the fish hatchery?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	$17,809, including construction and equipment of hatchery, caretaker's cottage, wharf and piping, and general maintenance.
2.	Short period last fall.
3.	None; hatchery only completed last fall.
4.	16,000,000.
5.	Two. Officer in charge, $1,000 per annum. Assistant, $2 per day.
6.	A. J. McPherson, $1,000 per annum.
7.	Experience gained whilst fishery overseer on Lake Winnipegosis. Fishery overseer.
8.	He was not dismissed.
9.	Not to the knowledge of this department.
10.	No. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
11.	The Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


TARIFF ON HOGS FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Mr. BLAIN asked:: Is it the intention of the government at this session to increase the tariff on hogs coming to Canada from the United States, in accordance with the request of the Dominion Swine Breeders' Assocation?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say, my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) will have to wait for the delivery of the Budget Speech for an answer to this question.


HEALTH OF ANIMALS-EXPENDITURE.
Mr. PERLEY asked:: 
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Expenditure-
1904- 5	$ 190,253 27
1905-	6	
421,993	501906-	7	
276,667	991907-	8	
320,538	10Total	$1,209,452 86
2. Owing to the peculiar nature of the disease in question and the difficulty, under existing conditions, of dealing with it in a manner similar to that followed in the case of most of the other communicable diseases of animals, slaughter of affected animals is not ordered by this department, and no compensation is therefore paid. While the officers of the Health of Animals branch test pure bred animals for breeding purposes and milk production sold for export to the United States, owing to the fact that such officers are on the salary list of the department and such testing forms but a portion of their duties, the expenditure in connection with the same cannot be accurately arrived at.
Tuberculin is supplied free to owners making application to the department and complying with certain specified conditions. This tuberculin is prepared in the biological laboratory of the department, is of a uniform potency, its present manufacture costing less than one-third of that of the commercial product.
During the years 1904 to 1908, inclusive, tuberculin has been issued from the biological laboratory as follows:
Doses.
1904-	5	
3,1451905-	6	
1,9671906-	7	
3,4301907-	8	
5,935
14,477
doses at an approximate cost of $900.
Experiments have been conducted during the years 1907 and 1908 in the application of the open air treatment to a number of cattle known to be affected with tuberculosis, though not in an advanced stage, with a view to ascertaining to what extent it may be possible to cure the malady or at least check its progress. With this end in view a number of animals so affected have teen kept on an experiment station in the vicinity of Ottawa, at an approximate cost of:
For year ending-
March 31, 1907	$4,727 69
March 31, 1908	 3,252 31
These experiments have not yet been concluded.


INSPECTORS OF CANNING FACTORIES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARSHALL-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	How many inspectors of factories, canning fruits and vegetables, are appointed for the several provinces; what are their names and what salary does each receive?
2.	How many inspectors of meat canning establishments are appointed for Ontario, and what are their names and the salary of each?
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture):: 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-OUTSIDE SERVICE AT OTTAWA.
Mr. FOSTER asked:: What is the name, position and salary of each clerk or other employee on the outside service of the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa who received increase of salary on and after April 1, 1908; what is the amount of the increase or increases, the date on which it was granted, the date it became effective and the date or dates on which these increases were paid, and date of appointment?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: In answer to the hon. gentleman, I must say that the return would be so voluminous that I would prefer that he put his question on the Order Paper in the form of a notice of motion, and I will bring down the information.


George Eulas Foster: I wish to call the minister's attention to this fact, that when he brings down the return in answer to a Notice of Motion, it is not available to all the members of the House. If the information is given as an answer to a question, as was the case in the Department of the Minister of the Interior, it is put in the 'Hansard' and every member of the House is immediately seized of the information. So if it is not more trouble to the minister -I do not see that it would be-it would be a great convenience to the House if it were given in answer to a question.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then I will say that on Friday I will ask to have it put into the 'Hansard.' But I could not undertake to read the whole thing over.


NEW EXPERIMENTAL FARMING STATIONS.
Mr. LAPOINTE asked:: 1. Where does the Department of Agriculture intend to establish the new experimental farming stations, for which a credit of $30,000 is asked in the estimates of 1909-10, under the number 52?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 1. A portion of this vote will be used to complete the establishment of the Experimental Station at Rosthern, Saskatchewan. It has not yet been decided where the balance will be expended.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


MILITIA DEPARTMENT-ARMOURIES.
Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE asked:: 1.	How many officers of the Militia Department in Ontario supply at their own expense armouries for storing the property of the gov-vernment ?
2.	Has the government any settled policy in regard to supplying armouries at company headquarters of infantry regiments? If not, why not?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	None. There are, however, 188 commanding officers of the squadrons or companies in Ontario, who are paid an allowance for the care of arms, and who are required to provide out of that allowance the necessary accommodation for the storage of arms, equipment and clothing issued to them in their capacity as commanding officers.
2.	It is the policy of the government to eventually provide armouries at headquarters of companies or units, but in carrying out this policy it is necessary to have regard to the needs of the different localities and to the parliamentary appropriation available for new armouries.


QUARANTINE BUILDINGS AT GRETNA.
Mr. WM. H. SHARPE asked:: 1.	What was the total cost of the quarantine buildings at Gretna, in Manitoba?
2.	What was the price of the land for the said building, and from whom was the land bought ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	$3,085.50.
2.	The land on which the building is erected was not purchased, but was leased from the Midland Branch of the Great Northern Railway at a nominal rental of $1.00 per year.


NEW RAILWAY STATION AT TRURO.
Mr. STANFIELD asked:: Is it the intention of the government to erect a new railway station at Truro, Nova Scotia? If so, when does the government propose starting such work?


George Perry Graham: It is the intention to build a new station at Truro, but it may not be possible to undertake the work this
year.	.


MAIL CARRIAGE-LONDONDERRY STATION TO GREAT VILLAGE.
Mr. STANFIELD asked:: 1. Who has the contract for carrying mail from Londonderry Station to Great Village, and what remuneration does the contractor receive ?

2.	How many trips does lie make each day, and what trains is he expected to meet?
3.	What time are the mails made up for these different trips at the Great Village post office?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The contractor for carrying the mails between Londonderry station and Great Village is Mr. A. S. Kent. Under the terms of such contract he is obliged to make four trips each day, meeting the following trains:
Passing west at 6.07 p.m. and 10.10 a.m.
Passing east at 3.48 p.m. and 7.24 p.m.
His remuneration is at the rate of 35 cents per trip. It is the postmaster's duty to prepare mails for despatch from Great Village within such time as to admit of the courier making the necessary train connections.


DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AROUND' STONY LAKE.
Mr. SEXSMITH asked:: Has the government paid any property owners in or around Stony lake damages caused by the raising of water ? If so, who were they, and what was the amount?


George Perry Graham: This will be a pretty voluminous return, a great many names in it. I would ask my hon. friend to move for a return, and I will bring down the information in that way.


WHARF AT BIRDSALS LANDING, RICE LAKE.
Mr. SEXSMITH asked:: 1.	What is the cost of the wharf at Birdsals Landing on Rice Lake?
2.	Was it built by contract or day labour, when was the work commenced, who was in charge of the work, and what was the amount paid?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	$3>31.89.
2.	(a) Day's labour.
(b)	1st September, 1908.
(c)	George Payne, foreman under J. G. Sing, resident engineer, Toronto.
(d)	$3,731.89 as above.


BY-ELECTION COMOX-ATLIN, CARLETON, ONT.
Martin Burrell: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a discrepency between a statement made by him in answering a question, and the statement of the Secretary of State. 'On February 2, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question by the leader of the opposition stated:
The writ was issued yesterday for Comox-Atlin, and will be issued to-day for Carleton.
Then on February 8, the Secretary of State, in answer to a question by myself said that the writ issued for the vacancy in Comox-Atlin on the 22nd of January, 1909. I wish to be informed which statement is correct, that of the Prime Minister or that of the Secretary of State.


Wilfrid Laurier: The error may be mine. Perhaps I had in mind the writ for Carleton. I will look into it.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a return showing the names of all officers, accountants, superintendents and employees in general of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Construction Commission; the place of residence of each of them at the time of their appointment; the salaries paid to each of them; their place of employment, and the names of persons who recommended such appointments.-Mr. Gervais.
For a return showing the quantity of summer-caught white fish and the value; the winter-caught whitefish and the value; the pickerel, quantity and value; the sturgeon, quantity and value, exported to the United States for each year respectively, during the years from November, 1893, to November, 1908, from the Manitoba ports.-Mr. Bradbury.
For a return showing the number of seizures made by the Department of Customs during the years 1901, 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908; the date of seizures; by whom seized; what the seizures consisted of; amount realized by the sale of such material seized, and how the seized material was disposed of.-Mr. Barr.
For a copy of all correspondence, papers, reports, estimates, orders in council, &c., in connection with the surveys of and boring in, and called for tenders for dredging or excavation in the St. John harbour and Courtney bay or either of them during the year 1908; a copy of the advertisements, names of the papers in which they were inserted, the tenders received and dates, the names of the tenderers, and the amount of each tender; which tender, if any. was accepted, the deposit required and in which bank it is deposited.-Mr. Daniel.
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, papers, reports and valuations of officers or experts, and orders in council, in connection with the purchase, removal and repair-Jl1" of the dredge ' Industry ' and parts thereof, including scow, boilers and parts.- Mr. Foster.
For a copy of all correspondence, papers, orders in council, advertisements, tenders, contracts, &c., in connection with dredging in the harbour of St. John, N.B., covering the area dredged by Gershen B. Mayes the Dominion Dredge Company, John Moore, or other parties, during the years 1904. 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908; the quantities dug under each contract, the amounts paid to each contractor, the date of each payment, and to whom made.-Mr. Daniel.
For a return showing since the constitution of the Railway Board in how many cases they have ordered protection of highway rail-
[Stage Direction]
way crossings, (a) by separation of the highway and railway, (b) by gates, (c) by other means, and the method adopted in each case; how the proceedings were initiated in each case; what order was made as to the expense of the work or service in each; at what points separation of highway and railway was ordered, and the actual or estimated cost in each case; in how many, and what, cases applications were refused.-Mr. Lennox.
For a return showing how many officials were appointed in the year 1908 to the various departments and brought from the outside service into the inside service under the Civil Service Act, with their names and salaries; and what addition to the various staffs have been made thereby.-Mr. Samuel Sharpe.

Mr. PAQUET (L'Islet) asked:: (Translation.)
For a copy of all correspondence, reports and documents between the Department of the Interior and the immigration agents in the United States; and between the Department of the Interior and the colonization societies since the 1st of January, 1908.
He said : Mr. Speaker, I ask for a copy of correspondence between the Minister of the Interior and the colonization societies, between the Minister of the Interior and the immigration agents in the United States ; in order to study the work of repatriation.
The solution of this social problem is the most important in the interest of the Canadian people ; I recognize the value of the work done in the past. I do not desire to raise a tablet to the methods adopted, and on the ruins erect new systems. We must preserve such things that meet our requirements, social and economic, but at the same time, improve and consolidate them and bring them to perfection. Our object is to quicken the work of repatriating the Canadian descendants of the races that civilized France and the British isles. In this work, too complete and too imperfect, I desire especially to study the repatriation of the French Canadians.
In the days of the French administration, we see our ancestors already on the shores of lake Champlain, in the plains of the west and on the banks of the Mississippi.
The French missionaries and discoverers left the St. Lawrence valley and overran the American territories, implanting Christian civilization as they went. They did so to discover new lands in the interests of France, of civilization and of religion. Successive generations of Canadian birth ploughed the English colonies of our continent.
With respect to the causes that have influenced the immigration of our people Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
to. the United States, permit me to cite our historian, Mr. DeCelles. ' A law of the English parliament allowed a colonial minister and the Canadian government to dispose of the vacant lands of a province to their favourites at a nominal price. At times the Government made use of its powers over the public domains to coin mopey and increase the revenues. Mr. Rouillard, in his work, ' The Province of Quebec' said, 'Already, long before the distribution made to the loyalists, the colonial executive had commenced to grant great stretches of the public domain still remaining in an uncultivated state to monopolists without compelling them to make settlements under penalty of confiscation for failure to do so. Thus the British American Land Company received for its share 600,000 acres. From 1773 to 1811, more than three million acres of public lands were distributed among 200 favourites, of whom some had as much as 60.000 to 80,000 acres each. The Governor, Mr. Milnes, took for his part,
70,000	acres.
From that time the monopolists had but one object in view, namely, to wait for the increased value of their lands and watch for speculative developments. In this way, the Domains, debarred from cultivation and preserved in a wild state, served as a barrier, preventing the settlers from penetrating further into the interior of the country. It was no rare spectacle to see the agents of the public lands seeking, in the face of the colonizing movement everywhere, presenting itself, to oppose it under the pretense that the timber trade outweighed the interests of colonization. Hence, great was the number of the French Canadians who took the route for the United States.
The English bureaucrats, from 1760 to 1848, by informal persecution, by exile, by the scaffold, by plundering laws, by the confiscation of patriots' belonging, prevented clearings, paralyzed commerce and industry, and restricted to the narrowest proportions the developments of the French population, and thus opened the way to the disastrous emigration of the French Canadians to the United States. French Canadians were found in the armies of Washington.
After the troubles of 1837, a more extensive emigration took place towards New England. These families fled before fire, iron and proscription. As one orator said: ' Honour and gratitude to the magnanimous Mai tin Van Buren, the president of the American nation, who offered to our unhappy exiles land, employment, and the protection of a generous people.'
From 1760 to 1848, the Anglo-Saxon bureaucracy showed no intention to favour colonization in the province of Quebec for the advantage of a race that it wished to humiliate, to denationalize and perhaps to destroy.

As regards the French Canadians, it was an era of ostracism. Instead of encouraging French colonization, the Government disposed of the crown lands in favour of speculators.
From 1845 to 1849, 20,000 French Canadians quitted their native soil.
From 1848 to 1854, these figures rose to
40.000
From 1840 to 1848, the Canadian parliament voted $300,000 to promote the settlement of Lower Canada. The same' parliament supremely unjust with regard to our province, voted two millions at the same time for colonization roads in Upper Canada.
No doubt improvidence and extravagance led some families to the United States, to become the servants, if not the slaves of American capitalists. But a great number of our compatriots owe their abandonment of their country to the persecutions of the English bureaucrats, and the indifference of governments that exhausted them in unhappy struggles when they should have united their forces and created a national industry.
To cite the Rev. Father Hamon:	' The
emigration en masse only began after the civil war in 1860. Then the industries of the east witnessed a prodigious development. They devoted themselves to the construction of manufactures, and the Canadians came in great numbers looking for work. The flood of emigration overcame all obstacles, swept over all the dams, and, animated with resistless force, invaded the towns and villages of New England. In a few years, thousands and thousands of the cultivators of the soil had exchanged a rural existence for the lives of workmen in the immense manufactures of the United States. The labour of these vast works is to a large extent in their hands.'
This great Canadian emigration to the United States dates form the close of the civil war. Then arose in all directions those varied industries that soon covered the eastern states with gigantic manufacturing establishments, and the French Canadians in great numbers went there in pursuit of easier conditions in industrial pursuits.
The expatriated French Canadians have worked, without counting the days, without measuring the effusion of their sweats, for the glorification of their race and of their Gospel. The Franco-Americans, to the number of 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 are accomplishing a splendid work on the soil of the United States. They have known the proofs required from strangers; but did not at that time ask from the national societies the cohesion indispensable to assert their imperishable rights and save their ancestral traditions from shipwreck.
Without deserting the flag of their nationality they have never betrayed that of the new country. They know how to prove their loyalty to the institutions of the Republic while still remaining attached to their faith, their language and their customs. Our compatriots are with energy making the conquest of a large place in the politics, the commerce and the industry of their new country. In the annals of the great Republic, the French Canadians rave with pages alike original and illustrious. On November 8, 1908, they effected a remarkable achievement: our compatriot, the Honourable A. Pothier, was elected Governor of Rhode Island. As a journalist writes: ' It is the natural crowning of a work accomplished by persistence, and for years, for the advancement of his fellow-citizens, and for the prosperity and good name of his State.
The expatriated French Canadians display the strength, tenacity, courage and heroism of the French race. They struggle against the assimilation of their race and elaborate the future in preserving the language of their ancestors and remaining faithful to the flag of that virile and generous democracy that astonishes the world with the boldness of its conceptions and its triumphs in all the spheres of human activity.
It would be unpardonable treason, undignified abdication, real national suicide not to make every effort to bring back to Canadian soil such a generous population.
As far back as 1848 the bishops of lower Canada exhorted the clergy and the people to do all in their power with a view of favouring the settler and of improving his social condition. Bishop Turgeon said:
' Let all French Canadians contribute according to their means and without delay to the work of colonization, and every difficulty will disappear.' The bisho ' deplores the departure of so many excellent Canadian families who are casting their lot in a foreign land far from the alters of their youth and their native land. Patriotic suffering is perhaps the most bitter of all moral sorrows. In the face of this alarming emigration of - our compatriots, Lafon-taine, together with the civil, religious and political authorities, worked strenuously in favour of the expansion of the Frenchspeaking population on Canadian soil.
Colonization and repatriation societies were at that time founded to promote the interests of agriculture and of repatriation. In Lower Canada these colonization and repatriation societies were generously endowed.
It is imnossible to think without emotion of those thousands of Canadians toiling in the factories of a foreign land. Their labour, energy, talent and patriotism enrich the ajoining republic to the detriment of Canada.

Our countrymen, no doubt, play a noble part in the United States, where they have bean attracted by an extraordinary era of commercial and industrial prosperity; they are becoming there the representative of French civilization. But in order to fulfil our mission on Canadian soil, and if we would save the prestige and preserve the influence of that ancient race who civilized our land, it is necessary that the French Canadian family should sustain no loss.


Reverend Father M.: Martineau, in his pamphlet; 'Projet de Colonisation,' says: ' If the three millions of French Canadians sprung from the 60,000 souls who formed the Canadian nation in 1760, resided, if not all, in the province of Quebec at least within the limits of Canada, would we not be in a much better position to protect and defend our rights, our language and our faith and to lend a helping hand to the feebler groups of our countrymen living among people who are often hostile to them? '
We ardently desire the return of ' our people ' in order to increase the prestige of our nationality and to contribute our full share to the prosperity of the Dominion.
The work of repatriatoin is a great national work, but we understand that it is a dificu't one. As a public speaker once said: ' Repatriation has got beyond the domain of official literature ' it is going on every day with increasing success. Thanks to the work of colonization societies, to the help of the railways, to Governments' grants, to the good will of public men and to the active and disinterested helo of the public at large, the final results are no longer uncertain.
Statistics furnished by the Department of the Interior are encouraging. From 1901 to the 1st December, 1907, 31,644 Canadians have returned to Canada.
Our immigration agents in the United States report favourably in this respect. Mr. D. Gauthier writes as follows to the Minister of the Interior: * It is everywhere recognized that Canada is the land of the future, offering as it does exceptional advantages for the settlement of numerous families and an excellent field for the investment of capital. As a rule, Canadians living in the United States favour the idea of returning to Canada. They intend and before long the'- will do so. We have sown the seed in fertile soil and may reasonably expect an abundant harvest.'
On the 11th July 1905. Rev. Father Va chon wrote: 'I have continued the work begun some years ago and I am pleasd to be able to report good results as to the quality and the number of settlers.'
Mr. Scott reported, 7th July, 1906: 'The repatriation of French Canadians has occupied the attention of the Department since some years past and considerable progress has been made.'


Eugène Paquet: Mr. White, inspector of agencies in the United States, wrote on the 15th April, 1997: ' Part of our work is being done among French Canadians.
Besides the agents already mentioned we have opened an office at Biddeford. Our prospects are very good.'
In the work of repatriation it is necessary to show our progress.
Trade of Canada.
1868	 $ 57,567,000
1907	 617,964,000
Imports.
1868	'	 73,455,000
1907	 359,000,000
Exports.
1868	 57,567,000
1907	 258,000,000
Agricultural Exports.
1868	   12,871,000
1904	 37,000,000
Exports of forest products.
1868	 18,274,000
1904	 33,000,000
Exports of Mineral.
1868	 1,446,000
1901	 40,369,000
Deposits in Chartered Banks.
1877	 62,000,000
1907	 589,000,000
Our trade and our progress attract the attention of civilized nations. A great economist, M. Pierre Leroy-Beaulieu declares that Canada is to-day the country offering the greatest inducements to immigrants, its development being the most rapid, especially as regards agriculture.
We may well expect the return of a certain number of our own people when we consider that Americans, recognizing the value of the lands and the industrial future of Canada are selling their establishments in the United States for the purpose of casting their fortunes on our side of the border.
In 1906. 57,000 immigrants came to us from the United States. This is a recognition of the vast resources of Canada. Colonization and repatriation societies have laboured fruitfully at the task of repatriation. They have organized colonization and repatria tion congresses in which have been dis-. cussed the best means of securing our national development. Our fathers rallied round these associations as around a banner protecting our national future.
Some of them, helped by Government subsidies, now maintain agencies in New England for the purpose of promoting the return of our countrymen.
With very small financial means, colonization and repatriation societies, thanks to the zeal of their directors, have done much good work. They have favoured colonization and secured the return of a considerable

number of Canadians. They retain the services of able and practical lecturers in their effective propaganda throughout New England.
The eovernmnt formerly granted an annual sum of $4,000 to the Lake St. John Colonization Society. This has been discontinued and M. Rene Dupont appointed immigration agent. I would like to know what induced the minister to stop that grant.
Allow me to read an extract from the report of the Mutual Colonization and Repatriation Society for the year 1907. 'Fifteen thousand booklets and maps have been recently distributed among the Canadians of New England and the agricultural clubs of the pi evince of Quebec, over and above our monthly distributions, by means of bur agents in the United States, of a number of publications in the French and English languages, of pamphlets on western farm lands and those of Ontario and Quebec.
We have inserted advertisements in the French newspapers of New England calling upon our fellow-countrymen residing there to return to Canada where they will obtain farms and be well provided for under the care of the Montreal Colonization Sosiety. The statistics embodied in this report establish the truth of the statements therein contained.
The funds at the disposal of colonization and repatriation societies do not allow them to carry on their work with sufficient energy. Their grants should be increased so that the New England repatriation agen cies might be multiplied.
We have several emigration agents in the eastern states ; Mr. Laurier and Mr. Tessier are at work in Michigan. Would it not be in the interests of Canada to have a few more French Canadian agents in Minnesota, Illinois and Montana, in the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis where there are important French Canadian groups? Should we not at least have agents speaking both official languages in all our immigration offices of Western America?
Franco-American national societies are playing an effective part in New England The directors and members of these dif ferent associations are in close contact with every class of French speaking Americans. Our immigration agents, through the officers and members of these national socie ties, might reach those families who are not satisfied with economic conditions in the United States and perhaps secure their Teturn.
We call upon the federal government to vote larger sums for the purpose of adver tising our wealth and our resources in New England. We ask them to distribute our pamphlets and publications carefully and actively in the Franco-American cities: Fall River, Nashua, Lewiston, Salem, Woon socket and Lowell.
During the fiscal year 1906-7 we expended $58,000 in advertising Canada in the United States. We have no intention of blaming this expenditure. But, according to the Auditor General's Report, printing in the French language took up a very small portion of this somewhat large amount. Let us demonstrate to Franco-Americans by means of the press, by the voice of public lectures, by colonization literature, the marvellous progress of Canada. They will then gladly return to become active tillers of the beloved soil of their native land.
The authorities have adopted, with respect to agriculture in the province of Quebec, a policy favourable to the work of repatriation. This is explained in a letter written by Mr. Rene Dupont to the directors of the Canadian Press Association, which I will read:
Sir,-With a view of promoting settlement in the province of Quebec, the Department of the Interior has authorized the establishment of an information branch respecting vacant farm lands, so that persons desiring to make a purchase may obtain all requisite data. In the past no agency of this kind existed and we were unable to give satisfactory replies to the numerous requests we received. This agency will be available for all persons desirous of purchasing farms in any part of the country and also for those who have farms for sale. I inclose for your information a blank form which we send to all those having farms for sale and I would be much gratified if you would devote some of your valuable space to the work of explaining this to our compatriots.


RENE DUPONT.
[Stage Direction]
The policy is commented upon in the following manner by a Franco-American journalist:
' A list is being at present prepared of vacant farms in the province of Quebec, with a view of offering them to Canadians residing in the United States. Nothing could be better. Had this been done ten years ago, the results, we feel sure, would have been important. At present, the difficulties to be overcome will be greater, yet practical results will certainly be obtained, especially if in the list are included farms situated aiong the long frontier line, near which, but on the American side, are to be found numerous and flourishing Franco-American colonies.
' Those who direct the colonization movement in the province of Quebec have hitherto given but little attention to the repatriation of French Canadians. Certain efforts have indeed been made to induce them to return, but the results obtained were such as to confirm the promoters of colonization in the idea that the problem could not be solved. Recent events and the splendid spirit of enterprise of some of our Franco-American countrymen have placed the matter in a different light and the practical solution seems at hand.
[Stage Direction]


' We allude to a new national institution, the ' Credit Foncier Canadien,' the object of which is to collect into one general fund the savings of the French Canadian population of New England. This institution is earnestly labouring in the work of repatriation. The Franco-American syndicate has already begun important colonization work in the township of Escourt. A large number of our people are returning under the guidance of enlightened men. This, says ' La Revue Franco-Americaine,' is an instance of the happy results to be obtained by association.
' In New England and more particularly in the States of Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, the work of the Credit Foncier Canadien is attracting attention among our countrymen. This interest has been increased by the action of the president of the association, Hon. Judge Brochu, who goes from place to place preaching the gospel of the emancipation of Franco-American capital, and explaining to enterprising men the immense field opened to national energy by the undeveloped wealth of the province of Quebec, of which English speaking people alone have hitherto taken advantage. It is in some sort a revendication of the rights of the race to that portion of the soil discovered, colonized and developed by our fathers ; it is a practical and an active implementation of the wise advice once given us :	Take possession of the soil ! No
doubt our Franco-American friends are not preparing to come over in a body. But this assuredly means repatriation, so far as it can be accomplished.
There are at present in the United States
100,000	Canadians desirous of returning to Canada if they may do so with advantage to themselves.
It may be useful to listen now to the judicious remarks of a friend of repatriation.
' Of the nossibility of carrying the work of repatriation in a certain measure, there can be no doubt, provided appeals are made to those who, living since some years in the United States, have not succeeded there and are willing to make another attempt to better their condition. These are numerous enough to deserve attention. And yet, if you speak to the younger members of these families, you will perceive that it will be difficult to make settlement on a farm one of the conditions of their return. Even if they consented to farm, they would prefer going to the Canadian West, now one of the objective points throughout the republic, and one to which thousands of Americans remove every year. You would be astonished at the amount of Franco-Americans who have settled since ten years in the new provinces.
Whatever may be the importance of the repatriation movement to-day, the number Mr. PAQUET.
of those who have returned is insignificant compared with that of those who remain. We may in any case consider it certain that the return en masse of Canadians established in the United States is 'impossible. The majority of those who do return have no intention of becoming farmers.
It would be just as easy to induce Canadians from American cities to settle on farm lands as to persuade citizens of Quebec or Montreal to colonize the unexplored townships of Temiscaming or Lake St. John.
Years of strenuous labour will be needed to accomplish to any great extent the work of repatriation. We understand the difficulty and we know, as a public speaker expressed it, * that a large Franco-American contingent must remain ever on foreign soil.'"
In the interest of Canada we should encourage the return of a French population important on account of their traditions, heroic in their past and present efforts and sufferings, strong in numbers and steadfast in their ancestral faith. We should encourage their return bv the development of transportation, of colonization, of agriculture and of industry. Waterways, railways and colonization roads should be so improved as to secure access to new markets. Our colonization policy should be progressive and enlightened. We should encourage agriculture and adopt scientific methods of cultivation. Every day we behold American farmers settling in the Canadian West with remarkable success. Important Franco-Canadian groups may settle in the West and unite with the first French contingents who civilized Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They will honour the French name and the Canadian name by prospering among foreign groups. If we would keep the sons of the soil and promote repatriation we should develop industry. French Canadians have sought in the United States that intense industrial life which our neighbours enjoy. As one of our countrymen has said:	' Industry has attracted our people
to the United States, industry, prosperous industry will induce them to return.'
With technical education and the development of our agricultural, mining and forest wealth, Canada will become a great industrial country. Industrial development will be specially favourable to repatriation. With industrial progress the national spirit will awaken. Let us erect numerous factories to minister to the requirements of the growing west. Let us establish industrial schools where young men may be trained. Such schools have transformed German industry within the last half century. Our countrymen both at home and abroad develop great taste for all industrial arts. The development of industry appears to me the best way of favouring repatriation.
In this work, we should never forget form in the great republic a group of two millions

of men with social organization not inferior in many respects to that of the province of Quebec and in some points even superior.
In certain important centers, Franco Americans control capital, they have good commercial establishments and take an active part in public business. Their property represents millions of dollars. Their ownership of real estate, naturalization, the establishment of French Catholic schools and of the parochial system attach them to the soil of the republic and render repatriation difficult. A large number of our countrymen are kept there by their interests, their marriage connections and the positions they occupy. In spite of such difficulties, our progress in agriculture and industry lead us to hope that a considerable number of them may return.
Among our immigrants, Franco-Americans occupy the post of honour. Their feelings, ideals and aspirations are the same as ours. Let them then return, they will work with us and to the French Canadian people, to the Canadian people a still more solid foundation upon which may be built up an edifice of material, moral and intellectual greatness.
Rodolphe Lemieux: (Translation.) I have no intention of speaking at any length upon the question raised by my hon. friend from L'Islet. I have listened with much interest to his eloquent apneal in favour of the repatriation of our countrymen. It is a matter which must always be of considerable moment to the French Canadian minority in the. Dominion.
What has been the policy of the government since they assumed the direction of affairs in 1896? It would be useless to refer to what took place before that time. It is well known that we were then deploring the exodus of our countrymen to the United States. This has been going on since a number of years, and in spite of the National policy, as it was then called,_ our fair Quebec parishes were being alarmingly depopulated for the .benefit of New England.
Liberals at that time contended that a different fiscal policy might stop the outward flow of population. And what happened when they assumed power? Has the present government succeeded in keeping the people in the country? I refer here more particularly to the province of Quebec. The member for L'Islet may read the statistics published by the Census Bureau and he will find that with the exception of the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the province of Quebec alone has maintained and increased her population. It is due to this that the Ontario membership in this House has diminished bv five or six seats.
To what are we to attribute this result?
27J
Precisely to the attitude of the government. The government altered the fiscal policy of the country in such a manner as to secure the development and the full expansion of national industry which remained stagnant not onlv in Quebec but in every province of the Dominion, until 1896. Never before, Mr. Speaker, had the industries of Quebec flourished as they have in the last ten years. We have maintained and increased the population of our great cities of Montreal, Quebec and Sherbrooke so much so that Montreal occupies to-day the whole of the island of that name, the labouring population having built up all the outlying ground.
Farm lands in the province of Quebec were being rapidly deserted; to-day, thank God, they are in full cultivation, and when they become too congested the people no longer cross the line, they remove to farms in the western provinces. The member for L'lslet cannot have read the eloquent letters published last year by Abb6 Berube, in which he calls atention to the number of French Canadians who have settled in Saskatchewan and Alberta since five or six years, in spite of the tempest which certain parties sought to raise concerning the new constitution. This is so true that in certain western parishes peopled, until quite recently by foreign emigrants, our French speaking countrymen will soon be in a majority.
It may therefore be contended that the government has not only checked the flow of emigration and kept the people in the province of Quebec, but that the population of that province has so increased as to furnish settlers to the western fertile belt. The government did even more-I quite recognize that the member for L'ls-let was perfectly sincere in his remark- they repatriated all our countrymen residing in the United States who so desired it.
Will my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier tell me how many immigration agents we had in New England before 1897? There was not a single one. The government of that day had not deemed it advisable to appoint a single French speaking repatriation agent.	[DOT]
Since 1896, under the direction of Hon. Mr. Sifton-a man most unjustly spoken of in the province of Quebec-and at the request of Liberal members, the Department of the Interior appointed a certain number of agents, and among them certain clergymen, to undertake the work of repatriation. I make this declaration, Mr. Speaker, not in a spirit of animosity, but because, in Quebec, our opponents have never ceased to proclaim that our policy was hostile to repatriation. I have not before me the names of those agents, but I know that there are twelve of them, with clergymen among them, at different points in the New England states.

The member for L'lslet has stated that the best method of promoting repatriation would be to develop transportation especially as regards waterways. He also referred to the necessity of establishing industrial and technical schools, in order to keep our population in the province of Quebec. You know, Sir, that such foundations are placed not under Dominion, but under provincial authority.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) I simply wished to state that we should establish technical schools to develop national industry. I knew quite well that such establishments do not come under federal authority.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Mr. F. D. MONK.: (Jacques Cartier.) (Translation.) I think, Mr. Speaker, that ve owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for L'Isle, for the interesting and absolutely impartial speech he has just delivered on the question of repatriation. Our friend has treated the question from a high standpoint, and with warmth. His remarks were dictated by no party consideration, and I think that the House will admit that he is the first member from the province of Quebec-at least since I have the honour of sitting here-who has raised that question.
Who among the members sitting on your right has ever, since twelve years, made a speech to point out the means which should be adopted to put a stop to that evil, the effects of which the member for L'Islet has so eloquently explained ? The evil he speaks of has since many years been causing to Canada and particularly to the province of Quebec, most serious and painful economic losses. Yet I never heard the gentlemen opposite mention it. I myself have spoken of it two or three time though not in a special manner. But at the present moment, during the opening days of a new parliament, when immigration questions are about to become of burning in-

terest as stated by the hon. minister, who has) just sat down, it was right, I think, that a representative from the province of Quebec should rise in this House to draw our attention, not to the Yellow Peril of which he cannot bridge, but to the peril resulting from the weakening of national lif e in the province of Quebec.
Notwithstanding the eloquent tribute paid by the Postmaster General to the member for L'lslet, I cannot think that he has rendered him entire justice. The hon. minister began by stating that since 1896, the exodus which is causing so much harm to many of our countrymen has been checked.
Mr. TALBOT (Belleehasse.) (Translation.) That is true.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) It is false, it is untrue, for the movement is continuing. It is not as intense to-day as it was in the beginning, by reason of circumstances ably set forth by my hon. friend from L'Islet, but it is continuing all the same. Have the parishes formerly deserted been repopulated? When we journey through the province of Quebec and see the closed houses and abandoned farms, do we find that any of them have been taken up by others among our countrymen ? Not at all.
I may say that in my own constituency where the evil referred to by the hon. member for LTslet has not been felt to the same extent as in other localities, owing to the nearness of a great city, these houses have nevertheless remained closed. There are also closed houses in the county represented by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. A friend of mine living in that county was telling me last summer that in Rou-ville, houses closed as a result of that exodus have since been left unoccupied.


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: (Translation.) Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question? I think I have a fairly good knowledge of what is going on in my county and I am in a position to state that the hon. member's statement is unfounded. He would oblige me greatly by naming the place where he found such a state of things.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) My hon. friend wishes me to point out the range, the hill, the very neighbourhood where a house abandoned fifteen years ago has since been left unoccupied. He knows very well that I am not able to do that off hand.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) Will the hon. member be so kind as to give the name of the parish?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) The house situated in the parish of which the hon. minister himself is a resident. My informer stated:	That is the result of the exodus.
And why should we endeavour to pander with the truth? There was a time when
people were leaving this country in large numbers. The flow of emigration has diminished since. It is pretty well known that perfect happiness is not to be found in the United States, that milk does not flow in their rivers, nor gold for that matter, that prosperity has some drawbacks in tnat country. That is why the flow of emigration has diminished, but it has not ceased. I am satisfied that statistics might be found in support of that statement.
Two or three years ago, I went to Philadelphia in company with the hon. Postmaster General. We were invited to a banquet and there we were met by a large number of English speaking Canadians, of great ability no doubt, who had come there from the Maritime Provinces. It is that same exodus which has depopulated the Maritime Provinces which has also drawn away from Canada so many of our French speaking Canadians. Who can deny it? Young men in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, being unable to find at home a wide enough scope for their activity, have gone to the United States and have remained there.
The statement that the hon. member for L'lslet has made in reference to the people of the province of Quebec, of a more or less industrial character, who have emigrated to the United States, might be extended to the remainder of Canada . That exodus has been going on in all parts of the country, and is still going on.
It seems as if the Postmaster General had considered as a reflection on the government as a vicious attack on his party, what was an entirelv unprejudiced statement of fact. It refers to a state of things which claim just now our whole attention; but the hon. gentleman has thought fit to throw that red herring across the track and view it as a reflection on this government and his party.
Do hon. members know by what magic at a certain time in 1896, when there was a change of government, that evil which the member for LTslet has just pointed out came to an end. The Hon. Postmaster General has told us. Some hon. members must have been surprised to hear him make the statement: it is the new tariff policy of the government put in force in 1896. How can that be made to agree with the statements made in public by the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr.Sifton), whose authority the Postmaster General appeals to just now, and whom he eulogizes in the strongest terms. Such change of position is rather surprising to those who have not forgotten that at the time that minister resigned the French party organs of the Postmaster General bitterly attacked that ex-minister.


Hon. Mr. BUREAU (Solicitor General).: (Translation.) Who said so?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) It is the Prime Minister's organ which made an onslaught on the ex-Minister of the Interior at the time he resigned, stating that he had been treacherous to the French Canadians and Catholics. Is that true or false? Does my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau) challenge me to lay that article before the House?


Jacques Bureau: (Translation.) Certainly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) He has been slow in answering, and he knows that I am unable to take up his challenge just now.
The hon. Postmaster General has referred to the tariff question. He is well aware that his party has held fast to the policy which we had started in 1878, when a protective tariff was established. Only slight changes have been made to it by the Liberal narty. What was the statement made by the ex-Minister of the Interior? Did he not state in this House that practically the tariff had not been changed and that consequently the fiscal question was no longer a party question? How then could the changes effected in the tariff policy have put a stop to the exodus of our fellow citizens to the United States? I leave to the Postmaster General the task of answering that question.
We should not blink at the facts. The Postmaster General stated (that in 1886 we had not a single emigration agent among our French speaking fellow-citizens in the eastern states. That is true. I am not aware, at any rate, that we had any at the time. Any one familiar with the management of public affairs knows what was our immigration policy in 1896. We spent barely $125,000 for immigration purposes.


Mr. TALBOT.: (Translation.) Whose fault was it if more was not spent?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) I was about to remark that such a moderate expenditure redounds to the credit of the Conservative leaders, who had not lost their heads on that immigration question as the Liberal party have done. To-day we are reaching up in the millions. Did my friend the hon. Postmaster General, or did any of these hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec, in 1896, dream of appointing agents for the purpose of inducing our fellow-citizens in the eastern states to return to Canada? Did any one dream in
1896,	of carrying on work'of that kind in the direction pointed to by the hon. member for L'Islet? By no means; there was not a single agent appointed, neither in
1897.	The hon. Postmaster General was at the time Solicitor General. Did he accomplish anything in that direction? I am waiting for an answer. Here is what occurred-and there is nobody better aware of it than the Postmaster General himself

the then minister of the Interior had


Jacques Bureau: taken it into his head to inflict on the western country and heterogenous people, to fill up that country without care or discrimination. His sole ambition was to fill up the west, a queer notion, which had to be discarded pretty soon, owing to strong complaints made to our government by the United States authorities, regarding the class of people we subsidized. These European immigrants to whom or on whose account we paid bonuses would oftentimes find their way to the United States and flood that country with diseased and undesirable persons, who, on being shut out from the neighbouring republic, returned to Canada and remained a burden to us. How much did we spend in 1897-98 to bring here the first 7,000 Doukhobors? $48,000 to begin with. Will hon. gentlemen in this House who have taken an interest in this question and have studied it claim that the government has acted wisely in spending such an amount for the purpose of bringing here people of whom their fellow-citizens in Europe were glad to get rid; inflicting on the Northwest Territories the presence of 15,000 or 20,000 persons who go about naked on the prairie in quest of the Messiah.
We continued bringing here numbers of people who have been sent west; but after a while, owing to protests forthcoming from the United States, and from this side of the House, it was deemed necessary to adopt stricter regulations. At one time, a few members became indignant at the fact that we were spending over one million dollars a year advertising, after the Preston method, in the west, in Europe, in Germany, in Norway and in the British Isles, while abstaining from all active work in the eastern states. A move has been made with which probably the Postmaster General has had something to do-for I willingly acknowledge his patriotism and good intentions-a move has been made against that policy. _ In the_ eastern states, it wras urged, there is a desirable quota of settlers to" be obtained and nothing is done to enlist them. You have no agents on the spot, your endeavours in that direction are nil; complaints are beginning to be voiced in that regard, try and do something. Was there, yes or no, pressure exerted on the then Minister of the Interior? I have not in mind the present minister, but his predecessor in office the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). At all events, after many and long continued exertions, met with stubborn resistance, the appointment of a few agents was granted. The Postmaster General states that be has to-day two such agents.	_
I remember the time-and my friend from L'Islet must remember it also-when there were on the spot only a couple of poor, though zealous priests working not in their own interest, but in the country's

interest, receiving a modicum of about $600 per year, and whose accounts for expenses were audited and scrutinized in a gingerly way.
It may be that in the meantime the number of agents has been increased; but do we find entrusted with that important work of repatriating our own people any of those fine gentlemen, who, closely seated in their offices, draw on us at the rate of $6,000 or $7,000 a year, as are to be found in western Canada, in Michigan, or any other of the western states. Insignificant amounts have been voted for the purpose of repatriating our people, as compared with the hundreds of thousand dollars spent for the purpose of enlisting by improper methods-and I shall ever brand them as such-immigrants from various European countries, with the object of settling our lands and helping to build up a young nation; the whole work being carried on recklessly, without anything like the care required under the circumstances.
And what do we see to-day? While we have spent a million and a half in bonuses and salaries to agents spread through Europe for the purpose of bringing here 260,000 immigrants, what have we accomplished towards solving the problem brought to our attention by the member for L'Islet? We have in the United States a million and a half of our fellow-citizens, a number of whom are still British subjects; they still retain that fine feeling which prevents them from giving up their character of British citizens. They are well fitted for farm work, speak both languages, are inured to our climatic conditions. Why should we not carry on in their midst a systematic campaign for their repatriation, instead of continuing to send in their midst incompetent agents, simply because they happen to be the friends of some member, connections of some minister, and are in need of a job. I say that it would be possible for us without difficulty, to enlist *25,000, to say the least, of these admirable settlers who are desirous of returning here. .It has been objected, if they are desirous of coming back, should send for them and extend to them those facilities at least which we offer to the Doukhobors, when enlisting them in the back yards of Europe.
The plan proposed by the hon. member for L'Islet is a good one. We should have recourse to those associations having for their object the repatriation of such of our fellow-citizens as are desirous of returning to Canada and settling on farms. I have no information as to what has taken place in the case of the Lake Saint John Colonization Society; but as a rule, our colonization societies are made up of disinterested men, in whose eyes money is no object, their whole aim being the country's good.
If by means of some organization managed on business lines, we succeed in repatriating 25,000 or 30,000 of these good people, and have them take up lands either on the Western praries, or in British Columbia, or in Northern Ontario, or in the province of Quebec, wherein there are still large areas of vacant lands, I say that will be money well spent.
The question of immigration has never been taken up in this House as a truly national issue. We have gone into a system of bonusing the great transportation companies, which were offering inducements to their booking agents in the older countries of Europe for the purpose of recruiting immigrants and sending them to the Northwest. Then that system was extended for patronage ends, by the appointments of immigration agents, former members, or cousins or nephews of influential people, thus enabling them to live at the expense of the Government. I contend that it is time we should take up as a national issue the work of bringing back to Canada our fellow-citizens settled in foreign lands.
There is not only the Northwest to fill up. We have fertile lands still unoccupied in all the provinces. It should no longer be our object to frame our immigration policy with a view to directing westward an heterogenous population which can only he a source of embarrassment and difficulties. Such a problem should be viewed in all its bearings and solved as a whole.
To my mind, that question of the repatriation of our fellow-citizens has been very well set forth by my friend from L'Islet; and I hope the House will give due consideration to his remarks on the subject.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for L'lslet should be congratulated for having called the attenton of the House to that important question of the repatriation of the French Canadians settled in the United States. I certainly would have no criticism to offer of his speech, had it not recalled some utterances of his on the same subject, delivered during the last electoral campaign. That question is worthy of consideration, and it is my excuse for taking part in this debate.
My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has made a speech wherein party feeling is more in evidence than in the remarks made by the hon. member for L'Islet. It seems as if he had taken occasion of this debate to cast reflections on the policy followed by the government. For instance, I notice he has resorted to the Doukhobor cry. Some of our opponents in the province of Quebec have this as their stock argument at public meetings, that a certain number of Doukhobors hailing from Russia have settled in the western country. That is the crime for which our government is taken to task. However the member for Jacques Cartier has forgetten apparently the

statement made by his chief, the member for Halifax (Mr. R. L. Borden), leader of the Opposition, who, in the course of his recent journeyings through the West, highly eulogized the Doukhobors and Galicians.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) What is my hon. friend's authority for such a statement?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) The statement was made in this House last year, the leader of the opposition was present, and it is not to my knowledge that he contradicted the statement. If the hon. member for Jacques Cartier denies that the leader of the opposition has eulogized these people, of course I am bound to accept his statement; but, what I have heard of the debate last year is evidence to me that the leader of hon. gentlemen opposite has used such language, since he has not contradicted the statement. That statement, as I am informed, by the member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Talbot) is recorded in Hansard for 1907-1908, pages 1396 and 1397, wherein will be found the proofs in support of my contention, and I presume that in the course of this debate these utterances will be quoted anew word for word.
Moreover, the question should not be considered from the point of view of the partisan, and I very much regret that the member for Jacques Cartier should have thought fit to take such a stand, he who as a rule discusses these questions solely as to their merits.
The member for Jacques Cartier has made an extraordinary statement which, I am bound to say, is wholly without foundation.
Nobody can deny that for many years, people were going from Canada to the United States. This emigration began about 1840. It became more general after the reciprocity treaty of 1854, and was at its highest point, about 1870 and the succeeding years, until 1896.
That emigration from the province of Quebec and the other provinces was very large, as the fact can be proved by the statistics of the American government. From a report that has just been handed to me, I gather that in 1850, the year of the census, the number of Canadians that had emigrated to the United States was 147,711; in 1860, 249,970; in 1870, 493,464; in 1880, 717,154; in 1890, 980,938, and in 1900, 1,179,807.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has laid great stress on the emigration of French Canadians. I see that since a certain number of years, the emigration of the French Canadians, instead of being in the ascension, has rather decreased.
I can see by the American census of 1880 that there was at that time 980,938 Canadians in the United States; out of that number, 678,442 were of English origin and 302,496 of French origin. In 1890, there was an increase and, of a total of 1,179,207 Canadians, 784,741 were of English descent; so Mr. BRODEUR.
there was an increase of over 100,000, while the number of Canadians of French descent had passed from 302,000 to 395,000. We can see, then, that the emigration of French Canadians had proportionately decreased.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the minister quoting from?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These statistics are to be found in a memorandum published by the Trade and Labor Bureau of Washington. They are official.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is not the American classification oi immigrants different from ours? Would not a Franch Canadian be classified as a Frenchman?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend is mistaken; formerly the Canadians were entered without any mention of origin, but since 1890, a new classification has been adopted, and a distinction is made between French and English Canadians.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will my hon. friend let me have this paper, when he is through with it ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly; with pleasure. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier said that the emigration from the province of Quebec has been going on since 1896 and that it is quite as numerous as formerly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not say that; what I said was quite the contrary.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I accept my hon. friend's denial, but he said that emigration to the United States was still very large and that a great number of farms were deserted. He mentioned Rou-ville county and made a reference to the parish of Saint Hilaire. There is not another parish that I know more about and I can say to my hon. friend that when I was a candidate for the first time, in 1891, I travelled through the county, and in the parishes of L'Ange-Gardien and Saint-Paul I saw concessions after concessions where the farms were deserted and the houses closed. What do we see to-day? Conditions are changed. Go through these same parishes and you will not see a single house closed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have those people returned?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly. They have returned and they are prospering, thanks to the agricultural development that has taken place since 1896, and thanks, above all, to a progressive policy in the dairy industry, which is giving handsome profits to those who are engaged in it. That is the real situation and I have no doubt that my hon. friend has made that assertion without due consideration.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will find out the exact locality and concessions.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am sure that my hon. triend is mistaken. He may have seen some houses closed, but here is the explanation: the farmers are so well off that they sometimes buy the farm of a neighbour and close the house.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is in what is called the ' rang des Trente.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Here again my hon. friend is wrong. The matter is of no importance, but I simply wished to put my hon. friend right on that point.
Now, has the government done something for the repatriation of the French Canadians? The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has candidly admitted that the government of which he has been a strong supporter before 1896, had never appointed a single agent to that end. He must give us credit for having appointed, not one, or two, or six of such agents, but twelve.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the hon. Minister give us the names of these agents and the places where they are operating?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) Certainly. They are: Rene Dupont, Quebec; J. B. Carbonneau, Biddeford. Maine; C. A. Laurier, Marquette, Maine; Romuald Laurier, 114 rue Dudley, Foxburg, Mass.; Damase Gauthier, Laurentides, Que.; O. Tessier, Saginaw, Mich.; W. H. Beaudry, Mass.; Alex. Ayotte, Great Falls, Mont.; M. L'abbe L. P. Gravel, Gravelburg, Sask.; M. L'Abbe E. E. Gauthier, Pawtucket, R. I.; M. L'Abbe J. A. Ouellette, Montreal, Que.
It must be remembered that the address of some of these agents is in Canada, but that their field of action is in the United States.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier says that we have no agents in the eastern states. If he will refer to the report of Mr. Damase Gauthier, he will be convinced of the contrary.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) What is Gauthier's salary? It must be at least $400.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) At least $1,200.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Oh, no.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) My hon. friend has given many denials; he can afford to give one more. Let us see what is said in the report of the Rev. M. Blais for the year 1902-1903, page 145:
Besides the repatriation of a large number of our people, I have succeeded in moulding the opinion of the leading class to the advantages of the Canadian west, in interesting them in my work, which will make it easier
for me with a large number of persons who think seriously of coming hack to Canada.
In his report Rev. M. Vachon, says:
I have continued during the last year the work taken up in previous years, that is, of lecturing in the western states among the most prosperous French settlements in farming districts. The result, I am pleased to say has been satisfactory with regard to the quality and quantity of settlers. Those emigrants formerly from Canada form a very desirable class of settlers, as they are men who have acquired fortune and experience m farming in the United States. I may say that the interest in the northwest is increasing among the French people; this is evidenced by the numerous invitations sent to me from different parts of the country to lecture on Canada. One of these invitations came from as far as Butte City, Montana; I took advantage of this invitation tendered to me to go and lecture in several French settlements of Montana, and not without effect, as it is noticed that the large percentage of French set-lers from that direction is higher this yeaj' than previously.
Let us look, now, to the report of Mr. Ridout, for the year 1904-1905, page 87:
I must say that through, the eastern states that I have visited the majority of the French population is anxious to come back and see our new settlements in Canada. During my lectures I have called the attention of my audience to the advantages that can be found on the settlements in New Ontario, districts of Nipissing and Algoma, Northern Timiskaming and county of Pontiac, province of Quebec.
And the report of Mr. John Hoolahan :
It is a satisfaction to be able to state that the repatriation of French Canadians goes steadily on. While many of these return to tlieir old homes in Quebec and eastern Ontario, a large percentage now turn their steps to the Northwest.
Mr. O'Corbeil says:
I went to Nashua, Manchester and Concord, where the French Canadians are in large numbers and are asking for more information. As a result on that trip, the numerous letters that I receive and the numerous applications that are coming in for literature are good proofs that the repatriation of French Canadians is larger than ever, and is still increasing on account of these people being better informed as to the Canadian west.
Mr. Carbonneau in his report says:
The prospects for this bureau, which is chiefly concerned in the repatriation of the largest number of French Canadians, are most encouraging. Curing the financial year I have delivered certificates for 405 persons representing 134 families, whose intention are to settle in western Canada or in the province of Quebec, and whose aggregate capital is $48,000.
It can be seen by these reports that our agents have done much for the cause of re-

patriation, not only in the eastern states, but also in the west. It is a well known fact, that there are a great many Canadians in the western states, and the work done in these parts of the country helps also the repatriation in the east and directs the Canadians from the American west to the Canadian west
I will give some statistics to prove my contention. If the hon. member for Jacques Cartier will look at the report of 190304, he will see that 4,432 Canadians have returned to this country. In 1904-1905, 3,613 have returned.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) What is your authority for that ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) The official reports. The proportion in 1904, was 9'8 per cent.; in 1905, 8 3 per cent.; in 1906, 5,000, or 8:6 per cent.; in 1906-7, 2,502, or 7-3 per cent.; in 1907-08, 5,160, or 8-8 per cent. The total for the five years was 20,707 repatriated Canadians, or 9 per cent.
I will now give extracts from the report of the Colonization Society of Montreal.
In 1898, 68 Canadian were brought back from the United States, thanks to the efforts of that association. In 1899, we had 31. In 1900, 92; in 1901, 102; in 1902, 149in 1903 ,119; in 1904, 228; in 1905, 295; in 1906, 310; in 1907, 330. So, in the ten years, 1,715 Canadians left the United States and have settled in the new parts of this country, thanks to the good work of this association. These statistics are taken from the report of the secretary, dated March 3, 1908.
Have we not in these reports the proof that the government have done their duty towards the cause of the repatriation of the French Canadians living in the United States, and that my hon. friend was entirely mistaken when he said that we have done nothing for our fellow-countrymen. I think I have established that the Conservative government have done nothing, while the Liberal administration have appointed agents and subagents in the United States to bring back our fellow-countrymen to this country.
My hon. friend ought to know, that the time is no more when one could raise the racial and religious cry about immigration. His friends from the Pacific coast devote their time to denounce oriental immigration and his friends of the province of Quebec are chiefly concerned in creating racial prejudices against the government, with that same question of immigration.
M. PAQUET. (Translation.) What justification has the hon. minister to say that the friends of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier are endeavouring to create racial prejudices about immigration? Have I done so in discussing this question the way I have discussed it this afternoon?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) I say that in the province of Quebec and in British Columbia, the racial cry is being raised about immigration. In British Columbia, they went as far as forging telegrams to create the impression that the head of the Conservative party was totally opposed to oriental immigration. Can my hon. friend deny that? What does he think of his friends who resort to such means?
On the other hand, in the province of Quebec, they are trying to stir the prejudices of the French population under the pretense that the federal governement are not doing their duty.
I think I have established, figures in hand, that the government and the Minister of the Interior, have done all in their power, not only for the repatriation of our fellow-countrymen, but also to attract to this country the greatest possible number of desirable immigrants.
M. NANTEL (Terrebonne). (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I confess that I had no intention of taking part in this discussion. I can say further, that I had not the least suspicion that the academic speech of the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Pa-quet) would be followed by such an animated debate. I am inclined to think that politics are not always the best of things. The discussion started on lines acceptable to all and it seems to me that there should be only one way of thinking on this question. It is quite clear to my mind that the government must take the means of settling this immense country of ours.
They are in duty bound to direct immigration from the best sources, to lay the foundations of a great Canadian nation. Then, can they go at a better source, than in endeavouring to bring back to this country those who have left it? The government have done good work in that direction; they are entitled to our felicitations for it. I hope they will continue in the same strain.
The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) said that within ten years, 1,700 Canadians had been brought back to this country. The result is not amazing.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) By the Colonization Society of Montreal, alone.


Mr. NANTEL.: (Translation.) But, may I ask how many strangers have been brought in this country, for the last few years that will never become assimilated and will be a lasting menace for the Canadian race, be it in the east or in the west? I do not care to mention any race in particular, but nobody can deny that the danger exists.
The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries said that the government have at-

tracted a large number of American citizens in western Canada. I know that, and I am inclined to think that, on principle, it is not a desirable immigration. I do not suppose that these immigrants will ever become strongly attached to Canada. They come here to operate the great natural resources of the country, to make money with the preconceived idea of re-tuming to their former homes. For those who do stay, they will always think more of the stars and stripes than of the Canadian flag.	.
The same thing cannot be said of the French Canadians who have emigrated to the United States. They are favourably disposed towards us. They are people of the same blood. They will become patriotic citizens, always ready to stand by the
repeat that the government have done a good deal, but that they can do much more and I am bound to say that if politics were eliminated from the question, it would be an easy task to direct towards this country a large number of desirable immigrants from the republic to the south.


Jacques Bureau: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the House very long. I simply wish to make a few remarks on the speeches delivered by the hon. members for Jacques Cartier and Terrebonne. As to my hon. friend from L'Islet, it seemed to me as if I was listening to some of the speeches he had already delivered during the last elections, I do not think there is any condemnation of the government policy in the words he has uttered. He has recalled to mind the struggles of the French Canadians, the wrongs they had to suffer and from whom the latter came.
The discussion of this question has taken a new turn when the hon. member for Jacques Cartier rose on his feet. This question of repatriation is one which deserves serious consideration and which every one of us has at heart. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier said a while ago that it is always timely to discuss that question, and he asked: who are those who look after it? In answer to him, I may quote the old saying that actions are more eloquent than words. If we have not raised this question it is because we were taking action. As the hon. Minister of Marine said, we have appointed immigration agents in New England to bring back the French Canadians from the United States, and thereby a new movement was determined.
We all agree upon one point:.we all want the French Canadians to come back in this country. The hon. member for L'Islet said he did not intend to criticise the government policy, but simply wished to state that the amount spent for French immigration literature is very small ^indeed. I hold in my hand a statement prepared from the
records of the Immigration Department which shows that last year there were minted and distributed, at a cost of $7,935. about 257,000 French pamphlets in order to encourage the French Canadians to come back to this country.
The only means suggested by the hon. member for L'Islet is to start a concerted action intended to cause such a prosperity as would bring back our compatriots. For him it seems useless to send agents in the United States in order to have the -country advertised by the means of lectures on our fertile soil and valuable lands.
I do not think this government can be charged with not having changed the conditions since 1396. Moreover, the Postmaster General has stated a while ago how matters were standing in spite of the contrary statements made by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier who in order to support his theory is willing to see in the closed summer houses of those who go and spend the country-season on the shores of the Richelieu river a proof that French Canadians are moving to the United States.
My hon. friend has a sensible soul and a great heart, but whenever he is in need of arguments, his imagination is ouick at work. In 1900 or 1903, I took part in a bv-election in Argenteuil caused by Mr. Christie's death [DOT] there I met the former member for Beauharnois, Mr. Bergeron, and my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier. The latter was deploring in every respect the presence of Doukhobors in Canada; such was his hobby and he could not get rid of it. He was denouncing the government and it was a great sight indeed to see him raising his arms to heaven while calling attention to that dreadful thing. He came back to it today; that was unavoidable. As to -the remedy suggested by the hon. member for L'Islet, I do not think that it would better the situation in any respect.
Before I resume my seat I have just one word more to add. The hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel) has just said that we must be very cautious in the selection of immigrants. He said amongst other things that certain immigrants he did not wish to designate were a danger for Canadians. Speaking of Americans from the west who come and settle in Canada, he gave us to understand that their coming was entirely dangerous for the future of the country.
Let me tell him that under the Conservative government, before 1896, I was, like many others, obliged to go and earn in a foreign land the living I could not earn in this country. I have lived in the west, I have known personally the western Americans, and I must say that there are no more loyal, honest, energetic, and intelligent men in the world than these Americans. I wish that the lands of Canada could be peopled with Americans coming from the -west. I assert positively that the man working in the Dakota plains or in the

Minnesota mines is not inferior in any respect to French Canadians or any other nationality. I am sorry the hon. member for Terrebonne has thought fit to offer such remarks.
Having made these few observations, Mr. Speaker, I resume my seat and congratulate my hon. friend from L'Islet for his admission that the government have done their duty.
Mr. 0. E. TALBOT (Bellechasse).-(Translation.)-I can only congratulate the hon. member for LTslet at least for the form of the speech delivered by him this afternoon.
This question of immigration is one that is discussed throughout the country, and is particularly important for us, from the province of Quebec, who have a large number of our campatriots in the United States contributing to the increase of our neighbours' welfare.
Like the hon. Solicitor General, I have, together with six brothers of mine, been compelled by the Conservative policy to go and earn in a foreign country the living we could not find in our native land. Those who had to gain their living that way know how hard it is, when the mind is suffering from the absence of a home left behind. The constant thought of those who live in the United States, a great many at least, is to come back in their native country.
I can only congratulate my hon. friend from L'Islet for the form of his speech; but I regret the turn the statements made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier bave given to this debate. Did we not hear enough about the Doukhobors during the last federal elections? From north to south, the echoes of the mountains in the province of Quebec are still resounding with the speeches made by the Conservative candidate. The hon. member for L'Islet himself took delight in representing these Doukhobors as fanatical and insane people looking after Christ through the plains of the west.
Every one of us can remember the famous tour made by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden). In Valleyfield, the hon. gentleman uttered certain words the, hon. member for Jacques Cartier calls in question. He asked for the proof of such words. I am going to quote for his information the speech the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) delivered in this House on the 15th January, 1908, and wherein may be found the remarks made by the hon. leader of the opposition. The words in question are found in pages 1340 and 1341 of ' Hansard ':
Speaking at Valleyfield, in the province of Quebec, the leader of the opposition criticised certain peoples that were coming into the great northwest. On the 2nd of September last, as reported, not in any Grit paper, but by his own organ-sometimes-the Montreal 'Gazette,' he said:
' Between the east and the west there is a vast stretch of territory that could be peo-Mr. BUREAU.
pled, and there was danger of the two seotions of the country becoming antagonistic to each other. Under these circumstances he thought it most unwise to crowd into the west as the government was doing a class of undesirable immigrants, Galicians, Bohemians, Eoukho-bors, &c., who did not understand our customs and did not readily assimilate either with the French or English elements of Canada.'
And Mr. Johnston added:
I heard him, I think the next night in Montreal, after I had read this report of his speech and I listened attentively to see whether or not he would correct the report of his speech in the 'Gazette' of that day; but he did not, on the contrary he went on to address himself to the people in Montreal in very nearly the same way.
Winding up his great journey through the western country, how did the leader of the opposition express himself, he who had reviled the Galicians, Doukhobors and Bohemians ? Let us see what Mr. Johnston says:
The next day Mr. Borden made a statement in the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' as follows-and I want the House to pay particular attention to his words:
' While I am in the west

He had left the west and had still hope that what he said in the west would not be lead in the east.
' While I am in the west I wish to say that in respect to the question of immigration, the report which is attributed to me as referring to certain nationalities as undesirable is quite inaccurate.'
The interview was reported by the Winnipeg ' Telegram,' of the 8th of September last, and it is exactly in the words I have placed before the House. It is worth while calling the attention of the country once more to these words.
It will thus be seen that the leader of the opposition expressed himself one way while in the east and another way when in the west. The member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) stated that there were still in the province of Quebec unoccupied houses. I belong to a county which has been for years and years depopulated by emigration. The flower of its youth have departed to the United States, as farming was no longer remunerative for poor husbandmen burdened with numerous children. All that these good people could say to their boys was: How can you expect me to lend you a hand in acquirement of a farm in the new districts, when myself on the old family homestead, I am unable to provide the requisite education and the necessary clothing.' What inducement was there to bring back to Canada those whom the policy in force at the time had caused to depart ? To-day farming is in such a prosperous condition, that the head of a family will not suffer his boy to depart, and provides him with land at a cost of four or five thousand dollars. The shefiff at Quebec informed me

not very long ago that for three months previous there had not been a single compulsory sale in his district. I have been a farmer myself, and had the sorrow of seeing my property sold by the sheriff. What was the cause of it ? At the time there was no sale for the products of the farm. In one of the newly settled parishes of my county, a farmer was telling me a short time ago that formerly he was in debt four or five hundred dollars, while at the time of his speaking he had five or six hundred dollars in the bank. There is one other circumstance which the member for Jacques Cartier, did not mention: That while there may still be some houses unoccupied, it is not on account of their owners having gone to the United States, but because they have taken up their abode in large cities such as Montreal or Quebec. I make this statement without fear of being contradicted, as for every Canadian going to the United States, there are five coming back.
The member for L'lslet knows by what means he has succeeded in winning at the polls. He has been unceasing in his encomiums of the government; especially has he made the welkin ring with the five votes cast by him for the government, and above all the vote in favour of the French treaty. He has been untiring in his vindication of his spirit of independence. In the speech which he has just delivered to-day, and which is perfect as to form, I detect the same practice of resorting to insinuation.


Eugène Paquet: -(Translation.)-Is the hon.
member in a position to point out to a single error appearing in my speech?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: -(Translation.)-There is no error for me to point out; I congratulate the hon. member on having paid his respects to the government.
I have a word to say in answer to the member for Terrebonne, in reference to the exodus from the United States to the Canadian west. These settlers are among all others particularly intelligent and energetic. If the member for Terrebonne will look into the statistics, he will find that in the interval of two years, about 200,000 have entered Canada, bringing with them capital to the amount of more than $100,000,000 in cash, stock and personal property. They are very desirable immigrants who will continue accumulating wealth and will contribute to our country's prosperity.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright).: -(Translation.)-I have listened with a great deal of attention and pleasure to the speeches delivered this afternoon. It must have been highly gratifying to you, Mr. Speaker, to hear those speeches in the beautiful tongue of your ancestors, the tongue of Molifre, and I feel that it would be unbecoming on my part to break the harmonious flow of this debate by using another tongue than
the French for the few remarks I wish to make. Many things of practical interest have been said this afternoon, but I expected something more from the mouths of the hon. members for L'Islet and Jacques Cartier. It seems there is not a single Conservative member in this House apart from these two gentlemen who is in favour of a scheme for the repatriation of French Canadians.
During the general election, particularly in the province of Quebec, a great deal has been said about immigration and especially the Doukhobors. I must admit that I am not in favour of bringing here from the continent of Europe immigrants of the class we have had coming to this country, who are of nomadic habits, and, under the pretense of religion, put us to shame. But, on the other hand, it should be acknowledged that when a government is doing every thing in its power to bring about the settlement of those immense territories of Alberta and Saskatchewan, it is not always an easy matter to select only desirable settlers among the thousands and thousands of immigrants who present themselves. I heartily endorse the opinion expressed by the hon. member for L'Islet and by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier in reference to this matter of repatriation.
.1 am in favour of forwarding the repatriation of French Canadians settled in the United States in preference to bringing here immigrants from the continent of Europe. I think we should spend large amounts towards developing transportation facilities in order to enable Canadians to take up lands in the Northwest. It should be admitted that there are great difficulties to be overcome by the government especially when they have to deal with such an important question as that of immigration. Many are the hindrances in the way; every one should have his due, and credit be given to the government whenever the occasion requires.
Only a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting the government offices in Paris. I had a very interesting interview with their agents, particularly with the commissioner, Mr. Fabre, and Messrs. Wiallard and Geof-frion. I got an insight into the work they are carrying on to induce French immigration. I also had an interview with Mr. de Coeli, the Canadian agent in Belgium, in connection with Belgian immigration, and I was favourably impressed with the interest he shows in his work.
The member for L'Islet referred to the establishment of agricultural colleges. He stated that the Dominion government should help in the establishment of such colleges. I hope the member for L'Islet will cross over the interprovincial bridge and visit the property owned in former times by the Conservative ex-representative of

the county, the late Alonzo Wright. He will find there one of the finest colleges in the province of Quebec, essentially agricultural, established by the fathers of the Holy Ghost, for the purpose of imparting a knowedge of farming to our French-speaking young men.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House, although this question is one of interest, not only to the people of Quebec, but to the whole of Canada. Knowing that the government are doing all they possibly can in the way of repatriation, I have ventured to open my mouth with the sole object of encouraging to the best of my powers the government in the national and patriotic work they are carrying on, now that we have at the helm the greatest and most distinguished of the French Canadians. I am anxious to show to our French Canadian friends that the Irish are in sympathy with them and that the Liberal party is anxious to promote at all times their welfare.


Mr.   C.@: ROY (Montmagny.)-(Translation.)-Mr. Speaker, being a new member I hope I may be permitted to say a few words on the question of repatriation, a matter which has been brought to the attention of the House by the representative of the county adjoining my own constituency. I refer to the member for L'Islet. It is the first time I have the honour to address the House, and I must acknowledge my surprise at finding that, in reference to a question concerning which there seems to be no room for difference, hon. members are nevertheless at variance. I did not expect to find politics mixed up in a question of such national importance.
I should congratulate my neighbour the member for L'Islet, who has confined himself to dealing with the question of repatriation. But what side of the House is responsible for introducing politics into this debate? I must say that it is that side of the House where I occupy a seat, where I have been relegated as a result of the last election; but it should not be inferred from that that I shall be often in harmony with the majority of those who sit on this side of the House. The member for L'Islet has not shown any prejudice, but I am unable to pay the same compliment to the member for Jacques Cartier, who I believe has confused the question of immigration with that of repatriation.
The object the member for L'Islet had in mind was to draw the attention of the House to that national work, the repatriation of our brethern living in the United States. The member for Jacques Cartier, in answer to the Postmaster General, stated that the Conservative government, prior to 1896. had done something towards bringing about repatriation. He wished to give credit to his party to having sent $110,000 towards Mr. DEVLIN.
promoting immigration. For the sake of fairness he should have credited the Liberal government with having increased the amount expended on repatriation as well as on immigration.
Reference has been made to abandoned houses in Rouville county. My constituency adjoins that of L'Islet; I am just as familiar with the county of Bellechasse as with that of Montmagny, and I may say right here that for the last ten or twelve years there has not been any abandoned houses whose owners had been constrained to leave the country and settle in the United States. True, as stated by the member for Bellechasse, there are still to be seen aban-dond houses, but they are more a matter of congratulation to the government, since the owners of these houses have emigrated to our cities where, owing to the policy pursued by the government, they are enabled to make a living instead of settling in the United States.	_
The member for Quebec west (Mr. Price), owner of a large saw-mill in the county of Montmagny, will be able to support me when I say that if the population of the town of Montmagny has considerably increased, it is owing to the fact that the inhabitants of Saint Thomas have left their homes to take advantage of the rise in salaries paid to mill hands.
The hon. member from Terrebonne said that it was better to have the Canadians coming back to this country than to receive foreigners. It would be better to have our poor fellow countrymen back from the United States, if they so desire, because the opportunity of doing so was given to them as agents were appointed in the United States. If there were no agents as there are, thanks to the policy of the government who undertook to make Canada known at the various exhibitions, not by sending there bands of Indians nor by any other similar doings capable of stirring curiosity but by displaying exhibits of such a character as to draw the attention upon Canada, they would still attain their end by the important display of our products.
The hon. member from Jacques Cartier found fault with the government because they intended to exercise their patronage^ in the appointment of their immigration agents; then he asserted that the wages paid to the agents in the United States were too low. If those wages are too low, as the hon. member from Jacques _ Cartier says, what becomes of his pretension that the government wanted to have a little patronage to exercise ? That is an inconsistency which I am unable to understand and which shows that the hon. member is not in earnest.
I shall say no more. As a French Canadian, first, and as a Canadian without any other qualification, I sincerely wish that

our brethren from the United States come back in larger numbers than heretofore.
In concluding, I shall say that the government cannot be blamed, that they fulfilled their duty by appointing agents and that every year the number of our fellow-countrymen who have come back has increased.


Mr. J. A. ETHIER (Two Mountains).: - (Translation.)-Mr.	Speaker, the hon.
member from L'Islet has seen fit to put upon the orders of the day a notice of motion for the production of papers which virtually summarize the different questions he has asked during the last parliament. Whether he has voluntarily or unvoluntarily forgotten the answers given by the Minister of the Interior, I do not know, although I am bound to congratulate him upon the tone of the speech he has delivered to-day. Had he omitted the insinuations which we have detected in his remarks, they would have been brought forward by the hon. member from Jacques Cartier. As the Postmaster General says, those innuendoes having been repeated by the hon. member from Jacques Cartier, the remarks of the hon. gentleman from L'Islet have lost a good deal of importance. -
The hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier has contradicted to a certain extent the statements of the hon. member from L'Islet. It is not my intention to go over every detail, but I cannot help recalling to these two gentlemen what happened in 1907. Here is what I find on page 6930 of the ' Hansard ' of that year :
Generally speaking, the exodus towards the United States has perceptibly decreased, if it has not entirely come to an end, since ten years in New England. There is still here and there an exodus towards the United States, but as I have said, the number of our people going to the United States is considerably less.
Now, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier was contending a moment ago that the exodus of our fellow-countrymen towards the United States was still going on. I assert that those words of the hon. o-entleman from L'Islet which I have just quoted are inconsistent with the statements made to-day by the hon. member from Jacques Cartier.' We have it from the member for L'Islet that the exodus towards the United States has come to an end ten years ago, still the member from Jacques Cartier holds otherwise.
I understand that the hon. member from L'Islet in moving for a copy of all correspondence, returns, and documents between the Denartment of the Interior and the immigration agents in the United States, and between the Department of the Interior and the colonization societies since the first of January, 1908, seeks information which has already been given to him. In any case, it is a matter of colonization and repatriation relating to Canada and the United
States, and to the province of Quebec especially, not to Doukhobors and Galicians to whom the member from Jacques Cartier has referred to his speech.
As the hon. gentleman from Bellechasse says, the member from L'Islet during the last elections gloried in having sometimes voted with the government, and in the statements he had made in the House; he held that as a token of his independence. But now he finds fault with the policy of the administration as his friend from Terrebonne has also done. My opponent at the last election was flying the same colours, repeatedly saying and asserting on every busting that the government was sacrificing the French Canadian for the sake of the Doukhobors and the Galicians who, in his opinion, were nothing but low debauched people that ought to be driven away from this country. Such was the attitude of those gentlemen and such is the way in which the member from L'Islet behaved to further his own interests.


Eugène Paquet: -(Translation.)-Mr. Speaker, has the hon. gentleman the right to say that I have acted in this House so as to further my own interests?


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: -(Translation.)-I made a mistake; I meant his political interests.
The immigration policy of those gentlemen has always been double-faced. They had a policy for the province of Quebec and another policy for the west. Thus, the hon. leader of the opposition had a different policy on immigration during his electoral tour on the eve of the last general elections, a policy reprehensible in Valleyfield and quite acceptable in Winnineg. as far as foreign immigration goes. It was the same thing as in 1896, when Sir Charles Tupner had a double platform on the school question, one for Quebec and the other for Manitoba. I shall now come back to the question. Here is what I find at nage 710 of the Hansard of 1908:
Mr. PA-QUET asked:
1.	What amount of money has been paid by the federal government, since January 1, 1900, to the Colonization and Repatriation Society of Montreal ?
2.	What amount of money has been paid by the federal government, since January 1, 1900, to the Colonization and Repatriation Society of Lake St. John and of Quebec?
3.	What amount of money has been paid by
the federal government, since January 1, 1900, to the Lake St. John Railway Company for the encouragement of repatriation?	*


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	$25,300.
2.	$22,000.
3. $34,000.	*
Giving a total sum of $81,300.
Therefore the hon. member from L'Islet has already had from the Minister of the Interior that information he asks for to-day.

These being the facts, they dare say that the government has done nothin" for the repatriation of our fellow-countrymen in the United States.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) The answer only covers that period ending January 1, 1908. I now ask for the statement relating to the time which has - elapsed since January 1, 1908.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) The hon. member from Jacques Cartier has referred to vacant houses. I am the representative of one of the princiual farming constituencies in the province of Quebec. There are no manufactures in our county ; every one is a farmer. The same thing may be said of Terrebonne, save for St. Jerome, where there are a few industrial establishments. The hon. member from Terrebonne no doubt recalls that a great number of young farmers from the north used to leave their families to go to the United States. They went awav m order to earn their daily bread which they could not get in their own country, and these things happened under the administration of those gentlemen. Now, what do we see to-day? Rich and prosperous Winning communities. No more farms are sold by the sheriff, as it has been pointed out a moment ago by the hon. member from Bellechasse when he was referring to the Quebec district.
If you enter the registration office at St. Jerome for the county of Terrebonne or at Ste. Scholastique for the county of Two Mountains, you will notice that the mortgages are paid off and the discharges numerous ; the farmers pay their
debts.	.	, ,,
Besides the agents already appointed, the government have established special intelligence officers and we gather from the report of the Minister of the Interior that the United States government are getting alarmed on account of the results :
Here is what the report says:
It is impossible, the Deputy Minister of the Interior observes, in an essay on repatriation, to leave out statistics referring to the American immisrration, one-tenth of which is represented by former Canadians.
Everything shows that the government of the United States is becoming alarmed at the return of our former citizens and the emigration of the Yankees from the west towards the rich plains of Canada.
Statistics as well as facts prove that the government did not forget nor sacrifice the French Canadian as it was hinted in the province of Quebec during the last elections, and that the man who to-day would say that their interests are disregarded for the sake of the Doukhobors and the Galicians would not be believed by the readers of Canadian newspapers any more than he was believed by the electorate on October 16 last. And when the public shall hear Mr. EITHER.
about this discussion it will be once more proven that under the protection of Canada's greatest son the interests of our fellow-countrymen are as safe as any other.


Mr. JOSEPH DEMERS (St. John and iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, if [ intend to say a few words upon this question, it is not because the hon. member from Jacques Cartier has apparently reproached the Liberal member for not having spoken before about repatriation. It may have been that we have not discussed that matter but the government have taken measures and deeds are worth more than
WThe hon. member from Jacques Cartier, it seems, has made a poor reply to the statement of the Postmaster General who said that since 1896 the government had put a stop to our fellow countrymen towards the United States. The minister, the hon. member says, should not make that statement because he had himself noticed that the houses vacated before 1896 m the ties of Jacques Cartier and Rouville were still unoccupied. That reply is not con-
ClWe have never contended that he had
caused every Canadian to return from the United States. In order to make a satis factory reply the member from Jacques Cartier should have been able to assert that a great number of houses have been dosed since 1896 on account of the departure of the inmates for the United States, a statement which would not have been founded on facts.
So far as the member from L Islet is concerned I do not think that he was actuated by the unworthy desire of iattacking the administration, but we have heard so many accusations against the policy of the government, so many reproaches about the lick of k policy that I think te Postaa, ter General was in duty bound to put the facts in their true_ hght so as toJ^ispe\ erroneous impression which it was sought to create among the people.
Bv his motion the member from L Islet
asks for:	,
A copy of all correspondence, returns and documents between the Department of the Ulterior and the immigration agents in the United States, and between the Department of the Interior and the colonization societies
.	. ,	-	, o t_______ 1 flAQ
I am at a loss to understand how we could deny such a request. On the contrary, we should grant it for I believe that the hon. gentleman, if he carefully peruse those documents, will be enlightened and have a better opinion of the government policy on that matter. He will be able to notice what the government have done and to amend his ideas as to their desire as far as our fellow countrymen are concerned.

For several years past our government has made with foreign countries arrangements with a view to restricting immigration, and by restriction of immigration the return home of our fellow-citizens is not at all meant. If we are bound to congratulate the government for having thus restricted foreign immigration, we are also bound to congratulate them for the inducements extended to our fellow-citizens in order to bring about their return to Canada. We are in need of more men with strong bodies and large brains to help in the development of our great national heritage, and I am aware that no better settlers will ever be found than the sons of Canada, though unfortunate circumstances may have compelled them to emigrate to the United States.
Let us hope that the government will not depart from the policy they have been following heretofore in the country's greater interest.


Mr. J. GIRARD (Chicoutimi).: -(Translation.)-Mr. Speaker, in the course of the remarks which have just been made on that very interesting question brought up by the hon. member for L'Islet, reference was made to the cutting off of the subsidy of $5,000 paid during a certain length of time by this government to the Lake St. John Colonization and Repatriation Society, and there was evinced a disposition to blame the government on that account. I witnessed the beginnings of that society while I had the honour of being a member of the Quebec legislature. I took a hand in its organization and it was at my request that the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurieri agreed to pay the first grant of $4,000, subsequently raised to $5,000, to help it in carrying on its work, which was in good faith deemed practical and beneficial to the country. Subsequently, in view of certain well established facts, I took the responsibility, after consulting public opinion in my district, of recommending to the Prime Minister that the subsidy be no longer paid, and that a trial be made of some more practical organization, or of one at any rate as would secure more satisfactory results to the government. Papers concerning that transaction, which I shall request the government to lay on the table of the House, will set forth the facts which brought about the government's action in the matter and evince its wisdom under the circumstances.
Meanwhile the Prime Minister has approved of the appointment of a member of the clergy as lecturer to visit the principal Canadian centres in the United States, expound the advantages now offered by Canada to those willing to settle on its lands ; and at the same time he has appointed more agents to supervise the repatriation movement among Canadians there. The policy followed by the govern-28
ment heretofore has met with my approval, and I have yet to find anything which I would be inclined to blame; far from it.
To my mind, repatriation is a question of political and social economy, and to such an extent that the work which has been carried on by the government for a number of years has never given very satisfactory results. Hence an inclination to believe that the policy followed has been a wrong one. I am earnestly of the belief that who ever is dealing with this question is desirous to give every one his due, should of all necessity do away with all spirit of partisanship, considering that repatriation is an entirely patriotic move, to which all should be glad to lend a hand, if a result satisfactory to all concerned is to be arrived at promptly. I have had the honour at different times to go to the United States and address at times numerous meetings in Canadian centres. I have met there considerable numbers of Canadians who had not taken out their naturalization papers in the United States, who were anxious to return to Canada, but who deemed it a necessity to remain just where they were, being satisfied that on this side of the frontier they would not be in a position to procure for themselves and their families the same comforts, nor to effect savings to the same extent. The same reason was invariably given:	' In case we returned to Canada,
what would become of our daughters and of our boys who find here throughout the week employment suited to their strength, at reasonable salaries, which enable us to live comfortably and even to lay money aside? Were we to be deprived of those daily returns which is coming to us, we would all of us be left without means of living comfortably, and, of course, no savings could be effected.'
So then in the eyes of a great number of Canadian fellow-citizens who are now living in the United States, farming in Canada, despite all we may say to the contrary does not give sufficient returns to induce them to give up a sure thing over there and run the risk of settling down in Canada. As a result, there is a need of persistent canvassing in the midst of those people, who are not sufficiently in touch with what is going on here to appreciate as they should be appreciated our publications and lectures on the subject, and therefore cannot be persuaded that it is of immediate and undoubted interest to them to return to Canada. To fully realize the difficulties in the way of bringing about repatriation, it is necessary to have acquired experience in the matter through reading and listening to antiCanadian literature and utterances, spread in the form of correspondence and speeches by prominent men. It is all very well to wax eloquent as regards the development of our navigable waterways and of our transportation facilities, as means of facilitating



the success of such a movement. That, to my mind, is no answer at all to the question which is put to us on all sides: What means of livelihood have you to offer to our girls and boys, who contribute daily, however small the quota, to the supnort and comfort of the family. Such facts as these show what difficulties the government has tp cope with in its work. I for one am content of what has been accomplished in the past, and I know that the Prime Minister and his colleagues are anxious to take all the possible measures at their disposal to bring about in a practical wav and in a way beneficial to the country, the settlement of that repatriation difficulty. I am aware that they are always glad to receive suggestions from whatever source, provided they are of a nature to promptly bring about the results expected from the moneys spent yearly for that purpose.
In a matter of such great moment, let then each one of us consider it as his duty to contribute his quota of advice and endeavour, and very shortly the House will have the satisfaction of noting a change for the better. I do not wish to detain the House any longer, and I now resume my seat, with the hope that this question will be further discussed later on in the course of this session, and that a greater number of members will then be in a position to give us the benefit of their thoughts and researches in reference to that important matter.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) I am in sympathy with the remarks just made by my hon. friend from Chicoutimi. He has dealt with the question from the social point of view and not from the standpoint of politics. I hope the House will grant an order for the return asked for, which will enable us to judge what changes the government should effect.
I for one have dealt with the question from the social viewpoint, and with an earnest desire to help on the work of repatriation, and accordingly I have set aside all political considerations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What business will be taken up to-morrow if we should reach government orders?


Wilfrid Laurier: We will take penitentiary estimates, and if it is convenient to the other side we may take the Civil Service resolution.


Mr. OLIVER.: Do I understand that the motion was passed?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I regret that I did not understand that because I was under the impression that my hon. friend was willing to amend it.
At six o'clock the House adjourned.


Joseph Girard: Thursday, February 11, 1909.