1910-03-22

Mr. LENNOX moved:: That the fourth report of the Special Committee appointed to investigate the charges , and allegations made by Hugh D. Lumsden against a portion of the engineering staff of the National Transcontinental railway be taken into consideration on the 31st instant.
He said: I would suggest this date if it is convenient to the leader of the government.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Quite so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I wish to bring to the attention of the government, especially the Minister of Public Works, a complaint made by the people in the western part of the province of Ontario in regard to the lease by the government of Ontario of the privilege of

taking sand and gravel from the Detroit river, or rather the River St. Clair, which is an international stream. That privilege has been granted for five years to a Detroit concern over a district running from the Indian reserve to the head of Point Edward, and comprising some 2,025 acres. Heretofore it has been the custom of the people of Sarnia, Wallaceburg, Dresden and other places desiring sand, to go to the neighbourhood and take it. They find now that before they can get any sand they have to pay a royalty to this Detroit concern, without whose consent they are not able to avail themselves of this public property. A great deal of feeling amounting to indignation has been aroused over the matter, and it seems to me that by reason of the interest which the Dominion has in a stream of this character, some action might be taken by this government to protect the rights of the people of Canada.


Mr. PTJGSLEY.: I am glad that my hon. friend has brought up this very important matter. I may say that my attention has been already called to it by persons who complain of this exclusive right being granted by the government of Ontario to the company to which my hon. friend refers. Of course, if the sole right to the bed of the river is vested in the Ontario government, it would be impossible for the Department of Public Works to take action unless the operations of the company might be injurious to navigation. I am rather inclined to think that is the case, because a company dredging simply for the purpose of taking out sand would not be likely to have very much regard to navigation, and the result would be that deep holes would be left in certain parts of the river, which would prevent proper anchorage, and in other respects might be injurious to navigation. I may say to my hon. friend that I will have the matter looked into, and will see whether it is possible or desirable that action should be taken by the Department of Public Works in the matter.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee, on Bill (No. 102), respecting immigration-Mr. Oliver.
On section 26, bill of health,
Mr. JAMESON.: If the minister will permit me to refer back to section 3, I would like to ask him if he thinks that the words ' persons afflicted with loathsome diseases, or with disease that is contagious, or infectious, or which may become dangerous to the public health,' would cover tuberculosis? I see, by the amended immigration regulations of the United States, adopted in 1907, that w'hile they have made provision practically along the lines which the minister has followed in this Bill, they have expressly included tuberculosis. If the hon. minister thinks this clause will cover that point, I suppose there is no necessity to make an amendment, but otherwise, it would be well to consider the matter.	.


Mr. OLIVER.: I may say that the matter was considered when we were drafting the Bill. Our view was that tuberculosis is such an insidious disease that if we mentioned it by name, and specifically included tuberculous people among the prohibited classes, the provision might be used to work unnecessary hardship, whereas the section, in its present shape, is sufficiently operative in cases where the disease is so developed that there can be no question about its existence. In such cases, the immigrant may be excluded under it. But if we were to include the word ' tuberculosis ' in the section, it would cover cases which might show a tubercular tendency or a tubercular condition which it would not be right to exclude on that account. By leaving the section as it is, if the disease has reached such a stage as to be a danger to public health, the patient can be excluded.


Clarence Jameson: As long as the minister thinks the section sufficiently broad to cover cases of tuberculosis, and the officers of his department are so instructed, I shall be perfectly satisfied, but I hope that the minister's view will be understood, because it is very important that we should guard against the introduction of that loathsome, and most deadly disease.


Frank Oliver: This provision is practically identical with that in the Act to-day, and which is operated under the interpretation I have given. We employ the section for the purpose of excluding patients who are evidently tubercular and whose condition is such as to constitute a public danger.
On section 28,
Medical officers appointed under this Act shall make a physical and mental examination of all immigrants and passengers seeking to land in Canada from any ship or vessel, except in the case of Canadian citizens. Such examination shall he made in accordance with and subject to regulations prescribed by the superintendent of immigration under the direction or with the approval of the minister.


Clarence Jameson: Does the hon. minister contemplate having any examination of intended immigrants at the port of embarkation? I have alluded several times to the United States regulations, and I do not wish to unduly bring them into this discussion, but it does seem to me that, with

their very long experience, they ought to be in a position to know what is required. I find that, according to the provisions of their Act of March 3, 1893, they require the shipmasters to furnish a list of all passengers, and that the passengers shall be examined by the master of the ship or its surgeon at the port of embarkation. If that be not done, they are liable to heavy punishment-both the master, and the ship owners. When the Bill before us was under discussion on its second reading, my hon. friend from .Tacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) made a suggestion along this line, and I do not know whether the minister said that any regulations of that character would be enforced. But it seems to me such a regulation would relieve in a large measure the pressure on the officers on this side. I should like to have the minister's views.


Frank Oliver: Section 26 might be utilized to require the information which my hon. friend has suggested, but our view is that we cannot accept any inspection by any person who is not responsible directly to us, and therefore we have not provided for any examination. Section 26, however, would enable us to require the master to give us the information on the manifest. That, however, is a question of detail, and not of principle. Our principle is that the examination made by the officers responsible to us is the only one we can recognize. In that way we place the responsibility absolutely on the steamship company. If the company take passengers who do not meet the requirements of our law, they have to take them back, and the responsibility is theirs, not ours..


Mr. PAQUET.: This section concerning inspection is perhaps the most important of all. What we should insist on is moral, physical and mental inspection.
Persons who have been convicted of any crime should not' be permitted to land in Canada. In that connection, I express the opinion, founded on the statement of Mr. Scott, that we should provide for the moral examination of the immigrants on the other side. Whoever intends to settle in our country should be the holder of a certificate stating that he has committed no crime. This certificate might be issued by a magistrate, by the clerk of a court of justice, ot by a clergyman. Let us insert a similar test in our legislation, and we shall have at our disposal a further means of keeping away undesirable immigrants. On the twenty-first of April. 1909, in the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Monk put this question to Mr. Scott: 'What objections do you see to it if the immigrant should hand to the examining authority on the other side that document which would show that the immigrant is not a criminal?'' Mr. JAMESON. \
And Mr. Scott said: ' I would have no objections.'
I desire to make another suggestion. The ideal system would consist in a medical examination performed on board ship by a Canadian physician, appointed and paid by the Department of the Interior. He would be permitted to take the necessary time to make an inspection of a very scientific character.
You will allow me to make a few remarks concerning the medical inspection of immigrants at Quebec. Dr. Page has thoroughly organized the system of medical inspectors at that place. Those having any experience in the practice of medicine know how7 difficult it sometimes is, to discover mental disease. The physician is obliged to make long and repeated examinations. I think Dr. Burgess, medical superintendent of Verdun Asylum, is right when he says:
But, apart from the question of heredity, there is another and more remediable cause for the rapid increase in our asylum population, namely, the defective class of immigrants being dumped upon our shores. That a country so vast as ours should be more densely peopled is ' a consummation devoutly to he wished,' hut the question of number should be secondary to that of character, and quite a large proportion of the immigrants brought in are of a low standard of mentality, some of them even having been inmates of asylums before coming to this country.^ In our own establishment, of the admissions since its opening, over forty per cent have been of foreign birth, and there are in residence at the present time not a few patients, who, if subjected to any proper examination, would never have been allowed to set foot in the country. The new Immigration Act, assented to in July, 1906, by which an immigrant probationary period in this country was extended to two years, has certainly been a great help toward reducing the number of undesirables foisted upon us, and by its aid we were able last year to bring about the deportation of some fourteen patients. There are, however, still resident no less than eleven persons whom we are morally certain come within the provisions of the Act, but in regard to whom we have been able to get no positive proof that such is the case. Insane, they are unable or unwilling to give any reliah'e information about themselves, and friendless, we have no one to whom to apply for it. This fact alone proves the crying need for a much stricter examination of every alien seeking our shores. All persons wishing to emigrate to Canada should he rigidly examined by liberally salaried medical officers appointed by the Dominion government, before being allowed to embark, and should furnish proof that they have never been insane or epileptic, and that their parents have never been affected with such diseases. The examining medical officer should be held strictly accountable for the mental calibre of the applicants for emigration passed by him.
I hope the minister will be able to go along these lines. I believe this Bill is a

step in advance. I would like a perfect Bill, and I believe that there is room foi great improvement, even upon the present legislation. The government would be accomplishing a progressive work should they appoint a commissioner with power to investigate in order to enlighten the legislators of this country with regard to this great question of immigration.


Frank Oliver: In reply to the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Paquet) that there should be a moral examination of the immigrant before he leaves his own country, I would point out that, while that would be possible in the case of immigrants from the continent of Europe, it seems to me it would be either difficult or ineffective in the case of immigrants coming from the British islands. On the continent there is a general system of supervision of the people; a record is kept of every individual. Consequently, as I have suggested, it would be possible, in the case of immigrants from the continent of Europe to arrive at a very fair idea as to their conduct by such a scheme of investigation as my hon. friend suggests without unduly and unreasonably hampering the immigration movement. But I fear that, in the case of British immigrants who come from a country where there is no such system of keeping records of individuals, the result would be to hamper desirable immigration to a degree that would be beyond the benefit that we should derive. The deportation provisions of our Act are, I think, reasonably effective in getting rid of the morally unfit. That is the purpose, at any rate. And I think that the purpose is fairly served. So that, when an immigrant arrives in Canada, if we find within a reasonable time that he is morally unfit, we can, under the Act, return him to the country from whence he came at a minimum of expense to Canada. This fact -that they can be returned and that the expense of return has to be borne by the transportation company, and the effect of failure by the unfortunate person who is deported-seems to me to be a fair deterrent. I think the House will find, as we wrork along the lines of our present Immigration Act, that the effect will be to restrict the coming of the undesirables through the knowledge that if they come they can and will be sent back.
As to the suggestion that there should be a medical examination on board the ship on the way out, I quite appreciate the great advantage there would be in adopting such a plan. Certainly, it would give an opportunity for physical examination which does not exist in the rush and hurry that occurs in the landing at the ocean port. But, on the other hand, there would have to be considered the very large expense that would be involved in making such an examination as is proposed. But, if the matter is fairly examined, and if the
immigrants who came last year and those who are coming this year be considered rather than those who came years ago before we put in force the restrictive and selective provisions of the Act under a selective and restrictive policy, I think it will be found that the conditions are not such as would reasonably require the additional expense that would be involved in my hon. friend's suggestion.


Mr. J. D. REID.: I do not quite understand what rule the minister follows. At many of these points where immigrants arrive, he has physicians to examine them, and I suppose they also see at the same time that the immigrants fulfil the law in other respects. At many other important points his officials are not medical men, and therefore are not in a position to judge whether the immigrants are proper persons to allow into this country. As long as they have the necessary funds, which I think is $25 each, the immigration officers allow them to come into this country. They may be persons who are not .altogether mentally right, and yet these officers are not qualified to judge, and therefore undesirables are allowed in. As an instance, take Sault Ste. Marie, where tlm minister stations medical men to examine immigrants coming in. But opposite my own town there is no medical officer. There are men there acting as immigration agents, and I am not saying anything against them, they are all good men. But how are they to decide whether a person is fit to come into this country? As long as they have the funds they are allowed to come in. There are other cases where I think this immigration law is violated, and the minister knows it; it is violated on account of the kind of officers he appoints. We all know that it is not very long ago when thousands of Japanese were allowed to come ^ in at Vancouver. After one immigrant' was allowed in -yvith $25, he handed that money over to another one who is also allowed in, and so they kept the thing going on, and the official allowed immigrants in who were not able to comply with the law. We had another case at Halifax or St. John, where one of the minister's officers was letting in immigrants that were diseased, and that were certainly not the proper kind of citizens to allow into this country. But he was allowing them to come in and getting a rake-off for doing so. In that case all the minister did was to dismiss this official-at least I think he did, but he did not prosecute him for violating the law; and the Tesult is that the next man he appoints is probably doing the same thing. But that is not the only case. There is a case before the public at Quebec to-day where an official appointed by the minister himself has been,

I understand, allowing these _ people to come in, though they have violated the law; he allowed a lot of them to come in that had not the necessary funds. The way they do it is a contractor will go down and hand the men the $25, and then they are allowed in and remain here as citizens. Yet the minister pays noi attention to that. People can get into this country, no matter whether they have $25, or whether they are filled with tuberculosis, or anything else, because of the class of men the minister has acting as inspectors. When I read of these things taking place at Vancouver, at St. John, and at Quebec, and the minister paying no attention to them, I think it is time the people should rise and rebel against the kind of officials he puts there to carry out the inspection law.


Frank Oliver: I have not in mind all the instances my hon. friend has mentioned, and cannot reply as exactly as I would wish. He mentioned one case where thousands of Japanese, he says, were allowed to come in at Vancouver; and he placed the responsibility upon the immigration official at that place. My hon. friend is entirely in error. At that time the law did not permit the agent at Vancouver to prevent these people from coming in, nor was he able to prevent them until, as I mentioned last night in reply to the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve), we got legislation which enabled us to put up a barrier against undesirables, then no more of them came in, and I think we have the same agent.


John Dowsley Reid: Did not each one have to have $25?


Frank Oliver: Not at that time. In regard to general incompetence or improprieties on the part of the immigration agents, I may say to the hon. gentleman that we have to guard a frontier of 3,000 miles, with ports on both oceans, and it is not reasonable to suppose that we can always get a perfect or entirely satisfactory agent. When the people of Canada all become angels, then that will he possible, but not before. I am glad to know, however. that those officials my hon. friend is most acquainted with, those whom he sees most frequently he has no fault to find with. Now, I beg to say to my hon. friend that the minister is sitting in his place in the House, and no one in the House I am sure would find fault with him . more quickly than my hon. friend if the minister were not in his place. The minister is in his place in the House. I beg to assure my hon. friend that complaints in regard to the conduct of any particular officers in any part of the country receive prompt attention, and justice Mr. J. D. REID.
is done as we understand Justice in the matter. We do not claim perfection for the head of the Immigration Department or for any of its officers or officials, but. we do claim that both officers and officials average up fairly with the rest of the community.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think the minister deals out justice to his officials as he says. I remember a case in the minister's department up in his own city of Edmonton, where one of his officials was found guilty of stealing money from immigrants, and he was put in jail. The minister paid his salary while he was in jail, and after he got out he increased his salary, and still keeps him as an official in his department. That is the way he deals out justice to his officials. He still has that official in Vancouver. I was surprised to hear him state that he had kept on this othcial _ at St. John. Then there has been a complaint against an agent at Quebec that he allows a" contractor to go down and pay all the men $25 so that they can put it in their pockets and walk past the inspectors and then hand the money back to him again. That is how the minister deals out justice, a man who commits an offence is promoted and that is the kind of officials he has in many of these places along the frontier. Of course in my county they are good officials because you cannot get any but good men there, but when you go to Edmonton, and some of these places you get men of the class I have mentioned. I do not find fault with the minister, there are other departments where the same thing is done. At Sorel an official robbed the country by padding the pay-lists, and the Prime Minister had him removed to his county with a larger salary, that was a man named Roy.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


John Dowsley Reid: If the Prime Minister has forgotten


Wilfrid Laurier: They are all good in my constituency.


John Dowsley Reid: -if he looks it up he will find that what I say is true. Another immigration agent of the Minister of the Interior, is Jackson, who was guilty of all the election frauds in South Oxford. He was sent to England as an immigration agent. It is with the class of immigration agents I find fault. I hope that when the minister is appointing any more agents, if he cannot get good ones in the constituencies where they are to be employed, he will come to my constituency where he will find good men who will do what is right if they are given the opportunity.


Frank Oliver: I was not able to follow all the hon. gentleman's statements but if they are all as incorrect as two I happened to* catch, his criticism is not very damaging. He mentioned an instance of an

official of the Immigration Department in the west who was sent to jail for stealing from immigrants, and said that the minister paid his salary while he was in jail, and promoted him on his release. If the man mentioned is Wagner, whose case was up before this House on several occasions, I was not the minister at the time Mr. Wagner got into jail, and I have every reason to believe that he did not get any salary while in jail, nor was he promoted while in jail, nor was he employed by the department when he came out of jail, nor for a considerable time afterwards.


John Dowsley Reid: Is he employed now?


Frank Oliver: Yes, and giving every satisfaction. The man Jackson, "whom my hon. friend has mentioned, is not in the employ of the Department of the Interior in any capacity whatever. As to the other statements my hon. friend has made, if he will become definite rather than incoherent, and will give U3 the instances by name and date, and place, I will guarantee him that every means will be taken to see that justice is done.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think it is well to do that any further than I have. I have mentioned the agent at Quebec. The trouble is that if the minister investigates that case the result will be that the offender will get a better position, and the country will have to pay more. The best thing we can do is to let him stay there until this party gets into power, when we can put a "ood man in his place.


Mr. BLAIN.: The minister would not say that Jackson is not in the employ of the government. It is true he is not in the employ of the Department of the Interior, but it is well known that Jackson, who took an active part in the election trial in South Oxford, was appointed to an important position by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce defended his appointment in this House in a general discussion some years ago.


Mr. U. WILSON.: I would again call attention to the desirability of having a doctor on board each ship that brings immigrants to Canada so as to thoroughly examine them on the voyage. I think that is particularly desirable because while we cannot prevent them getting on the ship, as the minister has no authority in a foreign country, the doctor would certainly have plenty of time on the voyage across the ocean to make investigation and report, and then permission to land might be refused to undesirables. We are passing a stringent law and ought to do everything we can to enforce it.


Frank Oliver: I have already spoken on that point. There is no doubt the method
suggested would give opportunities for medical examination that we have not now, but it would also greatly increase the expenditure, and if we are to judge of the efficiency of the present law, and administration by the immigration of the present as compared with that of past years, it will be generally agreed that it is not necessary in the interests of a proper selective policy to make that expenditure. If it should appear from the experience of this year that it is necessary, I will be very glad to consider the proposition favourably, but it is my desire to keep the necessarily heavy expense of administering the immigration law as low as possible consistent with efficiency. I believe that with the campaign we are now making, with the warnings that we give, and with the attitude we have assumed towards the transportation companies, placing the responsibility on them, that we are in a very good position in regard to the exclusion of undesirables from Canada.


Uriah Wilson: I suggested the other day a method of furnishing the money without largely increasing the expenditure. I have been opposed for some years to the bonusing system, giving agents one pound for every man or woman that they send to this country. I think that is altogether unnecessary. In a recent speech the president of the New York Central railway told the people of the United States that unless they greatly increased the productiveness of their farms they would within five years be importing breadstuffs to feed their own people, and he added that it was desirable that experimental farms should be established in every county and every state of the union. If that be true, then the American people will shortly have to come to us for their foodstuffs, and in that light the giving of 160 acres of land free is quite an inducement to immigrants to come to Canada, without donating a bonus to some smooth-tongued agent who often induces undesirables to come to this country.


Frank Oliver: The bonus is only paid in respect of immigrants who will settle on the land-and to female domestic servants -whose presence in Canada may reasonably be expected to increase the production and productiveness of our land. It is true that the offer of 160 acres of free land is a wonderfully good offer, but it is no use unless people know about it, and we pay the $5 bonus to the booking agent on the ticket he sells to the farmer or farm labourer in order to advertise to them the offer that Canada makes. Our bonus policy is part of our advertising policy, and I believe we get more direct and indirect value from it than from any other part of our immigration expenditure. It is not correct to say that the bonus is paid in any way to induce the immigration of people of

Canada other than those who will go on the land or go into domestic service.


Uriah Wilson: I have been somewhat interested in this question, and I had supposed that from the number of immigrants of the farming class upon whom we are paying a bonus, that fully two-thirds of the population of the new provinces would be foreigners. I was surprised, however, to find by a recent report that of 808,000 people there in 1906, 444,000 were Canadian born. About one-half the population of Winnipeg are foreigners, and where are ail these men gone to that you would expect to find in the rural districts. I believe that everything possible should be done not only to induce foreigners, but to induce our own people to settle on the land, and I do not think the bonus is doing very much good. We expect to get immigrants from Great Britain, but out of the 44,000,000 population I find that less than 2,750,000 are settled on the land, and in view of that I do not see how we can expect^ to get farmers from Great Britain. I think the probability is that a large number of the settlers on whom we pay a bonus are taken from the cities rather than from the agricultural communities.


Frank Oliver: The very fact that the proportion of farm occupants in the old country is small and that the number of occupants of the cities is large, is the very reason why we give the bonus in order that the advantages of Canada may be brought to the attention of the agricultural population. The report of the homestead entries in the west shows that we have been successful in some measure. The number of people of British birth who have taken homestead entries in the northwest in the past ten years is ample evidence that whether the agricultural population of the British isles is large or small, we under our present policy, secure a very considerable share of them for Canada.


Uriah Wilson: They do not have to be farmers to take a homestead.


Frank Oliver: I know, but if they take homesteads and retain them they must become farmers. The evidence is plain in the northwest that our administration in that regard has not been by any means unsuccessful.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Can the minister say what proportion of the immigrants come because of the solicitations of immigrant agents, and what proportion come voluntarily?	,


Frank Oliver: It would be impossible to answer that question. It is impossible, of course, to draw the line between the immigrant who has been personally met bv the immigrant agent and solicited or the man Mr. OLIVER
who has come to Canada through the medium of the advertisements published by th.-j agents, and the man who may have come without any of these inducements. But it will be plain to any one that at the present day, when all the world is open to the immigrant, the man from Great Britain who comes to Canada in preference to going to the United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or any of the other British colonies, must have made his choice because of information received and very likely because of information contained in the various forms of advertising in Great Britain, for which the Immigration Department is more or less responsible.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I will draw the minister's attention to the fact that when this matter was investigated a few_ years ago the statement was made in evidence that these steamship companies had formed a pool under which a certain percentage of all the immigrants was set apart for each steamship company, so that, without regard to the agents fixing the destination of the immigrants, so many were assigned to Canada, so many to New Zealand and so many to each of the other countries that were absorbing immigration, and the booking agents simply sold tickets and took toll for the steamship companies, and did not add to or take from the total volume of immigrants comine to this country. If that is true, the companies will have a certain interest in trying to school immigrants coming to this country, who pass through their hands, to become farmers. The only test given by the minister was the number of those who homesteaded in the west. He gives no information in regard to the number in eastern Canada. Many of these people who go out west and take up homesteads simply stay long enough to prove them up, and then sell out to some man from Ontario, the maritime provinces or Quebec, and drift into the cities, as they are not farmers and do not like farming. A number of years ago the same kind of people were attracted to the northern part of the province of Ontario by promises of free grants of land; but they did not stay long, the great bulk of them drifting into the cities. I think that much the same thing has happened in the west.


Frank Oliver: There is always in every country a movement from the country to the towns and cities. That is how the cities exist; it is because of that natural flow of population to them. Population never goes from the town to the country; it always goes from the country to the town. It is not only the British or continental immigrants, but it is the Canadian-born, the British-born, the continental-born and the United States-born on the farms who ultimately build up the towns. It would be nonsense to suggest that because British

immigrants come to Canada and take up land, therefore, neither they nor their children, nor their children's children would ever become residents of a town; but there is no difference whatever between the British immigrant and the Canadian-born citizen in that respect. If there is, it is rather in favour of the British immigrant and his children staying on the land rather than going to the town.


William Wright: I would point out that the settlers from Ontario and Quebec, as a rule are people from the rural portions of the country, farmers and farmers' sons. The people who come from the old land are city people. Under such conditions, there would certainly be a smaller proportion of young men from Ontario who would drift off to the cities than these city people who come from the motherland and who are not farmers.


Frank Oliver: I have lived in the northwest for a long time and have followed the trend of immigration, and so far as my knowledge and -experience go, the British immigrant to the northwest stays on the land as well, or better, than the Canadian settler, one reason being that the towns in the west are Canadian, whereas the countrv districts are of mixed pojoulation. In regard to a steamship combine, there is no doubt one, but it operates in exactly the opposite way to which my hon. friend supposes. Instead of the companies dividing the actual transportation of the immigrants among themselves, they each .get their share of the total proceeds of the passage money, no matter to what country the immigrant goes. So that it becomes a matter of indifference to the steamship company where the immigrant goes so long as he goes somewhere. Under these circumstances, it is all the more necessary, if Canada is to get immigrants of a desirable class, that we should take means to place the advantages of this country before them.


William Wright: According to the minister's own admission, it is not likely that any steamship company will exert itself to bring immigrants to Canada when it has to turn over a portion of the profits to some steamship company that does not carry them at all.


Richard Blain: When the hon. gentleman introduced this Bill, I put this question to him:
Is there a demand from any part of Canada to abolish altogether assisted immigration?


Frank Oliver: There is no assisted immigration into Canada so far as this government is concerned. I know of no demand to abolish that which in this ease does not exist.
I think that was hardly an .answ-er to my question, and I find from the discussion now, as I knew at the time, that there is a great deal of money expended by this government, which in reality is for assisted immigration. My hon. friend has pointed out that they paid bonuses upon farm labourers, and domestic servants, so that I do not quite see how he came to make the statement he did.


Frank Oliver: Apparently my hon. friend and myself hold different views as to the meaning of the term ' assisted immigration.' I understand it to mean assistance given to the immigrant personally to come to Canada. I replied that we gave no such assistance. I believe that at one time there was some assistance given to immigrants. There was a money payment made to them after they had taken up homesteads in the west.


Uriah Wilson: Do you remember the date?


Frank Oliver: I cannot. It was a long time ago, and it did not last very long.


Richard Blain: More than twenty years ago?


Frank Oliver: I could not recollect the date, but there was a time when there was a direct payment to the immigrants. That, however, has not been the policy of this government. It is absolutely contrary to our policy that any part of the passage money or expenses of an immigrant should be paid in order to enable him to come to Canada.


Mr. HUGHES.: The assistance is given the steamship companies.


Frank Oliver: No. There was a time when assistance wTas given these companies, but that time has gone by, and now our money is spent entirely in advertising the advantages of Canada. If that be assisting immigration, then of course this government does assist immigration.


Mr. SPROULE.: What is the bonus or assistance?


Frank Oliver: We do not assist the immigrant. There is a payment to the agent to recoup him for advertising in order to induce immigrants to buy their tickets from him. I draw a distinction between assisting, and inducing immigration. Our policy is to induce immigration by advertising the advantages of Canada. There is a distinction between that, and the policy of advancing money to enable immigrants to come to Canada. The latter is a policy which is now in vogue in Ontario, and I think British Columbia, as well. The governments of these provinces have seen fit to inaugurate a policy of what I would call ' assisted immigration.' We have not done anything of the kind. We spend many thousands of dollars in

advertising the advantages of Canada, but not one dollar is paid to any immigrant to bring him out.


William Wright: What proportion of the total immigration, and what classes are bonuses paid on?


Frank Oliver: I could not give the information. I am not sure that our returns are in such a shape that I could give it.


William Wright: 
Frank Oliver: I believe my hon. friend's remark applies to some booking agents, but they are the agents who do very little booking. The booking agency business in the British Islands, and continental Europe is a special business, carried on the same as the grocery business, or any other. Every immigrant to Canada has to buy his ticket at a booking office. Just as in the case of other callings, some are enterprising, and some are not, and the booking agent who does a large business, makes money while the one who does a small business makes very little. The booking agent who is energetic and ambitious advertises to the public that he is a booking agent, and in addition the advantages of some country to which immigrants are likely to go, in order to induce them to buy their tickets from him instead of from his competitors. So that when Canada offers a bonus of $5 to these agents for bringing certain classes of immigrants to Canada, they advertise in the newspapers, and give lectures with the idea of getting the business. In that way we get ample returns in publicity for the money we spend, and in interesting the men to whom the immigrants must go to purchase their tickets. They are booking agents for every part of the world, and sell tickets to every part of the world. Everybody has heard of Cook's, for instance, who have booking agents everywhere, and sell tickets to everywhere. The result of our offering a bonus of $5 to the booking agents on tickets sold to agricultural people coming to Canada is that the booking agent advertises Canada, and particularly the agricultural advantages of Canada, because that is where the money is made. That is where we get some of our best advertising results. The Australian colonies are now Mr. OLIVER.
waking up, and, I am sorry to say, are adopting our methods. But imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Besides, I do not think that anybody will suggest that our Australian cousins are lacking in enterprise or in good sense. They see what we have been successful in doing by this policy, and they have decided to follow it. It is true they are adding to it by a system of what I call assisted immigration. We are not doing that; we do not believe it is the best policy. We believe that the advantages which Canada offers are such that if they are brought to the attention of the people who are able to use these advantages, that is sufficient; and if we cannot get the people that way, we are content that they should go somewhere else.


William Wright: In criticising the minister in the efforts to promote immigration, I was merely pointing out that these booking agents seem to be not so much promoting immigration as taking toll from the immigrants who come to Canada. As _ to their advertising Canada and promoting the emigration of the class we desire, it is clear that the large population from which they can most easily draw is that of the towns. As the minister has pointed out, only a small proportion are those who are really on land. I am somewhat of the opinion that the booking agents convert a lot of those who pass through their hands into agriculturists-they have an interest in doing that. While I am on my feet, I would ask the minister if there is any person who looks after these booking agents to see if they are actually doing something to bring immigrants of the right class to Canada?


Frank Oliver: We have five salaried agents in England, two in Ireland and two in Scotland. Each of these agents _ has supervision of the booking agencies in a certain number of counties, and is expected to make visits to these booking agencies from time to time to see how they are carrying on their business. If we find that a booking agency is not doing our business in what we think a right and proper manner-if they are giving out improper advertising, misrepresenting the conditions in Canada or otherwise acting discreditably- we put them off the bonus list. Then, no matter to whom they sell tickets, we pay them no bonus. I think my hon. friend will agree that that has a fairly salutary effect.


William Wright: Do the salaried agents of the department make a proper report to the minister with regard to these booking agents? If so, I suppose that is included in the minister's report?


Frank Oliver: No, they are under the control of the Assistant Superintendent of Immigration in London. They receive their

* orders direct from him, and make reports to him. These reports are not part of the records of the government on this side, so that I should not be able to bring them down. But the supervision of the booking agents is a part of their business, and I am satisfied that they attend to it. My hon. friend is entirely in error in thinking that the booking agents-the enterprising ones, I mean-do not spend money, and a great deal of money, in directly advertising the advantages of Canada.


William Cameron Edwards: Is there an age limit in regard to the immigrants for whom a bonus is paid to the booking agents?


Frank Oliver: 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER.: If the committee desire to discuss immigration questions generally, I am ready to accommodate myself to that desire. But. I may remind hon members that the clause before the committee is that relating to medical examination of immigrants. I think that after this long general discussion, it would be better to come back to the clause before the committee.
Mr-. S. _ SHARPE. On this subject of examination, what system of checking has the minister with regard to these immigrants? What is to prevent the booking agents making fraudulent returns its to the classes they book?
Mr. OLIVER, An account is kept between the booking agent and the London omce on the basis of information received from this side. The booking agent claims a bonus on such-and-such a person. If the records here show that that person arrived and was of the agricultural class according to our information, authority is given to pay the bonus to the booking agent.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: With such a good system, why does the minister restrict this bonus to a few agents? Why not offer it to any booking agent who will earn it, and so give Canada the benefit of the widest advertising?


Frank Oliver: This is open to any booking agents in Great Britain and Ireland except agents who may have shown by their actions that. it is not desirable that we should do business with them. Prima facie every booking agent in the British Islands who has received a license to sell transportation in the British Islands is entitled to claim this bonus on fulfilling the conditions on which it is paid.	,


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: They are licensed by the imperial government?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Where is the inspection of the immigrants made?


Frank Oliver: At the port of landing.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: At no other place?


Frank Oliver: At no other place.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is the system we have always had?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The minister has no doubt noted in late American papers that about 4,000 have been deported from New York. Has he any idea of what their means of inspection is?


Frank Oliver: It' is the same as ours, but it is much more elaborate.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: AVould it not be far more satisfactory to have an officer inspect these immigrants on their way over? He could certainly make a far more thorough inspection. The minister will agree that it is impossible to make a thorough inspection of these immigrants as they are passing out of the boat, as I have seen it done at Halifax. I think they come out at the rate of five or six a minute. Why could not we have an officer on the boat all the way over who could make a thorough examination?


Frank Oliver: The onlv reason is the large expense. As I have already said, I think if we take the condition of the immigrants arriving this year since we have had our administration fairly tightened up, so to speak, and compare it with the condition last year, it will be found that our present system of inspection is fairly satisfactory. I think it would be generally agreed that really we do not require to go to the very large additional expense that would be involved in making the still more thorough medical inspection of immigrants that the hon. gentleman suggests. We have impressed the steamship companies very strongly that they cannot get undesirables through, and therefore they do not try to bring over undesirables as they have done in former years. Once they get that idea thoroughly grounded in their minds, we will have very little difficulty with undesirables. I may Say that in somei cases, in order to facilitate the work, we put a medical inspector on board the winter boat that calls at Halifax, and he inspects on that boat on its way to St. John. In the summer also, in the case of one of the steamship lines, we put on an inspector at Rimouski, and he inspects all the way to Quebec. That is not done on all the

lines, but we do it in connection with one of them. The system has its advantages, although it adds somewhat to the expense because it takes up more time of the medical officer, and it adds also to the expense of the steamship company, because we make them bear the cost of transportation.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Could the hon. gentleman say off-hand how much the medical inspection cost last year?


Frank Oliver: I could not. The committee will understand that questions of administration come up more pertinently when we are dealing with the estimates, at which time I would have the advantage of an officer of the department at hand to furnish me with facts and figures. But if it is desired, I can secure the information and present it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: One more question. I think all these ships bringing over immigrants have a medical inspector of their own on board, have they not?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why could not some arrangement be made with the ship's medical officer to inspect immigrants for the government?


Frank Oliver: I think I have had already occasion to say that we do not feel warranted in accepting the examination of the ship's physician when he would be responsible to the transportation company and not to us.


Mr. THOS. CHISHOLM.: I think the minister might try the experiment of putting a medical officer on one or two of those boats next summer, and let him report, not only in regard to the physicai condition of these immigrants, but also obtain some idea of their object in coming over, Whether they intend to become farmers, or farm labourers, or what they intend to do. I think the same medical officer who inspects them in regard to health could also ascertain a great manv things about them in other respects, and make a report to the government that would be useful. I am satisfied it is impossible to make a proper examination of patients coming off the boats as they do at the present time, any medical man understands that. Take a case Where the physician examines a man in the morning for tuberculosis, he examines him with a thermometer and perhaps finds the temperature normal, while in the evening that same patient might have a temperature of 102. I understand that the way the immigrants are examined is simply by looking at them. That certainly is not satisfactory, because it is quality and not quan-Mr. OLIVER.
tity that we are looking for. I think the minister has improved the conditions a great deal, and I am sure he would like to improve them still further, but not being a medical man, he does not understand the difficulties. I am sure we are allowing in a great many diseased persons from abroad that could be kept out if we had an officer on board the vessel coming over. I agree that he should be responsible to this government. More than that,- his report should be published in a blue-book so that members of parliament could read it. But it is utterly impossible properly to examine immigrants in the short time allowed the inspector.
I have spent myself a whole day, from daylight to dark, examining eight or ten or fifteen patients, and been very busy. But here we find an officer putting through perhaps 500 persons in the same time. The thing is utterly absurd. I think the minister should try the experiment of putting a medical officer on one or two of those boats, it would not cost a great deal. I am sure if he did so the result would be so satisfactory that, notwithstanding the extra cost, he_ would continue the practice, and would also insist in getting other information about these immigrants. The physician could ascertain in regard to their moral standing by keeping his eyes and ears open, and he could learn a great deal about them which would enable him to judge whether they should be allowed in or not. I think he could be very busv the whole four or five days during the passage in examining the incoming immigrants.


William Cameron Edwards: I certainly agree with the Minister of the Interior when he says that the physician who makes the medical examination on board should be under the authority of this government. The expense, of course, must be considered, but I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) is an excellent one, which could be carried out without very great expense. While I agree with the minister that it would not do to accept the examination of the ship's doctor, because he is not responsible to the government, and abandon the inspection by a medical officer on this side, it should be possible to have an arrangement for a. comparatively small sum, with the ship s doctor, so that he could make a general inspection and give to our medical inspector a note of certain cases which would attract his attention, as calling for special examination.	.


Haughton Lennox: I do not like to oppose my view to medical opinion, I do not take up that view of the matter. I do not often have to disagree with my own side of

the House, but I do not think it wise to have the medical officer of the ship either take upon himself to decide or to assist in deciding whether these people are fit immigrants. No man can serve two masters. A ship's doctor is employed by the shipping company and he cannot hold that office if he serves Canada in the capacity suggested.


Mr. BLACK.: He would lose his job in 24 hours.


Haughton Lennox: The shipping company is interested in forcing as many people into Canada as possible.


William Cameron Edwards: But they are interested also in bringing in healthy ones, inasmuch as they are put to the expense of taking them back if they are not healthy.


Haughton Lennox: That is true, but you are dealing not with people coming to the ship, but with people in the ship, and the question is whether they shall be allowed to enter Canada. It is to the interest of the ship's medical officer to sustain the company he is working for.


Frank Oliver: By section 26 of this Act we require that the master of the ship shall furnish the immigration officers a bill of health, certified by the ship's medical officer, giving particulars of the state of health of the people on the ship. That report is in the hands of our medical officer, as something to be taken into consideration.


Mr. PORTER.: Are many immigrants who have been passed by the ship's doctor rejected by our officers and returned?


Frank Oliver: Hitherto we have really not had such a report from the ship's doctor.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does not the report of the ship's doctor refer more to contagious or infectious diseases?


Frank Oliver: This section will call upon him to give a statement as to the
health of every passenger who is ill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The ship's surgeon would only have cases of illness come under his notiee when the patients applied to him for treatment. If we had a medical officer of our own on each of those vessels he could employ the time of the voyaye in going over all the passengers booked for Canada and examining them. Of course, with 800 or 900 passengers, he could not make a thorough examination, but he could make a better examination than is possible at the port of landing, where the inspection, in my judgment, is of a most cursory character. It is easy for many cases of disease, con-185
tagious or otherwise, to escape the observation of a medical officer who simply watches these people as they pass before him.


Frank Oliver: There is a good deal to be said in favour of that argument, but it is a matter of expense, and I .am hopeful that under present methods it will be found not to be absolutely necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The present methods are such that it is utterly impossible for any medical man, no matter how high in his profession, to acquire anything like an intelligent knowledge of the passengers. _ It may be dignified by calling it an examination, but that is about all.


Clarence Jameson: In order to meet the point raised by the minister last night, he should add after the word 'citizen' in line 14, the words: 'and persons who have a Canadian domicile.'


Frank Oliver: I think that is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 31, obligations of transportation companies,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: How can you compel a railway company to build immigrant sheds?


Frank Oliver: In the United States they take the position that the transportation company is responsible for having brought an undesirable to the boundary and that the company should provide the accommodation necessary during the detention of that person at that point. I think that is a proper view of the matter. The transportation company should thoroughly understand the responsibility that rests upon it for the carriage of undesirable immigrants.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that this section would compel them to provide accommodation for desirable immigrants as well as undesirable immigrants.


Frank Oliver: The intention of the provision in this clause is to require the company to provide accommodation for the detention only of persons held for examination as undesirables.
On section 33-landing of passengers,


Clarence Jameson: In section 25 of the Bill, in case of a passenger leaving a vessel under certain circumstances contrary to " the intention of the Act, the penalty is put at a maximum of $1,000 and a minimum of $20. In this section the penalty is put at a maximum of $500, and a minimum of $50. In the first instance it appears that the penalty applies merely to those who without any fault of their own perhaps allow passengers to escape or to land contrary to the law, while in the other case the



penalty applies to those who knowingly violate the law or permit it to be violated. It seems to me that there is a discrimination against the person who unwittingly allows passengers to land. Can the minister explain why this distinction is made?


Frank Oliver: I am afraid that when we amended section 25 we rather destroyed the symmetry of the Bill. I fancy that provision was intended to apply to the vessel; but we amended it to make it apply to the individual, which made the maximum penalty rather high. I would not be willing to make the maximum in that case the same as in this case.
Section 25 amended accordingly. .
On subsection 9 of section 33,
9. Any transportation company or person interfering with an immigration officer in the performance of his duty under this Act, or knowingly and wilfully assisting in the escape of any person detained by an officer, or at an immigrant station, for any purpose under this Act, or giving false information to an officer, whereby such officer is induced to land or permit the landing of any person in Canada who otherwise would be refused landing for any cause under this Act or would be detained for examination, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and not less than twenty dollars for each such offence.


Clarence Jameson: Should not the minimum be raised to $50?


Frank Oliver: I think not. This is a case in which greater latitude might be allowed than in the preceding one. In subsection .8 it is desirable that the minimum should be fairly high.


Clarence Jameson: I submit with all deference that no allowance should be made in favour of a peTson or company who interferes with an immigration officer in the performance of his duty. That is a serious offence and the penalty should be correspondingly serious. My observation has been that where there is a minimum, it is that which is imposed and not the maximum, and very often the fine is remitted or suspended pending good behaviour.


Frank Oliver: There are three offences included in this section. One is interfering, the other is assisting in the escape, and the third is giving wrong information. It seems to me that a penalty of $20 is sufficiently high in some instances of false information. When we try to cover three different classes in the one section, we should see that the penalty is fair in each case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In clause 25 the failure of a company to comply with the regulation to prevent any passenger leaving the vessel at any time or place other than designated by the immigration officer ' shall Mr, JAMESON.
be an offence against this Act and shall be punishable by a fine.' But in this subsection 9 we say ' shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.' You make the one imperative and leave no chance whatever to escape, which would indicate that there must be some one who must prosecute, but in the other case it is optional.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I am inclined to think that my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) is right in his contention. The case provided against in this subsection is similar to that of a man interfering with a constable or policeman who was trying to make an arrest. Persons who so interfere are treated as had breakers of the law', and I do not see that those covered by this subsection should be treated with less strictness. You might have a mob who would be guilty of this offence, and they might sav: It is only a matter of $20 in any event, let us teach this fellow a lesson not to interfere with our friends. There is no jail, and if no one identifies the parties, they pay nothing.


Frank Oliver: The imposition of the penalty is a matter for the discretion of the court. If we provide a fair minimum and maximum, we do all we can. We cannot convict and punish a man by legislation. All we can do is give the authority to the judge to do what he considers just.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The first offence might be a very serious one, yet no magistrate will be likely to impose anything more than the minimum penalty for a first offence. Law breaking people know that. The average law breaker is as well posted in criminal law as the average lawyer. They do not expect to be mulcted more than the $20, and can raise that amount among themselves if so unlucky as to be identified.
I should be inclined to think that if any one interferes with an officer in the performance of his duty he ought not have the option of a fine. If an Ottawa policeman, having a prisoner in custody, or taking him under due warrant, and thu3 preserving the peace of the city was interfered with in thus discharging his duty, the judge would not let off with a fine the person who thus interfered. But in this case, the judge would be obliged to do so. I think it should be a jailing matter for a man to interfere with an immigration officer in the discharge of his duty.


Mr. MADDIN.: It seems to me not wise to add confusion to the law as it stands. The Criminal Code provides for the punishment of parties interfering with public officers in the discharge of their duties. This section 9 adds confusion to the law. There is no good reason why a person guilty of the offence of interfering with an immigration officer should not come under the provisions of the Criminal Code. Subsection 29 of the interpretation clauses

of the code defines a public officer as follows.
' Public officer ' includes any inland revenue or customs officer, officer of the army, navy, marine, military, R.N.W.M.P., or other officer engaged in enforcing the laws relating to the revenue, custom, trade or navigation of Canada.	,	5
This definition does not cover an immigration officer. But there is no reason why it should not. Is not the proper way, instead of enacting this subsection 9, to enlarge the definition in this subsection of the Criminal Code which I have just read. Under section 168 of the Criminal Code:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to ten years' imprisonment who resists or wilfully obstructs any public officer in the execution of his duty or any person acting in aid of such officer.
I do not think it will be suggested that an immigration officer is less a public officer than one of the Inland Revenue or the Northwest Mounted Police, or of any other administrative department of the government. Section 169 of the code enacts that:
Every one who resists or wilfully obstructs-
(a) any peace officer in the execution of his duty, or any person acting in aid of such officer .... is guilty of an offence punishable on indictment or on summary conviction, and liable, if convicted on indictment, to two years' imprisonment, and, on summary conviction before two justices, to six months' imprisonment with hard labour or to a fine of $100.
With regard to assault, section 296 enacts that every one is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to two years' imprisonment who
Assaults any public or peace officer engaged in the execution of his duty, or any person acting in aid of such officer.
The very latest decision on the subject of interference with a public officer has been handed down by the King's Bench in Great Britain. The judges have gone so far as this: A local by-law was passed forbidding the operation of street cars beyond a certain speed limit. Constables were sent out to take observations of the running of these cars. Two of them took up positions at a measured mile apart with telephone communication between them. Some one who knew what they were doing sent word to the company, and the company instructed its motormen to run their cars between these points at a lower rate of speed than usual. This was held by the court to be obstructing an officer in the discharge of his duty. Why should we encumber our statute with a clause of this kind when we might bring these cases under the Criminal Code? If the present definition i3 not wide enough to cover officers of the Immigration 185i	!
Department let us amend it and keep our law uniform, and in proper shape.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Has the minister any idea how many immigrants are sent to the Winnipeg hospital?


Frank Oliver: I have not that information at hand, but I could get it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I would like to have it. I understand that this government gives no assistance to that hospital.


Frank Oliver: There is a considerable vote every year for the Winnipeg hospital on that account. We think it is better to aid the Winnipeg hospital directly than to maintain a hospital of . our own.
On section 37, immigrants may be required to possess prescribed amount of money.


Frank Oliver: I have a couple of amendments I would like to add to this section, so as to require that persons who claim to be tourists will have to have the same money qualification as immigrants. I think if a person claims to be a tourist he should have some money with him. I would ask that the words 'and tourists' be inserted after the word 'immigrants' in the third line; and again that the words 'or tourists' be inserted after the word 'immigrants' in the third line from the end. This will provide that in case a person claims to be a tourist and claims exemption from the restrictions of the law under that name, he shall at least have an amount of money with him equal to that required of an immigrant.


Mr. BURRELL.: Is there any amount specified as a minimum under the Act?


Frank Oliver: Not under the Act. But under the Act an order in council has been passed which provides that the minimum is $25. But the money may be dispensed with provided the person is coming to work on a farm or is coming to the relatives who are mentioned in the order in council, who are willing and able to support him.


Martin Burrell: Is that the order in council passed two years ago?


Frank Oliver: No, that was not found altogether efficient, and we passed an order a few days ago which we think covers the ground better.


Martin Burrell: The first order was passed two years ago, was it not, that which prescribes a minimum amount?


Frank Oliver: That order was dated 11th September, 1908, and it prescribed a minimum amount of $25.


Martin Burrell: Was there not one in March or February of that year, when the

first order in council was passed dealing with this question?


Frank Oliver: No, I think the first order in council was put through in the fall of 1907. At any rate, the order in council that is now in force was passed within the last two or three weeks.


Mr. HERRON.: Before the section passes I would like to read to the House an article, and ask the minister for an explanation. It is the statement of Mr. Bruce Walker, who I understand is the commissioner of immigration of Canada, who is in the United States at the present time. The statement was made in Chicago, and I am reading it from the 'Standard', of Strathmore, Alberta:
J. Bruce Walker, commissioner of immigration of Canada, made this statement recently at the Great Northern hotel in a discussion regarding modern methods of handling immigration. He said his country was benefiting by the mistakes of other nations, that it took care of all immigrants for one year and considered that heart, brain and brawn could be better interpreted than laws.
' The boundary line between Canada and the United States,' said Mr. Walker, ' is little more than a line between two states or two provinces. Our immigration laws are so similar that there is really a mere exchange of courtesies at the boundary, but once with our nation an immigrant becomes a ward of the government for a year. Once a newcomer enters the immigration area-that is Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-we care for him in sickness or distress, pay his doctor's bill, nurse him, rebuild his house if it burns and are responsible for his welfare. Why do we do it?-because it pays. We have found that the nearer the government comes to the immigrant the nearer the immigrant comes to the government. It makes him a better citizen. He feels that he has something better to depend on than even neighbours and friends. And from that feeling springs a regard for his adopted country that can be only likened to a man who adopts religion; he believes in it.'
The words 'drawing nearer' are familiar to most of us, but not in the context where they are found here. I would like to ask the minister if this statement of Mr. Bruce Walker is correct?


John Dowsley Reid: When did he make this statement?


John Herron: I have not the date, it is only a piece of the paper that I have before me. I have brought this question to the attention of the government before, though perhaps not before the present minister. I have stated in this House that agents of the government have told me that they had instructions of this nature, and it has been denied by the minister. But I am still of the oninion that there is something in this statement, and I would Mr. BURRELL.
like to hear what the minister has to say. At least, if the statement of Mr. Bruce Walker is not true, then I do not think he should be employed as representing this government in a foreign countrv: and if it is true, then I think it is very _ strange that foreign immigrants coming into this country should be treated in this manner. I do not see why an immigrant coming to this country should be treated in this way, nursed and protected as stated here, any more than a Canadian eitizdn or a man who would leave the eastern part of Canada, and go to one of the western provinces.


Frank Oliver: If Mr. Walker made the statements attributed to him he was, to put it mildly, mistaken. I cannot think he did make such statements, I believe he has been misreported or misrepresented in some way.


John Herron: This interview is apparently from Chicago.


Frank Oliver: If that is the authority
for the statement I wish to say that the statement read is not true, and I will risk something in saying that Mr. Walker never made the statement.


John Dowsley Reid: How do you know?


Frank Oliver: Because I know Mr. Walker, and I know he is not a man who would make a statemerit that is not true.


Uriah Wilson: An unfortunate circumstance occurred in London when Mr. Walker was assistant superintendent of immigration there. It will be remembered that we then got a lot of immigrants who were assisted by charitable organizations, and after it was all over Mr. Walker issued a circular criticising what had been done instead of finding it out at the time, and stopping it.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Walker would be entitled to an increase in his salary for the good work he is doing on this line. How is it that immigrants from foreign countries are treated better than Canadians from the eastern provinces? I am inclined to think that Mr. Walker's statement must be true. Is it not a fact that the minister or his department looked after some Doukhobors when they were sick, and clothed them, and fed them, and is doing so at the present time?


Frank Oliver: I do not know what the department did in times past, but it is not doing so to-day.


John Dowsley Reid: Did the minister not say that some of the Doukhobors whom I saw at Port Arthur are now in the insane asylum in his district?


Frank Oliver: I did not say so, I gave the House to understand that this govern-

585'J
ment had nothing to do with these Douk-hobors, the putting them in the insane asylum in jail or anywhere, that the matter was attended to by the provincial government.
Mr..J. D. REID. This carries out what Mr. Walker states, that the government brought these Doukhobors here, that they are looked after, clothed, and fed, and physicians provided to attend them. The only difference is that the provincial governments are looking after them, that the minister shunts the expense on the local governments. Is it that the government want to keep close to the immigrants coming into this country, that the immigrants have no politics, and the government want them to start out right? Young men from the eastern provinces have their politics fixed before they go there. I suppose that when the government want votes they take these Doukhobors out of the asylum as they did in my county when they wanted a few votes, they brought out the lunatics, and voted them. Just in the same way they can bring these fellows out, and vote them, and it pays the government to keep them in these ayslums for that purpose.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: This is a burning question with many people who have come to Canada, especially from the mother country. It is rumoured, and understood all over this country that if an immigrant comes here from a foreign country, a Douk-hobor, or a Galician, or an American, he is taken hold of by this government, and treated in the most royal manner, quite in line with the article read. But, if the unfortunate immigrant happens to come from England, Scotland or Ireland, as soon as he lands here, all he gets is a swift kick and he is told to go about his business. He is not taken out west and furnished with beautiful farms and seed wheat free. The result is that a great many of these young men who have come from England to Canada are disillusioned, and to my mind, badly treated. Considering that the whole of the northwest was purchased and paid for by our fathers and grandfathers, the first people who should have a privilege are the sons of eastern Canada, and if there is any further favour to offer, it should be offered to people of our own flesh and blood. There is no use denying the fact that immigrants who have come from Great Britain have not been treated as well as those from foreign countries, such as the Galicians and Doukhobors. The reason for that must be that the government have some control over these foreigners when it came to election times, and that they know the' people from the motherland can read and think for themselves. The article strikes at the root of a very serious question and
implies a very serious charge, and the minister should see in future that so far as his department is concerned, even-handed justice should be dealt out to the people from all countries, and no special favours shown to the people who are not of our own blood.


Frank Oliver: I say most emphatically that it is, and always has been, the policy of the Immigration Department, so far as my knowledge of it is concerned, to deal fairly and equitably by all men It is true that there is no ban put upon a man by the Immigration Department because of his nationality, but it is not the less true that in the administration of the work of immigration, there is a preference shown, and properly shown, to the people of our own race. So far from my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) having justification for the statements he has given to the House, I will ask him or any other member of the House, or any person either in or out of the House, to produce any evidence that would in any way indicate the facts to be as he has stated. It is the policy of this government to secure the settlement "of our vacant lands, and the improvement of our cultivated lands, by adding to our population those who will add to our citizenship, as well as to our labour. That is our policy,, and in carrying out that policy _we use due endeavour to secure the additions to our population from the people of our own blood, and when they come we treat them as they should be treated, and they are not the people who aTe complaining.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 152) to incorporate the Northern Quebec Colonization Railway Company.- Mt. Turcotte.
Bill (No. 128) to incorporate the James Bay and Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Girard.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 171) respecting the Dominion Bank.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill (No. 172) respecting the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Black.
Bill (No. 168) respecting the Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.-Mr. Goodeve.
Bill (No. 177) to incorporate the Morris-'ourg Ferry and Dock Company.-Mr. Bro-der.
Bill (No. 179) for the relief of Helena Mellor Fleming.-Mr Knowles

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 102) respecting immigration.-Mr. Oliver.
On section 37,
Regulations made by the Governor in Council under this Act may provide as a condition to permission to land in Canada that immigrants shall possess in their own right money to a prescribed minimum amount, which amount may vary according to the race, occupation or destination of such immigrant, and otherwise according to the circumstances; and may also provide that all persons coming to Canada directly or indirectly from countries which issue passports to persons leaving such countries shall produce such passport on demand of the immigration officer in charge before being allowed to land in Canada.
Frank Oliver: I move that- in line 44 after the word ' immigrants ' there be added the words ' and tourists,' and after the word ' immigrants ' in line 46 there be added the words ' or tourists.'


Uriah Wilson: What is the object?


Frank Oliver: There may be people who will claim to be tourists as a means of avoiding some of the restrictions placed on immigrants. It is only right, if a person represents himself as a tourist, that he should have at least as much money as is required of an immigrant.


Uriah Wilson: I am willing to support any restriction which will lessen the possibilty of undesirables being admitted.


Frank Oliver: I move in amendment that after the word ' passports ' in the first line on page 14 be inserted the words ' or penal certificates.' In Italy a certificate is issued to an emigrant, which is called a penal certificate. It does not follow that, the person has been subjected to a penalty, but it is a certificate as to whether he has been or not; and we think that where such documents <are issued by other countries, it is not unreasonable that we should require the immigrants to produce them. If an immigrant has not such a certificate, he will not be illegible. I move in amendment also that the same words be inserted after the word ' passports ' in the second line, as well as in the first, on page 14.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 38,
The Governor in Council may, by proclamation or order whenever he deems it necessary or expedient-
(a) prohibit the landing in Canada or at any specified port of entry in Canada of any immigrant who has come to Canada otherwise than by continuous journey from the country of which he is a native or naturalized citizen, and upon a through ticket purchased in that country.
Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: It is suggested by the transportation companies that the words 1 prepaid or partially prepaid in Canada ' be added to the word ' country.' I do not think that the effect of the section will be injured in any way by the introduction of these words, and it is a provision wdiich the transportation companies ask for.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Uriah Wilson: I do not understand what is meant by 'partly prepaid.' How would that affect a person coming with a through ticket? I do not see how they could ' partly prepay ' a ticket, and have a through ticket from the country in which they reside to their destination.


Frank Oliver: Take the case of the Canadian Pacific railway. They have a transportation route of their own from Liverpool or Antwerp to any point in Canada. They have arrangements for ticketing which take effect at interior points, both in the British islands and on the continent. Under their arrangements, a person in Canada who wishes to bring a friend from the continent or Great Britain, may buy a ticket from the Canadian Pacific railway office in Canada. The company is afraid that, unless these words are added, a person who came on such a ticket would be excluded.


Uriah Wilson: But what does 'partly prepaid ' mean?


Frank Oliver: I am not clear on that point. I think that, in order to facilitate the business of the committee, and leave everything perfectly clear, it would be fair to simply make the amendment read ' or prepaid in Canada.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But if the ticket is, let us say $20, and the Canadian Pacific railway reduce their portion by half, there is half practically prepaid in Canada. I do not see any difference between 'prepaid ' and 'partly prepaid.'


Uriah Wilson: The difficulty I see is that the section requires the immigrant to have a through ticket from the place of starting to his destination. And a ticket bought in Canada would have to be a ticket of that kind. I do not see that 'partly prepaid' can do anything but cause confusion.


Frank Oliver: I move that the words ' or prepaid in Canada ' be added after the word ' country ' in subsection (a).


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 38, subsection (e).
(e) prohibit for a stated period, or permanently, the landing in Canada, or the landing at any specified port of entry in Canada, of

immigrants belonging to any race deemed nn-suited to the climate or requirements of Canada, or of immigrants of any specified class, occupation or character.	_
Uriah Wilson: Perhaps the minister will tell us what he had in mind when he drew this clause. There must be some class to which it applies specially.


Frank Oliver: We have not, at the moment, any class particularly in mind, but we want to be in such a position that, should occasion arise, when public policy seems to demand it, we may have the power, on our responsibility as a government, to exclude people whom we consider undesirable. If this power is given to the government, then the government can be held responsible should there be a sudden influx of an undesirable class of people. We cannot tell at what time or under what circumstances there may be a sudden movement of people from one part of the world or another, and we want to be in a position to check it, should public policy demand such action.


Uriah Wilson: I thought this would refer probably to Japanese or some of these people with whom we had so much trouble before, and when the through ticket was the cause of it being made. Under this section, parties must come direct from their own country.


Frank Oliver: That is provided for under subsection (a). I understood the hon. member to ask with regard to subsection (c). Subsection (a) is exactly as my hon. friend has stated.


Uriah Wilson: And the other is the same.


Frank Oliver: No, subsection (c) is to give the government arbitrary power to prohibit the landing of any class of people. Suppose there was a sudden influx of people from some undesirable Asiatic or African country, we could, without ceremony, simply say: You cannot land.


Martin Burrell: Under section 38 the government is given wide powers, but I must say that I personally favour giving those wide powers. Of course, the minister sees that there are two broad aspects to this question of immigration-to encourage desirable settlers, and also to prohibit those who would be undesirable. We have to steer carefully-I suppose the minister is endeavouring to do it in this Bill-to avoid undue encouragement to those who would never make desirable citizens, and yet not to prohibit too harshly those who may desire to add to our population. We seem to be framing our laws a good deal along the lines of those of the United States. We know that in the earlier years immigration to the United States was practically unchecked. v The civilization of the eastern states was strong enough to impose its character upon the larger part of the west. But the west ern states are filling up. They have received population from every part of the world, and they are experiencing difficulties and imposing checks. But their problems are not exactly the same as ours. Their lands are practically filled up, and they have not to tout for immigration. But we have our waste spaces which it is desirable to fill up with the right class of people. I offer apologies to the minister for speaking in this general way now. It would have been better to deal with these matters on the second reading of the Bill, but, unfortunately, I had no opportunity to do so. This Act on the whole certainly makes for progress along the right line. But I may say that in so far as it succeeds in prohibiting undesirable immigration, it depends entirely for its success on its administration by the executive officials. I would like to say a word as to that bonus question. I think that on the whole it is not wise to continue the bonus system. I quite appreciate the reasons the minister put up, namely, that it was in reality an advertising proposition, whereby the booking agents, although they got a bonus, reallv gave the country a c^iid pro quo in the shape of advertisements. In looking at these things in Great Britain, where I spent five months two years ago, in connection with the immigration of certain types into our own province, I had some occasion to come into contact with those people, and my own feeling is that these booking agents, who after all derive tre mendous benefits from the government advertising and the government literature, can very well afford to dispense with the bonus, and that money could be put into a more direct method of advertising on the part of the government. Tim mere fact that they get a commission in transmitting people to this country is an inducement to the booking agents to work up their business, and it may also be said that the fact that they get a bonus would certainly stimulate them perhaps to hold out encouragements of a misleading character to people. I had occasion to see a good deal of this when I was in t'he old country. Of course, I admit it was in the winter time, when there was a great depression, which favoured the efforts of these booking agents, and even of some of the government's own agents, and -when they sent large numbers of people to this country when it was not in the interest of those people that they should come.
Now, I think that the success^ of the minister's general scheme of immigration, and the success of this Act, will be de-

pendent in a large measure on the type of men that he puts on in Great Britain and other chuntries as official agents over immigration matters. My own feeling is that it requires an exceptional man to be a good agent, a broad-minded, fair-minded type of man, and not merely a man who has rendered some political service to the government, or even to the country at large, unless he is specially fitted for that sort of work. I have seen again and again many loose statements made by officials of the department who were not, I should think, qualified to speak of the general conditions in Canada in a way that would give a fair impression to people who desired to emigrate to Canada. I will give one or two instances to show the care that should be exercised in the selection of these agents. We know there is a tendency to paint everything in rosy colours before the eyes of intending immigrants, and never to show them any of the difficulties with which they are likely to be confronted. I have seen again and again statements made, in answer to inquiries, that would lead a man to come out to this country with the expectation that practically he had nothing to do but to go on to 160 acres of land, and in some mysterions way acquire a fortune without doing much of anything to earn it. There is another point. I believe that these agents should have a thorough knowledge of the whole of Canada. I was much surprised to hear a remark made by an hon. gentleman sitting in front of me, that of that enormous population in the northwest something like 440,000 were from eastern Canada. Well, if that is so, it shows a depletion going on from eastern Canada. Now, I say that the kind of immigration agent the minister should try to secure-because I take it for granted that his aim is to control the movement of immigration into all parts of Canada-is a man broad in his knowledge of facts, and with a fairly familiar acquaintance with the conditions in all parts of Canada. I know that these men have great power in their hands; and while it might be suitable and the best thing to do to direct some classes of immigrants into Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and other eastern provinces, it might be better in a great many cases to direct them to the western provinces. Bor instance, if a man wishes to go to British Columbia and seeks information regarding that province from the agent, the agent may know nothing about British Columbia. I came across a case in which one of the leading agents of the government admitted that his knowledge of Canada stopped short of the Rocky mountains, he had absolutely no knowledge except by hearsay of any of the conditions beyond the Rocky mountains. Although many inquiries were made along that line, Mr. BURRELL.
he could not answer them, he could not give these people satisfaction, and to that extent we in British Columbia were deprived of getting good settlers. Now, I am free to admit that the minister has changed his policy somewhat within the last two years. Let me quote now a remark made two or three years ago by a strong Liberal and supporter of my hon. friend's government, speaking in this House:
The federal government spent thousands of dollars in encouraging immigrants to the Northwest, but not one dollar in getting immigrants for British Columbia. Arrangements were made with transportation companies for cheap rates to the Northwest, and tli* self-same companies were allowed to compensate themeslves for these reductions by soaking those who had the courage to venture to British Columbia. So far as British Columbia was concerned, its chief function as a part of confederation was to produce revenue to be expended elsewhere in making this a great country.
I think the minister will admit that that policy was the one in force about two years ago. I am glad to say that in some directions the minister has recognized the fact that there is a considerable proportion of the population of Canada on the other side of the Rocky mountains, a region which he is endeavouring to bring to the notice of people in the old country who are suitable for its needs. Now, I think it should' be clearly understood that the building up of the western country is better done at that end, and the money expended for that purpose is best spent on men who will frankly set before the public the exact conditions as they exist. Again and again I have seen men make failures in this country because they have been absolutely misled and induced to come out here with false expectations. I have always been under the impression that so far as Canada goes the facts are good enough. The potentialities of our country are all right in themselves, if they are put before the people in the right way. Let me give another illustration of a type of immigrant that we do not want. I remember a short time ago there was a case tnat excited a good deal of interest at the time, a criminal case, in which a man who had committed some crime was being testified against by his wife, and she had made a statement in court that he was in such a deplorable state of mind that he would threaten either to drown himself or to leave Canada. 1 frankly admitted, after speaking of these things, that if any man there was putting Canada just about the drowning point, .he should not be encouraged to come to Canada, but should stay where he was. I have had young fellows come to me, and I have no doubt the government officials have had the same experience, with the most vague ideas of what coming to Canada
585?

meant. I could give one illustration where a young fellow who had been working on the stock exchange as a clerk for 12 years had a fixed desire to come to Canada, and wished particularly to come to British Columbia. When I questioned him as to what his ideas were, I found they were somewhat vague. He had read the literature, he had seen some agents, and had an idea that all he had to do was to come here to change his life to something infinitely better. When I asked him if he had any money and what his prospects were, it was so hopeless a prospect that I fankly took my courage in my hands and told him to stay where he was. I believe there is as much wisdom in agents advising people not to come to Canada in some instances as in holding out false inducements to them to come. I do not say that all the men the government have in Great Britain are men of this kind, because some of them are very good agents and are doing the best they can to give us good settlers.
We must look at the whole question of immigration in a broad way. We have an immense problem which is just hinted at by the very section which the minister has been dealing with. Those of us who are familiar with the facts know what is in the minister's mind, we know that in connection with this clause we want as far as we can to build up a type of civilization in the far west, and in Canada generally that will be the same civilization that exists in, and has built up the east. That is what we are all aiming at, and therefore, although I thoroughly agree with the minister as to the wisdom of this clause, there should be great care in prohibiting undesirable immigrants, I certainly should like to see a generous interpretation of those clauses which permit or encourage immigration from Great Britain, because while it is desirable to prevent the settling of the west by a people unsuited for the country, and undesirable it is at the same time our duty to give every encouragement to, and not to partially prohibit or check the immigration of those people who although at first they may not fall on their feet, and succeed in their new surroundings, would, with their children, eventually build up the right kind of citizenship.
I am glad personally to see that in some respects the government's efforts are meeting with success. But let me refer to what occurred at the seventh conference of the Chambers of Commerce of the empire in Australia last year. That is a body of enormous importance not only in building up the various portions of the empire including Canada, but also in diverting capital to this country in greater amounts every year. Two or three representatives of Canada attended that conference. In the closing days the question of immigration was discussed, and the following resolution was proposed by Sir Alfred Spicer, president of the London Chamber of Commerce:
That the settlement in adequate volume of the Anglo-Saxon race in the British dominions is deserving of the constant solicitude of the home and colonial governments, who are hereby urged to consider what further or better steps than those at present exists should be taken to elaborate a general state-aided scheme at reduced rates to encourage emigration of suitable settlers under well-considered conditions.
I may remind the House that the imperial Chambers of Commerce with which various Canadian bodies are affiliated, have been working along this line for many years, from 1896 on, and they have been drawing attention not only to the need of building up Canada, Australia, and South Africa with the best types of British immigrants, but have also striven to show their own people the necessity of directing the flow of British capital to these various portions of the empire in connection with the immigration movement so as to build it up along concomitant lines. I think I will be pardoned for putting on ' Hansard ' these figures of Sir Alfred Spicer's to show the striking changes that have taken place in this direction:
In 1891, out of a total departure from the shores of the United Kingdom of 156,930 British emigrants, only 47,636 were bound for parts of the British empire, while 103,394 were destined for foreign countries-of whom 104,001 went to the United States. Fifteen years later, Sir Albert continued, in 1907, the total of British emigrants reached 395,680, of whom no fewer than 212,672 chose another part of the British empire as their destination, while 183,008 left for foreign countries-the United States claiming 170,264. So that, whereas only 30-5 per cent of the British emigrants in 1894 were retained within the empire's borders and 69-5 per cent strayed to foreign climes, in 1907 the proportions had turned round to 53'8 per cent in favour of the British empire against 46-2 per cent for all other parts of the world, an improvement in the empire's power of absorption of Britain's surplus population of no less than 23 -3 per cent. Finally, the number of emigrants to places within the empire in 1907 was nearly five-fold the number that went there in 1894, whilst the number going to foreign countries had not doubled -the actual increases between the two years being for the British empire 165,035 and for all other countries 74,614.
In that connection Sir Alfred Spicer's final remarks were:
The London chamber, therefore, considers that on imperial grounds, on commercial and financial considerations, the home and the colonial governments should do all in their power to stimulate and assist in the more rapid peopling of imperial areas, by evolving some plan in conference, encouraging, as the

resolution suggests, ' emigration of suitable settlers under well-considered conditions.'
Some discussion took place on the question of aid to immigration from Great Britain. I do think personally that there should be a generous interpretation of these clauses by the minister when he comes to deal with the type of a settler to whom Sir Alfred Spicer has been alluding. As I understand, a clause has been passed providing that no immigrant would be allowed to land here if he had been aided by money given to him or by charitable organizations. It is true we are doing some work of that kind in Great Britain, and I believe they are also in Ontario, but after all I think the minister will admit that a man who is healthy and strong, and whom there is nothing to reproach with mentally or bodily, although he might not have been able in the crowded centres of Great Britain to make his way, and save money, should be the subject of generous interpretation of our Canadian laws so as to give him a chance. After all, although he may not have the money, and although some one may have helped him, he may make the most valuable type of citizen we can get. So I suggest in closing that while we all hope for the success of this Act which I cordially say I believe is making for better things in our immigration policy, I feel there should be an exercise of wisdom in the selection of our immigration agents, and in their methods, and a broad, sane, and generous interpretation of those clauses both of encouragement, and prohibition. Without such an interpretation, and without that wisdom of appointment I do not think the Act can be a success. If it is administered in that spirit the minister can confidently expect to do a great deal more on the right lines.


Frank Oliver: As to the character of the immigration officers, I may say that we can only work with the material available, and I think it is a fair statement that our immigration officers are fairly representative of the intelligence and honesty of the people of Canada. We hope to improve the condition as it seems necessary and becomes possible. Because we have a certain condition to-day it does not follow that we should rest easy and pay no attention to the possibilities of improvement. My hon. friend may depend upon it that we recognize very thoroughly the absolute necessity of working through officials of honesty and intelligence, and that from time to time we shall take such measures as will secure us officials of that character. My hon. friend suggested that there was a good deal of misrepresentation on the part of our agents in Great Britain, as to the conditions in Canada. I do not think he is warranted in that belief. The literature that we publish for circulation in the old Mr. BURRELL.
country is very carefully prepared, and with a special view to the necessity of not raising any unreasonable or unwarranted expectations in the mind of the intending immigrant. Our principal piece of literature is the ' Atlas ' upon which I think I may say a large majority of the members of the House have complimented the department. That is the standard of the literature we circulate and on the fly leaf of all the literature we issue, except the ' Atlas ', we give notice that the only people we advise to come to Canada are the people who are going to engage in farm work or domestic service, and we warn all others to only come on such information as they may secure outside of our literature. With regard to the question of assisted immigration I have only to say that while finding no fault with any other government which see3 fit to adopt a policy of assisted immigration, our conclusion is that in Canada, and for Canada the best results are to be achieved by simple advertisement of the advantages of the country, depending uppn the attraction of those advantages to bring here the people we want. It is the spirit in the man that is more important than the frame of his person. The spirit of enterprise and determination which makes him willing to take the risks involved in coming and to raise the money for that purpose, is the most valuable asset of the immigrant-more valuable even than his physical strength. It is that part of the immigrant's character that we are not so well assured of getting when we undertake to assist him in coming to this country. We are content to find ourselves with a smaller number if we get the men of a better quality. My hon. friend has suggested that we should be lenient in the interpretation of our regulations as respects our kinsmen from the British islands. His suggestion is right and proper, and it i3 a part of our policy and administration. Let it be distinctly understood by each member of the committee upon whom rests the responsibility of legislation, that if he deems it necessary to pass a law restricting immigration the fact of that law being upon the statute-book places upon the government of the day the responsibility of enforcing its provisions. The restrictive provisions of our immigration law which are now in force, and which will be in force under this Act, mean hardship in many cases. There are heart-breaking instances, hundreds of them under its administration. But, it is the law, not of the government, but of the parliament of Canada, and it expresses the mind of our people in regard to these questions. The responsibility of the government is to carry out the will of the people thus expressed. It i3 impossible to enforce a harsh statute in a soft way. I would wish that every member of the House should appreciate the full measure of his responsibility in endorsing the dras-

tic exclusion provisions of this immigration law; he must share with the government the responsibility for the hardship which occurs under it. It would not be acting fairly by the country, and the government would stand to be condemned, if having been authorized by parliament to enforce certain exclusion provisions, the government did not' give effect to those provisions. I do not think there is any member of the House who appreciates more than I do the terrible hardships that arise under the administration of this immigration law; but under the responsibility which I hold from this House, and from the country, I have a duty to perform, and I wish to perform it, while as leniently as possible, yet as honestly and as fairly as possible, and as much in accord with the instructions of parliament as possible.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: One way in which the minister can avoid these hardships of immigrants when they arrive in this country is by having the inspection made as far as possible_on the other side of the water. My hon. friend says that it is difficult to do that. It is difficult; if it were not, any one could do it, but we expect him to find a way in which it can be done. If my hon. friend saw the heart-rending scenes that take place when families are broken up on the landing of the immigrants, I think he would endeavour to find a way by which this would be done. It is a big task, but there is nothing too big for the Canadian government when it is right.


Thomas Chisholm: I wish to suggest that there is a certain kind of literature which the department might use with great advantage much more than it does. 1 hold in my hand a book which I believe has been got up under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture. A coov of this book should be put into the hands of every booking agent -on the other side of the ocean. Complaint has been made that certain parts of Canada have not been properly looked after in seeking for immigrants. Here is a book which gives full information in regard to the resources and productions of every province. With regard to British Columbia, it gives all particulars about minerals, the fisheries and the lumber of the province. The book is published in German, French and English. I have Tead it in the three languages, and I must say that if it had a greatei circulation, it would do a great deal oi good. Such a book is not thrown into the waste basket, but it is put into a library where it can be taken down anv time. If 200,000 copies of this book were sent abroad, I believe they would do a great deal more good than some of our agents. I have recommended it a great many times, and a great many copies have been sent
through my influence to countries where it can be read. I think this -book is much better than the atlas to which the minister has referred. Another thing 1 must say for it is that it is thoroughly accurate. It gives full particulars about our homestead regulations and about every part of Canada. I hope it will be put into much more extensive -circulation than it has been in the past.


Frank Oliver: I shall be glad to take notice of what my hon. friend has said, and to see what we can do in the way of . circulating the- book in question; but I may say to my hon. friend that whereas the atlas which we circulate very freely costs some seven cents, I fancv that the book to which he refers, in the binding such as he has, would not cost less than 75 cents or $1; so that to circulate it in very large numbers would cost very much in comparison with what we do at present in the way of circulating literature. In regard to the inspection of immigrants on the other side of the Atlantic, I cannot change the view which I have already expressed, that it does not seem to me to be practicable. It has been suggested -here to-day that an inspection might be had by a medical officer responsible to this government who would be on the ship and who would make the inspection on the way out. That would give us a better inspection, but would not altogether _ relieve the situation of which my hon. friend has spoken, and I will admit that I do not know of any way of absolutely relieving it. We come nearest to doing so, I think, by impressing thoroughly on the steamship companies that undesirables will not be accepted. Then, in their own interest, they check them on the other side. This is a case in which too great leniency is not mercy, but cruelty, because if we exercise leniency to-day, advantage is attempted to be taken of that to-mprrow, and where! we let one undesirable in today, a dozen will have to be turned back to-morrow because of that one having been let in. I think it is more merciful to have a strict and impartial administration of the law than it would be to show leniency in special cases.


Robert Bickerdike: I quite agree with the hon. minister, and that is what we are trying to assist him in guarding against. If this doctor whom it is proposed to put on board the ship were put on the dock at Liverpool, he could turn back the undesirables there, and this would avoid the breaking up of families when they arrive on this side. If the minister made up his mind, I think he could find a means of having the inspection done on the otb*-side.
Section 38 agreed to.


Clarence Jameson: With the consent of the committee, I would move for a reconsideration of section 37.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Clarence Jameson: Just before Mr. Speaker left the chair at six o'clock, the hon. minister moved an amendment to clause 37 requiring tourists landing at any port in Canada to show the same amount of money as an immigrant may be required to produce. I was not in the House at the moment, and I understand that this amendment went through without discussion. As representing a part of Canada very largely interested in the tourist business, I feel impelled to lay before the minister the facts, as they present themselves to me, in connection with the amendment. I do not know whether it has been the minister's privilege to visit of late the maritime provinces, but if so, he must have noticed, particularly if his visit were made during the summer months, that a very large tourist business has developed there of recent years. The business is not only very large, but very profitable, and engaged in by a very large number of people. In almost every county of the maritime provinces are a number of summer resorts where thousands of American visitors spend the summer months. To insist on such a provision as that proposed by the minister, would likely bring about a condition of things which will not be conducive to the well-being of this very profitable business, the development of which is the outcome of a great deal of time and energetic work I may say that some years ago there was a similar provision-in fact I believe it exists to-day-in the immigration laws of the United States, and I know that people from Nova Scotia going to Boston-well-to-do people who were merely going there on a visit-were held up on the docks, perhaps on a stormy day, amidst crowds of people, and compelled to declare the amount of money they carried with them. The experience was most disagreeable, many protests weie made, and as a result of this, many people refrained from travelling by the lines where they were subjected to such indignity. The fact, I think, was also brought up in this House last session that some very distinguished people entering the United States from Mexico last year, or the year before, and also people entering Buffalo from Canada were held up in this way, and some were actually turned back. They were put to a great deal of trouble and inconvenience simply because they had not the necessary amount of money in coin of the realm about their persons. These people were not immigrants in any sense of the word, but well-to-do travellers who were simply visiting the country for a short time. If there were an existing evil in this connection in Canada, if immigrants were endeavouring to pass themselves off as Mr. BICKERDIKE.
tourists, I can understand that this amendment might be necessary; but unless that condition actually exists and has become a source of evil, I do not think it advisable to place a restriction of this kind in the Act. We have been told by the hon. minister that every member of parliament must share with the government the responsibility of these restrictive measures, and that is what gives me the warrant to say here, on behalf of the maritime provinces, that it would very prejudiciously affect the tourist business in those provinces, by creating a prejudice in the minds of American tourists against this country. Suppose, for instance, that some officious officer is stationed on the dock when a steamship arrives from an American port. This man may consider it his duty to hold up every passenger, even ladies travelling with their children and without the protection of their husbands. One can easily understand how irritating it would be and how inconvenient to a lady to have to show what money she may have in her possession. Ladies travelling, as a rule, are very careful lest their money be lost or stolen, and consequently they frequently only carry m their pockets the smallest amount required. For that l-eason, if for no other, they ought not to be subjected to this serious inconvenience and indignity. Similar experiences have happened to our own people on visiting American ports and created in them much indignation and a very unfavourable impression. One can easily understand how prejudicially the enforcement of -such a position would affect in particular our tourist traffic. I strongly urge that the hon. minister would reconsider this amendment and have it struck out.


Frank Oliver: When I explained the amendment to the committee, it seemed to be well received. I thought it reasonable that while tourists are exempt from the immigration restriction, still there was no reason why they -should not show at least the amount of money which the mere immigrant would be required to have as the condition of his entering the country. Our difficulty in administering the law is that if a man says he is a tourist we cannot produce any evidence that he is not, and in uieh a case our restriction as to the possession of money would become of no effect. It was not with a desire to in any way hamper the tourist traffic or interfere with legitimate tourists that I proposed this amendment, but in order to prevent the existence of a loop hole by which the purposes of the Act might be avoided. Let me point out also that this provision does not say that the tourist must have a certain amount of money. All that it does is to authorize the Governor in Council to pass regulations in that regard. It is not required that the regulation shall be of any character _ which would tend to interfere

with tourist traffic. All we ask is that power be granted the Governor m Council by regulation rather than by statute, so that the regulations may be varied from time to time to suit the varying conditions. I can assure my hon. friend that, under this section with the amendment as proposed, there is no danger such as he anticipates, but every care will be taken in framing regulations that the ordinary travel, including the tourist travel, shall not be unduly interfered with.


Mr. BARKER.: I agree entirely with what my hon. friend (Mr. Jameson) has said. I myself know the inconvenience, the excessive annoyance, created by American regulations of very much the same purport as those the minister proposes to make under this Bill. Some two years ago, two respectable men employed in Hamilton, started on a trip to Buffalo. They were stopped at Niagara Falls bridge by a couple of gentlemen with stars on their shoulders, who asked them where they were going, and whether they were going to find employment in Buffalo. They said they were going to visit their friends in Buffalo-they were merely going on a trip for the day, intending to return that evening. But the officers chose to say that they did not believe these men, and in the presence of the whole trainload of people, put them off the train. Naturally, they were indignant. Of course they could have gone before an official of the United States and proved their case-as if they had been before a police magistrate-and, perhaps, might have been allowed to proceed. But they preferred to come home. They spoke to me about the matter, and I called the attention of the government to it. The government corresponded with Washington, and there were all sorts of expressions of regret, but these were of no value to these two men. They were as decent, respectable men as the minister or any member of this House. And I can only say that, if I know the minister, and he had been treated as these men were, the atmosphere would have been blue for several acres round. It was simply an outrage. No person, except under the greatest necessity, should have been exposed to such an insult. I recollect also the case of a couple of English gentlemen who sought to pass from Mexico into the United States, but were stopped and turned back because they had not the evidence to satisfy a government official. Now if the minister (Mr. Oliver) can point out that there has been any real grievance or trouble about immigrants posing as tourists, and so getting into the country, this might be a subject for consideration. But I doubt if he can mention one case of an immigrant having tried to pass himself
off as a tourist. Such a provision as is here proposed should not be on the statute-book and should not be in regulations passed by the government under which visitors coming into the country may be subjected to such insults, unless there is the gravest necessity on grounds of the public welfare. There is not a word about tourists in the Bill as he drew it. Why does he drag it in now? He should be slow to bring in such a proposal. It is an insult to tourists and visitors to say that a man may be called upon, on a public wharf or in a public railway station, to show how much money he has. You could not ask much more of a suspected pickpocket. I should be quite willing to see every regulation that is reasonable authorized, but nothing of this kind should be placed on the statute-book except under the direst necessity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 take it that regulations would be made under this provision of the law to provide for the admission of tourists. Otherwise, this might work hardship.


Frank Oliver: That is why we do not make provision in the statute-because a measure of elasticity is required in dealing with this question. Therefore, we provide for it under regulation. We ask authority to make regulations that will be effective, that is all.


William Wright: Has the hon. minister had any complaints of difficulties arising at any of the main points at which tourists enter Canada-of immigrants smuggling themselves in under the guise of tourists? I happen to represent a riding that is visited every year by many tourists, nearly all from the United States. I should be sorry to see an enactment either in this statute, or by regulation, to interfere with those coming in the summer time to enjoy our northern country. These people would feel it very keenly if they were stopped at the border and made to show that they had a certain sum of money in their pockets. Very few immigrants enter Canada by way of Niagara, I suppose. I trust that this regulation will be so made and administered that officers should not assume an arrogant air with tourists.


Frank Oliver: I think my hon. friend may be perfectly satisfied that there will be no such regulation or administration as would have the effect he fears. The fact that there have been arbitrary actions on the part of United States officials does not at all indicate that the same action will be taken by officials on our side of the line. We handle our business in a somewhat different way. The fact that we have had exclusion officers at work for nearly two

years, with very little complaint, although they have turned back many people, is, I think, evidence that we have officers fairly competent, and not a discredit to either Canada or the government. It is not a question of administration under the Act, but a question of the Act giving sufficient power to the government to enable it to frame regulations that will be effective for the purpose desired. Our difficulty is that under this new Act, if a man claims to be a tourist, he is free of the country and can come and go as he pleases. Having given him that right by the terms of the Act, which he did not have before, I think it is only reasonable that we should have authority by regulation to see that he did not have any advantage over the ordinary immigrant.


Clarence Jameson: I do not understand how the minister hopes to avoid trouble and friction* over this matter. He says it does not follow that because there has been trouble occasioned by officious officials at the United States border, the same thing is going to occur in Canada, because our officials may conduct themselves differently. Now, I believe it is true that Canadian officials are more courteous to the travelling public, and particularly to ladies, than are American officials; at the same time, I think there is a good deal of truth in the remark of David Harum that 'there is as much human nature in some people as there is in others,' and if you happen to have appointed an officious official at any place he will cause a good deal of friction and dissatisfaction before you nave got rid of him. The minister says this provision is placed in the Act merely to give him authority to make certain regulations. Well, if regulations are going to be made they will have to be carried out. We do not want to place on the statute-book any law which we are not going to live up to. If an evil exists along this line, then it may perhaps be the duty of parliament to frame this section so as to give the minister that power. But we have yet to learn from him that this evil does exist, we have yet to learn that immigrants come in to our country styling themselves as tourists. But if such a thing should occur, we have in subsection 10 of section 33 a provision which would meet that case, and which reads :
Every person who enters Canada as a tourist, or traveller, or other non-immigrant, but who ceases to be such and remains in Canada, shall forthwith report such facts to the nearest immigration officer, and shall present himself before an officer for examination under this Act, and in default of so doing he shall be liable to a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, and shall also be liable to deportation by order of a board of inquiry or officer acting as such.


Frank Oliver: Surely that provides a remedy in case any of these immigrants class themselves as tourists, and under that guise get into the country. Another difficulty arises. Supposing a man presents himself at any port and says: I am -a tourist, and the official says: No, you are an immigrant. In such a case, I presume, it would be for the individual to prove that he was a bona fide tourist. But I may say for the information of the minister, that as regards tourists coming to the maritime provinces, they would not have any difficulty in proving that they were not immigrants; at the same time it would be distasteful for them to be held ud by some official, and perhaps be required to remain for a few hours or a day until they could communicate with their friends at home. I do not think it is well that we in Canada should place such obstructions in the way of friendly intercourse between the peoples of Canada and of the United States. The class of people who come to the maritime provinces and present themselves as tourists come from the United States. If they wdre immigrants actually seeking entry into Canada, they would not be likely to come to the maritime provinces, I presume the west would be their goal. As regards people coming from European ports and presenting themselves at the maritime provinces port, I think the minister may rest assured that no person disembarking from a steamship and presenting himself as a tourist, would do so if, as a matter of fact, he was only an immigrant. It would be well known by the officials of the ship that he was an immigrant and not a tourist. For all these reasons I do not think the minister should press this amendment.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend and others who have spoken have asked what instances there were of the necessity of this provision. There are no instances, because the necessity for it has not yet arisen, and will not arise until this Act comes into force. Under the Act we are operating under now, a tourist is a person who is passing through Canada, and such person would be free to pass without the production of the money qualifications. But under this Bill we propose to give the tourist who comes to tour in Canada the privilege of coming in as a non-immigrant, a privilege which he has not under the present Act. Under the present Aci and under the present regulations every man, whether he be a tourist or an immigrant, may be required to produce the $25. Now we propose by the new Act to relieve the tourist in Canada from the disabilities of an immigrant; but in doing so it seems to me that it is not unfair that while relieving him from disability in some particulars we should protect ourselves By regulations in the case of the money qualification.

v


Mr.   BAKKER@: If the hon. gentleman were going to England and passed through Niagara Falls, and were held up there to show how much money he had in his pocket, I think he wolud be very angry and indignant.


Clarence Jameson: Will the minister give [DOT]his reasons for inserting that provision in the Act and yet declining an amendment moved last evening to prevent the coming into Canada of that very class of immigrants? That is to say of any person who advocates the overthrow by force or violence of the government of - Great Britain or Canada or any part of the British dominions.


Frank Oliver: The reason is the same as the one I gave last night, that the question whether the applicant for entrance to Canada is of this class or not in the large majority of cases cannot by any possibility be settled at the port of entry. The only way we can decide that is on evidence secured, and we secure that evidence after the man has come into Canada and on the establishment of the facts we are entitled to take certain action. Although the provision is in the United States statute it is not effective, it does not protect the United States from the entrance of all these classes of people and I do not think there is any object in burdening the statute with a provision that is on the face of it absolutely ineffective.


Samuel Barker: The minister's ideas of an Act of parliament then is that it may be capable of proof, and he may know that a man is of the character and class that will justify his expulsion from the country, but although he knows that he will let him enter.


Clarence Jameson: The minister said last night that although this provision to exclude anarchists and those who favour the overthrow of government from the United States was on the American statute-book . it did not prevent the entry into that country of that undesirable class ol immigrants. I have looked the matter uo and so far as I can ascertain that provision was enacted in the United 'States in 1903; it may have been in a previous year, but so far as I can ascertain it was then first embodied in the statute. The United States have had much more experience than we have in immigration and if we fail to profit by the mistakes which they made in the earlier days of their immigration we are open to censure. They found in time that an undesirable class of immigrants were entering the country and they put on their statute-book a regulation stopping at the very gateway of their country that undesirable class of immigrants. The minister says that the Act has not excluded
these people. I am willing to accept his statement up to a certain point, I am willing to say it will not always be possible to prove that a man is an anarchist, but I say that according to the Bill now before us a man may be an avowed anarchist, he may come to Canada and there will be no possibility of excluding him. lie will have the right of entry into this country, and after he has entered, then, forsooth, the minister turns around and, under section 41, the machinery of the Act is set in motion, an investigation is had, learned gentlemen sit on the case and perhaps an order is made to deport this undesirable person from the country. I say that is locking the stable door after the horse is stolen, and it is not profiting as we should do by the early mistakes of the United States. There are several classes of undesirables whom the minister desires to exclude, but it is not always easy to prove that immigrants are of the classes mentioned, for instance persons with a loathsome disease or a disease dangerous to the public health or persons convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. These provisions are in the Act, but the minister does not say that we can prove that immigrants are of these classes. To leave the Act in such shape that it is not possible to refuse admission to an avowed anarchist, although we have the machinery to deport him afterwards, is contrary to all rules of reason and every principle of common sense.


Frank Oliver: I cannot agree with my hon. friend. When we undertake to interfere with the right of expression of opinion, the right of personal liberty, to question the right of men to say what they please, we should only take action when we have it within our power to establish the facts. I do not think it is right or reasonable that we should declare a man to be of these classes until we are in a position to know and to prove it, and we can only do that, in the large majority of cases, after he comes inside our country.
On section 42, deportation of head of family.


Clarence Jameson: Subsection 5 says that where the head of a family is ordered to be deported all dependent members of the family may be deported at the same time. It seems to me that, if the intention is that all the members of the family shall be deported with the head of the family, that may be a very severe and harsh regulation. It of course might turn out that if the other members of the family were permitted to remain in the country they would be able to provide for themselves. I have not examined the section very closely, but it seems to me there may be a little confusion

in that sentence and the next following one in the same section.


Frank Oliver: The intention is, as I believe it is expressed here, that if the head of a family has to be deported, those who are dependent upon him should go with him. It is not said that they shall go, but that they may go. The next sentence deals with the -case of the head of a family who has failed to support a dependent member of that family. We consider such a person an undesirable -citizen, and we provide that if the dependent requires to be deported, the head of the family upon whom that individual is dependent should go out with him.


William Wright: If the minister will allow me to refer to section 39, it seems to me that should be left out altogether. It provides that if an immigrant comes from a foreign country through another foreign country to Canada-say an immigrant comes from Italy through the United States to this country-the minister can compel the steamship company that brought that immigrant from Italy to New York to deport him from Canada. Surely the minister would have no control over steamships that bring immigrants from one foreign country to another foreign -country. Therefore I would think it better to leave the clause out altogether.


Frank Oliver: It is quite true that if a company had no Canadian connection, nothing could be done; but the purpose is to compel the company to make the deportation when it has a Canadian connection.


William Wright: Has the minister ever had an instance that could be brought under this clause?


Frank Oliver: Yes, many instances. Although there are many cases which for the reasons stated by my hon. friend this provision will not cover, there are other cases which it will cover, and it is very desirable from our point of view that we should have this provision.
On section 43-detention of certain prisoners for deportation.


Uriah Wilson: Is the minister particularly anxious to make the limit three years? I observe that Dr. C. K. Clark, who is the head of the insane hospital at Toronto, suggests four years, which he says will afford better opportunity for thorough investigation, and make the provision more efficient.


Frank Oliver: At present the term is two years. We wish to extend that to three years, for obvious reasons, and partly because that is the term in the United States; and it is convenient, in the interchange of undesirables, that our regu-Mr. JAMESON.
lations should, when it is right and proper, be the same. I would very much prefer that the term might be allowed to remain as it is in the Act for the persent. The extension we are making is an improvement to that extent from my hon. friend's point of view.


Uriah Wilson: I think, from reading the American report, that the American officials are not satisfied with three years, and would like the term lengthened. I cannot see why there should be any limit of time in regard to getting rid of an undesirable. There is an insane hospital in Montreal where 39 per cent of the inmates are foreign-born, and in the Toronto insane hospital in 1906, 1907 and 1908, out of 424 inmates, 210 were foreign-bom. If the term were longer, many of these might be deported, and I think we should have a right to deport undesirables at any time we see fit.


Frank Oliver: We have provided elsewhere in the Act that Canadian domicile shall be acquired by residence of three years. I think it reasonable that if a man lives in the country for a certain length of time he should have certain recognized rights.
On section 45,
Every person ordered to be deported under this Act who has been brought to Canada by ship, shall be reconveyed free of charge by the same transportation company which brought him to Canada, from the place in Canada where he is being detained or held for deportation to the port of embarkation whence he came to Canada, and in the same manner as to passage accommodation by which he was brought to Canada; and similarly every such person brought to Canada by a railway train or other vehicle shall, subject to the regulations under sections 31 and 32 of this Act, be reconveyed free of charge by the transportation company which carried him to the place in Canada where he is rejected or where he is being detained for deportation to the place in the country whence he was brought or to the country of his birth or citizenship.


Frank Oliver: The intention is that the company which brought the undesirable out shall have to take him back free of charge to the man himself as well as to the government. As the section stands, it requires that the steamship company shall take him from the place in Canada where he may be detained to the ocean port where he landed, and thence to the original port of embarkation. The steamship companies object to this. They say they are willing to take the deport back to the port at which they embarked him, but that the railway company which carried him to the place where he is detained should bring him back to the port. In accordance with that view I beg to move that section 45 be

amended by striking out all the words after ' the ' in the sixth line to, and including the word ' Canada,' in the tenth line, and substituting the following:	The railway
company or companies which brought him to the place in Canada where he is being detained for deportation to the ocean port where he was landed, or the nearest available winter ocean port, as may be directed by the board of inquiry, and thence he shall be conveyed free of charge to the port of embarkation whence he came, and in such manner as to passage, and condition as may be directed by the officer in charge.


Clarence Jameson: It will be very difficult to show what railway company carried him from the port of landing. When an immigrant lands on the dock, a record is kept of him, and it is known by what ship he arrived; but once released, he is free to chose any railway he pleases by which to leave that port.


Frank Oliver: The point is well taken. I see the difficulty, but on the other hand the steamship companies hold that they should not be required to pay the expense of inland transportation for which they were not responsible, and for which they received no benefit. I do not wish that any interest in the country should be harshly dealt with, and I propose this amendment in deference to the contention of the steamship companies, although there is the difficulty my bon. friend suggests.


Clarence Jameson: I am bound to say that I approve of the section as it is. A steamship company, which has the right of inspection, and selection of these people, should take the responsibility. It is unfair to a railway company, which takes a man in perfect good faith, to be compelled to pay the expense of bringing him back. That man is as free to come, and go as anybody else, and the innocent railway company, which is not required to have an inspection of him, has to transport him back to the place where the steamship company can take him up. It is the duty of the steamship company to see that the immigrants they bring out are the right class. They have been making a lot of money out of this business, and if reports are true, and if the stringent measures in this Bill are warranted, these companies are not very careful in their selection. If they will bring undesirables to this>
country who have to be deported, they should bear all the expense.


Frank Oliver: There is a great deal of force in what my hon. friend says. If I might withdraw for the moment my amendment, I wish to move another amendment to the wording which will make the section more effective, and we might have an opportunity of discussing the amendment I 186
am asking to withdraw before the Bill comes out of committee. I wish to give due consideration to all the interests concerned. Yet I feel very strongly the force of the arguments my hon. friend has presented. I ask for leave, therefore, to withdraw the motion, and to move that the words ' the same,' be struck out, and that ' such,' be substituted, and that the words ' by which he was brought to Canada,' be struck out, and ' as may be directed by the officer in charge,' be substituted. As the Bill is printed, the deport must be taken back with the same accommodation as that with which he was brought. Sometimes, this is not desirable. So, instead of making it mandatory that the steamship shall take him back in the same class as that in which he came out, the matter is left to the discretion of the superintendent of immigration.	__


Clarence Jameson: That is better than the other amendment that the minister has suggested, but this may be a little tough on the deport.


Frank Oliver: Sometimes a man who has come out first-class falls on evil days and is not a proper subject for first-class transportation going back. I think it is fair to leave the matter to the discretion of the superintendent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Frank Oliver: I would like to have the section as amended stand until the end of the Bill, so that we may consider it further.
On section 48-penalty on transportation company permitting escape of persons ordered to be deported; duty to notify immigration officer when such person escapes.


Clarence Jameson: Failure to notify renders one liable to a penalty of not more than $20, and not less than $10 for each offence. But for negligence, or connivance leading to escape, the penalty is not more than $500 and not less than $50. Should there be this difference in the penalties for practically the same cffence?


Frank Oliver: They are hardly the same offence. One is negligence in allowing escape, and the other is negligence in notifying.


Clarence Jameson: But the person who allows a deport to escape is likely to fail to report the fact of that escape. It seems to me that it would be better to stiffen up the penalty.


Frank Oliver: The party who is guilty of both negligence in allowing to escapee and failure to report is guilty of both offences and liable to both penalties.


Clarence Jameson: But, in order to impose the larger penalty, it would be necessary to prove both offences, and that is not contemplated under the section.


Frank Oliver: The man who has knowledge of the escape may not be the man who is responsible for it. The man who is responsible is liable to the large penalty, while the man who has knowledge but is not responsible, yet fails to report, is subject to the smaller penalty.


Clarence Jameson: Has the minister considered in what form this manifest is to be, that is, whether the manifest which has to be presented will contain the names and description of all the passengers, or whether there will be a number of manifests? According to the regulations in the United States, these manifests are so arranged that they do not include more than thirty names, and in that way it is possible to arrange the passengers int-o classes. How does the minister propose to carry out that section?


Frank Oliver: The provisions of this section are practically in effect under the existing Act. I am not familiar with the form of manifest, but there is a form which complies with the requirements of the section.
On section 51, manifest of outbound passengers.


Frank Oliver: The steamship companies complain in regard to this provision that the manifest is not complete until the vessel has actually sailed, and to require the completion of the manifest so as to hand it to the immigration officer before the vessel sails, would unduly delay the sailing. This is merely a provision to keep tally of the neople who are going out of the country with a view to checking them as they come back, and it is proposed that the manifest shall be produced on the return voyage. In order to meet the case, I would move that the words ' before clearance has been given to such vessel ' in subsection 1, be struck out, and the words ' on the return voyage of such vessel to Canada ' be substituted therefor.


Clarence Jameson: Does this relate to vessels which ply between maritime province ports and United States ports, or does it mean vessels of the transatlantic lines?


Frank Oliver: As it reads, it would be applicable to both, but it is not intended to apply to both. The principle purpose is not in regard to Atlantic passengers, but to Pacific passengers. There is a difficulty about the identification of Asiatics, who claim entrance as returning passengers, and we want to have a tally of the outgoing Asiatics, so that we may have better opportunities of checking the incoming ones who claim to be returning to Canada. It is really with a view to that traffic that we desire this provision.


Clarence Jameson: At the same time, does not the minister think that while he may Mr, .1AMESON.
be intending to erect this section against that class of steamship lines, it will also apply to steamship lines on the Atlantic waters as well? Now, although perhaps this is not the occasion or the proper time,
I want to say something with respect to the passenger traffic which is carried on between the maritime ports and Americap ports. At the present time, ships which ply between these ports are overloaded to such a degree that I think they are positively unsafe; they are overloaded to such an extent that the people cannot get proper accommodation, and some day there will be a serious accident attended with great loss of life. I think these companies require to have a license which limits the number of passengers thev are entitled to carry. But they do not declare the number of passengers which they carry, and after they leave the dock, it is reported next day in the papers after sailing that such and such a steamer left such and such a port in Canada for such -and such a port-in the United States, with say 500 cases of lobsters and about 600 passengers. I am told that when they get near the limited number of passengers they are entitled to carry, then only about one in five of the passengers is counted as they go on board. In that way the ships are overloaded to such an extent as not only to produce discomfort to the passengers, but to involve great danger of accident, in which some of the -pas'sengers, in -all likelihood, would be lost. Perhaps this is a matter that comes under the purview of the Marine Depart-mest, but whichever department it belongs to should see that when the vessel receives the number of passengers she is entitled to carry, no more should be allowed to go on. At present the officers winl^ at that provision of the law, and there is a great deal of dissatisfaction and fear in the minds of the travelling public that serious accidents will occur.
On section 51, manifest of outbound passengers, proviso, re exemption of vessels between Canada and Newfoundland, or the United States.


Clarence Jameson: That section should properly be aimed at the very condition I spoke of, and yet I have no doubt that the steamship companies wall apply for and obtain such an exemption from the requirements of the section that the safety of the travelling public will not be conserved. I think the minister should consider that, and I would be glad to have the section stand in order that he may look into it further, and he may then see as I do that there is necessity to protect the lives of people travelling by these lines-.


Frank Oliver: This Bill is to deal with immigration, not with navigation. Necessarily the two questions overlap at times. It is because the trade between the mari-

time provinces and the New England states is not an immigration trade that the vessels engaged in that trade are expressly exempted from the provisions of the section which, as I have said, was intended to apply particularly to Asiatic trade. The condition to which my hon. friend objects is a matter for the consideration of the Department of Marine, and he would find his remedy there for the condition he mentions and not in connection with the Bill regarding immigration.
On section 59-proportionate number of passengers to area of decks.


Clarence Jameson: Is there at present any inspection of vessels coming to Canadian ports, in reference to the accommodation provided for immigrants? Not very long ago there was a rumour in the United States that all was not well on these steamships, and a lady who represented either a protection society or was correspondent of a newspaper crossed and recrossed the Atlantic in the steerage. She reported that the conditions were positively revolting, and that although for years there had been a law which was supposed to be carried out for the protection of steerage passengers, the people were herded like cattle, there was insufficient provision for cleanliness, the ventilation was deficient, and the general conditions surrounding steerage travel 'degrading. Is there a thorough inspection of steamships arriving at Canadian ports to ensure protection for the immigrants? I do not mean a casual supervision which might take place after the ship is cleaned up, but have any of the officials of the department actually experienced the conditions prevailing during a voyage across the ocean in the steerage? Is it the duty of the department to see that all the comfort and protection that is contemplated by this Act shall be extended to steerage passengers?


Frank Oliver: Our agents at Liverpool, London, and Glasgow are instructed to inspect every immigrant vessel leaving these ports, and to report upon its condition. In the voyages I have made myself across the Atlantic I have taken occasion to inspect the steerage accommodation, and I have found the conditions very good. Our effort is to secure the best conditions possible under all the circumstances, and the evidence is that the conditions have materially improved within recent years upon all vessels, and while the accommodation on the older ships may not be all that is desirable, on the more recently built vessels the most fastidious could not complain of the accommodation which is given at the price at which it is given. It is really a credit to the companies and a credit to civilization.


Clarence Jameson: I can understand that when the minister is on board one of these 1864
ships the officers would have everything in first-class shape. But the fact that the minister found everything right would not convey to me any assurance that at other times there may not be undesirable surroundings for the immigrants. I would suggest to the minister that he should have some trustworthy person make an actual steerage trip across the Atlantic and back without the knowledge of the steamship companies so that he might experience the actual conditions which prevail. That would be a practical way of testing whether the steamship companies are living up to the laws. There have been complaints made by immigrants from time to time that the accommodation afforded them was not what they were led to expect when they purchased their tickets. I know instances of that sort, and I dare say we all know of such instances. Of course, these complaints may not have been well founded; but Canada is now doing a large business in this way, and it seems to me only right and proper, if he can, that the minister should make an effort, by some person on whom he can rely, and whom the steamship companies will not suspect, to ascertain what conditions actually prevail under ordinary circumstances.


Mr. CARVELL.: The hon. member for Digby has evidently given this matter a great deal of consideration judging by the amount of time he has consumed in the last three or four days in discussing it. But I would like to ask him to state, as a result of the minute examination he has made, how the minister is going to control a shipping company that has its head office in London or Berlin, and that makes a contract to bring out several hundred people to Canada. These people pay their money and take the chqice of the line on which they come out. Will he tell me how the Minister of the Interior or his officials are going to control such a company?


Clarence Jameson: The committee is now considering' clause 59 which prescribes just -what the conditions of these ships shall be. If the government of Canada or the minister has no control over the matter, and any Act of the parliament of Canada relating to it is not workable and -cannot be enforced, why does the minister include that section in this Bill?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister may make regulations and employ inspectors, and the department might go to one of these-companies and say, unless you comply with certain requirements that we set up, we will use our influence to allot the next batch of immigrants who come out to another steamship line; but I would like to know how he can control a contract made by a company controlled in Great Britain or in Germany.
-'5879


Clarence Jameson: I think the question which the hon. gentleman is struggling with will be made clear to his mind if he will read this section a little carefully. He knows, as every other hon. gentleman in this House knows, that if there is an -evil existing, if as a matter of fact these steamship companies are not giving accommodation or the treatment they should give, and nothing is known of the fact, it is going to continue, and there will be no end to it; but if it becomes public, if the newspapers take it up, as they would, and if the minister sends one of his officers to inspect the voyage and report on the facts as they exist, I have not the slightest doubt that with the penalties provided by the Act and the publicity, that steamship company would bring about a reformation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Suppose they do not, what then?


Clarence Jameson: If they do that, they will be debarred by public opinion from receiving any considerable amount of traffic. My hon. friend knows that where there are competing lines, as there are across the Atlantic to-day, if one line is held up as not giving a satisfactory service, while another is doing so, the evil will largely correct itself, and the penalties should complete the cure.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is just as I thought. The hon. gentleman is admitting that the minister has no jurisdiction at all over these companies. He thinks that publicity will cure the evil. I only interfered to show that the hon. gentleman has taken up an enormous amount of time and has accomplished nothing. I would like to see some business done in this House tomight.


William Cameron Edwards: I would like to ask the minister if he accedes to the view of the hon. gentleman sitting beside him, that he has no jurisdiction whatever over these companies?


Frank Oliver: What I said, when the question was raised first, was that we had made an inspection of the immigrant vessels when they were leaving the port of embarkation, and that we used such endeavours as were within our power to bring about improvements in the conditions of the immigrant passengers. That is what we have been doing constantly during several years past, and we think we have achieved some beneficial results. So far as my knowledge goes, the conditions are certainly more favourable on the steamships recently built over what prevailed a few years ago.


William Cameron Edwards: If the steamship company does not comply with the regulations, what step will the minister take?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 


Frank Oliver: The provisions are laid down in the Act. We presume by the Act to impose certain penalties.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman at the minister's right says he has no jurisdiction at all.


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer the question, because, so far as I know, we have not undertaken to enforce these penalties. So I do not know whether our law in that respect is defective or not.


Uriah Wilson: Would you not try if you had a case of that kind occur?


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


Uriah Wilson: Then you think you have the power?


Frank Oliver: We are assuming that we have the power. This section is_ a legacy coming down from time immemorial in the legislation of parliament. It was adopted in the Immigration Act now in force and transferred from that to the prelent Bill, simply because it was in the old statute.


Uriah Wilson: I do not think any company will try to evade these things if the minister tells them that if they do he will enforce the law. They are very anxious to do the business, and they know well that if they interefere with the immigration department they will get into serious trouble.


Frank Oliver: We have ways and means outside the letter of this statute, but as to what the effect of this statute may be, I am not prepared to give an opinion.
On section 75, officers to wear uniform when on duty.


Clarence Jameson: Is this the same as under the existing law?


Frank Oliver: No, neither this section nor section 74, providing how uniforms shall be provided for the immigration officers, is in the present Act.


Clarence Jameson: Are these uniforms furnished by the department or by the officials? Also will the minister tell us something of their appearance?


Frank Oliver: These provisions are not yet in force.


Uriah Wilson: I think it has been the custom of the immigration department for years to furnish uniforms for its officers. At Halifax, Quebec, and other places that has been done, and done to a very extravagant extent. These officers have had as much as two or three suits a year sometimes. I remember that, some time ago, I took the trouble to look into this

matter. The minister should be able to state offhand whether he intends to furnish uniforms or not.


Frank Oliver: I did not say that we did not provide them, but I said there was no provision in the present law on that subject. We think it better to have it in the statute, and in providing that the officer shall be required to pay one-third, we think we have arrived at an arrangement which will tend to check undue extravagance in uniforms. I think we all agree that it is right that these officers should be in uniforms, that the public may know who they are, and what their authority is.


Uriah Wilson: I understood the minister to say he did not know whether he was furnishing uniforms or whether that was the intention.


Frank Oliver: What I meant in that connection was that I did not know whether we would furnish the uniforms or whether the men would get them on their order. But the provision as to paying will be governed by section 74-that one-third of the cost shall be charged to the officer.


William Wright: The minister can tell us how it has been the custom to furnish these uniforms. Would the officer go to some tailor, and simply pay what the tailor charged?


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer that definitely. I could explain more definitely if it were a question on the estimates of the Immigration Department, and I had the officer of the department here to advise me. I think the uniforms used now are ordered at each place where they are required-that is, uniforms for the officers in Halifax are ordered at Halifax, and so on. I do not think there is a general contract.


Uriah Wilson: The prices heretofore paid have been different in different places.


William Cameron Edwards: Why is it specified that one-third of the cost be charged to these men? In the penitentiaries, for instance, are the guards charged one-third of the cost of their uniforms? Why not have uniformity in regard to your uniforms?


Frank Oliver: We desire to have uniformity in the department. The reason why we have adopted this idea of requiring the official to pay for a portion of the cost is to check his asking for too many uniforms. It may be an innovation so far as the government service is concerned, but we think it a proper innovation, and ask the committee to adopt it.


William Cameron Edwards: If it is a good principle in this case, why not adopt it in other branches of the service?


Frank Oliver: There is a difference between an immigration officer, and, say, a penitentiary guard.


William Cameron Edwards: Or a customs or excise officer?


Frank Oliver: There is a greater resem- -blance there. I do not know what arrangement is made in the Customs Department, but I think the committee should sanction this proposal in regard to the: immigration service.


William Wright: Does not the minister
think that fifty per cent would be a more effective check?


Frank Oliver: It would, but I think that one-third is not an unfair . proposition. 1 think it is. an improvement over the pres ent condition. I believe it is based on some arrangement existing to-dav between the railway companies and certain of their employees. I think it is fair to the govern ment and not too severe upon the em plovee, and gives the government a certain measure of protection that seems desirable. '


William Cameron Edwards: It is quite proper that the immigration officers should be in uniform. But why adopt the principle in this department of paying two-thirds of the cost of the uniform and in another department paying the whole cost? If you are maintaining a principle in one case, it seems to me that you are stultifying yourself in another. If, for instance, the gov-enment says that customs officers must wear a uniform of a certain kind and quality which has to be paid for by the officers themselves, then I see no reason why the same thing should not apply here. If the government fix the duality _ and character of the uniform for officers^ in one branch-of the service, let them do the same thing in other branches of the service.
On the schedules,


Robert Bickerdike: If the minister would permit me, I would like to offer an amendment to section 2. I may be out of order, and if any one raises the question of order, I will not be able to do so. But I feel it my duty to suggest the following amendment to clause (i), and to insert after the word ' transport' in the thirteenth line, the words 'not including cattlemen'. My reason for doing so is that the Bill as now framed constitutes a cattleman, an immigrant. The steamship companies feel that it would oblige them perhaps to hold their vessel on some occasions ten or twelve hours in the city of Quebec. That delay might cause them to miss the tide, and if they missed the tide they might be detained 24 hours or 48 hours, and all that merely because there happened to be one

cattleman on that steamer. The steamship companies have sent a petition in asking the government not to make immigrants of cattlemen. The cattlemen themselves claim that they have a right to the privileges of Canadian citizenship, and should not be classed as immigrants. The Dominion Live Stock Association have passed resolutions asking that the government should not hamper their trade any more than is absolutely necessary. Unless the minister has some good reason that I do not know of, surely he will accept the amendment I am proposing. The fact of a man being a cattleman should not deprive him of his rights as a citizen. This does. The minister's Bill last session especially mentioned cattlemen but the present Bill does not. He gets over it ably by inserting the word 'transport'. The live stock trade is of such importance that it deserves the attention of the government and I hope the minister will agree to amend the Bill by inserting in the thirteenth line of section 2 after the word 'transport' the words 'including cattlemen'.


Mr. MILLER.: I do not see any special reason for that amendment to carry.


Frank Oliver: Last year we inserted the word 'cattlemen' in the section, and my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike) took very strong exception to this word being inserted, as placing the cattlemen in a class by themselves. This year we carefully omitted this word, and I am astonished to find him asking that this objectionable word be inserted in the Bill. Having met his views as expressed last session, I think in all fairness he should allow the Bill to remain in its present shape, and should not again raise the question of cattlemen. I agree that cattlemen are as good as other men, and this Bill treats them the same as other men. If cattlemen are Canadians or have acquired Canadian domicile they have the right to return to Canada. We make special provision in our interpretation for men who have been resident for three years in Canada, and, therefore, have acquired domicile. If a man is to all intents and purposes an immigrant, I cannot cenceive why he should be relieved from his position as an immigrant because he happens to have been employed in attendance on cattle.


Robert Bickerdike: Does the Bill not constitute cattlemen as being immigrants unless they have been in Canada three years?


Frank Oliver: Yes, certainly.


Robert Bickerdike: That is what I objected to, that does not apply to any other men.


Robert Bickerdike: * Mr. OLIVER. Every other man who has not been in Canada for three years is an immigrant. Why should not the cattleman be an immigrant the same as any *ther man?
Amendment negatived.
On the schedules,


William Cameron Edwards: There seems to be no form among the schedule for the certificate of the ship's physician as to the health of immigrants.


Frank Oliver: Provision is made for that in section 73.
On section 45,


Frank Oliver: On looking over this section it seems to me that all interests will be served if the section were agreed to as amended.
Section as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed. .



INSPECTION OF GLASSWARE IN MILK TESTS.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for the testing, marking, sale and use of glassware used in connection with the testing of milk, and to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations with respect thereto, and for the imposition of penalties for offences in contravention thereof.
Mr. FISHER.: This resolution explains itself. There is a complaint that- these bottles are not correct sometimes, and that there is at present no means of securing their accuracy. In connection with the distribution of the money at cheese and butter factories, it is important to have them accurate.


Richard Blain: What kind of glassware will be included?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The bottles that are used in what is known as the Babcock test for butter fat in milk.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. FISHER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 184) to provide for the testing of glassware used in connection with milk tests.


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

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:

Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for the payment to members of the Commission for the Conservation of Natural Resources of their actual reasonable disbursements incurred in travelling to, returning from and remaining at meetings of the committees of the commission or attending to the business thereof.
Haughton Lennox: What have been the expenses so far?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Apart from the civil government vote, I think the only expense incurred has been that for the meeting held in Ottawa in January last.


Haughton Lennox: I refer more particularly to the expense incurred by the government in connection with the establishing and carrying on of the work of the commission. I saw it announced that the chairman stated that he would make an application for $50,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is evident from the programme set out by the commission for the coming year that they would require a larger sum than is provided in the main estimates. The staff consists of a secretary in subdivision (a) of the first division; two officers in subdivisitn (b) of the first division, two in (b) of the second division, and two in (b) of the third division. There are some slight office expenses for stationery and printing. I will bring down the memorandum of the chairman of the commission on the second reading of the Bill.


Richard Blain: Are these officers appointed by the commission?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They were appointed under the Civil Service Act, Mr. James White, geographer of the Interior Department was transferred to thi3 office, as I think was also one of the stenographers, and they are all appointed under the Civil Service Act.	.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. FISHER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 185) respecting the Commission for the Conservation of Natural Resources.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Haughton Lennox: May I ask what will be the business to-morrow.


Mr. FIELDING.: We shall take up the resolutions and Bills on the order paper which are not of a contentious character.


Haughton Lennox: After that?


William Stevens Fielding: There are several resolutions-one in regard to the Montreal Harbour Commission, two Bills which stand in the name of the Postmaster General, the
Bills which have been introduced to-night, and several other Bills which are not likely to be of a contentious character.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.07 a.m., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 23, 1910.